Greetings to friends of sacred music! As the incoming president of the Church Music Association of America I wish to invite you to join in the conversation about our common goals. Those who attended the Colloquium at Catholic University this summer will remember that the most lively session was the one discussing the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, in which so many in attendance had urgent concerns about what is fitting, proper, and legitimate in the face of the new formulations of liturgical rubrics. We should continue that discussion here. In the forthcoming weeks, I will suggest a few topics that might be a basis for it. You may have your own concerns, which you are free to propose. To post a message or a comment, you need a "name" and a password, for which you may make application by e-mail to David J. Hughes: davidjhughes@gmail.com.
Here is a basic issue of the relation of music and liturgy: Musicam sacram (1967) proposes degrees of solemnity according to how much of the liturgy is sung (pars. 27-31). The first degree includes the fundamental priest's parts, the versicles and responses, the prayers, the preface together with the Sanctus, the Lord's Prayer and its embolism. The second and third should not be employed without the first; in other words, what constitutes a solemn liturgy most of all is that the priest sings his parts. The second degree is the sung parts of the ordinary and the intercessions; the third degree is the sung parts of the proper of the Mass together with the lessons.
These degrees are proposed in order that it will be easier for a congregation to make the Mass more solemn. But they are also proposed in the context of a declaration that Mass with singing should be the norm and that the distinction between the solemn, the high, and the low Mass is to be retained. (Solemn meaning a sung Mass with sacred ministers, i.e., deacons or deacon and sub-deacon; high Mass, a Mass sung by a priest, and low Mass, a spoken Mass.) Thus, these degrees should be seen as progressive, with the high Mass as the goal. With the priest singing his parts, the congregation could begin to sing one or two of the simpler parts of the Ordinary, the Sanctus first, then perhaps the Kyrie or the Agnus Dei. When these have been assimilated well, another part can be added. Likewise, the parts of the proper of the Mass could be added one at a time, perhaps the Communion first, since time usually allows this freely and since the chants are simpler and can be repeated with psalm verses. Still, I would propose that at least for the principle Mass on a Sunday, one should not ultimately be satisfied with a mixed Mass, partly spoken, partly sung, but rather aim for the ideal, the achievement of a high Mass, as the document proposes. For some, the full high Mass will not be attainable in the near future; but when the norm and the ideal is kept in mind, even its imperfect realization is improved.
Here is a basic issue of the relation of music and liturgy: Musicam sacram (1967) proposes degrees of solemnity according to how much of the liturgy is sung (pars. 27-31). The first degree includes the fundamental priest's parts, the versicles and responses, the prayers, the preface together with the Sanctus, the Lord's Prayer and its embolism. The second and third should not be employed without the first; in other words, what constitutes a solemn liturgy most of all is that the priest sings his parts. The second degree is the sung parts of the ordinary and the intercessions; the third degree is the sung parts of the proper of the Mass together with the lessons.
These degrees are proposed in order that it will be easier for a congregation to make the Mass more solemn. But they are also proposed in the context of a declaration that Mass with singing should be the norm and that the distinction between the solemn, the high, and the low Mass is to be retained. (Solemn meaning a sung Mass with sacred ministers, i.e., deacons or deacon and sub-deacon; high Mass, a Mass sung by a priest, and low Mass, a spoken Mass.) Thus, these degrees should be seen as progressive, with the high Mass as the goal. With the priest singing his parts, the congregation could begin to sing one or two of the simpler parts of the Ordinary, the Sanctus first, then perhaps the Kyrie or the Agnus Dei. When these have been assimilated well, another part can be added. Likewise, the parts of the proper of the Mass could be added one at a time, perhaps the Communion first, since time usually allows this freely and since the chants are simpler and can be repeated with psalm verses. Still, I would propose that at least for the principle Mass on a Sunday, one should not ultimately be satisfied with a mixed Mass, partly spoken, partly sung, but rather aim for the ideal, the achievement of a high Mass, as the document proposes. For some, the full high Mass will not be attainable in the near future; but when the norm and the ideal is kept in mind, even its imperfect realization is improved.
1 Comments:
I'm glad that you mentioned the subject of "progressive solemnity," as it is sometimes called, which is promoted in Musicam Sacram.
It's rather unfortunate that the suggestions contained in this document with respect to this subject have not been followed. How much better would the singing be in Catholic parishes today?
In my own experience, congregations which do them sing the chant dialogues, as well as the Pater Noster, better than they sing the hymns. I have heard congregations mumble through a hymn, but lift the rafters with the Pater Noster. This seems to show that there is a great deal of practical wisdom in Musicam Sacram.
I suppose that the realization of the three degrees in Musicam Sacram will not be entirely possible in most places, however, until many more seminaries once again take seriously the musical formation of priests. In the meantime, we ought to take every opportunity to encourage our priests and seminarians with respect to singing the Mass.
<