Polyphonic Sanctus

[NorthernTenor]

Now waiting for the breach of liturgical law with a polyphonic Sanctus. Here it comes.

That's funny - I could have sworn it has been pointed out by the Holy Father and others (the case has ben put here, for example), that the matter isn't as cut and dried as SC suggests. Perhaps he's becoming forgetful in his cholic.

[I had a feeling that this would give rise to debate, and I have split this topic off from the Papal Visit thread so as not to divert that topic- Docmattc]

[Southern Comfort]

GIRM 79 very clear indeed:

b. Acclamation: in which the whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus. This acclamation, which is part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, is sung or said by all the people with the priest.

GIRM 147 also quite clear:

The people, for their part, should associate themselves with the priest in faith and in silence, as well as through their parts as prescribed in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer: namely, the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the Acclamation after the Consecration, the acclamatory Amen after the final doxology, as well as other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See.

[NorthernTenor]

[I had a feeling that this would give rise to debate, and I have split this topic off from the Papal Visit thread so as not to divert that topic

The perhaps it would be consistent to move SC's comment here, too, along with his other divertingly contentious comments about the way things are done at Westminster? Or are they so habitual - almost a kind of nervous tic - that you hadn't noticed them?

[NorthernTenor]

SC,

Section 34 of Musicam Sacram, envisages two main schemes for the singing of the songs of the Ordinary - either choir alone or people and choir. Musicam Sacram forms a set of special norms governing sacred music, and its provisions are not superseded by later canon law unless that is explicitly stated (which it doesn't appear to be).

I find this as tedious to point out as you are to read it, as you have seen the point made before, though one coming anew to the matter would be forgiven for thinking you had not. You are also familiar with the argument from tradition and continuity, as put by the Holy Father with specific reference to the choral Sanctus. It's therefore poor argument just to repeat your assertion, as you do with considerable frequency, without reference to the points made by those whose views differ from your own.

Too many Catholics with an interest in liturgy build walls around themselves, cutting themselves off from the evolving debate. Occasionaly they peer over the brickwork and shout at the neighbours, without bothering to listen for a response. We are all the poorer for this.

[docmattc]

To aid readers in the debate. Here is Musicam Sacram 34 which in fact makes specific reference to the Sanctus.

The songs which are called the "Ordinary of the Mass," if they are sung by musical settings written for several voices may be performed by the choir according to the customary norms, either a capella, or with instrumental accompaniment, as long as the people are not completely excluded from taking part in the singing.

In other cases, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass can be divided between the choir and the people or even between two sections of the people themselves: one can alternate by verses, or one can follow other suitable divisions which divide the text into larger sections. In these cases, the following points are to be noted: it is preferable that the Creed, since it is a formula of profession of faith, should be sung by all, or in such a way as to permit a fitting participation by the faithful; it is preferable that the Sanctus, as the concluding acclamation of the Preface, should normally be sung by the whole congregation together with the priest; the Agnus Dei may be repeated as often as necessary, especially in concelebrations, where it accompanies the Fraction; it is desirable that the people should participate in this song, as least by the final invocation.

[lesley wright]

" so long as the people are not completely excluded from taking part in the singing" seems quite clear. If the choir sings the Sanctus from a Byrd Mass the people are surely excluded, or am I missing something? Or, since it is the Cathedral (and the Cathedral Choir was absolutely splendid imho), do we presume that the people were included in the singing by their attentive listening?

[Southern Comfort]

NT evidently doesn't realise that MS was superseded by GIRM. MS was written in 1967, before we had a new Order of Mass and Missal. It therefore relates principally to the Tridentine Rite, not the Missa Normativa.

[Southern Comfort]

its provisions are not superseded by later canon law unless that is explicitly stated (which it doesn't appear to be).

This assertion (about explicitly stating) is without foundation, I fear. It is also worth noting that there is a hierarchy of documents in the Church. GIRM certainly supersedes MS, and, BTW, LA is very low down in the pecking order.

as put by the Holy Father with specific reference to the choral Sanctus.

He's talking about what goes on at Regensburg, which is not typical of the practice of the Church as a whole. Whence his remarks about splitting the Sanctus and Benedictus, which is also not pertinent to typical parish practice today. It is always necessary to see remarks in a context, rather than trying to make universal laws out of specific instances.

[NorthernTenor]

There are number of problems with your position, SC. The first is your contention that the GIRM replaces Musicam Sacram. MS, issued under the authority of Pope Paul VI, provides a set of special norms governing sacred music in the light of tradition and the Second Vatican Council. Subsequent general Curial instruction such as the GIRM does not revoke its provisions unless it is explicitly stated to do so, and where there is doubt about this, the later document is to be interpreted as far possible to harmonise it with MS.

Then again, the GIRM can in a sense be described as descriptive and provisional, a work in progress rather than the final word. This is as it should be. The Church is still in the early days of implementation of the new form of the Mass and of working through the issues associated with it. Over-strict regulation would stifle that process. From a more negative perspective, its compilation and revision has at times been so muddled that it would be unwise to fix upon particular sentences as authority for a significant break with tradition.

Your mention of the context of (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger’s piece that I referenced is odd. You make it as if it might in some way negate or modify my point, but neither the place nor the occasion of its origin, nor the fact that it also touches on the relationship of the Sanctus and the Benedictus, change the substance of its author’s lucid and inspiring argument for the continuing validity of the Choral Sanctus.

Finally, I would like to thank you for troubling to engage with the debate. This is preferable to your usual habit of asserting an arguable position as if it cannot be questioned, and is if disagreement with you is reprehensible. This is, unfortunately, an approach that’s all too common across the spectrum of liturgical debate. I guess it’s a product of major liturgical change and the unease that brings. It may also be that we have yet to put aside the ultramontanism that has marred liturgical thinking since the 19th century, and which has led us to expect the authorities to prescribe a rigid and detailed uniformity. I for one, though, am as happy to program a congregational Sanctus on the monthly occasions when this falls within my responsibility, as I am to sing a polyphonic one at other times.

[Southern Comfort]

I promised myself that I would not engage in this conversation, NT, since your acerbic tone is not conducive to good debate. However, your points deserve a reply.

(1)

I'm afraid that your contention about a document having explicitly to repudiate a previous one is no more than urban myth, probably picked up on a blog somewhere.

I'm sure you recall Liturgiam Authenticam, a document produced by a Congregation, explicitly revoking the provisions of Comme le prévoit, a document produced by a Pope. No, of course you don't. LA doesn't even mention the previous document. If you are correct, Comme le prévoit is still in force.

(2)

I'm also sure that you're familiar with the hierarchy of documents and their order of precedence, starting with Decretal Letters in first place, next Apostolic Constitutions, and then proceeding downwards via such animals as Papal Bulls, Motu Proprios and Encyclicals, until it reaches Allocutions and Addresses, Instructions, and eventually Notes and Memoranda. Musicam Sacram, as an Instruction, is in 41st place, by the way. I'd be interested to know where you think IGMR, dependent as it is upon a decree (Decrees and Declarations are in 25th and 26th place) issued under the authority of Paul VI, comes in the pecking order.

(3)

The phrase "Anything to the contrary notwithstanding" at the end of the Decree promulgating IGMR and indeed the Missal itself has a clear juridical meaning.

[keitha]

It's a pity that the language of this debate became so personalised at one point.

To move on from point-scoring, I suspect that, in strict terms of canon law, SC is entirely correct. The pity is that this could mean ditching so much wonderful stuff from our heritage. My suspicion is that the Holy Father would like to retain it (so no problems from Rome using the Byrd at Westminster on Saturday). My solution has always been to use a plainchant Sanctus, possibly with some polyphonic inserts. However, this is one of life's rarities for me, working in an 'ordinary' parish.

In my view this debate is interesting for some of us to view enviously from afar, when there are so few parishes who are within a million miles of singing polyphony and where this will never be an issue.

[HallamPhil]

It's a pity that the language of this debate became so personalised at one point....

To move on from point-scoring, I suspect that, in strict terms of canon law, SC is entirely correct....

In my view this debate is interesting for some of us to view enviously from afar, when there are so few parishes who are within a million miles of singing polyphony and where this will never be an issue....

I agree with Keitha. It is also unfair that some of the people in this debate have been so personally abused in the debate elsewhere also.

I also have general concerns about the relation between cathedral of the diocese and its parishes. Regardless of the huge sums of money deployed to maintain foundations such as choir schools, choral scholars and professional men (which for the poor and needy of this world might be scandalous) one might need to ask whether this is a model for what is achievable in the parishes. Of course it is not. It is difficult to achieve in some cathedrals outside those which have inappropriately described themselves elsewhere as 'superpowers'.

I attended a Mass of celebration for 5 years of the present papacy and came away asking where was there an element that reflected the Vatican 2 vision of the Assembly. I wondered similarly after the Papal Mass in Westminster. It was indeed wonderful music meticulously prepared and delivered but on so many occasions, to quote an article from a few years back, it robbed the Assembly of its song.

I was at Westminster Abbey where we heard comparably great music and delivery. But we also had about three motets while the Pope and Archbishop dressed and a psalm the words of which I could not discern from the nave except when the organ was silent. I'm sure it might have been clear on the TV broadcast but not for the majority of the worshipping assembly. A fantastic occasion nonetheless and one from a different denomination unaffected by our liturgical guidelines and norms.

At Birmingham yesterday whilst the music was certainly impressive, save the communion motet which had to be rescued by the organist despite being delivered by a more select bunch, there was no attempt to introduce any of the music to the assembly most of whom had been gathered since 6am for a 10am Mass! Only Jo Boyce & Mike Stanley attempted a brief rehearsal of folk prior to the live broadcast of Sunday Morning Worship on Radio 4 at 8.10am. By contrast while several of the hymns and songs were familiar to many, the singing of the Ordinary was left to those of the choir who had rehearsed or who had the ability to read the music printed in the Magnificat booklets (albeit with misleading directions in places). The setting of the Ordinary was a new one by MacMillan and although much was 'repeat after the choir have sung it first' the lines were not so melodically memorable on first hearing. Even the deployment of an animator for the assembly might have encouraged folk. I was just about able to see one albed music director for the singers on the right of the altar but that on the left was obscured by the sound control marquee. There was however a lectern placed in the sanctuary area which might have been a good locus for the Animator but I can't recall this being used by anyone save the obviously popular priest who made useful announcements ... apart from the one indicating that communion would be distributed at stations marked by umbrellas ... you had to be there in the rain to appreciate that one!

I cannot believe that the Music Directors at Birmingham, whose integrity I respect highly, would have failed to pick up on the need for animator and prior rehearsal of the assembly and can only assume that some other force was at work here. You did a wonderful job bringing what appeared to be 2000 parish musicians together to such a high standard and with such difficulties inherent in the separated stage layout.

I have sought to avoid personal invective which darkens the debate. It was a great Papal visit and thanks are due to all involved.

[presbyter]

I cannot believe that the Music Directors at Birmingham, whose integrity I respect highly, would have failed to pick up on the need for animator and prior rehearsal of the assembly and can only assume that some other force was at work here.

There were four cantors/animators - whose position changed several times in various re-drawings of the plans - as did the positioning of the bishops and the priests. The hope was that the animators (in front of the choirs - 2 on each side) would be shown on the screens around the park at those moments when animation for the assembly was needed (the screens were independent of the BBC broadcast images). Perhaps that hope was not fully realised. Oh well.

The very tight time-table from 5.30 am precluded a full congregation warm up - although those people present at 6.30 am did have the opportunity to hear the MacMillan Mass at the choir practice. At that practice, the 500+ Leeds diocese group had to be integrated into the whole, as they could not be onsite for the Saturday rehearsals. Getting 2000+ singers (split over stands 100 yards apart) and a remote and invisible organ/brass/timps ensemble making music all together was the DoM's priority at 6.30 am. (It was the Vatican that inisisted on the instruments being backstage, by the way.) The broadcast of Sunday Worship effectively ruled out a congregation rehearsal slot.

And just to keep this on topic - MacMillan's Mass in its original form has no repeats (and, I understand) will be published without the repeats. Even if the opening phrase of the Sanctus was perhaps a little difficult to repeat after one hearing, did you not manage the Hosannas - and the "Have mercy...." in the Agnus?

[John Ainslie]

The use of Polyphonic Sanctuses is part of a broader question of using inherited musical genres in the reformed liturgy. For those interested in this thorny question, may I recommend Dom Anthony Ruff's excellent book, Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations (Hillenbrand Books, Chicago 2007). This is his doctoral thesis for the University of Graz, and is not only of teutonic thoroughness, but faces up to the much more widely established tradition of polyphonic Masses in Austria and Bavaria. You should read the whole text of 611 pages, but there is a special chapter examining the use of the polyphonic Mass ordinary. It is, IMHO, a very fair appraisal.

[Southern Comfort]

The hope was that the animators (in front of the choirs - 2 on each side) would be shown on the screens around the park at those moments when animation for the assembly was needed (the screens were independent of the BBC broadcast images). Perhaps that hope was not fully realised. Oh well.

From the shots seen on TV coverage and live webcast, the screens around the park were sometimes showing what the TV people were showing, but often not. However, rather than showing an animator, they would often be showing something else, together with a signer in an oval in the bottom right-hand corner. From the little I saw, they mostly did not show an animator.

We had the same problem at Coventry in 1982, if it's any consolation. The huge screen above the sanctuary on that occasion mostly showed the pope, even when he wasn't doing anything....