mcb wrote:One of the remarkable things about the new Mass settings written for the new translation is that there are chant settings by composers (the Psallite composers, or Chris Walker, for instance) who twenty years ago perhaps wouldn't have considered writing in an idiom like that.
We shall be using Christopher Walker's Belmont Mass each day at the SGG Summer School. It's a gentle chant setting which seems to be receiving quite wide-spread approval. Perhaps the fact that people like Chris are writing such settings will encourage parish choirs and music groups who might otherwise have rejected anything 'chant' to have a go.
We'll also be chanting the psalm at the Summer School morning Mass each day. Good job the Society hasn't changed its name else we wouldn't be able to do any of that!
MaryR wrote:.........Christopher Walker's Belmont Mass.......... It's a gentle chant setting which seems to be receiving quite wide-spread approval.
The Belmont Mass is an excellent setting, in my opinion. I have only one tiny, tiny, tiny quibble with it in that the priest's chant for the Doxology will sow the seeds of confusion in the minds of colleagues (and probably myself) ...... and especially so if on the following Sunday, we have to sing the Missal chant.
mcb - here GIRM distinguishes between chant and hymn ....... I'll look up the Latin.
86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the ‘communitarian’ nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.74 If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.
86. Dum sacerdos sumit Sacramentum, inchoatur cantus ad Communionem, cuius est spiritualem unionem communicantium per unitatem vocum exprimere, gaudium cordis demonstrare et indolem «communitariam» processionis ad Eucharistiam suscipiendam magis in lucem ponere. Cantus protrahitur, dum fidelibus Sacramentum ministratur.74 Si tamen hymnus post Communionem habetur, cantus ad Communionem tempestive claudatur.
Interesting. What, I wonder, are the prototypical characteristics of a chant and a hymn? Perhaps chant = antiphonal and psalm-based; hymn = strophic, metrical, non-scriptural? By that reckoning, the St Louis Jesuits wrote many more 'chants' than 'hymns'. And I dare say in a parish with a conservative musical ethos, if the people sing at the entrance/offertory/communion at all, they're more likely to sing hymns than chants.
87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from The Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.
87. In the dioceses of the England and Wales the options for the Communion chant are as follows: (1) the antiphon from the Graduale Romanum either with or without the psalm; (2) the antiphon with the psalm from the Graduale Simplex; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. It is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.
Presbyterian - Why should priests heed the call to sing more prayers? I hope they don't, in the same way as I hope they ignore most of the new diktats coming from Rome, including the new translation. In fact, that's what most people here want, right? Why all this complaining about everything new if we don't hope to spread rebellion among the ranks? More priestly singing will just be divisive and remind everyone of old stuff.
Nothing about chant there, P. In fact, the aims could be interpreted in any way you want, as far as I can see. And that's what has happened, thankfully! More of the same, please. No way back! I'm sure that's the majority view here anyway.
Eastern Promise wrote:In fact, that's what most people here want, right?
EP, you're determined to tar participants here with the loony trendy brush, but you're fantasising. I suggest either you engage in intelligent discussion, or keep your tedious adolescent attempts at provocation to yourself. But do grow up, either way, there's a good chap.
According to its Constitution, "The Society's object is to promote study, understanding and good practice in the celebration of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, in accordance with the teaching of the Church" (my italics). The 'four aims' on the homepage are a simple summary of what the constitution describes as some of the means by which this object can be achieved. I see the debate about the adjustment of GIRM as an attempt to tease out the precise teachings of the Church in the area in question, which is. in my view, a legitimate area for discussion. Can we please, therefore, get back to that discussion and stick with it.
It should also be noted that many of the contributors to this forum are not members of the Society and that contributors' views do not necessarily express the views of the Society as a whole.
Dom Perignon wrote:"The Society's object is to promote study, understanding and good practice in the celebration of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, in accordance with the teaching of the Church" (my italics)
TY 4 UR DD DP. (EP should understand that unless he is a POTATO - in which case he might have to look it up)
)