In quires and places....

[musicus]

The underlying problem is that we still haven't assimilated the fact that the post-conciliar liturgy is a very different animal from its pre-conciliar predecessor.

Quite so.

Welcome to the forum, Chrysostom, and thank you for such a helpful first post.

Musicus - moderator

[contrabordun]

That being said, you cannot simply use music today that was designed for a totally different kind of liturgy. It doesn't fit.

Yes and no. Almost all of the music written before the Council can be used on some occasions, much of it can (and, per posts passim ad nauseam, should) be used on many occasions and, as you say, the GIRM is pretty clear about who should be singing the Sanctus. For example, plainsong was designed for a totally different kind of liturgy. If we're being "straight" about "liturgical laws", how about the following:

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

That's the Constitution (which left matters such as who should be singing the Sanctus to subsidiary documents like the GIRM). A very simple way of satisfying both of these together would be to have De Angelis or Cum Jubilo in every parish's congregational repertoire. In how many places is this done? In how many places was it stopped on the grounds that it was "against Vatican II"?

The underlying problem is that we still haven't assimilated the fact that the post-conciliar liturgy is a very different animal from its pre-conciliar predecessor.

Who are "we"? The Council was a long time ago. I was born in 1970. You'd need to be at least in your mid-forties to have had a real experience of the way things used to be.

[Nickgale]

It is very easy for people to quote the documents of the Second Vatican Council and bend them to suit their point of view, in rather the same way as a Jehovah’s Witness will quote selective portions of Holy Scripture to 'prove' his points. I think the real issue is that our liturgy is still in a state of upheaval and there is more to come, with the revised ICEL texts being worked on as we speak. But in defense of cathedrals and the use of a non-congregational Sanctus (we at Southwark use a people-friendly chant Gloria and Credo but a choral Sanctus) there is actually provision in Sacrosanctam Concilium for more elaborate settings sung by the choir in major cathedrals and basilicas - which includes the Sanctus. Hence the use of a choral Sanctus in places like Westminster, the London and Oxford oratories and St George's Cathedral, Southwark. The people can be actively engaged in the music without actually being forced to sing it! Again, we are back to the many definitions of participation!!

[contrabordun]

It is very easy for people to quote the documents of the Second Vatican Council and bend them to suit their point of view

Er...does this mean me?

[Nickgale]

Not at all! Everyone does it - myself included. You can make a case for almost anything using selective bit of the documents. That is half of the problem!!

[sidvicius]

Contrabordun:

You'd need to be at least in your mid-forties to have had a real experience of the way things used to be.

You could ask your dad.

[Benevenio]

there is actually provision in Sacrosanctam Concilium for more elaborate settings sung by the choir in major cathedrals and basilicas - which includes the Sanctus.

Um... where exactly?

Terry's Mass in C every week...

Oh, how dull.

Why do cathedrals etc get away with it?

Difficult to say. Perhaps there is no proper control of music in the Church in England and Wales - how many dioceses have active liturgical music commissions, for example? How many cathedral deans and music directors would allow themselves to be "subject" to such bodies?

Perhaps the cathedral musicans have read Sacrosanctum concilium and the GIRM and understand SC n114 and n30 differently to you and I, Merseysider. It doesn't make them wrong, however frustrating it is to us who care in a different way, who strive to "preserve and foster" in a different way. It's a different game - I suspect that many people who go to the cathedral to celebrate are actively seeking something other than a parish mass and don't want to change - it or themselves; however I'm too close to the people who make up the parish to get away with that. They'd moan until I got it "right" (and do!)

We ought not to use the documents selectively to justify what we do; but we do need to be deeply aware of them and the implication they have for our ministry. But liturgy only 'works' when the love of God touches another through us, so how you lead and the music you use needs to be right for your people, in your place, at this time.

[Gabriel]

It is very easy for people to quote the documents of the Second Vatican Council and bend them to suit their point of view,

This is a little disingenuous! What has been good in this forum is that people have obviously reading the documents as the basis for what they are saying.

But in defense of cathedrals and the use of a non-congregational Sanctus (we at Southwark use a people-friendly chant Gloria and Credo but a choral Sanctus) there is actually provision in Sacrosanctam Concilium for more elaborate settings sung by the choir in major cathedrals and basilicas - which includes the Sanctus.

I presume the reference is to Sacrosanctum Concilium 114 - previously quoted by Contrabordun:

114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.

I would suggest that this does not suggest that Cathedrals have carte blanche to do anything from the 'treasure of sacred music' when they like because this principle is clearly understood as related to the higher principle of the active participation of the assembly. This is emphasised by the reference to articles 28 and 30.

28 & 30 paraphrased
28 - a minister (i.e. the choir) should only do those parts which belong to it.
30 - To promote active participation the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations…

Furthermore, I may be wrong, but nowhere in GIRM does it say that the Sanctus is sung by the choir alone - which as has been noted it does explicitly say for the Gloria. All references (GIRM 2: 55b, 108, 168) refer to it being sung by the congregation. It is interesting to see that in GIRM 3 para. 108 has been expanded to emphasise that the part of the people in the EP is through associating themselves with the prayer of the priest in silence and in their part: Preface dialogue, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Amen.

This, I think, relates back to Presbyter's point what are we doing in the EP anyway.

Hence the use of a choral Sanctus in places like Westminster, the London and Oxford oratories and St George's Cathedral, Southwark.

To bring in an echo of the beginning of this thread. I remember in the pub with a former MD of Westminster Cathedral who was shocked that someone would think that because they record polyphonic Masses they would sing them complete in the liturgy. I thought general practice at Westminster was a plainsong Sanctus?

Could I just check what one sings for a Memorial Acclamation with a polyphonic Sanctus - wishing, of course, to respect the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer?

Gabriel

[contrabordun]

No you wouldn't – it all hung around for a long time. I'm only 42 but I was still singing Missa de Angelis into my early teens. We had English liturgy but English music was taking a long time to come through.

You're not arguing singing De Angelis contravenes either the spirt or the letter of the Council are you?

there is actually provision in Sacrosanctam Concilium for more elaborate settings sung by the choir in major cathedrals and basilicas - which includes the Sanctus.

Before this gets too heated, I think the reference is to Musicam Sacram paras 19 and 20 - online at http://www.adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html

I would suggest that this does not suggest that Cathedrals have carte blanche to do anything from the 'treasure of sacred music' when they like because this principle is clearly understood as related to the higher principle of the active participation of the assembly. This is emphasised by the reference to articles 28 and 30

In fairness, I didn't suggest carte blanche - I said they have a "licence to set the balance differently, with more emphasis on choral music, but not to the exclusion of the congregation" - which isn't too different from what you're saying. My real point was that the documents do give cathedrals scope to be different (which is not, I think, a generally accepted point of view). If I'm right, then it would follow that "getting away with it" is not an entirely fair characterisation of what happens.

[Nickgale]

I beg your pardon. You are quite right - it is indeed Musicam Sacram. I am getting my documents muddled!

[Gabriel]

Musicam Sacram has many important things to say about the role of music in the liturgy but it was issued before the current Roman Missal. The General Instruction therefore supercedes Musicam Sacram in any matters relating to music and the Mass.

That said looking at the document I still do not see anything that would suggest that the preservation of the 'priceless treasury of sacred music' is a higher principle that the participation of the assembly in those parts which belong to them.

Gabriel

[ssgcgs]

Next year, the Composers' Group is meeting at Leeds Cathedral on March 5th. Thought it might be an opportunity to further this debate in the company of several people working in cathedrals. I am told by someone more knowledgeable than myself that, to get an updated point of view, we all really need to read, study and reflect on the two documents issued at the end last year: the 'chirograph' by Pope John Paul II and the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Constitution on the Liturgy. it is suggested that all participants at the meeting at Leeds be asked to read and reflect on them as required preparation. Anyone interested in joining us?

Composers' Group Sec

[excathedra]

Anyone interested in joining us?

Sounds fun. I hope to be there.

[contrabordun]

Musicam Sacram has many important things to say about the role of music in the liturgy but it was issued before the current Roman Missal. The General Instruction therefore supercedes Musicam Sacram in any matters relating to music and the Mass.

True, but SC (which predates both, and you're not going to tell me that that was superceded by the GIRM?) is the document with the line about "especially in cathedral churches".

I surmise that - what? 90%? - of attendees at Sunday Cathedral masses live outside the "Cathedral Parish". They have made a positive decision to go some way further afield than their own parish church, suggesting they aren't very concerned about not singing the Sanctus. Now:
a- it is perfectly possible (for some people, at least) to take an active and conscious part in a piece of music that somebody else is singing.
b- the kind of people to whom this applies might well be the people going to Sunday mass at the Cathedral, in which case a fully choral Sanctus would be a perfectly reasonable implementation of the spirit of SC, if admittedly not the letter of GIRM.
c- people for whom this does not apply have plenty of other times and places to attend mass, e.g. their own parish church, or the one down the road.
In other words, mixed provision, to suit individual tastes and preferences. What's wrong with that?

[contrabordun]

That said looking at the document I still do not see anything that would suggest that the preservation of the 'priceless treasury of sacred music' is a higher principle that the participation of the assembly in those parts which belong to them.

I wasn't arguing that at all, and that said looking at this thread I still do not see anything that would suggest that anybody else was either. But while I'm sure that none of the debate could possibly be motivated by a simple dislike of traditional music and the choirs that sing it, I can never understand why there is more indignation aroused by the few places that are arguably doing too much music than by the many that aren't doing anything at all. In a country where only - what? 25%? - of Sunday (and, what? 0.1%? of weekday) masses have any music at all, it seems like an odd set of priorities to be worrying whether - what? five? ten? - places are OVERdoing it (typically in just one mass out of several).

For every cathedral doing 110% of the appropriate amount of choral music, there must be fifty churches with 0% of the appropriate amount of congregational music. This is my real concern: How are we going to attract musically competent and qualified people to take on the hard work and stress of doing some music in parishes if some of the most competent and highly qualified musicians in the Church are being attacked for doing too much of it? Rather than self-indulgently fighting and criticising each other, I suggest turning a blind eye to other musicians' perceived faults and concentrating on extending the provision of music overall.

My proposal for a new year resolution is that we all take a vow to worry less about the music that IS happening than we do about that vastly greater amount that simply IS NOT!