Singing at High Mass

[gwyn]

I'm happy with the idea that there's room for all of us.

What a delightful thought. Thanks for that.

[Petrasancta]

Even after Vatican II, the Sanctus sung by the choir is perfectly justified. But what about the Benedictus? The assertion that it my not, under any circumstance, be separated from the Sanctus, has been put forth with such emphasis and seeming competence, that only a few strong souls were able to oppose it. But the assertion cannot be justified, either historically or theologically or liturgically. Of course, it makes good sense to sing both movements together when the composition makes this relationship clear, for it is a very ancient one and very well founded. But here again, what must be rejected is the exclusionary alternative.

[alan29]

Yes, but in the missal it is one text. The reason for the split is "Too many notes, Herr Mozart."
Alan

[mcb]

Even after Vatican II, the Sanctus sung by the choir is perfectly justified.

No, I think that's a rather reckless assertion for something fairly complicated. Liturgical law is pretty clear, isn't it? -

79. The chief elements making up the Eucharistic Prayer may be distinguished in this way:
a.Thanksgiving(expressed especially in the Preface): in which the priest, in the name of the entire holy people, glorifies God the Father and gives thanks for the whole work of salvation or for some special aspect of it that corresponds to the day, festivity, or season.
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.

There are of course good arguments to be made for making exceptions to this law, but not normatively and only on exceptional grounds, namely in the cause of beauty. This is the case that Pope Benedict has made, for instance. But it would be a grave disregard for the Church's liturgical norms and for the authority behind them, to flout the rules for the sake of a bit of pious nostalgia and something second-rate, musically speaking. I'm afraid that happens, and shouldn't.

But what about the Benedictus? The assertion that it [may] not, under any circumstance, be separated from the Sanctus, has been put forth with such emphasis and seeming competence, that only a few strong souls were able to oppose it. But the assertion cannot be justified, either historically or theologically or liturgically. Of course, it makes good sense to sing both movements together when the composition makes this relationship clear, for it is a very ancient one and very well founded. But here again, what must be rejected is the exclusionary alternative.

This too seems open to challenge. The "assertion", it seems to me, can indeed be justified by reference to historical, liturgical and theological scholarship. Indeed, I think you've got a lot of work to do if you want to argue that the separated Benedictus has any foundation in extant liturgical law at all (there's no mention, for instance, in GIRM), and wasn't, historically speaking, simply a distortion of the Eucharistic Prayer (by converting the historically integrated acclamation into an accompanying background hymn) merely for the purpose of indulging musical elaboration.

Want to make the case, Petra? I can't see that questioning the competence of the law-makers, or suggesting that resistance to liturgical norms is a matter of being a strong soul, necessarily get us close enough to a proper understanding of the issues.

(All the same, I agree over the fundamental issue here, namely that there are sometimes good grounds for creative and principled divergences from liturgical norms. Authentic innovation is the Church's history, and is the working of the Spirit.)

M.

[Petrasancta]

I should have made myself clearer - I was again quoting from Cardinal Ratzinger's book. I am, however in full agreement with it, even although it precedes his papacy and is only the opinion of one, very erudite man.

[mcb]

Ouch! Touché, Petra. And we've been there before too.

But Pope Benedict's argument is founded on the presumption that choral liturgies preserve something distinctively beautiful. This isn't always likely to be the case - few parishes had ('then', let alone 'now') the resources to sustain genuinely high artistic standards. So the practical issue in many (most?) instances concerns ritual music of a primarily functional character. There's a choice between reserving it for the choir, or giving it to the whole assembly in keeping with the norms laid down in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It seems to me that the Pope's arguments don't really touch on this situation: he's presupposing a cathedral with exceptionally high-quality musical resources.

M.

[Reginald]

There's a section of musicam sacram that seems to imply that it's OK to exclude the people from singing some parts of the Mass (Sanctus?) so long as they are not totally excluded from singing in the Mass as a whole...Would that mean that you could occasionally do a choral Sanctus so long as there were some occasions when the people could sing it, or so long as they can sing other parts of the Mass - or even hymns?

What fascinated me on re-reading the singing priorities as expressed in musicam sacram is that there seems to be a distinction between gospel acclamations and the alleluia which doesn't reflect current usage of those terms. I'd really appreciate some clarification from those in the know. It seems to be suggesting that the dialogue between priest and people before the Gospel is 'of the first order' of things to sing whilst the Alleluia is only of the third. Am I reading that right? In which case my current priorities of Alleluia and Eucharistic Acclamations are a little adrift.

And on a spikier note...there's a whole host of things that we routinely ignore in Musicam Sacram and Sacrosanctum Consilium according to our personal tastes...on both sides. How many of us make the kind of usage of chant that's envisaged by either document? As Our Lord might have said "Let he who is without choral Sanctus cast the first neume".

[Petrasancta]

I am very sorry if I seem to have been myself "exclusive" in my argument. I am impressed always by the arguments of others, especially on this site, and rather to my surprise, found myself at the harrowing experience of a Requiem Mass for a four-year old this morning jumping in, unasked, with a congregational Sanctus, remembering the insistence on this very thread that SOMEBODY should sing it where possible. I think we should be very flexible really - I remember well the fuss when the "New" Mass came in, as if every parish church had Palestrina on a regular basis. I just dismays me that we cannot have it when it is available!

[alan29]

But we still can have Palestrina when it is available. It is just that what is suitable changes over time, sometimes by organic development, sometimes by central "fiat." Who still sings Conductus in a liturgical setting? Or which parish would think it appropriate to include all the medieval sequences? I would love it if every parish had a choir that could do musical justice to Byrd or real plainsong (ie not Missa de Angelis which is too new to count.) Wouldn't it be wonderful to have some of the very florid Alleluia verses to mark out special days for example, and to have the community joining in the Alleluias. It ain't gonner happen though, is it?
Alan