Status of Hymns at Mass

[JW]

Why is it that such importance is given to the hymns at Mass, when they are optional and often have little connection to the relevant Entry and Communion antiphons? See, for example, posts to the 'Sung Masses' topic. I am as guilty as anyone but have always felt uneasy about this. Does anyone have a Sung Mass without any hymns - surely that is more in line with the Roman Rite than hymns without anything else sung?

[johnquinn39]

What is generally done in my parish, is to sing the nearest hymn equivalent to the antiphon in the missal, and/or the psalm in the 'Simple Gradual' [Prof. Paul Ford ed.]. For example 'Safe in the shadow of the Lord' (Dudley-Smith) is used when ps91 (or is this 90?) is suggested.
Also we have sung 'Rejoice in the Lord, always', and interpolated this with the choir intoning the relevant psalm to a chant.
At communion, we have used 'Eagles wings' as the antiphon and psalm, some chants from Psallite, some Taize, and songs such as 'Unless a grain of wheat' (Farrell), and 'Bread of life from heaven' (Susan Breihl).
After communion, there is a thanksgiving song, which is generally a hymn.
I think that people like hymns as they are something we can all sing together, and provide contrast with the antiphonal style, in the entrance, gradual and communion psalm.
Hope this is of some help.

[docmattc]

My interpretation may be completely wrong, but I suspect that the status of hymns follows from them being sung at Low Mass before the Council. I imagine that the musical resources in most parishes was such that Low Mass was the norm, even on a Sunday. These guidelines from Musicasacra.com (copyright last year) show clearly that the four hymn sandwich, which is still common place, is still advocated for Low Mass in the EF, at least by this organisation. Adding hymns may have been a way of getting congregational participation in the Mass in the liturgical rumblings which led to the reforms of the council. The congregation latched on to the four hymn sandwich and it stuck firm. The instructions in Musicam Sacram which make it clear that hymns are subordinate to other parts of the Mass have yet to be fully taken on board.

When I was a student, we regularly had weekday Masses at which we sang the Gospel Acclamation and three Euchartistic Aclamations. Nothing else was sung.

[nazard]

This is a topic where it is easy to get confused. Writing from memory (I'm sure someone will point out my errors) the current GIRM from Rome (in latin) does not allow singing hymns in place of the proper. However, the bishops' conferences are allowed to edit the GIRM and, if Rome agrees, issue their version for use in their own jurisdictions. The US bishops put in clauses allowing hymns, Rome agreed, and they issued their GIRM. Ours made a few little edits, did not allow hymns, and obtained Rome's agreement and issued it. The obvious conclusion is that our own bishops would like us to stop substituting hymns for the proper antiphons, but very few parishes have.

What are the thoughts of this board's readers?

[alan29]

If that was the intention of the English bishops, they missed out one step.
They forgot to commission and pay for settings of the Propers in English.
Any volunteers?
Alan

[Southern Comfort]

Have a look at the Psallite project (http://www.magnificatmusic.com) which provides antiphons + psalms for the entire 3-year cycle.

[organist]

My interpretation may be completely wrong, but I suspect that the status of hymns follows from them being sung at Low Mass before the Council. I imagine that the musical resources in most parishes was such that Low Mass was the norm, even on a Sunday. These guidelines from Musicasacra.com (copyright last year) show clearly that the four hymn sandwich, which is still common place, is still advocated for Low Mass in the EF, at least by this organisation. Adding hymns may have been a way of getting congregational participation in the Mass in the liturgical rumblings which led to the reforms of the council. The congregation latched on to the four hymn sandwich and it stuck firm. The instructions in Musicam Sacram which make it clear that hymns are subordinate to other parts of the Mass have yet to be fully taken on board.

When I was a student, we regularly had weekday Masses at which we sang the Gospel Acclamation and three Euchartistic Aclamations. Nothing else was sung.

The guidelines mention a recessional hymn, motet (!) or organ music. They also say the priest may not sing! What status do these guidelines have? I can hear liturgists preparing to shoot them down in flames!

[docmattc]

I think we need a little clarification here JW. In your initial post, were you asking about hymns vs the Proper antiphons or hymns vs the sung Ordinary?
I think we've had a hymns vs antiphons thread somewhere but I can't find it. In my comment earlier I interpreted your original query as asking why hymns have such 'popularity' over the ordinary acclamations, sung presidential texts etc.

We also need to define "Hymn". Is the Old 100th a hymn? Would it be therefore be unacceptable to use it when Psalm 100 is the text of the Entrance antiphon and/or its psalm? Or does "Hymn" in this case refer to a non-biblical text, for instance "Gather us in", or "I'll sing a hymn to Mary". Bob Hurd's collection "One with the Risen Lord" has a good number of 'hymns' which serve extremely well as the communion antiphon throughout Easter time. But do these count if they are not chanted and exactly the texts of the Graduale?

I have no idea what weight is attached to the guidelines I linked to, but they clearly illustrate an EF Mass in which music is limited to a four hymn sandwich. If this was also the case before the Novus Ordo was in place (and I'm too young to remember it) then here we have the origin of the four hymn sandwich Mass so prevalent even today.

[docmattc]

This is a topic where it is easy to get confused. Writing from memory (I'm sure someone will point out my errors) the current GIRM from Rome (in latin) does not allow singing hymns in place of the proper. However, the bishops' conferences are allowed to edit the GIRM and, if Rome agrees, issue their version for use in their own jurisdictions. The US bishops put in clauses allowing hymns, Rome agreed, and they issued their GIRM. Ours made a few little edits, did not allow hymns, and obtained Rome's agreement and issued it. The obvious conclusion is that our own bishops would like us to stop substituting hymns for the proper antiphons, but very few parishes have.

Its easy to get confused because its confusing! Our version of GIRM (which is the one in force here, irrespective of what the Latin says) says of the entrance: In Dioceses of E&W the options for the entrance chant are 1: The antiphon and psalm from the Graduale Romanum/Simplex or 2: A song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bp's conference. (Para 48)
As I know of no such approved collection- as far as I know, collections such as Psalite or By Flowing Waters do not have episcopal approval in E&W- this leaves us a choice of Romanum or Simplex, nothing else.
However in Celebrating the Mass, our Bishops say of the entrance: "The Roman Rite provides an antiphon to be sung at this point, although it may be replaced by a psalm or suitable liturgical song"
This is essentially the same for Communion too
So does this mean our Bishops want us to stop using hymns? They seem to say so in one document and then give us the option of a "Suitable liturgical song" (=hymn?) in another.

The Offertory is even more vague. GIRM refers only to the "Offertory Chant" (a text which doesn't even appear in my Missal), but CTM "Sung texts need not speak of bread and wine..."

I feel that we should avoid getting worked up about it! As long as the piece of music, antiphon, psalm, hymn, motet, ditty, does what its supposed to do (eg GIRM 47, 86) then is the origin of the piece so vital?

we have had a similar discussion before, [url= viewtopic.php?f=7&t=162] it was here
[/url]

[Reginald]

Two points at speed (teaching in 5 mins).

Sacrosanctum Consilium was written with what we now call the Extraordinary Form in mind. At EF Masses they should, IMO, be ensuring that the congregation can respond to the Mass in Latin and with the simpler Gregorian melodies every bit as much as we should - it would certainly be in line with the thinking of the B XVI.

English version of the Propers: http://anglicanhistory.org/music/gradual/gradual.pdf -but see the note about permissions to use the online version. My Latin isn't upto the task of vouching for their fidelity but enjoy anyway!

[johnquinn39]

'By flowing waters', seems to have semi-official approval of the US Bishops.
Psallite does not, but uses (mainly) approved translations. (Grail & NRSV).
The hymn 'Safe in the shadow of the Lord' (Dudley-Smith), appears in the UK Bishops' evening prayer book, which would again indicate some sort of semi-official approval.
As far as I know, a list of hymns (and other texts) is at the moment being submitted to Rome for official approval.
I think that as long as we sing what is in the Bible ,the Psalms in particular, we can not go wrong - whether this is in the form of hymns, antiphons, or whatever.
One of my personal favourites for Communion is Susan Briehl's 'Bread of life from heaven'. The text of this is mainly from John 6, and also the memorial acclamations.
So even if the Bishops do not approve this text, surely we are not in error when we sing '...your Blood and Body given' or sing of 'Christ's sacrifice'.

[Southern Comfort]

The US bishops put in clauses allowing hymns, Rome agreed, and they issued their GIRM. Ours made a few little edits, did not allow hymns, and obtained Rome's agreement and issued it. The obvious conclusion is that our own bishops would like us to stop substituting hymns for the proper antiphons, but very few parishes have.

Actually this is not true. Our bishops did not obtain Rome's agreement. The version of GIRM that we have now was imposed on us by Rome. It arrived, with instructions for it to be promulgated. This is now the Roman way, and they have done the same with other countries. You submit a text for recognitio and sometime later you receive back a text which may be the same as the one you sent but most probably isn't.

[Southern Comfort]

'By flowing waters', seems to have semi-official approval of the US Bishops.
Psallite does not, but uses (mainly) approved translations. (Grail & NRSV).
The hymn 'Safe in the shadow of the Lord' (Dudley-Smith), appears in the UK Bishops' evening prayer book, which would again indicate some sort of semi-official approval.
As far as I know, a list of hymns (and other texts) is at the moment being submitted to Rome for official approval.
I think that as long as we sing what is in the Bible (the Psalms) in particular, we can not go wrong - whether this is in the form of hymns, antiphons, or whatever.
One of my personal favourites for Communion is Susan Briehl's 'Bread of life from heaven'. The text of this is mainly from John 6, and alson the memorial acclamations.
So even if the Bishops do not approve this text, surely we are not in error when we sing '...your Blood and Body given' or sing of 'Christ's sacrifice'.

In the USA, as long as a publication has an imprimatur from a diocesan bishop it may be used in that country. Psallite has an imprimatur from a US Bishop, and the version of the Grail psalms used in Psallite also has an imprimatur from a US Cardinal, so this is rather more than semi-official approval.

"Safe in the shadow of the Lord" is a paraphrase of Psalm 90, which justifies its use as a "metrical psalm".

The Americans indeed do have a (rather short) list of hymns and songs awaiting approval in Rome, but you can bet that nothing from "By flowing waters" or "Psallite is on it. In the end it's not going to make a great deal of difference and people will continue to use what they feel like; but, if approved, it will mean that all the items on the list will have to be printed in every US hymnbook and mass book. That could be a waste of time.....

[JW]

Docmattc, here are the clarifications you asked for:

1) I was talking both about Hymns vs Proper Antiphons and Hymns vs the Sung Ordinary. In the main Parish Sunday Mass, there is a strong argument for singing at least some of the Ordinary if there are to be Hymns. If the Proper Antiphons are to be sung in Latin to their plainchant texts, then, presumably, the Entrance, Offertory and Communion hymns are redundant.

2) What is a hymn

Is the Old 100th a hymn? Would it be therefore be unacceptable to use it when Psalm 100 is the text of the Entrance antiphon and/or its psalm?

The Old 100th was not in the Westminster Hymnal (which had either or both an Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat). I suspect this is because the words are a paraphrase, written by a Protestant two years before the Council of Trent. So there are dangers in seeking episcopal approval for everything.

3) Hymns were not generally sung at Mass before Vatican II - they were reserved for Benediction and other devotions.

4) My personal view is that we have very sensibly gone our own way with this (not only in England and the US) and are enriching our Masses with music and poetry (in the form of hymns) that has deep resonance with both laity and clergy. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and I will be surprised if it ever goes back in.

[Southern Comfort]

3) Hymns were not generally sung at Mass before Vatican II - they were reserved for Benediction and other devotions.

With some exceptions. In Germany, the Betsingmesse, with chorales inserted in the liturgy, has been in constant use since the 16th century.