Choir only items / motets at the Preparation of the gifts

[Nick Baty]

I sincerely hope you wouldn't! ─ see GIRM 88

If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.

We have to be careful when quoting documents or we'll have to ban pianos and women in the choir!

[presbyter]

If so, the ommission of 'wine' suggests it should not be used at all.

Well I and eleven others have just performed this piece before more than 3000 assembled: we used wine.

[mcb]

I sincerely hope you wouldn't! ─ see GIRM 88:

When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances suggest,
the priest and faithful spend some time praying quietly. If desired, a psalm or
other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.
(emphasis added)

Not sure how much of what you wrote was tongue in cheek! You're right, anyway, SC, as far as GIRM 88 is concerned, but what we (at my place of worship) sing at that point isn't strictly the psalm or other canticle of praise referred to in GIRM. We do that at the dismissal, in keeping with what is rightly or wrongly the custom in this country.

Ideally what we sing is a choral setting of the communion antiphon - last week we sang Charles Wood's Oculi Omnium, today it was Tu Es Petrus by Clemens non Papa. (Other times it's something else choral along the lines of alius cantus aptus - we don't quite have the breadth of repertoire to come up with a polyphonic setting of the communion antiphon every week.)

I guess I'm keen to know what you think is the appropriate spot for those polyphonic communion antiphons. (Let's rule out your tongue in cheek suggestion that we can address them to ourselves and sing them during the interval.) Are they proscribed now? Is there any better point at which they might be sung?

[Southern Comfort]

On the other hand, the offertory procession is almost a second gathering rite as we shift from Word to Table. So I often go for an item which in some way brings us back to the day's Gospel.

And that's a very good thing to do, I think. Gelineau talked in 1978 at the SSG/Universa Laus Congress in Strawberry Hill about having a post-Liturgy-of-the-Word song at the presentation of the gifts which effectively sums up what we've done so far in the L of the W and propels us onwards into the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I think this was subsequently written up in Music and Liturgy.

So yes, a collective pause for breath, gathering ourselves together once more, and on we go. Infinitely better than "All that I am" which, I have to agree with Nick, is mostly all about me and not about God.

[Southern Comfort]

I guess I'm keen to know what you think is the appropriate spot for those polyphonic communion antiphons. Are they proscribed now? Is there any better point at which they might be sung?

I have to confess that I can't think of a suitable place to sing them, which is why the Presentation of the Gifts may be better than not singing them at all if you think they are worth preserving. (Obviously in the abstract they are worth preserving but, in the same way that all those polyphonic Sanctuses have now been ditched from the liturgy, maybe the same is true of these Communion antiphons.)

The basic problem is that they were designed for a liturgy which is very different from the post-conciliar liturgy that we have now. Continuing to try to do post-conciliar things with a pre-conciliar repertoire may not be the wisest thing to attempt. We're moving into a different topic, but it seems to me that

Gloria
Agnus Dei

are both things which can persist from our previous heritage. Whether you want them to, or whether your resources can do them, or whether they fit comfortably into today's liturgy template (e.g. a 7-minute polyphonic Agnus during a 20-second fraction) is another matter.

Other things from our previous heritage of chant and figured music cannot fit so easily.

Entrance Antiphon and Psalm? No, but what's in the Graduale Simplex points the way.
Asperges me? Not really
Kyrie? No to lengthy polyphonic settings
Gradual? No, has been replaced by the Responsorial Psalm
Alleluia or Tract? No, has been replaced by Gospel Acclamation
Offertory Antiphon? No, no longer exists in the Missal, only in the Graduale. So what does one use? This is the grey area that this thread is all about.
Sanctus? No, since the assembly now has to be involved in the singing of it
Pater Noster? Yes, if the assembly can join in with it. Otherwise (e.g. settings by Gretchaninov, etc) no.
Communion Antiphon? Not really, but what's in the Graduale Simplex points the way
Ite missa est? Sometimes
Domine salvum/salvam fac (Prayer for the reigning monarch)? No, since this is now not included in the liturgy

So where do we use the great pieces of our heritage that no longer fit into the liturgy we have now? In spiritual concerts. Can they survive in such contexts? Hard to say. Did mediaeval church music survive? No, because Renaissance polyphony took over. Did Renaissance polyphony survive? No, because the Baroque and classical periods took over? Did they survive? No, because other forms in turn took over from them. And so on.

The fact that we have polyphony, etc, today, is purely due to the somewhat antiquarian movement that started up in the middle of the 19th century. The fact that plainchant is still going strong in England is because the original purpose of the SSG was to resurrect it. I'm not saying that this was necessarily wrong, but if that hadn't happened, and if people like H.B. Collins and Sir Richard Terry hadn't done the same with polyphony, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

So the ultimate, really hard question is: does it matter if these great masterworks do not survive except in the concert hall and on CD, any more than does it matter if the contemporary liturgical music we use today survives or not? I was present at a talk recently where the speaker explored the thesis that "Tradition is change". We've always changed, we've always developed. The artificial stagnation that took place after the Reformation is not a reflection of the true tradition of the Church. Get used to it. Leave the past behind and look ahead. It's only because we have superior scholarly tools at our disposal that we even know what lies behind us. For many centuries people did not. They lived in the present.

Is that enough in the way of more serious hares?

[contrabordun]

Now I normally tend to agree with SC, but I have to say I find much of this to be rather unpersuasive, and I'm surprised nobody's yet challenged it. So here's my twopennorth.

That people in the past used only music composed in their own times is not by itself an argument for doing so now, given that by and large they had not the choice to do so whereas we have. People developed an interest in the music of the past more or less at exactly the point in time that the development of technology and communications allowed them to do so. Earlier music might well have continued longer in use had it been available.

Interest in the music of the past is now a phenomenon of at least 200 years standing, taking as a minimum Mendelssohn's revival of Bach's works, and even he didn't start the trend. So the argument that there is a long line of tradition suggesting that we should ignore the music of past ages ignores the most prominent feature of the tradition of mainstream church and concert hall music making of the past 8 generations or so of musicians.

In any case, the assertion that

Did mediaeval church music survive? No, because Renaissance polyphony took over. Did Renaissance polyphony survive? No, because the Baroque and classical periods took over? Did they survive? No, because other forms in turn took over from them.

is way too simplistic an analysis on which to base an argument for the abolition of the past. At what point did Renaissance polyphony supersede plainsong and organum in Venice? And at what point did this change reach Salisbury? Or Blandings Parva? How much of these changes were driven by the needs of the liturgy itself and how much by the needs of German court composers to outdo their colleagues at other German courts? One of the arguments for the Novus Ordo was that the Tridentine form had acquired many undesirable additions: the NO was supposed to be a return to an earlier, simpler, somehow more authentic form. Presumably you wouldn't argue that the NO was a [sniff] somewhat antiquarian phenomenon that disregarded the beneficial effects of the centuries of permanent revolution that preceded Trent?

The fact that we have polyphony, etc, today, is purely due to the somewhat antiquarian movement that started up in the middle of the 19th century.

That says nothing about the utility or otherwise of our present day use of polyphony. The fact that we have computers is purely due to the fact of their invention. But they are commonly available purely because people find them useful. The fact that we had polyphony, etc in 1890 may have been due to a "somewhat antiquarian movement" (why is this bad?), but that fact that we still have polyphony, etc, in 2009 is almost overwhelmingly due to the fact that people enjoy singing it and believe that the mass is better off with it. (There's a big argument there, I recognise, but it's not the one you chose to make). A 150 year old custom doesn't just propagate itself, especially when it involves as much work as singing polyphony.

It's only because we have superior scholarly tools at our disposal that we even know what lies behind us. For many centuries people did not. They lived in the present.

It's only because we have superior medical tools at our disposal that we even know what cancer is. For many centuries people did not. They just died from it.

So the ultimate, really hard question is: does it matter if these great masterworks do not survive except in the concert hall and on CD, any more than does it matter if the contemporary liturgical music we use today survives or not?

Sacrosanctum Concilium begs to differ. You know which para I'm referring to! IMHO, any view of the post-conciliar liturgy that so flatly denies this has got some serious explaining to do.

The fact that we have polyphony, etc, today, is purely due to the somewhat antiquarian movement that started up in the middle of the 19th century. The fact that plainchant is still going strong in England is because the original purpose of the SSG was to resurrect it.

Yes, but it only died out in the first place due to the Reformation. There's plenty of places on the continent where it's still a living tradition. You might just as well argue that that fact that the hierarchy is still going strong in England is because Pius IX restored it. It's a statement of fact, but you can draw any inference you *beep* well like from it - I don't see how you stand up the argument that this wasn't a good thing to do.

[mcb]

Contrabordun's beaten me to it with a far more knowledgeable and thoughtful response than I could muster. I've been trying to get my thoughts in order, but the forum will be obsolete technology before I succeed, so here's a random jumble.

(1) Vatican II wasn't the Cultural Revolution. Leaving the past behind and living in the present doesn't feature at all in a proper understanding of the Council's reforms.
(2) Monoculture is the enemy of true Catholicity. That's one of the positive developments arising from the Council, and we should stand up for it rather than making it a fight to the death between old orthodoxy and new.
(3) My own experience tells me that the Gloria is generally a more effective and successful moment of active participation than the communion processional song. There's an understandable tension at communion between exterior and interior involvement, and the way that the interior often wins out might be a sign of how seriously people take their personal relationship with our Lord in the Eucharist. This isn't necessarily an indication of liturgical failure.
(4) Singing a choral setting of the communion antiphon (or more generally: singing on behalf of the people during communion) can be an effective and valued aid to prayer.
(5) Communal prayer doesn't necessarily entail communal articulation. The best example of collective prayer I've experienced is collective silence.
(6) Insisting on a single musical item for the entire communion procession seems to me a bit of a fad. There's a danger (see 1 above) in writing off vast chunks of the repertoire of communion songs, psalms, motets and hymns because they're not long enough to cover the entire procession. On the other hand I've experimented with many of these new-fangled people's-response-interspersed-with-four-hundred-psalm-verses settings, and I've yet to find one that I really found an effective vehicle for active involvement of the assembly. I've found them limited from the point of view of musical merit too.
(7) The inclusivity and diversity that stem from (2) above encompass beauty among the things that characterise the liturgy; at least as part of the mix. Ordinary folk appreciate beauty: this I know from experience week in week out.

[Southern Comfort]

I'm gratified that my attempt to provoke a serious debate has drawn such eloquent responses ─ thank you, cb and mcb (what a rare coincidence of initials!). I also note that no real attempt was made to deal with my lengthy list of things which no longer fit comfortably into a post-conciliar liturgical context.

Of course I don't believe that we can leave the past totally behind. We are rooted in Tradition (without, however, being rooted in traditions). I was merely quoting a talk by someone else to see what you thought about the general idea of Tradition being itself Change (cf. Newman, naturally).

But I have to say that when mcb says

(3) My own experience tells me that the Gloria is generally a more effective and successful moment of active participation than the communion processional song. There's an understandable tension at communion between exterior and interior involvement, and the way that the interior often wins out might be a sign of how seriously people take their personal relationship with our Lord in the Eucharist. This isn't necessarily an indication of liturgical failure.

then my response is that, 40 years on, the only reason people are still in many places (but by no means all, if you look around) stuck at a point where they view Communion as a private and individual time rather than a communal one is precisely because musicians have perpetuated choir-only Communion pieces instead of embracing a different way of doing things. In those places where they have established a tradition of doing what the Novus Ordo is asking for, things are rather different. The Communion procession has become a communal, even joyful, manifestation of the unity of the gathered assembly.

mcb says

(4) Singing a choral setting of the communion antiphon (or more generally: singing on behalf of the people during communion) can be an effective and valued aid to prayer.

It may well be, but it's not in conformity with what the rite is asking for. That "different way of doing things" is, as we know, summed up in what is now GIRM 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,....

If that is not saying that it is the communicants themselves who are singing, I don't know what is. Nothing there about singing on behalf of the people. I'm sorry: choir-only Communion pieces are not in conformity with GIRM's view of the rite. They are, in fact, no more than liturgical wallpaper. There's nothing wrong with choir pieces that have a refrain for the people, of course. GIRM 86 does not say that people need to be singing the whole time (so strophic hymns are not necessary ─ or desirable ─ either).

Yes, I know that GIRM 87 talks about options for the Communion chant, and says that the choir can sing it alone or with the people, but this and similar paragraphs are not only local usage as foisted on us by Rome (other countries have different provisions) but are also evidence of the tensions between different factions within the Roman discasteries when these legislative documents were drawn up. You can see this at play in many other documents, too. Here, the primary value is indisputably what has already been expressed in GIRM 86 as quoted above.

mcb introduces a brand new element into the debate when he says

(6) Insisting on a single musical item for the entire communion procession seems to me a bit of a fad. There's a danger (see 1 above) in writing off vast chunks of the repertoire of communion songs, psalms, motets and hymns because they're not long enough to cover the entire procession. On the other hand I've experimented with many of these new-fangled people's-response-interspersed-with-four-hundred-psalm-verses settings, and I've yet to find one that I really found an effective vehicle for active involvement of the assembly. I've found them limited from the point of view of musical merit too.

I don't think anyone had mentioned this up to now. But since mcb has, I both agree and disagree. I agree that it's not an absolute principle. Two communion processionals with refrains are better than spinning out one to the nth degree. However, binding the whole distribution of Communion together under one musical umbrella can, when chosen well, not only unify the whole of this time but also become a kind of meditative device, rather like a Taizé chant, infusing the assembly with prayerfulness at the same time as drawing them together. There are plenty of examples with musical merit ─ just a question of looking for them, really ─ even if they're not William Byrd. (And by the way, modern scholarship has discovered that a proportion of Byrd's Latin polyphonic output was not only not designed for liturgical use in his day but was never actually used liturgically then. I'll try to dig out the reference.)

And it's not a new-fangled idea. The Communion psalm with antiphon is part of the earliest tradition of the Church that we know about.

mcb also says

(7) The inclusivity and diversity that stem from (2) above encompass beauty among the things that characterise the liturgy; at least as part of the mix. Ordinary folk appreciate beauty: this I know from experience week in week out.

I agree absolutely. Beauty is what we're after; and we can find it all around, even in the simplest offerings. But confining ourselves to just some examples of beauty is not where I believe we ought to be. I'm always encouraged by para 12 of JPII's Chirograph on Music, where he says

With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple". It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.

In other words, look for things that are rooted in our Tradition, but are not attempting to recreate the past. There are many beautiful pieces that have been written in the past 40 years, which have their roots in the music of the past but which are music of today. Some of them will endure for many years; others will not.

(2) Monoculture is the enemy of true Catholicity. That's one of the positive developments arising from the Council, and we should stand up for it rather than making it a fight to the death between old orthodoxy and new.

Once again, I agree. No one was talking about a fight to the death until mcb mentioned it. I do plead, though, for a more discerning spirit on both sides. For me the issue is this: it is much more difficult to find the right way of using what we have inherited from the past in a different liturgical context; and we have to be open to the realisation that not everything is now usable (like, for example, polyphonic Sanctus settings). If we are true to the reform, we cannot simply continue to drop pieces of music into preconciliar slots and hope that they will do the trick. We need to look at what the spirit of the rite is asking for, and discern how, like the wise householder, we can use things both old and new.

In the case of the Communion procession, the choral Communion antiphon, which is not a processional chant but a "static" piece, is an "old thing" that can no longer be used in its traditional place but may find another place elsewhere, such as at the Preparation of the Gifts (bringing us finally back on topic).

[mcb]

when mcb says

(3) My own experience tells me that the Gloria is generally a more effective and successful moment of active participation than the communion processional song. There's an understandable tension at communion between exterior and interior involvement, and the way that the interior often wins out might be a sign of how seriously people take their personal relationship with our Lord in the Eucharist. This isn't necessarily an indication of liturgical failure.

then my response is that, 40 years on, the only reason people are still in many places (but by no means all, if you look around) stuck at a point where they view Communion as a private and individual time rather than a communal one is precisely because musicians have perpetuated choir-only Communion pieces instead of embracing a different way of doing things. In those places where they have established a tradition of doing what the Novus Ordo is asking for, things are rather different. The Communion procession has become a communal, even joyful, manifestation of the unity of the gathered assembly.

Once again the problem is seeing it as either/or, a fight to the death between old and new orthodoxies. The communion procession is indeed a manifestation of the unity of the assembly. The sacrament itself embodies that same unity. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that sharing in it can also be the most profound interior moment of prayer any of us ever experiences. That's what I mean by the 'understandable tension' between the exterior and the interior. It shows: sometimes it seems to me that the members of the assembly one by one say "gimme a break", when we reach the point where communal participation in the communion chant recedes, and it's down to the choir to keep singing it, while other members of the assembly give themselves over to reflecting on what they have received. Perhaps you're right, and each individual is reflecting on their personal relationship with our Lord; but who knows, maybe some of them are reflecting on their unity with the mystical body of Christ? The point is they're reflecting rather than singing.

At that point we could fall silent, or the choir could sing something which feeds the moment of prayer. Again it's not either/or: we routinely do both of those things, in one order or another. Typically when we sing at this point we aim for a choral setting of the communion antiphon, which supplies an element of beauty that might not have been so evident (or might not have been present in the same way) during the communal chant. And it connects us to the past, which, maybe, for some at least, is a way of taking us outside time for a moment. Outside the present, at any rate.

(That "different way of doing things" is, as we know, summed up in what is now GIRM 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,....

Usually we have the communal processional song before anything choral. There's a kind of didactic point here - if we start our processional song at the moment of the priest's communion, it shows that the priest's communion is the same one that we share in. But see above: there comes a point where the people have expressed their union in spirit, and evidently don't feel a responsibility to keep repeating themselves. Typically the ritual moment is longer than that, so it's simply a question of how we continue to accompany it.

I'm sorry: choir-only Communion pieces are not in conformity with GIRM's view of the rite. They are, in fact, no more than liturgical wallpaper.

This I think is nonsense, I'm afraid. 'Wallpaper' would be unnecessary, irrelevant, purely ornamental, unconnected with the liturgical action. Sung choral propers, as part of an overall mix in which the singing assembly have a full role to play, add a different mode of prayer and a different kind of beauty, and do so in a manner integral to the liturgical drama.

[contrabordun]

I also note that no real attempt was made to deal with my lengthy list of things which no longer fit comfortably into a post-conciliar liturgical context.

Well I'd never even heard of some of them! Others I agree with. Some I think you're overstating the case. BTW, "I note that no attempt was made" is a dangerous ploy on an internet forum: many points don't get picked up for reasons of time and consideration for anybody who might still be reading. I note, for example, that you didn't dispute my reply to your argument that "because [some] people in [some periods of] the past only performed contemporary music, so should we" - though I doubt you accept it

Yes, I know that GIRM 87 talks about options for the Communion chant, and says that the choir can sing it alone or with the people, but this and similar paragraphs are not only local usage as foisted on us by Rome (other countries have different provisions) but are also evidence of the tensions between different factions within the Roman discasteries when these legislative documents were drawn up. You can see this at play in many other documents, too. Here, the primary value is indisputably what has already been expressed in GIRM 86 as quoted above.

This is tending towards one of those famous irregular verbs. "I am able to discern which bits of GIRM are really to be taken at face value. You use careful judgement in selecting options which fit the spirit of the document. He or she is just paying lip service to it.

There are plenty of examples with musical merit ─ just a question of looking for them, really ─ even if they're not William Byrd. (And by the way, modern scholarship has discovered that a proportion of Byrd's Latin polyphonic output was not only not designed for liturgical use in his day but was never actually used liturgically then. I'll try to dig out the reference.

Please do: given the circumstances under which Mass was being said in 1590, that "never" is a fairly heroic statement...I'm not sure how many recusant families' liturgy planning sheets have survived to prove the point one way or the other! However, even if you could prove it, would it tell you more about Byrd and his attitude to his music in the circumstances he found himself or about the lack of available musical resources and the need not to prolong a service, attendence at which was a capital offence? Anyway, to say that "a proportion" (what proportion? 80%? 2%?) was not designed for such use and was never actually so used still doesn't tell us much. Most of the music ever written is rarely if ever performed and this is even truer of liturgical composers, who are mostly writing for their own church situations. Since Byrd didn't have a catholic church choir to write for, well, perhaps he composed for his own pleasure or as an outlet for what must have been the most terrible professional frustration.

There are many beautiful pieces that have been written in the past 40 years, which have their roots in the music of the past but which are music of today. Some of them will endure for many years;

...at which point your descendents will criticise those who wish to use them on the grounds that they are no longer music of today

, the only reason people are still in many places (but by no means all, if you look around) stuck at a point where they view Communion as a private and individual time rather than a communal one is precisely because musicians have perpetuated choir-only Communion pieces instead of embracing a different way of doing things.

In the vast majority of Catholic churches, Communion is a private and individual time either because there is no music at all, the choir having been disbanded in 1978, or because everybody is trying to shut out the sound of what (eventually) replaced it. There simply aren't enough Catholic choirs with the ability to inflict Palestrina on the poor unwitting faithful for you to be able to stand up an argument that the behaviour of those few that can and do is somehow influencing the church as a whole.

[Southern Comfort]

(And by the way, modern scholarship has discovered that a proportion of Byrd's Latin polyphonic output was not only not designed for liturgical use in his day but was never actually used liturgically then. I'll try to dig out the reference.

Please do: given the circumstances under which Mass was being said in 1590, that "never" is a fairly heroic statement...I'm not sure how many recusant families' liturgy planning sheets have survived to prove the point one way or the other! However, even if you could prove it, would it tell you more about Byrd and his attitude to his music in the circumstances he found himself or about the lack of available musical resources and the need not to prolong a service, attendence at which was a capital offence? Anyway, to say that "a proportion" (what proportion? 80%? 2%?) was not designed for such use and was never actually so used still doesn't tell us much. Most of the music ever written is rarely if ever performed and this is even truer of liturgical composers, who are mostly writing for their own church situations. Since Byrd didn't have a catholic church choir to write for, well, perhaps he composed for his own pleasure or as an outlet for what must have been the most terrible professional frustration.

I looked back into my notes of a talk given fairly recently by John Harper, former director of the RSCM.

In the context of a separation of performed music from the ritual, and maintaining a sense of historical perspective, he pointed to Sistine Chapel Masters of Ceremonies' notebooks from the 16th century which point to a clear disjuncture between music/performers and clergy/liturgy. He then went on to talk about music as "spiritual recreation" and floated the idea of some polyphonic music being sacred but not liturgical ─ i.e. it was for devotional purposes, not liturgical use. What he describes as "19th-century constructs" changed the way we see things. For example, Lutheran music, which he states was not accepted widely by the people until the 18th century, when organ accompaniment was introduced, the Solesmes 're-purification' of plainchant, the 'rediscovery' of Renaissance polyphony, the Caecilian Movement in Germany, etc, etc.

Harper also spoke about the Elizabethan settlement of 1559, and in particular injunction 49 of the 1559 Royal Injunctions which is quite clear about the distinction between music sung within the liturgy and music "to delight the people" sung outside it. It was in this context that he then alluded to modern scholarship being of the opinion that Byrd's Masses and Gradualia were never sung in a liturgical context, but instead were actually sung in people's houses at services in the absence of a priest. He said that this also applied to Gibbons's verse anthems with viols (e.g. "See, see, the Word is incarnate"). The whole of this phenomenon he described as "Music in place of the unavailable sacrament" [sic]. One reference he gave was to a paper by John Milsom ─ "Worshipping with William Byrd" ─ in Early Music, 36/3 (August 2008), pp. 451-2; but he did not specify whether this was the source for the Byrd/Gibbons opinion. I do not subscribe to Early Music so I have not read Milsom's paper.

Once again the problem is seeing it as either/or, a fight to the death between old and new orthodoxies. The communion procession is indeed a manifestation of the unity of the assembly. The sacrament itself embodies that same unity. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that sharing in it can also be the most profound interior moment of prayer any of us ever experiences. That's what I mean by the 'understandable tension' between the exterior and the interior.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you thus far.

sometimes it seems to me that the members of the assembly one by one say "gimme a break", when we reach the point where communal participation in the communion chant recedes, and it's down to the choir to keep singing it, while other members of the assembly give themselves over to reflecting on what they have received.

I must confess that my experience is often the reverse. Only two days ago, I was present at a celebration where people actually joined in singing the refrains to the two Communion songs once they were back in their seats from receiving and had settled down. The result was a sort of gradual crescendo as Communion progressed, with more and more people getting on board. This sort of thing is quite common in my experience. Can it be that southern congregations are so different from northern ones? Or is it that they have been formed differently over time?

At that point we could fall silent, or the choir could sing something which feeds the moment of prayer. Again it's not either/or: we routinely do both of those things, in one order or another. Typically when we sing at this point we aim for a choral setting of the communion antiphon, which supplies an element of beauty that might not have been so evident (or might not have been present in the same way) during the communal chant.

I refer once again to GIRM 88, which says quite clearly that if anything is going to break into the postcommunion silence, it should be sung by the entire congregation. If you've ever been to Mass in France, where this is often done, you'll know how powerful it is ─ more powerful in my opinion than a choral meditation, however beautiful, which can't help giving the impression sometimes of keeping everyone waiting.

'Wallpaper' would be ... purely ornamental, unconnected with the liturgical action.

Precisely so. Maybe textually appropriate, maybe exquisitely beautiful, but not liturgically appropriate because not connected with the action (SC 112, etc) and what the rite says is supposed to be happening ─ in this case the unity of the communicants' voices.

Sung choral propers, as part of an overall mix in which the singing assembly have a full role to play, add a different mode of prayer and a different kind of beauty, and do so in a manner integral to the liturgical drama.

Of course they do. My point is that precisely where in the liturgy they are used is as important as the fact that they're used at all. We have to look for creative solutions that do not do violence to the rite. In my view, choral propers during Communion itself or during the Postcommunion period do not fit the bill. I suspect that we will continue to agree to differ on this.

And as a general reply to cb and mcb, yes, I admit to overstating the case a tad, in the interests of brain-stirring. If it encourages others to look again at their practice and question the rationale behind it, I'll be happy.

[mcb]

And as a general reply to cb and mcb, yes, I admit to overstating the case a tad...

Really wouldn't want you to stop! Thanks, SC, and keep it coming.

[contrabordun]

Amen to that!

[Nick Baty]

There's an understandable tension at communion between exterior and interior involvement, and the way that the interior often wins out might be a sign of how seriously people take their personal relationship with our Lord in the Eucharist. This isn't necessarily an indication of liturgical failure.

So very glad to hear someone else say this: I'd almost given up on communion antiphons as it's the one time the assembly won't budge – and your explanation of "interior involvement" is a perfectly sound explanation.

However, when we have lots of visitors – first communion, baptism etc – we always have a communion antiphon. If they have something to sing, the visitors – who are often not church-goers – will mostly join in. It's almost like giving them something to do to keep them quiet – surely a bad liturgical premise. Otherwise, the noise of chatter around the nave can be deafening. (We've have threads on first communion behaviour before.)

In this instance, I suppose we are using music to create silence.