Non Solum: Choosing a Communion Song

Another reader writes in:

We have a small and very engaged parish that prides itself on its participation in the Mass, and most people join in on all sung responses, parts of the ordinary, and songs. For all songs, we project the lyrics on a wall to the side of the altar.

My questions concern the selection of songs for the Communion Rite. How do people choose between doing a song that focuses on communion and a song that is more tied to the readings or theme of the Mass? I imagine that most parishes do a Christmas song during the communion procession on Christmas Eve/Day, but what about other solemnities and feasts? What about the major seasons?  What about ordinary time?…

…And what about the tempo for this song? How do you decide if a song is too slow to be used here? And are some songs too fast to fit the nature of the communion procession?

Please comment below with what your community does and why.

Also, keep your questions coming! This series is meant to respond to the pastoral needs of our readers and is most effective when we receive questions from you. So please submit your questions to us through the Non Solum question box located on the right-hand side of the homepage.

Nathan Chase

Nathan P. Chase is Assistant Professor of Liturgical and Sacramental Theology at Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, MO. He has contributed a number of articles to the field of liturgical studies, including pieces on liturgy in the early Church, initiation, the Eucharist, inculturation, and the Western Non-Roman Rites, in particular the Hispano-Mozarabic tradition. His first book The Homiliae Toletanae and the Theology of Lent and Easter was published in 2020. His second monograph, published in 2023, is titled The Anaphoral Tradition in the ‘Barcelona Papyrus.’

Please leave a reply.

Comments

84 responses to “Non Solum: Choosing a Communion Song”

  1. Ben Yanke

    We don’t worry about fitting artificial “themes”, we just use the communion proper, and the congregation actively participates though active listening and meditation, as JPII and Benedict both envisioned and talked about. The communion chant is appropriate music for the rite (the music actually given to us in the rite), so that’s what we use.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Ben Yanke – comment #1:
      Well Ben, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed Pope John Paul II, says at #86 that the purpose of the communion chant is to express union in spirit by means of unity of voices of the communicants. So the church encourages active congregational singing at this point. I doubt the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI would reject this official church directive either.

      At the abbey I do a variety of things, and I try not to congratulate myself for doing the one and only right way. The Church commends Gregorian chant and sometimes we sing the proper communio in Latin. In this case, sometimes we interpolate a congregational English response. Sometimes we sing the proper antiphon congregationally in English. Sometimes we sing Psallite because it fits the theme well – and btw, the Gregorian propers sometimes (but not always) DO reflect the theme of the Gospel, as I’m sure you know, so Psallite is picking up on part of tradition in following that path. Sometimes for musical reasons, or working with the forces at hand, or balancing out the types and styles of music in the liturgy as a whole, I do a beloved refrain such as Gifts of Finest Wheat.

      The point is that Church teaching and directives say a variety of things and allow for responsible pastoral decisions at the local level. I hope you see how rich and varied our Catholic tradition is, how broad the directives are, and that you don’t just pound on one aspect of things in an exclusive way.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Ben Yanke

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #3:
        Of course, hymns are allowed.. but being allowed and being preferred are two very different things.

        How does singing a hymn that is at best, usually a paraphrase of scripture, and at worst, not at all scriptural, help the “treasures of the bible are to be opened up” to the faithful more?

        Also, when we look at the 4 options for the communion chant, it seems rather clear (both implicitly from the text, and looking at the situation with a hermeneutic of continuity) that if 3 of the 4 options are scriptural chants, some form or another of a proper text, or at least something scriptural (cf. option 3), that maybe we should take the hint.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @Ben Yanke – comment #15:
        Your position is untenable. You want to make your preferences everyone else’s rules. But the real rules, the ones promulgated by the church, allow things that you won’t tolerate. To say that three options are one type of thing, therefore we should take the hint and all agree with Ben that the 4th option in the GIRM isn’t really permitted… as I say, your position is not tenable. Your private view of the hermeneutic of continuity does nothing to alter this.
        awr

      3. Ben Yanke

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #18:
        Who said I don’t tolerate hymns? Who said I’m making rules out of preferences? With all due respect, you’re putting words into my mouth, Father.

        I very clearly began my comment with “being allowed and being preferred are two very different things” to ensure that I didn’t send this message. That being said, I do strongly believe that the preferred option is the music and texts the church gives us. There’s nothing untenable about that.

  2. Paul F Ford

    (1) Of the 163 communion songs of the Roman Gradual only eight songs refer to the Body and Blood of Christ. All of these songs were realigned as a consequence of our new lectionary so that “chants closely related to the readings should, of course, be transferred for use with these readings.”

    (2) Of the sixty-two communion songs of the Simple Gradual, only four songs refer to the Body and Blood of Christ.

    (3) Of the 618 communion songs of the Antiphonary of the new Roman Missal, only sixty-eight songs refer even indirectly to the Body and Blood of Christ.

    Why this infrequency? Because communion is about more than the real presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. It is about how this Food and Drink is meant to forgive our sins, restore us to community, and to prepare us for life eternal, among many other things. (O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur. “O holy banquet in which Christ is consumed, the memory of his passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Canticle Antiphon for the Second Vespers of Corpus et Sanguinis Christi.)

    Because communion is the fruit of the proclaimed word, especially the gospel, the communion song ideally “quotes” the proclaimed word, especially the gospel. It must at least be seasonally relevant, long enough and interesting enough to bear the weight of repetition. Its style needs to processional (more inspiring of movement than of meditation) and responsorial (sharing the burden of the text and music alternately, between the assembly and the cantor, choir, or instruments). Its texts need to have a biblical density and richness to it so that it can reflect as fulfillment what the Liturgy of the Word announced as promise.

    Reply
  3. Cathy Wattebot

    For the procession part we look for songs which have very simple or repeated words or a fairly long chorus so people can join in without having to carry a book, for instance recently: Come lord Jesus come, Taize O lord hear my prayer, the king of glory comes, when I needed a neighbour, alleluia give thanks to the risen lord, do not be afraid. Also old favourites are possible eg soul of my saviour, sweet sacrament divine.

    If there is still time and still leave some quiet, sometimes we choose a fairly short second song which we think people will join in, including plainsong Mary ones (ave maria, salve regina, regina caeli, salve mater misericordiae – these are judged acceptable as second but not first hymns), Taize chant, one bread one body, amazing grace, all heaven declares.

    One done in earlier years is a translation of Odette Vercruysse’s Je cherche le visage du seigneur (vous etes le corps du Christ) which would be good to teach people maybe.

    Reply
    1. Matthew Morelli

      @Cathy Wattebot – comment #4:

      For the procession part we look for songs which have very simple or repeated words or a fairly long chorus so people can join in without having to carry a book

      I think this is one of the most important criteria for what to choose, especially for small congregations (where half or more of the group moving and not singing would be problematic). I have seen this done very well with By Flowing Waters (thank you Paul) and would imagine it could be done with other antiphonal collections such as Simple English Propers, among others.

      Reply
  4. Damian Duczmal

    In my parish (in central Poland) the organist selects the songs that we sing during Communion, in accordance with the parson and with input from the parish council.
    There is a wide selection of Eucharistic songs – mostly out of the songbook authorized by the Episcopal Conference.
    By far the most popular and often sang songs are Adorate te devote (in a lovely translation form 1927) and a song called “Pan Jezus już się zbliża” (“Lord Jesus is coming”), which was also written in the 1920-ties.

    Sadly we do not sing the proper communion chants – maybe it will change someday.

    There is also no communion procession – Holy Communion is distributed by our priests while the faithful kneel at the altar rails – a practice I boast about. It is a treat in a rather ordinary NO parish.

    Reply
  5. Alan Hommerding

    I’m never sure what to make of GIRM #87’s placement of the choir first in the description of who sings the communion song – especially when the fourth option for choice of communion song directs us back to #86’s directive that the purpose of the song 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.”
    In regard to choice of song, even if one isn’t able to use the Graduals consistently in a direct manner, we all can refer to those texts for guidance in the choosing of a communion song with a text that is somehow connected to the text appointed in the Graduals. Remembering all the time that “proper” for an antiphon means that the antiphon is variable Sunday to Sunday, not that the appointed antiphons are mandatory.
    Two items of catechesis that, in my opinion, we are very much in need of: 1) as Dr. Ford pointed out, the Graduals rarely speak of communion or the communion rite in their texts; we need to wean folks off the past generation+ of communion songs that are ALWAYS about communion; 2) in regard to tempo, since GIRM 87 mentions the communicants’ joy, some more up-tempo songs in the mix would be healthy – folks in the procession don’t process in time to the music, so the misconception that the tempo of the communion song’s music needs to be solemn/reflective can go.

    Reply
  6. Jack Feehily

    When I came to the parish I have served for 17 years, the song during communion was not being sung by many. Meeting with the music director, we reflected on what might draw people into this song intended to enhance the experience of communion with Christ. We decided to concentrate on musical pieces with easily singable refrains. We also identified songs that express the faith of the church with regard to the effects of the Eucharist. The result is that people enthusiastically sing as they move in the procession. Occasionally, my precocious director decides to do a song she really loves but which the people don’t know well. The result is always the same, fewer people sing. The song our people seem to love more than any other: How Beautiful is The Body of Christ.

    Reply
  7. Nico Fassino

    This should be the simplest question to answer: it’s right there in the GIRM, #87. If there is to be a hymn sung during the Communion Procession (the only place that the GIRM allows a hymn to be sung), the GIRM instructs that the Communion Chant (i.e. the proper of the day) to be concluded in enough time so that the hymn can be sung.

    As for what hymn to choose after the proper is sung, there are many dignified hymns from across the Church’s history that serve as reverent meditation/worship of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Or, you could also choose a hymn that is derived from the Psalm which the Church assigned for the Communion Proper of the day.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Nico Fassino – comment #9:
      You are mistaken about a few things.

      You assume that “Communion chant” means the “proper of the day,” but the document does not say that. So it’s not the simplest question to answer!

      This is *not* the only place the GIRM allows a hymn to be sung! See e.g. nos. 48 and 74 on the entrance and preparation of offerings.

      GIRM refers to a chant or hymn *during* the procession, but also to a hymn *after* Communion which is a separate thing.

      awr

      Reply
  8. Richard Skirpan

    We currently begin with the communion antiphon chanted by the cantor or choir in either English or Latin while the EMHCs are receiving communion themselves and receiving their ciboria or chalices. We’ll usually get one or two psalm verses in.

    Then we typically segue to something the congregation can sing as the congregational processions form. It’s very important to me that there be an obvious connection between the antiphon we had just sung and the congregational music to which we transition – ideally when it’s from the same scripture. (For example, for the First Sunday of Lent we went from Scapulis Suis to On Eagles Wings.) I usually make this choice based on the text of the antiphon, Gospel, or as a last resort something generically Eucharistic. I will echo the statements of many here that it is very useful for anything we might expect the congregation to sing at this point to have a refrain. I would say I’m able to satisfy all my self-imposed “requirements” about 70-80% of the time.

    Reply
  9. Rick Reed

    My practice for some years has been to have a set rotation of bread/Body/wine/Blood themed songs that have easy to sing refrains so folks can sing as they process if they choose to. At my current parish, we have 12-14 songs in the rotation. First song (of three) was last week’s second song, which was previous week’s third song. So a song could be used up to 3 weeks in a row, but then not sung for several weeks. This helps with rote learning as well. Songs are occasionally added, maybe 1-2 times a year, but the focus is on familiarity. This has worked well for me in several parishes through the years.

    We do start as the priest receives, which was a big leap when I got here.

    For the Triduum, we’ll use the same 3 songs for all 3 days, although not always in the same order, to help highlight the “one liturgy – three days” aspect.

    Reply
  10. Todd Flowerday

    Dr Ford’s insights are most helpful. These days I program more psalms than I did ten or twenty years ago. During the chief liturgical seasons, the antiphonary is one resource, but frankly, it doesn’t always give the best representation from the Psalter. Far too often, they go to Psalm 34, presumably because of “Taste and see the goodness …” which is a rather lazy solution, given how often it is suggested.

    With the delays between the priest’s reception and the Communion ministers getting to task, I’ve found congregational singing increase greatly in the past decade.

    While I admire Mr Yanke’s passion for the propers, it is seriously misplaced here, I think. People should be invited to sing, and given music they can take with them into the procession. Communion propers are better performed at Preparation of Gifts, as a prelude, or during reflection time after Communion. Definitely not during.

    Reply
  11. Doug O'Neill

    I think this has been dealt with extensively in other posts, but it does seem as if GIRM 86 and 87:1 are actually contradictory – unless the entire assembly were to sing the Graduale proper, impractical in all but monastic communities, I would think. Were it not for the “unity of voices” line, one could claim internal participation with a choral communion chant. Still, I don’t think it precludes singing the proper Communion chant, provided that it is not at the expense of something congregational. One nice thing I have found is to have the choir sing the Graduale chant as the ministers receive, and then move into the congregational refrain composed by Fr. Columba Kelly in his collection, in alternation with psalm verses. It is always in the same mode as the Graduale chant (except for a few cases if one is using the Graduale Novum). Sometimes, I have bridged the two with the Tournemire L’Orgue Mystique communion setting, or an organ verset based on the same mode. I suppose that technically violates the directive that the singing continue through the entire communion procession, but I find that it sets up the congregational singing well.

    Reply
  12. Dennis Smolarski SJ

    In 1997, Cardinal Mahony issued a Pastoral Letter for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles about the liturgy entitled “Gather Faithfully Together.” Reprints are still available (English and Spanish) from LTP (primary title is “Guide for Sunday Mass”). In it he describes his vision for liturgy in the archdiocese in the year 2000 (anticipating the unapproved 1998 Roman Missal) and it is written as if he is describing a typical Sunday liturgy at a hypothetical parish named “Our Lady of the Angels” (now the name of the LA Cathedral).

    In Part One, in section “The Liturgy of the Eucharist,” paragraph 72, we read: “The song that is sung throughout [the reception of Communion] is good for processing: No one needs to carry the printed words because only six or seven songs are used at communion throughout the year. They fit the movement and the moment. Each is sung often enough to be familiar, and each has a melody and words that flourish with repetition. This Sunday’s single Communion song continues until presider and assembly sit down after all have taken Holy Communion.”

    Personally, I still think this is good advice. In some Byzantine Churches, the only communion song is Ps 34 (“I will bless the Lord at all times … Taste and see how good the Lord is…”). So having 6-7 (alternating or seasonal) communion songs (many possibly with refrains) so that people know them and don’t have to carry books while in procession can be a very good practice.

    Dennis Smolarski, SJ

    Reply
  13. Jeff Rexhausen

    It seems that some of these suggestions call for a level of musical leadership that most small parishes do not have. If all of the music is selected and led by volunteers with some musical talent but very limited time to prepare a small group of other volunteers to lead music, what accomodations might the commenters propose to the advice already offered here?

    Reply
  14. Jeff Rice

    I agree with several of the comments above regarding have a finite number of pieces for the Communion procession that are rotated, with the assembly primarily singing the refrain, ideally by heart. The best have multiple verses so that they can cover the entire ritual. Michael Joncas has written several wonderful pieces that fit the bill precisely: the recent “Sacred this Banquet, Holy this Feast”, “Sacramentum Caritatis” inspired by Benedict XVI’s exhortation, and the preeminent example, “Take & Eat”. Other pieces I recommend and use frequently are “Make Us One With You” by Rick Modlin, “Make of Our Hands a Throne” by Steven Warner, “All Who Hunger” by Bob Moore, and both “Bread Life, Cup of Blessing” and “Amen to the Body of Christ” by Michel Guimont.

    During Advent, Christmas, Lent & Easter the selections are related to the season, but with the same goal for covering the ritual, and lots of repetition. During advent we sing “Maranatha” by Tim Schoenbachler several times throughout the season… it is great because it has like 12 verses, all scriptural, and you can mix and match based on the readings. This Christmas for the first time we sang Francis Patrick O’Brien’s “Wood of the Cradle” at Communion throughout the season all the way to the Baptism of the Lord. This worked well.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Jeff Rice – comment #19:

      Not to mention Amen! El Cuerpo de Cristo and The Body of Christ, both by John Schiavone, Bernadette Farrell’s Bread of Life [Hope of the World], Unless a Grain of Wheat, Bread for the World, Taizé Eat This Bread, etc, etc.

      When Cardinal Mahony wrote Gather Faithfully Together (well, actually he didn’t write it, Gabe Huck ghosted it for him), his stipulation that six or seven Communion songs were enough was already out of date. A number of parishes in LA were already using far more than that, and their people were well used to singing refrains and antiphons at Communion.

      Reply
  15. Ben Yanke

    And also let us not forget that the Consilium’s Notitiae said that to omit the propers from the Mass and replace them with other songs (even if they are “reverent and devout”) is to “cheat the people.” It even goes so far as to say that to do so is the same as if you were “to give bran instead good wheat, light wine watered down instead of generous wine.”

    This isn’t my private interpretation. I’m not making this stuff up. There’s nothing radical about saying that the words of God are superior to the words of men.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Ben Yanke – comment #22:
      Really – you state: “….words of God are superior to the words of men.”

      Rather fundamentalist and literal in terms of understanding scripture and how it came about.

      Would suggest that this alone weakens, if not exhausts, your continued and repeated incorrect interpretation and application of SC.

      Reply
    2. Paul Inwood

      @Ben Yanke – comment #22:

      There’s nothing radical about saying that the words of God are superior to the words of men.

      Perhaps you should read my “featured post” (link on the r.h. side of the Pray Tell home page)…

      Reply
    3. Todd Flowerday

      @Ben Yanke – comment #22:
      Ben, my sense is that you are influenced by a school of thought. We know you’re not making this up. But you represent one school of sacred music among many. And perhaps God has something to say rather richer and better than the words of “your” men (and women).

      My use of the words of God might extend to psalms other than the ones chosen by Roman musicians in the graduals, antiphonaries, and pages of the missalette. We are speaking of a body of texts largely unreformed: not necessarily harmonized with the Lectionary, not really drawing much on the repertoire of song outside the Psalter.

      My preference is with the word of God that all people in the assembly can readily sing, at the very least in dialogue with the choir or songleaders. Communion as a performance time is a cultural convenience, perhaps, for people accustomed to privacy. But GIRM 86 prescribes unity, and not by listening. That the USCCB’s canonists chose to insert #87 to cover a few more options doesn’t speak of the preference of forming people in the Word of God, and allowing them to carry it, singing, into the rest of their week outside of worship.

      My suggestion is to loosen the bonds of reform2 a bit and see how the various options flourish outside of your small pond.

      Reply
    4. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      @Ben Yanke – comment #22:
      “I’m not making this stuff up.”

      Ben, how do we know? You are quoting something you call “the Consilium’s Notitiae” but you give no reference. Did you find this in a secondary source? Have you seen the primary source (which would be in Latin, I presume)? What’s its context? Does this source say anything else? How do we know you are not quoting it out of context, if you don’t give us a cite? These are normal questions anyone would ask. You need to give us the source which is evidently the basis of your argument. If you can’t, you can expect people to be a tad skeptical.

      Anthony is right about the relative weight of various sources / statements, of which there are MANY. My point is that even before we get to that level, we need to know what you are quoting. Notitiae is a series, the Consilium is a body of people. The Concilium doesn’t “have a Notitiae.”

      Reply
      1. Ben Yanke

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #33:

        This was published in Italian in the Consilium’s official journal Notitiae 5 [1969] p. 406. An English translation appeared in the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy’s BCL Newsletter, August-September 1993.

      2. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        @Ben Yanke – comment #34:
        Thanks, Ben. This proves my point.

        You have to be careful about these sources. You’ve reproduced several errors that others made before you, and which I presume you absorbed through secondary sources like Adoremus.

        First, the part you quote about “cheating the people” is simply not in the original Italian text. It was added in the English translation. To lean on the “strength” of that phrase as you do is, to depend on something that’s not there.

        Second, the text you quote from was not produced by the Consilium. The article in Adoremus said the source is the Consilium and further muddies the waters by suggesting that Notitiae is the organ of the Consilium. But it’s not.

        The answer to the query comes from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which, as any historian can tell you, was not the same thing. One can’t deduce from what the CDW said what the periti on the Consilium thought. They may have agreed or not; they may have stated it in a more nuanced manner, as later documents do. This source will not establish that.

        What you are quoting from is a clarification in 1969 on the level of a Roman dicastery. Far, far lower in weight than the GIRM.

        Third, the general principle is to “sing the Mass.” The specific example given of what should not replace the texts of the Mass is: motets. I think we can all agree on that.

  16. Alan Johnson

    #22 – and of course a high proportion of modern hymns are scripturally based, and so preferable to many of the more traditional ones that tend to be more devotional in content.

    Reply
  17. Ben Yanke

    Ok, ok, forget what I have to say about the matter, if that’s what floats your boat.

    But look at the Consilium’s word on the matter. If they’re saying that to omit the propers is to “cheat the people,” shouldn’t we be thinking twice about skipping them wholesale?

    Also, singing the proper chants of the Mass does not mean at all skipping a hymn. If you were to sing the antiphon alone at the entrance, offertory, and communion, you could almost always still put a hymn afterwards. Let’s not forget that the verses are optional, if need be.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Ben Yanke – comment #27:
      I’d prefer not to forget your comments, Ben. I’d much rather engage them. I’m looking for something wider, better than the propers. I think we’re uniquely placed to expand beyond them. And hymnody, while we’re at it. I’ve grown to be less and less a fan of hymnody as a regular solution for congregational singing at Mass.

      As for cheating people, the thrust of the modern Church is that everybody prays, everybody sings, everybody evangelizes. Nobody gets excused.

      Psalms and responsorial songs based on Scripture work great. But why should we get tied down with the “words of men” from Rome when the Word of God is so much richer and more varied?

      Reply
    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Ben Yanke – comment #27:
      Ben,

      There is a methodological problem with your manner of citing one comment of Consilium as if it trumps everything. It doesn’t. The Consilium said a thousand things (but try finding them in Notitiate, which has no indices), as have various Roman bodies and officials and popes. I think we all know this, we get what you’re up to, and we’re not persuaded.

      Otherwise one could cite any one of the very strong statements of Pope Paul VI from the same era about the inadmissibility of the pre-conciliar Mass, that this is disobedience and an attack on the apostolic authority of the ecumenical council (yes, he really said that) to mean that technically it’s now permitted to celebrate with 1962, but we should take a hint and hear what the mind of the church is and 1962 will soon die out. The comparison is imperfect – Paul VI’s teachings are weightier and have much more claim to be authentic interpretation of the council. The Consilium decree is really, really low-level and stands in tension with many, many official statements of the past 50 years.

      awr

      Reply
  18. Sean Keeler

    What is it about this topic that always seems to spawn a fight? The original questions were about how our parishes select the music, not whose method is right or wrong. How about we answer the original questions for now and leave the battle of the documents/paragraphs/footnotes to another day?

    Our DM selects the hymns based on a combination of the day’s readings, congregation’s familiarity with the hymns, and ability to sing the chorus without the books. We’ve learned that most people pick up their hymnals at the beginning of communion, but put them down when they join the procession. A good example for us, then, would be “I am the Bread of Life”. The cantor or choir can sing the verses and all join in on the chorus.

    Because of the large congregation size, we generally have a second song. The transition is awkward, but people are accustomed to it now so the short period of silence and the announcement aren’t an issue.

    About once a month the choir sings an anthem, selected for a particular feast or event, instead of the second congregational hymn. In either case — second hymn or anthem — we try to have it finished by the time the celebrant concludes the purification of the vessels. Not certain if this is absolutely right and proper, but much longer and folks are arriving for the next Mass. Hope this helps, Nathan.

    Reply
  19. Scott Pluff

    Is the distribution of Communion experienced as a communal action of the whole assembly, or as a private “me and Jesus” moment? 9 out of 10 liturgists agree that it’s communal, but I suspect that most people in the pews experience it as a private moment. Many 2nd grade children were, or still are, taught after receiving Communion to return to their pew for silent prayer and thanksgiving.

    Good luck trying to get people to sing if they perceive this as a private moment. As I’ve been told, “I don’t like to sing after Communion, I’d rather pray.”

    The posture of kneeling both before and after the Communion procession reinforces the private nature of this moment in the ritual. Are there still dioceses where the congregation remains standing until the last person has received Communion? Can anyone comment on how that affects vocal participation?

    Reply
    1. Chuck Middendorf

      @Scott Pluff – comment #29:

      I can’t speak authoritatively for the 150+ parishes in the Seattle Archdiocese, where we’re asked by the archbishop to remain standing throughout the entire communion procession, but I’ll speak of my experience. I do find that people remaining standing tend to look up and out, watching the procession, watching the assembly go by. Our parish tends to have a lot of tourists/visitors (en route to cruise ships, etc.) and you can always spot the visitors, because they are always kneeling after receiving communion. They tend to look down, and surely not pick up their hymnals. I’m sure it’s also human nature: if you’re a member of the community, and you know the people, you’ll watch them, you’ll smile at them, you’ll make eye contact with them. If you’re a stranger, you might not do that.

      As for singing (the topic at hand), it’s hard to diagnose the root cause. Our parish sings well the way it is, so yes, people pick their hymnals back up when they return to their pews. And people sing better standing up, so that might be the cause. And they aren’t having a kneeling “me and Jesus” moment, so that might the cause. Really hard to say.

      (Is Seattle one of the few dioceses where people remain standing post-communion? I haven’t seen it anywhere else in my travels.)

      Reply
      1. Dennis Smolarski SJ

        @Chuck Middendorf – comment #35:
        Standing until the end of the Communion Procession is the official policy in the (arch)diocese of Los Angeles, San Jose and Honolulu, although some parishes may not observe the practice.

  20. Jack Feehily

    I can’t think of a single communion song that we sing which is not inspired by the scriptures. Methinks Ben is using the term church as a cudgel. In practice, the church has a rich variety of experiences which inform the selection of good liturgical music from place to place. The ROTR folks have an understandable preference for what they perceive as a more beautiful, majestic, and reverent style. Sum quique.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      @Jack Feehily – comment #32:
      I can’t figure out what “Sum quique” means… can you help me out?

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #41:
        I suspect it’s “Suum cuique” – to each his own.
        awr

  21. Charles Culbreth

    Reaching for points of consensus:
    *All things being equal, I do believe that the prescribed proper Communio’s are generally aligned with the other two processionals, and more often than not with the gospel. As a resource text, I believe that actual and paraphrased settings of the Communio ought to be the starting point of deliberation. What remains to be determined in broader practice is whether “conservationists” will accept new proper vistas as designed by Macek/Tate and others as “legitimate?”
    *As Todd advocates (which is also sympathetic to the writings of B16 and popes before him,) the Psalter is literally the “song of the Church.” As another apt option to the actual proper Communio, a well-deliberated psalm setting seems, to me, of a higher priority in the schema of the GIRM than option fours whose texts edify the ritual action of the Communion Rite, or hymns and songs whose sources are often a jambalaya of scriptural allusions to the theology of “communication.”
    *Words mean something. If a decision is made towards a lesser text of any kind because of its popularity or singability, with the objective essentially being a guarantor of its being taken up by large numbers of the congregation to thus self-validate in terms of FCAP, that is faulty reasoning. We might as well sing “Happy Birthday” during Christmastide.
    *There are few strophic hymns that meet the serious criteria for the Communion music needs, whether in small or large congregations. However, there remain some, such as “Shepherd of Souls,” and such that can satisfy all of the criteria to some degree mentioned above.
    *Lastly, I believe strongly that in the vast, current repertoire of fourth options, that few of them can meet the mandate of the GIRM insofar as the 1. start it upon the celebrant’s communication and continue it until the last communicant. Then any further music must be congregational, deigned so as a “hymn of praise.” That is a convenience and contrivance in my estimation. And any decent DM knows exactly how to…

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Charles Culbreth – comment #37:
      One point of consensus I’d like to strive for is an acknowledgement that option 1 is to be found in the universal legislation of GIRM 86, namely a musical piece that serves to unify voices throughout the assembly. And what reform2 touts as the American option #1, is really #2, unless the assembly has learned and sung the piece from the Roman Gradual. Which would be fine with me. If not the antiphon, then chanting the verses of a psalm in alternation with the choral performance.

      Not sure what you’re saying about the final point. Most of the first option music in my parish is a psalm setting or a Eucharistic song with Biblically-based verses. Ben’s objection about paraphrases and such is contrary to the evolution of the Psalter itself, and the occasional piecing together of earlier elements into a “new” psalm. If the antiphonary can cobble together a Gospel quote with a psalm, why not anybody else?

      Reply
  22. John Gaffney

    Dr. Ford and Fr. Ruff have it down. Singing scripture, particularly the Gospel (which as mentioned is usually the appointed antiphon in the Roman Gradual) ritually expresses the promises made in the Gospel have been fulfilled in the body and blood of Christ. Singing the appointed psalm with the Gospel antiphon allows us to sing from what really is the official songbook of the Jewish/Christian people: “The Psalter.” Not only that, but when we sing the appointed antiphon and psalm, we are “Singing the Liturgy” rather than singing at the liturgy when we replace the appointed texts with another song. When we do sing scripture, we, in a sense, participate in the mystery of the Incarnation. The Word of God is placed on our lips, hopefully enters our hearts and shapes are actions. We become the Word made flesh.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @John Gaffney – comment #39:
      All true. But more, when the assembly is singing the antiphon and psalter, then it truly is “we” who are singing, and not a priestly class of worshipers performing a religious duty set down in the words of the liturgy. And given the mixed quality of offerings in the “appointed texts,” especially in ordinary time, the assembly yet sings the liturgy when they sing “non-appointed” texts drawn from or even “just” inspired from the liturgy and Scripture.

      And let’s be clear about what some of us might be advocating. I think the appointed texts are something of an impoverishment. We need a wider variety of Psalms, more inclusion of other lyrical texts from both Testaments, a better sense of harmonization with the Lectionary, and a renewed sense of engaging the assembly directly in prayer. It’s not that I’m chiding my reform2 sisters and brothers for being sticks-in-the-mud. The given texts and music just aren’t good enough as a repertoire.

      Reply
  23. Charles Culbreth

    Todd, I realize that seeking a grail-global solution to the OP’s question should be off the table (sorry, Ben)-but, there are still some misconceptions and conundrums in your last response that I, if no one else, perceive.
    One- no one should assume that all R2 folks totally accept and/or adhere to the stipulated practice that the “official schola of males” alone have provenance over option one. Demographic reality and the mere existence of the emerging plethora of vernacular proper editions actually argue against that. Strict interpretation even that the “gregorian/Latin” proper only is appropriate cannot or will not ever fly universally.
    In this blog and elsewhere, folks more often than not advocate a narrower spectrum of music/text repertoires as they believe that is conducive towards achieving Full-erCAP. This seems to abet the consistency of the proper text usage, and doesn’t deny the opportunity to augment those with the broader textual sources you prefer. To illustrate this I’ll offer that given 2 or 3 rotations of the Respond & Acclaim settings, those innocuous melodies become quite embedded in congregational memories, and are sung thoroughly.
    Lastly, everyone knows (even if they don’t acknowledge it) that proceeding to receive HC presents a paradoxical problem regarding the “we” of who’s singing when? Add to that not only a literal interpretation of the purposes of the choir/schola/cantor, but also the reality that an exquisite performance (I don’t flinch at that) of a Communio not only has merit of itself, but also provides the added benefit of preparing the hearts of the PIPs to take up the singing of the Hymn of Praise. In larger congregations, I’ve heard time and again folks who’ve returned to the pews take up the “hymn” which elicits the meaning of “we” of which we speak as a symbol.
    Amid of all of this, the discreet DM will be mindful of the acronym, YMMV.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Charles Culbreth – comment #42:
      Thanks for the reply, Charles. About that “narrower spectrum,” I wouldn’t be one of them. If I were more active as a music director and if I had the time and resources to commit, I would be very interested in pushing envelopes rather than just mailing it in, be it the Gregorian repertoire or the “suggestions” published by the print organs of the Big 3. As it is, we have a hymnal or 2 at our disposal, and when the day comes for disposing of them, it will be an interesting discernment forward.

      And as I told Ben, the proper texts are an impoverishment: Scriptural words imposed on an antiquated and limited musical repertoire. Individually, the pieces are quite lovely. But reform2 folks miss the significant issues of the repertoire and the engaging of a larger body of Scripture, which, if it wasn’t called for as it was in the Lectionary, is certainly in keeping with not only the spirit of the council, is aligned with the present-day need to bring the Bible to life and tot he tongues of the people.

      My problem with the reform2 indulgence for the propers is that it’s really a narrow vision of sacred music. Really.

      Reply
      1. Charles Culbreth

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #45:
        About that “narrower spectrum,” I wouldn’t be one of them.”
        As am I, thank God.

  24. Joshua H. Ney

    @Rita Ferrone,

    Ben cited the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship as his source, and you wrote, “You have to be careful about these sources.”

    Are you saying the Committee has mistranslated that section? I’m afraid I will have to defer to the committee unless you are able to provide the original Italian quote in full for consideration.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Joshua H. Ney – comment #46:
      Actually, I think she said the “additions” were from Adoremus. I think we have to be careful about the secondary sources, such as magazines adding their own content to what are essentially editorial pieces.

      I suspect the real source is this: http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/1785/can-hymns-replace-propers/p1

      Reply
    2. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      @Joshua H. Ney – comment #46:
      It’s all on line. You can find it easily enough if you look!

      Reply
    3. Richard Chonak

      @Joshua H. Ney – comment #46:
      To be fair to the BCL, the English was published earlier, in “Documents on the Liturgy”, p. 1299. The book is copyright ICEL, so the translation is probably by ICEL staff.

      Whether you translate it freely as “cheat the people” or more literally as “give bran instead of good grain and watery wine in place of whole wine” — it’s a strong expression from SCDW in favor of “singing the Mass instead of singing during the Mass”.

      Reply
  25. Jack Feehily

    Yes, suum quique, to each his own. More precious conversation about the manner in which we give thanks and praise to God during the communion procession. I can almost hear the worship experts telling Jesus what and how to sing on the way to the Garden.

    Reply
  26. Joshua H. Ney

    @Rita Ferrone,

    I agree that Ben’s quote in English is easily found (a quick Google search) and he needn’t have cited his source.

    But what I am talking about is the original Italian quote. To my knowledge, Notitiae volumes have never been placed online. Google searches reveal only snippets here and there — no complete volumes.

    Am I in error? If so, can someone send a link to the Notitiae archives online? Gratitude in advance…

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      @Joshua H. Ney – comment #52:
      I know you were talking about the Italian quote. So was I. Here you are:

      http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/pdf/notitiae-1969-406-406

      He needed to cite his source, not to reproduce it in its entirety. Because he cited it, one could then find the original and sort out the other mistakes.

      Reply
  27. Jeff Rexhausen

    In a couple of places, I find this complete sentence, which includes the “cheat” reference that has been one focus of debate here:

    “To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people.”

    It seems to me that the phrase “yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day” is an important qualifier. It suggests to me that alternate texts in keeping with the Mass of the day are not to be viewed in the same way.

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      @Jeff Rexhausen – comment #53:
      Jeff, that’s a good observation.

      But again, it’s sort of silly to argue about a 1969 clarification by a Roman dicastery on a 1958 document, when we have the GIRM in front of us, revised as of 2010, which is of greater weight and clarifies that other songs are NOT ruled out. The point which you raise goes to the question of the content of the song, and that’s a good point indeed.

      Thanks for returning to the question of what’s “in keeping with” the liturgy. The judgment call lies there.

      Reply
  28. Bill deHaas

    Rita and Todd #47 – please, looking for some education here:

    The link in #47 was very interesting and raises these questions (which I have asked before):
    – first, appears that Tucker changed his responses throughout the Q&A
    – second, always understood that *singing the mass* (vs. singing at mass) focused on the commons (1st priority);
    – third, that same SC section added *Propers* but my understanding is that how propers are actually sung, included, etc. was defined using four steps – the last step was the use of hymns that articulated the proper scriptural meaning
    – fourth, some folks seem to, therefore, think that the pre-VII propers are the only way to go?
    – Fifth, we also have the distinction between the *propers in latin/meaning of its words* and how these are sung in the eucharistic community (assuming Gregorian Chant only appears to be an incorrect interpretation)
    – sixth, yet, Todd, Rita, others have shown that there is no one established *propers* – these developed over centuries; the meanings shifted from greek to aramaic to latin (back to the simplistic belief that latin is the be all and end all)
    – given that liturgical development, didn’t VII/SC re-open that development (many PTB posts have stressed the significant amount of scripture that is found in today’s hymns)
    – also, historically, don’t we have different types of Graduales – are the words/meaning the same and music is different – or what is it?

    Sorry, for the confusion but would appreciate an education, thanks

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Bill deHaas – comment #54:
      2. My understanding is that singing the Mass has been understood by the mainstream to be singing the readily accessible texts: the Mass ordinary, psalm, gospel acclamations, and other acclamations in the Mass as well as in sacramental celebrations, such as RCIA.
      3. Some commentators have observed that lacking episcopal approval for alternate collections, there isn’t really an option 2 or 3. My sense is that lacking such approval, anything set to the psalm goes. It’s not quite the same as any old “human word” hymn.
      4. My sense, yes.

      I bow to the community wisdom on your other points–others are far more capable there.

      Reply
  29. Dennis Smolarski SJ

    Let me offer my “take” on some liturgical legislation.

    1. CIC can. 17 states that “Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context,” suggesting that the “letter of the law” is secondary to its historical (and pastoral) context.

    2. The current GIRM must be interpreted in light of the original 1969 GIRM, modified within a year when the 1970 full (revised) Missale Romanum was issued.

    3. The 1969 GIRM (most of which has been retained in the current 2002 GIRM) introduced a number of new (innovative?) options. Often such options (since they were new) were listed second or third, rather than causing too many “waves” by suggesting they were the preferred “choice.” In my mind, the second or third option didn’t mean they were less significant options, but rather that they were newer, and that they were options (previously there were none).

    4. E.g., in the 1969 Order of Mass, a note says it was permitted for the celebrant to pronounce the words of the Eucharistic Prayer aloud (!). Given that the Roman Canon was formerly required to be said silently, this rubric is understandable. In the current Missal, this rubric is gone. And, even though the 1969 GIRM 56f = 2002 GIRM 85 states that it is “most desirable” that the faithful received from hosts consecrated at that Mass and from the chalice (when permitted), 1969 GIRM 117-118 seem to indicate that the normal mode would be under the species of bread only. 2002 GIRM 161 (which expands the earlier provisions) gives a bit more prominence to the fact that people may be receiving the Precious Blood.

    Other examples of options can be found, in which the first “option” listed is the historic reality, rather than what is liturgically preferred.

    I suggest the “options” given in the GIRM for what is (communally?) sung at different parts of the liturgy should be interpreted in this light.

    Choices should be made on what is pastorally most appropriate (2002 GIRM 352).

    Reply
  30. Karl Liam Saur

    My own view is that the faithful should become familiar with the practice of all the options, so that none of them are strange to them. It’s only then that a community can properly be said to discern which option is most fitting for a given celebration.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Karl Liam Saur – comment #59:
      This is good, provided we have a solid and sound understanding of GIRM 86, a unified communion song. When performance music is perceived to intrude on a well-established prayer in the community, then we have a problem.

      I would also suggest that each of the options be perceived to be more of a blend, rather than an attempt to ghetto-ize the music during the procession. Utilizing psalm settings, adapting plainsong for the vernacular, and other creative solutions should serve to call attention to the Scriptural text, and not be part of a flag-planting on some hill in the liturgy wars. Absolute best practice is to get and keep the people singing, and keep the liturgy tussles on the blogs where they belong.

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #60: I am not as persuaded as I once was of that interpretive tool being the universal widget that cuts the Gordian knot. I’ve grown more open to the idea that the tensions in the document are more providential than problematic, and that the familiarization of options to which most of the faithful are now stranger is more likely to give an experiential rather than theoretical foundation to a longer-term ongoing discernment, with resolution of one half-generation being revisited periodically.

  31. Bill deHaas

    Todd – that gets to my ovservation. Have experienced a parish disconnect – antiphons were introduced in latin sung by cantor and choir with the expectation that the assembly would sing also. No explanation give; took months for the assembly to try to sing some antiphons; the antiphons change weekly (not encouraging assembly participation); there is no cantor prep via the community; etc.

    Thus, what comes across is that propers/antiphons are the highest and best – anything less makes the ligurgy less. But, in order to do this, cantor/choir have to do it minimizing assembly participation. (thus, feels like FACP is compromised). In addition, usually antiphon is done followed by a humn – thus we have moved from a 4 hymn mass to a three antiphone/four hymn mass – don’t think that SC, Consilium, nor GIRM envisioned that development.

    Thought Fr. Ruff had stated once that the propers/antiphons still needed to be reformed after VII – this project has never been completed nor approved by Rome….so we have pre-VII antiphons that do not match the 3 year lectionary, reformed mass, etc.

    Like your: “….. not be part of a flag-planting on some hill in the liturgy wars.” That link you gave was amusing watching Kathy Pluth and Jeffrey Tucker show that – they didn’t understand the basic facts; second, that Kathy had been composing hymns for years for money (so, what is so bad about that) but now she would insert propers (because this is ideology at its best and she projected that the ROTR would set this in concrete within ten years – so much for her ideology and powers over the future).

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Bill deHaas – comment #61:
      Regarding the reform of the proper antiphons at Mass: in constructing the post-Vatican II Graduale Romanum they did a really good job, the best they could, with what was available to them from the tradition. Where they could they moved communion antiphons around or retrieved antiphons from the authentic medieval tradition, but they could only work with the available authentic antiphons. I think the judgment was that one wouldn’t go compose new melodies for new antiphon texts matching the lectionary because we’re not in the golden age of chant composition (7th or 8th century) and it would seem inappropriate or presumptuous for some master today (there are such qualified people around) to compose the necessary antiphons, which would mean that the majority were compositions of the postconciliar church.

      We have the same issue with the Antiphonale for the office – but here, a monk of Solesmes DID recently compose lots of new Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons that nicely tie into the 3-year cycle of Mass Gospel readings, and the results are very fine.

      I respect both decisions. Office antiphons, even for Ben and Mag, are generally shorter and more modest than Mass propers, even the communios which are short among the Mass propers. But I would also respect the position that they should go ahead and compose all the new Mass propers we need – What are we afraid of?, some might say.

      awr

      Reply
    2. Todd Flowerday

      @Bill deHaas – comment #61:

      The irony is that the antiphon-of-the-week solution touted by many reform2 folks is a mirror of the folk-ditty-of-the-week some parishes were subjected to in the 60’s.

      An interesting thing about our friend Kathy … I never understood why she was so attached to strophic hymnody. If the propers are so nifty, why doesn’t she compose texts in an antiphon + verse format? I’ve never been on good enough terms with her to get an answer on that. It goes against the creative human instinct to be so boxed in by metrical hymnody and propers or else.

      Reply
      1. Doug O'Neill

        It goes against the creative human instinct to be so boxed in by metrical hymnody and propers or else.

        On the contrary – historically, much creativity has emerged from working within, or expanding those boxes, rather than breaking out completely.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Doug O’Neill – comment #67:
        Except I’m not favoring a complete breakout. I’ve been advocating for the antiphon + verse structure, and for an expanded repertoire beyond the Psalter into canticles, the lyrical passages of the prophets and wisdom literature, and the Gospels.

      3. Doug O'Neill

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #68:
        Todd,

        Sorry – I didn’t mean to metaphorically suggest that your work breaks out of the box. I was merely picking up on a small part of your comment by suggesting that it is indeed possible to be creative within certain strictures – I think, for instance, of Bach fugues, or Beethoven sonatas, or Michelangelo’s sculpture. Actually, it’s impossible for us to completely break out of the box, because unlike God, we don’t create “ex nihilo”. Similarly, many who confine themselves to the boundaries of hymn or antiphon writing would argue that those limitations actually free the mind to be more creative, not less.

      4. Todd Flowerday

        @Doug O’Neill – comment #76:
        Thanks for the reply, Doug. I think there’s a danger in applying the secular mode of modern debate in these situations, namely the attempt to discredit a position by picking through the fine details. I think there’s a value in attending to the larger position an opponent presents. There’s a time for citation. There is also a time for looking to matters that move beyond any single reference or point of view.

        And on your last point, I agree. However, it seems disingenuous for a sonnet writer to diss the efforts of other lyricists just because it happens to be her preferred mode of art.

        Speaking for myself, I’ve been challenged for writing biblically-based songs for liturgy and musical theater. I simply don’t find much inspiration for writing instrumental pieces, jazz, or pop music, even though I every much like listening to and playing classical music, jazz, and the more alternative offerings in acoustic music. So as I’ve rather confined myself to writing sacred music, I sense you are preaching to the choir, and our difference is one of degree, not of the essentials.

      5. Ben Yanke

        @Doug O’Neill – comment #67:
        Luckily, the Mass isn’t about creative expression. It’s about worshiping God in the way He desires. It’s about Him, not us.

      6. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Ben Yanke – comment #70:
        Certainly the Mass has been a vehicle for creative expression throughout history. And what’s so wrong with creative expression? You use the term as if it were something bad.

      7. Doug O'Neill

        @Ben Yanke – comment #70:
        No, the Mass isn’t about creative expression, but there is certainly room for the creative expression of God’s people in that worship. That is in keeping with the Catholic interpretation of the Imago Dei. Creativity can manifest itself in something as basic as the interpretation of a quilisma within the official chant, or in other ways, and can be employed as part of communicating transcendent beauty.

      8. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        @Ben Yanke – comment #70:
        Ben, you’re getting roundly criticized for this comment, and rightly so.

        But first let me say, I commend you for your bravery in coming over here and continuing to put out your views, even when people clobber you for being one-sided and uninformed! Ah, the zeal of youth!

        To oppose human creativity and God who is to be worshipped, to say Mass is about God and not us, is pretty rotten theology. I sense you see huge problems in the church and are looking for a diagnosis and cure. This ain’t it. Opposing God and humanity is rather at odds with the whole Catholic sacramental imagination, Thomas’s “capax Dei,” Ireneaus’ glory of God in a human fully alive, and all the rest.

        How do you suppose we got from the simplicity of the ritual of the Last Supper to the elaborate dignity of pontifical High Mass if there weren’t lots of human creativity down through the centuries? Gothic cathedrals, Latin chant, the Pieta – sure looks like human creativity to me. I’m pretty sure God delights in all that.

        Pax,
        Fr. Anthony

      9. Todd Flowerday

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #82:
        Let me also echo Fr Anthony’s comment about your bravery and tenacity in dealing with us. We need more of that in young people, even if a fraction of them happen to promote reform2. Don’t ever allow yourself to be silenced, even by your allies.

  32. Richard Chonak

    The original questioner was asking, among other things: how often should the song at communion be eucharistic in nature? And I suppose the answer ought to be: not that often. The Church’s communion propers, most of the time, do not take the Eucharist itself as their theme. Instead, they may quote the Gospel or provide some other Scriptural reflection.

    The Notitiae quote confirms that point. Reading the Italian, one sees that Bugnini’s example of a less-than-ideal choice was to sing “Lauda Sion” on a saint’s day and not sing the proper text.

    Many parish musicians already know the value of choosing music that corresponds in some way to the readings. Perhaps they would find it helpful to also look at the proper texts for inspiration.

    Reply
  33. Bill deHaas

    Todd – one other point given Fr. Ruff’s posting above on *Liturgical Translations*. What appears to have happened with psalter, psalms, etc. and translation is that over the past 30 years we have a very diverse offerings – can’t one conclude that there is no one exact form of the antiphons? So, another inconsistency with pushing to make antiphons the be all?

    Reply
  34. Charles Culbreth

    Todd Flowerday : @Bill deHaas – comment #61: A.The irony is that the antiphon-of-the-week solution touted by many reform2 folks is a mirror of the folk-ditty-of-the-week some parishes were subjected to in the 60′s. B. An interesting thing about our friend Kathy … I never understood why she was so attached to strophic hymnody. If the propers are so nifty, why doesn’t she compose texts in an antiphon + verse format? I’ve never been on good enough terms with her to get an answer on that. C. It goes against the creative human instinct to be so boxed in by metrical hymnody and propers or else.

    A. Apples v. oranges, Todd. Besides, there is precious little anecdotal evidence extant to support your presumption that folkies in Baltimore like Wise, Repp and Miffleton were dreaming up weekly ditties (on mimeo’d sheets, yet) that somehow found the black-market turnpike to universal usage. The late sixties to early seventies was all tabula rasa, almost a wasteland of quiet desparaton. And I don’t recall that you would have had direct experience of that era in the first place. If anything, you should cite one of our heroes, Deiss, who imported his concocted Euro “ditties” via WLP/Paluch as a fore-runner of the antiphon style.
    B. Not only do I agree that applied discipline such as strophic poetry and hymnody when applied by disciplined aesthetes creates magnificent imagery and propulsion towards evangelism via liturgy. Kathy Pluth is, after all, a hymnist in the tradition of Routley or even Wren (on the opposite pole.) Why you’d want to call her out for that adherence escapes me, because you portray yourself, as do I, as a big tent Catholic. In baser terms, the hooks of metric strophody are just another manner inwhich composer/lyricists dwell and craft. If you’re aware of M.D. Ridge and Janet Sullivan Whitaker, they have a track record as supple as anyone’s I know, along with my guy, B. Hurd. So, are we left to assume that Ms. Pluth’s genre choice is disingenuous because of her CMAA association, which you mistakenly believe is in the selling Gregorian Propers only business?
    C. Are you likewise disposed to believe that the faux-rap that in some unfathomable capacity opened the so-calleed Urban Fusion Mass after a crescendo of recorded urban soundscapes (alarms, sirens, busses accelerating and the like at the LA RE conference, is an example of unbounded human creativity? I won’t even question its use not being found in any liturgical legislation, that’s irrelevant. But were I you, I’d be careful to note that liturgical narcissism has just as much if not more history in the last fifty years than those forms and musics that were “relegated” to office choirs.
    The sword cuts both ways.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Charles Culbreth – comment #69:
      Thanks for replying, Charles,

      A. Actually I did. It was one reason why I preferred to attend the organ Mass. It was also a criticism I remember hearing from the pastor of the Newman Center, urging the three folk groups in 1978-80 to get together and develop a stable repertoire across all Masses.

      B. Not sure what you’re getting after here. My criticism isn’t genre, but structure.

      C. I really am not getting this point. You’ve lost me totally.

      Reply
      1. Charles Culbreth

        Thanks, Todd-A. Understood, accepted. But your original point made a comparison of proper antiphon usage to practices in the late 60′s (and presumably) into the early seventies. The Newman pastor was no doubt responding /reacting to the emergent practices whose evolutionary lineage included the Baltimore writers and Fitzpatrick’s FEL hymnals, borrowed Prot. sources such as Kurt Kaiser, Bill Gaither, Jimmy Owen et al, the Charismatic Mvmnt. catalogues from Ann Arbor, and finally by your time line the SLJ’s, Dameans, Norbert/Weston, and early NALR folks. (None of this remniscense comes via Canedo’s book, I was there in Oakland.) Of course, a watershed moment occurs circa 79-81 with the Minnesotans and Hurd coming into wide popularity. We all know the rest. B. Your remark to Mr. O’Neill clarified the tension you observed. C. I’m referencing the (incredulous low mark, in my opinion,) LAREC Mass last week found on their website dubbed “The Urban Fusion Mass.” To be explained, it must be watched and witnessed. I cited it due to its dubious association with the idea that human creativity applied to serious and truly TRADITIONAL ritual will necessarily have a positive outcome. If our friend Paul Ford rises to defend its attributes on any other grounds besides congregational response, I’ll owe him and you dinner. Its contrivance was more bereft of humility than the debacle in Berlin with the Kenny G improv before B16. Whatever “inculturation” means in LA archdiocese, we’ve sold our soul to it.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Charles Culbreth – comment #79:
        Actually, we had a rather unique situation in the late 70’s. Three group directors working from a base of 50% Neither Silver Nor Gold + Earthen Vessels + Dwelling Place with a substrate of FEL. Each group “discovered” new liturgical influences: one, Marty Haugen and PAA, another Mike Joncas and NALR, another the apex of Weston Priory. Each group was pushing for an updated hymnal with it’s “own” stuff, and each would trot out a new song at preparation, sometimes at Communion each week to “make its case.” The pastor steered the groups to the responsorial psalm and the Mass ordinary–a weak part of the repertoire at the time.

        As for the rest, I have little patience for bad liturgy. I stand by the work I do with the people I serve. Not my fellow targets from the reform2 camp. My mode of operation in the liturgy wars is to triangulate and confound opponents and allies alike, don’t you know.

        Getting back to the thread, I think the way to go is faithfulness to GIRM 86, and keep inviting the people to sing. The Gregorian repertoire of Propers as a foundation is dead matter. Except with regard to structure and content.

        As for my indirect challenge to Kathy and other reform2 hymnographists: why don’t you compose texts for the antiphon + verse format? If nothing else, it will get people singing the final hymn and at the Hours more accustomed to the structure you’re aiming for.

  35. Ben Yanke

    Thus, what comes across is that propers/antiphons are the highest and best – anything less makes the ligurgy less. But, in order to do this, cantor/choir have to do it minimizing assembly participation. (thus, feels like FACP is compromised). In addition, usually antiphon is done followed by a humn – thus we have moved from a 4 hymn mass to a three antiphone/four hymn mass – don’t think that SC, Consilium, nor GIRM envisioned that development.

    Can we please start using the phrase “Active Participation” correctly? I think all those involved would do well to reflect on John Paul II’s teaching on what FCAP actually means:

    Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Ben Yanke – comment #71:
      Among others, I would take issue with your line of thinking here. SC 30 gives an explicit description of what active participation should look like in a reformed Roman Rite. In the passage you cite, Pope John Paul II describes “participation” in general. Active participation involves the assembly taking its part as guided by the rubrics of the Missal. In the topic of this thread, GIRM 86 describes a unity of voices. That presumes, possibly with too much optimism in some places, that what is interior to the worshiper is expressed on the outside.

      As for creative expression, check the source material. Psalms. Music. In a setting of art and architecture. We don’t sing settings of rubrics, canon law, or the praenotanda. God works and communicates through human artistic inspiration. My recommendation is to read what John Paul II wrote in his Letter to Artists.

      Please don’t bait and switch in this discussion. You can’t tout the beauty of chant and other traditional forms and discount the creativity that went into their composition. We don’t advocate for great music simply because “men” in Rome tell us to. We utilize great music because it is the result of composers submitting their creativity to the grace of God.

      Reply
    2. Bill deHaas

      @Ben Yanke – comment #71:
      Will go with what Todd responded – funny that you have to use one quote taken out of context and from a pope who may or may not have understood what VII and SC tried to reform.

      Examples of GIRM suggested silences:
      after each presider’s Let Us Pray – and how often does this happen in most parishes?
      after the readings?
      during the universal prayer?

      Don’t think that FCAP (in your words) meant that the assembly should sit or stand in silence especially when processing at the entrance or communion (if anything we have a challenge now to do this in the way SC/VII tried to reform it which are key times for the assembly to be singing; not be in silence listeing to a cantor or small choir sing an antiphon (because soneone puts the antiphon above and more important than the assembly singing together at key parts of the eucharist.)

      Reply
    3. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Ben Yanke – comment #71:
      Ben, you write as if there is ONE correct understanding of active participation and YOU have it. But it’s all rather more complicated and richer than that. Of course participation is inner and silent at times. But at other times – according to the teaching and directives of the church – it MUST be expressed in outward singing and activity. It’s both. So those who call for congregational singing, and cite the GIRM that calls for this at Communion, don’t have an incorrect understanding of active participation.
      awr

      Reply
  36. Clay Zambo

    Seeing the “Non Solum” review post caused me to wonder about this:

    I was told in a meeting not long ago that I’ve been starting the music for communion too soon. Local custom for years has been to begin playing VERY softly after the celebrant receives the Eucharist, continuing while the Eucharist is shared with the Extraordinary Ministers. Then, as all of them move to their stations, the communion processional begins.

    “No, that’s not how it is supposed to be done,” I was told. Instead, I should be playing soft instrumental music until most of the assembly have received, and THEN begin a hymn that continues until the celebrant resumes the presider’s chair.

    I can’t find any guidelines that indicate this procedure as a liturgical norm–and right now I’m not willing to fight City Hall over the matter–but I am wondering: did I miss something along the way? Have I been “doing it wrong” all these years, or does this seem like a matter of pastoral preference being presented as liturgical rule?

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Nathan Chase

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading