The campaign to fund the simple propers is making great progress. We are already one-third the way to the goal. I want to explain in more detail why I believe that this might be the most important project in the world of Catholic liturgy today. As incredible as it is to imagine, there is not a single book of sung English propers in print today that parish musicians in the ordinary form of Mass can use to sing the Mass instead of just sing various songs at Mass.
When this project is completed, we will at last have it, a full book of propers with Psalms that can suitably be sung at every single Catholic parish. We will give them all away for download. The copies we sell will be sold at direct cost so that way choirs can buy as many as they need, and make photocopies when they run out.
Before I continue, please listen to this entrance for All Saints, and, while you do, imagine this in your parish and consider how this would change things in the world in which you live.
Now consider the big picture. People commonly attend Catholic Mass with the expectation that they will hear chant. What they experience instead are a wide variety of songs with texts that are disconnected from the liturgical texts. This often shocks visitors, who wonder what happened to create this disjuncture between their inchoate expectations and the peculiar reality. When did the Catholics change to have music that sounds like contemporary Methodism or evangelicalism? What happened to Gregorian chant or at least its English equivalent?
It is a complicated story with deep roots but the source of the most immediate problem actually traces before the Second Vatican Council. In 1955, Pope Pius XII issued a document called Musicae Sacrae, and it is a fine document overall, one worth revisiting today and learning from.
However, very late in the document, he introduced a small idea that spun out of control over the years. He writes of how touched he is by hymn singing. “Sacred canticles, born as they are from the most profound depths of the people’s soul, deeply move the emotions and spirit and stir up pious sentiments,” he wrote. “When they are sung at religious rites by a great crowd of people singing as with one voice, they are powerful in raising the minds of the faithful to higher things.”
There is no doubt that he is correct here but there is a time and place for such hymns, and they were never intended to replace liturgical chant that is embedded in the ritual, as he will knew. One would never, for example, arbitrarily remove a text that pertains to the beginning of the Mass of the day, having been in place since the 8th century or earlier, with some new song which a text written by a 19th-century poet.
As a way of underscoring this, the Pope wrote that “such hymns cannot be used in Solemn High Masses without the express permission of the Holy See.” But then he added something: “at Masses that are not sung solemnly these hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators. They can help to make the faithful accompany the sacred services both mentally and vocally and to join their own piety to the prayers of the priest. This happens when these hymns are properly adapted to the individual parts of the Mass.”
Now, this is an interesting passage in many ways, but the practical manner in which this came to be applied could probably not have been anticipated. The core problem was that nearly all the Masses in the English speaking world apart from one Sunday Mass was what was called a Low Mass, meaning that it was spoken by the priest and without music for the Mass propers or the ordinary of the Mass. The Pope’s words gave permission to sing hymns during these Masses, and the times when they came to be sung were: entrance, offertory, communion, and recession (which has no Mass proper to be replaced). This gave official approval to what became known as the four-hymn sandwich. This was the steady diet of American Catholics until the Second Vatican Council.
Now we move to Chapter Two of this drama. Part of the driving force behind the liturgical reform of the Council was to move away from this strict high-Mass, low-Mass division and refashion the Mass structure to make every Mass a sung Mass. Vernacular hymnody had become so pervasive that they had nearly devoured the early hope of St. Pius X at the turn of the century. He had hoped for a Mass that was sung by new scholas and a chanting people. Instead we ended up with a quiet Mass dominated by a hymn-singing people even as choirs ignored Gregorian chant.
This is why the Council was absolutely emphatic that Gregorian chant must have pride of place in the Mass. The push for restructuring was to make possible more sung parts of the Mass, including Mass propers and the Mass ordinary. Composers got busy with experiments to make the transition possible.
Hopes were in the air in 1965 when the Church Music Association of America was forged out of the St. Gregory Society and the Society of St. Cecilia. These were new times with new energy behind beautiful Catholic music and an end to the problem of people as spectators and people as English-hymn singers to the neglect of the Mass itself. The CMAA was to lead the way.
I do not need to explain that the reality was close to the opposite and it has remained so ever since. The high hopes were completely dashed due to dramatic cultural shifts, terrible missteps in the implementation of reform, demographic factors, and a range of other upheavals that made the words of the Council itself appear to be a dead letter. The results are far worse that Pius XII could have ever imagined in 1955.
The history I’m referring to here is now forty years ago, and not that much has changed. However, there is a great movement afoot today to teach Latin propers to singers in a new generation. Many parishes have made the transition. The preconcilar rite is now authorized again and we can again here Gregorian chant in select parishes around the country. Workshops in Gregorian chant filled up months in advance.
But there is a problem. A vast gulf separates the vast majority of song-singing parishes from the chanting parishes. There is a grave lack of materials available that make a transition possible. It isn’t very easy to go from “Gather Us In” to “Dominus fortitudo plebis suae,” even among those singers who are fortunate enough to be in parishes were the pastor favors such a switch.
Even as of this writing, there is not a single book in print that I can hand a parish musician and say: “here is the music of the Roman Rite in English; use this to replace what you sing now.”. Not one single book offers the entrance, offertory, and communion antiphons in english with Psalms so that the Mass can again sound truly liturgical. So long as this persists, there will be little hope of changing this parishes to sacred music, and the gap that separates Gregorian parishes from praise-music parishes will grow and grow.
Now we come to Chapter Three and the propers of the Adam Bartlett, a musician in Pheonix, Arizona. He is writing chants that any parish can use with Psalms to cover the entire liturgical action. He writes them on four-line staffs so that people can get use to reading real chant manuscripts. They are intended to be sung without accompaniment so that singers can throw away their accompaniment crutches and use the instrument that God gave them.
The method here is brilliant in every way. The texts are modernized in the best sense without being politically corrected. The texts come from the Roman Gradual, the official music book of the Roman Rite. He preserves the mode of the original Gregorian so that we retain and re-enliven the sound and feel of the original Gregorian. There are 24 total melodic formulas that are used in total for the primary set of antiphons; one in each mode for each proper (8 for the Entrance, 8 for the Offertory and 8 for the Communion). In this way the melodies become intuitive and easily learned without the burden of having to learn a completely new melody each week.
In short, these pieces make it possible to go from what is toward the ideal. They offer the greatest hope we have in our time for doing the thing that must be done.
Now, someone might say: surely we can use these for every proper of the Mass every week! Well, you don’t have to. But when you need an entrance, offertory, or communion, you can have a book in your shelf that allows you to sing the propers on the spot. They are easy to learn and train scholas in how to chant. They also sound very beautiful and compelling.
How do they mix with the politics of parish life? To use them requires no efforts at changing the pastor’s mind about something fundamental (such as language), and they will not give rise to some strange resistance movement against them in the parish. They take the existing parish culture and move it toward something holy, beautiful, universal.
The plan is to give the complete book away to the entire world, for free download. We will also bind it and sell it with absolutely no profit. The cost to the purchaser will be identical to the cost of printing. This way it can achieve maximum distribution across the entire English-speaking world.
Maybe you think that you can’t afford to commission music for the Catholic Church. You can’t afford to be a benefactor of an artist. Well, that’s where the technology comes in. When our method of raising money here, you can give $5 or $50 or $500. For the price of a value meal at the local fast-food joint, you can partake in sponsorship of music that can completely change the way Catholics sing at Mass – not in just some parishes but all.
This way, when people come to Mass, they will hear chant and love it. Our parishes will again attract people rather than disappoint them and drive people away. We will be singing like Catholics and inspire this to continues because these provide the basis for future growth. This way, we can look forward to a brilliant future that is continuous with the best of our past. And make no mistake: what happens in the Catholic Church has a huge influence on the culture at large. Beauty in our Churches enlivens beauty in the world.
This is what your contribution can make possible. Please donate right now.
We're in, Jeffrey.
Hi,
I don't get it.
Why one would ever want to get English propers?
Don't we want a gregorian revival? Do we agree that the gregorian chant "should be given pride of place in liturgical services"? (SC 116).
How can we promote both the use of Latin and the use of English? These are opposite directions.
Please enlighten me!
Anon, the goal and ideal is Gregorian chant, but all parishes in the real world need tools for transitioning from one to the other. Otherwise, on a practical level, the gulf is just to wide.
Anon;
At this point, introducing the Gregorian Propers in my parish would be a certain way to gaurantee a long meeting with the Pastor and a possible slap-down, decreasing my influence in the overall direction of the music here.
But English Propers are a different story… to the PTB they are just "another musical style" and they don't even bring them up. I have been chanting the Communion Propers (in English) at almost every Mass (with the exception of the "Folk Group" Mass) for nearly a year now and although there have been many comments (favorable!) from parishioners, I have yet to hear them mentioned by the Pastor or priests except for once when we were talking about the choir going to communion and the Pastor mentioned that the "choir has plenty of time to go to communion while you sing that thing while we're distributing communion to the extraordinary ministers". I assure you… if we were using the Latin Propers, even though the melodies are nearly identical, it would have been noticed and probably stopped long ago.
It's not that the Pastor objects to Latin (he doesn't), but the certain complaints from the small, small number of troublemaking progs in the assembly would have forced him to take action. All they know is that Latin = Turn Back The Clock. SO don't give them the chance.
Jeffrey,
I am the former Schola Master for the former FSSP Apostolate in Toronto and currently I am Cantor at two different parishes so I am certainly qualified to speak on this and I agree fully with Chironomo.
At one parish, I have now implemented all three Propers in English and I am using those supplied here. Prior, I simply took the paper missalette and chanted to a psalm-tone the Entrance Antiphon immediately before the Processional Hymn and the Communion Antiphon as Father Communicated again as above in a Gregorian tone or from Bruce Ford's work or sometimes from the Gregorian Missal. Now, I am excursively using the Propers from here every week at Communion. I sing the Proper/Psalm and add a Glory to…and the Proper, then by this time about 80% are back in the pew and ready to sing. Father has let me "get away with it." About two months ago, I added the Offertory Antiphon followed by the Offertory Hymn. It works and so far, no bullets.
At the second parish, it will be more of struggle. I am new there and I did the Communion Proper my second week only to be scolded by the Pastor. All in time.
Dear Mr. Tucker,
What effect will the forthcoming new English Translation of the Roman Missal have on the Propers Project? Thank you.
Father Brandon Jones
It reinforces the case for chant and provides an opportunity for a paradigm shift. The translations that we are using here are wholly dignified and in keeping with the highest standards, and will fit well. They are licit too because the Gradual propers are untouched by the ICEL efforts.
It is essential to offer chant in English. Otherwise we are fighting for two causes: Latin & Chant. This makes it possible for those who are against returning to chant to use Latin as the reason for banning chanting..
I agree that there are definite reasons, musical alone, for singing in Latin, but by encouraging chanting in English we are opening door that otherwise would gleefully remain shut by those who wish to stick with a student friend calls, "minstrel music" at Mass.
And singing the propers in English awakens people to what is supposed to be sung making the use of hymns really out of place. And once they have become familiar to hearing them in English many will want to go further and hear them in Latin.
Possibly there will be a day when an antiphon on a simple chant will be heard in English but on repetition be in Latin.
Maybe the Graduale Simplex was not easy enough!
Adam's a miracle worker. Thanks!
They are licit too because the Gradual propers are untouched by the ICEL efforts.
While the promised grand unification of Graduale Romanum and Missal antiphon texts never occurred, there is significant overlap between the introit and communion antiphons in the Graduale and Missal (sadly the offertory antiphons are still MIA in the current Missal). Using an English translation different from the forthcoming Missal translation does seem at cross-purposes.
From the campaign web page:
The translation he uses is from the Roman Gradual. The propers will be stable through time, and belong to everyone forever.
One could easily misread this as saying that an authorized translation of the Roman Gradual is being used. What is the source of the translation?
Is CMAA planning to seek USCCB approval of the final collection, to satisfy GIRM 48, 74, and 87?
Any plans to set the Missal antiphons not found in the Roman Gradual? That would unquestionably fill a musical vacuum.
Greg, if you have those Missal proper texts for the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal, please forward them. Many people would be interested. Many controversies currently raging in the blogosphere could be settled.
USCCB approval would also be much welcome, but I hope that you do know that very little of the music currently used in parishes satisfies GIRM 48, and that these settings are not songs such as you find in Glory and Praise but rather tones rooted in Gregorian tonality.
Finally, regarding the text, they use modernized Douay-Rheims when possible and if you look at the sidebar, you can see that we have an open-source project to share all texts.
Dear Jeffrey,
I see two problems: Gregorian notation and the lack of an accompaniment. Even Solesmes admitted that their modern notation Liber and Graduale got the Chant into places it would otherwise not have been welcomed.
Talk to Dr. Paul Ford about how his "By Flowing Waters" was received, and about the requests he has had for an accompaniment edition.
I think the reaction of most congregations would be, "Is the organ broken?"
Solesmes and Our Lady of Gethsemani (sic) both use the organ.
Another point: unless one has a church with at least 3 seconds reverb when the room is comfortably FULL, unaccompanied chant is going to fall FLAT.
Finally, PLEASE don't use the tail-less "black dot" notation. I fancy that I'm a fairly good sight-reader in square and modern notes; I can't make heads or tails out of all those black dots. And choirs WILL read a white note as a half-note, not a whole note.
I LIKE the idea of retaining the modes of the Gregorian originals. I have done that in my English SATB fauxbourdon propers.
In Domino,
Bud Clark
San Diego CA USA
quilisma@cox.net
"Another point: unless one has a church with at least 3 seconds reverb when the room is comfortably FULL, unaccompanied chant is going to fall FLAT."
This is a point well taken, Bud. In my own parish we are lucky to have more than a one second reverb, and a small schola singing a cappella is… well, let me say it is very different from one singing in a lively space. So we conventionally sing with a very light and sparse organ accompaniment. I base this on how Fontgambault does their accompaniment. It never overpowers, but supports the voice. Therefore I do see the need for an accompaniment edition of this collection for those who aren't able to do the accompaniment on their own, looking at the square notes, as I do.
I would love to see some of your fauxbordon propers!
Also, Bud, remember that these are in the commons, meaning that anyone can take them and adapt them to any purpose. anyone is free to do a modern note edition or add accompaniments. There is no reason to make any final decisions on these matters. This edition just get the ball rolling.
Jeffrey, I am interested in the reason these compositions are "licit," as you stated.
Are these texts and tunes licit because they are exempt from the GIRM requirement, because they are covered by an existing approbation, or because everyone else is doing it?
Sorry, Greg. I had the intention of addressing your points the other day but never did. Here goes:
"While the promised grand unification of Graduale Romanum and Missal antiphon texts never occurred, there is significant overlap between the introit and communion antiphons in the Graduale and Missal (sadly the offertory antiphons are still MIA in the current Missal). Using an English translation different from the forthcoming Missal translation does seem at cross-purposes."
Believe me that I have followed this issue down to the minutest details, to the point of discussing it with Vox Clara, and even sending proposals to the CDW. Indeed there is overlap between Missal and Gradual when it comes to Entrance and Communion, but I think the overlap is close to 50%, not much more. I think that the biggest issue at play here is difference of textual style between the Gregorian Missal and the Roman Missal. I think that there is about a 50% overlap between Missal and Gradual for the Entrance and Communion, no more. I would consider doing these also for this project, but who knows when we will receive this final text. It is anyone’s guess.
“From the campaign web page: The translation he uses is from the Roman Gradual. The propers will be stable through time, and belong to everyone forever. One could easily misread this as saying that an authorized translation of the Roman Gradual is being used. What is the source of the translation?”
The source is the Gregorian Missal. The texts will be “stable through time” since there is no authorized translation of the Roman Gradual, and it doesn’t appear that there will be any time soon… and this comes from sources as authoritative as ICEL and Vox Clara. There is no requirement for an “approved” translation of the texts of the Roman Gradual, which is the first choice in text that ought to be sung in liturgy, according to the universal GIRM, although the U.S. adaptations place the Missal antiphons side by side with the Gradual texts (or “psalms” as the GIRM puts it).
“Is CMAA planning to seek USCCB approval of the final collection, to satisfy GIRM 48, 74, and 87?”
Yes, it will need to be, in order to satisfy the requirements of the GIRM that texts for singing be approved by the competent Diocesan bishop (the procedure currently used for commercial publishing houses such as GIA and OCP), although one could possibly interpret GIRM 48 to say that translations of the texts of the Roman Gradual need no approval since they are included in “another musical setting”. In this case, it is “non-liturgical texts” that need approval from the competent bishop.
“Any plans to set the Missal antiphons not found in the Roman Gradual? That would unquestionably fill a musical vacuum.”
Perhaps, although there is a pretty big musical vacuum present regarding the texts of the Roman Gradual. Universally, the texts of the Roman Missal are intended for recitation when there is no singing, while the texts of the Gradual are intended to be sung normatively. This is more in line with the intention of this project.
“Are these texts and tunes licit because they are exempt from the GIRM requirement, because they are covered by an existing approbation, or because everyone else is doing it?”
They are licit because they are complicit with the requirements of the GIRM. There is no requirement made that translations of the texts of the Roman Gradual be “approved”. The only texts that must be “approved” are those that fall under “alius cantus aptus”, and these are primarily non-liturgical texts.
Indeed virtually no one is doing that this project is doing! Which is why it is such an important project. Most people are singing non-liturgical texts at the processions which are approved in a blanket manner by the archbishops of either Chicago or Portland. Much of what is sung here commonly does not even get than approval, or at least in my diocese this is the case.
This is a great idea and fills a practical need (simple English Propers using the ICEL Missal texts). While I will always prefer the Latin chants of the Graduale Romanum, the practical reality is that the vernacular Mass is here to stay, and English propers would be better than the array of hymnody commonly used today. Some of the existing attempts at English Propers are commendable, but I have issues with the text not matching the Missal. The American Gradual is laudable for its efforts, but these more simple Propers fill a different need. I foresee these being used not only as a bridge, but in some cases, even more indefintely. For example, my preference for a vernacular Mass would be to sing the Ordinary in Latin/Greek, and perhaps the Offertory and Communio in Latin, but the Introit, Gradual and Alleluia in English. In any event, this is a good and worthwhile project and its results will be used. Thank you for your leadership.
I should have said ICEL Missal texts or Roman Gradual texts – in either case, they would be suitable; though I think it is sometimes confusing to the more attentive members of the congregation that the text does not match their missals. Another opportunity for education.
If the Missal is in English, then the Gregorian chant should be in English also. I attend Mass at a Trappist monastery, and they use English throughout, except for the Offertory occasionally, when they sing from the Liber Usualis.