Several years ago I wrote an article that posed the question “What exactly is meant by alius cantus aptus” as it appears in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the GIRM. It is an important question to ask because very nearly the entirety of the musical selections proffered for use in liturgy by the major music publishers and accepted and generally advocated by unknowing parish musicians and clergy fall into the category of alius cantus aptus, a term which had been translated rather loosely as “other suitable song”. I posted that article below as a reference, and if you are at all intrigued by where this is going now, I would urge you to scroll down to the next post and read The Alius Cantus Aptus: What does it really mean?
A lot of water has flooded under the bridge since that time, but little by little there have been steps taken to address the very glaring conflict between what music is actually required by the liturgy and what music seems to be permitted by the particular law in the GIRM pertaining to that music. For review purposes, let’s take a look at the current (2003) version of the GIRM and what it says:
47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.
48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
The passages in question are options #3 and #4 in par.48. Both of these seem to imply that the “song” that might be used is something quite different from the Proper chants indicated in the first two options, option 4 being the most vague, indicating merely “a suitable liturgical song”. Enough cannot be said about the effect that this option has had on liturgical music as it has been practiced in parishes for the past 45 years. The wording of option 4 seems to allow just about anything to be used in place of the designated Proper chants indicated in the first two options. And as a result, in most parishes one is likely to hear anything BUT the actual Proper chants. This paragraph is also of particular importance because of later passages in the GIRM that refer back to it, specifically those concerning the Offertory Chant and the Communion Chant, both of which are indicate as having the same options as in #48.
There has been a considerable interest in the re-introduction of the Propers for the past several years. The USCCB document on liturgical music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Catholic Worship spends a considerable amount of time on the issue of the Propers and their use, going so far as to say:
“The assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Proper of the Mass as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.”72 When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended.
At the time this document was issued (2006) this seemed like an unusual thing to suggest given the predominance of songs unrelated to the Propers in use, and also the lack of any accessible resources for the Proper chants for most parishes. Many wondered how such a suggestion could be made seriously while the counter-suggestive option #4 remained in the GIRM. As long as the “other suitable song” was an option, it was likely to remain the option of choice.
And so it is with great surprise, relief and joy that it can now be confirmed that the issue has been given the attention it so greatly deserves, and the nearly 45 year conflict has been resolved. As of Advent of 2011, the corresponding passage in the new GIRM will read as follows:
47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.
48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduate Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
Not only has the word “song” been replaced by “chant, but that chant designated in option 4 must be suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year. In and of itself, this would seem to preclude much of the musical repertoire currently in use, implying fixed texts for specific days or seasons as is the case in the Graduale. Such a body of texts was indicated as an integral part of the new translation of the Missal, as indicated in LA par.108. Although this project has not yet been undertaken , and I really do think it is a matter of yet, it’s easy to envision what form this may take, heading towards a vernacular Graduale along the lines of Adam Bartlett’s Simple English Propers or the Simple Choral Graduale of Richard Rice. I find it significant that it is given as an option that these selections may be sung by the choir alone, indicating that there is no specific requirement for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion chants to be sung by the assembly.
Jeffrey Tucker has discussed this issue, albeit from a different perspective, at the Chant Café. I join him in his excitement over this development and in his prediction that the days are numbered for the use of unrelated songs as substitutes for the Proper chants of the Mass. I also agree with his assessment that those who promote the use of “other songs” in place of the actual Mass texts will continue to do so, even if they are now in opposition to the GIRM… a document which those same individuals readily point to as the single authoritative document governing liturgical practices. I would add that they are also in opposition to the USCCB document Sing to the Lord, the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis and, if one considers the source of par.48 of the GIRM… they are also in opposition to Sacramentum Caritatis.
Not that it will matter to them… obviously “Gather Us In” is a liturgical chant suited to the action. Of course, and Glory and Praise is practically the same as the Graduale Simplex….
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Don't get your hopes up. Under this reasoning, polyphonic propers are no longer permitted.
Which is but one of many clues that the translation shift was not as grand as some have portrayed it.
Liam;
I think that polyphonic Propers, for those who might desire them, would certainly fall under option "A" as another musical setting of the Antiphon from the Graduale. They could also, I suppose, be a setting of the Antiphon from another book of Antiphons duly approved as described in the second option.
Ah, but all of the choices are qualified by the antecedent "Chant", so if you are reading "chant" restrictively in one place, you need to be consistent....
Liam;
No, not really. There is no qualifying antecedent in either options A or B. The "cantus" issue only arises in the last two options since A and B specify the source of the Antiphon as the Graduale Romanum or the Simplex correspondingly.
Option A:
(1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting.
The Antiphon is a TEXT. Option one designates the Antiphon (text) as given in the Graduale (or the Missal) can be used either as set to music there (that would be a chant) or in another setting (polyphonic, choral, etc..).
There's nothing there that would be inconsistent with insisting that options 3 & 4 refer to liturgical chants as well. One might (correctly) argue that options 3 & 4 could not refer to polyphonic propers, but then again they wouldn't need to.
Frankly I'm a bit perplexed by this whole issue since, IMHO, the "alius cantus aptus" never meant to refer to settings outside of the realm of the propers. The use of the proper antiphon text or antiphon and psalm as given in the Graduale is what makes the "cantus" an "aptus" one for use in the liturgy.
Chironomo:
Um, no. You start too late in the quotation. All of the options are predicated upon the phrase "Entrance Chant"....
Ahh.. I see what you're getting at. Since they call the Entrance Antiphon the Entrance Chant at that point, everything following has to be actual Gregorian chant, and not polyphony. Is that what you're basing this on?
Not that I think it's a bad idea...
I am basing the hermeneutic you and Jeffrey and fans have chosen to interpret the English word "chant" in a restrictive way. If you interpret restrictively in the options list as you have done, it's illogical to suddenly interpret it different in what precedes it.
It's much more plausible that some clerk, with an addled LA hat, did a search and replace without thinking through the logic of the consequences of doing so. Which has characterized the "correction" phase of this translation; we've seen over and over problems of this sort.
There is one good change with the new translation of this provision: the reference to appropriateness for liturgical action, occasion and season, et cet. Any decent liturgist from across the spectrum already thinks in those terms, anyway, and those who don't will probably continue to ignore the notion, sad to say.
But, otherwise, I think this is not even a minor deal, even when all is said and done. This is not the Red Sea, let alone Canaan.
The current GIRM uses the same language of "Entrance Chant," "Offertory Chant" etc, and yet speaks of "songs" that are allowed (and of course non-chant songs have been allowed). So clearly "Entrance Chant" has not ever meant in the post Vatican II era a chant and nothing else.
Chironomo,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have "Gather Us In" planned for Mass later this summer?
Anon on july 22...
LOL. That's a very long story, and one which will be told (perhaps here) soon enough. I can assure you it was not my choice. If you look at some of the other choices coming up on my planner you might get the picture.
Post a Comment