Jeff will make a great priest. Give him my deepest regards. When he led prayer in class once, I envisioned him leading a congregation. Jeff has stepped up and can step up more. God bless you, Jeff.

Have a wonderful experience at the Institute. You will be doubly blessed. (Singing is praying twice.)

Is the Chant Institute emphasizing assembly participation? Just kidding. But I can think of another poster who would be hung up on whether or not everyone was singing everything. It's interesting how a laudable goal of active participation should become a weapon to punish and hurt those who perform chant and polyphony.

If I am the poster to which Mark P refers --
I object to his comments. If I'm not, then I still object.

I've never said everyone has to sing everything.

But I think there is lots of room to ask questions about how any piece of music functions to enhance communal prayer, especially when that piece of music is in a language not familiar to
the assembly whose prayer it is supposed to serve.

For example, consider the Glory to God a/k/a Gloria. Third edition of the GIRM says, at number
53, "The Gloria is intoned by the priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir
alone. If not sung, it is to be recited either by all together or by two parts of the congregation
responding one to the other."

So, following the well-established principle that the options discussed first in these documents
are the ones to be preferred, what does this tell us? Can the choir sing the Gloria on occasion in a setting too complex for the assembly? Sure. But not every Sunday. If a Latin chant Gloria is
used on a regular basis, would it be preferable to use a fairly simple one, and one that is available in modern musical notation, such as the setting in Ritual Song and in Gather Comprehensive 2nd edition–credit due to GIA for this! Yup. Absolutely.

The spirit of the GIRM is that the people sing the Gloria most of the time. The middle option, "people alternately with the choir," is one that has been admirably adopted by contemporary
composers whose names are often taken in vain here.

I think the Glory to God is a great place to honor the request that we keep Latin chant alive,
among the people, as it is a fixed part of the Mass and so most folks will have a general idea
what they are praying.

The opposite of this is our new pastor. I am grateful that he understands that the Easter and
Pentecost sequences are integral (unlike his immediate predecessor, who insisted they were
optional), but I don't think Latin was the best choice. I prefer the setting of the Easter sequence with the combined assembly refrain "Victimae pascale Laudes, to the Paschal Lamb give praise." and the words in whatever modern language the largest part of the assembly can comprehend.

We had an interesting experience in the parish this Lent with the Sanctus in Latin. Not only did most of the people not sing, the assembly didn't even realize it was time to kneel down when the Sanctus finished. In retrospect, preparation and catechesis were needed. We also should have realized earlier that this is not a time when our folks like to open hymnals, so the words and notes needed to be on the participation aid, which we did after a few weeks. But participation never was solid.

If singing the greeting and the preface dialogue are going to work, then the assembly has to be
able to sing back. Whatever work and preparation that requires. These dialogues can't be a good
time for the choir to substitute for the assembly. Ditto for making sure the people can sing a decent Amen in response to a presidential prayer. There's little point to presider chant of these things if the assembly can't respond in kind. That's why I say emphasizing only presider and choir in this conversation is not sufficient.

And Mark, I'm really tempted to blast you for the use of the word perform in
reference to music during liturgy. There's a place for concerts of Mozart's Requiem, but I don't think it's during worship.

"following the well-established principle that the options discussed first in these documents
are the ones to be preferred, what does this tell us? Can the choir sing the Gloria on occasion in a setting too complex for the assembly? Sure. But not every Sunday."

So following these principles, you would also object to the deplorable practice of habitually having the assembly sing at virtually every Communion?
And it's all right to sing a hymn once in a while for the entrance, but not every Sunday, it should be discouraged since the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is the preferred option?

Give Father Kirch my congratulations. He's a good man who will make a very good priest.

For the points we're talking about, my reading of the3rd (1975) and 4th (2000) editions of the
GIRM is that the slight changes in the text do not reflect any major changes in practice.

Please note that I would never (in public discussion, anyway) call an approved option deplorable. I read that as sarcasm, though it's hard to infer correctly over the internet.

Our aisle is too long for one antiphon to accompany the procession, which the GIRM indicates as the major work of the entrance singing at paragraph 37b, but then there are other purposes in paragraph 47.

Like so many church documents prepared by committee, the GIRM isn't completely consistent.
Both GIRMs mention unity as a goal of the singing at entrance and communion, the communion
section saying that the unity of our voices reflects our unity in spirit. So, the GIRM seems to be saying the people are all singing at these points. For communion, from another part of the
GIRMs, everyone in the assembly is to stand until all have received communion, which makes
little sense, in my experience, if people are not singing. The practical compromise of having the
people sing the refrain and the choir or cantor singing the verses, which seems to happen in a lot
of places even if the people are invited to sing the verses.

The preference for psalms at entrance, presentation of gifts, and communion in both GIRMs is worth discussing. It hasn't been honored, and shouting more loudly that it should be isn't going to change things. More work, more persuasion, more catechesis of everybody.

I wish the document distinguished more clearly between Sunday/Solemnity liturgy and other
weekdays, but it's not always a pastorally focused document. The last sentence of paragraphs 47 and 87 describes our parish's weekday practice–we the people used to say the entrance antiphon while the priest and server entered, and we still say the communion antiphon while the priest partakes of the Precious Blood. But I don't think it is generally fitting not to have singing during communion at a Sunday or Solemnity Liturgy. The practice of having no music at the earliest Sunday Morning Mass is something I would label deplorable.

I don't mind at all when people disagree with me, but I do mind the tone of the comments,
especially in contrast to the tone of the comments to Father Keyes.

Where all these Latin chants are going to fit into a parish liturgy is worth discussing. The Gloria and the acclamation are the easiest.

Another custom that we can discuss is the "Communion Meditation" often grabbed as a place for a soloist to do her stuff or for the choir to show off. Paragraph 88, and the corresponding section of the 1975 GIRM, indicate that if something is sung after all have received communion, it is sung by all of us. Not an option to add a chant piece here.

from the 2000 GIRM:

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.

If there is no singing at the entrance, the antiphon in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector; otherwise, it is recited by the priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation....

74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory chant... which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance chant (cf. above, no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.

86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its
purpose is to express the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices,
to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the "communitarian" nature of the
procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being
administered to the faithful. If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the
Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.

Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.

87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion
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 United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in
responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86
above. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.

If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited
either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.

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

Sorry, Maureen, you're right, it is difficult to discern the tone of a post. I meant the word "deplorable" humorously, and obviously, it wasn't.
My apologies.

In defense of those early morning "silent" masses (which we don't have, I hasten to add,) I have discovered that around the country they are a favorite of "serious" musicians who cannot bear the typical music at many parishes. (I've only found even bad music "unbearable" several times, and then it was always literally a matter of pain because of excessive volume.)

The trouble is that TPTB often don't seem to realize that the proper remedy for these music-less liturgies is NOT to add four songs.

Incidentally, I find this -- "Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease," somewhat cryptic if one assumes every soul in the building is meant to be a "singer."