American Novus Ordo liturgies are usually quite sloppy, almost intentionally so. It's the ritual/ceremonial side of 'Why Catholics Can't Sing'. The tradition is one of extreme liturgical minimalism--what many might call the Low Mass culture. As a result, there is no vocabulary of ritual action and ordering of the sort specified in Fortescue et al. I find among many US priests--even those considered liturgically astute--a palpable aversion to careful and detailed review of liturgical details. For instance, I am accustomed as a parish musician to no more than 30 minutes' planning/coordination time with any other liturgical 'officer' for all of the ceremonies of Holy Week. Thirty minutes for hours of complex liturgies whose detailed leaflets I prepare. Christmas usually gets no more than 15 minutes. I am not exagerating. Now don't get me wrong: I think that every fraction of a second spent in a 'worship' or 'liturgy' committee meeting is an affront to the faith. But the unwillingness of the clergy to even remotely tell each other what to do liturgically leaves us with liturgies like this one where the basic aesthetic of a parish liturgy is bent and stretched to fit a grand occasion and setting.

DBP is assuredly correct in his assessment of American Catholic priests vis a vis liturgical planning and care. (And, I have heard that it is [if this were possible] worse in Europe!) As a one-time Anglican who is currently (and happily) Anglican Use Catholic, I continue to be perplexed that the concept or reality of 'high church' does not exist in the Catholic church. There is nothing but a pervasive, leaden and tawdry 'low church' mentality. It's even worse than low church, because low church usually is rather dignified even in the absence of high ritual and ceremony. The only places which are exceptions to this state of things would be SOME (but certainly not all) monastic houses. In the Anglican tradition (at its best) many parish churches and cathedrals have parish customaries in which the liturgical tradition is recorded and continued without reference to the whims of a new pastor or some visiting priest who thinks he owns the mass. The liturgy and its ceremonial, and the musical tradition are, thus, carefully guarded and preserved. I am literally astonished at the liturgical chaos which Catholics either insist on or meekly stomach.

One can readily find excellent liturgies wherever the EF/Tridentine Mass is celebrated as the principal parish liturgy.

Professor William Mahrt noted at the CMAA Colloquium that he looks to British (Anglican) cathedrals as models for high ceremonial/ritual and musical standards.

interesting thread. The whole half-empty, half-full issue we will be dealing with for a long time.

The ceremony is being repeated on EWTN starting at midnight ET (Saturday night).

According to reports on the 'net, the retired Archbishop of Louisville Thomas Kelly, OP, agreed to preside at the last minute, in place of Cdl. Canizares who was unable to attend -- due, it is said, to "visa problems" (what on earth?).

Probably Abp. Kelly has ordained bishops several times in his career, but it is possible that this late change may have complicated things.

I say with those who prefer the Usus Antiquior, that I love it. But I love the Novus Ordo equally (and the Sarum Use more). I love Latin very much. But I love (literate) English equally and would give to all these equal measure in the Church's liturgical life. I love Gregorian chant, but am greatly pleased that there are polyphony, modern anthems, hymnody and Anglican chant. (I am not greatly pleased that there are certain 'other musics'.) The problem with the NO is not one sui generis, but, rather, the varieties of kitchs and downright dumbnesses with which it is celebrated in the great majority of situations. By the application of but a little imagination one could realise that the Novus Ordo in the hands of some very high Anglicans (preferably, Anglican Use Catholics) would come out with an entirely more Catholic aesthesis, a far more sensible Catholic ethos than that which results from its celebration by 98% of Roman Rite Catholics. It would be an utterly different animal e'en though the ingredients were the same.
DBP mentioned above that Dr Mahrt's influences were English Anglican and Catholic cathedrals and that they should be models for us. Small wonder, since the English have had five centuries to develop an hieratic English liturgical language together with a particular English Catholic ethos (and, a treasury beyond exemplary of English church music by a class of church musicians who continue to bless us with their work). The American Church (predictably?) set out deliberately on the course of dynamic equivalence and a mundane language which could never be confused with that of any other church's language. The result is the most artless liturgical language in the history of all religions. IWHBNI (pace, Aristotle) something could have been learned from those who had trod the vernacular path and had aquired a respectable ethos along the way. But it was not to be. The only things that were imported were junk. What, pray, ever put it into a guitarist's mind (or anyone else's) that he was a church musician??????????????? And, by what wizardry do people sit enthralled with his efforts????? We might well conclude that it takes Catholics to keep the Faith, but Anglicans to sing His praises. The two together would be 'heaven on earth'.

Ken, one reason your "venting" generated a strong response from me was your reference to "scandal." That's not just venting. It's accusatory, and ecclesially serious. Frankly I think you should take it back or edit it out of your remarks.

I haven't had the occasion to watch the video. Two questions-
Was Dr. Latona's choir the choir in question?
Was the cantor in question Mrs. Brubaker (of Leo Nestor's tenure era) or the younger soprano of recent years?

I assumed so. But I agree with your assessment of the issue of collegiality and charity. We cannot afford to even put one cell of our pinky toe into the cesspool of self-righteousness.

chonak - THANK YOU for expressing exactly my feelings and thoughts on the subject of "scandal." I couldn't have said it any better. I am not looking to be self-righteous. I merely call attention to the fact that everyone in the Church has an obligation and responsibility to strive for excellence; regardless of their ministry or ecclesiastical role.

I have been a choirmaster and organist for over 40 years (in both cathedrals and parishes of all kinds), as well as a professional concert violist, composer and teacher from K to college. I have two earned doctorates, attended several major universities, colleges and music schools and even at one time was groomed to sing at the NYC MET. In addition to studying with Bernstein, Ozawa, Sir Colin Davis, Sir David Willcocks and Sir Guest Guest, to name a few, I have trained and directed many musical ensembles both volunteer and professional. So, I am no stranger to music - including sacred music.

If the major Catholic and Anglican cathedrals, chapels, schools, collegiate institutions and oratories of the UK can find the time to rehearse, practice and present Masses of excellence that are, and come across on a broadcast, as being well done and an inspiration, then why can't we here in the USA?

My goal and spirit is NOT one of accusation, non-collegiality nor a lack of charity, but rather a call to a higher purpose from the heart in expressing a sincere love toward worship and adoration of Our Lord concerning the best within ourselves. After all, isn't that what we, in part, are all about here through the CMAA? "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" in a spirit of love which I am trying, however humbly and inadequately, to express for our mutual meditation and thoughtfulness.

Chonak,

What failings were there, again, in the dignity of the liturgy?

Ken,

I think it's great that you play and sing in the liturgy according to a higher purpose from the heart, worshipping God. And yet it IS accusatory to question whether others are doing so. Discernment is the task of the moment. The heavy-handed critiques, the "venting" that is so easy to do--these are not discernment.

As a music director I have to criticize others daily--it's a big part of the job to exhort people to do their best for God. But there are ways and means to do this. First, be fair. Know what is actually going on; see and listen. Then think about what you are going to say, with a view to making lasting change. Then speak.

I think that with the ordination of this Archbishop we've really turned a corner. For those of us who want to work for the dignity of the liturgy some of the frustrating roadblocks of the last decades will be very quickly removed. I think it's an exciting time, and that it calls for the honest recognition of every good.

I didn't see or hear the ordination, so I can't make any critical comments about it. However, if one wishes to make any points on the ignorance of the hierarchy and priests concerning liturgy and the traditions of the Church, there's plenty of material to work with.

Liturgy, as practiced in many places in the U.S., reminds me of a story I heard some time ago. It seems that in the early 1930's some Russian bishops decided to hold a Divine Liturgy. By this time, they were mostly government appointees and agents, and they had no idea how to proceed. They had to get out the books and study what a liturgy should be like, since they had no training or experience in it.

After the U.S. revolution in the Church following Vatican II, conditions have often not been significantly better here. The fact the CMAA is fighting what has been a long, uphill battle, is proof of the lack of education and training in things liturgical in the seminaries. Yes, it's getting better, but it still has a long way to go. We can't let ourselves get discouraged, although the temptation is certainly strong.

By the way, I also remember reading that while the Bolsheviks were taking over Russia, the Russian hierarchy was busy disputing liturgical colors. U.S. bishops, in the aftermath of Vatican II, seem to have been equally immersed in irrelevant fiddling while the city burned.

Also, I have never understood the post-Vatican II mass addition of, "death by soprano cantor." While it is certainly a painful way to go, perhaps it's supposed to be penitential. ;-) I can find no other valid reason for inflicting that kind of suffering on the congregation.

Ken, I'm very sympathetic with what you wrote above. So much of this depends on our vantage point. I looked at the program and saw the Sanctus and plunged into a kind of despair. Will we will ever undo the harm that grows from the radical democratization of this important song? I could have easily, on the right day and in the right (or wrong) mood, writing a scathing piece on that subject. At the same time, I've also learned that so much more comes out of emphasizing the steps in the right direction. This accomplishes more over the long run -- and I'm preaching to myself here. I mean, I've written my fair share of scathing articles over the years!

Jeffrey, I was thinking you might have a reaction to the Amen as well. Not that it's as large a controversy as the congregational Sanctus.

Where's the program for this? I haven't been able to find it, and have no clue what's being discussed.

Here's a link to the program: http://www.nationalshrine.com/atf/cf/{B0534716-4524-407D-A065-B68C4BFCB4BE}/DiNoia Ordination FINAL draft.pdf

So true Gavin!

Although I agree with Heath that we're speaking on the micro-level now, I do think the question of the congregational Sanctus is worth addressing. At the Ordination I did feel distracted by the Proulx Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, and Amen. Musically these pieces seemed out of place and lesser in quality, in context.

The moment of the Sanctus should be a high point in every way, I think. The music should elevate: it should be so sublimely rational that after years of singing and studying it, the music itself could continue to teach about the meaning of the words.

Even among chants this kind of rationality varies by degree. Credo I is, so I understand, much richer than Credo III, for example.

Compared to other English, congregational settings, the Proulx Mass is of course excellent. But it still seems to be a much lower form of musical discourse than a chant or classical polyphony setting. It doesn't require the elevation of the mind, because the composer has worked very hard to make it easy. In a manner of speaking, it has already been brought down to earth.

Liturgically, the congregational Sanctus deflates the moment. The Sanctus should be lifting us up to sing with the angels and saints and the whole company of heaven, but instead we insist that the angels and saints sing at our level. This "lowering" has theological and spiritual consequences. It prevents us, at the privileged moment for doing so, from "lifting up our hearts." It's not as though anyone would ever deliberately say to the angels, "lower your hearts," but the congregational Sanctus does seem to make that request.

At the CMAA Colloquium I only sang during one Sanctus in the whole week, but I participated in the singing of the Sanctus seven times. I didn't feel left out because the music was in itself very beautiful and engaging. I preferred that experience to the experience of singing the Proulx Sanctus at the Ordination.

Well, there is a more common choice, in waltz time...

Thank you Kathy for a good explanation of the Sanctus. I appreciate healthy criticisms from which we can learn to improve.
And thank you Ken for starting the thread. ( learning a lot.) Sometimes we can all be so frustrated and just want to complain to someone, because we have higher expectation. But we keep go on. And God will give us the wisdom and strength to those who ask.

Starting new thread re.: Setting the Sanctus

Thank you, Charles. You expressed my thoughts better than I would have done. The Sanctus is surely for the congregation to sing.The day I hear a Byrd setting being sung by the congregation is the day I'll know I have departed this life!

Doonna

And another perhaps more significant opinion:

My former Münster colleague and friend E. J. Lengeling has said, if one understands the Sanctus as an authentic part for the congregation celebrat­ing Mass, “then this not only leads to compelling conclusions for new musi­cal settings, but also results in vetoes for most of the Gregorian and for all the polyphonic versions since they exclude the people from singing and do not take the character of acclamation into account.” With all due respect for the eminent liturgist, his opinion shows that even experts can be wide of the mark. First of all, mistrust is always in order when a large part of the liv­ing history has to be thrown onto the garbage dump of discarded misunder­standings. This is all the more true for the Christian liturgy, which lives from the continuity and inner unity of the history of religious prayer. In fact, the assertion that the acclamatory character can be attended to only by the con­gregation is completely unfounded. In the entire liturgical tradition of the East and the West, the Preface always closes with the reference to the heav­enly liturgy and invites the assembled congregation to join in the acclama­tion of the heavenly choirs. The end of the Preface in particular has had a decisive influence on the iconography of the Majestas Domini, which was the point of departure for my remarks. Compared to the biblical basis of the Sanctus in Isaiah 6, there are three new accents in the liturgical text. The scene is no longer the Temple in Jerusalem, as in Isaiah, but heaven, which opens itself up to the earth in mystery. For this reason it is no longer just the seraphim who are exulting, but all the hosts of heaven in whose acclamation the whole Church, redeemed humanity, can sing in unison because of Christ, who connects heaven and earth with each other. Finally, from there the Sanctus has been transferred from the “he”-form to the “you”-form: heaven and earth are full of your glory. The “Hosanna,” originally a cry for help, thus becomes a song of praise. Whoever does not pay attention to the mystery character and cosmic character of the invitation to sing in unison with the praise of the heavenly choirs has already missed the point of the whole thing. This unison can occur in a variety of ways, and it always has to do with being representative of or standing in for others. The congregation assembled in one place opens into the whole. It also repre­sents those who are absent and unites itself with those who are far and near. If the congregation has a choir that can draw it into cosmic praise and into the open expanse of heaven and earth more powerfully than its own stam­mering, then the representative function of the choir is at this moment par­ticularly appropriate. Through the choir a greater transparency to the praise of the angels and therefore a more profound, interior joining in with their singing are bestowed than a congregation’s own acclamation and song would be capable of doing in many places…. Does it not do us good, before we set off into the center of the mystery, to encounter a short time of filled silence in which the choir calms us interiorly, leading each one of us into silent prayer and thus into a union that can occur only on the inside? Must we not relearn this silent, inner co-praying with each other and with the angels and saints, the living and the dead, and with Christ himself? This way the words of the Canon do not become worn-out expressions that we then in vain attempt to substitute with ever newly assembled phrases, phrases which conceal the absence of the real inner event of the liturgy, the departure from human speech into being touched by the eternal. Lengeling’s veto, which has been repeated by many others, is meaning­less. The choral Sanctus has its justification even after the Second Vatican Council. [A New Song for the Lord, (NY: Crossroad, 1995) pp. 141-142]

I believe we are going through a lot of canon lawyer and liturgist opinions, to explain around something that is both clear and simple.

Article 168 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
and article 216 of the introduction to the Missal 2000
read: "The preface is said by the principal celebrant alone;
the Sanctus is sung or recited by all the concelebrants
with the congregation and the choir."

That's what is says, and that's what it means. It doesn't say that from time to time, or on special occasions, you can't do something else. But the above is to be the norm. I believe the Church is infinitely reasonable in what it asks us to do. It's the complicating and confounding of what it asks, that leads to abuses by both "traditionalists" and "progressives." I hate those words. One could be, I suppose a traditional progressive, or a progressive traditionalist, don't you think? ;-) What I mean is, that people on the extremes can go to extremes, and often do. It is possible to teach a congregation to sing many things, if you work at it enough.

I agree, Gavin. The Sanctus can be both or either, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps you can give up those 4-letter words for next Lent? ;-)