• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Did These Public Statements by Father Gelineau Cross the Threshold From Folly to Sin?

Jeff Ostrowski · February 26, 2025

HERE IS MUCH I don’t understand about the world. For instance, many Catholics who—as far as I can tell—genuinely take their faith seriously often praise television shows and movies containing immorality: scenes with pornography; scenes which glorify taking the Lord’s Name in vain; scenes which promote immoral behavior (witchcraft, crystals, ouija boards, etc.); and scenes which seek to “normalize” crude, obscene, and smutty language—although they might technically avoid graphic acts against the 6th Commandment. I don’t claim to be an expert on what constitutes sinful behavior, and the internet seems particularly unsuitable for such discussions. Nevertheless, such things leave me scratching my head.

Crossing The Threshold • In a moment, I will bring up several reprehensible statements from a book by Father Joseph Gelineau (Chant Et Musique Dans Le Culte Chrétien) published in 1962. When it comes to the question of sin: Are we allowed to say in public absolutely anything we want about sacred traditions? Or can harmful, irresponsible, and foolish statements cross the threshold into the realm of sin? Today I will not accuse Father Gelineau of sin, because I (myself) don’t want to potentially commit sin. Nevertheless, certain statements by Father Gelineau are so foolhardy they seem to go beyond mere doltishness. The amount of time Gelineau spent composing “religious” music for non-Catholics also strikes me as highly questionable—especially when we consider the special vows Jesuits take!

Freedom Of Speech • Archbishop Sheen said famously: “Freedom is a word much abused.” Perhaps 99% of people in America believe that FREEDOM is a good thing. But Sheen reminds us that one can only be free from something for something else. Perhaps I can make it clear by analogy. Would you like to live in a society where men are “free” to abuse children? Would you like to live in a society where men are “free” to discriminate on the basis of skin color? If we’re honest, we must admit: freedom is a word much abused. Some would ask: “Isn’t Father Joseph Gelineau free to make any statements he wants? If he wants to attack the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church, who are we to complain?” But privately considering certain matters within the confines of one’s own heart is one thing. Making public statements seems a different matter entirely.

Scholarship’s Cardinal Sin • Throughout his book, Father Joseph Gelineau frequently commits what I consider the cardinal sin of scholarship: viz. making bizarre assertions without providing evidence. For instance,1 on pages 78-79, pages 96-97, and page 178 Father Gelineau keeps claiming that tons of chants were originally in simple “responsorial psalm” form. But he’s unable to cite a single example of this. If his claims are true (viz. that hundreds and hundreds of chants were originally responsorial psalms with simple refrains), he has an obligation to show us examples! What did these things look like? Where can they be found? At a minimum, Father Gelineau had an obligation to cite specific pages from specific manuscripts that give examples. But he was unable to cite a single example—because he’s not telling the truth!

Suppose I wrote an article saying that the entire repertoire of Gregorian Chant used “Jeffronian Psalmody” as its musical form. Would you not demand evidence? But Father Gelineau was unable to cite a single example of this (supposedly) widespread music—and his conduct is reprehensible.

Other Foolish Statements • A deep hatred for the THESAURUS MUSICAE SACRAE comes across in Father Gelineau’s book. For instance, on page 120 he condemns the use of graduals at Mass, in spite of the fact that they’re some of the most ancient sung prayers we have. They were preserved for century after century … yet Father Gelineau says they’re basically garbage and “raise a serious problem” (his words). Furthermore, on page 162—in ridiculously arrogant manner—Father Gelineau condemns the beautiful and ancient tradition of singing the Ite, Missa Est. The reasons he gives for its suppression are self-contradictory. Moreover, his “arguments” for its suppression demonstrate his shameful ignorance of the history of the Roman Rite.

Throughout his book, Father Gelineau comes across as an ignorant child. For instance, several times he condemns any setting of the KYRIE which don’t sound sad or mournful in spite of the immemorial traditions of the Catholic Church. Following his logic, whenever Christians sing a psalm they would first be required to divide each verse into “happy” and “sad” tones—but that has never been the tradition of the Church. Following his logic, GOOD FRIDAY would have to be renamed “Sad Friday.” I repeat: his views are so painfully superficial that he comes across as an ignorant child.

Indeed, in his arrogance, Father Gelineau has the audacity to condemn (!) every setting of the SANCTUS except for SANCTUS XVIII. It’s a pity that Christians who lived for 1,600 years didn’t have Father Gelineau’s amazing brain to correct them!

Conclusion • The whole attitude of Father Joseph Gelineau seems antithetical to the authentic spirit of the Company of Jesus, especially his lifelong efforts to compose music for non-Catholics. Once upon a time, the Jesuits were the “special operatives” of the Catholic faith. I see virtually no comparison between Father Gelineau and authentic Jesuits such as Father Antoine Daniel, Father François Bressani, and Father Isaac Jogues.

P.S.

On page 66 of Learning to Celebrate: The Mass and Its Music (National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1985), Father Gelineau speaks in a very disparaging way of the GLORIA IN EXCELSIS, saying that praying it each Sunday “becomes routine and tiring.” Believe it or not, Gelineau says it can be used as an “Entrance Song.” Specifically, he writes:

It can sometimes be used—for example on Sundays after Christmas—as an Opening Song. This focuses new attention on it.

Gelineau objects to the GLORIA IN EXCELSIS, basically saying it’s a waste of time—“time that would be better used devoted to the word.” These words strike me as ignorant and scandalous.

1 Page numbers in this article refer to the English Translation: “Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship: Principles, Laws, Applications” (1964).

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Chant Et Musique Dans Le Culte Chrétien, Father Joseph Gelineau Last Updated: May 20, 2025

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“The main place should be given, all things being equal, to gregorian chant, as being proper to the roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.”

— ‘2011 GIRM, §41 (Roman Missal, 3rd Edition)’

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up