This article begins with 3 young women
singing at Mass. Then it has reflections
on Sacred Scripture and the propers.
Finally, it has a concluding thought
about young people singing at Mass.
NE OF THE OBSTACLES we face at my parish is, it’s not a college town. When our children graduate high school, many leave—to NOTRE DAME (South Bend, Indiana); LOYOLA or DEPAUL (Chicago); AQUINAS COLLEGE (Grand Rapids); UDM (Detroit, Michigan); or they go to other states. As a result, college-age children return only during the summers. I called this an “obstacle”—although I feel we’ve overcome it—because young Catholics frequently support their parish choir in an important way. Being unmarried, they have more free time than those with family responsibilities. Their voices are healthy & pure, and (since they’re young) they tend to pick up music very quickly.
Kaitrin’s Kindred Chorale • Last week two daughters returned from college: children of my colleague, Kaitrin Drost, who last summer served with distinction on the Sacred Music Symposium faculty. They walked up into the choir loft (without any rehearsal) and sang a 3-voice arrangement for the OFFERTORY:
* PDF Download • “Maria Walks” (for three voices)
—Another excellent translation of Maria Durch Ein’ Dornwald Ging is #772 in The Saint Jean de Brébeuf Hymnal.
Continuing The Discussion • The piece sung by those three young women during the OFFERTORY—after we sang the proper antiphon assigned by the Graduale Romanum for the 4th Sunday of Advent—does not come from Sacred Scripture. Our Catholic traditions include much that isn’t directly from Sacred Scripture, although readers know how passionately our authors have emphasized (for 15 years on this blog) the importance of restoring the Propria Missae, of which 98% are direct quotations from Sacred Scripture. With the reader’s kind indulgence, I’d like to discuss this topic.
(1 of 5) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • A mature person realizes the temptation—encountered frequently throughout life—to “toe the company line.” That leads to something I find extremely difficult to tolerate: dishonesty. When it comes to the post-conciliar reforms, statements emanating from ‘the powers that be’ are often ridiculously dishonest. For instance, when it comes to Sacred Scripture, the reformers adopted the view that “more is better.” But if we’re honest about the actual effect this had on the ‘average’ Catholic in the pews, we see that their theory has failed to create positive results. Before continuing, let me reassure the reader that I subscribe with all my heart to the wise words of Professor László Dobszay:
The Bible and the Gospels are holy to the very last letter. The very last “and” uttered by the Savior has meaning and conveys grace, simply because it was He who said it. Nobody has the right to select or omit the words of the Bible according to his perspective or taste. The Bible demands reverence and pious devotion, and it is only in its entirety that it has consecrating power. But another question is whether all parts of the Bible are equally suitable for becoming a PERICOPE (in the sense defined above) — able to pervade, organize, and characterize the liturgical day. When we discuss the choice of PERICOPEs, it is not the biblical text that is criticized, and no distinction is made between the status of the various holy texts as part of Divine Revelation and doctrine. All we say is that one text is not as suitable to be a PERICOPE as another. One section might be too abstract; another can only be properly understood in its full context (together with a following paragraph to be read the following Sunday). There can be commands or recommendations worthy of the deepest consideration, yet they can lack the striking effect needed for a PERICOPE. Different descriptions of the same events may express the liturgical meaning on different levels of perfection.
(2 of 5) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • The reformers of the 1960s pretended that simply by translating Sacred Scripture into the vulgar tongue, everybody listening would understand it instantaneously. This is false. First of all, the Church herself has never explained certain sections of the Bible, such as the Book of Revelation. Monsignor Ronald Knox (d. 1957)—a famous Catholic theologian—published an entire book about difficult and ambiguous biblical passages. Indeed, the Bible itself gives us a warning in this regard; viz. Saint Peter (II Peter 3:16) said about Saint Paul’s epistles: “There are passages in them difficult to understand, and these, like the rest of scripture, are twisted into a wrong sense by ignorant and restless minds, to their own undoing.” Consider the words of Pope Benedict XVI (who had nine doctorates) spoken on 14 February 2013 to the Roman clergy:
“The great texts of the liturgy—even when, thanks be to God, they are spoken in our mother tongue—are not easily intelligible. […] I think of the daily sequence of Old Testament readings, and of the Pauline Epistles, the Gospels: who could say that he understands immediately, simply because the language is his own?”
(3 of 5) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • Father Valentine Young used to speak of people who were incapable of saying three simple words: “I don’t know.” Many of the 1960s reformers seemed incapable of admitting (or unwilling to admit) there are things we don’t know. My impression is they’d swallow shards of broken glass before they’d admit there are things we just don’t know. Therefore, they ‘solved’ anything that was difficult or ambiguous by deciding—unilaterally and definitively—upon its meaning. But it’s useful to remember that Saint Thomas Aquinas (speaking in the SUMMA THEOLOGIAE of “the use of music in the divine praises”) declared that:
“Even if they do not understand what is sung, they understand why it is sung, namely for God’s honor, and this is enough to arouse their devotion.”
(4 of 5) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • Another huge mistake was believing that just because parts of the sacred liturgy were changed to the vulgar tongue, that meant the hierarchy could approve thousands of different translations. After all, it’s in the vulgar tongue, right? So everyone can instantly understand, right? But it turns out constantly tinkering with the translations makes it difficult for Catholics to memorize any passages from the Bible. That’s one reason why, ever since Vatican II, not that many Catholics can quote any passages of Sacred Scripture. At my parish, we always verses from the Bible (usually the PSALTER) towards the end of Holy Communion. By doing this, we hope bits and pieces of the PSALTER will gradually be ingrained in the minds and hearts of the congregation. Here’s an excerpt from last Sunday:
(5 of 5) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • This euphoria for the vulgar tongue caused the people who edited the 1970 edition of the LECTIONARY to avoid following the official books for any GOSPEL ACCLAMATION (“Alleluia”) in Ordinary Time. In other words, they didn’t give the official text: they simply sent you to a page with a whole bunch of different options. The thought was: “It’s in the vulgar tongue anyway, so just choose whatever you feel like at the moment and the people will be able to understand.” [To some extent, this situation still exists in the British version of the LECTIONARY.] Because they weren’t assigning them, one could ask: “Why not use the ancient GOSPEL ACCLAMATION from the Graduale Romanum?” Absolutely nothing prevents that. Indeed, The Saint Isaac Jogues Illuminated Missal, Gradual, and Lectionary gives both options for each Sunday and feast. I repeat: ultra-progressive reformers in those days felt each liturgy could be ‘made up’ or ‘devised’ or ‘selected’ on the fly because permission for the vulgar tongue solved all problems! But this simply wasn’t the case—and we see proof of this in the fact that people still create wedding programs (even though everything is in English). It would take a lifetime to collect all of the different translations and variants of Sacred Scripture that have been approved by the USCCB for use at Mass. To be fair, all this nonsense began with the attempt by Pius XII to modify the ancient PSALTER favoring Hebrew manuscripts that weren’t nearly as ancient as the versions by Saint Jerome, but were in the ‘original’ language. But just because a manuscript is in Hebrew, that doesn’t make it more valuable than a manuscript that pre-dates it by many centuries. For instance, a manuscript written in Hebrew that dates from the 18th century is not more valuable than translations by Saint Jerome from the 4th century. But towards the middle of the 20th century, there was a ‘craze’ or ‘fad’ or ‘fascination’ with favoring Hebrew MSS—even those which originated 600 years later than the Vulgate. If you don’t think this makes any difference, consider the following verse from Psalm 109. One is translated from the Vulgate (Latin text), the other from the Hebrew (Masoretic text):
(A) “Royal dignity has been yours from the day of your birth.”
As compared with:
(B) “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains.”
(Conclusion) Dishonesty Vis-à-vis Scripture • After Mass with a particularly difficult 1st reading, suppose you interviewed each Catholic in attendance. What kind of answers do you think you would get? I won’t insult your intelligence by telling you. You know perfectly well what sort of answers you’d get! And yet, because of dishonesty (i.e. “toeing the company line”), the reformers pretend that their changes produced a positive result.
Those who are dishonest ‘close their eyes’ and bury their heads in the sand. The last thing on earth they’d want is someone interviewing real Catholics after Mass, asking the question I posed above. When will we stop this dishonesty? The ancient LECTIONARY, which goes back about 1,500 years should never have been abandoned. In a beautiful way, it emphasized certain parts of Sacred Scripture each year, during the various liturgical seasons, impressing them upon the minds of the faithful and imprinting them onto their hearts. Speaking of things that shouldn’t have been eliminated, the Mass propers also emphasized important parts from Sacred Scripture in a beautiful way—and that’s what I will discuss next.
To Jettison That Which Was Excellent • After Vatican II, the reformers basically ‘discarded’ or ‘eliminated’ or ‘tossed into the garbage’ the Propria Missae; and this was a huge mistake. You could think of the Propria Missae as “highlights” of the Bible. In other words, each Mass contained little snippets from Sacred Scripture which were peppered throughout each feast. The Propria Missae are still part of the ORDINARY FORM as anyone who downloads the GREGORIAN MISSAL can plainly see. However, thanks to certain efforts by ‘progressive’ reformers, most Catholics don’t even realize they exist! And because the Propria Missae have been de facto eliminated from the ORDINARY FORM—some claim by deliberate subterfuge—the TLM contains about twice as much Scripture:
* PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART (“OF” vs. “EF”)
—“Which Has More Scripture?” The Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form?
(Part A) Good News And Bad News • The good news is that, over the last 20 years, the Propria Missae have been making a comeback. The feasts website is just one example of this. There is something so beautiful and powerful about singing the Propria Missae, which (as I’ve already said) are little snippets and quotations from Sacred Scripture. These were carefully preserved by Catholics for about 1,700 years. It’s beyond astounding how ancient they are. Each week, our females sing the ENTRANCE CHANT from the Roman Gradual. Here’s a live recording from last Sunday:
Here’s the direct URL link.
(Part B) Good News And Bad News • When it comes to Masses with music, the propers being sung are to be taken from the GRADUALE ROMANUM. When it comes to private Masses—a.k.a. “Masses without music”—the ADALBERT PROPERS are to be recited. The Adalbert Propers are also called the “Spoken Propers.” Some people refer to them as the “Missal Propers” since they’re printed in the priest’s SACRAMENTARY. The bad news was summarized by Dr. William Mahrt, who publicly lamented that some composers were setting the Adalbert Propers…
“…to music—even to chant!—although
these texts were explicitly for
spoken recitation only.”
Dr. William Mahrt is correct. Archbishop Hannibal Bugnini plainly stated in his book (La riforma liturgica, 1983) that the Adalbert Propers “were intended to be recited, not sung.” And anyone interested can read similar quotations which are unambiguous. It is, therefore, quite perplexing to notice certain composers who still set the Adalbert Propers to music, instead of the ancient propers found in the GRADUALE ROMANUM. I’ve even encountered people who believe these distinctions are “made up.” But all they have to do is go to any copy of the ROMAN MISSAL—either the 1970 edition or the 2011 edition—and within the first few pages they will see the matter clearly dealt with by Pope Paul VI:
How is it possible that we are still struggling with something so basic? Our society produces all kinds of things—such as computers and electric automobiles—that are incredibly complicated. My friends, this isn’t rocket science! Composers shouldn’t set the Spoken Propers to music—they should set the Sung Propers. This is not difficult. Indeed, an English translation of the Sung Propers (fully approved for liturgical use by the United States bishops as well as the Vatican’s CONSILIUM) has been available for many decades, and has been used by many composers. That translation based on the 1950 English translation of the PSALTER by Father Louis Hartman, C.Ss.R. (d. 1970). Yet here we are in the year 2025 and certain composers are still unaware of these basic facts. I admit I find this perplexing. My fear is that such ignorance is due to sheer apathy: an unwillingness to walk over to the shelf, take down a copy of the Roman Missal, and read what it says on its beginning pages.
The Unsung Heroes • I began this article by mentioning that college-age parishioners can be very helpful to the music program. I would like to end this article with a word of encouragement to the “unsung heroes” of church music. If you were to ask priests or bishops where to locate music directors of the highest quality, they’d probabaly say: “Seminaries or Catholic colleges.” And such a response is only natural. However, such institutions aren’t necessarily where the truly skilled directors are. Consider a major Catholic university. That’s a place to which hundreds of young Catholics are sent by their parents: the absolute cream of the crop as far as musical talent. Such students, being unmarried, lack family obligations—making it easy for them to participate in choirs—and possess fresh & healthy voices. Because they’re young, they pick up music quickly. Moreover, the university curriculum often mandates their attendance at weekly rehearsals! Only a director who genuinely lacking in aptitude could fail to produce excellent results with such a talent pool. The truly difficult work falls upon the parish music directors, who face obstacles that sometimes seem insurmountable. I recently spoke to one of my colleagues who earned two doctorates. Although she teaches at a major Catholic seminary, she insists upon simultaneously directing her local parish choirs. According to her:
“If I failed to stay grounded in
real parish work, I’d be cheating my
seminary students. I’d be a fraud.”
This isn’t to say that only untalented people1 teach music at seminaries or Catholic colleges. I’m merely pointing out that there’s no comparison in terms of which job is more challenging. (As always, please email me if you disagree.)
1 I hope nobody will send me emails claiming I said no talented people teach at Catholic universities or seminaries. I would never say that. I’m simply pointing out that there’s no comparison as to whether it’s more difficult to produce results at a local parish or a Catholic college. Furthermore, it breaks my heart to see people appointed as professors at Catholic universities who failed to distinguish themselves at the parish level. In my humble opinion, someone unable to distinguish himself at a real parish won’t be able to convey to college students the skills needed to make a lasting difference when they leave college and go into parishes. Monsignor Robert Skeris repeated over and over again: “Nemo dat quod non habet.”
