The GIRM for Canada!

Finally, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has announced and made available, the GIRM for Canada 


Over the next few weeks, I will be providing important sections of the GIRM, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal here and my commentary. I profess no authority other than that of a Catholic layman educated in these matters. These posts will be presented here to assist you in understanding the GIRM in order to better appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and this new Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. These posts are also intended to clarify issues that have been discussed here and which you may need in your parish to educated your friends and unfortunately, your Pastor, as the combox clearly reveals. As I said to Charlie Lewis in the National Post interview, "the better the liturgy, the better the prayer, the better the Catholic."


Given that this blog made such a noise about the kneeling posture, it is fitting that this controversy be discussed first. This writer began a series of posts on the matter of the "kneeling posture" last winter. It was a result of an investigation for the delay of the Recognitio for the Third Edition of the Roman Missal and its corresponding GIRM--General Instruction (on the Roman Missal.). The Bishops' Conferences in the Great Britain and the United States had already announced implementation for the first Sundays in September and Advent, respectively. There web pages and catechetical materials were already well-developed, but in Canada there was nothing; silence, priests knew little if anything and the people knew even less.


My investigation revealed two things; the web page of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops indicated that there would be no new GIRM for Canada until the "French" equivalent was completed (the Missal could not be implemented without the GIRM); and the knowledge from a priest friend that "they want you off your knees!'


My letter of inquiry as to the reason for the delay of the Recognitio from Rome to the General Secretary of the CCCB, Msgr. Patrick Powers was answered with the referral to a six month old blog post which I had already referred to in my letter to him and a perplexity as to what the delay in Rome could be. Further letters which included my suspicion and made it clear that this writer was not going away extracted more information including that a meeting would be held which he and the CCCB President would attend with the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and that they would express "my concern" over the delay and that there was "nothing out of the ordinary" in the Canadian request. Well then, why the delay?


Around the same time, my suspicions that the kneeling issue was the reason for the hold up was confirmed when I received a copy of the actual page of the "Grey Book" (submission of the CCCB to Rome for Recognitio.)


There was the proof; the norm for kneeling in Canada would be from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Memorial Acclamation. Bishops could instruct kneeling only at the Consecration (as per the 1975 GIRM) and where the practice of kneeling from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Doxology and then at the Ecce Agnus Dei, it is "laudable to retain this practice." With this evidence, the CCCB finally admitted that the reason for the delay was indeed the disagreement in kneeling posture which was significantly different from that approved for Britain and America. However, I did not stop there. My research was taken up by a priest who would know whether it was legitimate or not. It was deemed credible and it was presented to a senior official in the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. The assurance was given; it would be further placed in "friendly hands" this would not be approved without further study at CDWDS as they agreed that the Canadian submission would result in less kneeling and stress and controvesy and the message was sent; "Canada needs more kneeling, not less!'


So what now is the kneeling posture for Canada:

43.     The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the Priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Universal Prayer; and from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the Prayer over the Offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated here below.


          The faithful should sit, on the other hand, during the readings before the Gospel and the Responsorial Psalm and for the Homily and during the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory; and, if appropriate, during the period of sacred silence after Communion.


          In the dioceses of Canada, the faithful should kneel at the Consecration, except  when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause.53 However, those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after the Consecration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy,Holy) until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), it is laudable for this practice to be retained.  


         For the sake of uniformity in gestures and bodily postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the instructions which the Deacon, a lay minister, or the Priest gives, according to what is laid down in the Missal.

The rule for Canada now is consistent with the 1975 GIRM, kneeling is at the Consecration. Yet, in many parts of Canada this was never enacted. Tradition and popular piety held sway in many places for decades following the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae and the laudable "practice' is in place in much of Canada. Where the expert liturgists could, they pushed their agenda and got many in the Maritimes, Quebec and Alberta and Manitoba off of their knees. Some initiated a compromise from end of the Sanctus to the end of the Memorial Acclamation and the Bishops of Canada wanted all three enshrined.


On this, the three variants for Canada, Rome declined and the GIRM is as above with some change in the word order that seems to be firmer. The Canadian submission was "it is laudable to retain this practice" and what was approved was "it is laudable for this practice to be retained."


While one might desire that one uniform posture, and if you read this blog you probably agree with me that it should be the most traditional manner, we now have uniformity and clarity, something lacked for decades. It is possible that in some places with the kneeling currently ending at the Memorial Acclamation they may simply extend the kneeling, but at least in one diocese according to the combox, this will not be the case, it will be only at the Consecration, a step backwards.


Rome clearly did not want to see an innovation or establish a precedent. Nowhere in the world was this Canadian third-way and compromise in place and it would not be now. Given that even in St. Peter's Basilica, kneeling or a profound bow (at the hips) is in place at the Consecration, we in Canada could hardly argue.


Now, I wish to address a note in the combox from a reader in the Diocese of London:

Interestingly, although this instruction mentions it as being laudable for the congregation to remain kneeling from the Sanctus to the end of the Cannon; this has been the practice in the Diocese of London in all of my 40 plus years.Until today.At the Vigil Mass this evening (Sept 10th) in my parish today, the Priest Celebrating the Mass, required the congregation to stand immediately AFTER the Consecration.This was something new and perhaps, the thin end of the wedge ? Has anyone else in this part of SW Ontario experienced anything similar? Are we being set-up here ?

Yes, you are being set-up and it is up to you to do something about it. The difference between you and me and our parents and our grandparents is we know! We know the truth because you've read it above and if you don't believe me you can go to the link and read it yourself because you are a grown-up Catholic now.


The Diocese of London has always followed the "laudable practice" and the Bishop of London has not changed this. There should be uniformity across a diocese, this priest has engaged in a a liturgical abuse and is being creative.


First, the GIRM does not take affect until the First Sunday of Advent, so, the priest was simply wrong to instruct you last night to stand to do this. He is being disobedient to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, on this, there is no doubt. You have the right (under Redemptionis Sacramentum) to raise this error with  him and to his bishop.


Second, the Diocese of London has indeed followed the "laudable practice." This priest, if he has read the GIRM, has not read all of paragraph 43. Let us look again what it says, "..it is a laudable for this practice to be retained." What does this mean? Laudable comes from Latin and it means, "praiseworthy". Think here of Magna cum laude (With great praise) or Laudate Dominum (Priaise the LORD) or Lauda Sion (Praise O Sion). If to do something, in this case kneeling, is "praiseworthy" what does it mean not to do it? 


Each of us has the right to expect the proper implementation of this long-awaited Missal. We have the right and responsibility to act and to inform. In many places it will be up to you and me; those who Bishop Trautman of Erie called dismissively, "John and Mary Catholic" who would be too simple-mined to understand words such as "ineffable" or "gibbet" in the corrected translation, to ensure that the Missal is properly implemented. It should not be that way, but sadly, the "spirit of Vatican II" still reigns in many dioceses and in many parishes.


What will you do?

CCCB FAQ's -- More Drivel!

Alerted by an erudite reader we find these interesting FAQ's from the CCCB.

Let's have a look and a comment or two, shall we?

What is the date of implementation for the new edition of the Roman Missal?

The date of implementation of the new Missal will be the first Sunday of Advent 2011. The publications team here at the CCCB have done some remarkable work these past few months to make this possible. (Yes, only after they were told in February by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that they had no choice. They were trying to wait until a new "French" Roman Missal was complete as that was considered more important than our unity in the ROC (Rest of Canada) with the English-speaking world.)

Will the responses be the same as in the United States?

The responses at the Eucharist (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,) will be the same for the entire English-speaking world, although we will have the proper Canadian spelling of some of the words. We are happy to report that you will be able to have your own copy of them by March - they will be published as part of Celebrate in Song, our new music and liturgy resource which is designed to supplement CBW III (Which we are still stuck with inclusive  language and all forced upon the unsuspecting Church in Canada by Raymond Lahey whose name is enshrined in every book, in every parish, in every pew as to a joyous reminder of the contribution of this "kind and gentle pastor.") in the era of the new Missal. Not only will we have the new responses, we will have three musical settings of the responses which we have commissioned by us for use in Canada. They are by Canadian composers (Which are the most detestable example of church music I've ever heard.) and it is my hope that they will become fairly standard in parishes (I doubt it, not even my Praise and Worship friends are that stupid--go ahead, ask as church musician what he or she really thinks of the garbage parishes are forced to pay for.) across the country. This way we will be able to feel at home in each others' churches. The chant setting from ICEL is also included for the same reason. (Well this is simply not true, they have not used the Gloria from the chant setting by ICEL which is to appear in ALL hymnbooks because Father Bill Burke deemed it "too hard" in a letter to me.)

What should parishes do to prepare for the new edition of the Roman Missal?

Fr. Burke of the National Liturgy Office (NLO) has been working tirelessly to prepare the clergy of the country for the new edition of the Roman Missal. He has done workshops from coast to coast to coast. It is our hope that the local clergy and diocesan offices will take a prominent role in the implementation process in our churches and schools, and so this training has been a huge part of the NLO strategy around the Missal. For your parish, consider the following:

A DVD with a teaching Mass has been approved for publication and should be available by the Fall. This could form part of an information evening held by parishes or deaneries

Fr. Bill’s workshop will form part of one of the catechetical resource DVD’s that we are preparing, and can be used in the same way

Music ministers: (There is no such thing as a "Music Minister" and this term needs to stop being used -- we are Directors of Music, Choir Directors or Schola Masters) cantors, organists, instrumentalists of all kinds, choirs, should start learning our new Canadian Mass settings in Celebrate in Song

In addition there are several other resources:

NLO has entered into an agreement with Novalis to prepare a Missal resource for youth which will be a unique resource for young people to learn about the Mass. ('cause they need to be patronised and talked down to, right?)

For all Catholics the Publications Service has published the ICEL resource, Become One Body One Spirit in Christ, which will help everyone better understand the new edition. (Yes, the Brits did this and they are so far ahead of us it is embarrassing to say nothing about the Americans.)

For priests, the Publications Service has made an agreement with World Library Publications to distribute a CD recording of the new translations of Eucharistic Prayers I-IV

All of these can help us to prepare for the new edition of the Roman Missal in our own communities.

I heard that there is a new translation of the Mass that is coming out. Is that true?

Yes, it is indeed true. Even though we often look to the Church for stability in this rapidly changing world, and although it’s not always easy to accept, the Church’s prayer and worship have also changed over time.

Following many years of work and consultations (see the following question for details), changes have been made to the Mass and its translation. As we are now at the point where we need to get ready to receive this new translation, a series of questions and answers will be presented in the next few months to offer a better understanding of the changes and to prepare for them.

Change is rarely easy (Well, ya sure didn't care about the change our parents and grandparents had to endure which they didn't ask for) and it doesn’t happen automatically. You might find the upcoming changes challenging. However, we invite everyone to accompany us in this series of articles with an open mind and an open heart. Let us ask the Holy Spirit to guide us and . . . together, let us enter into the dance! (Dance? Let us enter the dance? Who actually writes this stuff?)

Why are we getting a new translation?

In the 1960's, as the bishops of the world met for the Second Vatican Council, they called for a major revision of the rites of the Mass and opened the door to the celebration of Mass in the many languages used around the world. (Actually, in Sacrosanctam Concilium they said that no changes could be made unless it was for the good of the faithful; there were eleven requests made and all of these except one, the new Lectionary with its three year-cycle, were implemented by 1965. (Google Vox Cantoris 1965 Missal). The Novus Ordo Missae was never, ever imagined or contemplated by the Father of the Council. They asked for a minor "simplification of the rubrics" already underway by 1962 and an end to "repetitions" mostly in place by 1965. They never asked for a chopping or re-writing of Collects and Postcommunions or a virtual elimination of Propers or multiple options of Pentitential Rites or Canons (Eucharistic Prayers), these were all "manufactured" as affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy. As for the vernacular languages, this was for those parts concerning the people, the Collects and Readings. Go ahead...look it up.)

In the years that followed, much work went into those revisions. The translation of Mass texts from Latin to all those languages proved to be a major task. (Again, this is not true and it is simplistic and grossly misleading. We always had a translation in our Missals. In 1965 we had a complete and approved English translation faithful to the Latin.) As time was pressing and it was important to make those translations available as soon as possible, a first translation was prepared, which did not pretend to be either perfect or permanent. (We already had a translation in 1965 of the 1570/1962 Roman Missal. They sure pretended that it was perfect and they used a method called "dynamic equivalence" to do it and they convinced a battered Pope to agree with it.) In February 1974 the first English translation for use in Canada was approved. (Yes, finally there was an approved "Sacramentary" in 1974 and from 1969 until then they used binders on the Altar and made it up as they went along).

Eventually, work began on a number of additions to the Mass and revisions to the translations. In 2001 new directions in the translation of texts from Latin were established by the Church and in March 2002, a new edition of the Order of Mass in Latin was published. (Yes, and ordered by Blessed John Paul II!)

Since then, great strides have been made to prepare faithful translations, to get the proper approvals and to make them available to all English speaking people in a timely fashion. (Eleven years is timely) Therefore, in the near future those changes will be implemented.

How will the new translation affect me?

When the new translation of the Mass comes about, it will affect all of us, although in different ways. Priests and deacons will need to adapt to the revised texts - some texts contain very subtle differences while others have been modified considerably. Therefore, everyone will need to listen so much more carefully and to hear differently. (And it will help you pray better and understand the Mass better and receive more grace because of it and therefore be a better Catholic, a better person and you will have a stronger family and build a better world; as Father Z says, "liturgy is the tip of the spear.")

Members of the assembly (Congregation!) will need to learn new or modified responses. This requires practice and patience. Music used during Mass (i.e.: “Glory to God”, “Holy, Holy”, etc.) will need to be adapted to the new texts, requiring that we learn new music. (And the Memorial Acclamation, so why force new Lamb of God and Kyrie's on people and frankly, the Somerville, Togni and Proulx Masses were all written for 1965 "hosts" and had to be adapted for 1970, so we can go back to the originals.)

Moreover, changes being brought to the Mass are not limited to spoken or sung texts. They also touch some actions and postures during the Mass. Therefore, we will need to learn them and the times during the Mass where they occur. (Yes, we will stand as soon as the priest says; "Pray brethern (brothers and sisters)" but the CCCB still wants to amend the kneeling posture and make it different from the U.S., Britain, Ontario, B.C. and the most traditional form but since they have not yet released the GIRM, we don't know what Rome has or has not approved.)

Where does the new translation come from?

Official texts of the Mass are promulgated by the “Holy See” (the official authority of the Roman Catholic Church). (Damn near spilt my coffee on that one.) A Latin edition (editio typica) is prepared and published under the title Missale Romanum (Sacramentary or Roman Missal in English). (No! Missale Romanum means Roman Missal, not Sacramentary--sorry, you'll have to have ROMAN on the cover this time girls.)

Then, the Conference of Bishops of each country (or group of countries) in the world is responsible to prepare proper translations in the language(s) used in its country and to get them approved by the Holy See. Usually, a team of experts and bishops from various countries using the same language work together on such an enormous task. The International Committee on English in the Liturgy (usually referred to as ICEL) is responsible for the English translations. (And they did a fine job) All the bishops of participating countries then get to critique, modify and approve that work. (And they've delayed and delayed and delayed it and some, such as Bishop Trautman of Erie, have fought it.) Each Conference of Bishops also prepares a certain number of local adaptations as required by the Holy See or as requested by the bishops. Then, each Conference of Bishops must approve the translations and adaptations for use in its country/region, and present them to the Holy See for final approval. (There are certain Saints for example, not on the Universal Calendar but who pertain to a country or region.)

These steps led to the new Mass translation that we will be getting.

Do we have to use the new translations?

This kind of question is always hard to answer! A hard-line answer would simply be: “Of course we have to!” (DUH, YES, THAT IS THE ANSWER!) However, we are invited to enter into the spirit of the law and not only its letter. (AND WHAT SPIRIT MIGHT THAT BE?)

The changes being brought to the Mass apply to Roman Catholics around the world. Although the number and the nature of the changes will differ from one language to another, (No this is not true. All national conferences through their ICEL equivalents must conform to the THIRD TYPICAL EDITION and be translated in accordance with LITURGIAM AUTHENTICUM. Because English is the new "LINGUA FRANCA" and it is from English that many other translations are made the English must be particularly correct and accurate. This was mandated by the "OFFICIAL AUTHORITY..") in all of this we need to be aware that the intention stems from a constant concern to maintain the unity of our faith and worship within the whole Church. Yet, there remains a provision for creativity and adaptations which require a spirit that respects the whole celebration and the universality of the Church. Unity doesn’t always involve uniformity, but does require concerted effort and a common heart.

Are we going back to Latin?

The vernacular will most certainly continue to be used as the language of worship as established by the Second Vatican Council (No; Wrong again! Latin is and remains the first language of choice for the Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 can always be celebrated in Latin. The Mass, celebrated in the vernacular can always have Latin Gregorian music or polyphonic motets or hymns in Latin -- why do they continue to mislead?) and reaffirmed by the NEW General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The Preamble to GIRM (2008) states in paragraph 12: “The eagerness with which this measure (use of the vernacular) was everywhere received has certainly been so great that it has led under the guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, so that the people may more fully participate. SACROSANCTAM CONCILIUM, THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY AT THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL STATED THAT "LATIN IS TO BE PRESERVED" THAT THE "VERNACULAR, MAY BE USED "AND THAT "GREGORIAN CHANT HAS PRIDE OF PLACE."

Who initiated the change of translation?

In response to concerns expressed by local Bishops’ Conferences, the Congregation for Divine Worship initiated a period of study and reflection upon the current translations being used throughout the universal church. (Again, this is not true. ICEL was instructed by its members, the English speaking Bishops' Conferences, to prepare a new translation because they fundamentally new of the problems. This was completed in 1988 and rejected by the  "OFFICIAL AUTHORITY." It was rejected for two reasons; First, it was still not an adequate translation; and second, the Holy Father knew he was going to promulgate a new Edition and instruct then on how it was to be translated.) This period resulted in the document entitled Liturgiam Authenticum (2001) in which specific guidelines were established for all future translations from Latin to the vernacular.

The International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) in collaboration with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, following a long period of intense study and reflection, established a General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and the resulting new translation of the Ordo Missae (Order of Mass) for the Canadian Church. (There is no "Canadian Church" there is the Church in Canada!) These documents were then submitted to the Congregation of Divine Worship for approval.

I thought they were done with changes!!! Why more changes now?

In the years following the Second Vatican Council, the urgency with which texts had to be translated from Latin to the vernacular languages resulted in new texts that did not always convey the full meaning of the original Latin text and omitted some very rich scriptural and patristic images.(Yes, this is true but it had nothing to do with "urgency." (This is grossly misleading and I'm tired of hearing it, it was a conspiracy to change the meaning...why else would you translate "pro multis" which means "for many" as "for all" when the Latin expression "for all" exists and it is "pro omnibus!" It was a zeitgeist that harmed our belief and the truth of Our LORD's words in scripture.) Consequently, certain key responses and prayers have now been re-translated to better express a clearer understanding of the original text. This has resulted in a new Roman Missal (Ordo Missae) (Ordo Missae means Order of Mass.-- who wrote this??? ) which is to be used during all liturgical celebrations in the Roman Rite.

The changes initiated by the Second Vatican Council are on-going. Therefore, in a Church that is alive with the Holy Spirit, we can expect that the process of change will always be present.

Copyright © 2011 Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
2500 Don Reid Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 2J2 Canada

Now you know why bloggers are necessary.

You're welcome.

More on the CCCB Gloria Chant "lite" Missal Mess

Thanks to a link from a series of comments on The Chant Cafe about the wretched Mass settings which we will be experiencing in Celebrate in Song we find this written about the Altar Missal:

For the chant setting of the Mass we have used the same settings as found in Celebrate in Song. These settings, specially the Glory to God in the highest and the Creed have been the most commonly used chant settings in Canada for a long time, so it seemed wise to keep them. The preface dialogue will probably sound new to Canadian ears, but it has been provided by ICEL and is a traditional form, just not the one we have been used to.

I've been in church music for over 25 years and never heard that Anonymous "chant" Gloria sung before. I'm old enough to remember the 1965 Missal and I don't recall it. We sang Somerville and one other, there was no "chant-like" or "lite" version then.

So, not only does the Father Bill Burke, Msgr. Murray Kroetch and Msgr. Powers think you're too stupid to learn the actual Roman Missal Gloria, they think that our priests are too stupid two!

Yes, Canada's expert liturgist wrote me to say that the National Liturgical Commission felt that the right Gloria was "too hard."

How did they get away with this?

Oh, the same way that they got away with the Winnipeg Statement and the NRSV Lectionary.

They dissented.

And where's the GIRM?

Two Liturgical Reads

From The Heresy of Formlessness...

"I am firmly convinced... that vernacular hymns have played perhaps a significant part in the collapse of the liturgy. Just consider what resulted in the flowering of hymns: Luther's Reformation was a singing movement,and the hymn expressed the beliefs of the Reformers. Vernacular hymns replaced the liturgy, as they were designed to do; they were filled with the combative spirit of those dismal times and were meant to fortify the partisans. People singing a catchy melody together at the top of their voices created a sense of community, as all soldiers, clubs, and politicians know. The Catholic Counter-Reformation felt the demagogic power of these hymns. People so enjoyed singing; it was so easy to influence their emotions using pleasing tunes with verse repetition. In the liturgy of the Mass, however, there was no place for hymns. The liturgy has no gaps; it is one single great canticle; where it prescribes silence or the whisper, that is, where the mystery is covered with an acoustic veil,as it were, any hymn would be out of the question. The hymn has a beginning and an end; it is embedded in speech. But the leiturgos of Holy Mass does not actually speak at all; his speaking is a singing, because he has put on the "new man", because, in the sacred space of the liturgy, he is a companion of angels. In the liturgy, singing is an elevation and transfiguration of speech, and, as such, it is a sign of the transfiguration of the body that awaits those who are risen. The hymn's numerical aesthetics-- hymn 1, hymn 2, hymn 3-- is totally alien and irreconcilable in the world if the liturgy. In services that are governed by vernacular hymns, the believer is constantly being transported into new aesthetic worlds. He changes from one style to another and has to deal with highly subjective poetry of the most varied levels. He is moved and stirred-- but not by the thing itself, liturgy: he is moved and stirred by the expressed sentiments of the commentary upon it. By contrast, the bond that Gregorian chant weaves between the liturgical action and song is so close that it is impossible to separate form and content. The processional chants that accompany liturgical processions (the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion), the responsories of the Ordinary of the Mass that interweave the prayers of the priest and The laity, and the reciting tone of the readings and orations-- all these create a ladder of liturgical expression on which the movements, actions, and the content of the prayers are brought into a perfect harmony. This language is unique to the Catholic liturgy and expresses it's inner nature, for this liturgy is not primarily worship, meditation, contemplation, instruction, but positive action. It's formulae effect a deed. The liturgy's complete, closed form has the purpose of making present the personal and bodily action of Jesus Christ. The prayers it contains are a preparation for sacrifice, not explanations for the benefit of the congregation; nor are they a kind of "warming up" of the latter. In Protestantism, vernacular hymns came in as a result of the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass; they were ideally suited to be a continuation of the sermon. Through singing, the assembled community found its way back from the doubting loneliness of the workday to the collective security of Sunday-- a security, be it noted, that arose from the mutual exhortation to remain firm in faith, not from witnessing the objective, divine act of sacrifice."

[Mosebach, Martin. The Heresy of Formlessness. Trans. by G. Harrison. Ignatius, 2006. (p.40-42)]

And this incredible free on line book by Francis Koerber with live hyperlinks.

What Should We Be Singing Now?

Now, how do we get this to happen in our parishes?

What do you think you could or should do to facilitate what the Church really desires in liturgical worship?

Kneeling.

"It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture–insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself."

Pope Benedict XVI writing in the Spirit of the Liturgy.

Eleven hundred year old Gloria is "too hard" for you!

If the oldest known music for the Gloria is simply "too hard" for our modern, educated selves what on earth did they before the 900's since Guido Aretinus de Arezzo was born in 995. When this monk first devised a method of writing down music on lines and spaces, this Gloria, the first written down by him was already being sung!

But you, dear reader, dear Canadian Catholic are too dumbed down by the Ontario Liturgical Music Conference, the National Council of Liturgical Music, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, disgraced Bishop Lahey's CBWIII, OCP, GIA, Haughen-Hass, St. Louis Jesuits and others to sing something which was written so long ago we only know that it is 1,100 years old because that is when quill was put to parchment.

You dear reader, dear Canadian Catholic are just too, too dumb and will find it much, much "too haaaaarrrrrd" to sing something sung by your Catholic ancestors so long ago that the Chinese had not yet invented gun powder and movable type.

The Sung Mass for the corrected translation of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal has been beautifully prepared by ICEL, the International Commission for English in the Liturgy; they've clearly made amends for their work over 40 years ago! This is all to be published in every Missal, altar and pew for priest and people, as appropriate!

This has been mandated for the English speaking countries in each Missal and it is to be available in each hymn book--the basic Chant Mass setting. They have brilliantly utilised the Gloria from what is now known as Mass XV, Missa Dominator Deus which is in both the Liber Usualis for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the 1974 Graduale Romanum and its later, 2000 Gregorian Missal for the Sung Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The "numbers" Mass VIII, Mass XV, etc. date from the post Trent period and these Masses were not necessarily composed as a unit. The names, except in the case of the 16th century Missa de Angelis, the beautiful but least, Gregorian, come from the Kyrie tropes that were eliminated with the liturgical discipline of the Council of Trent. Some of these include Mass I Lux et Origo, Mass IX Missa Cum Jubilo, Mass XI Orbis Factor, etc. The tropes were phrases of prose and poetry used to amplify or embellish a text. Interestingly, an example of a trope was returned in the Novus Ordo Penitential Rite, "LORD, you were sent to heal the contrite of heart, LORD, have mercy" the preface to LORD, have mercy, being the trope.

Well, back to the Gloria.

This Gloria, the oldest known in the whole repertoire of liturgy, the original sung Gloria, sung over 1100 years ago is "too hard" for you. Thus the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and their liturgical experts have not put this Gloria into Celebrate in Song but some other "anonymous" chant-like Gloria.

"The National Council for Liturgical Music suggested that the ICEL chant for the Gloria would not be easy to learn an therefore for the implementation resource they chose the setting you find in Celebrate in Song."

Will this mean that this beautiful Gloria will be relegated to the back burner when they finally publish it which they must?

Here is the Gloria in its original Latin and below in the corrected translation.

Do you think this is too hard?

Proof: The Canadian Bishops' Conference wants you off your knees!

...and to obey a "lay minister" when ordered to do so!

Where is the GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal) for Canada?

A few months ago, I posted this and this. I stated at that time that Canadian bishops asked the congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments to approve a variety of kneeling postures for Canada. I also indicated at the time that this was the reason for the delay in the Recognitio for Canada. (I will also say that I was chastised by a few bloggers demanding "proof"and that I publicize my "sources.")

I've written three times to the experts at the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to ask this question. I wrote this week to remind them that I had already written twice before with no answer and I finally received a response with the proof that my suspicions were correct:

"The GIRM with Canadian adaptations is not in print yet precisely because the matter of posture is not yet settled. Until that happens (which we think we be soon) we cannot make the GIRM available."

Not if this blog can help it.

This is what was submitted to Rome for approval:

(52) In the dioceses of Canada, they should kneel from the singing or recitation of the Sanctus to the Memorial Acclamation, except when prevented by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel at the Consecration, however, should make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after Communion. The diocesan Bishop may allow the common practice of kneeling at the Consecration only. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says, Behold the Lamb of God, it is laudable to retain this practice.

(53) To achieve uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the instructions given by the Deacon, lay minister, or Priest in accordance with what is laid down in the Missal.

Can you explain to me why any Catholic in the pew is to listen to any "instruction" from a lay minister?

What is a lay minister anyway?

liturgy@cccb.ca

A Call for a Toronto Liturgical Movement!

In an Archdiocese where the late Monsignor John Edward Ronan founded the world famous St. Michael's Choir School, how did the Catholic liturgy in general and church music in particular in Toronto fall so far from the ideal? How did his vision of a school to provide music for the Cathedral and Archdiocese become such a failure?

Lest I provoke anger amongst the alumni or current students or professional staff let me state quite clearly, I love and support St. Michael's Choir School. While not an alumnus, I was invited to attend in 1963 but due to family issues I could not attend. Through the grace of God, music and liturgy have been part of my life since the age of 32, late perhaps, but better late than never. I also came to know many through three seasons singing with The Victoria Scholars a decade ago.

It has been a failure, not because of the Monsignor, the boys, the teachers then or now, it is a failure because somebody in almost each and every parish is preventing it from being anything else but. (As an aside, that is not the case at the Toronto parish where we had the Missa Solemnis last week; that Pastor employs organists and cantors from the School...thank you Father K!).

Where is the model that it should be for the rest of the Archdiocese? Why have we ignored this treasure. We have done so to our loss and the loss of our faith.

Parish priests, bishops, liturgists, amateur choir leaders, you have failed Msgr. Ronan, Msgr. Armstrong, Miss Mann, and their vision. You have failed the boys then and those now. You fail all the teachers and conductors there today. How is it possible that this school can be so present with its high standard of music and repertoire and yet most of what we have in our parishes is no better than anywhere else?

Why are choir school alumni singing as Cantors in Synagogues?

Why are they singing in Protestant worship communities?

Why are you Father, not insisting that you have an organist or cantor educated and trained at St. Michael's Choir School so that they don't have to sing in Jewish or Anglican congregations to use their artistic gifts. Don't tell me that they should sing in a Catholic Church, regardless. Why? To sing On Eagle's Wings, or worse? That is not what they trained for.

Why are you not paying your Cantor or Organist?

Why do you allow a gaggle of pretenders to take take such control of liturgy when you have this resource?

What affect has this had on liturgy and church music?

What are we all going to do about it?

This Archdiocese must have an Office of Sacred Liturgy and Divine Worship with the mandate to advise and teach and train on liturgical matters; I don't believe at all that one should say you must sing "this setting" but I do agree that a bishop can say you "cannot" sing that "setting" but only when his order is in harmony with true church music and what the Church desires.

How often do we write over and over again from St. Pius X and Tra le sollecitudini to Blessed John Paul II Chirograph on Sacred Music we keep ignoring them at our peril. Is anyone listening?

We owe Msgr. Ronan, Msgr. Armstrong and Miss Mann an apology.

Toronto needs a new liturgical movement and it needs it now.

In Toronto: A New Translation is Clearly Not Enough!

For decades our bishops been asked to control priests who consistently change the words of Mass or show "creativity" which results in deformation of the sacred liturgy. Now when it comes to the mode of Kyrie chosen by someone with 25 years study and experience, that they're going to control! Where are they when so-called church musicians deform the liturgy every week with music not in keeping with the mind of the Church?

For one year they wish to dictate what music will be used? Will that really mean no Marty Haugen? No more "Alleluia-cha, cha, cha."

It is posted on the Archdiocese of Toronto blog, "Around the Arch" that a letter was recently sent to the parishes from Bishop John Boissonneau, Vicar of Liturgy and Chair of the Archdiocesan Roman Missal Implementation Committee. It seems that what is desired is "unity" but at what cost?

I attended the Archdiocese of Toronto workshop a few weeks ago on music for the Mass in the corrected translation of the Roman Missal.

I was encouraged to see 500 people hungry to learn. But what did they learn? That the Gloria has a refrain; that nobody would "ever want to sing a Creed"* (see below) and that Canadian church music composers have an awful lot to learn. It is quite evident that the three composers in Celebrate in Song know little about what is true liturgical music consistent with Catholic history and praxis. I felt sorry for them when they could have been given so much more. I felt sorry for the Bishop, I know for a fact that he knows more than what the CCCB has foisted upon him and all of us!

That being said, I really do think the episcopacy the musical settings have overstepped their authority. Would that they would do the same with liturgical abuse and heresy which we have had to endure from some of our priests!

On the other hand, if they are serious and intend to keep out Marty Haugen, David Haas and the rest of the trash we've had to endure then maybe that is a good thing. My problem is that the alternative is not much better and this intent will keep out better music.

Let us look at His Excellency's letter:

1. We have been informed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) that both the English translation of the revised Roman Missal and General instruction (GIRM) will take effect in dioceses throughout Canada on the First Sunday of Advent (November 27/28, 2011). Archbishop Collins has authorized that parishes may begin to learn the new, sung mass settings and employ them in the liturgy as of September 25, 2011. Other than these settings, the newly translated prayers (collects, prefaces, etc.) of the Missal may not be used without specific permission before the First Sunday of Advent. (I really don't like this. Have a workshop on Saturday afternoon. We go to Mass to worship the Triune God, FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT and to be fed the Holy Eucharist, but now we will go to practice singing to learn the new music? Let's just do it!

2. Four musical settings have been approved by the Bishops for use in Canada: three
commissioned by the CCCB and the “Chants of the Roman Missal” by the ICEL
(International Commission on English in the Liturgy). Thus, in addition to the
setting which will be found in the Missal, the CCCB also approved these settings
as presented in “Celebrate in Song”:

"Mass Setting A" by Fr. Geoffrey Angeles,
"Mass Setting B" (Mass of the Holy Family) by John Dawson,
"Mass Setting C" by Michel Guimont.

The CCCB has done the Church in Canada, our bishops, priests and you and me a diservice. These musical settings are about as far as quality church music for congregations as one can get. Frankly, they're quite dreadful and the Glorias, particularly Dawson's are near impossible for a congregation to sing with unreasonable leaps of fourths and fifths, syncopations and "D!'s. The Gloria is not metrical so is it forced to be and constant changes in Time Signature. Since when Fr. Angeles, Mr. Dawson and Mssr. Guimont, is there a "refrain" in the Gloria; the combox is open."
To help provide a spirit of unity and collaboration for all those involved in assisting our parishioners in full and active participation in the Eucharist, we are inviting
parishes to utilize two settings during the first year of implementation of the
new Roman Missal. We must be fully aware that all other settings presently being
used are not to be employed in the parishes after the First Sunday of Advent
because they do not reflect the new translation. This will be a significant change for choirs and cantors. If one is to make do this, then the Chant setting should be mandatory. I for one will not sing any of the three compositions listed above. I will use the Chant setting only with the Gloria from the Roman Missal. But my question is, "where is that Gloria from the Roman Missal? The Gloria in Celebrate in Song, IS NOT the Gloria from ICEL in the Roman Missal which is based on Gloria XV and is the oldest known dating from the 900's!)
You are invited to choose from a) ICEL Chants setting and b) one of the approved three CCCB sung settings. You can hear the settings by visiting our resources page of the Archdiocesan Roman Missal site: www.archtoronto.org/romanmissal/resources.htm.

This will allow parishioners, music ministers and clergy to collaborate on teaching and implementing musical settings that will become familiar to congregations at all masses. Please note: all the mass settings presently being used at parish liturgies need to be replaced by the new authorized settings effective the First Sunday of Advent 2011. The desire for a unity of musical settings in your parish may be challenging but your guidance and encouragement will make this exercise of decision-making a positive moment in liturgical renewal. (Let's make something clear. The Kyrie and Agnus Dei are not changing there is absolutely no reason why these need to change. Victor Togni's Parish Mass and Father Somerville's Good Shepherd Mass are perfectly acceptable. Respectfully I think they've overstepped their authority here.

4. We are aware that parishes have received other musical settings, including those from the United States. In order to foster unity, we ask all parishes to use the mass settings from the CCCB for the first year of implementation. Your cooperation is appreciated in adopting this approach in your parish.

This is poor quality church music and is inferior music to what we should have in our pews and we should be hearing music based on Gregorian modalities as prescribed in document after document!)
Thank you to all those who participated in the recent workshop related to
the music settings presented in “Celebrate in Song” and approved for use in
Canada. More than 450 people were in attendance for the gathering, a wonderful
response to the first of many planned sessions with parish musicians..

Here are the ICEL Roman Missal settings.

Someone asked the question, "Is the new translation enough?"

The answer is clearly, "No!"

*Clarification:

While it was sponsored by the Archdiocese, I was reminded by a commenter that it was presented by the Ontario Liturgical Conference Music Commission (which has no "Contact" link on its web page) and the two main speakers were Msgr. Murray Kroetch and Ms. Sandy Milne, former "Parish Minister" at St Aloysius Catholic Church in Kitchner. The same type of workshop has been held in other host dioceses. Ms. Sandy Milne is the one who said, "They've even included a sung Creed (in the chant setting), I can't see why anyone would want to sing it."

Now, this is from an expert at a "Liturgical Commission?"

And you wonder why we're in the mess which we are in?

Ontario Liturgical Conference Music Commission presenters (l-r) Greg DeSouza, Msgr.
Murray Kroetsch, Fr. Jerry Dunn, Sandy Milne, Sharon Fazari.