The Proper Of The Mass

[photosynthesis]

Good afternoon,

Last weekend, I attended a Solemn High Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary at [url="http://www.czestochowausa.com/"]Our Lady of Czestochowa Shrine [/url]in Doylestown, PA. The celebrent was from the local diocese, but there was a choir comprised of men and women from a Carmelite Monastery in Philly. No one in the choir was in a religious habit, however, all of the women were wearing mantillas. I've been singing in a Tridentine Choir for over a year at [url="http://www.institute-christ-king.org/WestOrange/WestOrangeHome.htm"]my own parish[/url] and never have I heard that women are allowed to chant the propers.

Also, my music director and I have been playing around with the idea of doing Faure's [i]Messe Basse[/i] for the season of Advent. This is a beautiful, somewhat somber sounding piece of music that is written for a small women's choir. Is it appropriate for the ordinary to be sung by a women's choir when there are men available, or would this piece only be suitable in a convent?

Are there any church documents that explicitly state what is and is not allowed in terms of women singing in the liturgy? I'd like to know, as I am an active member of my choir and am in the process of planning a wedding that involves a LOT of different choral pieces.

[cmotherofpirl]

Why would women NOT be allowed to sing at Mass? Was this part of the pilgrimage that walked 70- miles to the Church?

[photosynthesis]

Yes, this was the pilgrimage that walked 70 miles to church. It really was a beautiful sight, with 25 servants at the altar and a crowd of little girls in white dresses and blue sashes carrying banners with Mary's picture on them.

The Ordinary prayers are the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. The Propers of the Mass include the Introit (chanted by priest or cantor/choir), Collect (priest only), Epistle (priest), Gradual/Tract/Alleluia (can be priest or cantor/choir), Gospel (priest), Secret (priest only), Communion Antiphon (priest or cantor/choir) and Postcommunion (priest only). They are called the "propers" because they change from week to week, whereas the Ordinary is "ordinary" because it stays the same. It has been said that the most sacred parts of the Liturgy are those that never change.

Anyway, women have always been allowed to sing hymns and chant the Ordinary and the Responses at High Mass. However, I have always been under that impression that women are not allowed to chant the Proper of the Mass for the same reason why women shouldn't be altar servers.

The choir I heard last Saturday at the Solemn High Mass sounded heavenly. The Gradual was chanted by a women's chorus, who sang:

[i]Benedicta et venerabilis es, Virgo Maria:
Quae sine tactu pudoris inventa es mater Salvatoris.
Virgo Dei Genitrix, quem totus non capit orbis,
In tua se clausit viscera factus homo.[/i]

Thou art blessed and venerable, O Virgin Mary:
Who with purity unstained was found to be the Mother of the Saviour.
Virgin Mother of God, He whom the whole world was unable to contain,
Englosed Himself in thy womb, being made man.

I'm not sure what arrangement it was, but it was polyphonic, and it reminded me of the beautiful voices of the Dominican Nuns in Summit or the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecelia in Nashville. However, if it's not allowed, it's not allowed.

[Megz]

Post your pics or a link to your pics! I was there! Ok, I wasn't at Mass, incense is deadly to me. Sad. Oh, well

[url="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Paintedmouse"]http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Paintedmouse[/url]

[Slappo]

I don't know, but I'd love to hear, especially with this indult now given to all priests as of a couple weeks from now. I'm assuming this is Tridentine mass only that we're discussing?

I know in the Novus Ordo that women are acceptable as altar servers.

[Aloysius]

only if the bishop allows it. practically, they basically all do; from the standpoint of the preference of the Church and universal norms, they are not "acceptable" but a tolerable concession. the Bishop of Rome has never permitted them in his diocese and Rome has made it very clear that the Universal Church and the Universal norms prefer altar boys, but allow individual bishops to choose to allow altar girls. I guess "acceptable" is accurate... I'd put something pithy into my description of its situation like "grudgingly tolerated"

I'm not sure. I sort of had the same impression about women choirs... the parts of the mass that are sung by the choir as a sort of echo of something that the priest is saying quietly at the altar seem to be proper to a male choir, as it is really an extension of the priest saying the prayers.

the priest is praying the prayers of the mass quietly while a choir is singing them over him, so it's likely that it'd be preferable for a male choir, it's the song version of the prayer of the priest in mass and thus should not reflect a voice which may be 'of the congregation' as it were, theoretically, I think . but I do not know the specific rules; I'm sure there were very clear and specific rules in place for the 1962 missal, but I don't have a copy of the rubrics. perhaps it had begun to be permitted by 1962, I do not know. I know at one point in liturgical history, the description I just gave as to why a female choir voice on these parts wouldn't be acceptable would've been the official rule; as once upon a time choirs were composed almost totally of clergy if I'm not mistaken.

[photosynthesis]

Should I then consider quitting choir and convince all of the other women to do the same?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1367537' date='Aug 22 2007, 12:31 AM']Should I then consider quitting choir and convince all of the other women to do the same?[/quote]

I think that is a terrible idea. You might be saying the prayers of the 1962 missal but this is 2007.

[Aloysius]

cmom: the rules in place in 1962 are in full force for any mass of 1962 (this does not include things like Eucharistic Fast rules, only liturgical rubrics).

photo: again, I said I don't know what the rules were in 1962. probably no reason to quit the choir over it. talk to the people about it, talk to the priest about it. one thing about indult masses (which will probably continue in the new extraordinary status) is that people are all too willing to follow the rubrics if at all possible. if it were really against the rubrics and you brought it to their attention, they would find a way to follow the rubrics.

just because the reasoning I outlined is sound when it comes to liturgical symbolism doesn't mean it's the only way to go. the introit would probably be perfectly acceptable as a hymn of the congregation, or the offeratory, et cetera... I don't know. find out the rubrics; I bet you dollars to donuts, actually, that these people have already checked the rubrics themselves, but you never know.

But if it was the rubric in 1962, it would still be in force now for the forma extraordinaria.

[photosynthesis]

I wasn't aware that the Introit could be a hymn of the congregation. I remember the women in my choir chant the Dies Irae during the Requiem Mass, but that's a sequence... and for some reason, that's different from the Gradual or the Communion antiphon or other propers.

i'm confused!

[photosynthesis]

Where do I find the rubrics for the 1962 missal?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1367850' date='Aug 22 2007, 10:04 AM']Where do I find the rubrics for the 1962 missal?[/quote]

They're online here:
[url="http://www.sanctamissa.org/EN/rubrics/"]http://www.sanctamissa.org/EN/rubrics/[/url]

And you can buy them in a printed copy here:
[url="http://cantius.org/webstore/rubrics-of-the-missale-romanum-1962.html"]http://cantius.org/webstore/rubrics-of-the...manum-1962.html[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1367619' date='Aug 22 2007, 01:52 AM']cmom: the rules in place in 1962 are in full force for any mass of 1962 (this does not include things like Eucharistic Fast rules, only liturgical rubrics).

photo: again, I said I don't know what the rules were in 1962. probably no reason to quit the choir over it. talk to the people about it, talk to the priest about it. one thing about indult masses (which will probably continue in the new extraordinary status) is that people are all too willing to follow the rubrics if at all possible. if it were really against the rubrics and you brought it to their attention, they would find a way to follow the rubrics.

just because the reasoning I outlined is sound when it comes to liturgical symbolism doesn't mean it's the only way to go. the introit would probably be perfectly acceptable as a hymn of the congregation, or the offeratory, et cetera... I don't know. find out the rubrics; I bet you dollars to donuts, actually, that these people have already checked the rubrics themselves, but you never know.

But if it was the rubric in 1962, it would still be in force now for the forma extraordinaria.[/quote]
Those rubrics deal with the priest, no one else.

[kateri05]

this reminds me that i have a question. i'm taking a class on vatican II, and we're talking about the liturgical documents. now, i'm talking about the ones which asked for liturgical changes/reforms, not paul vi's new missal.

why wouldn't the extraordinary form be required to implement these changes as well? such as increased use of scripture, more full, conscious and active participation of the congregation, as well as moderate use of the vernacular (i'm thinking for the readings, are the readings in Latin in the extraordinary form?)

it seems like the choir issue would fall under more faithful participation. maybe.

does anyone have any thoughts/know an answer? and keep in mind, i'm not looking for "no, because this is the mass from before vatican II therefore, no changes can be made." because, thats simply not the case. the council fathers didn't specifically call for a new mass, but for changes to the one in place. pope paul the VI took it in this way, but since the extraordinary form is not actually a separate rite, shouldn't these calls for reform be heeded within the extraordinary form as well?

because, honestly, i think they could without changing the rites. more scripture (old testament is specifically what they were going for), etc. seem like reasonable changes that would not alter the ex. form in a significant way.


btw, eta, if this is too much of a hijack, please move it, but the whole issue of whether women can sing these parts seemed to fall under the council's call for more participation, so it made sense to keep it in here. if it's too far off topic, sorry

Edited August 23, 2007 by kateri05

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368307' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:10 PM']this reminds me that i have a question. i'm taking a class on vatican II, and we're talking about the liturgical documents. now, i'm talking about the ones which asked for liturgical changes/reforms, not paul vi's new missal.

why wouldn't the extraordinary form be required to implement these changes as well? such as increased use of scripture, more full, conscious and active participation of the congregation, as well as moderate use of the vernacular (i'm thinking for the readings, are the readings in Latin in the extraordinary form?)

it seems like the choir issue would fall under more faithful participation. maybe.

does anyone have any thoughts/know an answer? and keep in mind, i'm not looking for "no, because this is the mass from before vatican II therefore, no changes can be made." because, thats simply not the case. the council fathers didn't specifically call for a new mass, but for changes to the one in place. pope paul the VI took it in this way, but since the extraordinary form is not actually a separate rite, shouldn't these calls for reform be heeded within the extraordinary form as well?

because, honestly, i think they could without changing the rites. more scripture (old testament is specifically what they were going for), etc. seem like reasonable changes that would not alter the ex. form in a significant way.
btw, eta, if this is too much of a hijack, please move it, but the whole issue of whether women can sing these parts seemed to fall under the council's call for more participation, so it made sense to keep it in here. if it's too far off topic, sorry [/quote]

That is exactly where my thoughts are leading as well, no ritual is set in stone.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1368280' date='Aug 22 2007, 08:43 PM']Those rubrics deal with the priest, no one else.[/quote]

There has to be some sort of documentation from the Church regarding participation from choir women in the liturgy.

My parish is under Institute of Christ the King, so I may just direct this question to Msgr. Schmitz. I'll post his response here if he ever answers my e-mail.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1368280' date='Aug 22 2007, 06:43 PM']Those rubrics deal with the priest, no one else.[/quote]

No they don't

I would know. The Master of Ceremonies at my Forma Extraordinaria has a book with all the official rubrics for the servers.

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1368479' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:11 PM']There has to be some sort of documentation from the Church regarding participation from choir women in the liturgy.

My parish is under Institute of Christ the King, so I may just direct this question to Msgr. Schmitz. I'll post his response here if he ever answers my e-mail.[/quote]

There is documentation, actually. I can't remember exactly in what document, but an early twentieth century pope permitted women singing the propers where there were not men at all or where there were not a large enough amount of men to sing them.

And asking your monsignor is a good idea.

[kateri05]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1368472' date='Aug 22 2007, 08:05 PM']That is exactly where my thoughts are leading as well, no ritual is set in stone.[/quote]

well i'm glad someone thought i wasn't crazy

[Aloysius]

The Forma Extraordinaria is the resurection of the rubrics as they stood in place in 1962, and as such the liturgical reforms of Vatican II do not apply to it. Whether or not some of the reforms of Vatican II ought to be implemented in the Extraordinary Rite is an open question for the Ecclesia Dei commission. However, it is not as simple as all that. The New Calender is not all-in-all compatible with the Old Rite, it was designed for the new rite. You cannot simply take the readings for the New Rite and stick them willy nilly into the intricately woven prayers of the old rite. A whole new development would have to begin to develop the Old Calender to include readings from the Old Testament et cetera. The Holy Father has given the Ecclesia Dei commission the charge to study the possibility of new saint feast days in the Old Calender... that's probably all that will be hoped for in the forma extraordinaria for now.

the calls for reform simply do not apply, because as far as the Church is concerned: the answer to the call for reform is the New Rite, and the extraordinary form is the continuing rite from before those reforms. I think it is important that the Old Form remain unchanged as an achor for the liturgy to which the ordinary rite can be compared and reformed (corrected). that's the situation, the reforms are not applicable to the extraordinary form of the roman ritual unless Rome decides otherwise... well, the stuff like full and active participation, which was supposed to exist anyway and was already enacted in the optional dialogue masses prior to the Council, is certainly applicable; the principals and all that. but nothing is applicable to the rubrics, it's not permitted for it to be said in the vernacular or for other readings to be inserted. John Paul II made sure of all of this in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei when he forbid the mixing of the new rite with the indult old rites; and Summorum Pontificum cancles out only those things previously said to the contrary of what it says, so the parts of Ecclesia Dei that do not contradict Summorum Pontificum are still in effect for the forma extraordinaria: the rubrics of 1962 are to be followed.

the readings have always been permitted to be included in the vernacular after their reading in the latin. my reading of Summorum Pontificum is that the Holy Father affirms this practice as possible, because the latin says "etiam" meaning "also", ie "the readings may also be read in the vernacular" meaning they would still be said in latin first. other people's readings of it say that they can simply be inserted in the vernacular wholesale, the text might also mean that. The ecclesia dei commission really needs to clarify this issue.

it really concerns me that this might be attempted, the reform of the extraordinary rite that is.. because honestly: it'll be just as botched as the previous attempt at it was. that's not to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, ie some of the reforms legitimately called for by the council, but only that they shouldn't be done in a specific way (the way where a comittee gets together and drafts some arbitrary calender of readings together). if this all happens, I will probably continue to flee to the unbotched form of the roman liturgy, where it is extraordinarily anchored... because if I catch the Holy Father's intentions correctly, he does not intend to alter this missal, but to preserve it so that it is available for all generations of Catholics.

[quote]Those rubrics deal with the priest, no one else.[/quote]

No, all the liturgical rubrics, from the norms governing the music to the way of receiving communion to the norms governing servers to the specific actions of the priest remain in full force at the forma extraordinaria. You are incorrect.

[kateri05]

[quote]The Forma Extraordinaria is the resurection of the rubrics as they stood in place in 1962, and as such the liturgical reforms of Vatican II do not apply to it.[/quote]

btu why not? because the Fathers WROTE those reforms with the current Mass in mind.

[quote]it'll be just as botched as the previous attempt at it was.[/quote]

is that quite fair? why can't their be people who genuinely love the extraordinary form and also genuinely love the second vatican council, in the sense that they want to implement what she called for to be done in the liturgy? i'm by no means suggesting it be done willy-nilly, haphazardly or any such thing, but i certainly don't see why it couldn't be done.

[quote]the readings have always been permitted to be included in the vernacular after their reading in the latin.[/quote]

i didn't know that, interesting. thanks for clarifying! do you know why this is? actually, i'm wondering why latin is used for this part at all, since its not the original language of the scripture (where as the original language for most of the prayers is latin, since it was first composed in this). the scripture was originally in the common language of the people, so how come this didn't change to meet the common languages as well? in other words, why keep it also in Latin if most aren't able to understand it fluently. just curious!