The following is a distillation thoughts from a particular group of experienced liturgical musicians concerning interpretation of the rubrics for music in the Mass of the Roman Rite. As laypersons, we do not presume to offer an interpretation that merits any claim to canonical authenticity or authority; however, in the spirit of collegiality with our fellow musicians and of filial devotion to our clergy, the following thoughts are offered in the interest of fostering deeper and more fruitful discernment concerning the planning and execution of Roman liturgical music.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states:

40. … in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together.

This is an eminently practical principle: the parts that GIRM 40 prioritizes for singing are generally the parts that do not change from week to week and are thus easy to learn and to sing week to week. This is in essential continuity with the three-tiered hierarchies that /Musicam sacram/ (1967) and /De musica sacra et sacra liturgia/ (1958) describe in greater detail.

GIRM states:

41. 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.

The specific interpretation of this and corresponding passages in /Sacrosanctam Concilium/ has been the subject of much debate since the 1960s. While much more could be said, it seems safe to assert here that a parish that makes no regular use of Gregorian Chant—or that relegates the chant solely to a particular season—has abandoned the spirit of the above passage of GIRM, even if no juridical norms are in violation per se.

A musical repertoire that is uniquely proper to the Roman Liturgy is one that liturgical musicians should know well. Ignorance of the chant or unfamiliarity with it should thus be considered deficiencies in such musicians.

Much has been said about the diversity of other musical styles in Roman liturgy today. On this topic a few observations are offered here:

1. Congregational music should normally be uncomplicated and easy to learn. As a general rule, a melody that cannot easily be sung without accompaniment, without a conductor, or without substantial rehearsal time is not well-written for a congregation.

2. Certain more difficult melodies that bear the weight of tradition, such as the Mass settings in the Kyriale or hymns like /Veni Creator Spíritus/, merit the time required to learn them and should still be taught.

3. A congregation and a choir may be thought of as two different “instruments”, each with distinct characteristics that suggest different musical characteristics. Music that is idiomatic for one may not fit the other well. The sublime beauty that a group of rehearsed, practised singers can create requires different music from the “joyful noise” of an enthusiastically singing congregation.

Closely connected to the question of musical style is that of instrumentation. The organ has a sustaining quality that matches that of the human voice in a way that instruments that are struck or plucked do not. The organ also allows a wealth of timbres and scope of volume that other instruments cannot provide. These qualities make the organ uniquely well-suited both to accompanying singing and to being a solo instrument in its own right. For these reasons, as a matter of simple practicality, the organ’s close association with the Roman liturgy is one that parishes should proudly maintain, prizing the organ above all other instruments in liturgical use.

GIRM states:

103. Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical function, its place being to take care that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different genres of chant, are properly carried out and to foster the active participation of the faithful by means of the singing.

Here GIRM establishes the choir’s two-fold purpose: to sing its own chants as well as to foster the congregation’s participation—which presumably here means to encourage their singing. A choir that does not sing its own distinct liturgical part (e.g., chant propers or motets) thus fails to fulfill its true purpose, as does a choir that does not sing with the congregation.

GIRM 41 establishes a desire that the faithful “know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.”

Many of the same considerations apply to the question of Latin as with Gregorian chant. Much debate has occurred concerning Latin’s proper role in the reformed Liturgy. At a minimum, it is safe to assert that parishes that make no regular use of Latin—or that relegate it solely to a particular season—are denying the desires that GIRM 41 establishes.

In particular, insofar as CIC 249 requires that seminarians be “well-versed” in Latin, it seems reasonable to state that they should also be competent to recite the Mass in that language.

The widespread practice of singing a congregational hymn here is not the only option that GIRM permits at this point in the Mass; indeed, the Roman Church’s ancient repertoire of Introit chants envisions singing by the choir alone. These chants are a significant part of the Roman liturgical tradition, and parishes with choirs that are capable of singing them should consider this as a laudable option.

It is notable also that this part of the Mass does not meet GIRM 40’s criteria for meriting priority in the choosing of parts of the Mass to sing.

This falls under the category of “Priest … with the people replying” from GIRM 40 and thus should be given priority for singing.

The /Confiteor/ meets GIRM 40’s criteria; however, the absence of a melody for this text in the Missal suggests that this text is not normally to be sung. The other parts, however, of this part of the Mass do have melodies and meet GIRM 40’s criteria; therefore, they should be sung.

GIRM establishes no preference for whether this text should be sung by the choir, congregation, or in alternation. The general practice of congregational singing here, however, is laudable and fitting given the relative ease of the settings from the /Kyriale/.

At occasional Masses (e.g., weddings) where the congregation is unlikely to sing or to gather again, we suggest that the Gloria be sung by the choir alone.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and thus should be prioritized for singing. TODO: Insert link to settings.

The readings may be sung according to the melodies given in the Gradual or the Missal; however, this should only be done when the lector is comfortable doing so and can preserve intelligibility of the text.

The normal practice of a cantor leading the singing of a psalm is laudable; however, particularly in parishes where such is not feasible, the psalm may also be sung by the entire congregation without intervening responses.

The Graduals from the /Roman Gradual/ envision singing by a choir or even one or two cantors; thus, they do not meet GIRM’s criteria for proper execution of this part of the Mass. Nevertheless, their presence in the liturgical books suggests that in some cases they may be appropriate.

In particular, a Gradual sung by a choir or cantors may work well at an occasional Mass (e.g., a funeral or wedding) where the congregation is unlikely to sing and will not foreseeably gather again.

The same general considerations apply here as with the Responsorial Psalm.

As with the Graduals, while GIRM appears effectively to exclude the Gregorian Alleluias from the Roman Gradual, their presence in the liturgical books suggests that in some cases they may be appropriate. The aforementioned case of a “one-time” congregation that will not sing a responsorial Alleluia may pertain.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing. It is lamentable that this is not standard practice. GIRM allows singing either by all together or by the people in alternation with the choir; the centuries-old tradition of choral singing here is effectively excluded.

Note also that GIRM 41 cites this text by name as a desirable one for the faithful to be able to sing together in Latin. This suggests a desirability of regular use of Latin here.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing if a suitable cantor is available, subject to the same criteria as for the readings. The Missal provides several melodies.

The same considerations apply here as at the Entrance. This part of the Mass is not prioritized for singing as per GIRM 40.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing.

GIRM establishes the recitation of this text as the province of the priest and people together. At face value, this effectively excludes the centuries-old tradition of choral singing of the /Sanctus/.

This document makes no comment on the claim by some that other liturgical legislation justifies choral singing of the Sanctus in the Ordinary Form.

Those priests who are capable of singing this text clearly should do so, especially on Sundays and other solemn occasions. The same considerations apply as for the readings.

Because this text is a response to the priest’s invitation, the priest should ideally sing that invitation in the same musical key as the congregation’s response.

It is notable that this short text has more of the character of a response than a longer text like the /Sanctus/ or /Agnus Dei/; thus, there is little purpose to instrumental accompaniment here.

It is suggested that parishes adopt a single version of this text so that the faithful can confidently respond to the celebrant’s prompt without a need for the celebrant to recite the response with them.

The Missal offers no justification for (nor proscription of) the widespread practice of repeating the congregation’s “Amen” at the end of the Canon.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing.

Note also that GIRM 41 cites this text by name as a desirable one for the faithful to be able to sing together in Latin. This suggests a desirability of regular use of Latin here.

GIRM says that this text is “usually” sung responsorially; this does not exclude full recitation by either the congregation (e.g., the settings in the /Kyriale/) or the choir alone.

The same essential criteria apply here as at the Offertory and Entrance: this is not a part of the Mass that GIRM prioritizes for singing, and that singing may be done by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.

Choral singing is particularly advantageous at this time because of the amount of physical activity that is typical among the congregation. Most untrained singers—and even some trained ones!—are uncomfortable singing while moving.

The English translation of GIRM 86 effectively proscribes choral singing by stipulating that there by unity of communicants’ voices; however, this passage is a mistranslation of the Latin, which makes no mention of whose voices are in unity. Read in this proper light, the understanding becomes that the unity of the choir members’ voices is an expression of the communicants’ spiritual union.

GIRM’s allowance for a “Psalm or other canticle of praise” to be sung by the whole congregation is a laudable option.

The priest’s prayer and its response meet GIRM 40’s criteria and are thus to be prioritized for singing.

This meets GIRM 40’s criteria and should thus be prioritized for singing.

This laudable practice is not required but enjoys widespread use.