RUSTRATED. The liturgist or choirmaster who attempts “get technical” (i.e. interpret matters in a legalistic way) is destined to end up frustrated. That’s because there’s always somebody out there smarter and more skilled at “getting technical” than the one who initially decides—due to immaturity—to go down that road. Closely related (but not identical) is the fool who relies solely upon extant documents. Sensible people realize that vast amounts of what happened in the past were never documented. Indeed, sometimes the very fact that something was written down meant it was of little importance. For instance, one of the old manuals says it’s an abuse to begin the Gradual while the priest is proclaiming the EPISTLE at High Mass. I would never dream of doing such a thing—but that comment wouldn’t have been written unless someone was doing that. Another manual from the 1920s tells priests it’s an abuse to start the Offertory prayers while the CREDO is still being sung. But the mere fact that such items were documented doesn’t “prove” they were widespread. I’d argue the contrary.
No Priest Does This • Sometimes a tiny comment can be quite revealing. For example, priests in the olden days were supposed to wear a surplice while celebrating Mass, but Father Adrian Fortescue wrote in 1912: “This is now rare, at least in England.” I served as an altar boy for hundreds of Masses but never witnessed any priest doing that.1
Jeff Was “Shook” • It’s necessary to use one’s brain—and sometimes even one’s imagination—to reach plausible conclusions about former praxis. The further one goes back, the more interpretation might be required. Consider the following sentence by Father Fortescue, from his magnificent tome on the Mass, wherein a footnote details his medieval source: “Another mediæval practice was that while (!) the choir sang the creed the people sang Kyrie eleison.” When I first read that 20+ years ago I was shook (to use a word in vogue these days). After all, wouldn’t that have created ghastly cacophony? However, if one examines the architectural layout of REIMS CATHEDRAL in France, one sees that its SANCTUARY forms an interior “castle” separated by walls—so perhaps it was indeed possible to have two (2) different songs taking place simultaneously.
Vernacular In Olden Days? • Those who carefully examine the Brébeuf Hymnal will notice how its editors occasionally took texts from a remarkable Catholic hymnal printed in Baltimore in 1807. The book’s title is Hymns for the Use of the Catholic Church in America, and I suspect it was created at the urging of Most Rev’d John Carroll (d. 1815), the first Archbishop of Baltimore. For the record, Bishop Carroll’s brother was one of five men who signed both the “Articles of Confederation” (1778) and the United States Constitution (1787), and his cousin was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776). A footnote on page 263 of the Brébeuf Hymnal notes that this American hymnal “appeared two years before Pope Pius VII was taken prisoner by Napoléon Bonaparte, not being released until 1814.” In November of 1791AD, Archbishop John Carroll held a synod with 22 priests. It had the following to say about the use of the vernacular during liturgical services:
As that PDF document shows, the Concilia Provincialia Baltimorensia spoke about Sunday Mass (asking that the Gospel be repeated in the vernacular), afternoon Vespers, and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament followed by catechetical instruction, adding that: “It is desirable that some hymns or prayers be sung in the mother tongue during the services.” [Optandum est ut inter officia hymni aliqui aut preces lingua vernacula cantentur.]
Vernacular Hymns • I have argued that good hymnody is eminently suitable at Mass, in addition to CARMEN GREGORIANUM (“Gregorian Chant”), classical polyphony, and organ music. Needless to say, we don’t know exactly what took place in those days, although the 1807 Baltimore hymnal cited by that footnote in the Brébeuf Hymnal provides powerful clues. Readers know we are working on a Spanish hymnal, and I would like to give some examples of hymns which (in my humble opinion) are simple yet dignified. Consider the following, sung in Spanish:
The same hymn, sung in English:
What Did It Sound Like? • What did the hymns sound like during the 1800s when sung in America? Of course, nobody can answer that question. On the one hand, I have heard a “pump organ” played in real life, and the sounds which emanated from it struck me as quite unpleasant. On the other hand, there’s no question that the voice-leading in the old hymn books was frequently superb. That wouldn’t be the case if the singing in those days was ghastly and out of tune. Indeed, there is often a “gathering pitch” which would imply the hymns were sung a cappella. Consider the following, sung recently by our (100% volunteer) parish choir:
The same hymn, sung in English by our parish choir last Sunday:
I’m so proud of the way those volunteers sound. All of them were recruited from the pews of our parish.
Vernacular During Communion
Can vernacular hymnody can be used during the distribution of Holy Communion in the Extraordinary Form? For years, I thought this was forbidden, and I remember being scandalized when I learned that the former District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter allowed vernacular during Communion at the largest FSSP parish in the United States. That same practice was employed on Sundays in the FSSP seminary (!) in Europe. At that time, I didn’t understand how such a thing was possible. Let me provide (below) some food for thought.
It’s important to realize that not everything is explicitly described by the MISSALE ROMANUM. For instance, as far as I can tell, the 1962 Missal never says those receiving Holy Communion must kneel (or receive on the tongue). Moreover, one must realize that certain things allowed by the 1962 are never done anywhere by anyone. A “liturgical commentator”—once quite popular in the 1950s—is allowed, but nobody ever does that. The 1962 Ritus Servandus In Celebratione Missae explicitly allows for an altar boy to sing the Epistle during a sung Mass—but very few do that. Starting in 1958, the members of each congregation were explicitly allowed to recite the entire Pater Noster along with the priest (whereas traditionally they only say “sed líbera nos a malo”), but I’ve never seen that done anywhere. Believe it or not, the entire congregation (!) is explicitly allowed by the 1958 legislation to recite along with the priest the entire Proprium Missae. Can you imagine the entire congregation reciting with the priest the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Sequence, and so forth? I’ve never seen that done anywhere—and I’d hate it.
As I said above, it’s dangerous to “go down the road” of reading documents in a technical, legalistic way. Once you start down that road, where does it end? So much has changed; e.g. the currently discipline allows Mass to be said in the afternoon or evening. A strict legalist might say: “This legislation was written at a time when the 1962 Missal was the dominant rite, the liturgical ‘norm’ throughout the West. That’s no longer the case, so the legislation no longer applies.” Others say: “Unless you can show me a pre-conciliar document specifically saying their legislation was intended for Catholics in 2024 living in America using the MISSALE VETUSTUM, I won’t believe you.” Again, how far do we wish to take this game? Personally, I refuse to argue with a legalist; it’s a waste of time. When I served as CHIEF UMPIRE for a Baseball organization, we used to say: “The rules of Baseball were written by gentlemen for gentleman; not by lawyers for lawyers.” It is incontrovertible that no legislation was written in the 1950s which anticipated the MISSALE VETUSTUM being used by indult. What’s funny is that the same legalists who object to vernacular hymns during Holy Communion fully embrace the “Pre-Communion Confiteor” which is explicitly forbidden by the 1962 Missal.
Let’s consider the 1958 Vatican document, which says: “Wherever ancient or immemorial custom permits the singing of popular hymns in the vernacular after the sacred liturgical words have been sung in Latin at the Eucharistic Sacrifice [namely, sung Mass], local Ordinaries may allow it to continue, if they judge that because of circumstances of place and persons, such customs cannot prudently be suppressed.” How would this apply to America? Traditionally, an ‘indult’ was carried along with priests who evangelized a country. In other words, some argue that German priests would bring their “privileges” (concessions or indults) with them to America. Moreover, it would seem the intention in 1958 was that vernacular could continue where it already had a strong foothold; i.e. where it would not disturb the faithful. Would anyone argue the vernacular hasn’t been used almost exclusively for seven decades in virtually all parishes? Is anyone unaware that Latin was forbidden—in spite of SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM—in many American parishes after Vatican II? Even in the Vatican itself, Latin has been all but banished under the current pope (being replaced by Italian) and this lamentable innovation is causing massive problems for the musicians there. When the Catholic faithful are routinely subjected to Masses like this one, would anyone attempt to argue that a vernacular hymn at Communion would be disturbing? 2
Furthermore, the United States of America has an immemorial custom of vernacular hymnody at Mass, going back through the 1900s (which our blog has documented 100 billion times), through the 1800s (e.g. the 1807 Baltimore hymnal mentioned earlier), all the way back to the 1600s, when the Missa Cantata—not Low Mass—was allowed to be sung entirely in the vernacular in America, leading to thousands of pages being printed in the languages of Iroquois, Huron, and Algonquin. During the 1900s in America, many Catholics sang the Mass parts (!!!) translated into English although some Vatican documents prohibit this “except by special permission” (cf. De Musica Sacra Et Sacra Liturgia §13b). Consider, for example, the NEW SAINT BASIL HYMNAL, which includes an entire section of vernacular hymns for use during Mass:
Final Thoughts
We have spoken about 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM legislation which allows practices which are never done anywhere by anyone. Most people currently involved in the Extraordinary Form don’t care about any of that—they desire that which is traditional. Many have asked: “What is the traditional practice during Holy Communion at the Extraordinary Form?” This question became even more pressing during Covid-19, because sometimes we only had one priest—who due to Covid-19 dipped his fingers in alcohol after each distribution—with the result that Communion time took about 40 minutes (!) at each Mass. Now I will say something very important:
M No “tradition” exists for
M Holy Communion music, as
M distribution of Communion
M at High Mass was extremely
M rare before the 1960s.
You can learn more about that by reading my 2021 article. Normally, the Celebrant alone—fasting from midnight from all food and water—received Holy Communion, which helps explain why the Communion antiphon printed in the GRADUALE ROMANUM is usually just a brief sentence. The only exception to this was supposed to be Holy Thursday, a day when everyone present (not just the Celebrant) was encouraged to receive Holy Communion. However, old bulletins demonstrate that rule was often ignored. Once we understand that Holy Communion was almost never distributed at High Mass, we can understand why a 1957 GRADUALE carefully and painstakingly describes how Holy Communion could be given to others besides the Celebrant. A significant change happened when the Code of Rubrics was issued in 1961. Specifically, §502 declared:
“The proper time to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful is during Mass, after the Communion of the Celebrant… It is altogether unbecoming for another priest to distribute Holy Communion—other than at the proper time for Communion—at the same altar at which Mass is actually being celebrated.”
Yet even in 1962, the distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass was still permitted “for a reasonable cause,” and Father Henry Dziadosz suggested (15 December 1960) that “relieving the congestion” might justify this. Let me repeat it one more time: A 40-minute “concert” at Communion time would have been absolutely unthinkable to our grandparents. Seeking the “traditional music sung during Communion at High Masses before Vatican II” would be like trying to find out what type of iPhone Americans used in the 1930s. Sensible people realize one cannot recover something which never existed. Since we are “importing” or “inventing” or “making alterations to” the MISSALE VETUSTUM by attaching a new rite it never previously had, legislating in a rigid way this imported rite seems foolish. Whether we like it or not, many customs existed in the Traditional Latin Mass formerly; e.g. in Europe, a vernacular hymn was often sung before or after the homily. Indeed, Bishop Urban Sagstetter (d. 1573) mandated vernacular Communion songs in his diocese!
Micromanaging Liturgy • At some point, the Church will have to address the knotty question of whether (and to what extent) the Vatican can lawfully micromanage liturgical functions at the parish level. Throughout the Church’s history, the local bishop or abbot—not the Vatican—was supposed to watch over local liturgies. A recent document by Pope Francis (TRADITIONIS CUSTODES) seems to embrace that idea, declaring: “It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese.” Nevertheless, on 4 December 2021 the current prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter attempting to stop parishes the world over (!!!) from listing in their bulletins the schedule of certain Masses, although that same prefect was completely fine with bulletins including secular news, information about the school play, paid advertisements, the schedule of parish bingo, and other such items. In the entire history of the Church, such a thing has never occurred. After all, throughout the Middle Ages Christian countries sometimes went to war with papal territory! [This happened in the olden days, when the pope had temporal power and functioned as the ruler of certain lands.] Can you imagine the pope in those days—while signing a peace treaty with another country—making sure to include certain demands vis-à-vis parish bulletins? It beggars the imagination. I repeat: It’s an open question whether it’s “binding” when Vatican bureaucrats attempt to micromanage items such as the font size used by parish bulletins throughout the west. This nonsense seems to have begun circa 1950, when the Vatican tried to micromanage everybody’s actions during Holy Mass—but historically, the sacred liturgy was never treated thus. Since my article has become too lengthy, I’ll close with a quote by the great Monsignor Klaus Gamber:
The eminent theologian Suarez (who died in 1617AD) […] took the position that a pope would be schismatic […] “for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.”
1 If memory serves, even in the year 2024, priests are technically supposed to wear a surplice “whenever they are confecting any Sacrament”—but I could be mistaken about this.
2 To say nothing of the goofy, embarrassing, pseudo-heretical music such as this obscene abomination from the COLLEGEVILLE HYMNAL, which is (believe it or not) one of the better hymnals from the big publishers.
