Hymn Use in the Liturgy
Hymn Use in the Liturgy
Commendable or problematic?
Last October, Tate Pumfrey published an article at One Peter Five entitled The Missa Cantata Sine Hymnis–Moving Toward an Ideal. As a traditional church musician and somewhat of a composer, I was intrigued to read the contents. At first, I appreciated someone in the modern Church taking a stance against contemporary liturgical music, or at least the majority of it that has departed from tradition. However, he seems to go too far in condemning hymns and their use in the liturgy.
He explains his “ideal [liturgical] scenario” as follows:
An improvised prelude on the organ accompanying the procession,
Asperges Me/Vidi Aquam accompanied by the organ,
All Proper chants sung unaccompanied,
All Ordinary chants sung accompanied,
Following the Offertory and Communion chants, the organist would improvise in a meditative manner, ideally using the Proper chants that were just sung as the melodic impetus for these improvisations, or hinting at the next chant,
The procession following the Last Gospel will be accompanied by an organ postlude, either prepared or improvised.
For a TLM, this is a good method to follow. As a student of Baroque improvisation, I can appreciate its continued use in the liturgy. (Many do not realize that quite a few of Bach’s works would have been first improvised and that he would not have written them down till later.) However, I do not understand Pumfrey’s agenda against metrical hymns.
For the purposes of a quick tutorial, the “metre” of a hymn refers to “the way you describe the number of syllables that you can sing to any line of a tune”. For example, Immaculate Mary is described as LOURDES HYMN, 11 11 with refrain.
This means that for the verses, there are 11 total syllables on each line, with a refrain. Another hymn, Luther’s A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (harmonized by Bach), is categorised as EIN’ FESTE BURG, 8 7 8 7 66 66 7. Pumfrey claims that “the strophic nature of hymnody does not allow the music to end when the priest has arrived at the foot of the altar…”, whereas a free improvisation from a skilled organist would stop exactly when necessary.
This seems to imply, however, that the music would “get in the way” of the liturgy. Music complements the liturgy, and a hymn going slightly past the priest’s arrival is not really that problematic. If anything, it gives the priest time to collect himself and prepare to start the Mass.
But does this mean hymns ought not to be sung in the liturgy? As Vatican II says, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action…”.
Personally, hymns serve two purposes: they usually set the tone for the Biblical readings, and they themselves can teach their own lessons. This seems to be in “accord with the liturgical action”. However, Pumfrey (following author Martin Mosebach) cannot help but focus on the “jarring mismatch between text and music”, with which hymns are apparently afflicted, and from which chant is immune. I do not think that the ability to switch hymn texts between different melodies is an inherent problem with hymns, but rather a testament to basic music theory and the workings of hymn metres.
Metrical hymns can indeed provide an accessible and familiar way for congregations to participate in the liturgy, especially for those who may not be musically trained. They often have a repetitive structure which makes it easy for people to follow along and sing along with the rest of the congregation.
Additionally, many people have grown up singing these types of hymns and feel a sense of familiarity and comfort in doing so. Most hymns written after the council do need to be carefully considered before use in the liturgy. Many of them are banal and mundane, conveying no real truth about the faith or about the sacrifice about to happen. Hymns like Gather Us In, Lord of the Dance, On Eagle’s Wings and the like should never be used in the liturgy. Hymns like Immaculate Mary, Once In Royal David’s City, On Jordan’s Bank, Christ the Lord Is Risen Today and those many others that are part of our liturgical tradition are to be encouraged, at least at the beginning and end of the Mass.
In this time, which is still clouded by liturgical confusion, it is vital to retain the musical traditions of the church, whether this is an Introit/Entrance Antiphon chanted in Latin or the vernacular, polyphonic motets at Communion, chanted Marian antiphons after Mass, or any number of similar methods. I’ve been working at a church for about a year now at which we follow this program, and the blend of traditional and contemporary works quite well.
Hymns are an interesting musical category. I have not tried to write one yet, because of the complexity of the metrical style. My composing has so far been instrumental Baroque styles and Renaissance vocal polyphony. However, Pumfrey has written 48 hymns, so he definitely has the credentials to speak authoritatively on this subject. However, I think, like most traditionalist commentators, he is too concerned with the exclusivity of the Old Rite and older music in a time when that is not feasible.
While the Latin Mass is an important part of our liturgical history, trying to return to its exclusive use seems unwise and unrealistic. (With that said, there ought to be no restrictions on its practice, as it has such a rich history and tradition to support its continued use. )
In conclusion, I respect Pumfrey’s concern for reverence and appropriate music in the liturgy, as well as his command of music. Despite this, I do not think that his criticisms of metrical hymnody are warranted and that they should enjoy continued use in our liturgies.
I am a huge supporter of the Tridentine form of the Mass; however, I agree with you that hymns can and should have a place in the traditional liturgy. It is true that their use as opening and closing hymns was introduced by Luther, but that was his way of replacing the Introit and other chanted Propers. I have seen traditional parishes that sang a hymn before beginning the Introit. If we just sing one or two verses, this covers the time during which the priest processes to the sanctuary, and then the Introit can begin around the time he starts the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. A return to the traditional liturgy and sacraments does not necessarily have to completely exclude the use of reverent hymns.
I attend the TLM and a hymn is sung at the end of Mass. I hate it, honestly, with the only exception being O come, O come Emmanuel in Advent. These hymns are protestant in origin and for me they sit badly with Gregorian chant. In my experience, many don't know them either, so the experience is underwhelming. There are of course exceptions such as Immaculate Mary but personally I really could do without them though I accept I am probably in a minority. And don't me started on the "worship songs" sung at Novus Ordo masses, many of which I remember from my protestant evangelical youth. They have no place in the Catholic Church.