Ever hear of Jubilate Deo? Neither have most Catholics. Paul VI sent all the bishops a booklet by that title with a minimum number of Latin chants to teach Catholics to sing during Mass—in 1974.
While I am all in favor of the recovery of Latin and Gregorian chant, it must be said that, in all fairness, Paul VI was AT BEST an equivocal supporter of them, and at worst one who contributed mightily to their euthanization.
Pardon the lengthy quotation but here is Paul VI bidding farewell to Latin and chant in his (in)famous General Audience of November 26, 1969 -- literally days before the Novus Ordo was to go into effect:
<< 8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?
10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19). >>
Moreover, when he published "Sacrificium Laudis" in 1966 to urge monks and nuns to retain their chanted choral office, Rembert Weakland went straight to him and said "This is not happening." And Paul VI backed off, as he so often did. A sign of how little the Vatican cares about that document is that it doesn't even appear in translation on the Vatican website. If you want to know what the pope wrote, you have to look for the translation at (you guessed it) The Latin Mass Society of England & Wales:
In short, Paul VI was a timid and non-committal pope, as Yves Chiron's biography shows, who could not quite make up his mind about what direction to go in; and this uncertainty and hesitation has remained a trait of Catholic liturgical life ever since.
Thank you, Peter K. I didn't know that Pope Saint Paul VI urged monks and nuns to retain chant in the Office or that the nefarious Archbishop Weakland got him to back down. Another painful episode after Vatican II! I was aware of Paul VI's heartbreaking farewell to Latin and the great part of Gregorian chant which you quoted. He knew what was being lost: "The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant." And he mistakenly thought it was worth the sacrifice. The justification in his item 12 was lame compared to the things being lost, and incorrect, as history has proven. Au contraire, Latin was not keeping the truth away from people, it is a sacred language, and I've seen hundreds of children develop deep faith while being immersed in it and singing with the Church in Latin at traditional Latin Masses from their earliest ages. However, my intent in this article was not to accuse the dead but praise the good act of Jubilate Deo. I want to draw attention to those who say they want Vatican II implemented, and say for a wider audience that it never really was implemented. The "Spirit of Vatican II" was implemented instead. Many liturgical abuses and all bad hymns would be banished if Sacrosanctum Concilium was correctly implemented, instead of being ridden over by the anti-chant anti-Latin language herd. If Paul Vi's Jubilate Deo is followed, then at least many more Catholics will have their minds and hearts filled by singing at Mass and at liturgical celebrations at least that minimum repertoire, and there will be fewer Masses where the four-hymn sandwich is the typical unpalatable fare.
Yes, I totally understand your good motivation, and I share the desire to see chant flourish again. I am just very very conscious of the need to speak the truth in our narratives, and not (e.g.) to somehow ignore or deny Paul VI's crucial role in the very promotion, or at least toleration, of that "spirit of Vatican II" that led to the denudation and deprivation of our liturgy.
While I am all in favor of the recovery of Latin and Gregorian chant, it must be said that, in all fairness, Paul VI was AT BEST an equivocal supporter of them, and at worst one who contributed mightily to their euthanization.
Pardon the lengthy quotation but here is Paul VI bidding farewell to Latin and chant in his (in)famous General Audience of November 26, 1969 -- literally days before the Novus Ordo was to go into effect:
<< 8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?
10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19). >>
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/changes-in-mass-for-greater-apostolate-8969
Moreover, when he published "Sacrificium Laudis" in 1966 to urge monks and nuns to retain their chanted choral office, Rembert Weakland went straight to him and said "This is not happening." And Paul VI backed off, as he so often did. A sign of how little the Vatican cares about that document is that it doesn't even appear in translation on the Vatican website. If you want to know what the pope wrote, you have to look for the translation at (you guessed it) The Latin Mass Society of England & Wales:
https://lms.org.uk/sacrificium_laudis
In short, Paul VI was a timid and non-committal pope, as Yves Chiron's biography shows, who could not quite make up his mind about what direction to go in; and this uncertainty and hesitation has remained a trait of Catholic liturgical life ever since.
Thank you, Peter K. I didn't know that Pope Saint Paul VI urged monks and nuns to retain chant in the Office or that the nefarious Archbishop Weakland got him to back down. Another painful episode after Vatican II! I was aware of Paul VI's heartbreaking farewell to Latin and the great part of Gregorian chant which you quoted. He knew what was being lost: "The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant." And he mistakenly thought it was worth the sacrifice. The justification in his item 12 was lame compared to the things being lost, and incorrect, as history has proven. Au contraire, Latin was not keeping the truth away from people, it is a sacred language, and I've seen hundreds of children develop deep faith while being immersed in it and singing with the Church in Latin at traditional Latin Masses from their earliest ages. However, my intent in this article was not to accuse the dead but praise the good act of Jubilate Deo. I want to draw attention to those who say they want Vatican II implemented, and say for a wider audience that it never really was implemented. The "Spirit of Vatican II" was implemented instead. Many liturgical abuses and all bad hymns would be banished if Sacrosanctum Concilium was correctly implemented, instead of being ridden over by the anti-chant anti-Latin language herd. If Paul Vi's Jubilate Deo is followed, then at least many more Catholics will have their minds and hearts filled by singing at Mass and at liturgical celebrations at least that minimum repertoire, and there will be fewer Masses where the four-hymn sandwich is the typical unpalatable fare.
Yes, I totally understand your good motivation, and I share the desire to see chant flourish again. I am just very very conscious of the need to speak the truth in our narratives, and not (e.g.) to somehow ignore or deny Paul VI's crucial role in the very promotion, or at least toleration, of that "spirit of Vatican II" that led to the denudation and deprivation of our liturgy.