Any word on Sacred Music from the USCCB?

[benedictgal]

Who is asking for an unapproved form? The issue is that apparently some feel they are in a better place than the Church to judge what should be approved.

I can’t agree that the hierarchy is not unified in this. The lack of unity that I have seen comes mostly from lay folks that don’t like the decisions made by their bishops.

The fact that the bishops could not unanimously vote to send the document on music to Rome is very telling indeed. Furthermore, when certain bishops stop enforcing liturgical norms, that constitutes a huge problem.

Remember, too, that is the right of every Catholic that the liturgy be celebrated according to the established norms and rubrics. This includes music.

 

[pnewton]

The Christian liturgy had its roots in Jewish liturgy of the first century. I have always noted the variety in the Psalms that were integral to the liturgy. Some are first person, some third. Some are imperative, others declarative. I think this model should lead us to be more concerned about content of our music and less concerned about grammatical tense.

 

[TMC]

The fact that the bishops could not unanimously vote to send the document on music to Rome is very telling indeed. Furthermore, when certain bishops stop enforcing liturgical norms, that constitutes a huge problem.

Remember, too, that is the right of every Catholic that the liturgy be celebrated according to the established norms and rubrics. This includes music.

Huh? The fact that the bishops were not unanimous is an indictment of them somehow? The votes in councils and synods and so forth are rarely unanimous. And I believe that the OCP hymnals are approved, arent’ they? So how is using them a violation?

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, peary, it’s not just your opinion. It is one of the findings that the USCCB noted in its powerpoint on liturgy:

www.usccb.org/liturgy/MUSICFDLCnew.ppt

To Strummer, it would do well for you to also look at the powerpoint as well. Have you also not read what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said about music in his major opus, Spirit of the Liturgy? It is very telling and I would ask you to review Spirit and Song in light of the present Holy Father’s comments:

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.

Spirit and Song’s musical repertoire includes many selections from the Protestant Worship CD, Songs of Worship.

There is also the issue of the type of instrumentation called for in the hymns in Spirit and Song. Here, Benedict makes some very strong observations.

On the one hand, there is the music that Plato ascribes, in line with mythology, to Apollo, the god of light and reason. This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it elevates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being. But then there is the music that Plato ascribes to Marsyas, which we might describe, in terms of cultic history, as “Dionysian”. It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes rationality, and subjects the spirit to the senses. The way Plato (and more moderately, Aristotle) allots instruments and keys to one or other of these two kinds of music is now obsolete and may in many respects surprise us. But the Apollonian/Dionysian alternative runs through the whole history of religion and confronts us again today. Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (I Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and He leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship) of which we spoke in the first part of this book.

If you look at the powerpoint and examine Benedict’s comments, you will find that this hymnal is not consistent with the Church’s norm for liturgical music. Listen, I used to use OCP for things; however, after some serious study on the issue, I cannot, in good conscience, use a publishing house that is resonsible for most of the bad liturgical music we have today. Even their Spanish collections, which many of us who live in predominantly Hispanic dioceses must use, has its share of serious problems. As I indicated in an earlier post, Hombres/Pueblos Nuevos has some serious tinges of liberation theology, something that the Church has deemed heresy.

Do not be so quick to discount those of us who have majoir liturgical and doctrinal concerns as simply being “geezers”. I may have cosmetic issues about just having turned 40, but I am not ready for your particular title just yet. Of course, if you are using that term to also identify that spry 80-year-old Pope we have (who is trying to get some reason back into our liturgical music), then, I’ll be happy to count myself with him.

 

[benedictgal]

Huh? The fact that the bishops were not unanimous is an indictment of them somehow? The votes in councils and synods and so forth are rarely unanimous. And I believe that the OCP hymnals are approved, arent’ they? So how is using them a violation?

Actually, I never said that using them was a violation. Do not put words in my mouth.

A good chunk of their music is questionable, however. Furthermore, if you look at Spirit and Song, it doesn’t have any indication that it’s even approved. Even though the Church may no longer use the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, OCP doesn’t carry any real sanction at all, nor does it have a mandate from anyone, let alone Rome, to push its stuff down our throats.

I would also direct you to read the USCCB powerpoint and then examine the OCP hymnals. You will find that their selecctions don’t exactly conform to Liturgicam Authenticam.

 

[benedictgal]

 

[TMC]

Actually, I never said that using them was a violation. Do not put words in my mouth.

I apologize, but I’m not sure what this quote meant if it didn’t mean that the songs currently used are not some kind of violation?

The fact that the bishops could not unanimously vote to send the document on music to Rome is very telling indeed. Furthermore, when certain bishops stop enforcing liturgical norms, that constitutes a huge problem.

Remember, too, that is the right of every Catholic that the liturgy be celebrated according to the established norms and rubrics. This includes music.

A good chunk of their music is questionable, however. Furthermore, if you look at Spirit and Song, it doesn’t have any indication that it’s even approved. Even though the Church may no longer use the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, OCP doesn’t carry any real sanction at all, nor does it have a mandate from anyone, let alone Rome, to push its stuff down our throats.

I would also direct you to read the USCCB powerpoint and then examine the OCP hymnals. You will find that their selecctions don’t exactly conform to Liturgicam Authenticam.

I’m sure that there may be some songs that don’t make the cut, but nothing in the powerpoint gives me the indication that there will be some big change. It seems to support a continued mix of musical types:

Finally, liturgical songs, in the forms of both traditional and popular hymns and canticles, are sung at various points during the Mass to facilitate the full, conscious and active participation of all present.

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve noticed that you often pull out the bromide but somewhat out of context, no? Let’s look at the WHOLE quote rather than just the cherry you picked…Now we see that the “one song” reference seems directed to those from our “heritage” which “must not be lost”. OR, maybe it is just a general caution that there’s drek from throughout the ages and will continue to be. No argument there. Going on, we get to the more vague “generic improvisation” and “musical genres which fail to respect…” All in all very subjective and would differ from diocese to diocese. All of this puts your knee-jerk bumper sticker “one song…blah blah blah” into it’s properly vague context. It does not hold water to support your argument in and of itself. Furthermore, your linking it to the “dictatorship of spiritual relativism” is a weak and soggy straw man argument at best.

Twisting one’s self into pretzle-like contortions in order to justify a personal preference is hardly a worthy exercise. Can we not be satisfied that some are fed by the music you hear and others are fed by the music they hear and the Church embraces us all?

No one is twisting things, Strummer. You seem to not want to examine things for yourself in light of solid church documentation. By the way, Protestant praise music is not part of our Church’s Sacred Tradition.

My relativism point is not a “weak and soggy straw man argument.” It is you who have yet to produce any solid, documentation that supports your argument. Music in Catholic Worship, by the way, was never approved by the USCCB. It was only a series of recommendations, faulty, at best, that the former Bishops Committee on Liturgy (now Divine Worship) put out. That is why the USCCB had to study this issue even further.

If problems did not exist, then the USCCB wouldn’t have had to work on the issue of liturgical music, nor, would the Holy Father, in his pre and post papal election writings, have written much on the matter. After all, he, too, is a musician with years of solid theology and dogma behind him. That’s why he’s the Pope and you and I are not.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;2999956:

Actually, I never said that using them was a violation. Do not put words in my mouth.\QUOTE]

I apologize, but I’m not sure what this quote meant if it didn’t mean that the songs currently used are not some kind of violation?

I’m sure that there may be some songs that don’t make the cut, but nothing in the powerpoint gives me the indication that there will be some big change. It seems to support a continued mix of musical types:

Just for your information, I have now included Liturgicam Authenticam. Don’t roll your eyeballs because the link to the document comes from Adoremus. It’s just a quicker way of getting to the text rather than navigating through the entire Vatican website (I’m still suffering from turkey coma).

Here it is:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

I would then ask you to compare some of the hymns in, let’s say, Spirit and Song, to both of the documents I have submitted.

 

[benedictgal]

Don’t hold your breath LOL

Well, I forgot to mention, in my anxiousness to rebuke commentary, that the USCCB did, in fact, return my call this past week. They will be having the document posted on their website in about two weeks.

Until then, maybe we should just wait and see what the document says.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m sure that there may be some songs that don’t make the cut, but nothing in the powerpoint gives me the indication that there will be some big change. It seems to support a continued mix of musical types:

But, there is another quote that bears closer examination regarding the texts of the hymns:

Individual songs should be consonant with Catholic teaching and free from theological error.

I don’t know if you know Spanish, but you might want to examine Hombres/Pueblos Nuevos. I don’t have the text in front of me, but at some point this weekend, I’ll post it up with an English translation (albeit, not the official) and you’ll see my point. When I first started planning liturgies, I inserted this particular hymn until our former director of liturgy (priest) told me that the hymn was full of liberation theology and asked that we cease singing that particular song. Since then, I have had to examine the hymns myself to make sure that we weren’t singing something that was inconsistent with Catholic doctrine and liturgical theololgy.

 

[pnewton]

Well, I forgot to mention, in my anxiousness to rebuke commentary, that the USCCB did, in fact, return my call this past week. They will be having the document posted on their website in about two weeks.

Until then, maybe we should just wait and see what the document says.

Hey, Laredo. Thanks for all the work and keeping us up to date. I will look forward to reading the document at that time.

PS - I plan on finishing my book this weekend. (J. Ratzinger)

 

[benedictgal]

Strummer, you quoted the wrong song. Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete is the one at issue. Although I don’t particularly care for Come to the Table, there are problems when the “meal” aspect is emphasized more than the Sacrifice. Yes, the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a meal, there are some problems when we de-emphasize the sacrificial aspect. The Protestants don’t even believe in the sacrifice.

Marty Haugen’s We Remember is very telling on its implications. I don’t have the exact words in front of me, but in one of the versus he writes, “a simple meal.” That is clearly what the Mass is not.

According to the USCCB powerpoint:

Individual songs should be consonant with Catholic teaching and free from theological error.

Gather Us In, which I used to use often, also has some doctrinal issues, especially with the line “not in some heaven, light years away.” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass lifts the veil between heaven and earth. It is the Divine Liturgy where heaven and earth are united. In fact, this aspect is found in many of the prefaces of the Eucharistic Prayers and is what the priest says immediately before the Sanctus (especially those Prefaces for the Christmas season). Heaven is not light years away. It is something that we hope to experience after death.

 

[benedictgal]

Hey, Laredo. Thanks for all the work and keeping us up to date. I will look forward to reading the document at that time.

PS - I plan on finishing my book this weekend. (J. Ratzinger)

Thanks. I am re-reading it as well as some other documents (and A New Song for the Lord-B16’s second book on the liturgy). My parochial vicar once told me that if I’m going to engage in document warfare, I need to read as much as I can.

Hey, did you get the cold front yet?

 

[peary]

Indeed! And neither is a “feast” just a meal. What is it saying when simple bread is to be considered a “feast”? This is hardly “Protestant” in that it is proclaiming Our Lord in that “feast” of bread, broken for us.

**As the song parody goes: *“Bread For the Squirrels.” ***

 

[JButky]

Who is asking for an unapproved form? The issue is that apparently some feel they are in a better place than the Church to judge what should be approved.

That’s part of the problem, what is there is largely ignored and has been for a long time.

I can’t agree that the hierarchy is not unified in this. The lack of unity that I have seen comes mostly from lay folks that don’t like the decisions made by their bishops.

Depending on which Bishops that is. If you go back and read the documents concerning music and this last USCCB is right in there, you discover the same dichotomy on music, rubrics, etc. I am between 2 dioceses right now and I can tell you that the variation of adherence is stunning! Unfortunately, there is no approved list for people to go by. Many Music directors make up their own decisions. If you said GIRM to many of them they would respond with “what’s that?” Many of them are highly influenced by the likes of OCP and others. Last time I checked…none of these publishers are branches of the hierarchy. Yet they “interpret” or ignore documents and that is not their purpose, but they have made it so. They are just as happy to leave it in a confused state so that they can be the “interpreters”.

Some bishops do something about, some remain silent in the face of what’s happening. Maybe they just don’t know what to do. Some allow certain things to be taught in their seminaries, others don’t. So you have the official line and then you have what people do. The official line is either enforced, ignored, or somewhere (and everywhere) in between.

Maybe what we need is just plain discipline. If we just did what the official document stated and stop getting vague “clarifications” in these subsequent documents maybe all the nonsense would stop. Or when things “happen” maybe the fortitude to correct it would come forth. It’s all very polite when you read the written transcriptions, but there is obviously a sense of defiance from some as far as implementation is concerned. Tactics of delay, delay, need clarification, need exemptions, need, need, need…and implementation gets so lost that no one even knows what the current operating documents say. Then we get clarification, then we get another clarification, and they get ignored too.

So you are right, no one is asking. People are just disobeying and are enabled to do so. But the problem is not just with the lay folk.

I understand this is how the hierarchy works, but some of us are begging for nothing more than a straight answer and implementation. I’d rather listen to the Church and not any publisher, especially the ones intent on interpreting ad nauseum unofficially.

Then again, this is our weakened condition. The Church will survive it of course, but what a penance! I suppose this penance should be looked on as a blessing in the larger scheme of things

Joe B

 

[benedictgal]

That’s part of the problem, what is there is largely ignored and has been for a long time.

Depending on which Bishops that is. If you go back and read the documents concerning music and this last USCCB is right in there, you discover the same dichotomy on music, rubrics, etc. I am between 2 dioceses right now and I can tell you that the variation of adherence is stunning! Unfortunately, there is no approved list for people to go by. Many Music directors make up their own decisions. If you said GIRM to many of them they would respond with “what’s that?” Many of them are highly influenced by the likes of OCP and others. Last time I checked…none of these publishers are branches of the hierarchy. Yet they “interpret” or ignore documents and that is not their purpose, but they have made it so. They are just as happy to leave it in a confused state so that they can be the “interpreters”.

Some bishops do something about, some remain silent in the face of what’s happening. Maybe they just don’t know what to do. Some allow certain things to be taught in their seminaries, others don’t. So you have the official line and then you have what people do. The official line is either enforced, ignored, or somewhere (and everywhere) in between.

Maybe what we need is just plain discipline. If we just did what the official document stated and stop getting vague “clarifications” in these subsequent documents maybe all the nonsense would stop. Or when things “happen” maybe the fortitude to correct it would come forth. It’s all very polite when you read the written transcriptions, but there is obviously a sense of defiance from some as far as implementation is concerned. Tactics of delay, delay, need clarification, need exemptions, need, need, need…and implementation gets so lost that no one even knows what the current operating documents say. Then we get clarification, then we get another clarification, and they get ignored too.

So you are right, no one is asking. People are just disobeying and are enabled to do so. But the problem is not just with the lay folk.

I understand this is how the hierarchy works, but some of us are begging for nothing more than a straight answer and implementation. I’d rather listen to the Church and not any publisher, especially the ones intent on interpreting ad nauseum unofficially.

Then again, this is our weakened condition. The Church will survive it of course, but what a penance! I suppose this penance should be looked on as a blessing in the larger scheme of things

Joe B

Of course, the USCCB was supposed to have fixed this problem during last week’s meeting. The original document, from what I understand, was supposed to conform things to Liturgical Authenticam and then be sent to Rome for the required recognitio. Howvever, prior to the meeting the National Pastoral Musicians Association asked the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions to pass a resolution that, in effect, requested maintaining the status quo. The end result is a document that didn’t pass by the required 2/3 (to send it to Rome) and may or may not have much teeth to it.

However, I hope that I am proved wrong, as the document should be up in the USCCB website within the next two weeks.

Joe, the powerpoint that I have been referring to in this thread (and in others) does suggest that we have a common repertoire of songs for the Mass. Again, not having seen the document yet, I’m not sure if this was included in the final version.

 

[lak611]

Of course, the USCCB was supposed to have fixed this problem during last week’s meeting. The original document, from what I understand, was supposed to conform things to Liturgical Authenticam and then be sent to Rome for the required recognitio. Howvever, prior to the meeting the National Pastoral Musicians Association asked the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions to pass a resolution that, in effect, requested maintaining the status quo. The end result is a document that didn’t pass by the required 2/3 (to send it to Rome) and may or may not have much teeth to it.

Does Rome have any way to enforce the matter? Can the Pope or Cardinal Arinze tell the USCCB what needs to be done in an official document?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

Of course, the USCCB was supposed to have fixed this problem

Who said they were addressing a problem?

Apparently the problem wasn’t big enough, because from what I’ve read so far, they didn’t change anything, to your way of thinking.

Sorry!

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

Who said they were addressing a problem?

Apparently the problem wasn’t big enough, because from what I’ve read so far, they didn’t change anything, to your way of thinking.

Sorry!

Jim

Jim, before you make any comments, I suggest that you read both the powerpoint that I have repeatedly posted (including the survey that was conducted on a random sampling of hymns that listed deficiencies). If you don’t really care about sacred music, then why bother posting?

Perhaps you post just to post.