Cultural Differences in the Music sung in Mass

[creationlover]

Is chant, Latin, classical and/or similar forms of music used in the Mass more desirable than other cultural styles of music that one might find in different cultures such as Mexican, African or any other culture? If so, please help me to understand why.

As I understand, the cultural expression of music used in Traditional Masses is European in origin, so what makes this music more desirable than others, provided the Mass is executed properly, with respect and dignity?

Or am I mistaken in my interpretation of what others are saying? Please help me to understand. It seems some who prefer the Latin Mass may be discounting other musical expressions of worship and I would like to gain some clarity on the matter.

Thanks!

 

[pianistclare]

Is chant, Latin, classical and/or similar forms of music used in the Mass more desirable than other cultural styles of music that one might find in different cultures such as Mexican, African or any other culture? If so, please help me to understand why.

As I understand, the cultural expression of music used in Traditional Masses is European in origin, so what makes this music more desirable than others, provided the Mass is executed properly, with respect and dignity?

Or am I mistaken in my interpretation of what others are saying? Please help me to understand. It seems some who prefer the Latin Mass may be discounting other musical expressions of worship and I would like to gain some clarity on the matter.

Thanks!

There are people that feel both ways. While for centuries Latin enjoyed primacy, today, all the other cultures of the world are permitted to worship in their native tongues, and my belief is that it is right and proper that they also sing in their native way. For what is prayer, but our personal expression of love for the Most High? Mass certainly can be prayed reverently in any language.
Lots of people will weigh in and disagree. But I have heard many Native American, Mexican, Spanish, Philippino, and Vietnamese Masses and they were all beautiful and done exactly by the rubrics.
The Apostles preached to “all nations”. I’d like to think they had respect for cultures as they were instituting the churches.
God bless.

 

[L_Marshall]

It’s just that Gregorian Chant fits best with the “spirit of the liturgy.” This is not limited to Masses in the Extraordinary Form, as it is mentioned in paragraph 116 of Sacrosanctum Concilium [Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], the document of the Second Vatican Council that called for liturgical reforms. It is plainly stated as: “116. 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.”

 

[27lw]

Here’s a nice article from Catholic Exchange:
catholicexchange.com/gregorian-chant-pride-of-place

An excerpt:
Although many of us see little or no evidence of it, the Church holds a high preference for Gregorian chant in the Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM 41) states that “Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy” …

Some think that Gregorian chant was swept out the door by Vatican II. But Vatican II never swept Gregorian chant away. The real truth is that Vatican II preferred Gregorian chant. The Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium (116) stated that “the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” This past December, Monsignor Valenti Miserachs Grau, President of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, explained the problem: “Gregorian chant has been unjustly abandoned and its place in the life of the Church should be recovered”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, the thing is, Gregorian chant is not just some personal, cultural musical expression. It was developed over the course of countless centuries and by Catholics living in many countries. True, they were mainly in Europe, but still, Gregorian chant is not just “a” kind of music for liturgy, rather it is “the” kind of music for liturgy. Everything else is ultimately an exception to it, even polyphony.

I like plenty of kinds of music but my rational side would quickly take over if I were ever to feel an impulse of wanting to hear these things at Mass. It would just be ridiculous to me if someone told me to ask my priest to have music in styles like what I like to listen to when I mow the grass at Mass.

Furthermore, I don’t personally even explicitly identify with a particular ethnic or national culture. I am a white American male living in the South and my closest non-American relative is my grandmother, with whom I live. She is from Germany. While I think it is interesting to say that I’m German in conversation, I don’t really identify with this except in a very casual way. I don’t seriously think, “Wow, I’m German, let me see if I’m related to Leibniz, also, I will only eat German food from now on.” Although, on an intellectual level, I am interested in German history and such.

The closest actual culture I have is Catholicism/“Catholicism” if you understand what I mean. It is my adopted culture, non-national, non-ethnic.

So if every ethnic group and national group can “have their stuff” at Mass, where does this leave people like me, an enormous number of average American white guys with no discernible explicit culture except “‘Merican?’” It can hardly be argued that there is any explicit “American” repertoire of music. While there are a few scattered songs here and there that are recognizable in almost every [English-speaking] part of the country, like “Holy God We Praise Thy Name,” I am not sure there are enough of them to constitute a culturally-based repertoire. Please note, I’m not being facetious or rude here, as some may wish to interpret.

So do I culturally identify with the historically black parish here? No. The Filipino community? No. The Vietnamese community? No. And there is no “plain white guy” community per se so does that mean I don’t get anything?

Legally via countless documents and historically Gregorian chant is preferred, clearly, and culturally, for me, since I have no culture, well, cool, I’ll just take what the Church gives me.

On a purely impulsive level I “like” plenty of other kinds of music more than Gregorian chant, but these kinds of music do not form a culture, and even if they did, I’d never want to hear them at Mass, so Don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike chant at all.

I hope perhaps this thread will be an interesting discussion.

 

[27lw]

Is chant, Latin, classical and/or similar forms of music used in the Mass more desirable than other cultural styles of music that one might find in different cultures such as Mexican, African or any other culture? If so, please help me to understand why.

As I understand, the cultural expression of music used in Traditional Masses is European in origin, so what makes this music more desirable than others, provided the Mass is executed properly, with respect and dignity?

Or am I mistaken in my interpretation of what others are saying? Please help me to understand. It seems some who prefer the Latin Mass may be discounting other musical expressions of worship and I would like to gain some clarity on the matter.

Thanks!

To creationlover, I would ask a few questions:

1. Does the Catholic Church have its own culture?
2. If not, did it used to in the past?
3. If the Catholic Church does have its own culture, what characterizes it? In your experience? In the mind of American pop culture, through media like movies, TV? (If you are watching a movie, what are the “cues” that indicate the Catholic Church)?
4. What is your experience of liturgical music? How would you define liturgical music? How does the Church define it?
   Just a few things to mull over…

 

[OraLabora]

Here’s a nice article from Catholic Exchange:
catholicexchange.com/gregorian-chant-pride-of-place

An excerpt:
Although many of us see little or no evidence of it, the Church holds a high preference for Gregorian chant in the Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM 41) states that “Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy” …

Some think that Gregorian chant was swept out the door by Vatican II. But Vatican II never swept Gregorian chant away. The real truth is that Vatican II preferred Gregorian chant. The Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium (116) stated that “the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” This past December, Monsignor Valenti Miserachs Grau, President of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, explained the problem: “Gregorian chant has been unjustly abandoned and its place in the life of the Church should be recovered”.

I’ll preface this by saying I love Gregorian chant. I sing in a schola, I’m a director of Gregorian Institute of Canada, and I sing the Liturgy of the Hours daily in Gregorian chant (at least when not traveling).

But we do have to recognize that Gregorian chant is in fact a synthesis of various styles of Western plainchant. It was preceded by Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Old Roman, Beneventan, and Gallican chant, to name a few. Much of what is considered Gregorian chant comes from the Carolingian era.

However, and this is important, by the 19th Century classical Gregorian chant had fallen largely out of use, or had been completely denatured by excessive non-Gregorian embellishments. What we chant today, is in fact Gregorian chant as reformed and re-interpreted by the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th Century and finally published in the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum, promulgated by Pius X (at least for the Mass; the Office is another matter that was complicated by Pius X’s 1910 reforms of the Divine Office and the subsequent need to revise the antiphonary).

So what we sing as Gregorian chant is in fact what we imagine Gregorian chant sounded like. Nobody knows for sure. It’s a work in progress, I know of a couple of antiphons that variously appear in the 2008 Les Heures Gregoriennes and the 2010 Antiphonale Romanum (two antiphonaries for the current LOTH), both written by the Atelier Paléographique of Solesmes. Yet in both volumes, only two years apart, there have been slight changes to the melodies that are in fact enough to change the mode of the melody.

One could argue that these were organic developments, and not ruptures like Vatican II. Yet the slow denaturing of chant over many centuries was more of an organic degradation. The restoration of chant by the monks of Solesmes was in a way, a significant rupture. Even at Trent, there were tragic musical losses like troped Kyries:

Orbis Factor

If one compares say, Ambrosian to Gregorian chant, it will be clear these are very different styles.

Culturally, I think we can safely say that the chant forms that have survived (mostly Gregorian and Ambrosian, with a tiny dash of Mozarabic), are identified with the Latin Church.

However, the “Latin” Church has expanded into parts of the World that I suspect it never anticipated back when “Gregorian” chant was composed. I think it would be safer to say that “Gregorian” chant is culturally identified with the Western or European Church, with “Western” meaning the Latin Church in Western Europe and those parts of the New World that imported them. Taken as a whole, I think it’s increasingly improper, and in fact is a form of cultural imperialism, to consider the Latin language and Gregorian chant as the main forms of liturgical expression in places like, say the Far East or certain parts of Africa. On the other hand as the Church’s history is more recent there, we have to accept that there will be innovation; and even in the West, as the Latin language recedes farther back into our collective memories, vernacular innovations are bound to happen.

That said, I really do wish that Gregorian chant would make a comeback in the Western European Church. All the books exist to use it for both the Mass and the LOTH. Even if we use the vernacular in most places because of loss of Latin ability, I wish we’d retain some Latin (and Greek Kyries) for the Ordinary, and simple plainchant for the Propers. I think the “Simple English Propers” project is therefore very important in the cultural evolution of the Church; I’d like to see something as formal in French.

As an aside, I’ve heard through the Gregorian grapevine that some folks in the Vatican want the Gregorian repertory to be re-written in the Neo-Vulgate translation of the scriptures (most of the Propers is from the Bible, including the Psalms, and was written with the Vulgate translation). This would be a huge project, and a disaster. It would again put us back on the path of denaturing chant, and may end up driving the final nail in the coffin of Gregorian chant. History may yet repeat itself, and we may lose the ability to recover it this time. IMHO, Traditionalists should fear this as much as the loss of the EF Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, I came upon an interesting take on SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.

vatican2voice.org/4basics/sixteen.htm

Past: The liturgy of the Western Catholic Church, because of a dead Latin language totally incomprehensible to the people, was exclusively an affair of the clergy; it was, because of the petty rules that governed it, conducive to a magical kind of thinking; religious feeling was endangered through an overemphasis on pompous high masses, while private masses prevented a sense of community and led to one-sidedness, to a neglect of preaching.

Future: The whole People of God joined in divine worship with everyone taking an active part; common prayer, singing, and common reception of the Body of Christ. Private masses deemphasized. An awakening of the sense of the ‘living God’, who still acts on us today through word and sacrament. Expanded scripture readings with a richer, more varied arrangement of passages, with services of the word of God even outside mass. Adjustment to national differences through introduction of the vernacular. Immediately understandable ritual; purifying and tightening of the liturgical structure with an emphasis on essentials. Concession of the chalice to lay people on special occasions. Concelebration of several priests made possible. Revision of the liturgy for the administration of the sacraments; rearrangement of the ecclesiastical year.

Maybe it’s me but it seems to me that when cultural differences are factored in, there is almost a complete disconnect between the texts of the documents and the “desired” objectives mentioned above.

 

[ProVobis]

There are people that feel both ways. While for centuries Latin enjoyed primacy, today, all the other cultures of the world are permitted to worship in their native tongues, and my belief is that it is right and proper that they also sing in their native way. For what is prayer, but our personal expression of love for the Most High? Mass certainly can be prayed reverently in any language.
Lots of people will weigh in and disagree. But I have heard many Native American, Mexican, Spanish, Philippino, and Vietnamese Masses and they were all beautiful and done exactly by the rubrics.
The Apostles preached to “all nations”. I’d like to think they had respect for cultures as they were instituting the churches.
God bless.

Let’s say for the sake of argument, you are correct here. Then it seems the same argument could have been made in the 3rd century, no? The question then would be what would the Catholic Church be today without having had a language, a culture, and a liturgy which were unique to itself. Then when necessary changes are made, how could then be applied universally at the same time? Seems that it has taken a long time (40 years) to coordinate liturgical texts to their proper state and even now there is little hope that everyone will be on the same page in matters such as “for you and for many” alone.

I’m sorry but I see the arguments for all-vernacular, all-the-time type worship to the exclusion of all others to be self-serving at best.

 

[L_Marshall]

… Maybe it’s me but it seems to me that when cultural differences are factored in, there is almost a complete disconnect between the texts of the documents and the “desired” objectives mentioned above.

I’m unsure of that source, because the quote you provided only appears in two places on the internet (according to Google): 1) The website you cited it from; 2) This forum.

I’m not sure if the commentary was written by one of the Council Fathers, or by whoever runs that website, but as you said there is a significant disconnect between their commentary and the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

However, I am more likely to follow Sacrosanctum Concilium because it is an official document, and not a commentary. Again, I am unsure of the authorship of the quote you cited, but we all know that many people invoke the name of the Second Vatican Council and its documents for things that the Council didn’t speak of, and things the documents actually stand against.

 

[pianistclare]

Let’s say for the sake of argument, you are correct here. Then it seems the same argument could have been made in the 3rd century, no? The question then would be what would the Catholic Church be today without having had a language, a culture, and a liturgy which were unique to itself. Then when necessary changes are made, how could then be applied universally at the same time? Seems that it has taken a long time (40 years) to coordinate liturgical texts to their proper state and even now there is little hope that everyone will be on the same page in matters such as “for you and for many” alone.

I’m sorry but I see the arguments for all-vernacular, all-the-time type worship to the exclusion of all others to be self-serving at best.

I’m not advancing that this is to be implemented “universally” as you say.
But you have to know that there ARE parishes that are single-cultured. There is an enormous Vietnamese parish here. To ask their thousands of families to use Gregorian chant is pointless.
Make no mistake, I like chant. But…the last couple of positions where I indicated that I would be willing to use chant for even SOME of the Masses was a deal breaker. Neither the pastor not the hiring committee comprised of musicians and singers wanted it in any way, shape or form.
There are a few traditionalists that are really into chant. Good for them! And if they access to good quality music, even better! But the vast majority of parishes don’t have such, and don’t desire to implement such.
We can wish and hope all we want to. Unless someone commands that it be so, with real consequences, (I don’t know what, but you get my meaning) it’s not going to happen.
So, people should be allowed to sing and pray in their native tongue.
I can’t imagine a Mass in a remote locale struggling through trying to chant.
Either there’s no music, which is fine, or people should be able to sing and praise as they are able. It’s not just those of us that enjoy lovely historic or brand new parishes, music ministries with budgets, however small. We’re talking about the world, aren’t we? At least I though that was the point of the OP.

 

[27lw]

I’m not advancing that this is to be implemented “universally” as you say.
But you have to know that there ARE parishes that are single-cultured. There is an enormous Vietnamese parish here. To ask their thousands of families to use Gregorian chant is pointless. :

Wait - - why is it pointless? Why could they not use the universal language of the Church for at least part of the Mass? Do they ever use the Greek “kyrie elieson?” How are the young people of the parish supposed to know the often-used Latin parts of the Mass? Don’t you think some of the parishioners will ever attend Mass anywhere else, or move to where there is not a Vietnamese-only Mass?
Why is Latin considered useless to Vietnamese parishes, but possibly meaningful / useful to English-speaking, or Polish-speakings, etc parishes? After alll, prior to the late 1960s, parishes all over Vietnam would have been using Latin, right? It’s not like it’s a completely unknown language outside the Americas and Europe.

 

[Psalitte]

The Latin Church should just break apart, it is too large for it’s own good, the Africans, the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., want tehir own form of Eucharistic liturgy that can make better sense to them. want their own customs, want to stand and clap rather than kneel, want to dance, want their own style of vestments, want to adopt their own folk music , etc. Fine, start their own Church and they can come up with their own form of canons, their own laws, as long as it doesn’t breach divine law fine. It wouldn’t be the Latin Church’s problem anymore, and we can hopefully focus on restoring our own culture.

Outta sight, outta mind.

 

[Psalitte]

Wait - - why is it pointless? Why could they not use the universal language of the Church for at least part of the Mass? Do they ever use the Greek “kyrie elieson?” How are the young people of the parish supposed to know the often-used Latin parts of the Mass? Don’t you think some of the parishioners will ever attend Mass anywhere else, or move to where there is not a Vietnamese-only Mass?
Why is Latin considered useless to Vietnamese parishes, but possibly meaningful / useful to English-speaking, or Polish-speakings, etc parishes? After alll, prior to the late 1960s, parishes all over Vietnam would have been using Latin, right? It’s not like it’s a completely unknown language outside the Americas and Europe.

Right? The Latin Church was present and expanding just fine in these places prior to the 60’s, suddenly the Latin Church’s customs become incomprehensible.

Don’t become a member of the Latin Church then. Twenty-two other Churches to choose from.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin Church should just break apart, it is too large for it’s own good, the Africans, the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., want tehir own form of Eucharistic liturgy that can make better sense to them. want their own customs, want to stand and clap rather than kneel, want to dance, want their own style of vestments, want to adopt their own folk music , etc. Fine, start their own Church and they can come up with their own form of canons, their own laws, as long as it doesn’t breach divine law fine. It wouldn’t be the Latin Church’s problem anymore, and we can hopefully focus on restoring our own culture.

Outta sight, outta mind.

It seems as if all places outside Africa and Asia are already going more Protestant. Weren’t 90% of all Spanish-speaking people Catholic some 50 years ago? And what are they today, something like 55-60%. When one’s talking 500 million people, that’s a big decline. How could it have gotten worse if the Sanctus and Agnus Dei had been retained in Latin?

BTW, last I heard, they do plenty of Gregorian chanting in Africa.

 

[ProVobis]

But you have to know that there ARE parishes that are single-cultured.

And how long do they stay that way? The immigrants don’t seem to be assimilating into existing cultures the same way they used to. Many just turn back to Poland or wherever else they came from.

Make no mistake, I like chant. But…the last couple of positions where I indicated that I would be willing to use chant for even SOME of the Masses was a deal breaker.

Personally I wouldn’t play chant CD’s at home. Or even in a car. But in church, there’s a different prevailing mood that the Vatican II fathers saw to be a better fit.

So, people should be allowed to sing and pray in their native tongue.

They can do that, if you don’t mind bilingual language. But in all this talk we seem to be forgetting the priest is doing the consecrating and offering the sacrifice to God. That’s all we need to understand. We don’t even need to hear the words.

 

[OraLabora]

The Latin Church should just break apart, it is too large for it’s own good, the Africans, the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., want tehir own form of Eucharistic liturgy that can make better sense to them. want their own customs, want to stand and clap rather than kneel, want to dance, want their own style of vestments, want to adopt their own folk music , etc. Fine, start their own Church and they can come up with their own form of canons, their own laws, as long as it doesn’t breach divine law fine. It wouldn’t be the Latin Church’s problem anymore, and we can hopefully focus on restoring our own culture.

Outta sight, outta mind.

There are already 22 other sui juris Churches in communion with Rome, so it would be feasible for others I suppose.

I agree that the culture of the Latin Church, should be not only be preserved but allowed to flourish, i.e. Western plainchant, aka Gregorian. I say “Western Plainchant” because chant never has been, nor should it remain, static. I fully endorse, for instance, projects like the Simple English Propers (I’d like to see “English” replaced by “vernacular”) that allow Western chant traditions to evolve into the vernacular, to the extent possible without sounding funny (more complex Gregorian melodies and many psalm tones, simply don’t work well with French, for instance).

In this manner we would be respecting the root traditions of chant: the words (or rather the Word) is emphasized with the melody only providing support and emphasis for the Word; the Propers are almost all Bible/Psalm verses; also the concept of singing as one voice where no single voice dominates above the collective voice; and of course the choice of verses for the words that correspond to the liturgy of the day.

Latin of course has its place; for average Sunday Masses in parishes, I think that the Ordinary especially should be in Latin (Greek Kyrie of course). It’s easy on the parishioners, as the words of the Ordinary never change. After a while everybody will understand what the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Angus Dei are saying. Secondly it is in the Latin cultural tradition. Thirdly, it will add an element of mystery and reverence to the celebration. In the French parishes I attend, I’ve heard more than one Sanctus in French that sounded like a jingle for a laundry soap TV commercial. We need to get away from that. Lastly, for Ordinary, there are very simple settings that are easy for a small amateur choir and even the assembly, to master. Start 'em off slowly.

The full Latin Propers of course continue to be chanted daily in monasteries and other places around the world as they should be. What I’m talking about is making things within reach of small rural parishes with few musical resources to draw on.

 

[OraLabora]

Personally I wouldn’t play chant CD’s at home. Or even in a car. But in church, there’s a different prevailing mood that the Vatican II fathers saw a better fit. .

Funny you mention that, even though I sing in a schola and love Gregorian chant I rarely play chant CDs myself. I do have some on my iPhone and a CD in the car. I do sometimes chant along to rehearse a chant I’ll be singing at an upcoming liturgy, or when trying to master a particular antiphon or psalm tone for the LOTH (not so much anymore as I pretty much have all the psalm tones down pat).

But taking chant out of its liturgical context… well it just isn’t the same (though there’s one Solesmes CD of Monastic Christmas Vigils and Midnight Mass that I just love to listen to on Christmas eve, even when I’m preparing to go hear the same done at the local abbey).

 

[TimothyH]

Personally I wouldn’t play chant CD’s at home. Or even in a car. But in church, there’s a different prevailing mood that the Vatican II fathers saw to be a better fit.

Try the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreuz. It is some of the most beautiful music you will ever listen to.

Give it a try for free at pandora.com/cistercian-monks-of-stift-heiligenkreuz

-Tim-

 

[drforjc]

FWIW, I came upon an interesting take on SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.

vatican2voice.org/4basics/sixteen.htm

Maybe it’s me but it seems to me that when cultural differences are factored in, there is almost a complete disconnect between the texts of the documents and the “desired” objectives mentioned above.

My analysis of “Future” above:

Throw away everything that went before, destroy the “mystery” of the mass (even though people learn more from non-explicit/ non-“cognitive” symbolism than this person would probably admit), divide the Church into subsections by language.

Seems less than desirable to me.