How's the Music?

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Cat,

I disagree with your point about learning Latin. I had no experience with Latin until I started attending a Mass that uses all the Gregorian propers and ordinaries, as well as some parts by the priest in Latin. I was able to learn quite a bit of Latin (to the point where I can understand much of what the priest says) and say/sing it with no problems. That goes for the other people at that parish. Latin is actually a fairly easy language to learn. Problem is, most people are too lazy to try.

When did parishes start thinking it was acceptable to COMPLETELY do away with any Latin or chant? That is the majority of parishes in the United States and probably the world now. I had NEVER been to a Mass with Gregorian chant until I was about 21 or so and found the ONE parish in my state that uses it on a regular basis. Fact is, the churches are not keeping with the traditions of the Church or the wishes of Vatican II.

The music in most churches today is very corny and cheesy. It is distracting from what the Mass is and often does not even fit with the Mass. Most of the time, the opening song (which is now most often referred to as the “gathering song”) is all about “we’re all together la la la”. It’s all about us and not about God.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Rand,

When did parishes start thinking it was acceptable to COMPLETELY do away with any Latin or chant?

When the congregations began participating in the Mass and singing.

Before Vatican II, the Choir did the music, the people sat and listened.

That is the majority of parishes in the United States and probably the world now. I had NEVER been to a Mass with Gregorian chant until I was about 21 or so and found the ONE parish in my state that uses it on a regular basis. Fact is, the churches are not keeping with the traditions of the Church or the wishes of Vatican II.

Actually they are. The specific purpose Vatican II called for in the Sacred Liturgy, was more fuller active participation of the people.

Those of use who grew up before Vatican II, know the difference and most do not want to go back.

The music in most churches today is very corny and cheesy. It is distracting from what the Mass is and often does not even fit with the Mass. Most of the time, the opening song (which is now most often referred to as the “gathering song”) is all about “we’re all together la la la”. It’s all about us and not about God.

I think it depends on who’s doing the Music at a particular Mass.

At my parish at the Mass I attend, the music is pathetic. My in-law’s parish, the same music is done by the choir and its beautiful. Its because of the difference in skill between the two music leaders. Ours is a 75 year old woman who is a convert, theirs is a classically trained young person with plenty of ambition.

BTW, I’ve attended Mass at a Benedictine monastery nearby. They sing in Gregorian Chant, acapella.

They’d be better to do some other style of music in the vernacular, for their Gregorian Chant is strained.

Jim

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: What is sacred music?

A: Sacred music is “that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form,” according to the Sacred Congre- gation of Rites in its Instruction on Music and the Lit- urgy, Musicam Sacram (1967, ¶4). As defined by the Con- stitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), sacred music surpasses merely religious music when it is joined to the liturgical rite to become “a neces- sary and integral part of the solemn liturgy,” whose pur- pose is “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful” (¶112).

2 Church Music Association of America | Musicasacra.com
“As a manifestation of the human spirit,” said John Paul II in 1989, “music performs a function which is noble, unique, and irreplaceable. When it is truly beautiful and inspired, it speaks to us more than all the other arts of good- ness, virtue, peace, of matters holy and divine. Not for nothing has it always been, and will it always be, an es- sential part of the liturgy.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: What are the characteristics of sacred music?

A: On the centenary of its promulgation, John Paul II urged us to revisit and learn from St. Pius X’s Motu Pro- prio on Sacred Music, Tra le sollecitudini (1903). Pope Pius distinguished three characteristics of sacred music: “it must possess holiness and beauty of form: from these two qualities a third will spontaneously arise—universality” (§2).

Concerning holiness, for music to be sacred means it is not the ordinary, not the every-day. It is set aside for the pur- pose of glorifying God and edifying and sanctifying the faithful. It must therefore exclude all that is not suitable for the temple—all that is ordinary, every-day or profane, not only in itself, but also in the manner in which it is performed. The sacred words of the Liturgy call for a sonic vesture that is equally sacred. Sacredness, then, is more than individual piety; it is an objective reality.

Concerning beauty, the Latin speaks more precisely of bo- nitate formarum or “excellence of forms.” This refers to the tendency of sacred music to synthesize diverse ritual ele- ments into a unity, to draw together a succession of litur- gical actions into a coherent whole, and to serve a range of sacred expressions. Excellence of forms also serves to differentiate those elements, to distinguish the various functions of liturgical chants by revealing their unique character. Each chant of the various Gregorian genres pre-sents a masterly adaptation of the text to its specific litur- gical purpose. No wonder the Church has consistently proposed chant as the paradigm of sacred music.

Sacred music must be true art, says Pope Pius, “otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musi- cal sounds.” Beauty is what holds truth and goodness to their task. To paraphrase Hans Urs von Balthasar, with- out beauty, the truth does not persuade, goodness does not compel (The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, I: 19). Beauty, as expressed in the Church’s liturgy, syn- thesizes diverse elements into a unified whole: truth, goodness, and the human impulse to worship.

Concerning universality, sacred music is supra national, equally accessible to people of diverse cultures. The Church does admit local indigenous forms into her wor- ship, but these must be subordinated to the general char- acteristics of the received tradition. By insisting on the continuous use of her musical treasures, especially chant, the Church ensures her members grow up hearing this sa- cred musical language and receive it naturally as a part of the liturgy.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Isn’t this really just a matter of taste?

A: Nothing prevents us from preferring one form of music to another. What’s more, nothing prevents us from pre- ferring one form of popular religious song to another. But music that is suitable for sacred liturgy must be of a spe- cial sort. No longer can personal preference be the sole criterion. “Not all musical forms can be considered suit- able for liturgical celebrations,” says Pope John Paul II in his Chirograph on sacred music (2003). He quotes Pope Paul VI: “If music—instrumental and vocal—does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity, and beauty, entry into the sphere of the sacred and the reli- gious is [thereby] precluded.”

In his general audience of February 26, 2003, Pope John Paul called on musicians to “make an examination of con- science so that the beauty of music and hymnody will re- turn once again to the liturgy. It is necessary to purify worship of ugliness of style, careless forms of expression, ill-prepared music and texts, which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Why should we regard Gregorian chant as the ideal?

A: From her earliest days, the Roman Church has clothed her worship with Gregorian chant. Through the centuries she has safeguarded the chant as her own unique form of music, and through those same strains she continues to teach and pray, mourn and rejoice in her liturgy. For these reasons, Gregorian chant is the “supreme model for sacred music” (Pope Pius X) and the music proper to the Roman Church.

Throughout the 20th century, this fact was reiterated in official Church teaching on sacred music. Sacrosanctum Concilium affirms it, as does the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. As Pope John Paul II said, quoting Pope Pius X, “The more closely a composition for church ap- proaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gre- gorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” Pope Benedict XVI agrees: “An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.”

Chant is the one music that we inherit from the ancient Church fathers. It is not a “style” but the music of the Mass itself. It is sung in unison, which makes it a perfect expression of unity. It illuminates and gives expressive- ness to the sacred texts, but it does not alter them. It mu- sically expresses the heart of the Church and thus exists across and outside time.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Didn’t Vatican II do away with chant?

A: Contrary to widespread belief, the Second Vatican Council did not seek to diminish the role of chant but rather to increase it. Sacrosanctum Concilium states: “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” (¶116). This pride of place was not intended to exclude other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, “so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical ac- tion.”

The Council’s directive culminated a long process of re- flection and legislation regarding sacred music that began with Tra le sollecitudini. Pope Pius X sought to diminish the role of the secular theatrical style that had come to typify sacred music in the 19th century, which tended to “correspond badly to the requirements of true liturgical music” (§6). He instead called for an increased use of chant, which much better expresses the meaning and form which tradition has given individual parts of the lit- urgy (§10).

The Council drew on the teachings of Pope Pius, and sought to continue the restoration that he had begun by calling for the completion of a critical edition of chant. For these reasons, Church musicians greeted the reform of the liturgy with great enthusiasm.

But within three years of the Council, the 1965 “tran- sitional Missal” appeared to deemphasize Latin in the Ordinary parts of the Mass. Some liturgical activists used the Council’s provision for more use of the vernacular to promote the virtual exclusion of Latin. The revised Missal (1969) was promulgated at a time of theological confu- sion and cultural upheaval that depreciated all things tra- ditional. Conflicting visions of liturgical worship and un- disciplined experimentation disrupted the implementa- tion of the new Missal. All of this led to the near extinc- tion of Latin chant in favor of vernacular hymnody.

The revised Graduale Romanum, the Church’s official book of chant for the Mass, was published in 1974. During the intervening period the rise of popular and pseudo-folk music at Mass drastically disrupted the restoration of sa- cred music begun by Pope Pius and endorsed by the Council. Whatever opportunity there might have been to increase the role of chant was lost.

But today, signs of restoration are all around us, as younger Catholics, led by a new generation of priests, are rediscovering the Church’s treasury of sacred music and reintroducing it into parish worship.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Does chant have to be in Latin?

A: When the Church speaks of Gregorian chant, she means Latin chant. Latin is especially preferred because it is the language of the Church. It is the language in which the chant was composed, and the chant melodies are con- structed around the accentuation, phrasing, and articula- tion of the Latin text.

Other forms of plainsong do not have to be in Latin, and most vernacular languages can be used in chantlike styles. Indeed, it can be useful and feasible to chant some litur- gical texts in the vernacular. But such a project has limits. Chant adaptation requires changing familiar words to fit the music, or modifying the music to fit vernacular texts. One might question the usefulness of such an exercise. The purpose of liturgy is not purely pedagogical, else the entire liturgy could be written in the style of a newspaper article.

The purpose of sacred liturgy is far deeper and more com- plex: it is to draw us out of time and place so that we might more clearly perceive eternal mysteries. The liturgy is not primarily a teaching session but rather “an encounter between Christ and the Church… The preparation of hearts is the joint work of the Holy Spirit and the assem- bly, especially of its ministers. The grace of the Holy Spirit seeks to awaken faith, conversion of heart, and ad- herence to the Father’s will” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1097–8). The relative remoteness and changeless- ness of the Latin language, especially when united to the chant with its purity of form, helps to realize this encoun- ter by leading us away from the ordinary and toward the transcendent.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Aren’t chant and polyphony too hard for regular parishes?

A: As with any art, sacred music ranges from very simple to very complex. From the earliest days of the Church, congregations have sung the simpler chant melodies. Col- lections like the Liber Cantualis (published by Abbey of Solesmes) and Jubilate Deo of Paul VI (1974) contain chants that everyone can sing. At the same time, the full- ness of the Gregorian repertoire, consisting of several thousand chants for every purpose, requires experience, practice, and often a high level of mastery. The same is true of sacred polyphony. Many congregations can sing four-part hymns, but more complex contrapuntal pieces require a well-trained choir to sing on behalf of the pray- ing community.

For hundreds of years, parishes around the world have fostered choirs and promoted choral singing. To ensure the preservation of the Church’s treasury of sacred music, the Council insisted that choirs “must be diligently developed” (¶114). While professionals can greatly enhance performances of sacred polyphony, nothing prevents ama- teurs from singing this music, and even directing it, if necessary. It can be hard work, and demands more of per- formers and listeners than popular styles. But only the best is good enough for the God we worship.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: What about “full, conscious, and active participation?”

A: The participation of the faithful in the liturgy was a primary concern of the Council (SC ¶14). We need to distinguish two forms of participation: internal and exter- nal. Both are necessary for the full actuosa participatio of the human person because human beings are made up of both body and soul. The interior element is the “heart” of the matter, which finds expression in exterior action. One kind of external participation is singing.

In his Ad Limina Address (October 1998), Pope John Paul II reminded U.S. bishops that “active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way pro- foundly active.”

The call for active participation in singing long predates the Council. In Tra le sollecitudini, Pope Pius X commends the active participation of the people in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. In his Encyclical on Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei (1947), Pope Pius XII praises con- gregational singing of liturgical chant as a means to “fos- ter and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ” (¶106).

Some have read the Church’s teaching on participation to mean: the people sing as much as possible. Any music that the congregation does not or cannot sing is thereby excluded from liturgical use. This interpretation has been specifically rejected by all Popes for a century. Indeed, the post-conciliar Musicam Sacram legislates in favor of permitting a full choral Ordinary, while the current General Instruction on the Roman Missal specifically names parts of the Mass that may be sung by the choir alone. Conscientious and diligent church musicians must not allow themselves to be misled by a one-sided misinterpretation of the conciliar texts.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Q: Which Church documents should I read?

A: Church musicians need to be thoroughly familiar with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Musicam Sacram, John Paul II’s Chirograph on Sacred Music, and Pius X’s Tra le sollecitudini. The entire history of Papal legislation on sacred music is a worthy study. Its unifying theme points to a distinct body of music that can be called sacred in contradistinction to profane music, which is utterly unsuitable for the church, or religious music, which is suitable for non-liturgical use only.

 

[JHow]

Or, you could have pointed us to the Church Music Association of America’s web site, whose FAQ document seem to have quoted extensively.

musicasacra.com/

 

[E.E.N.S]

Rand,

When the congregations began participating in the Mass and singing.

Before Vatican II, the Choir did the music, the people sat and listened.

Actually they are. The specific purpose Vatican II called for in the Sacred Liturgy, was more fuller active participation of the people.

Those of use who grew up before Vatican II, know the difference and most do not want to go back.

Jim

I would like to direct you to my posts above, specifically posts 67 & 70.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Or, you could have pointed us to the Church Music Association of America’s web site, whose FAQ document seem to have quoted extensively.

musicasacra.com/

From personal experience, when I have posted that link, very few have responded accordingly. I merely took some of the more poignant parts of the FAQ and put them here to help those who may be less inclined to click and read.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

When the congregations began participating in the Mass and singing.

Before Vatican II, the Choir did the music, the people sat and listened.

There were already dialogue Masses before the Mass changed to the Novus Ordo. Why are you under the impression that people do not or cannot sing along with chant?

Actually they are. The specific purpose Vatican II called for in the Sacred Liturgy, was more fuller active participation of the people.

No, they are not. Nowhere in Vatican II does it say to completely do away with Latin, chant and other traditions of the Mass. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. “Active participation” does not mean to put secular styles of music into the Mass in place of the music that was created specifically for the worship of God. Folk and rock are not sacred music.

People have twisted the “active participation” part of Vatican II to mean that everything about the Mass can change and that it was somehow inferior before it changed, hence the “don’t want to go back” attitude. People will repeat the “active participation” over and over as if that was the only thing Vatican II stated. Most of the time, that is because it is the only line of Vatican II they know or have been told about (most of them have not even read it).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JHow]

…Why are you under the impression that people do not or cannot sing along with chant?

I am under the impression that people can’t sing along very well with the “modern” music either. Many I observe at mass don’t sing at all. Some that do, probably shouldn’t.

…People have twisted the “active participation” part of Vatican II …

I think part of the problem is that music in our culture now is the domain of the expert. If you think people don’t sing at mass, try getting them to sing at a campfire. I have to work to get cub scouts to sing “Grandma’s in the Cellar” or “Bill Grogan’s Goat”. Singing is just terminally uncool. People will sing if they are not self-concious about it and if they feel a group solidarity: for example, soldiers will sing songs while marching with the proper inspiration - everybody joins in, the song is humorous (likely off-color), etc. But this effect happens only when there is real unit cohesion and a common culture. “Active participation” is as much club as it is license to sing whatever - it gets sometimes brought up when people appear to be balking at joining in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I would like to direct you to my posts above, specifically posts 67 & 70.

Thats nice, but we live in the real world, not an idealistic theoristic world.

Few people know Gregorian Chant and although Vatican II states that there it is always suitable, it doesn’t state that its mandated over other forms of music.

In fact, the Vatican II Documents on the Sacred Liturgy stress the importance of active participation of the people to the point of it being the prime objective in liturgical reform.

I’ve attended Mass with Gregorian Chant. When its done well, its beautiful, when its not done well, its a train wreck.

Jim

 

[johnnykins]

Thats nice, but we live in the real world, not an idealistic theoristic world.

Few people know Gregorian Chant

Well, of course not since it’s almost a rare as hens’ teeth.What would you expect? People to spontaneously start singing it? To learn it you need to do it.

and although Vatican II states that there it is always suitable, it doesn’t state that its mandated over other forms of music.

Actually it states in whole: “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.” True that’s not a mandate that it be used, but it is a very clear statement of the intent of the Council that has been regularly ignored because of legalistic games played on the fact that it was not “mandated.” Let’s face it, it’s clear the Council wanted it preserved and commonly used, but was simply unwilling to ban everything else. That, of course, has been taken as a means of de facto eliminating Gregorian Chant against the clear wishes of the Council. These disingenuous legalistic parsings are getting terribly worn and tired as the lie they perpetuate - albeit with a soupcon of truth - is laid bare.

In fact, the Vatican II Documents on the Sacred Liturgy stress the importance of active participation of the people to the point of it being the prime objective in liturgical reform.

I think you go too far - active participation is indeed stressed by the Council, but it is NOT the prime directive of Mass.

"11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28]. 11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28] . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. "

What that says is merely legalism is not enough. I submit what has passed for “active participation” (a phrase used elsewhere in SC) has greatly diminished the awareness of the faithful as to what they are doing and has disengaged them from the rite thereby undermining and weakening its effect. Sorry, but dancing, celebrating ourselves, croaking out heretical dreck etc is not what the Council intended, yet that is what we have in mockery of the Council…

I’ve attended Mass with Gregorian Chant. When its done well, its beautiful, when its not done well, its a train wreck.

Jim

I suggest that the occasional bad day with chant is far better, and more in line with the evident intent of Vatican II, than the daily disaster of the common NO Mass and its usual musical accompaniment. I also suggest that there is no better way to learn and improve chant than doing it.

Quotes are from Sacrosanctum Concilium - Vatican II: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

 

[JimR-OCDS]

johnnykins

I think you go too far - active participation is indeed stressed by the Council, but it is NOT the prime directive of Mass.

Its not the prime directive of the Mass, but the prime directive of the councile and the document on the Sacred Liturgy.

The document even allows for a time of experimentation so that that Bishops can discern which works best to acheive the goal.

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Since the close of Vatican II, dioceses across the world have developed the liturgy in such a way that more active participation of the people has been achieved.

It takes those who lived in Catholic Parishes before Vatican II, to understand the difference of what we had then and what we have now.

I’ll take what we have now over going back to pre-Vatican II days.

As you your last point;

I suggest that the occasional bad day with chant is far better, and more in line with the evident intent of Vatican II, than the daily disaster of the common NO Mass and its usual musical accompaniment. I also suggest that there is no better way to learn and improve chant than doing it

Actually its at a Benedictine Monastery and its bad day for their singing Gregorian Chant, everyday.

They’d be better off having the monks from the Trappist Monastery, who provide spiritual direction, to help them transcribe their Latin Chant into English, as the Trappist did for their own liturgies.

The comparison is night and day as the Trappist Mass is absolutely awesome.

Jim

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins

Its not the prime directive of the Mass, but the prime directive of the councile and the document on the Sacred Liturgy.

While I disagree there, too, a forum is hardly the place to argue that in depth. I do agree it was emphasized in SC, though what that means is subject to interpretation.

The document even allows for a time of experimentation so that that Bishops can discern which works best to achieve the goal.

Thank God we are finally figuring out what didn’t work.

Since the close of Vatican II, dioceses across the world have developed the liturgy in such a way that more active participation of the people has been achieved.

I have to disagree there unless you simply mean superficial participation. Of course, that is what you mean. I suggest with rapid apostasy and shrinking Church membership and participation, “active participation” (as most posters such as you advocate) has led in exactly the opposite direction - a diminution in active participation while an increase in play-acting.

It takes those who lived in Catholic Parishes before Vatican II, to understand the difference of what we had then and what we have now.

I was there too. I don’t know, 70% weekly attendance. First Friday Masses. Sodalities. CCD. Abstaining from meat - and generally being happy to be catholic. True, Low Mass was quiet and High Mass the Choir sang. However, most people followed along in their Missals and believed. Others, admittedly, said the Rosary - but they too believed. Too many people now don’t believe at all. They don’t know their faith. They are taught a syncretic anti-Catholic and anti-traditional Catholicism.

I’ll take what we have now over going back to pre-Vatican II days.

Clearly, and I’m sorry you has so missed the boat. I’ll pray for you.

As you your last point;

Actually its at a Benedictine Monastery and its bad day for their singing Gregorian Chant, everyday.

Well, I’ll take it note unheard, over anything from Gather.

They’d be better off having the monks from the Trappist Monastery, who provide spiritual direction, to help them transcribe their Latin Chant into English, as the Trappist did for their own liturgies.

Or, maybe practice will help.

The comparison is night and day as the Trappist Mass is absolutely awesome.

Jim

Glad some can sing.