How's the Music?

[carmelitenovice]

Ditto what Whit_acre Girl said.

I tend to prefer the traditional hymns but one church I attend does contemporary music very well and very tastefully – it really does fit in with the liturgy.

What I loathe in contemporary liturgical music are those from the '60s and '70s with lousy theology or those hymns that have been revised to be politically correct (especially gender neutral). I also loathe the tendency in our area (suburbs of Detroit) to have Southern-Gospel style of music in neighborhoods that are more “white bread” than the Wonder Bread Company (Sorry, we just don’t have what it takes to make it sound good.)

But what really grinds me is when the “worship space” is taken up by the music ministry space – the full drum kit, the grand piano etc. Even when the drums are behind the soundproof plastic screen, it really does distract from what’s going on at the altar.

This discussion reminds me of something funny that happened at our parish (a late '70s construction that has one “guitar Mass” on the weekends). The group that performs is composed of amateurs with middling talent. However, occasionally one person who performs with them sporadically is often urged to accompany with a wood block or other similar percussion “toys”, which he does poorly (he’s NEVER on a beat or even any particular rhythm.

At one Mass in which he played, a friend of mine actually got up during Mass (it was between the readings), walked up to him and whisper in his ear. He stopped his accompaniment for the rest of Mass. Afterwards, I thanked my friend for doing so – the acoustics of the place made the wood block especially noticeable and grinding. My friend explained that she had to do so – she had a massive migraine and the wood block was sending her through the roof.

"I thought everyone in the congregation was thinking, “Wow! What a b----!”

I told her, "No, we were all thinking, “Oh, Thank God!”

At any rate, done well and reverently, contemporary music can sound very good, but when the reverence isn’t there…

 

[Silyosha]

I prefer sacred music. I personally don’t think contemporary music has a place in the Mass. By way of instruments, the organ is most appropriate. We also have violins and cellos up with the choir on particular days. It’s a GREAT choir.
I guess, in a nutshell, I just can’t consider music that sounds as if I could hear it on a popular radio station as having a place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It doesn’t “work”.
I know we all have our own opinions, though! And the RCC isn’t a democracy.

 

[Cat]

I think it’s interesting how many of these posts include the phrase, “I prefer.”

I don’t think it matters what we “prefer.” Certainly it’s pleasant to be able to enjoy our personal preferences in a Mass.

But the important thing is, Is the Mass music liturgically correct?

This is not up to us, it’s up to the priest, who is hopefully in submission to the bishop, who is hopefully in submission to the Vatican. We need to respect the choices of our priests and stop undermining them by criticizing the fact that they allow contemporary music (liturgically-correct) in their Masses.

Although some have tried to “prove it” here on CAF by quoting various documents, the fact remains that the “60s drivel,” as some of you insist upon labelling it, is still liturgically-correct and therefore allowable in the Mass. It may feel like it’s killing your soul, but it won’t kill your soul to listen to music that was composed in the 20th Century. It’s allowed by the Vatcian and therefore, it is worthy of our respect, even if we don’t enjoy it personally.

And believe it or not, there are many of us who truly like this music, not that it matters. Again, it’s not about our personal preferences.

No matter what the music in a Mass is, I believe we need to ask God to give us grace and help us to glean something from it. Same for all aspects of the Mass. The architecture of the church, the priest’s homily, the dress of the congregants, the sound system–we need to stop picking away at these and instead, ask the Holy Spirit to bring our hearts into submission and help us to be appreciative of what we are given in Mass.

We need to stop pining over the lack of our personal preferences (or the Pope’s personal preferences) and instead, look for what is good in all liturgical music.

 

[Mathias64]

The bold is mine, WHAT?? Uh yes there are Catholics in fact heaven is nothing but Catholic! What I mean by this is that Catholic is one who has accepted all what God offers to that person either in this life or right before judgment. So there are Catholics in heaven there is a reason why all those who have made it to heave are saints. Very interesting as I read your post it’s very full of emotion, but in it lacks logic. As I’ve told my friends feeling can only take you so far you have to use reason and logic as well.

What I mean by “no Catholics in heaven” is: In heaven we will no longer have to wear lables. I will not have to call myself Catholics nor will I my long-dead mother call herself a Baptist. We will be together with God, both having been thoroughly educated - through final judgement or purgatory or whatever else you choose to call it. So what do tyou think the thief on the cross beside Jesus looks back and calls himself? Why would anyone look back at this agony anyway?

 

[Acolythus_sum]

@Mathias64: Lewis describes it well when he says in “The Great Divorce” (I paraphrase): If you end up in Heaven, all your life on Earth will begin to reflect that and you will see it as a joy. But rather, if you end up in Hell, your life will seem to have been Hell all the way through.

General post on the subject of music: Gregorian chant still has pride of place within the liturgy. The IGMR says (I can’t find the Latin right now, so the English will have to suffice):

“41. All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.”

So, Gregorian chant is more suitable to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Other kinds of sacred music are allowed–polyphony is used as the example. Polyphony is far closer to plainchant than much of the music we hear these days. Gregorian chant lifts the soul to God, and is designed to do so. I don’t know if we can say the same about (I’m just picking on a random song) “Gather us in”. That song doesn’t once mention God, only “us, us, us”. Is music like that, centered on us, appropriate for the Sacrifice of the Mass?

 

[JHow]

… I also loathe the tendency in our area (suburbs of Detroit) to have Southern-Gospel style of music in neighborhoods that are more “white bread” than the Wonder Bread Company (Sorry, we just don’t have what it takes to make it sound good.)…

Your comment struck a chord (so to speak). Growing up (as a Protestant) in a small southern town where religion was not integrated (just stating a fact), I attended a white (Campbellite) church with full-on pipe organ (no piano, no other instrumentation) and choir, but also with congregational singing. We sang what we referred to as “The” Doxology (“Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow,” a.k.a. Old 100th) every Sunday. We always concluded with the Fawcett-Nageli-Mason “Blest be the Tie”. Our repertoire was especially conversant with Fanny Crosby, but also fluent in Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts, Newton, Cowper, etc., and on occasion we would also drag out something like C. Austin Mile’s “In the Garden” (Any of you who think that sap and syrup are recent innovations, please take note!)…

As an aside, many of the same tensions we are discussing here in the Roman Catholic context also played out in the history of Protestantism: professional choir singing vs. congregation; a cappella vs. organ or other instruments vs. no music; European music vs. primitive, 18th c. vs. 19th c., etc. From a historical perspective, the Catholic Church seems to have avoided these debates until more recent times.

Next door from us (almost, really two doors down) was a black church (some form of Baptist, if I recall correctly), where gospel music reigned. Being in the south, with neither building having air-conditioning (we had paper fans with wooden stick handles in the pews along with the hymnbooks ) the church windows were often open, and with simultaneous services, I could hear that the black church certainly had us beat on volume and overall enthusiasm in singing. I recall getting out after services while the church next door was still in session and hearing the congregation clapping in time with the songs. The whole style of worship was just very different from what happened in my church.

To return to your point, I experience a real sense of disorientation when, for example, as happened not long ago in my parish, we were treated to “O Mary Don’t you Weep…”, as sung by white, suburban, Californians. Love the song, but it’s just the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong people and the wrong context.

Ultimately, I don’t see this debate being about “liturgically correct”, since in practice the music presented in Roman Catholic churches seems to run the gamut from folk to chant, and all points in between. There appears to be a lot of latitude in what is “permitted”. I think the debate has more to do with culture and expectations.

 

[Sarabande]

As an aside, many of the same tensions we are discussing here in the Roman Catholic context also played out in the history of Protestantism: professional choir singing vs. congregation; a cappella vs. organ or other instruments vs. no music; European music vs. primitive, 18th c. vs. 19th c., etc. From a historical perspective, the Catholic Church seems to have avoided these debates until more recent times.

I don’t know much about the musical debates in Protestantism, but actually there has been tension and debate regarding music for a few centuries in the Catholic Church. Polyphony is the first example - banned by three popes before composer Guillame de Machaut in the 1200s, if I remember the century correctly, refined sacred polyphony enough to be acceptable in liturgy. Polyphony was considered a secular style prior to that (called even “inciting lust” and “liscivious” to contemporaries of the time) and earlier versions as well as secular versions of polyphony after sacred polyphony was permitted is different in sound performance than in sacred polyphony. Various places continued to use it prior to Machaut’s refinement of it - Acquitaine and England, for instance, during Elinor of Acquitaine and Henry’s reign and contemporaries would be critical about it.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, many composers of the time wrote these gorgeous orchestrated masses which also prompted much debate about the appropriateness of the music at mass by its contemporaries. Mozart’s masses is one example (and is still in wide debate today - masonic ties aside and left to another thread). He had pieces which were considered appropriate, and then others (in particular many of his masses) which were not by some cardinals/bishops, although he was loved by the bishop in Vienna, where it was accepted and widely used at mass. Also, there was the debate even as far back as the 18th century regarding the use of vibrato in the voice or using the straight-tone which mimicked more of the young boy singers for sacred music. Women were still not really preferred to sing in the church choirs at that point - thus the boys and castratti (mostly in Italy).

The 19th century ushered in even more use of the orchestra, with works like Verdi’s “Requiem” and masses resembling more like operas in compositional style, rather than following within the lines of keeping it as close as possible to chant, etc. By the end of the 19th century, the Church saw that too much leeway was given and not enough restrictions were in place for a while and thus there was a clamp down on the music at that time.

But after every clamp down through the centuries, there always appears to be a period of refinement of the music of the time (whether in performance style or compositional style), then a period where there is a little too much freedom, and then a reigning in period.

I’ve said all of this before in many other threads. I also think we are in another one of those transitional periods where people and the Church have seen that too much have gotten out of hand and therefore things have been done to begin reigning it in again. I am definitely not against new music, as I’ve “performed” (not in the sense as in a concert performance, but in rendering my duties as a church musician) and heard new sacred music from the 20th and 21st centuries. Based on what I know from my study and reading on music, I have seen this continuous cycle of asking/encouraging composers and musicians through the centuries to refine their style of playing/singing or compositions for the appropriateness for liturgy at least in the Church’s eyes. I haven’t seen a change by the Church in that, so I do my best to follow what the Church has wanted, if that means I have to refine my operatically trained voice to sing polyphony or other works and use my “chant” voice for monophonic singing, or to never hear Mozart’s “Great Mass in C” at mass. But, as Cat mentioned in her previous post, you are sometimes at the mercy of the parish pastor, the priest or the bishop of the diocese. It all depends on their knowledge of the history of music in the Church and their interpretation of what is acceptable and even based on their flock. I think we’ve all seen congregations threaten with their feet if they don’t like something at their parish. Having worked at a few parishes, I have seen it. They also have to work on what a congregation has in terms of ability, talent, instruments, etc. If they’re your boss, you do as the boss says and if you have a decent working relationship with them, you can have discussions about the music and perhaps incorporate changes or at least compromises.

Anyway, I just try to do my best based on the history and keeping up with the Church’s documents on it because I think having the history helps one look at the documents in a more open view, as well as to see how the Church works at least in terms of the liturgical music.

 

[JHow]

Sarabande: Good post. I recall reading a bit about polyphony, and of course you are right about not having Mozart at mass. I think your point about tightening and loosening is well taken.

…I’ve “performed” (not in the sense as in a concert performance, but in rendering my duties as a church musician) …

To your comment about “performing” - I sense your hesitation here. What other verb choices do you have though: “play”, “sing”, or jargon “participate at mass through the music ministry” or somesuch? Sometimes when someone says they performed a piece at mass they will receive the rebuke: “Mass is not a performance!” But I think that saying that music is ‘performed’ is neutral, and not the same thing as saying the music is intended to be entertainment.

 

[Sarabande]

To your comment about “performing” - I sense your hesitation here. What other verb choices do you have though: “play”, “sing”, or jargon “participate at mass through the music ministry” or somesuch? Sometimes when someone says they performed a piece at mass they will receive the rebuke: “Mass is not a performance!” But I think that saying that music is ‘performed’ is neutral, and not the same thing as saying the music is intended to be entertainment.

I totally agree with you. Among most church musicians (and I believe most people in general), I think we all understand what we mean when we say “perform”. I’ve heard and read the same rebuke as you described by some towards other colleagues or to myself - I’ve even heard other musicians reprimand their own or congregants who thank them for “performing at the mass”. I can sort of understand why those musicians can be that way, especially if they’ve been admonished enough times and they don’t want the wrong person hearing this compliment and assume that they were entertaining. But I think that most people who do thank the church musician for their gifts and use the word “perform”, they are just using the best word they can think of.

I’ve tried to think of other words/phrases to use and have asked other musicians. Some have used certain words/phrases which work for them and they feel comfortable using, but I’ve never felt comfortable using them. Although, I will say things like, “cantoring”. On the forums, I also use the word “render” (which I think I even used in my other post), but it feels so weird to actually verbalize it. When I have used it in discussion, people look at me funny, and they’re like, “Render?” I’m like you, where I’ve always just looked at “perform” as neutral even before I knew about the problems some people have with it. The word is used with musicians, but it’s also used with other responsibilities, so that’s how I’ve always looked at it.

But I guess it has been a sensitive subject for a long time and I suppose the word has become a dirty word in the music sense because it. I mean, it’s one of the reasons why church music has been a hot topic of debate for centuries.

 

[Cat]

I totally agree with you. Among most church musicians (and I believe most people in general), I think we all understand what we mean when we say “perform”. I’ve heard and read the same rebuke as you described by some towards other colleagues or to myself - I’ve even heard other musicians reprimand their own or congregants who thank them for “performing at the mass”. I can sort of understand why those musicians can be that way, especially if they’ve been admonished enough times and they don’t want the wrong person hearing this compliment and assume that they were entertaining. But I think that most people who do thank the church musician for their gifts and use the word “perform”, they are just using the best word they can think of.

I’ve tried to think of other words/phrases to use and have asked other musicians. Some have used certain words/phrases which work for them and they feel comfortable using, but I’ve never felt comfortable using them. Although, I will say things like, “cantoring”. On the forums, I also use the word “render” (which I think I even used in my other post), but it feels so weird to actually verbalize it. When I have used it in discussion, people look at me funny, and they’re like, “Render?” I’m like you, where I’ve always just looked at “perform” as neutral even before I knew about the problems some people have with it. The word is used with musicians, but it’s also used with other responsibilities, so that’s how I’ve always looked at it.

But I guess it has been a sensitive subject for a long time and I suppose the word has become a dirty word in the music sense because it. I mean, it’s one of the reasons why church music has been a hot topic of debate for centuries.

Depending on which group I’m around, I’ll use the following words instead of “perform”:

“present the music”

“serve up the music”

“provide the music”

“lead the music”

I actually think all of these describe more accurately what the musicians are doing in a Catholic Mass. The former director (retired now) of our children’s choir made it clear to the children that they were leading the liturgical music and encouraging others to join in the hymns and responses.

But I agree about the word “perform.” For some reason, some people assume that a “performance” implies inflated egos, cravings for applause, showing off, elevating themselves, etc. Of course that may be true for some people. But in my case, and I’m sure for many other musicians, providing music in a church, either for Catholic Mass or a Protestant worship service, is NOT an American Idol experience–it’s a lot of nerve-wracking, think-on-your-feet, pay attention and don’t doze off hard WORK! I love it, but it’s still WORK, not “showing off.” And all too often, something happens that will make it a certainty that I will not feel “proud” of myself; e.g., I totally mess up a song, or my music falls off the piano, or I manage to confuse a choir or cantor. Also, everybody’s a critic, and too often, people will say something disparaging about the music selections (“I wish we did more Latin” or “I wish we didn’t do that awful Latin”)–honest, folks, if a musician is looking for adulation and applause, they will head to a bar, not a church, and most certainly not a Catholic Mass!

 

[bjryman]

Hi! You might want to check out this thread from a couple of years ago for a lively debate of music in the church: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=222389

I am one of the poor souls who has found her vocation as a church music director; I have served in a rural Catholic community in Northern California for several years and was an Episcopal music director before my conversion to the Roman Church. My parishes here have used OCP materials for many many years, and we have blessed few good musicians to spread around. I do my best to meet the musical needs of all the parishoners, and it is a difficult task to say the least. I have a Master’s in music and have worked professionally as a performing classical musician and an orchestra manager and librarian before deciding to commit myself to church music. My job is to help the people “pray twice” to their Lord through song in the Mass. I figure I have succeeded on any given weekend when I have one person complain that the music was too loud, one complain that it was too soft, one say it was too traditional and one say that it was too contemporary. When I use Latin chant in the mass, I will have several people come weeping to me saying how much they appreciate it and another several come and say if I do it again they will leave the church.

Pray for your music leaders. Merry Christmas!

Kim

Hi Kim…boy do we feel your pain

Our music director is classically trained on both piano and organ, and has a pitch perfect voice. Also, excellent coach and teacher. Since we have a parish of over 2,500 families, there is a bit more musical tallent from which to draw…though getting them committed to practices and Mass assignments is a never ending chore…you know that drill.

We have seven, yes seven, Masses from Saturday evening to Sunday evening including a special 1pm Sunday Spanish Mass.

So…we have established several differnt venuses: Traditional, Mid-range, Acustic Guitar Group (That’s ME!) and Small close harmony coral group. We rotate Traditional and contemporary among three or four of the Masses and leave Canter/accompanist for the rest. Folks get used to each type of music and tend to gravitate to Masses where there preference is playing.

Works fairly well, and in no case are we playing music that is way out on the fringe of any one type of venue. Our Guitar Group (“One aChord”) plays OCP and lots from Spirit Song One and Two. Since we all sing well, we mix in SATB for us…we are all men, which makes for quite a differnt sound than all the other venues.

Anyway, even with all that preparation and consideration, our Music Director would agree with you 100% that any Sunday he can get away with only a negative comment or two, he considers himself lucky

Peace
bruce

 

[roadsend]

…

Our music director is classically trained on both piano and organ, and has a pitch perfect voice. Also, excellent coach and teacher. Since we have a parish of over 2,500 families, there is a bit more musical tallent from which to draw…
We have seven, yes seven, Masses from Saturday evening to Sunday evening including a special 1pm Sunday Spanish Mass.

So…we have established several differnt venuses: Traditional, Mid-range, Acustic Guitar Group (That’s ME!) and Small close harmony coral group. We rotate Traditional and contemporary among three or four of the Masses and leave Canter/accompanist for the rest. Folks get used to each type of music and tend to gravitate to Masses where there preference is playing.
…

With all of this talent and all of these Masses, does one of your traditional options include a Mass with Gregorian Chant ordinaries and propers?

 

[Sarabande]

Depending on which group I’m around, I’ll use the following words instead of “perform”:

“present the music”

“serve up the music”

“provide the music”

"lead the music"

I had forgotten about “Lead the music”. Yes, that is also a good one. I don’t feel discomfort when I let it roll off my tongue. haha!

But I agree about the word “perform.” For some reason, some people assume that a “performance” implies inflated egos, cravings for applause, showing off, elevating themselves, etc. Of course that may be true for some people. But in my case, and I’m sure for many other musicians, providing music in a church, either for Catholic Mass or a Protestant worship service, is NOT an American Idol experience–it’s a lot of nerve-wracking, think-on-your-feet, pay attention and don’t doze off hard WORK! I love it, but it’s still WORK, not “showing off.” And all too often, something happens that will make it a certainty that I will not feel “proud” of myself; e.g., I totally mess up a song, or my music falls off the piano, or I manage to confuse a choir or cantor. Also, everybody’s a critic, and too often, people will say something disparaging about the music selections (“I wish we did more Latin” or “I wish we didn’t do that awful Latin”)–honest, folks, if a musician is looking for adulation and applause, they will head to a bar, not a church, and most certainly not a Catholic Mass!

I hear you! One weekend I sucked in some dust or something while I was cantoring a hymn. It got stuck in my throat. I tried to cough it up to no avail and during one hymn, it blocked off something down there and my voice cracked on one note. I was able to recover immediately because that helped to get it out, but it was extremely embarrassing, although I was able to laugh it off to myself. Humility is a huge part of being a musician in general - not just a church musician. Being forgiving of yourself and other musicians is also a huge part. To be a good musician (at least in my opinion) the ego has to be little. You need confidence of course, so that you know your abilities, but also the humility to know what you cannot do. I want to have the humility to know when I’m in my 60s or 70s that my voice may not be what it is now and to not torture anyone with it in public, for instance. And in the present, I need the humility to know that there are just some works I can’t sing because I don’t have the right kind of voice to sing it - Faure’s “Pie Jesu” for instance. Faure wrote it with a boy singer in mind. I can’t sing like that, so a full, female voice just won’t cut it unless she can sing with a straight tone. I’ve heard some of my favorite opera singers “perform” it. It’s beautiful, but just not the same.

I think, Cat, since you also have a hand in secular music work, you know how disparaging, critical and catty people in the secular music world can be as well. If I paid attention to the wolves, I would not have gotten into music. It can be very cruel, but I’ve been in music since I was four and have learned through the years to ignore or to nip in the bud the pre-judging (especially amongst other musicians - I tend to kill it with kindness and they’ll eventually by the end actually realize that I’m not “one of them” - meaning classical snobs - a total prejudgement as I’ve met just as many snobs in other musical realms. It’s not just relegated to one form of music) negativity, cruelty, and cattiness some people love to exude. I think people who aren’t in this tend to think it’s all easiness and lovey-doviness. Believe me and I think others, we wish it was. That’s why I’ve learned how to keep clear of the bad seeds.

And it’s amazing how many non-musicians, who don’t know a thing about technique, musicality, musicianship, etc. can be some of the worst offenders (For secular and sacred music) in terms of being overly-critical. I personally don’t think it’s disparaging if a person expresses his/her opinion about the hymn selection or preference for a certain style of music. I realize that people have their opinions and they’re just telling me what they like and don’t like. It doesn’t happen often, but when it has, I’ll thank them for letting me know and tell them that I will relay their opinion to the music director who chooses the music. Most music directors I’ve worked with have nerves of steel, so these kinds of things flow off of them like it’s nothing. If it seems like a continual problem with more than one person, that’s when they won’t ignore the comments and re-look at what’s happening to be sure of what they’re doing.

Ok… well, I should just stop.

 

[Writer]

There are often several problems with “modern music,” as I see it. One central problem seems that the words often fail to convey what’s really intended. The meaning and richness of the hymn writing of old is exchanged for platitudes and shallow cliches. Sometimes I find myself just stopping singing in Mass and thinking critically about what’s coming out of my mouth: trite sentimality essentially devoid of meaning or thought.

I realize that personal preference is involvled here, so I’ve really only put my foot down once or twice over the last five years. As a former Protestant, music was a small contributing factor to our crossing of the Tiber. It may not be that important to everyone else, but how we worship God in song is important to our family, at least.

If interested, you can catch an article of mind on this general topic at Musica Sacra. (See page 53.)

 

[carmelitenovice]

@Cat: I see your point, but actually the OP specifically asked for what we “prefer.”

 

[bjryman]

With all of this talent and all of these Masses, does one of your traditional options include a Mass with Gregorian Chant ordinaries and propers?

Occasionally, we work in a chant or two…but have not attempted to assemble an entire venue around that music and liturgy type.

We have one overriding guideline at our parish…the congregation must be able to sing the songs we play except for preludes and special anthems.

Thus, I doubt we would ever consider a formal adaptation of the G. Chants

Peace
bruce

 

[roadsend]

Occasionally, we work in a chant or two…but have not attempted to assemble an entire venue around that music and liturgy type.

We have one overriding guideline at our parish…the congregation must be able to sing the songs we play except for preludes and special anthems.

Thus, I doubt we would ever consider a formal adaptation of the G. Chants

Peace
bruce

That’s unfortunate.
So much for Vatican II’s declaration that
“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.”
BTW, I have heard congregations sing chant as well or better than they sing the OCP and recycled Protestant songs prevalent in so many of today’s parishes.

 

[bjryman]

That’s unfortunate.
So much for Vatican II’s declaration that
“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.”
BTW, I have heard congregations sing chant as well or better than they sing the OCP and recycled Protestant songs prevalent in so many of today’s parishes.

The Vatican II item you note was specifically added so that the faithful understood that the Church did not intend to place the traditional non-English works in a vault and never use them.

However, the main calling of Vatican II is to “open the doors and windows of the church” and to engage the faithful in as much of the liturgy in a proactive manner as possible.

There can be no question that if one only has a certain amount of time to devout to educating the congregation, and that you really want them participating, that it is most important that the their participation be easy to administer.

BTW, to another poster regarding “modern music”. Not sure to what music the term modern is meant to refer…but…we work in from Hurd, Haus and the Jesuits, a singnificant amount of songs based on Psalms and Scripture. Most Sundays we include an extra Psalm in addition to the Responsorial. We also mix rich traditional songs from Catholic and other traditions (Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art, Lead Me Guide Me, Holy God we Praise Thy Name, etc, etc.). This Sunday we included O Come O Come Emmanuel and Sing Out Earth and Sky. A regular of ours is also one of the Magnificats. My point is that our music is always in sync with the readings of the week and the message our Pastor wishes to convey.

I think that a fair single word definition of our approach is “ecclectic”

Peace
bruce

 

[roadsend]

The Vatican II item you note was specifically added so that the faithful understood that the Church did not intend to place the traditional non-English works in a vault and never use them.

However, the main calling of Vatican II is to “open the doors and windows of the church” and to engage the faithful in as much of the liturgy in a proactive manner as possible.
…

Uh, I don’t know where you got that interpretation, but that is not what the Council said. The same conciliar document (Sacrosanctum Concilium) also goes on to say
“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”
The last three popes have reiterated this over and over.

 

[Cat]

Uh, I don’t know where you got that interpretation, but that is not what the Council said. The same conciliar document (Sacrosanctum Concilium) also goes on to say
“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”
The last three popes have reiterated this over and over.

It’s easier said then done. Honest.

My husband and I are members of a large parish (around 7000 families), with nine Masses offered Sat/Sun. Very seldom is Latin done in a Mass–I haven’t heard it in over a year.

Speaking or singing in a foreign language doesn’t just happn. To speak or sing in a foreign language requires a teacher. There aren’t any. That’s the stark truth, like it or not.

There simply aren’t any musicians who are knowledgeable enough to “insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin…”

And there aren’t enough parishioners left who remember the Latin done in the days before Vatican II. And from what I have heard from those who are still left–they are glad that there is no Latin and do not wish to return to it. I have heard some pretty feisty speeches from the elderly about their negative feelings regarding Latin in the Mass!

If there are no teachers, those of us who didn’t grow up in the Catholic Church and have never done Latin or sung chant will have a difficult time just “picking it up” Some of us might be able to pick it up online, but there are an awful lot of people who don’t spend a lot of time online like those of us on CAF!

But take heart–Catholics in our city who wish to participate in the Latin Mass can attend one daily, as well as on Sundays in the Oratory in our city. (observer.rockforddiocese.org/

So one way or another, our good bishop is making sure that Sacrosanctum Concilium is carried out and that the wishes of the last three popes are followed.