Hymnals Revisited

[benedictgal]

OCP is a pretty nefarious, money-grubbing, advancement of liberal ideas outfit, if you ask me, but benedictgal, you’re again trying to use documents to back up your own taste in music. There’s nothing in those documents that would make the music of the St. Louis Jesuits unfit for Mass. The documents you repeatedly quote only say that some music is unfit for Mass, but they give no concrete litmus test for a certain hymn or piece’s aesthetic fitness for Mass.

In a sense you’re backing up your opinion with documents that only entitle you to have such an opinion. What training or degrees do you have to discern a musical selection’s aesthetic fitness for Mass?

That is a fair enough question. I have selected the music at the Cathedral and for a great many diocesan Masses, including the Mass marking the occasion of the bishop taking his cathedral. I’ve also planned the music for Holy Week, including the Chrism Mass, as well as confirmations and Holy Communion Masses. I have even planned several Red Masses and White Masses.

I may not be a musician, but, that doesn’t mean that I make my selections uninformed, along with the particulars of the liturgy at hand. I choose my music based on the Church’s documents. For one of the White Masses, I used Pope Benedict’s Installation Mass as a point of reference. We used some of the pieces from that Mass for ours. I have planned funerals as well, the last one being for my best friend’s mother. This also included selecting the music.

Due to increased responsibilies at home, and at work I have had to step back; however, when some of the priests have asked me for help in planning liturgies, I have stepped in and done it, including the selction of readings and the music.

 

[MusicMan]

The problem I have is that you say, “such-and-such hymn isn’t fit for Mass because it’s too cheesy, folksy, 70’s, etc,” and then when we say, “Wait, that’s your opinion,” your response is “not all music is fit for Mass,” and then you quote documents that state “not all music is fit for Mass.” You never give us a quantitative litmus for the critique of the music. You give your opinion, and then state documents that basically give you the right to have that opinion.

Further, I suspect that your musical choices at the Cathedral would be restricted by more traditional styles, since that’s what one would expect at the Cathedral, and guided more by a theological perspective. Now, granted, that excludes a ton of more contemporary music, however I think that you’re too quick to dismiss a contemporary selection because it’s contemporary than on its theological merits. Perhaps your own judgment is clouded by your experiences that a great deal of contemporary music is theologically unfit.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem I have is that you say, “such-and-such hymn isn’t fit for Mass because it’s too cheesy, folksy, 70’s, etc,” and then when we say, “Wait, that’s your opinion,” your response is “not all music is fit for Mass,” and then you quote documents that state “not all music is fit for Mass.” You never give us a quantitative litmus for the critique of the music. You give your opinion, and then state documents that basically give you the right to have that opinion.

Further, I suspect that your musical choices at the Cathedral would be restricted by more traditional styles, since that’s what one would expect at the Cathedral, and guided more by a theological perspective. Now, granted, that excludes a ton of more contemporary music, however I think that you’re too quick to dismiss a contemporary selection because it’s contemporary than on its theological merits. Perhaps your own judgment is clouded by your experiences that a great deal of contemporary music is theologically unfit.

I also picked the music at my dad’s parish as well, when I was helping the pastor out for a spell. Oddly enough,m I attended a Paulist parish when I was in Austin. While the order is not necessarily known for conservative leanings, the music the pairsh used was downright traditional. Even the “contemporary” choir was very selective in what it used.

I stand by my selections and I stand by my judgment. All too often, folks think that genuine sacred music happened after 1968. It is a sad state of affairs when venerable hymns like O Come, O Come Emanuel get deleted in favor of Preparing the Wary of the Lord or the beautiful Attende Domine for Hosea (Come Back to Me).

Having grown up during the1970s-80s at a Catholic schoo, I felt as though something was missing in our musical repertoire. We didn;t get to sing the beautiful hymns like Attende Domine, Holy God We Praise Thy Name, For All the Saints and others. Granted, we had Immaculate Mary and Holy, Holy, Holy, but, a typical Mass featured Sing a New Song, Lord of Glory and Sing to the Mountains. I didn’t like them then and I don’t like them now.

There is better quality out there and I made sure that our children’s choir got to learn it. My rector supported me in the decision. The choir director balked, but, in the end, he blinked and the kids learned genuine sacred music. Ultimately, the kids found these easier to sing. When we hired a cantor (whom my rector had me train–the cantor was a classical music major who went on to become a music teacher) worked with the kids using the repoortoire that we chose. She, too, was more along the ines of giving kids a solid footing. Unfortunately, we took a jilllion steps backward when the new administration came, as he got rid of the work that the rector had done and brougth in Mariachis. He also got rid of the organist and the cantor and things went downhill fast. But, when he and the second diocesan director of liturgy (a priest with a PhD in liturgy) left, we are now seeing a slow return to normalcy. The organist is back; however, the cantor has moved to Central Texas and is now, I believe, in my old parish up there.

The writings of both the late Pope John Paul, especially his Chirograph, and Pope Benedict XVI, especially his books on the liturgy where he spends significant pages treating the topic of sacred music confirmed my views.

 

[MusicMan]

Your selections are not, and have never been IMHO, questionable. It is your rather sweeping indictment of specific styles, composers, or periods of music that I question.

 

[VociMike]

OCP is a pretty nefarious, money-grubbing, advancement of liberal ideas outfit, if you ask me, but benedictgal, you’re again trying to use documents to back up your own taste in music. There’s nothing in those documents that would make the music of the St. Louis Jesuits unfit for Mass. The documents you repeatedly quote only say that some music is unfit for Mass, but they give no concrete litmus test for a certain hymn or piece’s aesthetic fitness for Mass.

Why in the world would musicians or other artists want to be shackled by a “concrete litmus test”? The Church allows her artists freedom, asking only that they be steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae as they exercise that freedom.

In a sense you’re backing up your opinion with documents that only entitle you to have such an opinion. What training or degrees do you have to discern a musical selection’s aesthetic fitness for Mass?

Well, we could try a little experiment. Let’s see if we can come up with a rating (1-10) for SLJ music, based on the criteria the Church puts forth.

Texts drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources:
Gregorian chant: 10 (GC scores all 10s pretty much by definition)
Sacred Polyphony: 10
SLJ: ?

Holiness - in a style, form and presentation set apart for God:
Gregorian chant: 10
Sacred Polyphony: 10
SLJ: ?

Music serves the text (rather than text serving the music):
Gregorian chant: 10
Sacred Polyphony: 8
SLJ: ?

Music (and text - including translation for vernacular) is true art:
Gregorian chant: 10
Sacred Polyphony: 10
SLJ: ?

That should be a good start. Want to offer some SLJ numbers?

 

[MusicMan]

Questions 2 and 4 are entirely predicated on one’s opinion and tastes. My argument has always been that 1 & 3 are the litmus test. In this thread, benedictgal, and now you, is arguing against music based solely on questions 2 and 4. I don’t think that’s good enough.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

With regard to the original topic and the question of “weaning” people into a more sacred form of music, the St. Michael Hymnal seems a good choice for these reasons:

1-It contains a number of the less-offensive modern pieces that many people are attached to, like “Be Not Afraid” and “Here I Am, Lord,” but the bulk of the book contains mostly traditional hymns with the original, unaltered lyrics.

2-It contains a small section of Spanish hymns as well as Latin chant tunes and Mass parts.

3-It costs less per copy than Breaking Bread and does not need to be replaced annually.

4-It does not contain a missal section, so it will not become obsolete if and when the new Mass translations are promulgated.

I would keep your current missals around until the change occurs, or use hardbound missals as many European parishes do.

 

[MusicMan]

With regard to the original topic and the question of “weaning” people into a more sacred form of music, the St. Michael Hymnal seems a good choice for these reasons:

1-It contains a number of the less-offensive modern pieces that many people are attached to, like “Be Not Afraid” and “Here I Am, Lord,” but the bulk of the book contains mostly traditional hymns with the original, unaltered lyrics.

2-It contains a small section of Spanish hymns as well as Latin chant tunes and Mass parts.

3-It costs less per copy than Breaking Bread and does not need to be replaced annually.

4-It does not contain a missal section, so it will not become obsolete if and when the new Mass translations are promulgated.

I would keep your current missals around until the change occurs, or use hardbound missals as many European parishes do.

I believe we have a winner here.

 

[VociMike]

Questions 2 and 4 are entirely predicated on one’s opinion and tastes. My argument has always been that 1 & 3 are the litmus test. In this thread, benedictgal, and now you, is arguing against music based solely on questions 2 and 4. I don’t think that’s good enough.

No, 2 and 4 are not entirely predicated on one’s opinion and tastes. I’m surprised that you would argue that there is no way to distinguish “true art” from the other stuff, or that there is no way to distinguish how “set apart” a style or mode of presentation is. You are trying to claim, apparently, that we can make no informed judgements whatsoever about music. If that is your claim, then I simply reject it as a foolish claim.

On the “set apart” question, for example, how much pop music or folk music do you hear that sounds like Gregorian chant or sacred polyphony. How about “none”. Or another test - play the music without the lyrics (or in a language you don’t understand) and see how quickly and accurately you can determine if it is a secular or a sacred song.

It is also not difficult, for the most part, to pick out true art, or at least it never has been until this age, an age that glorifies the ugly and the banal.

Anyway, why don’t you offer your own numbers as to SLJ music in the four categories I listed. I’m curious if you think SLJ music is as much “true art” as the others, or as much “set apart” in form and presentation as the others.

 

[MusicMan]

Your request is flawed. You have already concluded that nothing is musical art in the same way that chant or sacred polyphony is. No matter what arguments I offer to the contrary, you have made up your mind.

Nowhere do the documents give a concrete litmus test to determine the aesthetic and stylistic fitness for music. They only state that chant and sacred polyphony are, and should hold a place of pride. They do not give us a test to judge folk or current popular styles. They also do not give us a test to judge current classical practices. Would you be happy with a Mass written by Vincent Persichetti? Philip Glass? Arnold Schoenberg (a 12 tone Mass)? Eric Ewazen? Eric Whitacre? James Barnes? Camile De Nardis? All we have is that chant and polyphony hold a place of pride. That’s it.

 

[VociMike]

Your request is flawed. You have already concluded that nothing is musical art in the same way that chant or sacred polyphony is. No matter what arguments I offer to the contrary, you have made up your mind.

Not at all. There is nothing to prevent other forms of music from being “true art” (the phrase used by two popes, not one of my invention) to the same degree. More to the point, there is no absolute requirement that only the “highest rated” music be used, all the time. Even more to the point, perhaps, given the current state of Catholic music, there is no absolute requirement that only the “lowest rated” music be used either.

Nowhere do the documents give a concrete litmus test to determine the aesthetic and stylistic fitness for music. They only state that chant and sacred polyphony are, and should hold a place of pride. They do not give us a test to judge folk or current popular styles. They also do not give us a test to judge current classical practices. Would you be happy with a Mass written by Vincent Persichetti? Philip Glass? Arnold Schoenberg (a 12 tone Mass)? Eric Ewazen? Eric Whitacre? James Barnes? Camile De Nardis? All we have is that chant and polyphony hold a place of pride. That’s it.

Those steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae do not despair of making such choices, as you seem to do. They do it every week. You can fall back on the attitude that we can make no judgements, but that of course is not the mind of the Church, which calls upon priests and musicians to make exactly such judgements, using Gregorian chant as the supreme model and permanent standard.

What you are really doing is denying the Church teaching on the matter of informed choice regarding sacred music, but claiming that no such informed choice is possible. That’s really quite an extreme position.

 

[MusicMan]

No, actually, what I’m really doing is saying that you can’t just sweepingly dismiss a style of music or a composer just because you don’t like it.

 

[benedictgal]

No, actually, what I’m really doing is saying that you can’t just sweepingly dismiss a style of music or a composer just because you don’t like it.

The documents speak for themselves. As Pope Paul VI noted, not everything is fit to cross the threshhold. As Pope Benedict XVI wisely noted, certainly, as far as the liturgy is concerned, one song is not as good as another.

 

[MusicMan]

But the documents still don’t tell us which ones are unfit.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I second all of the above. However, If you can’t get the original Worship III hymnals, the current one is not absolute, total poison with inclusive language. I rate it as a good B+. Adoremus is terrific but it’s too small – under 200 hymns, if I recall. But all of 'em are pure gold.

Since most Churches only sing the same 50 songs over and over again… it seems like 200 is a good number.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

With regard to the original topic and the question of “weaning” people into a more sacred form of music, the St. Michael Hymnal seems a good choice for these reasons:

1-It contains a number of the less-offensive modern pieces that many people are attached to, like “Be Not Afraid” and “Here I Am, Lord,” but the bulk of the book contains mostly traditional hymns with the original, unaltered lyrics.

2-It contains a small section of Spanish hymns as well as Latin chant tunes and Mass parts.

3-It costs less per copy than Breaking Bread and does not need to be replaced annually.

4-It does not contain a missal section, so it will not become obsolete if and when the new Mass translations are promulgated.

I would keep your current missals around until the change occurs, or use hardbound missals as many European parishes do.

What s/he said!
(sorry, I don’t know your gender!!!)

 

[VociMike]

No, actually, what I’m really doing is saying that you can’t just sweepingly dismiss a style of music or a composer just because you don’t like it.

Why won’t you take a shot at evaluating SLJ music in the four categories I listed? Quantify your argument in favor of SLJ music.

 

[MusicMan]

Why must I? I don’t ever recall saying any of their music was high musical art or fit for Mass. All I’ve ever said is that you cannot unilaterally dismiss a composer’s music because of your own personal taste. Show me which documents make music unfit because it’s too folksy or from the '70s.

 

[benedictgal]

Why must I? I don’t ever recall saying any of their music was high musical art or fit for Mass. All I’ve ever said is that you cannot unilaterally dismiss a composer’s music because of your own personal taste. Show me which documents make music unfit because it’s too folksy or from the '70s.

While he doesn’t explicitly list a time period, the words of Pope John Paul II in his chirograph on Sacred Music are certainly fitting:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

Yet this quality alone does not suffice. Indeed, liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite.

This, along with what Pope Benedict has written, not only in Sacramentum Caritatis and in his books on the liturgy, are good benchmarks.

I am reminded by what the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus observed during the Papal Mass at Natinonals Stadium. His remarks are certainly germaine to the OP’s situation because, I am certain, a lot of what was used at this particular liturgy probably comes from what is found in many parishes.

The Thursday Mass at Nationals Park introduced the Holy Father to aspects of the aesthetic suffering endured by the faithful in America.

…Of course nothing can diminish, never mind negate, the astonishment of the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, but it must be admitted that the mish-mash of music and liturgical practices putatively representing the “other” of multiculturalism did vigorously compete with the central reality. I offered an observation or two on this in the course of our EWTN coverage, provoking the response that the people in the stadium were obviously enjoying themselves and we mustn’t try to impose our elitist musical and liturgical criteria. Ouch. The point I was making is that Benedict has written very specifically over the years about the distortion of the dynamics of worship when attention is focused on “our wonderful selves” rather than on the glory of God. He has also stressed the importance of renewing commitment to and continuity in the tradition of sacred music, including Gregorian chant, a tradition almost entirely absent from the stadium Mass. So the point of the commentary on that Mass is that it is remarkable that, on matters about which Benedict has been so emphatic, his views were so egregiously ignored or defied.

I am hopeful, though, that if what Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the current Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship told me becomes a reality, we may very well see a document from the Holy See at some point this year that will address the sad state of music here in the United States. He told me that this document should appear early next year (this was back in November). Now, we are in the first 16 days of the year. It’s probably too early to expect something, but I am hopeful.

This document, no doubt, should have some sort of strong influence on the publishing houses in the United States. However, I think, as Fr. Neuhaus noted, one of these houses will ignore what the Holy Father has written and what the Holy See will release. If this house ignored Liturgiam Authenticam, I don’t think they are likely to pay attention to the new directives. This is appropriate because the forthcoming document will affect future hymnals. We’ll just have to wait and see.

At least the Holy Father got to hear first-hand, what many of us must endure week after week.

 

[Sarabande]

I’m going to do this in a few posts so it’s easier to read. I know I tend to be very verbose and my apologies for that.

Speaking as a musician, although I personally believe that a lot of the newer religious music being promoted by certain publishers are either just poorly composed, too saccharine, too hoaky or just plain inappropriate and “unbecoming to the holiness of the place, dignity of the liturgy and the devotion of the faithful,” I also have to follow the tenants of what was laid out rather than just base it on either my expertise in music or my tastes. The Church has even said in “Musicae Sacrae” that it can’t be based just on art, aesthetics, and technique. If our review of music was such, then so much more inappropriate music - even pieces that are technically superior or aesthetically beautiful (depending on the listener and we all know how that has been turning out) - would come into and stay in the liturgy for either art’s sake or the sake of the tastes of the people. I understand what MusicMan is saying.

One of the things to keep in mind when reviewing music for liturgy, with the exception chant, is to see how the form of music composition is an “organic” growth from the musical traditions of the Church. And the word “organic” in relation to sacred musical evolution is an exact word from the Church. They want it to be organically evolved, not just some style popped in because it fits the tastes of the day. Musical styles throughout history would sometimes have to be refined in order to for it to be in line with the natural, organic extension of sacred music - first from chant, then subsequent styles, such as polyphony and so forth. If the composition itself or the rendering of it by musicians could not be refined, it would eventually be scratched from being done during liturgy.

The problem that I have seen in my lifetime is that many of those who want to keep and promote these newer forms of music, seem to base it only on the aesthetics and feelings they get from the music. They don’t review the music with an impartial eye. (I will note that this isn’t a new problem. People have done this for centuries. Humans in previous centuries are the same as humans today. We just have different clothing and technology.)