Liturgical Music regulations

[Guitar]

IAs pprimeau1976 mentioned, the Schubert is lovely, but I’ve sung it for one too many weddings and funerals. The other problem with that one is that most people don’t realize that you have to sing through two verses of that version to sing the entire Hail Mary prayer, so you always hear it done “half-way”. I have seen a different setting of it to include the whole prayer in one verse, but most is set in two verses. The original setting was in German, set to a prayer to Mary, but not the actual “Hail Mary”. It was a religious song, but actually part of Schubert’s lieder which would be sung in recitals. I don’t know when it was set to the Latin text, but it was originally German. I personally prefer it in German and hearing it in recital rather than in Church any more.

One too many? About 5000 too many here … It is truly refreshing to come across someone who recognises it for what it is - lieder - and presumably sings it that way and even thinks the language it was written in works best! I’ve lost count of the soprani I’ve accompanied who seem to think it came out of one of Verdi’s operas.

 

[Sarabande]

One too many? About 5000 too many here … It is truly refreshing to come across someone who recognises it for what it is - lieder - and presumably sings it that way and even thinks the language it was written in works best! I’ve lost count of the soprani I’ve accompanied who seem to think it came out of one of Verdi’s operas.

Yes… I agree. I’m an opera singer (although I’m a lyric mezzo, so Verdi and Puccini isn’t in much of my repertoire - my fach for opera is mostly Handel, Gluck, Mozart, Rossini, R. Strauss, etc.), but there is a place to sing opera, a place to sing lieder and a place to sing sacred music - all with the same intensity and technique, but definitely with a different approach. It’s a prayer… not a drama!!! haha! (Although singing for me is always a prayer. )

Truly… the Schubert works best as a piece of lieder for recitals. Well, at least in my humble opinion.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

In the absence of an official “Do not use these songs for Liturgy” list, please comment on the appropriateness of the following songs…and please state why or why not (appropriate for liturgy according to official Vatican documents).

City of God

“Let us build the city of God…” is not such good theology. God builds the city of God. We do our part, but the action is God’s.

Gather us In

An example of a song that is more about “us” than God. Also overused.

Shine Jesus Shine

Awesome God

Ok, these are more about God. But they’re more along the lines of a Protestant praise music from your local neighborhood megachurch. But bonus points if the teen group can do the hand motions for “Awesome God”.

Lord of the Dance

I used to like this, until our pastoral associate demonstrated that you can dance the “Bunny Hop” to it. I also would get annoyed when they would cut the song short and leave Jesus on the cross to die.

We Will Serve the Lord

Sorry, this one isn’t coming to me right now.

We are One Body

I believe there are multiple songs by this name.

Table of Plenty

Not so bad, but overused.

Thanks.

You’re welcome.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

“Let us build the city of God…” is not such good theology. God builds the city of God. We do our part, but the action is God’s.

We are not called to build the kingdom of God?

 

[muledog]

I disagree with this…imposing more restrictions and rules. Is it because you think that those songs would be the one you like and rid of the ones you don’t? What if they did do that and it went the oppositve way that you liked?

I would be satisfied with an “approved” list of sacred music, given that this music would, in turn, have the recognitio of the Holy See behind it. BRING IT ON!!!

Having a list of officially approved songs would make songwriting obsolete. How dare anyone say that God isn’t inspiriing people in 2007 to write music for church (even in the style that you like). And you know there would not be a current committee to handle new songs…and if there was, it wouldn’t be efficient.

No it wouldn’t. The actual texts for the propers of the Mass are already given in the liturgical books. This includes the Entrance Chant, Offertory Chant, Communion Chant, and the Ordinary parts of Mass - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc. They could be set to new forms of chant and polyphany, among other more modern forms.

Composers would still have the option of setting these texts to music, which could be done in a variety of ways. Why do we always want to be “creative” and change everything?

Having a list of “banned” songs would promote nothing more than misunderstanding…the church would then be accused of judging the composer, or hating the song itself, (rather than simply just a restriction for mass). The songs available are so exhaustive that they couldnt keep up with it…we would hear “well, its not on the banned list so I can play it”

Not really. Have you noticed that on the BCL website, they have a powerpoint presentation by the Subcommittee on Liturgical Music. In it, they demonstrate that most of the “top 20” so-called liturgical songs don’t pass muster when it comes to requirements for true sacred music? That should tell you something right there.

 

[agapewolf]

No it wouldn’t. The actual texts for the propers of the Mass are already given in the liturgical books. This includes the Entrance Chant, Offertory Chant, Communion Chant, and the Ordinary parts of Mass - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc. They could be set to new forms of chant and polyphany, among other more modern forms.

Composers would still have the option of setting these texts to music, which could be done in a variety of ways. Why do we always want to be “creative” and change everything?

QUOTE]

We’re not talking about the mass propers. We are talking about actualy SONGS…you know hymns? The number of hymns written today can be very approrpiate, and they go beyond what the mass propers. The rubrics allow for these and don’t tie us down to just the mere mass propers. It calls for an entrance chant OR suitable hymn.

So yes, it would music writing obsolete.

 

[agapewolf]

I No it wouldn’t. The actual texts for the propers of the Mass are already given in the liturgical books. This includes the Entrance Chant, Offertory Chant, Communion Chant, and the Ordinary parts of Mass - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc. They could be set to new forms of chant and polyphany, among other more modern forms.

Composers would still have the option of setting these texts to music, which could be done in a variety of ways. Why do we always want to be “creative” and change everything?

.

I wasn’t talking about the mass propers. I was talking about actualy SONGS…you know hymns? The number of hymns written today can be very approrpiate, and they go beyond the mass propers. The rubrics allow for these and don’t tie us down to just the mere mass propers. It calls for an entrance chant OR suitable hymn.

So yes, it would music writing obsolete. I wasn’t talking about changing the texts of the mass settings. I was talking about songs that are allowed in the Mass.

 

[muledog]

I wasn’t talking about the mass propers. I was talking about actualy SONGS…you know hymns? The number of hymns written today can be very approrpiate, and they go beyond the mass propers. The rubrics allow for these and don’t tie us down to just the mere mass propers. It calls for an entrance chant OR suitable hymn.

So yes, it would music writing obsolete. I wasn’t talking about changing the texts of the mass settings. I was talking about songs that are allowed in the Mass.

“Mere”??? It’s funny that something that was used for over 1000 years, and is always listed FIRST in the official lists of choices for liturgical music is now considered “mere” by some. A shame.

Just another example of the “dumbing down” of the liturgy to the least common denominator.

So, we’re supposed to be more concerned with the jobs of pseudo-liturgical composers than with music that is already given us in our official book for sacred liturgical music - the Graduale Romanum?

And people wonder why there is so much liturgical complaining going on in these forums…

 

[agapewolf]

First of all, the manner in which you write is unneccessarily aggressive.

You inferred a meaning there that, if you read thuroughly, you will find is not what was meant at all by that word.

Maybe I should have used a different word… only, perhaps.

This is absolutely not a dumbing down. When the rubrics say

“Entrance chant or other suitable hymn” it means just that. That means we can take “other suitable hymns”.

Its not about composers jobs… but who in the heck are we to say that God isn’t inspiring people to write music for the mass today?
Why only from a certain time? I know many composers who don’t take any money for their songs…

So, again, no need for the aggression, you read way too much into my post

 

[Rabbititus]

I think the Vatican should mandate a core selection of common Latin hymns for various seasons and occations that would have to be included in all Catholic hymnals - maybe 100 or so hymns, not counting sequences or other texts found in the ordinary of mass. Then perhaps the different national groups of bishops could create selections of public-domain vernacular hymns that would also need to be included in all hymnals - maybe a hundred or so too. Basically, a hymnal would be banned from Catholic church use if it didn’t include at least the core 200 hymns.

Most hymnals I’ve encountered have something like 500 + hymns, and most already incorporate about 100 or more traditional hymns (though Latin selections tend to be pathetic), so my suggestion leaves more than enough room for contemporary hymnody.

 

[muledog]

I would like to quote Liturgiam Authenticamits requirements for vernacular hymns used in the liturgy my emphasis]:

1. Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity.

If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided.

Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

As you can see, LM requires that the number of hymns be “fixed”, and that a “directory or repertory” of these hymns be produced “within five years.” This has not happened and probably won’t for some time (if at all).

 

[VAC]

It’s funny that something that was used for over 1000 years, and is always listed FIRST in the official lists of choices for liturgical music is now considered “mere” by some. A shame.
…

Entrance chant OR suitable hymn.
Perhaps English is not your first language???
The word “or”,between the choices means that they are interchangeable, one is as good as the other. It does not mean that the former has greater preferance than the latter choice.

So, we’re supposed to be more concerned with the jobs of ***pseudo-liturgical composers ***than with music that is already given us in our official book for sacred liturgical music - the Graduale Romanum?
And people wonder why there is so much liturgical complaining going on in these forums

…
Once again, another OPINION, (now 12 pages on this thread alone, when the OP asked for FACTS and Documents) this time that paid composers who write anything new in this century are labled “pseduo”
It is the prevalance of so many OPINIONS, and lack of concrete guidelines and approved song lists that are the cause of so much liturgical complaining.

 

[muledog]

Entrance chant OR suitable hymn.
Perhaps English is not your first language???
The word “or”,between the choices means that they are interchangeable, one is as good as the other. It does not mean that the former has greater preferance than the latter choice.

Actually, it doesn’t say "Entrance chant or suitable hymn. It allows for a suitable hymn to substitute for the propers of the Mass. Both are considered “entrance chants.”

According to common Roman liturgical practice, you’ll always see the preferred choice listed first. The next most-preferred choice listed second, and so on. To say that all four choices for the Introit are “as good as the other” would be a gross exaggeration of the facts. Another example: just because extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are allowed under current law, they are not by any stretch of the imagination equally preferred to the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

GIRM:

1. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.
2. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

Once again, another OPINION, (now 12 pages on this thread alone, when the OP asked for FACTS and Documents) this time that paid composers who write anything new in this century are labled “pseduo”
It is the prevalance of so many OPINIONS, and lack of concrete guidelines and approved song lists that are the cause of so much liturgical complaining.

I agree that the lack of sound guidelines is a major problem with sacred music today. Hopefully, the BCL’s Subcommittee on Liturgical Music will come up with something that will benefit the liturgy and God’s people.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Actually, it doesn’t say "Entrance chant or suitable hymn. It allows for a suitable hymn to substitute for the propers of the Mass. Both are considered “entrance chants.”

According to common Roman liturgical practice, you’ll always see the preferred choice listed first. The next most-preferred choice listed second, and so on. To say that all four choices for the Introit are “as good as the other” would be a gross exaggeration of the facts.

I second this.

 

[muledog]

Once again, another OPINION, (now 12 pages on this thread alone, when the OP asked for FACTS and Documents) this time that paid composers who write anything new in this century are labled “pseduo”

Since most composers of contemporary worship music fail to utilize the liturgical texts for Mass in their compositions, there music wouldn’t be considered “liturgical music.” It could be entitled “sacred popular music”, though, given the definition of Musicam Sacram:

The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious

 

[VAC]

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are **four options **for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

Four options means just that four options Not four options in order of preference.
Once again, people read things into the documents that are not there to support their OPINIONS and present them as fact.

Our church leadership is more than capable of setting forth concrete black and white guidelines such as “no abortions even to save the life of the mother, even in cases of incest and rape”
'“No stem cell research ever” “no artificial birth control ever”

If they wanted to set forth concrete guidelines about the music, they would choose to do so. There has been ample opportunity for the USSBC to create a list of apporved songs. (Or better yet, a list of forbidden songs) The fact that they have not choosen to do so leaves room for subjective interpretation. It doesn’t mean they have left room for folks to reinterpret their subjective guidelines and present them as fact.

 

[Sarabande]

Earlier this year, I heard from a person who works in my archdiocese that in the US they were beginning or in the process of examining the composition and text all hymns (old/new) in the Catholic hymnals to determine if the texts were sound in Catholic teaching, etc. He didn’t know when it would be completed. If this is the case since I haven’t spoken to this person since he told me about this, would that mean that there would be “bans” on certain hymns which were once allowed at mass?

In terms of a list of what composition writing should be forbidden, I can see the good and the bad that would come of out this. The Church has learned from her past regarding bans on music. There was a time when certain chords or intervals in music were banned by the Church. The “devil’s chord” or “devil’s interval” could never be written or performed. It was your basic tritone and because of the dissonant sound and quality of this chord, it was associated with evil and thus the “diavolo”. There were also stringent regulations of compositional writing - not necessarily made by the Church, but by the theories of Western Art Music which almost all of our music today stems from as we still use the western music scale to write pop songs or compose arias or symphonies. The “good” that came out of this ban was composers who were still able to create original and near-perfection compositions within these “rules”. They developed the art form to the degree of near-perfection. But we could have missed out on equally beautiful music during the time the ban was enforced.

I don’t think we’ll ever go back to banning certain chords and progressions in music, but I think the Church knows that they have to tread cautiously on music bans so to not stymie the spiritual creativity of composers. Now, She does have every right, after studying a certain composition, that it isn’t appropriate for mass. I’m very glad for the few rules that they have today for sacred/religious music. It does make composers have to work “harder”, but I think that’s fine. If it wasn’t for the Church and the genius of the past composers who could work the rules of Western Music and of the Church, we wouldn’t have had the rich history and legacy for secular and sacred music and we wouldn’t have had a continual supply of brilliant composers and musicians today.

 

[rpp]

Rather than “banning” particular hymms, why not do what is done for books?

Give them an *imprimatur *or something similar.

Remember that hymnals can sometimes be used for celebrations other than Mass. with an *imprimatur *stating a song is appropriate for use at Mass and simply silence on others can give music directors and pastors sufficient guidance for choosing music for Mass or other celebrations.

 

[Philothea53]

How’s this for ‘liturgical abuse’ in music at Mass:

Elvis Presley romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/2007/05/change-of-habit.html

 

[Sarabande]

How’s this for ‘liturgical abuse’ in music at Mass:

Elvis Presley romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/2007/05/change-of-habit.html

WOW!! I thought I saw all of the Elvis Presley movies - my mother was absolutely wild over him when she was teen and young adult, and would watch all of his movies that came on television in the 80s. I never saw this one. I felt sorry for the nun (was it Mary Tyler Moore?) who kept trying to focus on the cross, the Blessed Mother, etc., but her eyes kept going back to Elvis taking her off the focus of the mass. I guess she was Elvis’s love interest?

Anyway, that part of the movie was hilarious when not in the context of a real mass. Although, watching it and thinking about actual real masses that I’ve attended where the music and the behaviour of the musicians were not too far from the movie, made me sad and physically ill.

That quote from the elderly lady in the movie was kind of mocking, “Give me the old days when you could go to mass and not think about a blessed thing.”

But it’s a movie and I probably should take it with a grain of salt. I’m seeing less and less of those kinds of masses anyway.