MERGED: Music in Mass/Sacred Music

[snowlake]

In our desire to be “traditional” we must also respect that tradition of subsidiarity by which the Catholic Church operates.

Music is too vast of a subject matter to leave it’s local governance up to the local “amateur” musician. Sorry if that offends some of you. Even the American Bishops have shown gross lack of knowledge in this area, as evidenced in the discrepancies
of their documents w/ those set forth from the Vatican.

I’m looking for my volume of the documents of Vat. II so I can find the place where it says
that the Church should employ the help of lay people who are EXPERTS in various fields.
With the Vatican, there would be no problem w/ this. Even the Pope is extremely learned
in matters musical. It seems to be a problem here though. Although we are to follow the
teachings of Christ through the successors of the apostles, these successors cannot be experts in all fields! They need to consult w/ those who are very knowledgeable in other fields (such as doctors , when writing things on medical topics, astronomers and physicists when dealing w/ those subjects, etc.). The bishops apply the the teaching of the Church to these matters.

Many pastoral musicians are not knowledgeable enough about music to even venture an opinion about what the documents are referring to. Some of them simply have a knowledge of how to read music combined w/ some courses/workshops on liturgy.

I think it might make Cat feel better to know that, in addition to my comments in a previous post (that a simple sung Mass based on chant would not include “classical”
music that she has bad associations with), but that Pope Pius X was in her camp!
His “Tra la Solicitudine” (isn’t it cute that it starts out w/ the words “Tra la (la)”) was
written “as a reform document to correct the abuses of operatic and romantic music”
in the Mass! He wanted to re-instate chant style. (Music & the Arts in Christian Worship by Webber).

About the Church’s statement that it “claims no one style as its own”, I can’t believe that some interpret this to include current (or even non-current) secular styles like we’ve been hearing for the past 30+ years. Anyone with a basic knowledge of music history knows that this means that the church claims no particular SACRED style as its own. There are many sacred styles: plainchant, polyphony, homophonic chorale styles…and many more.
And each of these is subdivided into various “styles”. In “The History of Music and Musical Styles”(Ulrich and Pisk), we read that plainchant had been divided into what the book calls
“three styles”: syllabic, neumatic, and melismatic. There were many polyphonic sacred styles throughout history, and there are people who are experts in individual types!

I suggest that all church musicians read books on music history as well as church documents. It would be very hard to interpret the latter w/o a knowledge of the former.

I myself am not a music historian, but these very basic things are included in the education of anyone who takes a basic course in music history.

There is a lot more to the subject than many of the American faithful (and Bishops)
are aware. This is not to question their office or their authority. I’m only trying to point out a few facts.

 

[pnewton]

Music is too vast of a subject matter to leave it’s local governance up to the local “amateur” musician. Sorry if that offends some of you.

Why should I be offended by your opinion? I was speaking in fact and reality, not who things should be. In this, I do not deem my opinion is worthy enough to tell the Catholic Church, or even one Bishop, what they should do. The fact remains that there are no list of approved music that must be used. There are no specific instruments that are listed as approved or banned. Instead, the Church offers guidelines to be used as determined at the local level.

That is how the Catholic Church operates and has traditionally operated. Considering that we are a Church founded by amateurs and relying of the Holy Spirit, this should not be considered surprising.

Again, there was no offense taken and no offense in my tone.

 

[snowlake]

I am not referring to opinions of what good music is. That would be taste… the documents… that are authoritative …good Catholics must disagree as to how they are best applied]

Good music is not related to “taste”. I’m not fond of Debussy’s symphonic music, but it’s
damn good. Taste refers to what a person likes or doesn’t like. Good music is evaluated on completely different bases. There’s actually something to it besides the American Bandstand approach("I liked the melody but I didn’t like the beat, so I’ll give it a “5”).

Although circumstances come into play, authoritative documents are usually not referring to what a lot of people think they are…the only ones who can “disagree” are those who have enough background to understand what’s being referred to.

The state of music education in our country (and evidently seminaries, at least in the relatively recent past) is ABOMINABLE.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton;6806190:

I am not referring to opinions of what good music is. That would be taste… the documents… that are authoritative …good Catholics must disagree as to how they are best applied]

Good music is not related to “taste”.

Which is why I said:

I am not referring to opinions of what good music is. That would be taste

Although circumstances come into play, authoritative documents are usually not referring to what a lot of people think they are

I disagree. I have had not problem understanding what they say (and what they don’t say).

 

[snowlake]

snowlake;6806898:

I have had not problem understanding what they say (and what they don’t say).

Are you sure? A document on Sacred music is just that: on SACRED music.

As I recently noted, there are various styles of sacred music. And they all SOUND like sacred music. If the text was omitted, they would still sound like sacred music. If the text of the much used music in our parishes was omitted, it would not be identifiable as sacred music.(By the same token, if the text of some religious Classical music was omitted, it might not sound like sacred music either.)

The notes, melodies, rhythm,harmonies, form and instrumentation OBJECTIVELY place it in another category… which is SECULAR music. The fact that it has religiously-inspired text does not make the actual “music” sacred. And, there IS such a thing as SECULAR RELIGIOUS MUSIC- religious music that is not intended for use in the Mass. Religious
does not equal sacred. We have secular-inspired religious music in our Masses.

When a church document on SACRED music allows for various styles, it is not referring to anything other than varying styles of SACRED music. Of which there are very many
stemming from all musical historical/stylistic periods. Our own period of music is exemplified in the compositions of many varied “serious” composers - John Rutter comes to mind . It doesn’t refer to (as it did not in past eras either) to popular music!

 

[snowlake]

Considering that we are a Church founded by amateurs and relying of the Holy Spirit, this should not be considered surprising.

Again, there was no offense taken and no offense in my tone.

" It is known that all Christian chant had its roots in the Jewish liturgy, and that several
textual elements (for example, Amen, Alleluia, “Holy, holy, holy” of the Sanctus, and others) were derived from that liturgy." (Ulrich and Pisk) Evidently they were not amateurs.

I’m not taking offense either,& not trying to give it. Just trying to point out facts as well.

 

[snowlake]

Dear P - I have to get ready for work now, but just wanted to say that I’m grateful for
all of the (name removed by moderator)ut. I have an idea: maybe Catholic Answers should send a copy of this thread to the U.S. Bishops committee on Liturgy. it would underscore the a huge amount of confusion and disagreement among Catholics on this topic, and the need for clarification.
I’m not even joking. I think it would be a good idea. What do you think.
I’ll catch up with everyone after I come back from my gig tonight.

 

[snowlake]

Does anyone know how to get a copy of Musicam Sacram in the original Latin? I would like to see the latin phrase for “sacred popular music” etc.

 

[MarkThompson]

Does anyone know how to get a copy of Musicam Sacram in the original Latin? I would like to see the latin phrase for “sacred popular music” etc.

Here you go. “Sacred popular music” = “cantus popularis sacer.”

 

[snowlake]

Thank you, MarkThompson. Is this what is found (exactly) in Musicam Sacram?
I can’t tell whether you translated “sacred popular music” into Latin for me, or if you
went to the Latin text to see what Latin words were actually used. Which one did you do?
Either way, thank you.

 

[snowlake]

This is not suited to this thread, but could you help me w/ another Latin problem?
The company responsible for my Father’s headstone inscribed the phrase “requiescat in pace” on his headstone incorrectly. They spelled it “Requiscat”, without the e. My mom
called and complained, and they said that it is an “alternate” spelling, and mailed her
copies from a website from which they got this spelling. This seems really odd to me.
Is it correct?
By the way, who is responsible for translating the Vatican’s Latin documents into
English? For instance, who translated Musicam Sacram into English?
Has there ever been an instance where a Vatican document has been incorrectly
translated? If so, couldn’t that cause grave misunderstandings?

 

[MarkThompson]

Thank you, MarkThompson. Is this what is found (exactly) in Musicam Sacram?
I can’t tell whether you translated “sacred popular music” into Latin for me, or if you
went to the Latin text to see what Latin words were actually used. Which one did you do?
Either way, thank you.

I looked at the Latin. It’s in paragraph 4(b). And you’re welcome!

This is not suited to this thread, but could you help me w/ another Latin problem?
The company responsible for my Father’s headstone inscribed the phrase “requiescat in pace” on his headstone incorrectly. They spelled it “Requiscat”, without the e. My mom
called and complained, and they said that it is an “alternate” spelling, and mailed her
copies from a website from which they got this spelling. This seems really odd to me.
Is it correct?
By the way, who is responsible for translating the Vatican’s Latin documents into
English? For instance, who translated Musicam Sacram into English?
Has there ever been an instance where a Vatican document has been incorrectly
translated? If so, couldn’t that cause grave misunderstandings?

I’m virtually certain that “Requiscat” would be a misspelling, although it seems to show up more commonly than I would have expected (examples are shown below). Granted, a lot of people have terrible Latin and this is the kind of phrase that people use even when they don’t know Latin at all.

The verb is requiesco, so the “e” will be found in all forms inflected from the present stem, including the third person singular active subjunctive, “requiescat.” I don’t even think that dropping the e would give a legitimate syncopated form, since in fact the word’s stress falls on the syllable “-es-”.

As to your last question, I think there’s a Vatican office that does the translations. As I understand it, the documents are generally written in some living language (usually Italian, these days), then translated into Latin, and then into other languages. I’m not an expert on Vatican cog-turnings, but I’ve read that in cases where the document was first released in its native language, then translated into Latin, it will also be translated from Latin back into the original language, superseding the first version.

Other than that, I can’t think of any specific case where a translation was horribly mangled. When a Latin version is made – again, this is as I understand it – it’s the normative and binding text, so it wouldn’t even matter if one particular vernacular were bungled somehow.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SU...tvHm9f2dVvovfMQRk0g&ci=107,982,406,200&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=9i...Aqou2tBODqD5I2TNirg&ci=40,137,816,1172&edge=0"]http://books.google.com/books?id=9i...Aqou2tBODqD5I2TNirg&ci=40,137,816,1172&edge=0

 

[Canto]

“Sacred popular music” = “cantus popularis sacer.”

cantus - chant

popularis - of the people; popular

sacer - sacred

 

[MarkThompson]

cantus - chant

Cantus = song, really. Cf., e.g., Spanish cantar, to sing.

There’s a minor movement to push the “chant” translation so that texts like the GIRM would wind up saying, if one doesn’t use the chants from the Graduale, not that one can use “another suitable song,” but that one must use “another suitable chant.” This has no good basis in reasonable Latin translation, though.

Edited to add: And, of course, Musicam Sacram meant it in quite the way I’ve indicated. They certainly weren’t referring to “popular sacred chants,” but “popular sacred songs.”

 

[Canto]

Cantus = song, really. Cf., e.g., Spanish cantar, to sing.

There’s a minor movement to push the “chant” translation so that texts like the GIRM would wind up saying, if one doesn’t use the chants from the Graduale, not that one can use “another suitable song,” but that one must use “another suitable chant.” This has no good basis in reasonable Latin translation, though.

Edited to add: And, of course, Musicam Sacram meant it in quite the way I’ve indicated. They certainly weren’t referring to “popular sacred chants,” but “popular sacred songs.”

GIRM 43 cantus ad introitum
GIRM 43 Entrance chant

It can translate as song but is the Church leaning more to the translation as chant?

This brings us back to what is sacred popular song/chant?

 

[MarkThompson]

GIRM 43 cantus ad introitum
GIRM 43 Entrance chant

It’s a fairly fundamental translation issue. Latin simply doesn’t have separate words for “chant” and “song.” (Well, there’s carmen, but that also means song.) English is a significantly richer language, so the trick is for the translation to be done by someone sufficiently fluent in English and sufficiently educated in the intent of the drafters that he can appropriately use the nuances of English vocabulary to express what the drafters meant to communicate, perhaps even better than they could in Latin.

In English, the piece of vocal music used for the entrance is called the entrance chant, so it makes sense to translate GIRM 43 with a specific, rather than general, term. A complete novice would have written, “the song to the entrance.”

It can translate as song but is the Church leaning more to the translation as chant?

This brings us back to what is sacred popular song/chant?

The Church is not leaning toward translating cantus as Chant. It would be ridiculous, in the first place, because the Church is not in charge of what Latin words mean. More to the point, though, in context cantus popularis sacer simply can’t possibly be referring to “popular sacred chants.” Look at how similar phrases come up in paragraph 46, for instance, referring to the “recent heritage of sacred music, popular religious songs (cantus religiosi populares), and the playing of the organ”, and in paragraph 61.

 

[ProVobis]

Has there ever been an instance where a Vatican document has been incorrectly
translated?

If you have ever listened to someone who actually translates for a living, you would hear that it is almost impossible to translate perfectly. The Vatican does its best, however, to stick to the Latin as much as possible.

If so, couldn’t that cause grave misunderstandings?

Most definitely. Major world wars have started because of them.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m virtually certain that “Requiscat” would be a misspelling, although it seems to show up more commonly than I would have expected (examples are shown below). Granted, a lot of people have terrible Latin and this is the kind of phrase that people use even when they don’t know Latin at all.

Yes, it has been known various words have been misspelled and yet there is no attempt to correct them. (Sound familiar in our English world? )

The one that is probably the most prominent is the misspelling of the world “seculorum” on our own dollar bills. It’s written as “seclorum.” But who has the courage to tell the U.S. government its currency is illegal?

 

[Cat]

GIRM 43 cantus ad introitum
GIRM 43 Entrance chant

It can translate as song but is the Church leaning more to the translation as chant?

This brings us back to what is sacred popular song/chant?

OK, I’ll bite.

I would suggest that “On Eagles’ Wings” is a sacred popular song.

No one can say that “On Eagles’ Wings” is secular–I would ask them for documentation when they heard it on the secular radio stations or even the Protestant Christian radio stations. I had never heard this song before becoming Catholic.

In our city, it’s extremely popular, and many Catholics request it for their funerals. I personally love it.

Interestingly, many members of this board have stated that “On Eagles’ Wings” is not appropriate for Mass.

Hey, I thought Latin was supposed to make everything clear as a handbell because it’s an unchanging language. I guess not.

 

[ProVobis]

Interestingly, many members of this board have stated that “On Eagles’ Wings” is not appropriate for Mass.

Hey, I thought Latin was supposed to make everything clear as a handbell because it’s an unchanging language. I guess not.

I don’t see the connection between “On Eagles’ Wings” (which reminds me of Abba) and Latin. Is there a Latin version of the song that got mistranslated somehow?

Or is this just another cheap shot against the official language of the Church?