MERGED: Music in Mass/Sacred Music

[ProVobis]

Once upon a time, the organ was for all intents and purposes banned from use in the liturgy.

I believe the organ had its origins in an instrument called the hydraulis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_organ

I think you’re right about the ban but when it was introduced into a large church environment, they found the overtones (harmonics) too beautiful to resist. To this day, of course, the better the accoustics and larger the church the better it is to use the organ. A piano even if the keys were pounded hard would hardly be heard in a large church. (Concert halls would be an exception because of the accoustical design.) The piano really only works in a much smaller environment otherwise.

All else being equal, is the organ better suited to the Liturgy? Definitely. That’s why I’ve started taking lessons, so that I can gain at least a basic proficiency at it.

Cool.

 

[Prometheum_x]

I believe the organ had its origins in an instrument called the hydraulis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_organ

I think you’re right about the ban but when it was introduced into a large church environment, they found the overtones (harmonics) too beautiful to resist. To this day, of course, the better the accoustics and larger the church the better it is to use the organ. A piano even if the keys were pounded hard would hardly be heard in a large church. (Concert halls would be an exception because of the accoustical design.) The piano really only works in a much smaller environment otherwise.

Cool.

Perhaps you could consider the piano the poor man’s organ. Many (most?) churches are small enough to make the piano a reasonable instrument, especially if it can be reinforced through the sound system. In larger churches that have a significant amount of reverb, the piano has to be played in such a reduced way in order to have any clarity at all that there isn’t any point to using it, even with reinforcement. The organ has to be played carefully in that environment as well, but its ability to sustain the tone means that it still sounds good.

 

[Sarabande]

This article/lecture by Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) talks about how the organ came into play for the Church and why it was/is important in liturgy. It’s very long, very interesting and well-written, but I’ve highlighted the part which focuses on the beginnings of the organ in the Church. It clearly emphasizes how important and special the organ became for the Church and, to me, after reading the entire article/lecture, I came to understand more as to why the organ was held in high esteem. Before, I accepted it because that was what the Church said, and never really saw anything prior to this that made sense to me. At the same time, Benedict does show how it was originally a secular instrument before it became a sacred one. So, I think that is always something one must keep in mind. The instrument, itself - whether it’s the voice, organ, etc. can be turned into the “profane” or the “secular” just by how it is played. Although, at the same time some instruments currently or may always have a secular connotation, which is most likely why the Church docs talk about “by popular opinion and use”. And some instruments will be considered more suitable for sacred use than others by how well it can be refined to reflect more of a sacred connotation.

musicasacra.com/theological-problems/

The Church, as Church, accepts with Christ the inheritance of the Temple, although in a modified way. This is expressed liturgically in the fact that the Church does not assemble merely for Scripture readings and prayers, but also to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. But then this also means that in the external form of her celebration the Church can and must lay claim to the inheritance of the Temple. This implies that the Church’s liturgy, which now regards the whole cosmos as its temple, must have a cosmic character, must make the whole cosmos resound. On this point, Peterson’s comment, though certainly somewhat exaggerated, is basically quite worthy of consideration:

"And finally it is not by pure coincidence that the mediaeval music theorists begin their treatises by referring to the harmony of the spheres. Since the Church’s hymn of praise tunes in to the praises of the cosmos, any consideration of the musical element in the Church’s cult must also take into account the sort of praise offered by sun, moon, and stars.16"

What this means in concreto becomes clearer when we recall the prayer in Ps. Cyprian which speaks of God as the One Who is praised by angels, archangels, martyrs, apostles and prophets,

"to whom all the birds sing praises, whom the tongues of those in heaven, upon the earth and under the earth glorify: all the waters in heaven and under the heavens confess Thee. …17"

This text is especially interesting because it discloses, so to speak, the theological principle according to which the “organon” was understood, for it was simply called “the” instrument as opposed to all the others. The organ is a theological instrument whose original home was the cult of the emperor. When the Emperor of Byzantium spoke, an organ played. On the other hand the organ was supposed to be the combination of all the voices of the cosmos. Accordingly, the organ music at imperial utterances meant that when the divine emperor spoke, the entire universe resounded. As a divine utterance, his statement is the resounding of all the voices in the cosmos. The “organon” is the cosmic instrument and as such the voice of the world’s ruler, the imperator.18 As against this Byzantine custom, Rome stressed a cosmic Christology and on that basis the cosmis function of Christ’s Vicar on earth: what was good enough for the Emperor was quite good enough for the Pope. Naturally, it is not a case here of superficial problems concerning prestige, but it is a matter of the public, political and cultic representation of the mandates received in each case. To the exclusivity of an imperial theology which abandoned the Church to the Emperor and degraded the bishops to mere imperial functionaries,19 Rome opposed the Pope’s cosmic claim and with it the cosmic rank of belief in Christ, which is independent of and indeed superior to politics. Therefore the organ had to resound in the papal liturgy as well.

 

[wisdomseeker]

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/07/06/are-these-the-ten-worst-hymns-of-all-time/#more-18062

Listen to We Remember by Marty Haugen

The song is announced and then it starts with keys, drums etc, sounding like some 70s or 80s lite pop song, and you can hear in the background the priest saying “the body of Christ.”

or

Personally

these are songs played in my parish every sunday. it is torturous.

 

[ProVobis]

According to Cardinal Arinze, these are the four reasons for Mass music:

Adoration of God
Praise of God
Asking pardon for our sins
Begging God for what we need

He goes on to say (almost his exact words) what we sing is what we believe, should nourish our faith and it must be theologically deep, liturgically rooted and musically acceptable.

youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s&feature=related

 

[snowlake]

According to Cardinal Arinze, these are the four reasons for Mass music:

Adoration of God
Praise of God
Asking pardon for our sins
Begging God for what we need

He goes on to say (almost his exact words) what we sing is what we believe, should nourish our faith and it must be theologically deep, liturgically rooted and musically acceptable.

youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s&feature=related

ProVobis, this was absolutely fantastic! Thank you so much for posting this video!

 

[Steven95747]

SO…then the question is: how long Lord? how long? will we have to suffer through these tortuous ‘musical’ distractions? As I expressed in an earlier post (#?), my priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass reverently, faithfully, and devoutly; he is surrounded by discordant, profane, unsingable ‘music’. (Yes, ‘unsingable’ IS a word!) We few who are dialoging about this are not the only ones disheartened by this issue, look around, no one is singing this junk…Lord, how long?

 

[wisdomseeker]

SO…then the question is: how long Lord? how long? will we have to suffer through these tortuous ‘musical’ distractions? As I expressed in an earlier post (#?), my priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass reverently, faithfully, and devoutly; he is surrounded by discordant, profane, unsingable ‘music’. (Yes, ‘unsingable’ IS a word!) We few who are dialoging about this are not the only ones disheartened by this issue, look around, no one is singing this junk…Lord, how long?

your priest should be able to choose the Hymns played in teh Church, shouldnt he?

i heard that awfull music played in the Church i go to was chosen by the priest and there was nothing they could do.

 

[pnewton]

SO…then the question is: how long Lord? how long? will we have to suffer through these tortuous ‘musical’ distractions? As I expressed in an earlier post (#?), my priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass reverently, faithfully, and devoutly; he is surrounded by discordant, profane, unsingable ‘music’. (Yes, ‘unsingable’ IS a word!) We few who are dialoging about this are not the only ones disheartened by this issue, look around, no one is singing this junk…Lord, how long?

Others are not complaining because not all share your opinion as to what is discordant, profane and unsingable. In fact, I do not know of any song that I have heard that matches any of those adjectives, except in rare cases, unsingable.

 

[snowlake]

Others are not complaining because not all share your opinion as to what is discordant, profane and unsingable. In fact, I do not know of any song that I have heard that matches any of those adjectives, except in rare cases, unsingable.

The adjective profane is often used as a synonym for “secular”. The fact that much of the music used in Mass is of this nature (again, I’m not speaking of the text), is an indisputable fact. It is a scientific, empirical fact.

“Others are not complaining” (?!) because they are uneducated in music theory/composition, church history , music history and the thought of the recent and current Popes. They are also, due to this ignorance, willing to accept whatever comes their way. Generally, people are so good-hearted, they will follow/do anything at Mass, especially if they are uncatechized or
somehow ignorant (vinceably or invinceably) of the facts.

“Unsingable” often refers to music that is hard to sing for the average person. Sometimes this refers to range, but often to certain rhythmic characteristics and wide melodic intervals (jumps). I’ve heard/seen quite a bit of this.Look through the hymnal for the standard “regular” hymns. You will notice a difference in the intervals used as opposed
to those used in many of the secular-style religious songs that we use… This is because they were composed for congregational singing. A feature of popular secular -style music is that it is geared more to a soloist w/ much vocal facility (pop stars, American idols etc.).

Not everything is “opinion”, P. Some comments are based on fact.It is hard sometimes
for non-musicians to use the proper terminology, but I think you can get the gist of what they’re saying. The writer was dissatisfied w/ the current state of Catholic church music,
and is longing for a correction of the situation. I am too.
So is the Pope. And Cardinal Arinze. And many others who have bothered to try to learn about the situation instead of just “going w/ the flow” and using fuzzy gray areas as an excuse to do whatever they want, even if it is obviously against the interpretations that have been proffered us by those who, on earth , are most in charge, and who have been around alot longer than most of us, and have a broader picture of the situation.

 

[pnewton]

The adjective profane is often used as a synonym for “secular”. The fact that much of the music used in Mass is of this nature (again, I’m not speaking of the text), is an indisputable fact. It is a scientific, empirical fact.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word and it is in the proper sense that I used it. Much of the music that is complained about is not profane. It is not secular. And yes, much of what you have written about is disputed. One can use words like “empirical” and “scientific” until the cows come home, but opinion does not morph opinion into fact by more frequent use.

So is the Pope. And Cardinal Arinze.

Yes, and their words carry authority. Even if you consider them part of the ignorant you frequently refer to, they carry authority. In the Catholic Church, authority carries more consideration than musicological expertise. In any case, Pope Benedict has the authority to change what he will in the liturgy. If he chooses not to act in a way concert with your thinking, whether it is ignorance or prudence is not relevant to our response. One Catholic has not right to hold others to standards greater than what the Church holds them.

“Others are not complaining” (?!) because they are uneducated in music theory/composition, church history , music history and the thought of the recent and current Popes. They are also, due to this ignorance, willing to accept whatever comes their way. Generally, people are so good-hearted, they will follow/do anything at Mass, especially if they are uncatechized or somehow ignorant (vinceably or invinceably) of the facts.

We can speculate as to why a group is silent or satisfied, but it remains speculation, in less you know of some survey or research into the matter you have not revealed.

 

[snowlake]

Much of the music that is complained about is not profane. It is not secular. And yes, much of what you have written about is disputed. One can use words like “empirical” and “scientific” until the cows come home, but opinion does not morph opinion into fact by more frequent use.
In the Catholic Church, authority carries more consideration than musicological expertise. In any case, Pope Benedict has the authority to change what he will in the liturgy. If he chooses not to act in a way concert with your thinking, whether it is ignorance or prudence is not relevant to our response. One Catholic has not right to hold others to standards greater than what the Church holds them. ] end quote

P., I think you are gravely wrong in regard to the first paragraph quoted above.Just because
these facts are “disputed” does not take away their factual nature. It depends on who is doing the disputing, and whether or not they have enough background to do so.

As far as the second paragraph above is concerned, you must have totally misread what I wrote. I have never said that Church authority is subordinate to musicological expertise!
That is a huge misinterpretation of what I wrote. And I’ve even gone to great lengths in previous posts to explain this. I’ve also explained that I do not consider myself an expert in these areas, but know enough about them to appreciate and respect the vast knowledge
of those who actually are experts. I have only had 7 undergraduate courses in music theory/composition(Music Theory 1,2,3 and 4; Counterpoint, Form and Composition, and Electronic Music Composition) and two graduate courses(graduate level Music Theory and The Evolution of Harmonic Theory.) This is nothing compared to those who have PhDs in these areas. I’ve completed two years of coursework toward my docorate, but since it is not specifically in Music Theory/Comp or Musicology, I do not claim myself as an expert.
The only reason I offered an analysis of a secular religious song was because no one else would do it! Everyone keeps talking about “opinions”, with nothing to back them up with!

Of course no one has the right to hold others to standards greater than what the Church holds them. But it is also not right to ignore the suggestions/interpretations/guidance
of the Pope and other Vatican authorities just because they have not yet been written down in official documents.IIn effect, you are making them SUBORDINATE to YOU.At the very least, you are putting their opinions on the same level as your own.

On the one hand, you have the gray matter (such as parts of Sing to the Lord) which are not binding, and really don’t give much guidance (except requesting the use of minimal
amounts of chant). On the other, you have the interpretations and comments given by the Pope and other Vatican authorities that are filled w/ descriptions and specifics albeit non-binding.

Choose wisely.

By the way, no one has been ascribing ill-motives to anyone who has been using the offensive music.

If anyone has ears to hear and eyes to see, it is quite evident that much of the music
being used is written in secular styles. The various forms of analysis might differ.

You said that this music is not secular in style. Prove it.

 

[pnewton]

, I think you are gravely wrong in regard to the first paragraph quoted above.Just because these facts are “disputed” does not take away their factual nature. It depends on who is doing the disputing, and whether or not they have enough background to do so.

This too is true. Facts can be disputed and falsely labeled as opinion.

I have only had 7 undergraduate courses in music theory/composition, and two graduate courses. This is nothing compared to those who have PhDs in these areas. I’ve completed two years of coursework toward my docorate, but since it is not specifically in Music Theory/Comp or Musicology, I do not claim myself as an expert.

My basic problem with what you are saying is that the documents concerning Church music are simply not written as technical manuals. I do not agree with interpreting them as such. On this, perhaps it is best that we just disagree.

Of course no one has the right to hold others to standards greater than what the Church holds them. But it is also not right to ignore the suggestions/interpretations/guidance of the Pope and other Vatican authorities because they have not yet been written down in official documents.

Of course not. However, I also include what other Church authorities have written. That includes, by the way, The Spirit of the Liturgy, which is often referred to here. This book was written by the Holy Father before he was pope and had any official say over the liturgy. Like SIng to the Lord, I use it for a reference, but not as official guide. I have written nothing. Therefore, I do not hold myself above anyone in any way. That is also why I do not tell others what they should be doing in their parish.

 

[snowlake]

My basic problem with what you are saying is that the documents concerning Church music are simply not written as technical manuals. I do not agree with interpreting them as such. On this, perhaps it is best that we just disagree.

That is also why I do not tell others what they should be doing in their parish.

I have to run to my gig, but in regard to your 1st statement above, I’m not even sure I understand what you are saying. Technical manuals?

Second part above: Hopefully you are open to what the Holy Father and Cardinal Arinze say you should be doing. If it seems that anyone has told you what to do in your parish (and no one has), it is because they are upholding these “opinions” and not their own.
Whose opinions are you upholding? Later.

 

[Cat]

I don’t see how some of you ever get any joy out of Mass. You sound absolutely miserable. I pity you, I truly do. I love the Masses that I attend. After almost every Mass, my husband and I say, “It’s great to be Catholic! Wasn’t that wonderful? Wasn’t it great to be in the Presence of the Lord again!”

The Presence of Jesus can make ANYTHING beautiful.

I have a problem with the use of the word “tortuous” in this thread. There are many Christians in the world who are suffering true tortures of the body or mind. Listening to “Gather Us In” is hardly in the same category as being beaten or imprisoned.

I realize that there is another meaning of the word “tortuous,” meaning convoluted, complex, difficult to decipher. I don’t think that’s the meaning that you intend to convey when you describe the music situation at your parish as “tortuous.” I honestly think some of you think that listening to songs that you don’t personally like is “torture.”

That’s very childish, IMO.

I’m going to make a suggestion to all of us–suck it up and stop complaining. The Mass will probably never, ever be perfect. I think that it would be good if you were able to accept that and be glad with what you have on this earth. It could be much worse–we could be holding Mass in a dark woods somewhere and hoping that the government doesn’t catch us and execute us.

As I’ve said several times in this thread, if you have a calling to work within the framework of the Catholic Church to bring about good reforms in the Mass, then God bless you in your work!

And of course, all Catholics have the right to contact their priests and even their bishop and ask for proper liturgy. I do wonder, though, how edifying it is to spend a great deal of time and effort in this “pursuit of perfection.” I personally think that many priests and bishops will eventually come to see you as a “crank” if you continually bombard them with letters, notes, phone calls, etc.

And I really wonder at the wisdom of spending so much time analyzing why certain songs are “bad” while other songs are “good.” Unless you are a grad student or some other type of music researcher, I just can’t see what you think you are accomplishing other than justifying your own personal opinion. Wouldn’t it be better to spend the time working in your parish to bring about the changes that you think are so important? Instead of comparing Haugen hymns to jazz or rock licks, why not spend that time having lunch with the parish Music Director and sharing your concerns about the dearth of chant in your parish, and volunteering to help bring more chant into the Masses?

I guess what it boils down to for me is that I simply refuse to suffer through a Mass the way some of you apparently suffer. Lord help you all.

 

[snowlake]

P.S. (in regard to “technical manual”) - my comments have been in defense of the comments (by those in authority) about the use of improper styles of music in Catholic worship. I have been trying to demonstrate that they were specifically referring to the type we have been discussing, and that the identification of these songs is not a hard thing to do. They exhibit specific traits.

Again, I ask you, if it isn’t this style of music they were referring to, THEN WHAT IS?
What else is widespread enough to warrant them making comments about? Please tell me, along with your explanation for saying that this music is not secualr in style.

 

[pnewton]

I have to run to my gig, but in regard to your 1st statement above, I’m not even sure I understand what you are saying. Technical manuals?

Second part above: Hopefully you are open to what the Holy Father and Cardinal Arinze say you should be doing. If it seems that anyone has told you what to do in your parish (and no one has), it is because they are upholding these “opinions” and not their own.
Whose opinions are you upholding?

As I said, all the above. All I have read (heard in Cardinal Arinze’s case). All serve as guides.

Again, I ask you, if it isn’t this style of music they were referring to, THEN WHAT IS?

In some cases, it is style. That is when the writer or speaker specifies that he is referring to a style of music.

 

[MarkThompson]

I realize that there is another meaning of the word “tortuous,” meaning convoluted, complex, difficult to decipher. I don’t think that’s the meaning that you intend to convey when you describe the music situation at your parish as “tortuous.” I honestly think some of you think that listening to songs that you don’t personally like is “torture.”

Actually, those are separate words, though they’re often confused:

Tortuous: twisted, winding, circuitous, etc.
Torturous: like torture

Now you know!

 

[snowlake]

As I said, all the above. All I have read (heard in Cardinal Arinze’s case). All serve as guides. ] end quote]

Snowlake response:
And when did the above tell you that the music we have been speaking of is worthy of the Mass? When did they tell you that this music is NOT what they were referring to by the terms “secular” and “banal” ? Again, if it isn’t this music, what music is it that is being referred to?

PNewton quote:
[In some cases, it is style. That is when the writer or speaker specifies that he is referring to a style of music.

Besides the text, compositional style is the ONLY thing they could be referring to. When they speak of improper texts, this is very obvious. The only thing left is the style, be it one of the many sacred styles or one of the many secular styles.

You insist that what we speak of is not secular. I’m still waiting for your proof.

(The above words in gray, starting w/ “and when did the…” are part of my response.I don’t know how to do this quote technique.)
[/quote]

 

[snowlake]

I honestly think some of you think that listening to songs that you don’t personally like is “torture.”]

The Mass will probably never, ever be perfect.

And I really wonder at the wisdom of spending so much time analyzing why certain songs are “bad” while other songs are “good.” Unless you are a grad student or some other type of music researcher, I just can’t see what you think you are accomplishing other than justifying your own personal opinion.

You have missed the entire point of many of our posts. This is somewhat unbelievable.
“Like” or “don’t like” doesn’t enter into this (except where you’re concerned). It’s a matter of what’s appropriate, and whether or not non-sacred styles are worthy of the Mass.

Who analyzed “why certain songs are ‘bad’ while other songs are ‘good’?” I must have missed that post. I recall one that tried to demonstrate that a particular song does not fit in the category of sacred music, as it is written in a secular style. The closest it can come is to be categorized as a popular religious song. Good and bad did not enter into the discussion. And neither did “opinion”. My conclusion that it was “pop” might be arguable, but the fact that it is a secular style is not.

As far as others calling it “torture”, I have to agree w/ them. It isn’t because I “don’t
like” it. It is because it goes against my informed conscience. In my opinion, it is objectively a sin. I’m not saying that others are CULPABLE for this sin, but nevertheless it is a sin in the sense that it is an offense against God. It is not worthy, as BG has quoted,
“to cross the threshold”.