MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[Cat]

Cat, just out of curiosity, what did you think of the articles by Bishop Olmsted ( there’s a link in the original post)?

Bishop Olmsted, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, states his case well in all three articles, and provides plenty of documentation to prove his points. The articles are interesting and exciting to read.

I look forward to the fourth installment in which he will describe practical applications, for that is my concern–how can his conclusions be implemented? I have expressed this concern over and over in this thread, although some apparently believe that I am arguing in favor of rock music and dancing in the Mass. Not at all. What I am arguing for is an acceptance of reality and a recognition of the extreme difficulties in implementing the Mass music that Bishop Olmsted describes.

We cannot deny that music education in the United States is, for the most part, non-existent. Knowledge of Gregorian chant and polyphony is not wide-spread. For that matter, knowledge of any music other than popular is not wide-spread in the U.S.

Until this is changed, I am fairly certain that the Bishop’s vision for the replacement of hymns in the Mass will not happen. I’m only being realistic. I am not gloating about this. I am actually rather discouraged, because it is frustrating to read about the Church’s ideal, and to realize how far we are from it. I believe that most parishes in the U.S. are thousands and tens of thousands of miles away from the “ideal” liturgical music, and I frankly am at a loss to see how this distance from the “ideal” will ever be shortened. It sounds like some of you are less pessimistic than I am, which is good, because the Church needs optimists when it comes to liturgical music.

But the Church also needs people who are skilled and knowledgeable in this kind of music and can teach it in a non-judgemental and encouraging way to people who are resistant and even hostile.

I agree with Sarabande that the type of changes that Bishop Olmsted is calling for will take at least 40 years, if not longer.

In the meantime, what I would like to see is a more patient resignation and acceptance of reality by those who long for Bishop Olmsted’s vision to happen right now. I personally find this impatience and general disgust with the current state of things off-putting.

I cannot see that it is healthy for us to pine for something that simply cannot happen overnight or even in a few months or years. I think that it is better to keep praying for the music that should be, but to accept cheerfully the music that we currently have as the best that we can have at this time in history in the United States.

I think it is healthiest for our bodies, minds, and souls to “be content in all things” rather than discontented and contentious.

If we have skills that can hasten the reform of Church music, then we should stop any complaining, put on our “workclothes,” punch the clock, and get to work.

Most of us have no skills, and so all we can do is wait for the few skilled musicians in this country to do the work necessary to educate us and train us about liturgical music.

I also ask others to consider carefully over these words: it is treading a dangerous path to criticize the bishops, the apostles of the Lord Jesus. In the last few weeks, our U.S. bishops have been calling upon Catholics to come together and oppose the President of the United States. This is a very serious matter with grave consequences, and I pray for our bishops, that they might have the strength to fight and endure.

However, many Catholics have gotten used to hearing that “the bishops are weak” or “the bishops are flawed,” that I fear that many Catholics aren’t quite sure whether this is one of those times when the bishops are flawed. When you’ve been taught to distrust or disregard the bishops in some matters; e.g., liturgical music, I fear that it becomes easier to distrust and disregard the bishops in other matters; e.g., HHS policy.

I think we need to support our bishops, not undermine them by criticizing them for their “weakness” in failing to work fast enough toward implementing liturgical music in the Mass.

As I said earlier in this post, the majority of people in the U.S. have no knowledge or skills in the ancient music forms. I would venture the idea that most Catholics have no idea what the terms “propers” and “ordinaries” mean. Converts like me have never ever heard of these terms, and so we struggle to keep straight what the terms mean. And converts have never had any experience with any kind of chant, and very little experience with any kind of classical music in church. So there is a huge amount of work to be done here, and much time and patience and cheerfulness will be needed.

 

[Cat]

Part 1

There’s that misnomer again, “modern music.” True, Pius himself used the term, but I wager he didn’t use it like you’re reading it.

When I say “modern religious music,” I’m referring to composers like Rutter, who is probably my favorite composer.

Are you familiar with the American Federation Pueri Cantores? Here’s a link: puericantores.com/

These are examples of what I mean by “modern” religious music.

Did you win your wager?

 

[superamazingman]

When I say “modern religious music,” I’m referring to composers like Rutter, who is probably my favorite composer.

Are you familiar with the American Federation Pueri Cantores? Here’s a link: puericantores.com/

These are examples of what I mean by “modern” religious music.

Did you win your wager?

So by modern religious music, are you reffering to newly composed liturgical music (such as kevin allen or Prolux?

 

[YoungTradCath]

When I say “modern religious music,” I’m referring to composers like Rutter, who is probably my favorite composer.

Are you familiar with the American Federation Pueri Cantores? Here’s a link: puericantores.com/

These are examples of what I mean by “modern” religious music.

Did you win your wager?

I don’t quite understand what you mean. Religious music isn’t liturgical music.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Bishop Olmsted, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, states his case well in all three articles, and provides plenty of documentation to prove his points. The articles are interesting and exciting to read.

Indeed, an inspiring read on multiple counts. May God grant his High Priest, Bishop Olmsted, many happy, healthy and blessed years!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There is a stark difference between devotional music and liturgical music.

There is inherent utility in the terminology you have suggested. Indeed, church related functions, youth rallies, etc. are perfect forums for devotional music, and that usage should be encouraged by all means.

FWIW - in my church, our “Latin” is “Old Church Slavonic” (an early form of many Slavic languages). We have moved more fully toward the use of vernacular. It was commonly held that this would be most disappointing to our church elders, but they would be least likely to protest, knowing that we must reach the young and others in their own language.

That said, we recently had a very empassioned request to bring back some of the Old Church Slavonic hymnody on an occasional basis - the request came from none other than our ByzanTEEN group.

Lesson learned - never underestimate the young, and they certainly seem to know the difference between devotional music and liturgical music. That said, you wouldn’t hear them chanting liturgical music around the campfire at night, but they certainly know how to chant evening Vespers, morning Matins and the Divine Liturgy with great conviction and passion!

 

[Cat]

So by modern religious music, are you reffering to newly composed liturgical music (such as kevin allen or Prolux?

Richard Proulx. Kevin Allen.

Yes. I like works by these composers. I think they are difficult for the average parish choir (not enough men in most choirs), and I think that only a good organist can perform works like this. I’ve done works like this on the piano with success–I actually think they sound rather fine on the piano when a good pianist is playing (I’m a good pianist).

My concern with those who advocate “ancient music” is that they will disallow wonderful composers like this because they are “modern.” Just because something wasn’t written in the early centuries doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate for Mass.

 

[Cat]

I don’t quite understand what you mean. Religious music isn’t liturgical music.

Forgive me if I am using names that are vague. I was attempting to say, “Modern music that is appropriate for Mass.”

I hope this clears it up for you. Please let me know if you are still confused by my terms.

However, I wish to make it clear on my side that as long as the bishops allow the “contemporary hymns” by composers like the St. Louis Jesuits, I think it is presumptuous of us laypeople to condemn these pieces as inappropriate for the Mass.

These hymns may not be our personal favorites, but to denounce them as inappropriate or “non-liturgical” is, IMO, presumptuous, and disrespectful to our bishops.

If a day comes when our bishops publish a list of “forbidden songs for Mass,” and these hymns/composers are on that list, I will of course acquiesce. But until that list is published, and as long as the Gather Hymnal and others like it (OCP) have the approval of the USCCB, I will not presume to say that I know more than they do and condemn these pieces as irreverent, unliturgical, or inappropriate for Mass.

I realize that some bishops, e.g., Bishop Olmsted, are taking a hard stand against these pieces and labelling them as unliturgical and inappropriate for Mass. But he is just one bishop, and at this point, he is merely voicing his esteemed opinion. This opinion is not yet binding upon the Church, although I think it certainly bears study by all the bishops. I’m sure that many of the bishops hold the same opinion as Bishop Olmsted, and I’m guessing that my bishop holds this opinion, based on some of the articles that he has written.

But at this point, the bishops have NOT declared that Bishop Olmsted’s opinion is the binding policy of the Church, and that parishes must purge their hymnals of these modern hymns.

My dear bishop allows these pieces in Masses, including Masses that he conducts, and I would never dare to say a word against my esteemed shepherd and apostle. As I said in an earlier post, I think it is treading dangerous ground to undermine our bishops in any way, including by saying that they are “wrong” about Mass music.

I submit to my bishop, not to laypeople whom I don’t even know.

 

[christofirst]

I really want to thank the musicians who have contributed here, most of all for your service to the Church. It is too easy to sit in the pews and gripe. I am often guilty of this.

One question I still have, and I have mentioned this before, refers to the Agnus Dei, specifically Marty Haugen’s Mass of Creation, Gather, second edition 149 (the one most often sung at my parish).

This is the one where the cantor would intone, “Jesus, Lamb of God,” and the congregation would respond, “You take away the sins of the world…” Then would come a litany of sorts where the cantor would intone, “Jesus, Bread of life” or “Jesus, Prince of peace” with the congregation responding.

Now with the new revision, the cantor intones just “Lamb of God” to the old melody, but still changes the words for the second verse (probably shouldn’t call it a verse). Why change the words, inserting all these others titles for our Lord? Shouldn’t we just sing “Lamb of God” three times like it says in the new revision (and has always been)? Is there a valid exception for this sung version?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Shouldn’t we just sing “Lamb of God” three times like it says in the new revision (and has always been)? Is there a valid exception for this sung version?

You raise a good question with a very good example, for it should always be the suitability and conformity of the text which first and foremost dictates whether a work is liturgical in nature, and therefore suitable for use in the Mass. The rest is, as they say, is a matter of taste. Even in this case, questions arise concerning an accepted work when the text no longer strictly conforms to the new rubrics.

While I’m a traditionalist and probably would shun from using music that was first intended and rendered for secular purposes, adaptation of such as set to liturgical text would have to be fairly considered and, as some have said, then be a decision of the clergy and hierarchy as to suitability. It is the forced applicability of secular work with “religious connotation” that is objectionable.

Part of the problem in discussion of this subject is that “music” is taken by some to mean both score and lyrics. To be fair, they have to be first separated in order to be justly analyzed.

If you compare the then-contemporary work of Baroque composers to much of what is adapted from current repertoire, the distinction becomes clear, as does the form. The Baroque composers wrote music with the lyrics already prescribed from the rubrics, and thus their sole aim was to set such to music. Indeed that music was contemporary by then-current standards and reference, yet the lyrical text and the applicability of usage in the Mass were unquestionable.

The complaint of many at that time was just the opposite of what we see and hear today; that is (or rather was), that contemporary music was too inappropriate for use in the context of the Liturgy. Yet no one had reason to question the applicability of the text, as it was derived from (and not suggested for) the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Richard Proulx. Kevin Allen.

Yes. I like works by these composers. I think they are difficult for the average parish choir (not enough men in most choirs), and I think that only a good organist can perform works like this. I’ve done works like this on the piano with success–I actually think they sound rather fine on the piano when a good pianist is playing (I’m a good pianist).

My concern with those who advocate “ancient music” is that they will disallow wonderful composers like this because they are “modern.” Just because something wasn’t written in the early centuries doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate for Mass.

Proulx wrote for the Mass. There are very few English composers I respect but I heard him personally at many Masses and there was no doubt his music helped one to focus on the Holy Sacrifice.

OTOH, it is hard for me to understand how “Eagle’s Wings” can do the same.

 

[Sarabande]

Now with the new revision, the cantor intones just “Lamb of God” to the old melody, but still changes the words for the second verse (probably shouldn’t call it a verse). Why change the words, inserting all these others titles for our Lord? Shouldn’t we just sing “Lamb of God” three times like it says in the new revision (and has always been)? Is there a valid exception for this sung version?

At one of the parishes where I work, they were using the Mass of Creation until Lent started. (It was the only mass the congregation knew for years when the new music director and pastor came on board a couple years ago, so they still used it for the transition to the new revision and has now since changed the mass setting.)

I have the sheet music for the 2010 revision from GIA and it no longer contains any of the tropes that used to be included in the old edition, which I also own. It only printed “Lamb of God.” The entire text is correct now, but people still sang, “grant us your peace” instead of “grant us peace.” So, I’m wondering if the music director or priest at your church is still wanting the cantors to sing them, or perhaps another publication included the tropes.

 

[liturgyluver]

Proulx wrote for the Mass. There are very few English composers I respect but I heard him personally at many Masses and there was no doubt his music helped one to focus on the Holy Sacrifice.

OTOH, it is hard for me to understand how “Eagle’s Wings” can do the same.

I thought he was American. But seriously I agree that there are few decent mass settimgs - my faves are Dom Gregory Murray’s New People’s Mass, some of Peter Jones and James Mcmillan’s St Anne Mass. All singable by the congregation but none can compare to a choral Byrd Mass for 5 voices which is just sublime.

I think Eagles Wings must be a US thing - we never sing it here - I don’t even know the tune.

 

[Sarabande]

The complaint of many at that time were just the opposite of what we see and hear today; that is (or rather was), that contemporary music was too inappropriate for use in the context of the Liturgy. Yet no one had reason to question the applicability of the text, as it was derived from (and not suggested for) the Mass.

That is true. These complaints occurred throughout music history, too, before and after the Baroque period. I think about how polyphony was originally banned three different times by three different popes because it was too “secular” in sound and too “jocular” for mass, “inciting lust”, “lasciviousness”(as a contemporary of Elinor of Acquitaine’s described it when criticising the use and love of secular polyphony at her court.), frivolous, among other descriptions often referred to popular music of today. The music was originally used for secular music and then they just set text for the liturgy or other religious text to the music. There was no change in how the music was composed, sung/presented in order for it to be more appropriate for mass. So, until Guillame de Machaut, a priest, refined polyphony to be more appropriate for use at mass, the music caused controversy for mass and even in the secular world. He is often credited for writing the first polyphonic mass that was accepted for use by the Church.

So, the complaints and concerns are nothing new. Every generation seems to have to go through it. There will always be bishops/popes who will disagree with each other, too, about music. (The reason why polyphony was banned three times, for example, was because some popes would reinstate it.) During the Classical era, Mozart’s mass music was loved and used all the time by the bishop of Vienna, but the bishop in Salzburg thought it inappropriate. That said, the archbishop in Salzburg and Mozart did not get along very well from his youth. They, in fact, couldn’t stand each other, (too long to retell here) so that might have been the more telling reason why he didn’t find it appropriate. He did allow, though, Mozart’s “Great Mass in C” to be played for mass at the cathedral.

We are going through it now and, as in the past, the “crack down” or the insistence of the compositional and performance refinement of “new” or “modern” music for use at mass will occur. It’s slowly happening.

 

[superamazingman]

My concern with those who advocate “ancient music” is that they will disallow wonderful composers like this because they are “modern.” Just because something wasn’t written in the early centuries doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate for Mass.

No one is saying that for something to be sung it needs to be from early centuries. But it may be wise to make use of the “sifter of time” that is at our disposal.

In early times, they too had their good music and their cheap “pop” music back then too. It’s just that the good music was the only stuff that made it through the test of time. That’s why all the stuff (that we have) from yester-century is almost all excellent and amazing music.

We too, when we play music that is more recently composed, need to be very careful, since we don’t have this “sifter of time” to help us sort through our music.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought he was American.

You’re right and I apologize. I meant Anglophone but personally I think he could have written well for Latin and other languages as well. He very well might have, in fact.

I think Eagles Wings must be a US thing - we never sing it here - I don’t even know the tune.

Probably not the best choice on my part but I used it as an example of hymns which have little to do with actual Mass texts.

 

[liturgyluver]

You’re right and I apologize. I meant Anglophone but personally I think he could have written well for Latin and other languages as well. He very well might have, in fact.

Probably not the best choice on my part but I used it as an example of hymns which have little to do with actual Mass texts.

It is oft quoted so I think it must be a good choice. I will have a think what our UK counterpart might be.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My concern with those who advocate “ancient music” is that they will disallow wonderful composers like this because they are “modern.” Just because something wasn’t written in the early centuries doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate for Mass.

I think you will be hard pressed to find any half serious Catholic music restoration devotee who actually uses date of publishing as a real criterion in judging music’s liturgical appropriateness.

Forgive me if I am using names that are vague. I was attempting to say, “Modern music that is appropriate for Mass.”

I hope this clears it up for you. Please let me know if you are still confused by my terms.

However, I wish to make it clear on my side that as long as the bishops allow the “contemporary hymns” by composers like the St. Louis Jesuits, I think it is presumptuous of us laypeople to condemn these pieces as inappropriate for the Mass.

These hymns may not be our personal favorites, but to denounce them as inappropriate or “non-liturgical” is, IMO, presumptuous, and disrespectful to our bishops.

Yes, I do understand the term now.

But, well… not saying anything doesn’t quite mean the same thing as approval. Perhaps in some vague doctrinal principle, yes, but in extenuating circumstances (and I really do consider our abysmal musical state an extenuating circumstance), I think there is some leeway regarding that.

The new GIRM states, as concerning random songs replacing the Propers, a specific condition: another Psalm chant/liturgical chant “approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop” (48). As far as I know, no collection of random Psalms/hymns has actually received such approval from the USCCB. If I am mistaken and the truly odious Gather or something else has gotten approval by the USCCB, somebody please do let me know.

 

[opus101]

In the first short article in a series on Sacred Music, Bishop Olmsted makes the distinction between Sacred Music (music for the Sacred Liturgy) and other types of religious music.catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html

This is a point that many have been trying to make for quite some time. Finally, a Bishop comes out and confirms these facts. Thanks be to God.

Even though it might be a while before all of this can effectively take place, let’s all try to move toward the goal at least in some small way every Sunday.

There is another thread about these articles, but this one aims to restrict the comments to the difference between Sacred music and other types of religious music. It might be helpful to read the other articles in the series as well.

 

[Daralharb]

In the first short article in a series on Sacred Music, Bishop Olmsted makes the distinction between Sacred Music (music for the Sacred Liturgy) and other types of religious music.catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html

This is a point that many have been trying to make for quite some time. Finally, a Bishop comes out and confirms these facts. Thanks be to God.

Even though it might be a while before all of this can effectively take place, let’s all try to move toward the goal at least in some small way every Sunday.

There is another thread about these articles, but this one aims to restrict the comments to the difference between Sacred music and other types of religious music. It might be helpful to read the other articles in the series as well.

His Excellency is saying nothing that Blessed Pope John Paul II didn’t already say, and that Pope Benedict XVI hasn’t reiterated with the force of a bulldog.

vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

BPJPII’s “letter to Artists” is interesting as well.

Man, what I’d give for a jail cell and time to read.

Depending on how this HHS thing pans out, I might just know exactly what I’d give, or rather what is exchanged.