MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[YoungTradCath]

I do think you are correct, although I think such a definition just redefines the negaitve and is circular in nature. I see no practical definition here, but one that will only beg the question of what is secular and what is not, or if you prefer, what is not profane and what is. I find Fr. Serpa’s definition far more practical. In any case, one can not define a word as one sees fit, then apply it to the Church teaching unless the Church has defined that same word in agreement with you.

But the Church has used the word “profane” in reference to religious music. Take Pius X’s landmark Tra le sollecitudini of 1903, for example:

And indeed, whether it is owing to the very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself, or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time, or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art, or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained within the right limits, or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, prescribed by the end for which art is admitted to the service of public worship and which is set forth very clearly in the ecclesiastical Canons, in the Ordinances of the General and Provincial Councils, in the prescriptions which have at various times emanated from the Sacred Roman Congregations, and from Our Predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs.

Clearly, in the realm of music, the documents of the Church use the word as meaning pop-type or theatrical religious music, not outright sacrilegious or blasphemous music. And at the same time, the documents condemn profane religious music at Mass, while maintaining that it is okay to use it at other, non-liturgical Church functions.

sanctamissa.org/en/music/church-documents-on-liturgical-music/tra-le-sollecitudini.pdf

In number 4 of John Paul II’s Chirograph on the 100th anniversary of the above-mentioned document, he specifically talks about profane music:

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. 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.” 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.” Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html

 

[christofirst]

evansville-diocese.org/worship/SingToTheLord.pdf

Thank you for providing this link. I must admit I had never read this document, which does indeed seem to explain and allow (or at least open the door for) many of the current trends pertaining to music and the Mass, which for me were often perplexing or annoying, not knowing they had an official document to back them up. So, the call-and-response Gloria, the Agnus Dei litany, and the drums and clanging cymbals are all OK. Live and learn.

 

[pnewton]

But the Church has used the word “profane” in reference to religious music. Take Pius X’s landmark Tra le sollecitudini of 1903, for example:

Clearly, in the realm of music, the documents of the Church use the word as meaning pop-type or theatrical religious music, not outright sacrilegious or blasphemous music.

It was used but not defined. The conjunction in the document (and) does not mean that the two things are the same, or even related, in its English usage. Take for example the common phrase “cruel and unusual punishment”. This phrase does not imply that cruel means unusual. Quite the contrary, if the implication were that the two words were the same, then it would represent a “repetitive redundancy.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

oh facepalm

 

[pnewton]

pnewton;9019590:

evansville-diocese.org/worship/SingToTheLord.pdf

Thank you for providing this link. I must admit I had never read this document, which does indeed seem to explain and allow (or at least open the door for) many of the current trends pertaining to music and the Mass, which for me were often perplexing or annoying, not knowing they had an official document to back them up. This document is not official, in that only a minority of bishops accepted it. However, it was my contention that whether one deals with a minority of bishops or one bishop, it is best to take only what one sees as properly reflecting Church teaching, and is pastorally appropriate to the specific parish. This is only if one is actually a priest or bishop. The rest of us best stick to following our leader on this.

 

[opus101]

…

 

[opus101]

Clearly, in the realm of music, the documents of the Church use the word as meaning pop-type or theatrical religious music, not outright sacrilegious or blasphemous music. And at the same time, the documents condemn profane religious music at Mass, while maintaining that it is okay to use it at other, non-liturgical Church functions.

Spot on, YoungTrad!

 

[pnewton]

I have never read a document that has condemned religious music. Profane music has been condemned, but not defined in specifics, and never defined in such a narrow way as Bishop Olmstead has. It is an interesting idea, but it still begs the question. Someone earlier thought that this even meant getting rid of hymnals now in use. I have never seen that in the Church documents.

I did find one interesting irony in the Bishops’s article, concerning polyphonic chant. He mentioned that liturgical music is so we may sing with one voice and he mentions Gregorian chant and polyphonic chant. It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that’s the “poly” part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

 

[opus101]

I have never read a document that has condemned religious music. Profane music has been condemned, but not defined in specifics, and never defined in such a narrow way as Bishop Olmstead has. It is an interesting idea, but it still begs the question. Someone earlier thought that this even meant getting rid of hymnals now in use. I have never seen that in the Church documents.

I did find one interesting irony in the Bishops’s article, concerning polyphonic chant. He mentioned that liturgical music is so we may sing with one voice and he mentions Gregorian chant and polyphonic chant. It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that’s the “poly” part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

Yes, I’m aware of what “polyphonic” means, all of my degrees are in music, and I spent 8 years in college studying it. I don’t say that to downplay your thoughts on the matter, but I have to say that you seem to be misinterpreting just about everything here. And I, too, find it hard to follow what you are trying to say.

In music history, as in art history (and in just history, period) “sacred” refers to things that are set aside specifically for worship, and “profane” things are anything that falls outside of that category, be it “religious” or not.

I couldn’t tell if you were just trying to make a joke with your statement about polyphony, or if you were serious. What did you mean by “funny how things change with time”? Of course, what he meant by “with one voice” was that we are all of one mind and heart when we raise our voices together, not that the music is monophony, homophony or polyphony. Or did you know this, and were only joking?

You said that profane music has been condemned. If this is so, then most of what we hear at Mass on Sunday has to be discarded. It is largely secular (profane) music with religious sentiments (religious music written in a profane style). I didn’t know it had been condemned.

 

[opus101]

In fact, “sacred music” is not even defined, in the way that liturgical music and religious music are. I will re-link the article for any that care to look back over and search it for this fact.
catholicsun.org/bishop/2012/021612.html

Finally, the article does not differentiate between religious music that is suitable for inside the Mass and that suitable for outside the Mass. Again, I am not saying there is no distinction, simply that we can not use this article for any such point.

P, first of all, “sacred music” IS “liturgical music”. And the reason the article doesn’t differentiate between religious music that is suitable for inside Mass and that which is suitable for outside the Mass is because “religious” music isn’t to be used inside of the Mass!!! That’s one of the main points of the article! Sacred music is for the Mass. Religious music is for outside of the Mass.

 

[countertenor]

I’ve had many discussions like with people, that were along the lines of what Bishop Olmsted, posits. Personally I’ve always felt there is liturgical sacred music, non liturgical sacred music and religious music. Liturgical sacred music being the actual liturgical texts, set to music, whether ordinaries or propers, and non liturgical sacred music, being music that may not be actual texts of the liturgy, but are still specifically texts taken from the bible, or perhaps other other sacred writings, or being very directly tied to these types of things. Religious music being any music that in some way expresses religious thought our one religious expression, or experience. I think it could be difficult to necessarily differentiate sometimes between non liturgical sacred music and purely religious music though.

In some ways it seems like it could be looked at as “religious music” being able to encompass, all of them, while, liturgical and non liturgical sacred music would be specific types of religious music.

Just my passing thoughts.

 

[opus101]

I’ve had many discussions like with people, that were along the lines of what Bishop Olmsted, posits. Personally I’ve always felt there is liturgical sacred music, non liturgical sacred music and religious music. Liturgical sacred music being the actual liturgical texts, set to music, whether ordinaries or propers, and non liturgical sacred music, being music that may not be actual texts of the liturgy, but are still specifically texts taken from the bible, or perhaps other other sacred writings, or being very directly tied to these types of things. Religious music being any music that in some way expresses religious thought our one religious expression, or experience. I think it could be difficult to necessarily differentiate sometimes between non liturgical sacred music and purely religious music though.

In some ways it seems like it could be looked at as “religious music” being able to encompass, all of them, while, liturgical and non liturgical sacred music would be specific types of religious music.

Just my passing thoughts.

These are interesting thoughts. You only addressed issues of text, though. “Religious” music most often is composed primarily within a secular music style, so apart from the words, it would be hard to distinguish it from secular (or “profane”) music.

 

[countertenor]

These are interesting thoughts. You only addressed issues of text, though. “Religious” music most often is composed primarily within a secular music style, so apart from the words, it would be hard to distinguish it from secular (or “profane”) music.

Looking back over western music history, text was often the only difference, between sacred and profane music. Much of the music we today call sacred was composed in a style that at the time, was being used for profane music as well. That is one reason I addressed the texts. I did forget to make it clear, that I do think there are aspects other than text that could help define the differences between these types of music, but I haven’t specifically sat down and thought them out.

I do feel that sacred music should help draw our attention toward a spiritual experience rather than just an emotional one. I personally find that much of the “religious” (using the good bishops term) music that people have become accustomed to, if very good at inciting emotionality rather than spirituality. It’s these strong emotional feelings that people confuse for the sublime encounter with God during the liturgy.

So I suppose taking the words of the mass ordinary but setting it to music that doesn’t facilitate much more than emotionality and acts more as entertainment and diversion, rather than spiritual growth and movement toward God, would really be considered “religious” music and not “sacred” music.

 

[pnewton]

You said that profane music has been condemned. If this is so, then most of what we hear at Mass on Sunday has to be discarded. It is largely secular (profane) music with religious sentiments (religious music written in a profane style). I didn’t know it had been condemned.

No, it doesn’t, and this shows the point I am trying to make. No layperson, even with degrees in music, has the authority to define the music as profane that the priest and the bishop (or the Church) does not define as such. It is a question of authority, not education. When you say tht most of the music you hear at Mass is profane and should be discarded, it still begs the question. Most objection to music at this forum is nothing but begging the question I have noticed. I have never heard* one* song from Mass played on the radio, or at a concert (except Ave Maria, if you want to discard that one. I will keep it.)

 

[pnewton]

P, first of all, “sacred music” IS “liturgical music”. And the reason the article doesn’t differentiate between religious music that is suitable for inside Mass and that which is suitable for outside the Mass is because “religious” music isn’t to be used inside of the Mass!!! That’s one of the main points of the article! Sacred music is for the Mass. Religious music is for outside of the Mass.

This is exactly why I say the definition is circular. Religious music is defined as that which is suitable for outside of Mass, then that it is said that religious music is only to be used outside of Mass.

Now is all sacred music liturgical music? The first article said,

"for example, the Order of Mass (dialogues between ministers and people, the unchanging framework of the Mass), the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, The Creed, Sanctus and Agnus Dei), and the Proper of the Mass (the priest’s sung prayers, the Responsorial Psalm, Alleluia and Verses, the antiphons and psalms prescribed for the processions). "

Note that there is not one hymn mentioned, not one chant, except the Mass parts. Either Bishop Olmstead meant to exclude all of this, or none of this, in this particular definition.

The Catholic Church allows for other suitable hymns. Bishop Olmstead is trying to clarify his criteria as to what is suitable. On the other hand we have Archbishop Vlanzy in Portland that has as a registered apostlolate, Oregon Catholic Press. Do these two need to agree, or can we at least acknowledge that there is a great leeway of opinion, and in my opinion, musical taste, to define what is suitable.

 

[pnewton]

I do feel that sacred music should help draw our attention toward a spiritual experience rather than just an emotional one. I personally find that much of the “religious” (using the good bishops term) music that people have become accustomed to, if very good at inciting emotionality rather than spirituality.

That’s an interesting point and one I have often thought about. On one hand, as you point out, emotional content can confuse the spiritual reality. On the other hand, we have Sacramental theology. God choose to become incarnate. He choose to give us his literal body and blood. He did not deal with just spiritually. He met us, and still meets us physically. Now if God wishes to meet us both on the level of the spirit and the material, why do we exclude the emotions, which is as much a part of us as our spirit and physical body. God knows it is easier for us to “take and eat” than just sit and spiritually receive him. I’ve been there and know. There is a yearning for that physical contact when one can not receive. How much easier is it to meet God when we also have the emotional affection for him. It is this lack that makes the “dark night of the soul” so dark. I believe God meets us where we are and in all we are.

It is because I appreciate that meeting Jesus in spirit is easier when we also love him affectionately that I have tried to increase the amount of Latin and chant in my parish. It is why I believe that dioceses need to provide more opportunity for the Latin Mass in both forms. If emotion did not matter than the type of Mass would not be relevant. Any Mass would still contain Jesus in the flesh and Jesus in the Spirit. But if the Latin helps one emotionally, then it is of value to that person. More to the point, if the modern music is an irritation rather than uplifting in the form hymns that have been passed down through the centuries, then the Catholic must ger beyond the emotions rather than lifted by them.

I know some cringe when they hear the word pastoral, yet I think it is good to remember that our priests are only following the model of the Savior who is the Good Shepherd, leaving the 99 to seek the one lost sheep.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have never read a document that has condemned religious music. Profane music has been condemned, but not defined in specifics, and never defined in such a narrow way as Bishop Olmstead has. It is an interesting idea, but it still begs the question. Someone earlier thought that this even meant getting rid of hymnals now in use. I have never seen that in the Church documents.

I did find one interesting irony in the Bishops’s article, concerning polyphonic chant. He mentioned that liturgical music is so we may sing with one voice and he mentions Gregorian chant and polyphonic chant. It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that’s the “poly” part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

I think this is just another term problem.

Above the line is music that the Church accepts in Her life but in different areas, and below the line is music that the Church does not accept in Her life.

Liturgical music is sacred music. They are synonymous. Liturgical or sacred music is music that is specifically suited for the liturgy, and is limited to Gregorian chant (usually but not exclusively unaccompanied) and sacred polyphony (of any era, mind you, that is, sacred polyphony is still being composed). I know that might rub some people the wrong way, but I think it is quite clear that this is so from Pius’s Tra le sollecitudini and JPII’s Chirograph. The Ordinary of Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, etc., aka chant/sacred polyphonic mass settings) and the Propers fit into this category.

Religious music is profane music. Religious music is music that has Christian/Catholic lyrics but is not specifically suited to the liturgy because of its theatricality or pop-ishness. The word profane in the secular world usually means bad. That is not how Pius X and John Paul II are using the word, however. They mean it as a song where the lyrics may be Christian/Catholic (although in no way a judgement of quality; that is, the lyrics could be high or low quality), but the accompanying music is secular or folksy or pop-ish. Hymns and extremely theatrical/showy/opera-esque polyphony, even with great lyrics, fall into this category.

---

Secular music is music that in no way contains Christian/Catholic lyrics, regardless of its accompaniment.

Blasphemous music is music that outright mocks Christianity/Catholicism. It is sinful to listen to this type of music for entertainment purposes.

---

It is clear that Pius and John Paul have no problem with religious music. However, it is crystal clear that they find it totally inappropriate for liturgical use. That is, if Father X wants to have “Sing to Jesus” at the parish picnic or Friday fish fry, fine, great, and they encourage it. But the Popes do not condone religious/profane music (hymns) in any liturgical setting, that is, Mass, Vespers, Benediction, etc. Nay, they specifically condemn such music in a liturgical setting.

Now, “sing with one voice,” I think, does not refer to the style of music. That is not how the bishop is using the term. He means it in the more figurative sense, not literal.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is exactly why I say the definition is circular. Religious music is defined as that which is suitable for outside of Mass, then that it is said that religious music is only to be used outside of Mass.

Now is all sacred music liturgical music?

Yes! Liturgical music and sacred music are synonymous. This is the music that is specifically appropriate for Mass.

Religious music is not the same as liturgical or sacred music. Religious music is not appropriate for Mass, but is appropriate for parish picnics, other parish events, popular devotions, evangelization, etc.

 

[Sarabande]

But the Church has used the word “profane” in reference to religious music. Take Pius X’s landmark Tra le sollecitudini of 1903, for example:

Clearly, in the realm of music, the documents of the Church use the word as meaning pop-type or theatrical religious music, not outright sacrilegious or blasphemous music. And at the same time, the documents condemn profane religious music at Mass, while maintaining that it is okay to use it at other, non-liturgical Church functions.

Yes. One of the reasons why “Tra le sollecitudini” was written was because the music written for liturgy at the time was becoming too “secular” or “profane” in sound. It wasn’t about a lack of quality either, as many incredible composers were writing for the Church. For example, you had Verdi composing his Requiem mass in the late 19th century, which is a spectacular composition for singers to perform and often considered his “greatest opera” even though it was actually meant for liturgy. It was supposed to be “sacred” music. But the way it is composed, it has to be sung in a very operatic way, which is much larger and “theatrical” than how music would be sung at mass. You really can’t “refine” it to sound less theatrical.

It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that’s the “poly” part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

Actually, it was more because of the way it was originally performed and how it was composed that it was condemned and not really because it wasn’t monophonic. Simple organum was used at mass prior and during and considered an early version of polyphony. There wasn’t a problem with that form. The secular way of performing more complicated polyphony and how earlier composers wrote the music so that you couldn’t clearly understand the words, as well as the usage of certain dissonances in chords that sounded ugly and/or devilish (think la diabola in musica… the tritone) also contributed to the banning of polyphony for mass. Once the composers were able to refine the way they wrote polyphony for liturgy so that it was less “secular” in sound, it was “ok” to use.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s an interesting point and one I have often thought about. On one hand, as you point out, emotional content can confuse the spiritual reality. On the other hand, we have Sacramental theology. God choose to become incarnate. He choose to give us his literal body and blood. He did not deal with just spiritually. He met us, and still meets us physically. Now if God wishes to meet us both on the level of the spirit and the material, why do we exclude the emotions, which is as much a part of us as our spirit and physical body. God knows it is easier for us to “take and eat” than just sit and spiritually receive him. I’ve been there and know. There is a yearning for that physical contact when one can not receive. How much easier is it to meet God when we also have the emotional affection for him. It is this lack that makes the “dark night of the soul” so dark. I believe God meets us where we are and in all we are.

It is because I appreciate that meeting Jesus in spirit is easier when we also love him affectionately that I have tried to increase the amount of Latin and chant in my parish. It is why I believe that dioceses need to provide more opportunity for the Latin Mass in both forms. If emotion did not matter than the type of Mass would not be relevant. Any Mass would still contain Jesus in the flesh and Jesus in the Spirit. But if the Latin helps one emotionally, then it is of value to that person. More to the point, if the modern music is an irritation rather than uplifting in the form hymns that have been passed down through the centuries, then the Catholic must ger beyond the emotions rather than lifted by them.

I know some cringe when they hear the word pastoral, yet I think it is good to remember that our priests are only following the model of the Savior who is the Good Shepherd, leaving the 99 to seek the one lost sheep.

Good sir, this is why we have religious/profane music. For evangelization, for popular devotions, for parish picnics, for parish dinners, for teen meetings, for parish events. Not for the liturgy. For the most part, religious music is emotional. That is what it plays on. And the Church in no way condemns it, but She does differentiate (via Pius X and JPII’s documents) between that and sacred/liturgical music. Both types of music have their own place. The former is for non-liturgical Church events, and the latter is for liturgical Church events.

In their documents, the Popes clearly have no problem with religious/profane music, but they do have a problem with it in the liturgy.