P
ProVobis
Guest
Any thoughts on virtual choirs with singers from many countries all at once?
Is this the new contemporary?
youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs
Is this the new contemporary?
youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No thanks.Any thoughts on virtual choirs with singers from many countries all at once?
Is this the new contemporary?
youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs
S
superamazingman
Guest
It really doesn’t matter if it “takes hold” with the people. Christ is trying to speak to us through His liturgy, and His scriptures. Who are we to replace the words He’s trying to speak (through the propers of the Mass) with our own songs? You just can’t justify it.For instance, you can’t re-introduce chant, polyphony, or any other style of sacred music and expect it to take hold and be “accepted” in six months, a year, two years, etc. at any given parish. It may take a few years to really take hold.
Just think of it that way. It’s not about us. If it doesn’t “take hold” chatechise, but don’t stop. The music the church has given us for the liturgy is Christ trying to speak to us.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I’ve given this some thought and I’ve been thinking that a great way to start to show Benedict’s liturgical flavor and his reform of the reform is for him to mandate a more formalized ritual for Pontifical Masses. In that manner, when a bishop comes to celebrate mass at a church for, say, confirmation, the people start to see what is eventually coming without having it in their own masses yet.
C
Cat
Guest
Am I misunderstanding you? It sounds to me like you are saying that it is wrong to sing hymns at Mass instead of Propers.It really doesn’t matter if it “takes hold” with the people. Christ is trying to speak to us through His liturgy, and His scriptures. Who are we to replace the words He’s trying to speak (through the propers of the Mass) with our own songs? You just can’t justify it.
Just think of it that way. It’s not about us. If it doesn’t “take hold” chatechise, but don’t stop. The music the church has given us for the liturgy is Christ trying to speak to us.
Rubrics clearly allow us to sing hymns during the Mass (OF). The “four-hymn sandwich” is one of the options that is allowed in Mass.
No one is doing anything wrong, abusive, or irreverent to sing “our own songs” at Mass instead of the Propers.
Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are writing.
S
superamazingman
Guest
No, that’s what I’m saying. Look at the rubrics as well. From a rubrical standpoint, the propers are obviously preferred over other songs. Before the council, the propers were the norm for sung Masses. Now, the GIRM specifies that you can sing 1) the Gradual Propers 2) Simplex Propers 3) another psalm or 4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action.Am I misunderstanding you? It sounds to me like you are saying that it is wrong to sing hymns at Mass instead of Propers.
Rubrics clearly allow us to sing hymns during the Mass (OF). The “four-hymn sandwich” is one of the options that is allowed in Mass.
No one is doing anything wrong, abusive, or irreverent to sing “our own songs” at Mass instead of the Propers.
Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are writing.
People say "oh, oh, ‘chant’ just means hymn or song. If that’s true, then why does the GIRM talk about “hymns” and “songs” in other places? If ‘chant’ truely means “hymn” or “song,” then you wouldn’t expect to find hymns or songs mentioned in other places. For example:
“Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial psalm.”
“however, if there is to be a hymn after communion, the communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.”
“If desired, …] a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.” [after the communion chant]
“after this, the priest may return to the chair. a sacred silence may now be observed for some time, or …] a hymn may be sung” [after communion]
But the most convincing part of this is looking at it in perspective. The GIRM is not a document in and of itself. It, along with all liturgical documents must be interpreted in a spirit of continunity with the past. The norm for sung Masses in the past was always the propers. That should mean something in this debate.
It’s clear that “chant” does not mean hymn or song at all. How can it be? They are two distinct words AND ideas in the GIRM. After communion, a hymn can be sung. During the procession, offertory, and communion, the propers will be sung, or if that’s not possible, another suitable chant, such as attende domine during lent.
From a rubrical standpoint alone, those who argue for hymns alone have shaky (at best) ground to stand on. Take note that Rome doesn’t use a 4 hymn sandwich. Ever wonder why? Do you have a defense for this?
Then, of course, there is the non-rubrical reasoning that I mentioned above in my last post.
C
Cat
Guest
*The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages – always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy
of the liturgical functions.
Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.*
This is straight from the document cited in YTC’s post above. This is a quote from Pope PIus X’s encyclical.
Am I missing something here? When I read this quote, it seems very obvious to me that “modern music” is admitted to the Mass. Am I incorrect?
Folks, I don’t understand why so many of you seem to be ready to completely ban modern music from the OF Mass, when it is obvious, to me anyway, that Holy Mother Church does NOT ban modern music from the Mass. What am I missing here? Why does it seem that there is such a disconnect between me and many of you?
Pope Pius X is usually considered one of the most prolific and most conservative and orthodox pontiffs when it comes to teachings about music and liturgy. But in the encyclical that HE wrote, it seems clear to ME, anyway, that he does not ban “modern” music, or put a kabosh on all music except Gregorian chant and polyphony.
Yes, he states that Gregorian chant and polyphony should be restored in the Mass. We have to remember that this encyclical was written before Vatican II and before the establishment of the OF Mass, and so we also have to take into account the writings that apply to the OF Mass.
We also have to remember that this encyclical was written before the disembowelment of the public school systems, during which all vestige of religion was removed from public schools (in the U.S., anyway). This means that much of music education has also been eliminated, and many of our people in the U.S. since the 1970s have come out of public school systems with no ability to read music, sing, or appreciate any forms of music other than popular music.
What this means is that there are practical difficulties to restoring Gregorian chant and polyphony to the Mass, mainly that few people actually have the knowledge and skills to sing this kind of music, and few people have the training and education to appreciate (not enjoy, but appreciate–there is a difference) these styles of music.
Of course our Mass music should never be chosen because of popular appeal, but in accordance with the Church rubrics. I understand that, and I am totally in support of this. I am not arguing against this tenant of the Church.
But on a practical level, the parishes have to have a congregation to continue. If the congregation departs, no one is left to give offerings that pay the parish bills.
But because the rubrics DO allow “modern” music, there is no reason for a congregation to depart because of Mass music. It is possible for an OF Mass to have music that is pleasant to the ears and comprehensible to most “modern” parishioners, and still have a liturgically-correct and reverent Mass. From what I can see, there is no rubric that requires an OF Mass to have all Gregorian chant and Palestrina.
I think it is a noble goal to try to restore the respect and love that people used to have for Gregorian chant and polyphony. But a lot of education has to happen first. Even though many of you enjoy these forms of music and find them personally edifying to your spiritual journey, I think that you will find, if you are honest in your assessment, that many others prefer hymns, both traditional and contemporary. I think that young people like YTC are in the minority.
I think you have a lot of work to do. And I think that a good way to approach that work is to try hart to understand and appreciate the differences between your more traditional musical preferences and those preferences of many of the rest of us who really truly prefer “Eagles Wings.” If you approach me and try to tell me that “the music I like is banal,” or “irrervent,” you’ve closed a door.
BTW, if we take Pope Pius X’s words quoted above with complete seriousness, then most classical music, including chant, will NOT be allowed in the Mass, because these forms are not “free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters”. For people like me, who are involved in classical music, I see classical music, including chant, as “performance,” or “theater.” I don’t associate these styles of music with “church,” because to me, they are “concert pieces.” Also, I am a convert, and this kind of music is not part of my heritage. When I hear Palestrina, I think “concert,” not “worship.”
So we really have to be careful in our interpretation of the Holy Father’s encyclical and not take it literally!
For that matter, in the next paragraph in this encyclical, the Holy Father states that we are never to sing anything in the vernacular. This would, of course, mean that the OF Mass is in error, and of course, this is not true. Again, we have to take ALL the documents into account, not just pick and choose those that support our theses.
of the liturgical functions.
Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.*
This is straight from the document cited in YTC’s post above. This is a quote from Pope PIus X’s encyclical.
Am I missing something here? When I read this quote, it seems very obvious to me that “modern music” is admitted to the Mass. Am I incorrect?
Folks, I don’t understand why so many of you seem to be ready to completely ban modern music from the OF Mass, when it is obvious, to me anyway, that Holy Mother Church does NOT ban modern music from the Mass. What am I missing here? Why does it seem that there is such a disconnect between me and many of you?
Pope Pius X is usually considered one of the most prolific and most conservative and orthodox pontiffs when it comes to teachings about music and liturgy. But in the encyclical that HE wrote, it seems clear to ME, anyway, that he does not ban “modern” music, or put a kabosh on all music except Gregorian chant and polyphony.
Yes, he states that Gregorian chant and polyphony should be restored in the Mass. We have to remember that this encyclical was written before Vatican II and before the establishment of the OF Mass, and so we also have to take into account the writings that apply to the OF Mass.
We also have to remember that this encyclical was written before the disembowelment of the public school systems, during which all vestige of religion was removed from public schools (in the U.S., anyway). This means that much of music education has also been eliminated, and many of our people in the U.S. since the 1970s have come out of public school systems with no ability to read music, sing, or appreciate any forms of music other than popular music.
What this means is that there are practical difficulties to restoring Gregorian chant and polyphony to the Mass, mainly that few people actually have the knowledge and skills to sing this kind of music, and few people have the training and education to appreciate (not enjoy, but appreciate–there is a difference) these styles of music.
Of course our Mass music should never be chosen because of popular appeal, but in accordance with the Church rubrics. I understand that, and I am totally in support of this. I am not arguing against this tenant of the Church.
But on a practical level, the parishes have to have a congregation to continue. If the congregation departs, no one is left to give offerings that pay the parish bills.
But because the rubrics DO allow “modern” music, there is no reason for a congregation to depart because of Mass music. It is possible for an OF Mass to have music that is pleasant to the ears and comprehensible to most “modern” parishioners, and still have a liturgically-correct and reverent Mass. From what I can see, there is no rubric that requires an OF Mass to have all Gregorian chant and Palestrina.
I think it is a noble goal to try to restore the respect and love that people used to have for Gregorian chant and polyphony. But a lot of education has to happen first. Even though many of you enjoy these forms of music and find them personally edifying to your spiritual journey, I think that you will find, if you are honest in your assessment, that many others prefer hymns, both traditional and contemporary. I think that young people like YTC are in the minority.
I think you have a lot of work to do. And I think that a good way to approach that work is to try hart to understand and appreciate the differences between your more traditional musical preferences and those preferences of many of the rest of us who really truly prefer “Eagles Wings.” If you approach me and try to tell me that “the music I like is banal,” or “irrervent,” you’ve closed a door.
BTW, if we take Pope Pius X’s words quoted above with complete seriousness, then most classical music, including chant, will NOT be allowed in the Mass, because these forms are not “free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters”. For people like me, who are involved in classical music, I see classical music, including chant, as “performance,” or “theater.” I don’t associate these styles of music with “church,” because to me, they are “concert pieces.” Also, I am a convert, and this kind of music is not part of my heritage. When I hear Palestrina, I think “concert,” not “worship.”
So we really have to be careful in our interpretation of the Holy Father’s encyclical and not take it literally!
For that matter, in the next paragraph in this encyclical, the Holy Father states that we are never to sing anything in the vernacular. This would, of course, mean that the OF Mass is in error, and of course, this is not true. Again, we have to take ALL the documents into account, not just pick and choose those that support our theses.
S
superamazingman
Guest
Somehow, I think in most, or even many cases (and I’ve seen quite a few), it’s not that people don’t have the training, it’s that they don’t want the training, or even the chant. I honestly think that’s just a lame excuse in many cases. I’ve seen so many times the proposal of chant come up, and people fight it viscerally. Is it really that they just need training? How about a pink slip instead?What this means is that there are practical difficulties to restoring Gregorian chant and polyphony to the Mass, mainly that few people actually have the knowledge and skills to sing this kind of music, and few people have the training and education to appreciate (not enjoy, but appreciate–there is a difference) these styles of music.
Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.
But read the section part, which you seem to skim over. It says the music needs to be free even from the “reminiscences of motifs” of secular motives. P&W simply doesn’t do that. Many modern “hymns” don’t do that. “Reminiscences of motifs” is a pretty wide criteria to catch. Modern music does not mean things that sound like that we hear in the world. That’s why it clearly states “reminiscences of motifs” of modern secular music must not be there. This doucment is really talking about people like Richard Prolux, and Kevin Allen, not Marty Haugen and David Haas.
S
superamazingman
Guest
All the document, maam. Vatican II also says a similar idea. It allows the vernacular, but it says that the “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” All the documents.For that matter, in the next paragraph in this encyclical, the Holy Father states that we are never to sing anything in the vernacular. This would, of course, mean that the OF Mass is in error, and of course, this is not true. Again, we have to take ALL the documents into account, not just pick and choose those that support our theses.
Yes, I think some things about how the OF was implemented are in error. How else can you understand this doucment? Our current english missal has almost no latin in it at all. How does that facilitate the frequent use of latin?
Remember the people who drafted the OF were not infalible, and to be honest, it was actually a small number of questionable folks. Not the best situation, we’re not proud of it, but it’s the truth. And their first draft was so far removed from the essence of the Mass that it was utterly rejected. That should tell you something. This isn’t some conspiracy theory I’m talking about. This is just what happened. They themselves admitted they tried to make the Mass more protestant, which has ravaged the church.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I think you were missing my point and I apologise for not making myself clearer.It really doesn’t matter if it “takes hold” with the people. Christ is trying to speak to us through His liturgy, and His scriptures. Who are we to replace the words He’s trying to speak (through the propers of the Mass) with our own songs? You just can’t justify it.
Just think of it that way. It’s not about us. If it doesn’t “take hold” chatechise, but don’t stop. The music the church has given us for the liturgy is Christ trying to speak to us.
And I believe we are actually on the same wavelength about this, if I’m understanding your post correctly.
You are a new member and so I can understand that you don’t know my stance in regards to liturgy and music. My background as a church musician has been working in parishes which often employ chanting, singing in traditional choirs where we use polyphony and other kinds of motets, singing the propers, etc. Since my early 20s (I’m now in my early 30s) I have walked the walk by being a part of trying to encourage this change in attitude through my volunteer and professional work as a musician. I have worked as a music teacher at a Catholic school and encouraged this, teaching chant and our rich sacred musical heritage to my students either in the classroom or in the choir, making sure that they didn’t get the same wrong information pushed down my throat as a girl when I questioned it that all the “old stuff” was no longer allowed at mass and that young people like me wouldn’t like it anyway.
Because I also freelance and have many colleagues in various parishes and dioceses, I see all the different dynamics within individual parishes and how one needs to handle all of them in different ways. So, my experience is not just at one or two parishes and what happens with the congregations there. I have literally freelanced at over 100 of them, once in a while being at three or four different parishes on a weekend and also working at different parishes during the week. At some parishes, you can make the changes immediate. At others it is wiser to do it slowly mainly because you have to educate them more about the reasons behind the changes. Then you have to deal with the pastors, who are basically your boss, paying your meal ticket and there is only so much one can do in disagreeing with a pastor who might be of that same mindset that “anything goes” as long as it pleases their congregation and them, which I’ve experienced as well.
My point in this regard was that it took 40+ years to change people’s attitudes about the liturgy and it may take another 40+ years to get people to change that “complete shift in attitude”. BUT because people today are less patient and have this attitude where it has to please them otherwise it’s not worth it, we CAN’T just give up if people start complaining that it doesn’t work for them within the first few masses. This does happen, especially from speaking with my colleagues (those of us who are trying to do the right thing liturgically). You especially need the support of the pastor to keep going. You have to really persevere and NOT take a negative view or kill-joy attitude about it. Basically, you have be as optimistic and positive as possible even if you get dragged about and beaten up emotionally. I’ve experienced this and it’s not easy. It’s much easier to just give up and be a nay-sayer. So, as a musician who is actually trying to walk the walk with this, getting herself into the “trenches”, to make a musical comparison, I have to focus on that final note in a long musical phrase, making sure that I have enough endurance and breath to continue the phrase no matter how difficult the music in between the first and last notes are. I’m not just being some arm-chair philosopher or a person sitting in the pews or behind a computer complaining and telling everyone what should be done, without really doing anything to help with the changes, either through their musical and liturgical knowledge/talent, educating in the classrooms, or being involved in their parish/diocese in other ways to help with this. (Please note, I am definitely NOT saying that’s you or anyone else on this thread.)
Anyway, I didn’t mean for this to be so long. I admit I am passionate about this. In my younger years I was very angry about the state of music liturgy, especially in the U.S. mainly because of this feeling of being lied to for years as a girl and teen. I have grown and matured since then with experience, learning it’s better to go about things with love, care, prayer, passion. sincerity and observing and listening to those I’m dealing with.
T
Tigg
Guest
I have a good Baptist friend who would vehemently disagree with your statement and say that many Protestants and Evangelicals have entered a “kumbaya” spirituality that has betrayed the gospel message even to the point of denying sin and the physical Resurrection of our Lord. He, a Baptist, likens the Protestant mega communities to nothing more than a social club the same way I, an orthodox Catholic, liken the weak catechesis of this present era to something foreign in Holy Mother Church. And there is much danger for Catholics in attending a Protestant Church even if the motivation is the music.FInally, you must realize that you are mistaken to say that most Protestant denominations are in decay. Many of the evangelical denominations, especially the non-denominational fellowships like Willowcreek, are growing exponentially. Over 20,000 (twenty thousand) “seekers” visit Willowcreek every Sunday. The megachurch in our city (a satellite of Willowcreek) has almost one-tenth of our city’s population in attendance every weekend–that’s over 10,000 people. And many of those are Catholics, and many of them attend because they like the music.
C
Cat
Guest
So again, let me make sure that I’m understanding you.No, that’s what I’m saying. Look at the rubrics as well. From a rubrical standpoint, the propers are obviously preferred over other songs. Before the council, the propers were the norm for sung Masses. Now, the GIRM specifies that you can sing 1) the Gradual Propers 2) Simplex Propers 3) another psalm or 4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action.
People say "oh, oh, ‘chant’ just means hymn or song. If that’s true, then why does the GIRM talk about “hymns” and “songs” in other places? If ‘chant’ truely means “hymn” or “song,” then you wouldn’t expect to find hymns or songs mentioned in other places. For example:
“Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial psalm.”
“however, if there is to be a hymn after communion, the communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.”
“If desired, …] a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.” [after the communion chant]
“after this, the priest may return to the chair. a sacred silence may now be observed for some time, or …] a hymn may be sung” [after communion]
But the most convincing part of this is looking at it in perspective. The GIRM is not a document in and of itself. It, along with all liturgical documents must be interpreted in a spirit of continunity with the past. The norm for sung Masses in the past was always the propers. That should mean something in this debate.
It’s clear that “chant” does not mean hymn or song at all. How can it be? They are two distinct words AND ideas in the GIRM. After communion, a hymn can be sung. During the procession, offertory, and communion, the propers will be sung, or if that’s not possible, another suitable chant, such as attende domine during lent.
From a rubrical standpoint alone, those who argue for hymns alone have shaky (at best) ground to stand on. Take note that Rome doesn’t use a 4 hymn sandwich. Ever wonder why? Do you have a defense for this?
Then, of course, there is the non-rubrical reasoning that I mentioned above in my last post.
What I hear you saying is that most parishes in the United States are doing it wrong by singing four hymns in their Masses.
And of course that means that most bishops, including even the most conservative bishops, are wrong because they are allowing their parishes to continue singing hymns instead of chants.
Is this what you are saying? I apologize in advance if I am misinterpreting you. Please correct me. Thanks.
O
opus101
Guest
Cat, just out of curiosity, what did you think of the articles by Bishop Olmsted ( there’s a link in the original post)?
S
superamazingman
Guest
That be what I’m saying.So again, let me make sure that I’m understanding you.
What I hear you saying is that most parishes in the United States are doing it wrong by singing four hymns in their Masses.
And of course that means that most bishops, including even the most conservative bishops, are wrong because they are allowing their parishes to continue singing hymns instead of chants.
Is this what you are saying? I apologize in advance if I am misinterpreting you. Please correct me. Thanks.
However, I’m not saying it’s something that can change overnight, but to pretend that hymns are the ideal, and there’s nothing wrong with them is simply wrong. But as an end in and of itself, yes, I believe it’s wrong. Rome is leading by example here.
That’s why some (many?) bishops and parishes are working back towards the propers. It’s not as hard as you might think.
For example, at my parish, we had a hymn followed by the gregorian introit (but for the purposes of discussion, it could be any way of singing the proper text, such as SEP or SCG). For the offertory, the text was sung in via a polyphony piece. During communion, a psalm (or something strongly based on a psalm) was sung in responsorial style, followed by an english choral piece with the proper communion antiphon.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I’ve seen it done similarly as well. One parish used to use only the responsorial style, but it really wasn’t ideal and the congregation, which was one that was used to actual chanting and hearing motets, polyphony, etc. with a mix of traditional hymns, missed it. So, the director was able to find a book that incorporated the propers text into many of the well-known traditional hymn melodies. They would still use a responsorial style for communion, also including a communion motet afterwards and would also use a c.For example, at my parish, we had a hymn followed by the gregorian introit (but for the purposes of discussion, it could be any way of singing the proper text, such as SEP or SCG). For the offertory, the text was sung in via a polyphony piece. During communion, a psalm (or something strongly based on a psalm) was sung in responsorial style, followed by an english choral piece with the proper communion antiphon.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Part 1*The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages – always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.
Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.*
This is straight from the document cited in YTC’s post above. This is a quote from Pope PIus X’s encyclical.
Am I missing something here? When I read this quote, it seems very obvious to me that “modern music” is admitted to the Mass. Am I incorrect?
Folks, I don’t understand why so many of you seem to be ready to completely ban modern music from the OF Mass, when it is obvious, to me anyway, that Holy Mother Church does NOT ban modern music from the Mass. What am I missing here? Why does it seem that there is such a disconnect between me and many of you?
Pope Pius X is usually considered one of the most prolific and most conservative and orthodox pontiffs when it comes to teachings about music and liturgy. But in the encyclical that HE wrote, it seems clear to ME, anyway, that he does not ban “modern” music, or put a kabosh on all music except Gregorian chant and polyphony.
Yes, he states that Gregorian chant and polyphony should be restored in the Mass. We have to remember that this encyclical was written before Vatican II and before the establishment of the OF Mass, and so we also have to take into account the writings that apply to the OF Mass.
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. What I mean to say is that his definition of “modern music” was different than yours. If you take the second sentence, starting with, “Since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions,” then you will see what Pius meant. Obviously Pius didn’t mean that we should be including bar songs and low quality music at celebrations of the Mass. “On Eagles Wings” and “Here I Am, Lord” hardly fit the qualities of “excellence, sobriety and gravity.” Pius did not use the term “modern music” in that way. He used it to mean that compositions of the Ordinary of Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc.) that, while perhaps being only composed in 1901 or 1895 and not 1573 (do remember that the document in question was written in 1903), there was nothing wrong with them as long as they were excellent, sober and grave. Pius did not use the term “modern music” to mean his day’s version of low quality music like “I Am the Bread of Life.” Pius clearly used the term to refer to high quality settings of the Mass that were in continuity with the past while also exhibiting certain musical trends of the day while, again ALSO and not to the exclusion of being excellent, sober and grave.
There are several composers alive right now whose music is nothing short of excellent, sober and grave, while at the same time sounding modern. AGAIN, I do not mean modern as in “sounds like Justin Bieber” or “sounds like P&W.” I mean modern as in, modern/contemporary sacred music. Take James MacMillan’s “Tu Es Petrus:” youtube.com/watch?v=rLVnhfYHyJ0. It is very clearly excellent, sober and grave. It very clearly builds upon the past. It is also very clearly… modern, and sounds as much! “Modern music” is a misnomer. Nobody is saying ban modern music and stop the (good) composers from composing anymore. We are, however, saying ban music that is questionable lyrically, and/or is not excellent, sober and grave, whether it be written in 1580 or 2004 or 2011. There was junky music in 1580, but none of it survives as regards Mass music. There is also junky music now, and it pervades our churches. There was excellent music in 1580, and it pervades any good church’s music program. There is also excellent music only a few years old, and again, it also is included in many good church music programs. Nobody hates modern music. We do hate low quality pop ditties that, if history is any cue, people will not remember in 500 years, but will remember at the same time the best musical pieces of our era.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Part 2
My point is this: we haven’t lost our ability to compose great and thoroughly appropriate works. What we have lost is our ability to think and discern modern/contemporary works. And guess what, I blame this just as much on awful money-hungry music companies as I do on individuals. This has NOTHING at all to do with the Form of the mass in the strictest sense. True, if you go to an EF you’re much less likely to hear awful music, but on a theoretical level the discerning factors as to what is appropriate are the same. This is also not a “Vatican II problem,” although Gather Hymnal cheerleaders would like to go into a fit of ecstasy when they say “VATICAN II SAYSSSSSSS.” The truth is that Sacrosanctum Concilium says that our musical tradition (also to include our current good musical works) is the highest art form that the Church has! SC was clearly trying to root out the problems of its day, yet most people use it to defeat the very document’s own goal. I’d love to pay money to travel 300 years into future to see what Mr. Seminarian or Mr. Bishop laughs at most in the Church history books. I imagine it will be the time from 1962 to 2100ish.
Problem is not: modern music
Problem is: when people don’t know how to discern what is appropriate at mass and use some arcane reasoning that is contradictory to their agenda upon examination
This is just as much of an internal Church problem as it is a cultural one. And again, I agree with you that much of it is our abysmal educational state. The change HAS to start in Catholic schools and seminaries, while having clear support from the top.
My point is this: we haven’t lost our ability to compose great and thoroughly appropriate works. What we have lost is our ability to think and discern modern/contemporary works. And guess what, I blame this just as much on awful money-hungry music companies as I do on individuals. This has NOTHING at all to do with the Form of the mass in the strictest sense. True, if you go to an EF you’re much less likely to hear awful music, but on a theoretical level the discerning factors as to what is appropriate are the same. This is also not a “Vatican II problem,” although Gather Hymnal cheerleaders would like to go into a fit of ecstasy when they say “VATICAN II SAYSSSSSSS.” The truth is that Sacrosanctum Concilium says that our musical tradition (also to include our current good musical works) is the highest art form that the Church has! SC was clearly trying to root out the problems of its day, yet most people use it to defeat the very document’s own goal. I’d love to pay money to travel 300 years into future to see what Mr. Seminarian or Mr. Bishop laughs at most in the Church history books. I imagine it will be the time from 1962 to 2100ish.
Problem is not: modern music
Problem is: when people don’t know how to discern what is appropriate at mass and use some arcane reasoning that is contradictory to their agenda upon examination
This is just as much of an internal Church problem as it is a cultural one. And again, I agree with you that much of it is our abysmal educational state. The change HAS to start in Catholic schools and seminaries, while having clear support from the top.
Madam, might I venture to say that the reason that you see sacred polyphony and chant as “show music” is because you’re more likely to hear it in theaters nowadays than you are to hear it in its rightful place, the Mass? I am not Catholic by heritage either, and you’re more likely to see some modern junk type music on my iPod than Mozart (probably by a ratio of 1,000 to 1, in fact). But I cannot, either logically or conscientiously, say that anything that remotely resembles what is on my iPod is appropriate for the Mass.BTW, if we take Pope Pius X’s words quoted above with complete seriousness, then most classical music, including chant, will NOT be allowed in the Mass, because these forms are not “free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters”. For people like me, who are involved in classical music, I see classical music, including chant, as “performance,” or “theater.” I don’t associate these styles of music with “church,” because to me, they are “concert pieces.” Also, I am a convert, and this kind of music is not part of my heritage. When I hear Palestrina, I think “concert,” not “worship.”
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It occurs to me in reading all of this - apologetic authors often seek imprimatur and nihil obstat declarations for their work before publication. Indeed, many of the base reference articles right here on the Catholic Answers website bear these marks. In this way, a reader can be reasonably certain that the work is free from error and conforms to the teachings of the Church.
Sacred music is supposed to be held to a like (if not greater) standard, as it must be appropriate for expression during the conduct of the Mass, and therefore must conform to church teaching. That is the problem with secular music with “religious connotation”.
In Eastern Catholic tradition, we go so far as to use Scripture directly whenever possible to avoid even the appearance of conflict with True Belief. Many of our hymns are excerpts taken from the Psalter (can’t get much more poetic than the Psalms!). In addition, we do have a notion of paraliturgical hymns, which are customarily used before and after the first and final blessings of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). These are often from the broader tradition and do not strictly conform to liturgical standards. Cannot a similar approach be taken in the Roman Catholic Church?
And if there is indeed room for contemporary music, should it not in the very least require some form of formal approval before it can be used, especially with regards to lyrics, to ensure that they do not infer erroneous teaching (let alone inappropriate subject matter for Church use)?
Sacred music is supposed to be held to a like (if not greater) standard, as it must be appropriate for expression during the conduct of the Mass, and therefore must conform to church teaching. That is the problem with secular music with “religious connotation”.
In Eastern Catholic tradition, we go so far as to use Scripture directly whenever possible to avoid even the appearance of conflict with True Belief. Many of our hymns are excerpts taken from the Psalter (can’t get much more poetic than the Psalms!). In addition, we do have a notion of paraliturgical hymns, which are customarily used before and after the first and final blessings of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). These are often from the broader tradition and do not strictly conform to liturgical standards. Cannot a similar approach be taken in the Roman Catholic Church?
And if there is indeed room for contemporary music, should it not in the very least require some form of formal approval before it can be used, especially with regards to lyrics, to ensure that they do not infer erroneous teaching (let alone inappropriate subject matter for Church use)?
S
superamazingman
Guest
This is actually being done for many of the introits of the year. It’s a work in progress that I’ve been following at the MusicaSacra forum.I’ve seen it done similarly as well. One parish used to use only the responsorial style, but it really wasn’t ideal and the congregation, which was one that was used to actual chanting and hearing motets, polyphony, etc. with a mix of traditional hymns, missed it. So, the director was able to find a book that incorporated the propers text into many of the well-known traditional hymn melodies. They would still use a responsorial style for communion, also including a communion motet afterwards and would also use a c.
Here’s one thread of them:
musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/67750#Comment_67750
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes, thank you! It is abundantly clear that low quality hymns are, at the very best, highly questionable. However, it has never been the practice of the Church to exclude them from Her life. Devotions, for example, have very little regulation and rightly so. It is 100% fine to have folksy-type music at, say, the parish hall, or a parish picnic/barbeque. Nothing is wrong with that! Devotions and other informal events are barely regulated, and so if people want to sing childhood-reminiscing hymns or whatever, go for it! Who doesn’t like to do that?It occurs to me in reading all of this - apologetic authors often seek imprimatur and nihil obstat declarations for their work before publication. Indeed, many of the base reference articles right here on the Catholic Answers website bear these marks. In this way, a reader can be reasonably certain that the work is free from error and conforms to the teachings of the Church.
Sacred music is supposed to be held to a like (if not greater) standard, as it must be appropriate for expression during the conduct of the Mass, and therefore must conform to church teaching. That is the problem with secular music with “religious connotation”.
In Eastern Catholic tradition, we go so far as to use Scripture directly whenever possible to avoid even the appearance of conflict with True Belief. Many of our hymns are excerpts taken from the Psalter (can’t get much more poetic than the Psalms!). In addition, we do have a notion of paraliturgical hymns, which are customarily used before and after the first and final blessings of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). These are often from the broader tradition and do not strictly conform to liturgical standards. Cannot a similar approach be taken in the Roman Catholic Church?
And if there is indeed room for contemporary music, should it not in the very least require some form of formal approval before it can be used, especially with regards to lyrics, to ensure that they do not infer erroneous teaching (let alone inappropriate subject matter for Church use)?
There is a stark difference between devotional music and liturgical music. If you even want to go so far as to sing some random unrelated hymn after mass “just because,” then go for it. But Mass? No.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.