MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[opus101]

Perhaps I worry for no reason, but I fear that this kind of thing undermines the authority of our Apostles.

When someone believes that the authorities are wrong about one thing, e.g., music, it’s real easy to believe that they might also be wrong about other things, e.g., contraception, or gay marriage, or the HHS proposal. So many of us WANT to believe that our Bishops are wrong and that our Church is wrong, and that it really is OK for us to contracept or marry someone of the same sex, or ignore or even praise the fact that our President is proposing something that will endanger our Constitutional freedom of religion.

Call me a silly sheep, but I think it’s so important that we remain united under our shepherds!

I’m sure that there are times when sheep wonder why their shepherd is leading them into what looks like a “bad” place, but they have to trust that the shepherd knows what he is doing, or else they will end up wolves’ food or falling over a cliff, or getting lost and never finding their way back to the farm.

I certainly think it’s fine when laypeople study the various Church documents and learn as much as they can. But when their conclusions contradict the conclusions of the Bishops, the very esteemed successors to the Apostles, well, I think that it would be wise for the layman to back off and trust that the Bishops know more than he/she does.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the authorities are wrong,only that they don’t seem to have much of an opinion. Those that do sometimes have opinions represent conflicting ideas, or put forth staements that are hard to interpret and are not binding anyway.

If someone puts forth ideas about sacred music that are in keeping with those put forth by the Pope, they are not undermining the authority of the Bishops, especially on this matter. Anyway, the other things that you mentioned (contraception, etc.) are things that the Church has taught throughout the ages, and falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. And, I don’t mean to be contentious here, but those who support contraception and same sex marriage are the ones (in my experience) who play and prefer the annoying secular-type schlock. I know that it is your experience that the “classical” type of church musician has been for the gay lifestyle, but I’m not refering to that type of music as necessarily “sacred”, as that too can be too secular in style.

The fact that some Bishops PERMIT certain music to be used does not mean that there is an ecclesiastical law that says you MUST use it, nor does it mean that people cannnot conjecture about the fact that we seem to be living in a time like all of the other eras in Church history when secular styles intruded too much into the Mass. IMO, that is what Bishop Olmsted was trying to say, and definitely what Pope Benedict has been telling us. One can try to weasel around it to justify oneself, but I think the meaning of their writings is pretty clear.

Maybe some others have been saying that you MUST NOT use certain contemporary religious music becasue it is banned. However,I haven’t said this. It is my opinion that this type of music should be avoided, per the documents that have been mentioned, but it certainly is “legal”. It’s my hope that someday the Church WILL speak up on this topic and give clearer directives so there doesn’t have to be so much quibbling. Hopefully some new music will be composed in acceptable styles, and, if joined with the great patrimony of sacred music that we already have, new “hymnals” can be put together with ecclesiastical approval.

 

[Cat]

I don’t think anyone is saying that the authorities are wrong,only that they don’t seem to have much of an opinion.

Please read posts #85 and #93 in this thread. I tried very hard to make sure that I am interpreting the poster correctly.

Those that do sometimes have opinions represent conflicting ideas, or put forth staements that are hard to interpret and are not binding anyway.

If someone puts forth ideas about sacred music that are in keeping with those put forth by the Pope, they are not undermining the authority of the Bishops, especially on this matter. Anyway, the other things that you mentioned (contraception, etc.) are things that the Church has taught throughout the ages, and falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. And, I don’t mean to be contentious here, but those who support contraception and same sex marriage are the ones (in my experience) who play and prefer the annoying secular-type schlock. I know that it is your experience that the “classical” type of church musician has been for the gay lifestyle, but I’m not refering to that type of music as necessarily “sacred”, as that too can be too secular in style.

You raise an interesting point. Would the faithful prefer Gregorian chant and polyphonic music in Mass presented or conducted by those who are not Catholic, or by those who are professing Catholics who live a lifestyle that is not in keeping with Church teaching? (This won’t happen, BTW, because these people take jobs at Protestant or cultic churches that pay them a living wage.)

Or would the faithful prefer “banal” music at Mass presented or conducted by faithful Catholics who just don’t happen to have the musical chops to teach or perform chant and polyphony? (I would be in this category. I play piano–give me a hymnal or a choral piece to accompany, and I can do a great job. But ask me to teach or conduct chant, and I have no ability.)

The fact that some Bishops PERMIT certain music to be used does not mean that there is an ecclesiastical law that says you MUST use it, nor does it mean that people cannnot conjecture about the fact that we seem to be living in a time like all of the other eras in Church history when secular styles intruded too much into the Mass. IMO, that is what Bishop Olmsted was trying to say, and definitely what Pope Benedict has been telling us. One can try to weasel around it to justify oneself, but I think the meaning of their writings is pretty clear.

So what I hear you saying is that Pope Benedict XVI, for some reason, has chosen to allow many, if not most, of the U.S. Bishops to “do it wrong” when it comes to music in their Masses.

Is this what you’re saying?

I have a hard time with that. I think that the Holy Father is describing the “ideal” situation when it comes ot Mass music, but he is not pronouncing a “requirement.” Until he pronounces a requirement, then no parish is “doing it wrong” or “doing it 3rd rate” to use the four-hymn sandwich, as long as the bishop over that parish is OK with it.

Maybe some others have been saying that you MUST NOT use certain contemporary religious music becasue it is banned. However,I haven’t said this. It is my opinion that this type of music should be avoided, per the documents that have been mentioned, but it certainly is “legal”. It’s my hope that someday the Church WILL speak up on this topic and give clearer directives so there doesn’t have to be so much quibbling. Hopefully some new music will be composed in acceptable styles, and, if joined with the great patrimony of sacred music that we already have, new “hymnals” can be put together with ecclesiastical approval.

I agree that for Americans, anyway, it would be good to have the “rules” about music clearly spelled out with no gray areas. We are a free and independent nation, and our freedom has become ingrained in all aspects of our life. I’m not sure that the Europeans quite comprehend this. If the Church wants things to be done a certain way, they have to spell it out with no ambiguity, or Americans will continue to exercise our liberty.

However, I have the impression that the Church does not consider Mass music a high-priority issue at this point in time. There are so many other pressing issues that must be dealt with. The issue of religious liberty and persecution of religious people, especially Christians, is much more important than whether Americans can sing “Gather Us In” at Mass.

And of course, there are the “life” issues, especially abortion and euthanasia; at the moment, the most influential democratic nation, the United States, including 54% of the Catholics in the U.S, has freely elected a President who is unapologetically in support of unrestricted abortion, even advocating the vile “born alive” abortion. Again, surely the life issues are more pressing than whether a piano is appropriate in the Mass.

And there are the various charitable issues; there are still many people in the world who are starving, or homeless, or sick, or dying, or in prison.

Surely all of these issues trump “Mass music” in the Church’s agenda.

I think that the answer the Church gives when it comes to Mass music is that the bishops have the freedom to make the decisions about Mass music, as long as they follow, to the best of their ability, and with a well-formed conscience, the guidelines in the various Church documents. We laypeople must respect our bishops, even if we disagree with them.

Just a thought, but maybe we would all be better off if we spent less time bemoaning the state of Mass music, and more time working on these other issues. I know I would be better off, and I’m trying to be more aware of the poor during this Lent, but I still have a long way to go.

 

[Cat]

(Sound effect–hissing time bomb fuse).

Here’s a game. Wanna play? I’m addressing this to YoungTraditionalCatholic, but anyone is welcome to join in.

I think what drives me nutso about this thread is the impracticality of many of the proposals. Lots of ideas, but no implementation plans.

YoungTraditionalCatholic, I really appreciate many of the things that you say, and I agree that a very good approach to Mass music would be to sing a Processional and a Recessional hymn, but use chanted music throughout the rest of the Mass, including for the Preparation and the Communion.

BUT…I am still wondering exactly HOW you propose that this model should be implemented. I’m missing the mechanics, the “action plan,” the “who, what, when, where, and how?”

So here’s the Game. It’s called “Design an Action Plan.”

Take our parish. We have around 7000 members, and nine Masses on the weekends.

We have one Music/Liturgy Director who is excellent at conducting, playing organ and piano, and singing. He is paid a rather low salary for his work in the parish, which also includes overseeing the parish school music. He has four school-aged children.

Besides him, we have ONE schoolteacher who is a good conductor, pianist, and singer, and who can “fake” the organ by not playing the pedals. She is not paid for her work. She has no school-aged children.

We have the parish music teacher who is a good conductor and singer, but who doesn’t play an instrument. She has two tiny children, and is still open to more children. She is paid for her teaching at the parish school.

We have two good pianists, me and another lady. Neither of us plays organ, although I am trying to learn (it’s very hard for me, and I still can’t play a hymn). We are volunteers, unpaid. Neither of us sings well enough to cantor. Neither of us conducts or teaches music.

We have about ten volunteer cantors who sing well enough to be heard and understood.

We have a great children’s choir through the parish school.

We have a decent adult choir who can sing difficult classical pieces, but attendance at practice is very spotty.

We have three parish priests who, bless their hearts, warble along bravely, but can’t really sing very well, and don’t have any background in music.

Only two of those people have any background in chant and polyphony, and that’s the Music/Liturgy Director, and the schoolteacher.

Last fall, the Director did try very hard to teach the parish a simple chant for the various responses in the new translation. (The chant he used is in the Gather hymnal, the new one, and it’s not particularly pretty, but it’s very simple, only a few notes.)

He started in September. Before each Mass started, he would get the attention of the people praying in the pews, and teach them one of the chants–he started with the Sanctus. He would sing it and play it on the organ (he has a beautiful voice), and then ask the people to sing it back. He also directed them to the page in the hymnal so they could follow along if they read music.

Many of the people paid no attention to him and continued their prayer.

But he forged on, and using this method of teaching right before Mass, taught all the chant responses.

He also taught the chants to the adult choir and the children’s choir.

We used this chant through January (five months).

It was dreadful. No one sang! I’m not exaggerating. No one sang.

The only group that really “got” the chant was the children’s choir, and they sang beautifully. But they only sing in one Mass, and only once a month. They can’t do all nine Masses every week. It’s not practical.

So beginning in February, the Music/Liturgy Director started us out on a contemporary Mass setting (Our Lady), and things are beginning to get better again. People are singing again, although it’s still pretty weak. But at least they’re trying.

So now that you have the “gist” of our parish. Game on.

YoungTraditionalCatholic and other players, what’s the “action plan” for replacing our four hymns and contemporary Mass setting (Our Lady) with Gregorian chant and polyphony, with perhaps the two hymns (Processional and Recessional).

Remember, the “rules” of the game here–you only have two people who know anything at all about chant and polyphony. No fair bringing in some mysterious “person” who knows all about chant and polyphony! Work only with the list of people that I gave you.

Oh, BTW, our parish is blacklisted by the American Guild of Organists. They cannot send any of their members into our parish to do music, and we will not allow any of their members into our parish to do music. So you can’t use them to help out. (They all have jobs at other churches, Protestant, anyway.)

I’m guessing that there are many parishes out there just like ours, only I’m guessing that many of them have a “volunteer” music/liturgy director who is not nearly as knowledgeable as ours. Or just an organist or pianist who may or may not be a conductor, again, an unpaid volunteer who holds down a full-time job outside of his/her musical work at the parish.

Good luck, all! (Mission Impossible music theme plays now!)

 

[Sarabande]

From my recollections, what you state what happened before Vatican II is accurate. But it is to be noted, and I’ve had agreement on this point, that the EF celebrated today is in many respects different from the way in was celebrated in the 50’s. Perhaps because it isn’t under reform any more (reforms actually began in the late 40’s under Bugnini), I don’t know. But we should heed the Vatican II documents because maybe the council fathers suspected that unless they did or said something, the music and the liturgy and the vernacular translations would go uncontrolled. There were plenty of abuses prior to Vatican II and I feel that Vatican II provided the proper guidelines (Latin, Gregorian chant, pipe organ, etc.) to correct them; however it took some 30-40 years to realize this.

Of course. Most of the EFs that I’ve attended now usually don’t include a hymn during the mass. They are usually during the recessional, although many of the EFs I’ve attended were high masses. When they have had hymns during the mass was for special feast days, like the Assumption, and from my understanding that is allowed.

What I was referring to was the statement that EF masses never ever included hymns during the mass, which appeared that wasn’t the case. Then when I found those guidelines about what was permitted, hymns were included as an option for low mass EFs during Offertory and Communion, I saw that this is probably what happened in many circumstances, explaining why many people I know who were alive Pre-Vat II remembered singing hymns during mass. The options for hymns were given and parishes took the easiest or best option for them.

I agree with you that there were plenty of abuses prior to Vatican II (at least from what I’ve read and heard since I wasn’t around then). We know there was a problem, music-wise, for many decades which prompted the Pius X’s “Tra le sollecitudini” in 1903. I’m sure that helped, but human nature doesn’t change and people have always and will always try to bring in music into the liturgy that “speaks to them” before thinking about whether or not is liturgically appropriate.

I also agree that Vat II was to help correct the abuses. Musically, as so many of my colleagues have expressed, the wording was a bit too ambiguous, so it allowed for open interpretation, which is one of the reasons why we are in the situation that we are in now. Some people were very liberal in the interpretation and others more conservative. The more conservative, though, took the easiest and best options for their parishes like they did prior to Vat II for the Low EF masses… they chose the hymn option. So, after 30-40 years people are now trying to fix the situation, but I believe it will take some time, maybe another 30-40. I really think, though, that it would help if the Church just put out absolute guidelines. I agree with Cat that Americans, especially, are so used to this independent free-thinking and doing things our own way, we need clear-cut, unambiguous guidelines. Basically “Do X.” Period. It then forces those in charge to follow the guidelines much better and prepare good action plans that work for their own individual parishes.

 

[Cat]

Of course. Most of the EFs that I’ve attended now usually don’t include a hymn during the mass. They are usually during the recessional, although many of the EFs I’ve attended were high masses. When they have had hymns during the mass was for special feast days, like the Assumption, and from my understanding that is allowed.

What I was referring to was the statement that EF masses never ever included hymns during the mass, which appeared that wasn’t the case. Then when I found those guidelines about what was permitted, hymns were included as an option for low mass EFs during Offertory and Communion, I saw that this is probably what happened in many circumstances, explaining why many people I know who were alive Pre-Vat II remembered singing hymns during mass. The options for hymns were given and parishes took the easiest or best option for them.

I agree with you that there were plenty of abuses prior to Vatican II (at least from what I’ve read and heard since I wasn’t around then). We know there was a problem, music-wise, for many decades which prompted the Pius X’s “Tra le sollecitudini” in 1903. I’m sure that helped, but human nature doesn’t change and people have always and will always try to bring in music into the liturgy that “speaks to them” before thinking about whether or not is liturgically appropriate.

I also agree that Vat II was to help correct the abuses. Musically, as so many of my colleagues have expressed, the wording was a bit too ambiguous, so it allowed for open interpretation, which is one of the reasons why we are in the situation that we are in now. Some people were very liberal in the interpretation and others more conservative. The more conservative, though, took the easiest and best options for their parishes like they did prior to Vat II for the Low EF masses… they chose the hymn option. So, after 30-40 years people are now trying to fix the situation, but I believe it will take some time, maybe another 30-40. I really think, though, that it would help if the Church just put out absolute guidelines. I agree with Cat that Americans, especially, are so used to this independent free-thinking and doing things our own way, we need clear-cut, unambiguous guidelines. Basically “Do X.” Period. It then forces those in charge to follow the guidelines much better and prepare good action plans that work for their own individual parishes.

A clear-cut directive also helps Catholic schools, from the pre-school and kindergarten level all the way through college and seminary, form their curricula so that Catholics are prepared to sing, play, conduct, teach, write, and appreciate the music that is suitable for the Mass.

I’ve said over and over again that the reason the music is done the way it’s done is because it’s the only realistic option for an under-educated population.

 

[YoungTradCath]

(Sound effect–hissing time bomb fuse).

Here’s a game. Wanna play? I’m addressing this to YoungTraditionalCatholic, but anyone is welcome to join in.

I want to make one small note before I delve into this. There are two fully official chant books of the Roman Church, the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex, both in Latin. The Romanum is divided up so that every day of the year (except feria days) have a specific Introit, Gradual* (please don’t confuse the musical piece with the book itself), Offertory and Communion Chant. This book is intended for cathedrals and larger parishes, since the repertoire is relatively large and the chants themselves are rather complex on average. The Simplex is divided up into liturgical season, rather than day. So for every season, there are a set of Introits, Graduals*, Offertory Chants and Communion Chants assigned and for every sung Mass of any given season, the choir will pick one of each chant from the set for that season. So for this coming Sunday, I would go to Ordinary Time and pick out an Introit, Gradual (or I could use the assigned resp. psalm), Offertory and Communion chant, of which there are several for each. For the First Sunday of Advent, I would do the same, except I would pick from the Advent section. You get the picture. The point of this seasonal approach of the Simplex rather than day-by-day approach of the Romanum is that the repertoire is smaller. Additionally, the chants are, on average, noticeably simpler. This book is intended for use in small and rural parishes, perhaps even medium sized parishes. My point in this long note is that the complaint, “It’s too hard,” has already been solved by the Church. There are two books for two different skill sets, and they are noticeably different in difficulty, so the Simplex isn’t just like a small baby step down.

*A gradual, as a music piece (not the book itself), is a piece that is largely replaced by the responsorial psalm, but doesn’t have to be.

---

I think you have part of your answer already: the children. Kids pick up on chant very quickly. As we all know, children’s brains are sponges. Listen to the first words of the girl on this video, and please notice they are singing LATIN (???, I know): youtube.com/watch?v=ZDu90-eeulA

This musical problem will be solved on multiple levels at the same time. Sufficient (meaning perhaps not very advanced, but still thorough) musical education, particularly in the realm of chant, should be part of every Catholic school curriculum in the USA. Make it mandatory from perhaps K-8, and then fully optional afterwards. I realize that not every parish has a school, but for those that do, I think this is a great option, especially for small schools like the one near me where there isn’t a lot of bureaucrat-bully type stuff going on.

Secondly, from reading lots of chant websites, but particularly one, Chant Cafe ( www.chantcafe.com ), I have been stumbling again and again over one main hindrance to chants regaining use, and that is education. Most choir directors have never heard of the GR or the GS in their entire lives. Only a few would even know that the Church actually has official music books. Take this quote from Jeffery Tucker at the Chant Cafe:

The number one issue, in my own view that has been formed over a decade of close study, is that the musicians themselves do not know better. Most people doing music in the Catholic Church do not even have a rudimentary understanding of the musical demands of the Roman rite. They do not know what parts of the Mass constitute the ordinary structure of the Mass. They do not know that the propers of the Mass exist. They have no idea how the music is related to the word or the calendar (apart from Christmas and Easter). They have no idea what is mandatory, what is an option, what is the Church’s choice, what is the publisher’s choice, what tradition consists of, or how to tell genuine liturgical music from nonliturgical music.

This is because they have never been told. And a reason that they have never been told is that very few people actually have this understanding at all. You can attend ten national conventions, read ten books, subscribe to all the major liturgy publications, troll websites all day, talk to your pastor and grill your predecessors, and still never discover these basic points about the Catholic liturgy and its musical demands. Yes, you will come away with some slogans and with the knowledge that “the people” need to participate but do not (it’s always easier to focus on the sins of others), but that’s about it.

chantcafe.com/2011/12/why-is-catholic-music-such-mess.html

The answer for not only the children, but adult choir directors is the same: education. I may continue with this later, as I have things to do now, but in the meantime, read the rest of the article at the link above.

 

[countertenor]

(Sound effect–hissing time bomb fuse).

It was dreadful. No one sang! I’m not exaggerating. No one sang.

One strategy, the priest needs to tell, people they are expected to sing. These chants are meant to be sung by the people. If they are not singing them, they need to be instructed on what the liturgy is, and that their participation in necessary. Liturgy is the work of the people. If the people are unwilling to do their work, then the problem isn’t the music, it’s the people. People need to take some responsibility, and stop attending mass with the idea, that they should be entertained by the music. These chants (I agree with you that many of them are not that pleasing, partly this is because some of them are the funeral chants, and the others are based on the music for weekdays in Lent so they are rather austere), are not difficult to learn. They can be made as pretty as they can be without much effort on the part of the musicians, and people. People just have to do it. You keep asking for a strategy, and for practicality. No strategy can make a bit of difference, if the people in the pews, believe it is okay for them to sit there and not try or just ignore whats happening around them.

Until there is more actual education on the liturgy itself, the music directors, can really only do as much as the people will let them. Another thing that would be helpful is if people would stop acting like parishes are incapable of achieving quality liturgy. I hear that all the time. People saying things like, “we’d like the music and liturgy to be better, but this is all we can do.” That’s almost never the actual case, in general the problem is that the parish administrators feel and treat the people like they are incapable, and unfortunately the people start to believe it, and or use it as an excuse not to work at it.

An example is a parish where I worked as music director. They had a “choir” which was more just a group of people sitting up front kind of singing together, like back up singers for the two guitarists who were also the lead vocalists. When I took over all I was told was that I needed to turn up my mic really high, so that I covered them up, because they were incapable of actually singing together and singing in tune.

Well I took a different strategy. Rather than just worrying about myself and how I sound, I spent time working with them and developing them into an actual choir (it really doesn’t take much). I taught them how to listen to each other (took all of 10 minutes) and how to blend (again really just listening and making some adjustments). They got mad at first when I I wouldn’t let them sing harmonies, but after a few weeks they realized that I had done that because they never really knew the harmonies to begin with. In about two months, after they had dropped they’re old habits, I began to teach them their harmonies again. We worked on some basic musicianship the first few minutes of every rehearsal, and in a few months, they were singing four part hymns very well, and then in a few more months they were moved on to very simple polyphony.

They are miles away from where they were and the only real change is that I told them I expected them to work, and that if they were going to sing in the choir, they had to come to rehearsals. I also let them know that I believed they could do this, and that just because the last several music leaders, didn’t know how to teach, didn’t mean the choir couldn’t be taught. I can’t tell you have many parishes I’ve been asked to help in, where the top three problems are that the “choir” thinks it’s good enough to run through the music the hour before mass, wether they are familiar with it or not. That the leader doesn’t know what they themselves are doing, and can’t teach at all and lastly that many of the musicians are in there because they want the congregation to clap for them at the end of mass and find that more important that facilitating the liturgy.

 

[Cat]

One strategy, the priest needs to tell, people they are expected to sing. These chants are meant to be sung by the people. If they are not singing them, they need to be instructed on what the liturgy is, and that their participation in necessary. Liturgy is the work of the people. If the people are unwilling to do their work, then the problem isn’t the music, it’s the people. People need to take some responsibility, and stop attending mass with the idea, that they should be entertained by the music.

Thank you.

There is a problem with this approach, though. If you’ve read a lot of CAF, you will see that there is a large number of Catholics, both traditionalist and less-traditionalist, who believe that they do not have to sing to participate in the Mass.

The posts are quite interesting, and I tend to agree that it is possible to participate in the singing at Mass without actually singing, by listening intently, meditating on the words of the hymn/chant, and praying these words.

I would PREFER that all would join in, because we can pray anytime, but we can’t sing with a congregation anytime (unless you have a very large family with several hundred children).

I’m not sure if the Church takes a particular stand on this, and commands people to sing when the congregation is supposed to sing. I don’t think they do. I think the Church allows for people who would prefer to listen actively and not actually join in the singing.

I would prefer to believe that all of the people in my parish who did not join in with the chant and at least try to sing it were listening actively and praying the words. I will not be so uncharitable as to think that they were day-dreaming, or not singing because they felt self-conscious or because they hated the chant, or they were thinking about the Bears’ game. I know that my husband did not like the chant and could not “get” it even when he tried to read the notes (he reads music very well). But he’s just one man. I’m sure all the others had more noble reasons for not singing.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Thank you.

There is a problem with this approach, though. If you’ve read a lot of CAF, you will see that there is a large number of Catholics, both traditionalist and less-traditionalist, who believe that they do not have to sing to participate in the Mass.

The posts are quite interesting, and I tend to agree that it is possible to participate in the singing at Mass without actually singing, by listening intently, meditating on the words of the hymn/chant, and praying these words.

I would PREFER that all would join in, because we can pray anytime, but we can’t sing with a congregation anytime (unless you have a very large family with several hundred children).

I’m not sure if the Church takes a particular stand on this, and commands people to sing when the congregation is supposed to sing. I don’t think they do. I think the Church allows for people who would prefer to listen actively and not actually join in the singing.

I would prefer to believe that all of the people in my parish who did not join in with the chant and at least try to sing it were listening actively and praying the words. I will not be so uncharitable as to think that they were day-dreaming, or not singing because they felt self-conscious or because they hated the chant, or they were thinking about the Bears’ game. I know that my husband did not like the chant and could not “get” it even when he tried to read the notes (he reads music very well). But he’s just one man. I’m sure all the others had more noble reasons for not singing.

In my experience, the biggest turn-offs from singing at Mass, at least from a male experience, are:

1. The choir has someone who thinks he/she is a diva superstar.
2. The choir so quiet they’re almost whispering.
3. The organist plays very quietly. Mainline Protestants know that to get a loud-singing congregation, the organist can’t dawdle on the organ. He has to play it loudly.
4. Overly-emotional songs to the point of inappropriate soap opera melodrama.

2 and 3 keep self-conscious singers in the congregation, which I’d wager is most people, quiet.

I’d love to have a great feeling all the time about singing at Mass, but I’ve gotten to the point at my own parish where I almost don’t care anymore. Very few people sing to begin with. NO ONE sings the Ordinary of Mass except the choir. The congregation only really sings the processional and recession piece.

I would also like to add that, to many, the pieces that serve as meditational in nature, like the responsorial Psalm and the Offertory and Communion Chants especially are very hard to meditate on when we are expected to sing them as well.

This is another reason why I think we need a strict, set in stone level system in the OF like in the EF. Low Mass, Sung/High Mass and Solemn Mass. It gives a more consistent product, especially if musical guidelines are done correctly.

 

[countertenor]

Thank you.

There is a problem with this approach, though. If you’ve read a lot of CAF, you will see that there is a large number of Catholics, both traditionalist and less-traditionalist, who believe that they do not have to sing to participate in the Mass.

The posts are quite interesting, and I tend to agree that it is possible to participate in the singing at Mass without actually singing, by listening intently, meditating on the words of the hymn/chant, and praying these words.

I would PREFER that all would join in, because we can pray anytime, but we can’t sing with a congregation anytime (unless you have a very large family with several hundred children).

I’m not sure if the Church takes a particular stand on this, and commands people to sing when the congregation is supposed to sing. I don’t think they do. I think the Church allows for people who would prefer to listen actively and not actually join in the singing.

I would prefer to believe that all of the people in my parish who did not join in with the chant and at least try to sing it were listening actively and praying the words. I will not be so uncharitable as to think that they were day-dreaming, or not singing because they felt self-conscious or because they hated the chant, or they were thinking about the Bears’ game. I know that my husband did not like the chant and could not “get” it even when he tried to read the notes (he reads music very well). But he’s just one man. I’m sure all the others had more noble reasons for not singing.

I actually agree there is a problem with the notation. Part of it is that these melodies are based on old chant melodies, and many people who have some familiarity with them sing them the way they remember the melodies, rather than the way the notation says to sing them. The other is that the modern notation doesn’t correctly represent the melodies (if it’s actually trying to). These two things have lead to a varying of the interpretation on how these english chants from the missal should sound.

In terms of whether or not people are supposed to sing, I’d have to reread the various documents on music in the liturgy to remember exactly what it says. One thing I do remember is that it sets out the minimum things that the people should be singing, which off the top of my head I guess implies that the people are supposed to be singing at least some parts, rather than listening to them or whatever.

Another issue, and this is a problem with singing the propers at mass, is that the people are used to hearing or singing hymns everywhere the propers are meant to be sung. Partially this is because in the Tridentine mass if the mass was a low mass you weren’t allowed to sing any part of the mass. Because of this practice, the idea of singing hymns(which are not actually part of the mass) began to be allowed, and then you got the four hymn sandwich that people are familiar with today. When the mass changed, this practice was retained, while at the same time popular English settings of the mass began to be used. How is this a problem? Well one thing the documents do tell us is that the ordinary parts of the mass belong to the people, not to the choir. The choir is there to facilitate the congregational singing of the ordinaries. So since the ordinaries belong to the congregation, what, if anything belongs to the choir? Technically it was up to the choir to sing the propers of each mass, because they change every day, and thus people would only hear them once or twice a year (unless the simplex versions, which change seasonally were used). So now we have a situation (and this started with polyphony, where the people often don’t sing along with the ordinaries, even though they belong to them, and the choir doesn’t sing the propers, because the people want or are used to having hymns in the place of the propers.

What does all this really mean? It means most people are never really getting a complete mass, because the propers are usually having something else substituted in their place. So not only are people not actually singing where they ought to be, they not even hearing the parts of the mass they are meant to hear each day.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Right, countertenor! The Mass is supposed to have a high degree of seasonality. When we eliminate Propers, we eliminate, oh, HALF of the texts that make Christmas Christmas and the Feast of St. Matthias the Feast of St. Matthias and the Solemnity of the Annunciation the Solemnity of the Annunciation. The official music of the Mass has a high degree of specificity to the day, while most hymns do an extremely poor job of that as there are very few hymns for most saints, for example.

 

[countertenor]

I think another issue comes from the fact, that while there are actual rules, and ideals of what we are supposed to do in a Latin Rite liturgy, the Latin Church has also allowed for many exceptions to the rule. No we see a situation when the exceptions are what people are used to, and therefore they think the exceptions are the rules.

It’s the whole Lex Orandi Lex Credendi thing. People believe and know what they pray, i.e.,what they experience in the liturgy. When they spend their lives experiencing liturgical practices that do not meet the actual liturgical standards (and by standard I’m thinking like an Easterner here, and I mean the top level we strive for, rather than the lowest level allowable), they begin to think that those standards are really there, and then when that is challenged, people’s emotions get hurt, because they feel like what they’ve been experiencing is being ripped apart, or that they’re being told it’s not good enough.

The Church must do a better job, helping to educate people about the liturgy (many diocese now have done an excellent job implementing education for other aspects of the faith, while forgetting about the liturgy), and helping them to understand why the Church calls them (and really always has) to an even higher standard. As Christians we are called to become more and more refined, more and more like Christ. This applies to our worship as well. We come into our liturgical lives at one level, and with each liturgy that level should be taken higher, but that requires us to really learn and implement and understand our various liturgical traditions. To follow them faithfully, and sometimes to do that we have to learn and recognize, that what we have experienced in the past sometimes didn’t live up to those standards. To realize that these standards are about joining in with the heavenly liturgy and worshiping our God rather than celebrating ourselves. When our focus shifts away from ourselves and toward the true liturgical celebration and worship of our God, it no longs seems like a chore, we gladly participate in it. It doesn’t matter if mass takes one hour or two hours, because we truly enter into that transcendent space where heaven meets earth, and we move out of time and worship with the angels.

 

[opus101]

I think another issue comes from the fact, that while there are actual rules, and ideals of what we are supposed to do in a Latin Rite liturgy, the Latin Church has also allowed for many exceptions to the rule. No we see a situation when the exceptions are what people are used to, and therefore they think the exceptions are the rules.

It’s the whole Lex Orandi Lex Credendi thing. People believe and know what they pray, i.e.,what they experience in the liturgy. When they spend their lives experiencing liturgical practices that do not meet the actual liturgical standards (and by standard I’m thinking like an Easterner here, and I mean the top level we strive for, rather than the lowest level allowable), they begin to think that those standards are really there, and then when that is challenged, people’s emotions get hurt, because they feel like what they’ve been experiencing is being ripped apart, or that they’re being told it’s not good enough.

The Church must do a better job, helping to educate people about the liturgy (many diocese now have done an excellent job implementing education for other aspects of the faith, while forgetting about the liturgy), and helping them to understand why the Church calls them (and really always has) to an even higher standard. As Christians we are called to become more and more refined, more and more like Christ. This applies to our worship as well. We come into our liturgical lives at one level, and with each liturgy that level should be taken higher, but that requires us to really learn and implement and understand our various liturgical traditions. To follow them faithfully, and sometimes to do that we have to learn and recognize, that what we have experienced in the past sometimes didn’t live up to those standards. To realize that these standards are about joining in with the heavenly liturgy and worshiping our God rather than celebrating ourselves. When our focus shifts away from ourselves and toward the true liturgical celebration and worship of our God, it no longs seems like a chore, we gladly participate in it. It doesn’t matter if mass takes one hour or two hours, because we truly enter into that transcendent space where heaven meets earth, and we move out of time and worship with the angels.

Countertenor, I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Sarabande]

I think another issue comes from the fact, that while there are actual rules, and ideals of what we are supposed to do in a Latin Rite liturgy, the Latin Church has also allowed for many exceptions to the rule. No we see a situation when the exceptions are what people are used to, and therefore they think the exceptions are the rules.

It’s the whole Lex Orandi Lex Credendi thing. People believe and know what they pray, i.e.,what they experience in the liturgy. When they spend their lives experiencing liturgical practices that do not meet the actual liturgical standards (and by standard I’m thinking like an Easterner here, and I mean the top level we strive for, rather than the lowest level allowable), they begin to think that those standards are really there, and then when that is challenged, people’s emotions get hurt, because they feel like what they’ve been experiencing is being ripped apart, or that they’re being told it’s not good enough.

The Church must do a better job, helping to educate people about the liturgy (many diocese now have done an excellent job implementing education for other aspects of the faith, while forgetting about the liturgy), and helping them to understand why the Church calls them (and really always has) to an even higher standard. As Christians we are called to become more and more refined, more and more like Christ. This applies to our worship as well. We come into our liturgical lives at one level, and with each liturgy that level should be taken higher, but that requires us to really learn and implement and understand our various liturgical traditions. To follow them faithfully, and sometimes to do that we have to learn and recognize, that what we have experienced in the past sometimes didn’t live up to those standards. To realize that these standards are about joining in with the heavenly liturgy and worshiping our God rather than celebrating ourselves. When our focus shifts away from ourselves and toward the true liturgical celebration and worship of our God, it no longs seems like a chore, we gladly participate in it. It doesn’t matter if mass takes one hour or two hours, because we truly enter into that transcendent space where heaven meets earth, and we move out of time and worship with the angels.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I just want to point out something. No one ever sings, or has ever sung, hymns at EF masses, ever. They are sung, and only were ever sung, during processions and recessions, which are not, in the technical sense, part of the Mass. Even the most hardcore music restoration types don’t care about that, including me, because technically, those times are not the Mass.

This is not so “extraordinary” in the Eastern Churches - it is the norm (with perhaps some exception for hymns taken during distribution of the Holy Eucharist, although these are supposed to be Christ centered, or preferably taken from the Psalms). Paraliturgical hymns are sung before the first and after the final blessings of the Divine Liturgy. Everything chanted in between is strictly intended for the Liturgy.

 

[superamazingman]

I think what is interesting about your post above is that you carefully avoided references to the documents that I mentioned that all specifically allow substution of the Proper texts with hymns. In Musicum Sacram , the Propers were assigned to the third degree in level of importance in what should be sung at mass

And that was the beginning of the problem we’re in right now.

It’s also important to remember that the Propers were only sung at High Mass and prior to Vatican II it was not permitted to sing the Propers at Low Mass - which is the Mass that vast majority of people attended.

The low Mass was not the ideal. The low Mass was there for priests who couldn’t sing, or for times when a choir is not available, or most importantly, in private Masses. To say that we should do something because it was done at the Low Mass is a complete misunderstanding of the role of the low Mass.

Note that outside of the latin rite, a spoken Mass is unheardof. All the eastern rites ALWAYS sing the Mass/Divine Liturgy/whatever. Every day.

I understand that you might prefer the Propers to the hymns, in which case go to Mass where the Propers are sung by the choir but please don’t infer that hymns are not permitted and therefore we should not sing them because that is untrue. .

But is that supported by the tradition of the church? What about the GIRM? One of the purposes of the liturgical reforms of VII was the ability to sing the Mass more often, not less. Before VII, either the choir had to sing everything or nothing. Now, it enables the choir so sing some, instead of nothing. But now we are to the point that the proper texts are never sung, and that’s a problem.

Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (2007), published by the US Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship states “Church Legislation permits the use of vernacular hymns at the Entrance, Preparation of the Gifts, Communion, and Recessional” The same authority applies to the UK in different documents, so when I go to a Mass with hymns, I will continue to sing,

What legislation does it cite? STTL has absolutely no authority on it’s own.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Cat, I did not understand that you wanted a specific plan for your own parish.

And please, please. I just want to make this point again. This is not about “ancient music.” There is plenty of very new polyphonic music. There is plenty of very old polyphonic music. And just because it’s very old doesn’t mean it’s really hard and just because it’s very new doesn’t mean it’s very easy. There are trends as far as difficulty goes in each era, but they are only very superficial. There are some very easy old polyphonic masses and some supremely hard new ones.

 

[opus101]

Some of us have gotten off the topic of the OP - that of Church musicians giving thoughtful consideration to Bishop Olmsted’s distinction between “sacred” or “liturgical” music, and what he is calling “religious” music.

Popes Benedict and John Paul II have both said similar things. Their thoughts are worth serious consideration.

It is not necessary to write long rants about how hard it will be to implement, or how this is going against one’s own Bishop (which is ridiculous - most Bishops have nothing to say on the topic anyway). If that is what you want to do, then start a new thread about “How to implement changes in Liturgical Music”, or “The binding nature of what a Bishop simply happens to ‘allow’ at Mass”.

 

[Cat]

Cat, I did not understand that you wanted a specific plan for your own parish.

And please, please. I just want to make this point again. This is not about “ancient music.” There is plenty of very new polyphonic music. There is plenty of very old polyphonic music. And just because it’s very old doesn’t mean it’s really hard and just because it’s very new doesn’t mean it’s very easy. There are trends as far as difficulty goes in each era, but they are only very superficial. There are some very easy old polyphonic masses and some supremely hard new ones.

Yes, I understand that chant and polyphony is not all “ancient.” The styles were first conceived many centuries ago, but there are still composers writing in these ancient styles.

So perhaps a better term is “ancient-style music.” Or perhaps it would be best to just say “polyphony written in recent decades” or “chant written within the last five years” as compared with “polyphony written in the 16th Century,” etc. In other words, it might be best to be specific with musical styles and periods.

And yes, I asked specficially for an Action Plan for my parish, and gave the specs for my parish. However, I also stated that my parish is comparable to many parishes in the U.S. The common characteristics are 1) one (poorly) paid staff person in charge of music and liturgy 2) a very small number, usually only 2 or 3 (or less), of volunteer musicians who are capable of conducting and teaching music 3) a very small number, usually 2 or 3, of volunteer accompanists, usually pianists or guitarists, who are willing to play for Mass 4) a decent choir, but small with spotty attendance at weekly rehearsals (which makes it difficult to learn more difficults pieces), and 5) a small number (less than 12) of cantors (volunteers) who are capable of fairly good singing.

So an Action Plan for my parish would also work for many other parishes.

And the whole point of this is not create a real Action Plan for my parish. The point is to demonstrate the amount of real-time work that is necessary to achieve change in Mass music. So often on these forums, Catholics who want change (in either direction) seem to think that all the priest has to do is just say, “Change, now,” and voila, it will happen.

That’s not a realistic expectation. My Action Plan was TWENTY steps, and each of those Twenty Steps would have sub-steps and sub-sub-steps.

Changing the Mass music simply will not happen without a myriad of practical steps. That’s my point.

To simply long for or demand changes in music is fine. But the one who longs and demands must recognize that the changes will require a lot of very practical work by people who are very likely already stretched to the breaking point with a stack of work that never seems to get done.

And on top of all that, these people have so often faced biting criticism and condemnations of their work in liturgical music that they aren’t particularly eager to once again, implement changes that will probably garner yet more criticisms and condemnations. Go back over this thread and read how many times someone accuses the liturgical musicians (director, conductor, pianist, cantor, etc.) of being “divas.” This HURTS, and no one wants to do something that will result in still more hurtful things being said about them.

Not to mention the fact that if the Music/Liturgy Director fails and incurs too much wrath, he/she may find themselves out of a job. This is pretty scary in this day and age. Read this thread and see how many times someone has suggested firing a Music/Liturgy Director because they aren’t doing things well. That’s so easy for someone to say when they are sitting at home with a good job (or living with parents with good jobs). But tell an actual Music/Liturgy Director who is supporting a family and children, “You deserve to be fired because you aren’t using Gregorian chant.” That’s just cruel, IMO. But that’s the kind of pressure that these church musicians face. No matter what they do, they’re going to make someone angry, and if that person has enough clout in the church, they can get that musician fired. Scary.

You can see why I keep harping on the idea that those who want change in the Mass need to strive to learn to submit and to be patient and charitable. It’s not as easy as just throwing out the OCPs and hauling in the replacements. And it’s not as easy as just “educating people.”

 

[superamazingman]

Yes, I understand that chant and polyphony is not all “ancient.” The styles were first conceived many centuries ago, but there are still composers writing in these ancient styles.

So perhaps a better term is “ancient-style music.” Or perhaps it would be best to just say “polyphony written in recent decades” or “chant written within the last five years” as compared with “polyphony written in the 16th Century,” etc. In other words, it might be best to be specific with musical styles and periods.

And yes, I asked specficially for an Action Plan for my parish, and gave the specs for my parish. However, I also stated that my parish is comparable to many parishes in the U.S. The common characteristics are 1) one (poorly) paid staff person in charge of music and liturgy 2) a very small number, usually only 2 or 3 (or less), of volunteer musicians who are capable of conducting and teaching music 3) a very small number, usually 2 or 3, of volunteer accompanists, usually pianists or guitarists, who are willing to play for Mass 4) a decent choir, but small with spotty attendance at weekly rehearsals (which makes it difficult to learn more difficults pieces), and 5) a small number (less than 12) of cantors (volunteers) who are capable of fairly good singing.

So an Action Plan for my parish would also work for many other parishes.

And the whole point of this is not create a real Action Plan for my parish. The point is to demonstrate the amount of real-time work that is necessary to achieve change in Mass music. So often on these forums, Catholics who want change (in either direction) seem to think that all the priest has to do is just say, “Change, now,” and voila, it will happen.

You seem to imply that many of the problems stem from financial issues (accompanists, music directors, choir directors, cantors, etc…). Like I said before, what is needed is a real culture shift. Pastors need to start preaching meaty homilies. They need to start taking a step in the right direction liturgically and musically. They need to say those hard things that people don’t often want to hear. Guess what: the rest will follow. It’s been shown over and over again that if you create a great conservative, traditional parish environment, the donations will follow. The liberal, happy clappy feel-good catholic are the ones who don’t donate nearly as much. If you are going to play music and preach for the feel-good surface level croud, then obviously no, you’re might not have parishioners who are as generous.

(Numbers have been changed slightly to preserve anonymity, but the point still stands)
For example: in my diocese for our annual diocesan fund drive, each parish gets a goal based on various parish information and statistics. Not suprisingly, my parish, and the other conservative and very traditional parishes usually reached 2-3X their goal, while the other more liberal “mainstream” parishes (basically your average midsize american parishes) usually only reached 45 or 50% of their goal.

In fact, a given parish’s unity with the mind of the church and their “traditionalisim” in the Mass was directly correlated in nearly every case with the percentage of the goal met. At one of the parishes, it’s gotten to a point where the pastor barely mentions it now other than one week, and a few very brief announcements the weeks before, since the people are so generous and in-tune with everything. This church also has large collections, and pays it’s cantors, organists and choir directors well. They don’t hold back on making things look good in the sanctuary, incence is used every week, and 10 boys serve each Sunday.

On the other hand, you have the mainstream parish across town with the poorly paid md, volunteer pianist and guitarists, sweaky cantors, and a pastor who celebrates the Mass like many american priests: not in tune with the spirit of the liturgy. In addition, his homiles are soft and feel-good, like many american pastors. He has never, to my knowledge, spoken out on important controversial issues from the pulpit, and when the (traditionally minded) bishop asks that a recording be played once a while to address these issues, the pastor openly speaks against the bishop (and the teaching of the church) before the recording plays. And in the end, their collections are pithy, because the parishioners are not faithful.

Coincidence? I think not.