MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[YoungTradCath]

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.

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.”

Well, no. The point I am trying to make is that this argument isn’t about old or new. The point is quality, not year of publishing. Year is just some arbitrary number that doesn’t really matter as long as the quality is good.

And “ancient-style music” doesn’t really do it either because good polyphony written in the past 50 years, what little of it there is, sounds very different than good Baroque polyphony. We can’t call a polyphonic Mass setting by James MacMillan “ancient-style music,” because, well, it isn’t. You can tell without a doubt that it’s modern music. It’s the same musical style technically, I suppose, but it sounds very different (while of course still being in line with tradition) from the same style written 300 years ago. That’s why I posited the term sacred polyphony (as the Church uses, no less). There is absolutely zero functional difference between old sacred polyphony and new sacred polyphony.

When we make this an argument of 16th century music versus 17th and 20th, that is where I can’t go. There is nothing wrong with calling music “old” sacred polyphony (or some variant of that) and “newer” sacred polyphony (or some variant of that), but when we make the argument one of era, that is where it becomes just disingenuous. Who cares what era it comes from as long as it is high quality? I LOVE Baroque music, but **I do not care a bit **if Mr. Music Director picks a setting written in 1961, as long as it is good quality. And quality does not necessarily mean difficult.

I think we just have to divide the concepts up. Era non est difficulty non est quality. There is a value in categorizing a Mass setting as a 17th century one and another as a 20th century one, because that’s just fact, but when that ends up being the qualifier that people use to determine if it’s going to be used at Mass, that’s just asinine. And I’m not saying that you are doing that, but I just want to make it clear.

The question must not be, “What? It was written in 1699? We can’t use that because it’s old.” The question must be, “Is it high quality music worthy of the Mass?” The first example, IMO, shows a gargantuan lack of thought, and I don’t claim to be a music scholar or anything. I think it’s just worthless to ask, “When was it written?” because that really doesn’t matter. Now, I will say the same thing about the other side. When some say, “All 70s music is junk and we can’t sing it at Mass,” that’s just as asinine. There are, without a doubt, good polyphonic settings dating from the 1970’s (although I don’t personally know of any specifics, they’re probably hidden secrets that will be discovered 200 years from now!). That proves my point from the most oft-hated part of the sacred polyphony time spectrum. No one really thinks all 1970’s music is bad. When they say that, what they mean to say is the groovy luv-type music and the “sing about myself” music and the “nu church” music is what they hate, because those are ideologically-driven types of music rather than quality-driven. So it really is pointless to talk about era as if it is the be all end all of judging musical appropriateness for the Mass, and I say that from both sides.

Of course we must do this with charity.

We cannot become reactionary, but we also cannot remain content.

 

[opus101]

The question must not be, “What? It was written in 1699? We can’t use that because it’s old.” The question must be, “Is it high quality music worthy of the Mass?”

Now THIS is on topic. The latter question pertains to whether or not something can be considered to be “sacred” music.

I

 

[superamazingman]

That proves my point from the most oft-hated part of the sacred polyphony time spectrum. No one really thinks all 1970’s music is bad. When they say that, what they mean to say is the groovy luv-type music and the “sing about myself” music and the “nu church” music is what they hate, because those are ideologically-driven types of music rather than quality-driven.

I hear ya. My pastor was recently bemoaning the deep penetration of all this self centered music…It needs to end now.

“Here I am, Lord, aren’t you lucky Lord.”
“We are called, we are chosen, we don’t know what the Mass is about”

 

[opus101]

I hear ya. My pastor was recently bemoaning the deep penetration of all this self centered music…It needs to end now.

“Here I am, Lord, aren’t you lucky Lord.”
“We are called, we are chosen, we don’t know what the Mass is about”

Good examples of “religious” music…albeit, silly religious music. IMO, certainly not “sacred” music.

 

[superamazingman]

Good examples of “religious” music…albeit, silly religious music. IMO, certainly not “sacred” music.

Thanks…

 

[countertenor]

I hear ya. My pastor was recently bemoaning the deep penetration of all this self centered music…It needs to end now.

“Here I am, Lord, aren’t you lucky Lord.”
“We are called, we are chosen, we don’t know what the Mass is about”

 

[Cat]

opus101:

I respectfully disagree. Cat seems to be going off on very long rants.

What I’m trying to do is take Bishop Olmsted’s proposals into the realm of the practical.

I’m sorry if I have failed to do this. I tried.

 

[Cat]

I hear ya. My pastor was recently bemoaning the deep penetration of all this self centered music…It needs to end now.

“Here I am, Lord, aren’t you lucky Lord.”
“We are called, we are chosen, we don’t know what the Mass is about”

These are not the correct words to the hymns.

 

[superamazingman]

These are not the correct words to the hymns.

It’s the impression they give when sung, both to me and many high ranking clergy in the US. It’s a joke.

 

[Cat]

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.

I certainly agree with you that Catholic pastors need to preach good homilies, based solidly in Catholic teachings.

But I don’t quite agree with you that these good homilies and a conservative priest make a difference when it comes to music. .

My parish IS conservative and orthodox, and we have wonderful priests who preach pithy and hard-hitting homilies. Just a few weeks ago, we listened to homilies condemning contraception, and our priests organized a petition-signing in the church narthex after every Mass.

My priests are right in the front lines in the battle against abortion.

We are also a very generous parish, always exceeding our diocescan pledge, and generally giving over the top when it comes to local missions, charities, campaigns, etc. Money is not our problem.

Many of the parishes in our city are the same. One of the parishes raised $80,000 in two weeks when they learned that church roof was in danger of collapsing.

The liturgies in our parish are correct and abuse-free. But…we sing hymns, which you have repeatedly stated is against the teachings of the Church. Contrary to what you say, our Mass music IS liturgically correct. But we do not do chant, polyphony, or any of the more ancient forms of music. We do traditional and contemporary hymns, and one of the modern Mass settings (Our Lady). These are perfectly correct according to the current rubrics of the Church.

I think that YoungtTraditionalCatholic has proposed a very realistic and appealing model that is in keeping with what Bishop Olmsted is proposing in his articles. But our parish is no where near that model.

So what I tried to do in my “rant” was propose an Action Plan that would get us to that place. I never said that my Action Plan was the Best Plan or the Only Plan. It’s just one plan.

Do you have a good plan that would make Bishop Olmsted’s proposals a reality?

I appreciate his article, and I’m looking to reading the fourth article in the series, in which he has promised to describe practical plans to implement his proposals.

Just call me a practical person, a workhorse! I don’t buy ideas–I want plans to make those ideas reality.

 

[superamazingman]

The liturgies in our parish are correct and abuse-free. But…we sing hymns, which you have repeatedly stated is against the teachings of the Church. Contrary to what you say, our Mass music IS liturgically correct. But we do not do chant, polyphony, or any of the more ancient forms of music. We do traditional and contemporary hymns, and one of the modern Mass settings (Our Lady). These are perfectly correct according to the current rubrics of the Church.

Really… what ever happened to “the main place should be given, all things being equal, to gregorian chant, as being proper to the roman Liturgy.”

Since you rarely sing chant, is it really true to say that your parish follows all the current rubrics “perfectly” ??

 

[Cat]

Really… what ever happened to “the main place should be given, all things being equal, to gregorian chant, as being proper to the roman Liturgy.”

Since you rarely sing chant, is it really true to say that your parish follows all the current rubrics “perfectly” ??

I did not say that my parish follows all the rubrics perfectly.

I said that “These are perfectly correct according to the rubrics.”

There is a difference between these two statements.

I absolutely agree that the parish should include Gregorian chant in the liturgy per the rubrics.

I find YoungTraditionalCatholic’s proposal very appealing and quite realistic. I think it would probably be do-able in our parish.

But it is not my say-so that will make it happen. I am only a layperson, and a woman, and a convert.

THAT is why I keep harping and ranting, if you want to call it that, on the practicality of the proposal, on the actual mechanics for making it happen. I want to know HOW the Bishop’s proposals will actually happen in the parishes.

What good does all of this discussion about Bishop Olmsted’s articles do if nothing comes of it other than dissatisfaction and discontent with our OF Masses? It only leads to a sadness in our souls and a inner nagging distrust of our priests and parish staff. This isn’t good.

Even Bishop Olmsted apparently believes in being practical, as he has promised to talk about the practicality of his proposals in his 4th installment. So I don’t think I’m being OT at all. There’s “pure” theology, and there’s “applied” theology. I’m an “applied” person! I want to know the proper procedure for a layperson to follow to make it happen, not just read about why it should happen and why it isn’t happening and whose fault it is.

I’m the kind of person who, while everyone else is wondering why the baby is crying, I get up and go check.

 

[superamazingman]

There’s “pure” theology, and there’s “applied” theology. I’m an “applied” person! I want to know the proper procedure for a layperson to follow to make it happen, not just read about why it should happen and why it isn’t happening and whose fault it is.

And I’m definitively more on the pure end of things…I guess there’s the real difference here, besides our thing about the liceity of hymns…

 

[pnewton]

These are not the correct words to the hymns.

You noticed that too, I see. It is easy to belittle something if you take a free hand with the words. Stuff like that is why I don’t put much stock in some of the extreme traditionalist opinions here.

 

[pnewton]

Really… what ever happened to “the main place should be given, all things being equal, to gregorian chant, as being proper to the roman Liturgy.”

Since you rarely sing chant, is it really true to say that your parish follows all the current rubrics “perfectly” ??

Do you think all things are equal in parishes?

 

[YoungTradCath]

You noticed that too, I see. It is easy to belittle something if you take a free hand with the words. Stuff like that is why I don’t put much stock in some of the extreme traditionalist opinions here.

I don’t think any of the musical restoration opinions in this thread are traditionalist in the slightest. They just exemplify orthopraxis. Otherwise I agree with you.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think any of the musical restoration opinions in this thread are traditionalist in the slightest. They just exemplify orthopraxis. Otherwise I agree with you.

Do you think these opinions are reflective of the majority of Catholic opinions on what is orthopraxy and thus the norms in most parishes?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Do you think these opinions are reflective of the majority of Catholic opinions on what is orthopraxy and thus the norms in most parishes?

Does it matter?

 

[superamazingman]

Do you think all things are equal in parishes?

You’re missing the point. Chant is the music of the church, and the music of the liturgy. Even if all things aren’t equal, and chant doesn’t have the pride of place, that doesn’t mean we should throw it out completely. And anyways, if a parish is in such dire straights that things are so “unequal” (for lack of better words) that chant can not be used at all, do ya think that it might be a good idea to start trying to CHANGE things, you crazy priests who don’t care about the mind of the church. If they cared, they’d see what our holy father is doing, and model it. They’d celebrate reverent Masses.

Ugh.

By the way, I stand behind “my” edits of those songs posted earlier. They are not mine, rather, they are the phrases used repeatedly by a bishop (who I admire, and who is very much of the mind of the holy father) when discussing the need to cut out the “me centered” liturgical music. It was coined by a bishop, a faithful bishop, and I proudly repeat them. You getting mad at them only makes public your own skewed liturgical perspective.

 

[Cat]

And I’m definitively more on the pure end of things…I guess there’s the real difference here, besides our thing about the liceity of hymns…

I appreciate your posting this.

I would like to be able to get along with all Christians, not just the ones who are “like me.” I think your post is a good sign that even though there are differences between us, we can still get along and learn from each other and thus grow closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.