Music at Mass, Again

[snhs]

I DO have the obligation to obey my priest and his appointed staff.

I may have time to respond to the rest tomorrow. Just to clarify though you have no obligation to obey appointed staff, in point of fact you have no obligation to obey the Priest, especially were he to lead you into error or go against the teachings of the Church. If anything where they are ignoring what the Church has said on such matters you have an obligation not to obey them.

 

[snhs]

snhs, I do wish that you would stop quoting Bishop Thomas Doran out of context.

…

At the various Masses that I have been at with Bishop Doran, Latin hymns were done–along with Haugen and other contemporary (40 years old) songs.

He is a good bishop, and one of the reasons he is good is that he practices charity towards all, and he knows when to push and when not to push.

Bishop Doran’s comments were on the topic of Sacred Music, specifically he referred to how we had lost much of the Catholic heritage of Sacred Music and how some of what had replaced it was “dreck”. If you wish I’ll look up the original quote and include it in full at the bottom of future posts, what he said on the subject certainly bears repeating.

Do you seriously think that the Bishop personally chooses the music for every Mass? Some, probably most of the time in fact, the Bishop is at the mercy of whichever choices the Cathedral Music Director/whichever Parish he is visiting has decided upon.

And he knows that there’s a problem, which is why he’s addressing it. Why the chairman of the DLC addressed specifically the problems which can exist between lay liturgists and Parish Priests etc.

Again, I may get round to the rest tomorrow.

 

[Cat]

Cat, have you ever read any of the documents? Reasonable interpretations are not something that belongs in file 13, especially, if they are in line with interpretations given by the Supreme Pontiff, whom we are supposed to obey.

Pope Benedict was very clear and very direct when he said that “one song is not as good as another” as far as the liturgy is concerned. Pope Paul VI said that not everything that crosses the threshold is fit for use in the liturgy. These are the interpretations of the documents by two Pontiffs. They are also in line with what Pope St. Piux X wrote and what Pope John Paul II wrote 100 years later.

Something else to consdier is the fact that is the right of the laity to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated according to the norms and directives of the Church. Music falls under such a category. If the music is not at all suitable, then, the faithful have the right to petition the priest, using the authoritaitve documents of the Holy See. The clergy and their appointed staff are not free from error. I have seen, heard and experienced some huge whoppers. I was overruled by the wife of the bishop’s executive assistant because she wanted to sing Angels We Have Heard on High in lieu of the Gloria for Midnight Mass one year. I was reduced to tears during the Mass becuase I knew that there would be a chilling effect, especially since it was being broadcast on the radio. Sure enough, the following year, a prest wanted to do the same thing at his Mass. Talk about setting a bad precedent. What was worse was that the bishop went along with it.

The reason I ask if you’ve even read the documents is that these are readily available for all to digest. It’s not rocket science. The problem is that perhaps there are those who are afraid or leery to read them because they will find themselves (and perhaps their leadership) proven wrong by what the Church says. The Supreme Pontiffs have provided authoritative interpretation of what the liturgical documents say.

Yes, I’ve read as much as I know about.

The sentence bolded above–what exactly does it mean?

Did the Pope specifically spell out “WHICH” song is not as good as other music? Did he name composers, specific styles, song titles?

Show me where.

NO. He did not spell anything out. This is left open, and wisely so.

How is it that you are able to read this sentence and say, "The Pope is talking about “Amazing Grace.” How do you KNOW this?!

It seems to me that you are using the words of the Holy Father to prove your own personal preferences. But he says nothing of the kind. He is not specific.

Other documents say that it is acceptable to use musical styles of the culture. Why don’t you ever quote from those documents?

It seems to me that using Church documents to prove your point of view about music is like Protestants who use the Bible to prove their point of view about various issues. You can prove ANYTHING! In fact, I can prove to you from the BIBLE that homosexuality is something that God created for His glory. It’s right there in the Scriptures.

The problem is, interpreting the Bible this way isn’t proper. Only those with authority to do so should deign to interpret the Bible, and I am beginning to believe the same is true of the various Church documents. If we don’t have authority from God (through his bishops and priests) then we have no business using these documents to “prove” anything.

If I am wrong, so be it. I KNOW that it is right and proper to submit to my priest and his appointed people. I do NOT know that it is “wrong” to play music by Haugen in the Mass. I have yet to see a document quoted that says, “Do not play music by Marty Haugen in the Mass.”

But I do have many sources, Scriptural and other, that say that it is right to obey the authorities. I will do that and I will trust that the Lord will honor my obedience.

And hopefully, the Lord will also honor your zeal to see the Mass “righted.”

There is a LOT of wiggle room in these documents, and they are very flexible, with good reason.

There are many churches where it would be impossible to chant the Mass. The priests know their flock and their parish. You and I do not. That is why these decisions are to be made by the PRIESTS, not us. We are to submit. We do NO WRONG to submit to a priest or to his appointed Liturgical Director. We do a wrong to oppose the priest in such a way that brings division into the Mass.

Yes, we are entitled to a correct Mass. But there are lots of “correct” options. E.g., yes, the Mass should be sung and “Propers” should be used. BUT–the option is THERE, in the written norms, to speak the Mass instead of singing it, and to use four hymns. It is perfectly correct, acceptable, and REVERENT for the priest to use the various options that are given. For us to complain about it and accuse the priest of not complying with the documents is just wrong–he is TOO complying, just not in the way that you peronally prefer.

 

[benedictgal]

Bishop Doran’s comments were on the topic of Sacred Music, specifically he referred to how we had lost much of the Catholic heritage of Sacred Music and how some of what had replaced it was “dreck”. If you wish I’ll look up the original quote and include it in full at the bottom of future posts, what he said on the subject certainly bears repeating.

Do you seriously think that the Bishop personally chooses the music for every Mass? Some, probably most of the time in fact, the Bishop is at the mercy of whichever choices the Cathedral Music Director/whichever Parish he is visiting has decided upon.

And he knows that there’s a problem, which is why he’s addressing it. Why the chairman of the DLC addressed specifically the problems which can exist between lay liturgists and Parish Priests etc.

Again, I may get round to the rest tomorrow.

I can tell you from personal experience, having planned liturgies at the diocesan level, that the bishop (at least mine) doesn’t play a direct role in choosing the music, nor the readings (for special Masses), for that matter. Often times, I’ve had to call mine to ask him if such and such is okay. The response is “whatever you think is best.” Often, I’ve had to go over it with the rector to make sure we were okay, but, a lot of the time, I had to carry the brunt of the load, even when it came to planning the music for the LOTH for the priests’ retreat. Even when we were planning the installation Mass, I went so far as to fax everything. He sent it back without any changes. Now, I wasn’t involved in the music, but, it was really bad. He went along with it. He pretty much agreed to everything.

Now, there will be some politicking from some of the chancery staff who think they know better (even the spouses get involved, unfortunately) and railroad music that is inappropriate. I know; I have the wounds to prove it. The bishop goes along with it.

But, you are correct, snhs. The bishop normally doesn’t have a hand in the planning.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I’ve read as much as I know about.

The sentence bolded above–what exactly does it mean?

Did the Pope specifically spell out “WHICH” song is not as good as other music? Did he name composers, specific styles, song titles?

Show me where.

NO. He did not spell anything out. This is left open, and wisely so.

How is it that you are able to read this sentence and say, "The Pope is talking about “Amaziing Grace.” How do you KNOW this?!

It seems to me that you are using the words of the Holy Father to prove your own personal preferences. But he says nothing of the kind. He is not specific.

Other documents say that it is acceptable to use musical styles of the culture. Why don’t you ever quote from those documents?

It seems to me that using Church documents to prove your point of view about music is like Protestants who use the Bible to prove their point of view about various issues. It’s not correct. Only those with authority to do so should deign to interpret the Church documents.

If I am wrong, so be it. I KNOW that it is right and proper to submit to my priest and his appointed people. I do NOT know that it is “wrong” to play music by Haugen in the Mass. I have yet to see a document quoted that says, “Do not play music by Marty Haugen in the Mass.”

But I do have many sources, Scriptural and other, that say that it is right to obey the authorities. I will do that and I will trust that the Lord will honor my obedience.

And hopefully, the Lord will also honor your zeal to see the Mass “righted.”

There is a LOT of wiggle room in these documents, and they are very flexible, with good reason.

There are many churches where it would be impossible to chant the Mass. The priests know their flock and their parish. You and I do not. That is why these decisions are to be made by the PRIESTS, not us. We are to submit. We do NO WRONG to submit to a priest or to his appointed Liturgical Director. We do a wrong to oppose the priest in such a way that brings division into the Mass.

Yes, we are entitled to a correct Mass. But there are lots of “correct” options. E.g., yes, the Mass should be sung and “Propers” should be used. BUT–the option is THERE, in the written norms, to speak the Mass instead of singing it, and to use four hymns. It is perfectly correct, acceptable, and REVERENT for the priest to use the various options that are given. For us to complain about it and accuse the priest of not complying with the documents is just wrong–he is TOO complying, just not in the way that you peronally prefer.

Cat, he was responding to what the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist said about the serious problems with the music at Youth Masses. Furthermore, if you read what he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, you will know exactly what he means. He has panned music that sounds like rock and pop, saying that such genres are not suitable for the Mass. You have read my posts long enough to have seen the quotes.

Furthermore, I worked in the Texas House of Representatives long enough to know that if someone is looking for a loophole in a legisaltive document, changes are, he will find it. The composers of the dreck spend more time looking for loopholes than actually reading what the documents say.

I take exception to your comments that chant is difficult. The man in charge of the children’s choir made that same remark to the rector of our cathedral. He wanted to have banjos and picking and grinning Joan Baez stuff. The rector said no. The kids did a better job with chant and with venerable songs like O Come, O Come Emmanual and Attende Domine than with dreck like Lord of Glory and Though the Mountains May Fall. In fact, the notes are much easier to sing. Why do you think the Church, in her documents, extols teaching boys’ choirs to sing chant? It’s easy.

Even in daily Mass, we chant the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation and the Great Amen. Chant is not at all difficult to pcik up.

 

[Cat]

I can tell you from personal experience, having planned liturgies at the diocesan level, that the bishop (at least mine) doesn’t play a direct role in choosing the music, nor the readings (for special Masses), for that matter. **Often times, I’ve had to call mine to ask him if such and such is okay. The response is “whatever you think is best.” ** Often, I’ve had to go over it with the rector to make sure we were okay, but, a lot of the time, I had to carry the brunt of the load, even when it came to planning the music for the LOTH for the priests’ retreat. Even when we were planning the installation Mass, I went so far as to fax everything. He sent it back without any changes. Now, I wasn’t involved in the music, but, it was really bad. He went along with it. He pretty much agreed to everything.

Now, there will be some politicking from some of the chancery staff who think they know better (even the spouses get involved, unfortunately) and railroad music that is inappropriate. I know; I have the wounds to prove it. The bishop goes along with it.

But, you are correct, snhs. The bishop normally doesn’t have a hand in the planning.

This is an example of what I am trying to get across. At the moment that you asked the bishop, you demonstrated submission to your authority. He in turn, through his instruction to do what you think is best, passed his authority to YOU. This authority was given to him by the Lord Jesus, and he in turn passed it to you for this task.

And that means that YOU were given the authority of the Lord Jesus for the task.

I believe that at that time, because of the authority of the bishop being passed to you, the Lord gave you the charism, the wisdom, the discernment, to choose the best music for the Mass (or other occasion).

And this of course means that all of the people, including the musicians, the cantors and choir, and of course, the congregation, were obligated to submit joyfully to you and to carry out your selections with a good will.

That is the attitude that I seek to have towards ALL of the liturgical directors and music directors that I work with. When I submit to them, I am submitting to the Lord Jesus Himself. If they choose music that is not my personal choice, that’s not important. The Mass is NOT about my personal choice. It is the choice of the Lord and He uses human agents to make these choices of music. Therefore, I can trust that they are the “right” choices for any given Mass. I do not question and doubt and challenge Him, and neither will I question, doubt, and challenge His appointed human agents.

If the rest of you wish to challenge them, OK. I will not join you in this.

 

[VociMike]

Yes, I’ve read as much as I know about.

The sentence bolded above–what exactly does it mean?

Did the Pope specifically spell out “WHICH” song is not as good as other music? Did he name composers, specific styles, song titles?

Show me where.

NO. He did not spell anything out. This is left open, and wisely so.

I’d like you to answer your own question. When the pope states as a clear fact that one song is not as good as another, how would you propose to evaluate songs? How would you do your best to choose better songs over worse songs? What standards would you apply, and why those standards and not others?

 

[pnewton]

I’d like you to answer your own question. When the pope states as a clear fact that one song is not as good as another, how would you propose to evaluate songs? How would you do your best to choose better songs over worse songs? What standards would you apply, and why those standards and not others?

That is a good response and an excellent counter-question. My answer is we use the traditional and time honored system that the Church has always used; the principle of locality. The Church authority closest to each source makes these decision based, not only on the music, but also based on resources available. For example, organ is preferred over piano, yet if one has no organist (or organ), it is a moot point. The Church issues document to provide guidelines, encouragement and even boundries. Then the local authority acts in the best interest of the Church, both locally and universally.

 

[VociMike]

That is a good response and an excellent counter-question. My answer is we use the traditional and time honored system that the Church has always used; the principle of locality. The Church authority closest to each source makes these decision based, not only on the music, but also based on resources available. For example, organ is preferred over piano, yet if one has no organist (or organ), it is a moot point. The Church issues document to provide guidelines, encouragement and even boundries. Then the local authority acts in the best interest of the Church, both locally and universally.

I don’t think this answers the question. The fact that the pope declared is that one song is not as good as another. This says nothing about resources or available instruments or performances. It speaks of songs, compositions.

So again, what standards is one to use to determine which songs are better and which songs are worse? And why those standards and not others?

 

[GemmaRose]

Second Thessalonians which refers to Paul exhorting the readers of that community to hold fast to his teachings regarding the end times, as opposed to the false teaching that was spreading among them that Jesus was returning imminently, causing them to quit their jobs and sit back and wait for Him has what to do with liturgical music? I thought it was only the sola scriptura folks who take a verse out of context and use it to fit their agenda.

Jesus did indeed found His Church on the rock of Peter, yet there stands no Papal document restricting one form of liturgical music. There have only been documents citing papal opinions and preference, which are thus subjective, and elevation of one genre as the most appropriate, while not restricting other genres. In any event, no one here has even hinted at nor suggested to totally disregard any documents.

God dictated to Moses how He wanted to be worshipped. All of our Masses must be defective then, since we don’t slaughter any bulls, cows, calves, sheep, lambs, goats, kids, turtledove or pigeons, splash their blood on our altars, or thereafter burn them there.

 

[VociMike]

There have only been documents citing papal opinions and preference, which are thus subjective, and elevation of one genre as the most appropriate, while not restricting other genres.

That’s right, papal documents are simply opinions and preference. It says so right in the Catechism. And that’s why we’re going to have any darned music we want, and the rest of you can all take a long walk off a short pier. Case closed - next!

 

[benedictgal]

Second Thessalonians which refers to Paul exhorting the readers of that community to hold fast to his teachings regarding the end times, as opposed to the false teaching that was spreading among them that Jesus was returning imminently, causing them to quit their jobs and sit back and wait for Him has what to do with liturgical music? I thought it was only the sola scriptura folks who take a verse out of context and use it to fit their agenda.

Jesus did indeed found His Church on the rock of Peter, yet there stands no Papal document restricting one form of liturgical music. There have only been documents citing papal opinions and preference, which are thus subjective, and elevation of one genre as the most appropriate, while not restricting other genres. In any event, no one here has even hinted at nor suggested to totally disregard any documents.

God dictated to Moses how He wanted to be worshipped. All of our Masses must be defective then, since we don’t slaughter any bulls, cows, calves, sheep, lambs, goats, kids, turtledove or pigeons, splash their blood on our altars, or thereafter burn them there.

Actually, Tradition takes a whole lot of items under its huge umbrella. The faithful of Thessalonica didn’t get the Holy Sacrifice through osmosis. St. Paul introduced the Church’s form of worship to them. Such worship, no doubt, also included music. Surely instructions were given to the faithful to carry on with the liturgy even after St. Paul’s departure. The Holy Sacrifice is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition.

The fact that the Holy Father noted (even when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) that there are serious deficiencies in music is important enough to not be dismissed as mere personal opinion. He has stated quite clearly that one song is not as good as
another as far as the liturgy is concerned. Remember, the same hand that penned Sacramentum Caritatis also wrote “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and “A New Song for the Lord.”

Pope St. Pius X had to contend with theatrical and operatic stuff that had no business in the Mass. Pope Paul VI already suspected that the music flowing out as a result of the Second Vatican Council wasn’t a joyful noise at all. If not, why would he have said that not all is fit to cross the threshold as far as liturgical music was concerned? Pope John Paul II, the father of WYD, echoed those sentiments when he wrote his Chirograph on Sacred Music. Pope John Paul II was not all hearts, flowers and love. He had some pretty strong things to say about the decline in the quality of music and in liturgical abuses.

Finally, I respectfully submit that you have missed the entire point of the liturgical norms dictated by God throughout significant parts of the Pentatuch. The Lord dictated just how He was to be worshipped going down to the smallest detail. The animal sacrifices and holocausts prefigure the perfect sacrifice of Our Lord, the new covenant, if you will.

If you notice, much of what the Church, the New Israel, does in her sacrificial worship of the Triune God, mirrors what ancient Israel did. We have a priest who wears vestments who offers a sacrificial victim on the altar (albeit in an unbloody manner, but He is offered, just the same). There are prayers and the sacrifice is consumed by both priest and faithful. Incense is used, as are sacred vessels made of the finest material. Hymns are sung. The Gospel accounts indicate that after the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles sang a hymn on their way to Gethsemane. They were chanting the psalms.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think this answers the question. The fact that the pope declared is that one song is not as good as another. This says nothing about resources or available instruments or performances. It speaks of songs, compositions.

Well, I answered the best I could. Perhaps that is the answer. I did the best I could. You think it was not good enough. Oh well. Instruments are mentioned, BTW, when one takes the body of writings in totality, specifically the pipe organ.

Now as far as songs, I still can tell between songs of a single composer, which ones were truly inspired and which ones are rather forced as though manufacture rather than composed. Again, we all do the best we can. It is not like the Vatican has produced a list of song titles in prefered order. And even though none of the documents mentions resources, they are always an issue. Anyone who has dealt with reality for any length of time in any field can tell you that. You can not use what you do not have.

 

[GemmaRose]

The fact that you’re focused on songs shows that you still don’t really get it. The 4-hymn Mass is the lowest, least ideal form of sung Mass, since it is only singing AT Mass rather than the ideal of singing THE Mass. A Mass sung with the four best hymns in all Christendom is still less ideal than singing the actual texts of the Mass.

I wasn’t talking about singing THE Mass, and I didn’t mean to. I was talking about sung songs/hymns AT Mass.

When it comes to singing THE Mass, I think for the most part (in my experience) we are already doing that. As to which setting is sung, it seems that every few years, a new “favorite” setting comes around and you hear it everywhere. Then a “better” one comes along, and the old is forgotten.

As they say, “this, too, shall pass.”

 

[Cat]

Cat, he was responding to what the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist said about the serious problems with the music at Youth Masses. Furthermore, if you read what he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, you will know exactly what he means. He has panned music that sounds like rock and pop, saying that such genres are not suitable for the Mass. You have read my posts long enough to have seen the quotes.

Furthermore, I worked in the Texas House of Representatives long enough to know that if someone is looking for a loophole in a legisaltive document, changes are, he will find it. The composers of the dreck spend more time looking for loopholes than actually reading what the documents say.

I take exception to your comments that chant is difficult. The man in charge of the children’s choir made that same remark to the rector of our cathedral. He wanted to have banjos and picking and grinning Joan Baez stuff. The rector said no. The kids did a better job with chant and with venerable songs like O Come, O Come Emmanual and Attende Domine than with dreck like Lord of Glory and Though the Mountains May Fall. In fact, the notes are much easier to sing. Why do you think the Church, in her documents, extols teaching boys’ choirs to sing chant? It’s easy.

Even in daily Mass, we chant the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation and the Great Amen. Chant is not at all difficult to pcik up.

I did NOT say that chant was difficult!

Please read what I actually said.

 

[benedictgal]

This is an example of what I am trying to get across. At the moment that you asked the bishop, you demonstrated submission to your authority. He in turn, through his instruction to do what you think is best, passed his authority to YOU. This authority was given to him by the Lord Jesus, and he in turn passed it to you for this task.

And that means that YOU were given the authority of the Lord Jesus for the task.

I believe that at that time, because of the authority of the bishop being passed to you, the Lord gave you the charism, the wisdom, the discernment, to choose the best music for the Mass (or other occasion).

And this of course means that all of the people, including the musicians, the cantors and choir, and of course, the congregation, were obligated to submit joyfully to you and to carry out your selections with a good will.

That is the attitude that I seek to have towards ALL of the liturgical directors and music directors that I work with. When I submit to them, I am submitting to the Lord Jesus Himself. If they choose music that is not my personal choice, that’s not important. The Mass is NOT about my personal choice. It is the choice of the Lord and He uses human agents to make these choices of music. Therefore, I can trust that they are the “right” choices for any given Mass. I do not question and doubt and challenge Him, and neither will I question, doubt, and challenge His appointed human agents.

If the rest of you wish to challenge them, OK. I will not join you in this.

Thank you for the kind words.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work as easy as that. Have you ever seen sausage made? It’s not a pretty sight at all. A lot of stuff goes into the mix (aside from the beef/pork product).

Sadly, planning liturgies is like that. Never have I had the feeling that I have the full authority of the bishop to do anything. In fact, it would be wrong for me to assume as much. The only thing I’ve had going for me is the simple idea of maintaining fidelity to the documents issued by the Holy See concerning the liturgy.

Selecting music is very difficult. For many years, we’ve been chained to the SLJ and the other OCP dreck. Until the first rector took charge of the cathedral, nobody knew much about Latin and about the ancient hymns of the Church. It was all picking and grinning. In fact, one of the first things he did was to get rid of the English OCP music. We made a deal with a parish in another city to buy their old Worship III hymnals at a buck apiece. I went and picked up all 300 and put them in the trunk of my little Honda. The car was certainly weighed down, but, we did well.

There were (and are) some who have rebelled against using sound Sacred Music. It is still a battle. One parish is pretty much a slave to OCP. Neither the pastor nor the music director will deviate from what the infernal OCP liturgy planner dicates. OCP is not the Holy See, but, through its marketing campaign, it markets itself to be something that it is not. It is not the end all and be all of music. It shouldn’t be.

When pastors and music directors abdicate their ability to make sound liturgical choices to a publishing house with very questionable musical selections, then, there are serious problems. That is when one should challenge the way decisions are made.

 

[Cat]

That is a good response and an excellent counter-question. My answer is we use the traditional and time honored system that the Church has always used; the principle of locality. The Church authority closest to each source makes these decision based, not only on the music, but also based on resources available. For example, organ is preferred over piano, yet if one has no organist (or organ), it is a moot point. The Church issues document to provide guidelines, encouragement and even boundries. Then the local authority acts in the best interest of the Church, both locally and universally.

Excellent.

I can’t say it better.

To be honest, I would not consider myself knowledgeable enough about music to be able to choose one song as “better” than another. I like many different kinds of music, and I personally think that Ave Maria (Schubert and Gonoud), Be Thou My Vision, How Great Thou Art, Amazing Grace, Will the Circle Be Unbroken, Sweet Sweet Song of Salvation, How Beautiful, and Jesus Love Me This I Know are all equally “good.”

So I would humbly bow out of any evaluating committee!

 

[VociMike]

Excellent.

I can’t say it better.

To be honest, I would not consider myself knowledgeable enough about music to be able to choose one song as “better” than another. I like many different kinds of music, and I personally think that Ave Maria (Schubert and Gonoud), Be Thou My Vision, How Great Thou Art, Amazing Grace, Will the Circle Be Unbroken, Sweet Sweet Song of Salvation, How Beautiful, and Jesus Love Me This I Know are all equally “good.”

So I would humbly bow out of any evaluating committee!

OK, fair enough. But suppose a person was “knowledgeable enough”. What standards would you expect that person to use, and why?

To put it another way, are you aware of any standards by which such a choice of one song over another can be made?

 

[benedictgal]

OK, fair enough. But suppose a person was “knowledgeable enough”. What standards would you expect that person to use, and why?

To put it another way, are you aware of any standards by which such a choice of one song over another can be made?

I think the one who has come closest to offering some semblance to a guideline is Pope John Paul II. Look at what he wrote in the Chirograph (I realize that this is a long quote, but, I think these paragraphs are a great starting point):

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. ***And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. ***Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

Yet this quality alone does not suffice. Indeed, liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite. The various moments in the Liturgy require a musical expression of their own. From time to time this must fittingly bring out the nature proper to a specific rite, now proclaiming God’s marvels, now expressing praise, supplication or even sorrow for the experience of human suffering which, however, faith opens to the prospect of Christian hope.

1. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform - it is right to stress this point - must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.
   In this regard St Pius X pointed out - using the term universal - a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[16].*** In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.***
2. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

Like St Pius X, the Second Vatican Council also recognized that “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations”[20]. It is therefore necessary to pay special attention to the new musical expressions to ascertain whether they too can express the inexhaustible riches of the Mystery proposed in the Liturgy and thereby encourage the active participation of the faithful in celebrations[21].

This is consistent with what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his books on the liturgy where he devoted a lot of copy to what sacred music should and should not sound like.

 

[JButky]

If a person has tears in his or her eyes after “Be Not Afraid” (as an example) has been sung, that person’s heart has been moved to remember the Lord’s promise to always be with us. Such remembrance leads to gratitude. Such gratitude leads to love, worship and praise. And thus “Be Not Afraid” has fulfilled its function as good liturgical music.

If I may interject some comments based upon this logic.

Music is not the cause of goodness. It neither exists as a causation nor a direction. It is a reflection, itself being an integral part of Liturgy by its very nature. Its very nature is of course recognized by the Church as the highest artform because it was divinely created to SERVE the Liturgy. It does not seek to serve the congregation. It has the capacity to move Man’s heart although that is not its primary purpose. That is merely a secondary result. It is within this very status that the danger of Music in Liturgy also exists to be misunderstood and twisted from its created purpose.

Music, like all of creation, suffers in imperfection as a result of the Fall of Man imparted upon all creation. It too is also reflected in the wound known as original sin and can be twisted from its purpose. The closest we can experience perfection on this planet is made manifest during the liturgy. Music has the unique ability to reflect that in it’s purest form and it also has the ability to be sullied since Man’s wounded nature holds dominion over its usage on Earth.

One must simply look historically to the Church fathers speaking of music at various points and it becomes clear that the Church has always guarded against the times when music has fallen prey to a fallen state. These were all responses to the secular forces of the time. To read Augustine, Aquinas, Popes Gregory or Pius X, is to see that they often speak of very different things for music at face value. The commonality with the Church pronouncements on guiding Music ALWAYS concern themselves with a response to the secular conditions at the time.

The Church ultimately recognizes the power of Music, its extreme importance as an integral part of liturgy, and, as a result, She MUST speak out against secular forces which have preyed upon our weakened human nature to force music to be subservient to our needs. When Holy Mother Church does speak out, it is always to maintain the integrity of the purpose for which music was created. (Once again, that purpose is the closest look by reflection of the perfection we do not see now. We are however destined to see it through our free will acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice for our salvation). The primary purpose of Music has not changed. The form as a result of it’s secondary effects does manifest itself differently through the ages however. Make no mistake when you read the Doctors of the Church. They may seem to disagree at face value in their responses through the ages, but that is not true. They are completely consistent with the primary purpose and the opposing treatments they espouse at any given moment in time is a response to the distortion of the Man’s manipulation of Music’s resultant effects. That is a HUGE difference!

These discussions for me always end up as puerile as this one because we simply forget or have never realized the purpose of Music’s creation, it’s unique bond to perfection, and its ability to be corrupted by Man’s weakened Nature distorting it’s purpose.

To therefore state that Music is justified because it can move someone to a desired response is a grave danger. That logic is an end justifies the means response. It denies the very nature and purpose for which music was created (and what the Church teaches) and ignores what the Church has taught on the subject for generations.

Joe B