Music in the new translation of the Mass

[liturgyluver]

Just as certainly, attendance at the high point of the week for every Catholic - the one hour out of the 168 hour week - the Sunday Mass - has plummeted during the 40+year post Vatican II Pop/Folk masses (during which chant has been for all intents and purposes banned) from 75% of nominal Catholics to 25%. Of course one has nothing to do with the other. Of course.
The idea that the mass is not about them simply never occurs to the Pop/Folkies and they refuse to even consider it. The decline in the mass attendance doesn’t bother them in the least.

This is completely irrelevant. I love traditional masses and go out of my way to attend them, but at parishes where there is provision for both traditional and contemporary music, the numbers attending the former are always much smaller. If you take your argument to its conclusion the suggestion that the reintroduction of chant will somehow stem the decline in mass attendance is a ludicrous one.

In my humble opinion, the church would do far better to focus its resources on supporiting music in the liturgy properly whilst ensuiring that mass is conducted reverently, and that the music is appropriate for the liturgical year and feast being celebrated. There is no reason why simple said masses, latin masses with chant, traditional masses in the vernacular with hymns, and those with more contemporary music can’t co-exist - although I personally find the latter banal, there are plenty of others who don’t.

 

[30miller]

This is completely irrelevant…

The above are surely words to ponder : Loss of fully 1/2 of all mass-goers is “irrelevant” as concerns one of the most prominent components of the mass - i.e. the music. I think I’ll just QED that one and leave it at that.

 

[liturgyluver]

The above are surely words to ponder : Loss of fully 1/2 of all mass-goers is “irrelevant” as concerns one of the most prominent components of the mass - i.e. the music. I think I’ll just QED that one and leave it at that.

Yes - just keep repeating it over and over and I am sure you will feel better…eventually.

 

[FrancisB]

Before Vatican II you could use hymns at Mass just as we do today; why would the Church create a rupture with that continuous practice? One could imagine a gradated system along the lines of Musicam Sacram where if you are going to have incense and sing the Ordinary then you have to sing the Introit instead of an opening hymn, something like that. But “no opening hymns allowed” wasn’t the rule in November 1911, so who would ever think the Church is planning to make it the rule in November 2011?

This is simply not so. The use of vernacular hymns at the mass was strictly forbidden. The vernacular could only be used for the recessional since this was considered to happen after mass. Moreover, whatever the practice was in the United States, Musicam Sacram was not in force in November of 1911. Point 32 grants the bishops the right to allow hymns, but it states that this was “widely confirmed by indults” before, meaning it was not the normative practice, and even at the time was made an exceptional practice, not the norm.

“Mandatory chant” isn’t the rule in any other country or language (Italy included, perhaps especially). Why would Rome intend to create a different rule – one not even applied in Rome or at papal liturgies – for English-speaking countries?

You are right, but then one must wonder why the word “cantus” and not “carmen” is used in the Latin. These were not written by men who did not understand Latin. It isn’t a different rule; it is a rule that has yet to be enforced. And there has been an increased use of chant in papal masses; I’m sure that things like this will take time to correct.

The Church simply does not operate this way – slyly changing one word in a document, saying nothing about it, with the secret plan that this will in fact mandate a massive, costly, disruptive liturgical overhaul for everybody. When they want to announce huge changes that many people would hate, they will announce them and give the priests on the ground an opportunity to prepare for them in a pastorally sensible way.

The church has not slyly changed one word to make everything different. The pride of place of chant has been reaffirmed for centuries. The fact that people wilfully ignore this does not mean that the church has in any way tried to hide the truth. There is an increased use of chant in papal masses; again, this is a problem that takes time to correct, and one that we have been trying to correct as a church for centuries.

And to be sure, such a mandatory change – particularly sprung on people in such a way – would indeed be hugely unpopular. It would most likely fail and have to be retracted, making the bishops, and indeed the whole Church in English-speaking countries, look terrible. Even if it succeeded, it would require the outlay of a large amount of political capital which the bishops do not have and are certainly not prepared to expend on the pipe dream of chant everywhere, when most of them don’t even have it at their own cathedrals.

Because the church has never said or done anything unpopular before because it was in keeping with the church tradition? Perhaps you have forgotten Humanae Vitae. Furthermore, it would not cost much extra money. This music is public domain. It is available for free. The ordinary chants of the mass are already in the hymnals that you use; you just aren’t using those pages. Check it out; it’s there. Long term, it’s much cheaper to use public domain works, because there are no royalties to be paid and things don’t change.

What do you think is the chance that the bishops would plan such a change, but not bother informing any of the publishers – despite the fact that they are already working closely with them on the Mass revisions – instead letting them go ahead with printing a bunch of “revised” missals and missalettes that, according to the bishops’ secret plan, but unbeknownst to the publishers, are in fact full of now-useless hymns?

It’s not a secret that the ICEL required the printing of the ordinary of the mass and some other chant material (essentially the chant book Jubilate Deo from the '70s, but in English) in every hymnal or missal that includes the new translations. The other things have not been expunged yet, but then Pope Benedict XVI didn’t consult the publishers before saying that all hymns that contained the Ineffable Name of God were henceforth banned. They were still in hymnals and we were told not to use them.

Certainly, the feeling of the Bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship is that the word “chant” includes “an appropriate hymn or song.” And certainly not, has anyone involved in the promulgation or translation of the GIRM proposed otherwise.

Pray Tell is written by the Bishop’s Committee for Divine Worship? It certainly doesn’t seem like you did anything other than quote a blog that agrees with you. That’s not really helpful.

 

[FrancisB]

My bishop doesn’t do definitions. Thus an argument from silence is meaningless. The GIRM has not changed. Only the translation has.
Thte type of music used is a liturgical abuse? Are you saying that you classify a parish that does not do chant, at least predominantly as commiting a liturgical abuse? If so, report it, if that is what you think. But then you have to accept the determination of that report if it does not support your opinion.

I think calling the choice of music liturgical abuse to be way off base. It runs counter to the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity.

The fact that the bishops are more concerned with other matters does not mean that it is not a liturgical abuse, as far as I know. It was my understanding that the reason that we needed rubrics, the GIRM, and liturgical documents was to clarify what is and isn’t liturgical abuse, not because bureaucrats need to write things. I have reported much graver offences than musical problems to the bishop and had nothing done. That does not mean that lay people can give the sermon, or that a nun can act as a deacon in the mass, does it?

 

[FrancisB]

It’s not reaching at straws…the word just changed this year in the translation, which is why you haven’t heard it. I’ve heard it all over…and NOT just from a certain “crowd”. From the diocese…an orthodox diocese included.

Do not lump me in a “crowd”. I like chant and wished my pastor would go for more of it, but someone said it was “offensive” to not use it, and then now its a liturgical abuse—that is not accurate or fair.

You read what you want to read in things. No one said it was a liturgical abuse not to chant. I said it was liturgical abuse to use music other than the music that was proper to the liturgy, which includes but is not limited to chant. A mass entirely using sacred polyphony or stile antico homophony would be perfectly acceptable. They are both quite traditional, albeit polyphony is much more difficult to perform than simple chant.

The abuse is the use of secular music idioms in the church. Even if the words are “holy”, secular music always sounds like secular music. That is why it has been forbidden repeatedly and expressly since the Middle Ages. The fact that this was ignored for a thousand years from the troubadours through madrigals, opera, Broadway, jazz, folk, rock, and hip hop is really quite irrelevant.

It is strange that “chant” means “music” hasn’t been clarified anywhere yet, isn’t it? But then it’s easier to give the pope the translation he wants and then do what you want to do than put things in writing.

 

[liturgyluver]

This is simply not so. The use of vernacular hymns at the mass was strictly forbidden. The vernacular could only be used for the recessional since this was considered to happen after mass. Moreover, whatever the practice was in the United States, Musicam Sacram was not in force in November of 1911. Point 32 grants the bishops the right to allow hymns, but it states that this was “widely confirmed by indults” before, meaning it was not the normative practice, and even at the time was made an exceptional practice, not the norm.

The use of vernacular hymns was not permitted at Solemn High mass until Vatican II, but this was not the case for all masses, since there was a long tradition of singing hymns at low mass, prior to this. Mediator Dei in 1947 affirmed the practice of singing hymns:
“At masses that are not sung solemnly, hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators…”

In my own parish hymns began to be sung at low mass from 1936.**

 

[ProVobis]

The use of vernacular hymns was not permitted at Solemn High mass until Vatican II, but this was not the case for all masses, since there was a long tradition of singing hymns at low mass, prior to this. Mediator Dei in 1947 affirmed the practice of singing hymns:
“At masses that are not sung solemnly, hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators…”

In my own parish hymns began to be sung at low mass from 1936.**

Indeed. And this is how hymns like “Come Holy Ghost,” “Immaculate Mary,” “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name,” etc. became popular and considered Catholic and traditional.

 

[whipp711]

Don’t forget those oldies but goldies…

Show Me The Way
On Eagles Wings
Rain Down

As for musical instruments, I prefer the bass clarinet, but not at Mass. Okay, random thoughts inserted. Peace.

Carry on with the discussion.

 

[agapewolf]

I think I’ll stick with reading and learning from Jeffrey Tucker and his writings at musicasacra.com and in the Wanderer on the topic of chant.
You’ll have to take your “…the word just changed this year…” idea elsewhere. Unbelievable. Chant is chant! Get over it. “He Holds the Whole World in His Hands” is not chant. It’s a nice song. It’s just not chant.

We’re you not attending masses this past year? The translation of the girm that we are referring to here was implemented the first week of Advent. I never said "whole world " was chant and it is very sarcastic of you to suggest so-- or even imply that I would be promoting that song. For you to suggest that people that enjoy contemporary music at mass don’t care about mass attendance is absolute offensive and uncalled for. Stop it.

 

[MarkThompson]

No time for a point-by-point response today, but I’ll make two points:

This is simply not so. The use of vernacular hymns at the mass was strictly forbidden

Not at low Mass, where the only requirement was that you not sing the ordinary and propers.

Pray Tell is written by the Bishop’s Committee for Divine Worship? It certainly doesn’t seem like you did anything other than quote a blog that agrees with you. That’s not really helpful.

No, you have to actually read the entry!

 

[30miller]

We’re you not attending masses this past year? The translation of the girm that we are referring to here was implemented the first week of Advent.

DUH.
I never said "whole world " was chant and it is very sarcastic of you to suggest so-- or even imply that I would be promoting that song.
Here’s your quote: “…the word chant was used to be a generic term to cover music…”. I never suggested or implied that you “promoted” that particular song, which is simply an example of “music” which, under your definition, is thereby chant.
For you to suggest that people that enjoy contemporary music at mass don’t care about mass attendance is absolute offensive and uncalled for. Stop it.
Contemporary music and the eradication of the mass as a defining essential aspect of Catholicism were and are, shall we simply say, contemporaneous.

 

[30miller]

(1)We’re you not attending masses this past year? The translation of the girm that we are referring to here was implemented the first week of Advent. (2)I never said "whole world " was chant and it is very sarcastic of you to suggest so-- or even imply that I would be promoting that song. (3)For you to suggest that people that enjoy contemporary music at mass don’t care about mass attendance is absolute offensive and uncalled for. Stop it.

Response to your comments above (1): Duh. (2) Here’s your quote: “…the word chant was used to be a generic term to cover music…”. I never suggested or implied that you “promoted” that particular song, which is simply an example (to the rest of the cognitive world) of “music” which, under your definition, is thereby chant. I have the song on my ipod, so it most certainly was not cited in any negative way towards you. It’s just another spiritual pop/folk song that has no place at mass, that’s all. (3) Contemporary music and the eradication of the mass as a defining essential aspect of Catholicism were and continue to be, shall we simply say, contemporaneous. Acting like they are “disjoint” phenomena (in the mathematical sense, i.e. one has absolutely nothing in common with the other) is patently absurd. To discuss music at mass IS to discuss to loss of 67% (and counting) of mass attendees.

 

[agapewolf]

Response to your comments above (1): Duh. (2) Here’s your quote: “…the word chant was used to be a generic term to cover music…”. I never suggested or implied that you “promoted” that particular song, which is simply an example (to the rest of the cognitive world) of “music” which, under your definition, is thereby chant. I have the song on my ipod, so it most certainly was not cited in any negative way towards you. It’s just another spiritual pop/folk song that has no place at mass, that’s all. (3) Contemporary music and the eradication of the mass as a defining essential aspect of Catholicism were and continue to be, shall we simply say, contemporaneous. Acting like they are “disjoint” phenomena (in the mathematical sense, i.e. one has absolutely nothing in common with the other) is patently absurd. To discuss music at mass IS to discuss to loss of 67% (and counting) of mass attendees.

You are taking me too literally. I’m talking about a very specific reference of what the GIRM is speaking of when using chant as it does.

3---- Let’s get this straight. You said that people that like pop songs in the liturgy (which is using a term that doesn’t quite fit a lot of folks–especially me) don’t care about how mass attendance is down. This is flat out incorrect, accusatory and downright obnoxious to state such a thing. You were wrong to state that. Of ALL of my many musician friends that play at various masses not only with praise and worship, but with chant and polyphany REJOICED when the motu proprio came out for the EF. Rejoiced. ALL of them. Because we want people back-- and this could hopefully bring back schismatic groups, as well as SSPX, etc.

You have it backwards… perhaps if you dug a little deeper you would see the denigration of society’s understanding of their need for God and understanding of human dignity since contraception became so widely available. Affluence, and physical comforts led to people shutting off other dimensions of themselves. The sexual revolution and shutting down one’s own moral code and gut and guilt feelings led them to feel better about themselves if they could just make up their own god. Then you no longer attend mass because you don’t believe in the church teachings. I was going to stop going to mass in college…why? because I didn’t see the need for God in my life. Chant was done at my parish— which led to terrible boredom and spacing out growing up. What brought me back was a community of believers that showed me their Love for Christ, and I saw them passionately worshipping God in mass. The music helped me pray as well. Not to the exclusion of everything else (as I’ve said before, I like chant and polyphony now), but to say that it is the cause of the huge drop in attendance is quite an astronomical accusation.

Thank God for vatican 2, because without out, we could have lost even more.

The vile, vicious and sarcastic nature of so many threads lately are completely turning me off. I think I need to take a break.

 

[agapewolf]

Response to your comments above (1): Duh. (2) Here’s your quote: “…the word chant was used to be a generic term to cover music…”. I never suggested or implied that you “promoted” that particular song, which is simply an example (to the rest of the cognitive world) of “music” which, under your definition, is thereby chant. I have the song on my ipod, so it most certainly was not cited in any negative way towards you. It’s just another spiritual pop/folk song that has no place at mass, that’s all. (3) Contemporary music and the eradication of the mass as a defining essential aspect of Catholicism were and continue to be, shall we simply say, contemporaneous. Acting like they are “disjoint” phenomena (in the mathematical sense, i.e. one has absolutely nothing in common with the other) is patently absurd. To discuss music at mass IS to discuss to loss of 67% (and counting) of mass attendees.

You are taking me too literally. I’m talking about a very specific reference of what the GIRM is speaking of when using chant as it does.

3---- Let’s get this straight. You said that people that like pop songs in the liturgy (which is using a term that doesn’t quite fit a lot of folks–especially me) don’t care about how mass attendance is down. This is flat out incorrect, accusatory and downright obnoxious to state such a thing. You were wrong to state that. Of ALL of my many musician friends that play at various masses not only with praise and worship, but with chant and polyphany REJOICED when the motu proprio came out for the EF. Rejoiced. ALL of them. Because we want people back-- and this could hopefully bring back schismatic groups, as well as SSPX, etc.

You have it backwards… perhaps if you dug a little deeper you would see the denigration of society’s understanding of their need for God and understanding of human dignity since contraception became so widely available. Affluence, and physical comforts led to people shutting off other dimensions of themselves. The sexual revolution and shutting down one’s own moral code and gut and guilt feelings led them to feel better about themselves if they could just make up their own god. Then you no longer attend mass because you don’t believe in the church teachings. I was going to stop going to mass in college…why? because I didn’t see the need for God in my life. Chant was done at my parish— which led to terrible boredom and spacing out growing up. What brought me back was a community of believers that showed me their Love for Christ, and I saw them passionately worshipping God in mass. The music helped me pray as well. Not to the exclusion of everything else (as I’ve said before, I like chant and polyphony now), but to say that it is the cause of the huge drop in attendance is quite an astronomical accusation.

Thank God for vatican 2, because without out, we could have lost even more.

The vile, vicious and sarcastic nature of so many threads lately are completely turning me off. I think I need to take a break.

 

[agapewolf]

Response to your comments above (1): Duh. (2) Here’s your quote: “…the word chant was used to be a generic term to cover music…”. I never suggested or implied that you “promoted” that particular song, which is simply an example (to the rest of the cognitive world) of “music” which, under your definition, is thereby chant. I have the song on my ipod, so it most certainly was not cited in any negative way towards you. It’s just another spiritual pop/folk song that has no place at mass, that’s all. (3) Contemporary music and the eradication of the mass as a defining essential aspect of Catholicism were and continue to be, shall we simply say, contemporaneous. Acting like they are “disjoint” phenomena (in the mathematical sense, i.e. one has absolutely nothing in common with the other) is patently absurd. To discuss music at mass IS to discuss to loss of 67% (and counting) of mass attendees.

You are taking me too literally. I’m talking about a very specific reference of what the GIRM is speaking of when using chant as it does.

3---- Let’s get this straight. You said that people that like pop songs in the liturgy (which is using a term that doesn’t quite fit a lot of folks–especially me) don’t care about how mass attendance is down. This is flat out incorrect, accusatory and downright obnoxious to state such a thing. You were wrong to state that. Of ALL of my many musician friends that play at various masses not only with praise and worship, but with chant and polyphany REJOICED when the motu proprio came out for the EF. Rejoiced. ALL of them. Because we want people back-- and this could hopefully bring back schismatic groups, as well as SSPX, etc.

You have it backwards… perhaps if you dug a little deeper you would see the denigration of society’s understanding of their need for God and understanding of human dignity since contraception became so widely available. Affluence, and physical comforts led to people shutting off other dimensions of themselves. The sexual revolution and shutting down one’s own moral code and gut and guilt feelings led them to feel better about themselves if they could just make up their own god. Then you no longer attend mass because you don’t believe in the church teachings. I was going to stop going to mass in college…why? because I didn’t see the need for God in my life. Chant was done at my parish— which led to terrible boredom and spacing out growing up. What brought me back was a community of believers that showed me their Love for Christ, and I saw them passionately worshipping God in mass. The music helped me pray as well. Not to the exclusion of everything else (as I’ve said before, I like chant and polyphony now), but to say that it is the cause of the huge drop in attendance is quite an astronomical accusation.

Thank God for vatican 2, because without out, we could have lost even more.

The vile, vicious and sarcastic nature of so many threads lately are completely turning me off. I think I need to take a break.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that the bishops are more concerned with other matters does not mean that it is not a liturgical abuse, as far as I know.

Neither does your opinion that this new translation changes anything mean that it is an abuse. In any case, I am using the new translation of Mass of Creation and will still be generous with hymns an songs in the vernacular. Opinions of anyone outside my direct chain will not affect me, unless they have a convincing argument. I will have to leave this point as just a point of disagreement with us, as I think it is a weak argument. If the Church, comes up with some actual change, in substance, not translation, then I am sure my bishop will implement the change. Until then, Kum ba Ya.

 

[30miller]

…Thank God for vatican 2, because without out, we could have lost even more…

 

[agapewolf]

agapewolf;8756878:

Hmmm. Application of President Obama’s invention - “jobs created OR SAVED” - to the mass. Creative.

and again, the sarcasm and vicious and vile stuff said here is getting ridiculous. Stop it.

That wasn’t “creative”. That was using your own logic. However, mine was well thought out, and has a lot more credibility and truth to it than just a basic a=b=c.

I need a break.

 

[30miller]

Reading all the posts of many who vastly overrate what their musical contributions bring to the prayerful experience of the liturgy (which is what it is all about) reminds me of a beautiful Sunday mass I attended a few years ago in Cambridge, Mass. while visiting for a college graduation. There literally were more of my family in attendance than there were locals - it being an area where the self-proclaimed short-armed elites walked the pavements whose arms weren’t long enough to grasp the idea, let alone the reality, of “God”.
Anyway, there was no music whatsoever - it reminded me of the 6:15 daily masses I served for several years as a youth. It was beautiful. The priest was a prayerful man and the mass had a perfect flow to it as a continuum of its basic verbal elements - its prayers. Kind of like reaching “REM Sleep Level” when you go to bed to truly experience sleep - only with prayer. No abrupt musical interludes which all too often nowadays do exactly the opposite of their intended purpose (i.e. the enhancement of the mass). Better without, sad to say, but true.