Music in the new translation of the Mass

[FrancisB]

Yes I did. Stupid spell checker errors…

Richard Proulx (and his whole family) actually grew up in my parish. We invited him back to our parish for our 125th anniversary a couple years back, but he was in too poor a health at the time to be able to come.
In fact the Twin Cities (where I live) has an amazing connection to several liturgical composers. Marty Haugen grew up here, David Haas now lives here and is musical director at an area Catholic High School, and Fr Jan Michael Joncas teaches a couple classes at the University of St Thomas in town (even took one of his 300 level theology classes when I was at UST). In fact I’ve seen the three of them (Haugen, Haas, and Joncas) preform in concert on a couple occasions. Awesome experiences!

I’m not sure this qualifies as an “amazing connection” in mine eyes. Proulx was a true musical genius who understood English prosody and the lilt of ancient chant melodies. Haugen, Haas, and Joncas are washed-up folk rockers that couldn’t cut it but wanted so much to be like Bob Dylan (also from the area, as I recall). I think we’d all be much better off musically speaking if Haugen, Haas, and Joncas all stopped writing. We need more men like Proulx and (Lucian) Deiss writing the liturgical music.

There is, coincidently, a brilliant chant setting that was put together by ICEL, all the melodies taken from the Gregorian tradition (specifically the mass setting included in Jubilate Deo, which accompanied the release of Voluntati Obsequens), and it is included in every hymnal and missal that has the new translation. It includes every piece of the mass ordinary that is sung, not just the big parts. It would be a lovely time to go back to the chant as we have repeatedly been asked to do.

 

[FrancisB]

why can’t parishes choose how they want to sing or play the music?

They can, within certain confines. The reason that they cannot just pick anything is because we are Catholic and there is supposed to be uniformity in the universal church. The text must be the same because it is part of the Roman Rite, and the Roman Rite is not subject to local whim. The musical setting is supposed to be worthy of the text, which is our patrimony. That, of course, is subjective, which is why the church has provided guidelines to help people make informed decisions.

 

[ProVobis]

There is, coincidently, a brilliant chant setting that was put together by ICEL, all the melodies taken from the Gregorian tradition (specifically the mass setting included in Jubilate Deo, which accompanied the release of Voluntati Obsequens), and it is included in every hymnal and missal that has the new translation. It includes every piece of the mass ordinary that is sung, not just the big parts. It would be a lovely time to go back to the chant as we have repeatedly been asked to do.

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

Seems like the whole idea behind Jubilate Deo was to “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past." (I take this to read unity between Anglophones and Polophones, etc.)

How can this be done in English?

 

[FrancisB]

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

Seems like the whole idea behind Jubilate Deo was to “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past." (I take this to read unity between Anglophones and Polophones, etc.)

How can this be done in English?

How can the use of English be a hindrance to that end? I’m all for using liturgical Latin and Greek, Pro Vobis, but let’s not be pedantic here. The “living tradition” of the past was in the vernacular; that’s how we got Latin in the first place, remember? Not to mention, trying to thrust Latin back full force here would just cause more friction. Are you really going to tell me that we shouldn’t use Gregorian chant in English because it should only be sung in Latin and Greek? That doing so isn’t a significant improvement over the current settings? We have to avoid enshrining Latin and Gregorian chant and making them immutable fixtures of an unchanging liturgy, since that is not what they were intended to be. Look at how eastern chant continued to evolve and continues to evolve now with the languages into which it was and is translated. It doesn’t have any detriment to their unity because they are united in faith and tradition, even if these things have been translated.

 

[ProVobis]

How can the use of English be a hindrance to that end? I’m all for using liturgical Latin and Greek, Pro Vobis, but let’s not be pedantic here. The “living tradition” of the past was in the vernacular; that’s how we got Latin in the first place, remember? Not to mention, trying to thrust Latin back full force here would just cause more friction. Are you really going to tell me that we shouldn’t use Gregorian chant in English because it should only be sung in Latin and Greek? That doing so isn’t a significant improvement over the current settings? We have to avoid enshrining Latin and Gregorian chant and making them immutable fixtures of an unchanging liturgy, since that is not what they were intended to be. Look at how eastern chant continued to evolve and continues to evolve now with the languages into which it was and is translated. It doesn’t have any detriment to their unity because they are united in faith and tradition, even if these things have been translated.

I’ve answered similar questions elsewhere today and will not repeat my responses here. All’s I’m going to do is to suggest these books:

*Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages by Joseph D Solodow

amazon.com/Latin-Alive-Survival-English-Languages/dp/0521734185 (Kindle version available)

*A Natural History of Latin- The Story of the World’s Most Successful Language *by Tore Janson (translated into English)

amazon.com/Natural-History-Latin-Tore-Janson/dp/0199263094

• The author has gone to quite a lot of research into the way languages have been morphed, the way sounds are formed with the tongue and vocal chords, what constitutes singability inter alia. Definitely for someone who’s interested in linguistics.

And that’s all I’m going to say. I’m done with the thread.

 

[FrancisB]

I’ve answered similar questions elsewhere today and will not repeat my responses here. All’s I’m going to do is to suggest these books:

*Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages by Joseph D Solodow

amazon.com/Latin-Alive-Survival-English-Languages/dp/0521734185 (Kindle version available)

*A Natural History of Latin- The Story of the World’s Most Successful Language *by Tore Janson (translated into English)

amazon.com/Natural-History-Latin-Tore-Janson/dp/0199263094

• The author has gone to quite a lot of research into the way languages have been morphed, the way sounds are formed with the tongue and vocal chords, what constitutes singability inter alia. Definitely for someone who’s interested in linguistics.

And that’s all I’m going to say. I’m done with the thread.

“Singability?” Are you serious? As a trained singer with a master’s degree in music I find this entire concept ludicrous. If you expect it to be accepted as a legitimate theory, show me the peer reviewed music journals that contain this concept; I’ve never even heard someone suggest this before. No language is more musical than any other. The reason why there’s more music written in Latin than any other language is not because it is easier to sing in Latin; it is because the Catholic Church spent several fortunes over the course of many centuries to have music written in Latin.

There are some good reasons to retain the use of Latin: the precision that exists from not translating texts multiple times and the fact that it is our tradition for many centuries. The best musical reason would be that the musical stresses of the original cannot be replicated in translation in metered music. This largely does not apply to chant, though, since most of the chant repertoire is not metered music, and the sequences–the majority of the metered chant–were mostly suppressed at Trent.

I’m sorry to hear that you won’t be back to defend your claims, Pro Vobis, even if I find them rather extreme.

 

[pilots13]

I’m not sure this qualifies as an “amazing connection” in mine eyes. Proulx was a true musical genius who understood English prosody and the lilt of ancient chant melodies. Haugen, Haas, and Joncas are washed-up folk rockers that couldn’t cut it but wanted so much to be like Bob Dylan (also from the area, as I recall). I think we’d all be much better off musically speaking if Haugen, Haas, and Joncas all stopped writing. We need more men like Proulx and (Lucian) Deiss writing the liturgical music.

There is, coincidently, a brilliant chant setting that was put together by ICEL, all the melodies taken from the Gregorian tradition (specifically the mass setting included in Jubilate Deo, which accompanied the release of Voluntati Obsequens), and it is included in every hymnal and missal that has the new translation. It includes every piece of the mass ordinary that is sung, not just the big parts. It would be a lovely time to go back to the chant as we have repeatedly been asked to do.

I will never understand the notion that chant is the only musical style acceptable for Mass. The Mass can be said in any variety of languages, why can it not also have accompanying music that is as diverse. Music is meant to enhance the worship experience. For me, my worship experience is better when that washed up folk music is being played (and given how many parishes I hear it played at, I’m not the only one). I’m not going to say get rid of chant or choir or organ music sucks or should be done away with. I enjoy those forms of music as well, and I know there are people like you who prefer it over everything else. That’s why we have such a diverse range of parishes.

Haugen Haas and Joncas are all very good at what they do (regardless of your opinion of their style of music), and all very spiritual men. The concerts I’ve attended were all very powerful experiences of meditation and prayer (in addition to great music).

And yes, Bob Dylan is also from Minnesota (up north vs the Cities). Same with Prince. Maybe he could write some music for the Mass too!

 

[FrancisB]

I will never understand the notion that chant is the only musical style acceptable for Mass. The Mass can be said in any variety of languages, why can it not also have accompanying music that is as diverse. Music is meant to enhance the worship experience. For me, my worship experience is better when that washed up folk music is being played (and given how many parishes I hear it played at, I’m not the only one). I’m not going to say get rid of chant or choir or organ music sucks or should be done away with. I enjoy those forms of music as well, and I know there are people like you who prefer it over everything else. That’s why we have such a diverse range of parishes.

Haugen Haas and Joncas are all very good at what they do (regardless of your opinion of their style of music), and all very spiritual men. The concerts I’ve attended were all very powerful experiences of meditation and prayer (in addition to great music).

And yes, Bob Dylan is also from Minnesota (up north vs the Cities). Same with Prince. Maybe he could write some music for the Mass too!

I never said chant was the only musical style acceptable for mass. This is not, however, merely a matter of opinion. That is what constantly frustrates me. It is not my (very well educated) musical opinion that we should be chanting. It is the will of the church made manifest in numerous documents though-out the history of the church. The reason is that chant is the music that the early church used. It is still the music of the church all over the world. It was not developed as part of a particular cultural norm as folk rock was. It is liturgical and only liturgical. One does not find chant in active use outside the church, except in television, film, and more recently in video games where it is used to conjure up the church because producers know that chant is the music of the church.

The reason that I abhor their music is that it is poorly-written from a musical perspective, but more so because they constantly change the words of scripture and try to put words into Jesus’s mouth that he simply did not say. They may be very spiritual men; so is the Dalai Lama, but I’d not want him writing Catholic prayers.

 

[Ohana]

I have not seen these three “put words in Jesus mouth.” I have seen paraphrases. And in spite of objections I see here, their music often has musicality and is singable by a wide range of people.

I like to listen to chant from time to time, or even have it in the Mass. A steady diet of chant would send be post-haste to a silent Mass. Being able to sing fully some of the beautiful hymn we have, and sinking into the words really enhance my worship. It is an involvement of myself more fully that simply in my mind, but involves my heart and my breathing - my body if you will. These are some of my moments closest to Christ.

I cannot do that with chant, it is in fact, distracting.

 

[FrancisB]

I have not seen these three “put words in Jesus mouth.” I have seen paraphrases. And in spite of objections I see here, their music often has musicality and is singable by a wide range of people.

I like to listen to chant from time to time, or even have it in the Mass. A steady diet of chant would send be post-haste to a silent Mass. Being able to sing fully some of the beautiful hymn we have, and sinking into the words really enhance my worship. It is an involvement of myself more fully that simply in my mind, but involves my heart and my breathing - my body if you will. These are some of my moments closest to Christ.

I cannot do that with chant, it is in fact, distracting.

Go read the lyrics to “You Are Mine” (David Haas) and then look at the scripture. If by paraphrase you mean “seems like something Jesus might have said”, then maybe they are a paraphrase. They are not, however, the Word of God, and yet the only way that the song makes sense is if they are. Essentially Mr. Haas thought he could put words into God’s mouth. That I find to be offensive. Go and look at the texts of the ancient chants and you will see that they are taken either directly from the Bible or else they were prayers written by the great saints.

This only starts to change when you look at the hymn repertoire, which begins during the medieval period with the sequences (essentially hymns added after the Alleluia). Some of the sequences are the same as the above chants, essentially metrical settings of Bible verses and writings of the saints. Others were not. That is why the church removed all but four of them from use at the Council of Trent. It was too problematic to try and make sure that every sequence that was written was well-written, so we lost all but four. Then another was restored later on. As of Vatican II, there were five, and although they still exist in the missal, I haven’t heard one sung in any Ordinary Form mass except where I was directing the choir and insisted on using them where they should be.

I think you misunderstand the point of the mass, though, if you think that any devotional music is suitable for it. If you like this music, go ahead and listen to it in private. They sell CDs. Just be careful listening to too much Marty Haugen; he’s a Protestant, and it seeps through into his lyrics. Now let’s take a step back from your personal tastes and understand something important: the mass is not about what you like or what I like or even what the priest likes. The mass is a set of texts; a group of ritual prayers. The hymns that you are singing are replacing fixed ritual prayers, the texts of which are all taken from the Bible. Do you honestly think that what any of these men has to say is more important than the actual Word of God? The next time you begin your “gathering hymn” please pause to look in the missal, if your church has one. There will be a text there for the introit, which is the lyrics of the song you should be singing. Notice how it’s from the scripture. Ponder it’s meaning. Then tell me that “Gather Us In” is just as fitting. The same is true for the hymn at the Offertory (“Preparation of the Gifts”) and after communion. All the words are in the missal.

If these men were setting these texts, I’d have a lot less that I could say. Then it would come down to a matter of opinion. Then we’d have cause to think about what credentials you have to judge the sing-ability and quality of musical compositions. I have a master’s degree in music composition; my credentials to judge such things are hanging on my wall. In the meantime, though, it doesn’t even matter because this isn’t about whose music is better written. It’s about the fact that the words of the Bible have been replaced by loose “paraphrases” and devotional sentiments that are not really appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the mass, even if they are spiritually uplifting for you.

 

[pilots13]

Go read the lyrics to “You Are Mine” (David Haas) and then look at the scripture. If by paraphrase you mean “seems like something Jesus might have said”, then maybe they are a paraphrase. They are not, however, the Word of God, and yet the only way that the song makes sense is if they are. Essentially Mr. Haas thought he could put words into God’s mouth. That I find to be offensive. Go and look at the texts of the ancient chants and you will see that they are taken either directly from the Bible or else they were prayers written by the great saints.

This only starts to change when you look at the hymn repertoire, which begins during the medieval period with the sequences (essentially hymns added after the Alleluia). Some of the sequences are the same as the above chants, essentially metrical settings of Bible verses and writings of the saints. Others were not. That is why the church removed all but four of them from use at the Council of Trent. It was too problematic to try and make sure that every sequence that was written was well-written, so we lost all but four. Then another was restored later on. As of Vatican II, there were five, and although they still exist in the missal, I haven’t heard one sung in any Ordinary Form mass except where I was directing the choir and insisted on using them where they should be.

I think you misunderstand the point of the mass, though, if you think that any devotional music is suitable for it. If you like this music, go ahead and listen to it in private. They sell CDs. Just be careful listening to too much Marty Haugen; he’s a Protestant, and it seeps through into his lyrics. Now let’s take a step back from your personal tastes and understand something important: the mass is not about what you like or what I like or even what the priest likes. The mass is a set of texts; a group of ritual prayers. The hymns that you are singing are replacing fixed ritual prayers, the texts of which are all taken from the Bible. Do you honestly think that what any of these men has to say is more important than the actual Word of God? The next time you begin your “gathering hymn” please pause to look in the missal, if your church has one. There will be a text there for the introit, which is the lyrics of the song you should be singing. Notice how it’s from the scripture. Ponder it’s meaning. Then tell me that “Gather Us In” is just as fitting. The same is true for the hymn at the Offertory (“Preparation of the Gifts”) and after communion. All the words are in the missal.

If these men were setting these texts, I’d have a lot less that I could say. Then it would come down to a matter of opinion. Then we’d have cause to think about what credentials you have to judge the sing-ability and quality of musical compositions. I have a master’s degree in music composition; my credentials to judge such things are hanging on my wall. In the meantime, though, it doesn’t even matter because this isn’t about whose music is better written. It’s about the fact that the words of the Bible have been replaced by loose “paraphrases” and devotional sentiments that are not really appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the mass, even if they are spiritually uplifting for you.

So do you raise the same issues with traditional Christmas hymns like Joy to the World, Silent Night, O Holy Night, What Child is This, etc?

Most Haugen/Haas/Joncas music is either taken from the Mass (see their Mass settings. remember, they even updated the Holy Holy’s for the new translation), Scripture (see their psalms), or is a separate composition based on a scripture verse or story. You Are Mine is based on Isaiah 43 (so it’s not actually the words of Jesus). They aren’t trying to put words in God’s mouth or Jesus’s mouth or anyone else’s. It’s a song about God or faith or grace or whatever which is based around a message given in a line of scripture. It’s really no different than a priest giving a homily based on a scripture passage.

 

[30miller]

Go read the lyrics to “You Are Mine” (David Haas) and then look at the scripture. If by paraphrase you mean “seems like something Jesus might have said”, then maybe they are a paraphrase. They are not, however, the Word of God, and yet the only way that the song makes sense is if they are. Essentially Mr. Haas thought he could put words into God’s mouth. That I find to be offensive. Go and look at the texts of the ancient chants and you will see that they are taken either directly from the Bible or else they were prayers written by the great saints.

This only starts to change when you look at the hymn repertoire, which begins during the medieval period with the sequences (essentially hymns added after the Alleluia). Some of the sequences are the same as the above chants, essentially metrical settings of Bible verses and writings of the saints. Others were not. That is why the church removed all but four of them from use at the Council of Trent. It was too problematic to try and make sure that every sequence that was written was well-written, so we lost all but four. Then another was restored later on. As of Vatican II, there were five, and although they still exist in the missal, I haven’t heard one sung in any Ordinary Form mass except where I was directing the choir and insisted on using them where they should be.

I think you misunderstand the point of the mass, though, if you think that any devotional music is suitable for it. If you like this music, go ahead and listen to it in private. They sell CDs. Just be careful listening to too much Marty Haugen; he’s a Protestant, and it seeps through into his lyrics. Now let’s take a step back from your personal tastes and understand something important: the mass is not about what you like or what I like or even what the priest likes. The mass is a set of texts; a group of ritual prayers. The hymns that you are singing are replacing fixed ritual prayers, the texts of which are all taken from the Bible. Do you honestly think that what any of these men has to say is more important than the actual Word of God? The next time you begin your “gathering hymn” please pause to look in the missal, if your church has one. There will be a text there for the introit, which is the lyrics of the song you should be singing. Notice how it’s from the scripture. Ponder it’s meaning. Then tell me that “Gather Us In” is just as fitting. The same is true for the hymn at the Offertory (“Preparation of the Gifts”) and after communion. All the words are in the missal.

If these men were setting these texts, I’d have a lot less that I could say. Then it would come down to a matter of opinion. Then we’d have cause to think about what credentials you have to judge the sing-ability and quality of musical compositions. I have a master’s degree in music composition; my credentials to judge such things are hanging on my wall. In the meantime, though, it doesn’t even matter because this isn’t about whose music is better written. It’s about the fact that the words of the Bible have been replaced by loose “paraphrases” and devotional sentiments that are not really appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the mass, even if they are spiritually uplifting for you.

Well said, FRANCISB. In the future I will be directing others I know to read your words here.
Not to put any of your points above any other (as they are all excellent and right on target) but it has always completely puzzled me why some advocates of the “personally uplifting” approach to music in the mass never do seem to listen to any of these pop-hymns during the other 167 hours (outside of Sunday Mass) available to them each and every week on CD’s in their cars, etc., - which is where they belong (as you say).
Kiddingly, when my cousin asked my suggestions for her daughter’s wedding mass earlier this year I told her to go pre-recorded with : Processional - Allison Krause, Down to the River To Pray; Offertory - Johnny Cash, He Turned The Water Into Wine; Communion - Tommy Makem and Liam Clancy, Bread and Fishes; and Recessional - Kathleen Battle, He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands. Now, all of these actually are on my ipod and I actually do like listening to every one of them. But, I make use of the “other” 167 hours in each and every week to listen to them and refrain from trying to foist them on prayerful Catholics at their one-hour Sunday Mass.
P.S. Personally, I find the 4 spiritual songs I listed above far more fulfilling than Haugen et. al.

 

[pilots13]

Not to put any of your points above any other (as they are all excellent and right on target) but it has always completely puzzled me why some advocates of the “personally uplifting” approach to music in the mass never do seem to listen to any of these pop-hymns during the other 167 hours (outside of Sunday Mass) available to them each and every week on CD’s in their cars, etc., - which is where they belong (as you say).

I actually own several Haugen/Haas/Joncas CDs, and have an iPod playlist with a mix of their (and others, both contemporary and traditional) music on it. So, some of us do listen to their music outside the Mass. I actually find it very soothing, spiritual music to listen to while I’m working on my liturgical designs.

 

[FrancisB]

I actually own several Haugen/Haas/Joncas CDs, and have an iPod playlist with a mix of their (and others, both contemporary and traditional) music on it. So, some of us do listen to their music outside the Mass. I actually find it very soothing, spiritual music to listen to while I’m working on my liturgical designs.

Liturgical designs? What is there to design? We’re Catholic. There are rubrics for that.

 

[FrancisB]

So do you raise the same issues with traditional Christmas hymns like Joy to the World, Silent Night, O Holy Night, What Child is This, etc?

Most Haugen/Haas/Joncas music is either taken from the Mass (see their Mass settings. remember, they even updated the Holy Holy’s for the new translation), Scripture (see their psalms), or is a separate composition based on a scripture verse or story. You Are Mine is based on Isaiah 43 (so it’s not actually the words of Jesus). They aren’t trying to put words in God’s mouth or Jesus’s mouth or anyone else’s. It’s a song about God or faith or grace or whatever which is based around a message given in a line of scripture. It’s really no different than a priest giving a homily based on a scripture passage.

Yes, I raise the same issues. And every time I hear “Angels We Have Heard on High” substituted for the Gloria, I go and talk to the music director personally to set the record straight. There should not be a carol at the beginning of mass; there should be an introit. There may be enough time for a carol after the communion verse, depending on how long communion takes (on Christmas, it is often much longer because so many people that show up twice a year are there). At the recessional, there is no appointed prayer, so a fitting carol should be there. The idea of using carols to replace the propers (or in some cases parts of the ordinary) is offensive. Go look at the history of carols: they weren’t mostly written as music for mass. That’s why they are written in vernacular languages; in the Latin mass, the only piece that could have been sung in the vernacular without breaking the rules was the recessional, since it happened “after mass”.

I was talking about the hymns when I was criticising the language. I think that was abundantly clear. “Based on” is exactly what I mean: somehow you think this makes it appropriate for church, whereas I do not. It is not the same as a priest giving a homily. Part of the priest’s job is to give a homily. The music’s job is to add beauty to the texts of the mass, not to give the congregation a new perspective, or even to raise them up spiritually, although it is lovely when it does that. The only purpose of the music is to add beauty to the texts; read the authoritative writings on church music and you will see that this point is made clear.

Now since you seem so committed to raising the question of the music itself by going back to the mass ordinary and the psalm settings, let’s just address it. Folk-rock is essentially popular music. Popular music has been forbidden in the church since it first started creeping in about a thousand years ago. It happens every few generations, and then the church puts their foot down and it gets thrown away. This will happen again with all of this popular-esque music. Why? Because you are replacing icons with cartoons and saying “but it’s still a picture of Jesus and the saints”. To some degree this is true, and there is nothing that I can say to take away from the fact that some people might be spiritually moved by cartoons of Jesus and the saints. That does not mean that we should put them in our churches in place of icons. They’d make a lovely thing for you to keep at home, if you find them helpful.

By the way, you do realise that even the greatest composers of Western music have had their music thrown out of the church, right? Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Verdi and many others. Why? Because they were operas with liturgical texts, and no matter how beautiful they were and how much they uplifted the spirits of the people that heard them, the liturgy is not a stage upon which to show off your musicianship. Humility, which is to say chant, is the appropriate response.

 

[liturgyluver]

I never said chant was the only musical style acceptable for mass. This is not, however, merely a matter of opinion. That is what constantly frustrates me. It is not my (very well educated) musical opinion that we should be chanting. It is the will of the church made manifest in numerous documents though-out the history of the church. The reason is that chant is the music that the early church used. It is still the music of the church all over the world. It was not developed as part of a particular cultural norm as folk rock was. It is liturgical and only liturgical. One does not find chant in active use outside the church, except in television, film, and more recently in video games where it is used to conjure up the church because producers know that chant is the music of the church.

The reason that I abhor their music is that it is poorly-written from a musical perspective, but more so because they constantly change the words of scripture and try to put words into Jesus’s mouth that he simply did not say. They may be very spiritual men; so is the Dalai Lama, but I’d not want him writing Catholic prayers.

I too abhor the music to which you refer, and agree that the retention of chant is important. I wouldn’t advocate it for every sung mass though.

I wasn’t sure whether you were suggesting - in your subsequent posts - that all hymns in a liturgical context were inappropraite or not permitted. I know that Sacred Music and Liturgy in 1958 permitted the use of hymns in the vernacular at low mass. In the UK the Bishops of England and Wales formally permit hymns at the Entrance, Offertory and Communion as constituting the required liturgical music for those parts, even though it was necessary for the priest to say the missal texts to satify the rubrics.

One of the probelms with the hymns in the Catholic Church - in the UK at least - is that music is often governed by musicians rather than those with a good understanding of music and liturgy so the hymns have little or loose connection with the readings, and sometimes even with the liturgical year. Also there has been more of a tendancy to embrace what many - from what they tell me - feel are generally banal pop style songs rather than the traditional reportoire of hymns which are more theologically sound - and more pleasant on the ear.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I too abhor the music to which you refer, and agree that the retention of chant is important. I wouldn’t advocate it for every sung mass though.

I wasn’t sure whether you were suggesting - in your subsequent posts - that all hymns in a liturgical context were inappropraite or not permitted. I know that Sacred Music and Liturgy in 1958 permitted the use of hymns in the vernacular at low mass. In the UK the Bishops of England and Wales formally permit hymns at the Entrance, Offertory and Communion as constituting the required liturgical music for those parts, even though it was necessary for the priest to say the missal texts to satify the rubrics.

One of the probelms with the hymns in the Catholic Church - in the UK at least - is that music is often governed by musicians rather than those with a good understanding of music and liturgy so the hymns have little or loose connection with the readings, and sometimes even with the liturgical year. Also there has been more of a tendancy to embrace what many - from what they tell me - feel are generally banal pop style songs rather than the traditional reportoire of hymns which are more theologically sound - and more pleasant on the ear.

Why not a polyphonic setting with chant propers? Propers as far as, offertory and communion.

 

[30miller]

I actually own several Haugen/Haas/Joncas CDs, and have an iPod playlist with a mix of their (and others, both contemporary and traditional) music on it. So, some of us do listen to their music outside the Mass. I actually find it very soothing, spiritual music to listen to while I’m working on my liturgical designs.

That’s fantastic. I, as well, listen to my preferences during my 167 non-mass hours each week and I love it.
Can you please strongly encourage all the other freethinkers to do the same and satisfy their folk/pop yearnings during their non-mass 167 hours available each week - and permit the liturgy to be the liturgy? It would be greatly appreciated. And it’s the right thing to do.

 

[30miller]

…One of the probelms with the hymns in the Catholic Church - in the UK at least - is that music is often governed by musicians rather than those with a good understanding of music and liturgy so the hymns have little or loose connection with the readings, and sometimes even with the liturgical year.

Bingo! Exactly right! The only tweek I would make to your assessment is that most of the folks I have encountered in my life are not even in reality musicians (let alone liturgists) - i.e. they have no “saleable” skills in the musical realm. Virtually no one would attend a free concert they would offer in the parish community center during the 167 non-mass hours each week. And that’s not a “slam” on them, it’s just a fact. No one would come to hear a free sampling of my best shower singing at the parish center either.

 

[agapewolf]

Yes, I raise the same issues. And every time I hear “Angels We Have Heard on High” substituted for the Gloria, I go and talk to the music director personally to set the record straight. There should not be a carol at the beginning of mass; there should be an introit. There may be enough time for a carol after the communion verse, depending on how long communion takes (on Christmas, it is often much longer because so many people that show up twice a year are there). … The idea of using carols to replace the propers (or in some cases parts of the ordinary) is offensive.

The only purpose of the music is to add beauty to the texts; read the authoritative writings on church music and you will see that this point is made clear.

I think YOU should read the writings…

It is NOT offensive that a hymn takes the place of the introit, because the GIRM allows for that. All you have to do is simply read it. You cannot place restrictions were there are none—otherwise you are becoming the proverbial “more Catholic than the pope”.

There is a setting of the Gloria, with the correct words, used to the tune of Angels we have heard on high. While it would be improper to sing the words of “Angels” in place of the gloria, it is fine to sing the words of the gloria to to the tune.