Music Problems in Catholic Parishes

[ProVobis]

There is no difference on this matter between the OF and the EF.

In one respect there is. People use documents enacted after 1962 to justify what should or should not take place at the Mass. As far as I know there were no parish liturgical committees prior to that.

 

[Brendan_64]

I disagree and the paragraphs in my reply make clear that we - the assembly - are expected to sing: there is no distinction about different levels of participation within the liturgy.**

But does this mean expected to sing loudly, or expected to sing in tune, or expected to sing to a certain standard, or does it simply mean expected to sing?

If we want people to sing, then forget about trying to give the congregation ‘singing lessons’, forget about musical accompaniment, forget about trying to be ‘innovative’ through introducing new songs, but just give the faithful old trusted hymns that they know and let them just sing up in whatever way they wish. Have you ever heard a silent church when ‘Holy God we praise thy Name’ is on the hymn board?

Far too much is made of trying to get the faithful to conform to whatever view the ‘parish liturgical singing committee’ has of what singing ought to sound like at Mass, it just puts people off singing altogether.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree and the paragraphs in my reply make clear that we - the assembly - are expected to sing: there is no distinction about different levels of participation within the liturgy. The distinctiveness in church documents applies to whether or not the president decides what elements of the liturgy should or should not be sung.
**

If that is the case, then it appears the Vatican and the bishops’ conferences sure went to a lot of trouble of translating those antiphons for nothing, since most parishes choose not to use them. Just sayin…

 

[liturgyluver]

But does this mean expected to sing loudly, or expected to sing in tune, or expected to sing to a certain standard, or does it simply mean expected to sing?

If we want people to sing, then forget about trying to give the congregation ‘singing lessons’, forget about musical accompaniment, forget about trying to be ‘innovative’ through introducing new songs, but just give the faithful old trusted hymns that they know and let them just sing up in whatever way they wish. Have you ever heard a silent church when ‘Holy God we praise thy Name’ is on the hymn board?

Far too much is made of trying to get the faithful to conform to whatever view the ‘parish liturgical singing committee’ has of what singing ought to sound like at Mass, it just puts people off singing altogether.

Agree completely. Now I am going to be singing “Holy God we praise thy name” all evening. I love that hymn.

 

[liturgyluver]

If that is the case, then it appears the Vatican and the bishops’ conferences sure went to a lot of trouble of translating those antiphons for nothing, since most parishes choose not to use them. Just sayin…

By the way, in the Spanish Masses around here, they seemingly consider clapping to the music as being part of participation. Is that listed in the documents anywhere?

Despite what I said earlier, I actually think that it is a pity that more parishes do not use them and that they tend to be associated with EF. They are a legitimate option, and some of the simple chant tones are perfectly achievable for some congregations, especially the Introits.

 

[liturgyluver]

By the way, in the Spanish Masses around here, they seemingly consider clapping to the music as being part of participation. Is that listed in the documents anywhere

Not clapping specifically (he shudders as he types!) but there is this bit:

Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas, will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the Liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working

 

[bobballen_18]

No, they are part of the texts. Their being “integral to the mass” has nothing to do with tieing into the readings of the day. The mere fact they are proper in the first place implies they are an integral part of the mass. There is no difference on this matter between the OF and the EF.

Yes, this - as I mentioned before, the propers aren’t meant to be “tied to the readings”, and for that matter, it is not Catholic teaching that each Mass has its own “theme” which can tie together all of the Propers and readings for the day. It may happen that one can do that, but I don’t think that’s the purpose of the Propers.

Aren’t Propers Liturgical text? Aren’t they (part of) the Liturgy? If so, why would one replace them unless they absolutely had to?

Liturgyluver, I think your interpretation of “other things being equal” is incorrect, and I also don’t know where you are getting your translation that includes the bolded: “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin”. Father Z had wrote an article about Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 which I thought was quite good. He bases it on the meaning of the Latin words. FYI, I don’t know Latin very well, but I am pretty sure I don’t see anything referring to “liturgical services celebrated in Latin” in this phrase: “Ecclesia cantum gregorianum agnoscit ut liturgiae romanae proprium: qui ideo in actionibus liturgicis, ceteris paribus, principem locum obtineat.” You can read his article here if you wish:

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/what-does-sacrosanctum-concilium-116-really-say/

So then we come to the crunch: Are the appointed texts for the introit, offertory, and communio really so integral to the Mass that it is ruined, or even significantly harmed, by their omission, and does this outweigh the pastoral, musical and liturgical judgments that those responsible for enacting the mass are expected to deliver?

Well, I’m sorry, but I think I could basically ask you the opposite question and it would be just as legitimate: Is congregational singing so integral to “active participation” that we need to ditch the Propers of the Mass? I would argue that it is absolutely not. You admitted that “above all” active participation is internal. The Church has given us these beautiful Latin texts for the Propers, and there are chants for them which have been passed on for hundreds of years. It is true that the ancient Gregorian chant propers are more difficult than, say, a chant hymn or metrical hymn, both of which are technically allowed in its place, but why should we be pretending that it’s no big deal to never do them, and why aren’t we training choir members to sing more chant so that they can do these more difficult chants?

I’m not saying there’s not an external aspect to full active participation. As I mentioned before, I think it would be great if everyone who was able (which I honestly believe is the vast majority of people) sang the Ordinaries, which tend to be easier chants, and the little responses here and there throughout Mass. Those are more than doable, and can foster that external aspect through singing that is important. I guess my argument, aside from the fact that there is lots of tradition behind leaving many chants to the choir, is that especially in our society today, “listening” is such a foreign concept in the context of the Mass. I’m not going to deny that there can be something very powerful in a full church singing together, and as I mentioned before, I think that can happen for the easier chants and the occasional hymn, but there’s the other aspect of music in which listening is very integral. Not everyone is a trained musician (well, almost no one is), and that is perfectly ok - it is perfectly ok to leave a portion of the Mass’s music up to a choir who has practiced and is capable of raising the rest of the congregation’s mind heavenward, and therefore contributing to the most important part of active participation - the internal disposition by which we are completely drawn together towards union with God, the union which is brought to fruition by reception of the Holy Eucharist. So anyway, what I’m claiming is that some music is complex/more difficult and is understandably set aside for the choir so they can project the music’s beauty, which comes from God, into the Church and into the souls of each member of the congregation.

 

[liturgyluver]

Liturgyluver, I think your interpretation of “other things being equal” is incorrect, and I also don’t know where you are getting your translation that includes the bolded: “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin”.

Well, I’m sorry, but I think I could basically ask you the opposite question and it would be just as legitimate: Is congregational singing so integral to “active participation” that we need to ditch the Propers of the Mass? I would argue that it is absolutely not. You admitted that “above all” active participation is internal. The Church has given us these beautiful Latin texts for the Propers, and there are chants for them which have been passed on for hundreds of years. It is true that the ancient Gregorian chant propers are more difficult than, say, a chant hymn or metrical hymn, both of which are technically allowed in its place, but why should we be pretending that it’s no big deal to never do them, and why aren’t we training choir members to sing more chant so that they can do these more difficult chants?

I’m not going to deny that there can be something very powerful in a full church singing together, and as I mentioned before, I think that can happen for the easier chants and the occasional hymn, but there’s the other aspect of music in which listening is very integral. Not everyone is a trained musician (well, almost no one is), and that is perfectly ok - it is perfectly ok to leave a portion of the Mass’s music up to a choir who has practiced and is capable of raising the rest of the congregation’s mind heavenward, and therefore contributing to the most important part of active participation - the internal disposition by which we are completely drawn together towards union with God, the union which is brought to fruition by reception of the Holy Eucharist. So anyway, what I’m claiming is that some music is complex/more difficult and is understandably set aside for the choir so they can project the music’s beauty, which comes from God, into the Church and into the souls of each member of the congregation.

I generally agree with the comments in your final paragraph. At my parish we often have a choral mass where the Ordinary is sung by the choir and this can be sublime and more moving than an indifferent congregational mass setting.

With regard to the source for sung celebrations in Latin, please see paragraph 50 of Musicum Sacram:

1. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:

(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.

(b) “It is also desirable that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in smaller churches.”

(c) Other musical settings, written for one or more voices, be they taken from the traditional heritage or from new works, should be held in honour, encouraged and used as the occasion demands.

I do think parishes should make more effort to use the Missa De Angelis which is easy to sing accessible and very beautiful. We tend to use it in Advent and Lent, and it’s beautiful to hear the Kyrie soaring in the church.

 

[bobballen_18]

I generally agree with the comments in your final paragraph. At my parish we often have a choral mass where the Ordinary is sung by the choir and this can be sublime and more moving than an indifferent congregational mass setting.

With regard to the source for sung celebrations in Latin, please see paragraph 50 of Musicum Sacram:

1. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:

(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.

(b) “It is also desirable that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in smaller churches.”

(c) Other musical settings, written for one or more voices, be they taken from the traditional heritage or from new works, should be held in honour, encouraged and used as the occasion demands.

I do think parishes should make more effort to use the Missa De Angelis which is easy to sing accessible and very beautiful. We tend to use it in Advent and Lent, and it’s beautiful to hear the Kyrie soaring in the church.

Ah OK, you were quoting from Musicam Sacram. I remember reading through this part. I suppose that by isolating #50, one could certainly use that to say that is the only situation in which Gregorian chant should be given pride of place. I, however, don’t buy that. There is no reason to not strive to keep Gregorian chant and Latin in Masses as much as possible, no matter how much vernacular is being used. #47 states Latin is to be preserved and that care should be taken that people are able to say or sing the Ordinaries in Latin. Just in general, its talk about preserving the heritage of Sacred Music and it seeming to promote the sung Mass in Latin as the ideal, seems to me a good enough argument to always be striving to use the Latin Propers in their timeless beauty. Sure, there are options for when/if this is not possible - I’m just very wary of taking a casual approach to this, because this is what has led to nearly no one even striving to make their choir or parish as close to the ideal as possible. I don’t mean to rag on any particular person, because I know that most people giving their time and service to music ministry are well-meaning - but what we really need is people not only knowledgeable of what the Church prefers/promotes, but also willing to put into action these preferences. We can’t be satisfied with the status quo; we need to always want more, and to try to make “more” within our reach.

Regarding Missa de Angelis - yes! It does get rather old after using it every single week, which our Parish does throughout Ordinary Time, but it is a very good and beautiful Mass setting to use, and it didn’t take the singers in the congregation too long to learn it. I think that of the 18 settings in the Kyriale, there are a handful in there which I wish the majority of Catholics would be familiar with, such as Lux et Origo (Mass I) for Easter, Orbis Factor (Mass XI) for Ordinary Time, and Deus Genitor Alme (Mass XVII) for Lent and Advent. And a personal favorite of mine for special occasions is Mass IX, traditionally used for Marian feast days - its beauty blows me away.

 

[whipp711]

Just to inject some humor into the discussion, I chuckled thinking about a bit from The Prairie Home Companion and Garrison Keillor. He talked about a Lake Wobegon church choir sing off at a community event. “The Methodist were practice a hymn over there. The Baptist had their tamborines tapping in rhythm, and the Catholics were cowering in a corner, shaking.”

lol Srsly, I’ve been to German Catholic parishes (Europe) where they sing their lungs out. Big organ accompaniment. Non singing appears to be a U.S. phenomina. I think Thomas Day, in his book Why Catholics Can’t Sing, offers up a theory on history and the influence of Irish immigrants and clergy (page 18). For those of you without the book…“from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth, the Catholic Irish were brutally suppressed” by the Church of England. Mass was held in fields, behind hedges, anywhere. Singing would draw attention from the oppressors. While the American branch of the Catholic church owe a great deal to the dedication and work of the Irish heirarchy in the new world, this silence of the oppressed carried over. I know that’s debatable, but it’s an interesting theory.

 

[Brendan_64]

While the American branch of the Catholic church owe a great deal to the dedication and work of the Irish heirarchy in the new world, this silence of the oppressed carried over. I know that’s debatable, but it’s an interesting theory.

There’s also a cultural issue I reckon. Being Irish myself, it is often viewed in Ireland as slightly unseemly for a man to sing unless he’s drunk (in which case it’s almost seen as compulsory).

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Yes. Exactly.
Also, parishes should chose ONE hymnal and stick to it.

There’s a reason they choose more than one. Parishes in the United States have to follow U.S. Copyright laws. The parish must have a license to perform the music. To accommodate a variety of musical interests among the parishioners, they need to purchase multiple hymnals to cover traditional and contemporary songs.

Licenses covered by “Breaking Bread” may not be covered by “Spirit and Song” for example, even though both are published by the same company.

This is also why Bible apps have some translations but not others. They don’t have permission to publish the others.

 

[liturgyluver]

Just to inject some humor into the discussion, I chuckled thinking about a bit from The Prairie Home Companion and Garrison Keillor. He talked about a Lake Wobegon church choir sing off at a community event. “The Methodist were practice a hymn over there. The Baptist had their tamborines tapping in rhythm, and the Catholics were cowering in a corner, shaking.”

lol Srsly, I’ve been to German Catholic parishes (Europe) where they sing their lungs out. Big organ accompaniment. Non singing appears to be a U.S. phenomina. I think Thomas Day, in his book Why Catholics Can’t Sing, offers up a theory on history and the influence of Irish immigrants and clergy (page 18). For those of you without the book…“from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth, the Catholic Irish were brutally suppressed” by the Church of England. Mass was held in fields, behind hedges, anywhere. Singing would draw attention from the oppressors. While the American branch of the Catholic church owe a great deal to the dedication and work of the Irish heirarchy in the new world, this silence of the oppressed carried over. I know that’s debatable, but it’s an interesting theory.

German Catholic liturgy is just the best. Not only do they have beautiful hymns which everybody sings, but the execution of the liturgy puts the slapdash way it is generally done in Ireland and the US to shame. Two reasons why this is so: They were one of the first countries to embrace the liturgical movement and actually sing the mass; secondly each province produces a worship book that has the liturgy, the ordinary, and the hymns in one place so everyone picks one up and uses it almost by reflex.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe this isn’t a good excuse, but let’s not forget that some of the English Mass songs, which people got used to, those written by Proulx and P Jones, for example, have been obsoleted by the new English translation. Seems like many musicians have found the new translation rather awkward and too rigid to write music for. Maybe the ICEL knew something about music, rhythm, and meter when they were dynamically translating the ordinary of the Mass back in the 60’s after all. Just saying.

 

[Edmundus1581]

secondly each province produces a worship book that has the liturgy, the ordinary, and the hymns in one place so everyone picks one up and uses it almost by reflex.

The same should be true in other countries - if we just followed our bishops. In my diocese, when the new translation came in our bishop approved four different settings of the Mass, all of which are very reverent and singable, and asked that all parishes use them - and thus we could be a diocese where one could visit any parish and be familiar with the setting. What actually happened? Most parishes don’t have any sung liturgy, and of those that do, many prefer to use a liturgy composed by their own amateur musician. Either the priests and the liturgy committees don’t care, or they are afraid to impose on the musicians.

I happen to be on my own liturgy committee, but am too low in the “pecking order” to raise this matter. It has never been mentioned formally, while some of us are aware of it.