Music Problems in Catholic Parishes

[TK421]

This is unusual considering for several centuries the Mass was primarily performed in a language that the laity didn’t understand. The explanation that I have heard for this - which isn’t without merit - is that the rhythm and music and reverence of the Mass provided its own beauty.

Or was the focus always on the words, even peculiarly when the congregation didn’t know them anyway?

 

[ProVobis]

This is unusual considering for several centuries the Mass was primarily performed in a language that the laity didn’t understand.

You don’t have to know the entire Latin vocabulary or be a Latin scholar to understand a few prayers like the Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, etc. But even so, Latin was held in much higher regard back then not to mention it was a required language in schools, especially in the West. So a few Introits, Collects, etc. weren’t a major obstacle, as long as you got the gist of it. OTOH, the Bible might have been more of a challenge.

 

[bobballen_18]

I’ll quit after this, but I have to say this.

Years ago, when I was a pretty disinterested student of piano, I was about ready to chuck it. My music teacher, in a flash of brilliance, suggested that I learn some ragtime pieces. I just loved them. Of course, ragtime is joyous and robust and (well) kind of masculine in that musculature matters in playing it.

But also, I heard a ragtime artist say that one of the things about ragtime is that when you play one chord, your hands are almost already on the next chord. And it’s true. Yes, a ragtime player’s hands (particularly the left) seem to be flying all over the place, but actually they aren’t. The melodies also have a certain logical insistence to them. If you listen to ragtime, you mentally sort of know what comes next, even if you never heard the piece before. It’s right there.

I think when it comes to music in church, songs should be selected with those things in mind. Yes, familiarity matters, but it’s not the only thing that matters. The logic also matters. Is the next note where you sort of expect it to be? Does it “talk” to you. Is the melody pleasing, so pleasing that you really want to be part of it?

The words are secondary, but they really do need to invoke the sacred. Are they too “cute” or theologically obscure? Are they strongly worshipful or do they leave one baffled if one doesn’t know where they came from even if they’re biblical? Do they require a context that isn’t there?

That’s so funny you mentioned ragtime - I have played piano since I was 6 and ragtime was the first actual type/genre of music to which I became attached and even began composing my own. I agree that, in a sense, you sort of know what comes next - for me it’s pretty easy to read new ragtime music because of that. I am still in love with ragtime music today, although it’s not my favorite type of music anymore.

This is unusual considering for several centuries the Mass was primarily performed in a language that the laity didn’t understand. The explanation that I have heard for this - which isn’t without merit - is that the rhythm and music and reverence of the Mass provided its own beauty.

Or was the focus always on the words, even peculiarly when the congregation didn’t know them anyway?

Regarding words: I agree that the words are important, and I especially agree that if the music is composed to an actual Liturgical text, then yes, the words cannot be altered. I think the question of whether or not they are of “primary importance” as Elizium mentioned is difficult though. I can understand that perhaps this should be the correct understanding, but I am wondering what happens, then, with the vast majority of people today when they hear, say, a Latin motet at Mass - with a non-Liturgical text, therefore, a text that the people probably don’t have in front of them. Is the “primary importance” then the words? Perhaps in a sense they are - perhaps in the sense that if everyone knew exactly what was being sung then they would be even more edified by hearing the music. But when I hear polyphony and I don’t know the meaning of the text (which is, 95+% of the time when the text is not an Ordinary of the Mass), I think the beauty of the music is nearly as, if not just as, important as the text itself. It kind of raises the question of ‘is one really “praying twice” if he doesn’t know the text he is singing?’ I would argue that he is, although I can’t really say why. I think there’s something to be said for the beauty itself of the text. I think the whole text thing can be complicated - I really wonder whether the average church-goer, especially one who sings, actually thinks about what he is singing, while he is singing it - even if it is in English. It really takes a lot of concentration…haha. Anyway, my understanding of Sacred Music’s purpose in the Liturgy is to greater prepare one’s soul for the encounter with Christ in the Eucharist. It is not essential to the Mass, but can certainly allow for a profound union in a way that is different than during a Low Mass or just spoken Mass. So I would argue that even when one either does not understand or does not completely or fully understand what is being sung (which I think is the majority of people whether it is vernacular or not), the music is still fulfilling its purpose.

 

[bobballen_18]

You don’t have to know the entire Latin vocabulary or be a Latin scholar to understand a few prayers like the Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, etc. But even so, Latin was held in much higher regard back then not to mention it was a required language in schools, especially in the West. So a few Introits, Collects, etc. weren’t a major obstacle, as long as you got the gist of it. OTOH, the Bible might have been more of a challenge.

Yes, I meant to mention that in what I just posted - Latin was much more widely studied back then, and it wasn’t that much of a stretch to understand most of the text which is used throughout the year at the Mass. I agree - the Bible would be a lot different, and I also often wonder how good each individual priests’ Latin was - I wonder if it was mostly good enough to understand what they were saying for their daily Divine Office. Although that would probably become very familiar and understandable throughout the years as well.

 

[ProVobis]

It kind of raises the question of ‘is one really “praying twice” if he doesn’t know the text he is singing?’

For the record, I don’t know who stated this but it wasn’t St. Augustine according to more recent sources. The Church made this correction in its documents, I believe.

Singing could very well be praying thrice or four times but there are many other factors to consider.

 

[liturgyluver]

I’m going to have to disagree with you to some extent and here’s why.

There are many hymns or verses of hymns which we personally feel inappropriate to Catholic theology or Catholic Mass. But if it’s written in the official Mass texts, I understand we have to agree with those texts, whether sung or recited. It seems liturgical committees should take this into consideration when pre-empting the Church-suggested antiphons with their own interpretation of what constitutes the spirit of the day.

Interesting to reflect that with a 3-year lectionary in the OF, there is no so-called “proper” of the mass, nor official mass texts for those parts of the liturgy at all for 2 out of 3 years!

 

[liturgyluver]

For the record, I don’t know who stated this but it wasn’t St. Augustine according to more recent sources. The Church made this correction in its documents, I believe.

Singing could very well be praying thrice or four times but there are many other factors to consider.

What St Augustine said was misinterpreted, a more accurate translation is as follows:

“For he who sings praise, does not only praise, but also praises joyfully; he who sings praise, not only sings, but also loves Him whom he is singing about/to/for”

 

[liturgyluver]

I take issue with this part of the GIRM. I suppose that maybe I shouldn’t, because it only applies to the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but I wholly disagree with the notion that it is anyone’s “duty” to sing during the Mass. Except for maybe the Ordinaries - it is definitely ideal that people sing those if they are able - but for anything else, I absolutely reject the notion that it is somehow not sufficient worship if you are not singing. This would go against a lot of years of tradition in the Church and would imply that what people are doing at a sung Mass in the Extraordinary Form is “less ideal” or that their worship is somehow deficient; which if this was true, first of all the EF Mass as it is widely celebrated today would probably no longer be allowed, but most of all, it would seem to discount the experience of so many souls in the past, including the (probably vast) majority of our Church’s canonized saints. Shoot, and also the experience of a growing number of people today who are attracted to the EF Mass. Maybe I’m being defensive/making a molehill out of an anthill, but this is the problem I personally have with fully appreciating the OF Mass - there are people out there so set on making it a completely different experience than what the EF Mass was/is, which I do not believe for one second was the intention of the Council or the promulgation of the OF. (Disclaimer - please don’t interpret this as me saying I think the OF is invalid or whatever - these are just some things I struggle with.) All I’m saying is, one shouldn’t have to be required to go the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in order to experience something similar. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the Ordinary Form was meant to be (or is) a break with the traditions of the Old Mass, or was meant to be a totally different experience, though I know that reforms were intended.

Not at all. What the GIRM is very clear about is the unification of the assembly and the people becoming one. So if someone were attending an EF mass, or one with Polyphonic mass settings sung chorally, or one where the Graduale was chanted by a choir then it would be inappropriate for individuals to join in singing those parts which are sung chorally as in that particular liturgy it would strike a division with the rest of the assembly.

 

[liturgyluver]

Now, the congregation joins in very few songs. But they will definitely join in the following:
-Old protestant songs they heard on the radio from childhood.
-Old Catholic standards like “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” and songs put to the music of the old Latin hymns even though they’re now in English.
-Songs with interesting and compelling music, usually things that have stood the test of a very long time, like songs written by Mozart or some of the German hymns that are translated to English or old, old traditional songs, usually Irish or Scottish in origin.

Absolutely agree that the standards you mention above are the best ways of ensuring congregational participation.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting to reflect that with a 3-year lectionary in the OF, there is no so-called “proper” of the mass, nor official mass texts for those parts of the liturgy at all for 2 out of 3 years!

I’m not sure to what you refer here. I believe the 2002 Missal (in Latin and includes the IGMR) has one* cycle of antiphons (Introit, Offertory, Communion). The lectionary OTOH does have a 3-year cycle. I went strictly by what I read in the missalette. It shouldn’t be too difficult to incorporate the antiphons into the Mass regardless of the cycle. If done as “intended” there really need not be any hymns at all.

• I’m going to have to double-check this.

 

[ProVobis]

Not at all. What the GIRM is very clear about is the unification of the assembly and the people becoming one. So if someone were attending an EF mass, or one with Polyphonic mass settings sung chorally, or one where the Graduale was chanted by a choir then it would be inappropriate for individuals to join in singing those parts which are sung chorally as in that particular liturgy it would strike a division with the rest of the assembly.

SInce the IGMR/GIRM wasn’t promulgated with the Roman Missal until 1969, it doesn’t apply to the EF. The levels of participation are different in the two forms; there is no dispute on that point.

 

[bobballen_18]

Not at all. What the GIRM is very clear about is the unification of the assembly and the people becoming one. So if someone were attending an EF mass, or one with Polyphonic mass settings sung chorally, or one where the Graduale was chanted by a choir then it would be inappropriate for individuals to join in singing those parts which are sung chorally as in that particular liturgy it would strike a division with the rest of the assembly.

OK, I think I see what you’re saying - if that is all the GIRM is saying in that instance, then that doesn’t seem to be what I claimed.

I’m still not sure, however, that I agree. While I suppose every single person doing the exact same thing is one way to be unified, I’m not sure I agree that is the ultimate level on which the “unification of the assembly” is meant to occur at the Liturgy. I think it is more of a spiritual unification that is the ideal more than anything else. I’m not going to deny the possibility that physical unification could lead to a greater spiritual unification, but I don’t buy it that it is the best/ultimate/ideal way to be unified. Moreover, I don’t know that the chief concern of ours should be “unity” at Mass, though if it is understood in the sense that we are unified in the Body of Christ through the reception of the Eucharist at Mass, then sure. But I am pretty sure that it was traditionally taught that the four ends of the Mass are Adoration, Thanksgiving, Atonement, and Petition - as far as I know, that hasn’t changed. I can’t think off the top of my head of the CCC teaches the exact same thing as the Baltimore Catechism on that matter.

 

[bobballen_18]

Interesting to reflect that with a 3-year lectionary in the OF, there is no so-called “proper” of the mass, nor official mass texts for those parts of the liturgy at all for 2 out of 3 years!

If I am not mistaken, ProVobis is correct in that there is only one year’s worth of Propers that is repeated each year. I also need to look that up…but as far as I know it: new Propers are not needed each year, as they are not strictly based on the readings.

 

[maryjk]

If I am not mistaken, ProVobis is correct in that there is only one year’s worth of Propers that is repeated each year. I also need to look that up…but as far as I know it: new Propers are not needed each year, as they are not strictly based on the readings.

There is only one year of Propers. Propers are labeled “Week of Ordinary Time.”

So the one I am looking at, is for the entire week regardless of which year it is, or which day it is.

 

[ProVobis]

• I’m going to have to double-check this.

Yes, the Introitus, Collecta, Super Oblata, Communionem, Post Communionem prayers are in the Missale Romanum of 2002, on which they are now to the best of my knowledge all translated into English. (They are separate from the 3-yr cycled lectionary.) The earlier editions may not have had these translations (especially the Introit and Communion prayers) and perhaps that is why very few heard of them.

media.musicasacra.com/books/latin_missal2002.pdf

Note: this also contains the IGMR, on which various GIRM translations are based but the translations may differ somewhat from country to country.

 

[liturgyluver]

Yes, the Introitus, Collecta, Super Oblata, Communionem, Post Communionem prayers are in the Missale Romanum of 2002, on which they are now to the best of my knowledge all translated into English. (They are separate from the 3-yr cycled lectionary.) The earlier editions may not have had these translations (especially the Introit and Communion prayers) and perhaps that is why very few heard of them.

media.musicasacra.com/books/latin_missal2002.pdf

Note: this also contains the IGMR, on which various GIRM translations are based but the translations may differ somewhat from country to country.

These aren’t the propers but the point about using propers in the OF is that they become less integral to the the mass if they have nothing to do with the texts. The assertion that they are to be sung in preference to anything else is dubious, since they are just one option.

Musicum sacram (1967) made clear, amongst other things that:

Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it.

The faithful fulfil their liturgical role by making that full, conscious and active participation which is demanded by the nature of the liturgy itself and which is, by reason of baptism, the right and duty of the Christian people.

This participation

(a) Should be above all internal, in the sense that by it the faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace,

(b) Must be, on the other hand, external also, that is, such as to show the internal participation by gestures and bodily attitudes, by the acclamations, responses and singing

One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song. Therefore the active participation of the whole people, which is shown in singing, is to be carefully promoted.

For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days, a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day.

The “pride of place” given to Gregorian chant by the Second Vatican Council is
modified by the important phrase “other things being equal.” These “other things” are the
important liturgical and pastoral concerns facing every bishop, pastor, and liturgical musician. In considering the use of the treasures of chant, pastors and liturgical musicians should take care that the congregation is able to participate in the Liturgy with song.

It is important to note that chant has pride of place “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin.”

“In the celebration of Mass the faithful form a holy people, a people whom God has
made his own, a royal priesthood, so that they may give thanks to God and offer the spotless Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, and so that they may learn to offer themselves.” This is the basis for the “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful demanded by the very nature of the Liturgy.
Because the gathered liturgical assembly forms one body, each of its members must
shun “any appearance of individualism or division, keeping before their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.”

Singing is one of the primary ways that the assembly of the faithful participates
actively in the Liturgy. The people are encouraged “to take part by means of acclamations,responses, psalms, antiphons [and] hymns. . . .” The musical formation of the assembly must be a continuing concern in order to foster full, conscious, and active participation.

So that the holy people may sing with one voice, the music must be within its
members’ capability. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at ease when they sing. Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization. A pastoral judgement must be made in all cases

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 judgements that those responsible for enacting thr mass are expected to deliver?

I think the extract below is very illuminating:

“I am old enough to have been an altar boy prior to the changes in VII. I can not recall ever hearing a proper sung. I have listened to samples “Simple English Propers” on Chant Cafe and they are lovely. BUT, the guy that sings them can’t go around to each parish and sing them and not that many parishes have that talent at their fingertips. Plus, I don’t think the congregation is going to sing them (they are different for each Mass so the congregation has no chance to learn them) and then it becomes more of a solo piece for the guy with the voice. If I am forced to make a choice, I choose parish participation.”

 

[drforjc]

These aren’t the propers but the point about using propers in the OF is that they become less integral to the the mass if they have nothing to do with the texts

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.

 

[ProVobis]

These aren’t the propers but the point about using propers in the OF is that they become less integral to the the mass if they have nothing to do with the texts. The assertion that they are to be sung in preference to anything else is dubious, since they are just one option.

Musicum sacram (1967) made clear, amongst other things that:

Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it.

The faithful fulfil their liturgical role by making that full, conscious and active participation which is demanded by the nature of the liturgy itself and which is, by reason of baptism, the right and duty of the Christian people.

This participation

(a) Should be above all internal, in the sense that by it the faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace,

(b) Must be, on the other hand, external also, that is, such as to show the internal participation by gestures and bodily attitudes, by the acclamations, responses and singing

One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song. Therefore the active participation of the whole people, which is shown in singing, is to be carefully promoted.

For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days, a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day.

The “pride of place” given to Gregorian chant by the Second Vatican Council is
modified by the important phrase “other things being equal.” These “other things” are the
important liturgical and pastoral concerns facing every bishop, pastor, and liturgical musician. In considering the use of the treasures of chant, pastors and liturgical musicians should take care that the congregation is able to participate in the Liturgy with song.

It is important to note that chant has pride of place “in sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin.”

“In the celebration of Mass the faithful form a holy people, a people whom God has
made his own, a royal priesthood, so that they may give thanks to God and offer the spotless Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, and so that they may learn to offer themselves.” This is the basis for the “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful demanded by the very nature of the Liturgy.
Because the gathered liturgical assembly forms one body, each of its members must
shun “any appearance of individualism or division, keeping before their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.”

Singing is one of the primary ways that the assembly of the faithful participates
actively in the Liturgy. The people are encouraged “to take part by means of acclamations,responses, psalms, antiphons [and] hymns. . . .” The musical formation of the assembly must be a continuing concern in order to foster full, conscious, and active participation.

So that the holy people may sing with one voice, the music must be within its
members’ capability. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at ease when they sing. Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization. A pastoral judgement must be made in all cases

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 judgements that those responsible for enacting thr mass are expected to deliver?

I think the extract below is very illuminating:

“I am old enough to have been an altar boy prior to the changes in VII. I can not recall ever hearing a proper sung. I have listened to samples “Simple English Propers” on Chant Cafe and they are lovely. BUT, the guy that sings them can’t go around to each parish and sing them and not that many parishes have that talent at their fingertips. Plus, I don’t think the congregation is going to sing them (they are different for each Mass so the congregation has no chance to learn them) and then it becomes more of a solo piece for the guy with the voice. If I am forced to make a choice, I choose parish participation.”

LL, this is good but you haven’t made a case for singing those pieces which are outside of the texts or propers of the Mass, pieces where people may not agree with the theology, which many times is more Protestant than Catholic, or appropriateness to Catholic worship at all, such as singing patriotic songs. Or simply think the tune is horrible and/or the whole thing is a waste of one’s prayerful time. The only obligation one has is to assist at Mass, that means be present for it, whether you understand the language or not. You could see it as a duty to do whatever the liturgical committee prescribes for that parish but there is no obligation to sing whatever’s outside of Mass texts.

 

[liturgyluver]

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.

Nobody is saying that they cannot be sung, or even that - in certain circumstances, all things being equal - that they should not be sung, but nowhere does the church teach that they must be sung - and are therefore integral. In fact Musicum Sacrum relegates these parts of the liturgy to the 3rd degree.

 

[liturgyluver]

LL, this is good but you haven’t made a case for singing those pieces which are outside of the texts or propers of the Mass, pieces where people may not agree with the theology, which many times is more Protestant than Catholic, or appropriateness to Catholic worship at all, such as singing patriotic songs. Or simply think the tune is horrible and/or the whole thing is a waste of one’s prayerful time. The only obligation one has is to assist at Mass, that means be present for it, whether you understand the language or not. You could see it as a duty to do whatever the liturgical committee prescribes for that parish but there is no obligation to sing whatever’s outside of Mass texts.

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.

At the end of the day, no-one can force anyone to do anything, but that is a different matter to the church’s expectation.**