POPE BENEDICT on SACRED MUSIC. Your thoughts?

[Sarika]

When speaking of the development of Sacred Music, Pope Benedict wrote the following.
Starting at the section where he speaks of the late Middle Ages, and the (then)new influence of secular music upon Church music we read:

“This is particularly clear in the case of the so-called “parody Masses” in which the text of Mass was set to a theme or melody that came from secular music, with the result that anyone hearing it might think he was listening to the latest “hit”. It is clear that these opportunities for artistic creativity and the adoption of secular tunes brought danger with them. Music was no longer developing out of prayer, but, with the new demand for artistic autonomy, was now heading away from the liturgy; it was becoming an end in itself, opening the door to new, very different ways of feeling and experiencing the world.
At this point the Church of Trent intervened in the culture wars that had broken out. It was made a norm that liturgical music should be at the service of the Word; the use of instruments was substantially reduced: AND THE DIFFERENCE BEWEEN SECULAR AND SACRED MUSIC WAS CLEARLY AFFIRMED”. [My emphasis] (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp.146-47)

 

[Sarika]

I also wanted to add this as a conclusion: (from a speech given by Pope Benedict on June 24th, 2006 at the Sistine Chapel)

“An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.”

 

[Monica4316]

I totally agree with the Pope. Even VII documents call for Gregorian chant and polyphony and other classical forms of sacred music.

 

[Redratfish]

So basically the Pope is saying…

Before 1500: Little, or no music allowed.
Sacred- accepted by the church 1500, use of pipe organ.
Secular- anything after Council of Trent.

Got it

My thought is that I disagree with it. It is an opinion of musical tastes. I don’t think rap has a place in Church. Then again, Fr. Stan Fortuna uses rap to reach minority groups.

It is not an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Sarika]

.

It is not an ex cathedra statement.

---

No one said it was. Just thought those who are missing any kind of specific direction one way or the other from their Bishop might want to hear some specific Apostolic “opinions” from someone who is merely the Vicar of Christ on earth. I asked Jesus to send me some of His thoughts on the matter, but He referred me to Pope Benedict. Just as well. I can’t translate Aramaic anyway.

 

[Sarika]

" It is an opinion of musical tastes."

---

Most certainly it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “musical tastes” at all.
It has to do with history and with objective, analyzable characteristics of the compositions themselves. The Church’s criteria for discerning appropriate liturgical music varies considerably from the technique that was used on “American Bandstand”. If you’re old enough to know what I mean by that.

 

[Redratfish]

" It is an opinion of musical tastes."

---

Most certainly it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “musical tastes” at all.
It has to do with history and with objective, analyzable characteristics of the compositions themselves. The Church’s criteria for discerning appropriate liturgical music varies considerably from the technique that was used on “American Bandstand”. If you’re old enough to know what I mean by that.

I have heard of it before, but I must disagree. To those use to hearing that kind of music, of course it will seem like the only appropriate form to use. However, the current generation (1990 and onward), I believe that the technique will change. In many posts talking about the use of the organ, it is said that it is the uplifting aspects of it that make it so wonderful for mass. Well, what is uplifting to one generation is boring and sounds like a funeral durge to another. What is uplifting to one generation sounds like 'secular music" to another.

No music at all was once considered uplifting by the early Catholics

 

[Redratfish]

---

No one said it was. Just thought those who are missing any kind of specific direction one way or the other from their Bishop might want to hear some specific Apostolic “opinions” from someone who is merely the Vicar of Christ on earth. I asked Jesus to send me some of His thoughts on the matter, but He referred me to Pope Benedict. Just as well. I can’t translate Aramaic anyway.

I said that simply because many take the opinion of the Pope as the word of God. I was only saying that this was not the case here.

Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. But I fail to see your point. The individual Pope’s views on music change from Pope to Pope.

 

[Sarika]

Sarika;7969696:

No music at all was once considered uplifting by the early Catholics

That’s a new one! Where on earth did you get that? In fact, where on earth are you getting just about everything you’ve said? That must be some history book.

Somehow I think it was authored by you.

 

[Sarika]

The individual Pope’s views on music change from Pope to Pope.

I’ll need evidence for this one.

 

[Samuel63]

When it comes to music in the church, the pope is correct as usual. Its purpose is to elevate us to the sacred and divine. Nothing does this like beautiful chant or traditional hymns.

Young people today are not even aware of these aspects of real worship. The use of these forms of music were unceremoniously removed from mass during the past few decades. It took hundreds of years to create these musical jewels. I predict this generation would require many times that length of time to come up with a pitiable replacement.

I do not blame them though for their weak artistic ability. Is it not the fault of the present and past adult generation for allowing this to happen.

Believe one point for sure, this pope we have today is a very intelligent man. You need to consider carefully what he is saying. After all, he is a musician as well.

 

[TheMc]

So basically the Pope is saying…

Before 1500: Little, or no music allowed.
Sacred- accepted by the church 1500, use of pipe organ.
Secular- anything after Council of Trent.

Got it

Actually, he’s not saying that at all. He is saying that secular music (“happy birthday”, praise and worship music, most anything sold by OCP, etc…) is not suitable for Mass.

Unfortunately, that often translates to “only use old music,” because it is hard to find new sacred music that is actually sacred.

There is good sacred music still being written today, it’s just hard to find in the whirlwind of guitars. For example: Kevin Allen

Also: "Before 1500: Little, or no music allowed. " Where did that come from?!?!?

 

[Sarika]

There is good sacred music still being written today, it’s just hard to find in the whirlwind of guitars. For example: Kevin Allen

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed it. I found a website listed on it, and went there too. Nice stuff. ccwatershed.org

 

[TheMc]

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed it. I found a website listed on it, and went there too. Nice stuff. ccwatershed.org

Yes, lots of good new sacred music there too.

 

[Sarika]

IBelieve one point for sure, this pope we have today is a very intelligent man. You need to consider carefully what he is saying. After all, he is a musician as well.

Amen, brother. And a holy man too. It would take one heck of an intellectual to tangle with him, say someone of the proportions of a John Paul. And of course it would not happen, as they were great friends, brothers in Christ and united in the truth.

And of course his knowledge of Church history, music and the Liturgy is definitely lightyears above the level of the average layman. In fact, there are probably not many U.S. priests or Bishops who would have anywhere near his caliber of intellectual formation. After all, in order to be a true scholar, one has to go directly to a source, and read in the original language. In the case of the Church, that would be Latin. One has to be able to read all of the pertinent historical documents in the original language in order to form a true scholarly opinion. And how long has it been since our seminarians have been trained seriously in Latin? How long has it been since they have done any true scholarship? They have relied on second hand sources for way too long.
How do they even know that their 2nd and 3rd hand sources are being straight with them?

 

[Victory9]

I am a pre-Vatican II, post-Vatican II child. While Gregorian chant was never used in the parish I grew up in, I remember the Latin Mass, and organ music was, of course, used, and everyone sang hymns that were offered to God, for God, about God, in worship of God, and the responses where called for were beautiful and reverential.
Then came the post-Vatican II Mass, when the translation to English was as close to the Latin as it could get, and the sense of the sacred and the sense of the majesty of the Mass was remembered, adhered to and loved. Over time, I witnessed a lot of ‘experimentation’ with the Mass itself and, as a ‘logical’ consequence, the music.
Once the idea of ‘ecumenism’ took hold, the Mass and the music REALLY suffered, because the catch-phrase, aim, and agenda of the liberal idea of ‘the spirit of Vatican II’ permeated everything.
Now liturgical abuse is so common as to be ‘normal’, and everyone that calls for correction is accused of being a ‘traditionalist’, or wanting to ‘go back’, as if those were bad things, something to be ashamed of.
Pope Benedict XVI wants to correct the abuses that have evolved in the Church, and everyone is so passionate about where they stand that his message is being disregarded by too many. So many in the Church think they are about ‘renewal’, when in fact they are really about ‘removal’; this Pope is a Pope of ‘restoration’.
The diocese I formerly belonged to was conservative, and had bishops who’ve always remained faithful to Rome. Music was diverse (using organs and/or guitars) but always reverential. Guitars, like any musical instrument, are beautiful, so it’s not the instrument that is the problem but the choices of music (and combination of instruments) used.
Using a flute or conga gently to enrich the sound of a guitar choir is one thing ~ using guitars, banjos, a full drum kit, accordions, tamborines and a ‘throw it all in’ smorgasbord all in the same choir, like a band, does not elevate, but rather violates, the senses and sense of reverence that should always be the first consideration when offering music to God.
In the diocese I’m in now, music is generic, ‘we the people’ fluff, with the words or names of Jesus or God thrown in as a token gesture; it is not worshipful or reverential at all. Earth-and-sky, come-to-the-table, mountains-and-hills, diversity, we-are-the-world; every week this is the kind of social-justice stuff that our music consists of.
We need a balance, but the bottom line is that the music be about worshiping God, which is the reason for the Mass, as He called for ~ “Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.” Exodus 20: 8.

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m a musician with eclectic, wide ranging tastes, but when it comes to Mass, what the Pope says goes.

 

[Sarika]

Now liturgical abuse is so common as to be ‘normal’, and everyone that calls for correction is accused of being a ‘traditionalist’, or wanting to ‘go back’, as if those were bad things, something to be ashamed of.
Pope Benedict XVI wants to correct the abuses that have evolved in the Church, and everyone is so passionate about where they stand that his message is being disregarded by too many. So many in the Church think they are about ‘renewal’, when in fact they are really about ‘removal’; this Pope is a Pope of ‘restoration’.​

I love your comments, especially the above. It is such a shame that we have become a Church of extremes…I believe this ( in part) is due to a lack of vigilance or action on the part of the Bishops many years ago. What a mess there is for the newer ones to have to deal with.Once something is permitted or ignored, it is hard to change expectations or give direction.

 

[Contarini]

So basically the Pope is saying…

Before 1500: Little, or no music allowed.

No, not at all. He’s saying the opposite. There was a lot of musical freedom in the late Middle Ages, and Trent cut back on it.

Sacred- accepted by the church 1500, use of pipe organ.

No, not at all. He’s saying that there was a lot of secular music in church in the late Middle Ages (through the mid-sixteenth century), and that Trent affirmed that sacred music should have a narrower stylistic range.

Secular- anything after Council of Trent.

Got it

No. You pretty much completely got it wrong. There’s been lots of sacred music, by Pope Benedict’s definition, produced after 1500.

My thought is that I disagree with it. It is an opinion of musical tastes. I don’t think rap has a place in Church. Then again, Fr. Stan Fortuna uses rap to reach minority groups.

It is not an ex cathedra statement.

It’s the pastor of all Christians teaching, and he deserves our respect. I as a non-Catholic think this–so perhaps you should too. I don’t necessarily agree with Pope Benedict myself, but I take him very seriously.

Edwin

 

[benedictgal]

I said that simply because many take the opinion of the Pope as the word of God. I was only saying that this was not the case here.

Yes, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. But I fail to see your point. The individual Pope’s views on music change from Pope to Pope.

Let’s see now. According to the Chirograph on Sacred Music written by Blessed John Paul II:

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

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

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

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

From Sacramentum Caritatis, written by Pope Benedict in 2007:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

There is consistency here in the line of Papal thinking, from Pope St. Pius X all the way to Pope Benedict XVI. What Pope Benedict XVI wrote as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when Spirit of the Liturgy was first released is quite consistent and reaffirmed now that he is Supreme Pontiff.