Rock Music at Mass

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Excuse me, but I was simply doing what ethelzguy requested. No more, no less.

Oh sorry—numerous examples of supreme model, and none of “permanent standard” What of the instructions on singing from the GIRM, which I posted?

 

[VociMike]

Obviously you didn’t—Why did you think you needed a smiley?

Possibly because your response was rude?

Suit yourself. Assume the worst.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Actually no. You posted a rude response, and thought it was OK because you threw in a smiley.

Sorry–rude is rude–with or without a smiley.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

ps re

I did everything in my power to make my comment light-hearted,

Obviously you didn’t. Rephrasing would have been my choice.

 

[benedictgal]

Interestingly enough, no one from the other camp has been able to quote any documentation from the Holy See advocating their standpoint. In fact, what has been quoted from the Holy See stands in opposition to their viewpoints.

Here is the section from the Instrumentum Laboris, the working document for the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist:

In other responses some lamented the poor quality of translations of liturgical texts and many musical texts in current languages, maintaining that they lacked beauty and were sometimes theologically unclear, thereby contributing to a weakening of Church teaching and to a misunderstanding of prayer. A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy.

This isn’t just someone’s personal opinion; this statement comes from the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist. It is also fairly consistent with all of the other documentation that has been posted.

One individual posted something from the GIRM regarding singing. No one is saying that we shouldn’t sing. It’s the content and style of the music that is the issue here.

 

[VociMike]

ps re

Obviously you didn’t. Rephrasing would have been my choice.

OK, from now on you can write my posts for me.

You plan on letting this drop anytime soon? I know I do.

 

[japhy]

Oh sorry—numerous examples of supreme model, and none of “permanent standard” What of the instructions on singing from the GIRM, which I posted?

Please, read what I wrote. I admitted that I did not know where “permanent standard” came from (although VociMike has supplied a source); I gave the examples of the “supreme model”. I was simply fulfilling the request of ethelzguy, and was not responding to anything else at the time.

 

[VociMike]

Interestingly enough, no one from the other camp has been able to quote any documentation from the Holy See advocating their standpoint. In fact, what has been quoted from the Holy See stands in opposition to their viewpoints.

What we have seen here is what we always see when the subject of sacred music comes up. One side calls for working to move closer to the ideal, an ideal clearly laid out by the Church. And the other side says if it’s not absolutely, positively, completely, entirely prohibited, we’re going to keep doing it, and besides it’s all just a matter of personal preference anyway. They certainly have a strong resistance to thinking with the mind of the Church in this matter, the sensus Ecclesiae, which John Paul II said is essential in producing new compositions that are truly worthy for the liturgy.

 

[japhy]

GIRM n. 40: Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass, with due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly.

Does this quote from the GIRM speak against chant? The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as universal (among other adjectives), appropriate to every culture. Or is an assembly’s inability to sing Gregorian chant an obstacle to its use? Surely they can be taught! That was Pope Paul VI’s explicit desire in 1974 when he gave the bishops a handbook of a minimal chant repertoire (Jubilate Deo)… which fell on deaf ears, it would seem.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Does this quote from the GIRM speak against chant? The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as universal (among other adjectives), appropriate to every culture. Or is an assembly’s inability to sing Gregorian chant an obstacle to its use? Surely they can be taught! That was Pope Paul VI’s explicit desire in 1974 when he gave the bishops a handbook of a minimal chant repertoire (Jubilate Deo)… which fell on deaf ears, it would seem.

Look at the last 2 posts.

No one called for the exclusion of chant, but those who favor chant have called for the exclusion of other music, even in direct opposition to the GIRM instructions.

 

[VociMike]

Does this quote from the GIRM speak against chant? The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as universal (among other adjectives), appropriate to every culture. Or is an assembly’s inability to sing Gregorian chant an obstacle to its use? Surely they can be taught! That was Pope Paul VI’s explicit desire in 1974 when he gave the bishops a handbook of a minimal chant repertoire (Jubilate Deo)… which fell on deaf ears, it would seem.

Here’s the letter which accompanied the release of “Jubilate Deo”:

adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html

I am especially struck by this paragraph at the end:

In presenting the Holy Father’s gift to you, may I at the same time remind you of the desire which he has often expressed that the Conciliar constitution on the liturgy be increasingly better implemented. 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, and also of promoting the preservation and execution of Gregorian chant in the communities mentioned above. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal.

Imagine that - more fully implementing Vatican II on the liturgy includes teaching the faithful the Latin chants and having them sing them, and promoting preservation and execution of Gregorian chant. And this will be a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal.

Renew the liturgy, learn and use Gregorian chant. What a concept!

 

[VociMike]

Look at the last 2 posts.

No one called for the exclusion of chant, but those who favor chant have called for the exclusion of other music, even in direct opposition to the GIRM instructions.

Unless you have radical views on the subject, I assume you also would exclude some other music from the liturgy.

Would you exclude some other music from the liturgy? If so, on what basis?

 

[benedictgal]

Here is something else. The document Vountati Obsequens has this interesting statement:

Vernacular Singing
When vernacular singing is concerned, the liturgical reform offers “a challenge to the creativity and the pastoral zeal of every local church.”[5] Poets and musicians are therefore to be encouraged to put their talents at the service of such a cause, so that a popular chant may emerge which is truly artistic, is worthy of the praise of God, of the liturgical action of which it forms part and of the faith which it expresses. The liturgical reform has opened up new perspectives for sacred music and for chant. "One hopes for a new flowering of the art of religious music in our time. Since the vernacular is admitted to worship in every country it ought not to be denied the beauty and the power of expression of religious music and appropriate chant.[6]

It’s actually fascinating that even as late as 1974, the Apostolic See was still envisioning that chant would still be the standard for liturgical music.

And, as if the faithful needed another reminder (actually, we probably do, given the tenor of some of the posts), this is what the letter says regarding Gregorian Chant:

Gregorian Chant
At the same time, the liturgical reform does not and indeed cannot deny the past. Rather does it “preserve and foster it with the greatest care.”[7] It cultivates and transmits all that is in it of high religious, cultural and artistic worth and especially those elements which can express even externally the unity of believers.
This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living traditions of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it. And this becomes all the more imperative as we approach the Holy Year of 1975, during which the faithful of different languages, nations and origins, will find themselves side by side for the common celebration of the Lord.

So, this is further ratification regarding the Church’s standard of music.

 

[japhy]

No one called for the exclusion of chant, but those who favor chant have called for the exclusion of other music, even in direct opposition to the GIRM instructions.

Not the exclusion of all other music, mind you. But even if chant is ignored, certain types of music should still be excluded.

Chant is the best music (and the proper music) for the Mass, followed by polyphony. I don’t know exactly what the rest of the ranking is, because the Church hasn’t been clear on that… just that the further a style of music is from Gregorian chant, the less appropriate for the liturgy it is. To me, rock music, even “soft rock”, doesn’t seem to have the characteristics of chant.

 

[VociMike]

So, this is further ratification regarding the Church’s standard of music.

Indeed, the popes have been unanimous* since Vatican II in holding up Gregorian chant as the ideal, not something to be abandoned but something to be learned and sung as part of the liturgical renewal promoted by Vatican II. Nothing could be more clear that the place which the Church has desired for Gregorian chant, during and after Vatican II.

*leaving out the 33 day reign of John Paul I, in case anybody wants to quibble.

 

[VociMike]

It’s actually fascinating that even as late as 1974, the Apostolic See was still envisioning that chant would still be the standard for liturgical music.

The Church has always been clear that the ideal is to “sing the Mass,” not “sing at Mass”. That is, the ideal is to sing the texts of the Mass itself, not to sing other texts (i.e. hymns). And vernacular chant would have accomplished this goal, but it never happened (probably never could have happened, under the circumstances).

“Sing the Mass, don’t sing at Mass.” Here too is where Gregorian chant excels and is the model and standard for what the Church holds up as the ideal.

 

[japhy]

The Church has always been clear that the ideal is to “sing the Mass,” not “sing at Mass”. That is, the ideal is to sing the texts of the Mass itself, not to sing other texts (i.e. hymns).

Many Catholics would be surprised, I bet, to learn that every celebration of the Mass has a proper song (chant, that is) for the entrance, offertory, and Communion processions! If only they could be sung and heard…

 

[VociMike]

Many Catholics would be surprised, I bet, to learn that every celebration of the Mass has a proper song (chant, that is) for the entrance, offertory, and Communion processions! If only they could be sung and heard…

I think most Catholics would be astonished to learn this. Nobody seems to want to tell them. You can’t even find the Propers for the day on the USCCB website.

 

[benedictgal]

I think most Catholics would be astonished to learn this. Nobody seems to want to tell them. You can’t even find the Propers for the day on the USCCB website.

Of course, if they would only tune in and watch a Papal Mass, then they would actually get to hear what the antiphons and propers sound like when chanted properly.

By the way, I’ve listened to the parts of the WYD opening Mass that I missed when I fell asleep. The music is 50-50. Some of the parts are nice, but, the others are the usual WYD fare. Hopefully, things will improve when Pope Benedict celebrates the Mass.

Of course, if the Aussie broadcast team would quit the banter and the chit-chat, then, I could actually listen to the parts of the Mass. It is really bad when the commentators talk over everything. At least Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Neuhaus didn’t do that.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Many Catholics would be surprised, I bet, to learn that every celebration of the Mass has a proper song (chant, that is) for the entrance, offertory, and Communion processions! If only they could be sung and heard…

and here are the options from the GIRM (already posted, but obviously some still are not familiar with them)

1. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.55