Sacred Music and the Second Vatican Council

[Wonko_the_Sane]

Okay, so we all know that the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican says sacred music should be in keeping with tradition, that Gregorian Chant should have pride of place, blah blah blah…

That was until I stumbled upon this sentence:
Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.

Emphasis mine.

What defines true art?

This is, in my opinion, a perfect example of the many instances of vagueness on behalf of the Council Documents.

So, posters, I pose this question to you:
What constitutes true art?

My definition of art is “anything you can get away with”.
But *true art?
*
Thoughts?

 

[jbuck919]

It’s a lot easier to get at by example than by definition. High Gregorian, meaning the body of works that reached acme during the Carolingian Renaissance, is true art. The St. Louis Jesuits are not.

 

[Wonko_the_Sane]

It’s a lot easier to get at by example than by definition. High Gregorian, meaning the body of works that reached acme during the Carolingian Renaissance, is true art. The St. Louis Jesuits are not.

Why?
What makes true art true art?

 

[jbuck919]

Why?
What makes true art true art?

The problem is that definitions beg the question. Complexity, depth, care of execution, caftsmanship, who would really be satisfied by that as a definition? On the other hand, saying that it’s art if someone with artistic sensibilities recognizes it as art isn’t exactly going to satisfy anyone either. Having said that, there is a certain non-democratic character to art and the fact that US Catholics seem to think they can (implicitly) vote on the topic accounts for the fact that there is very little art and very much schlock in ordinary parish worship.

 

[cue]

Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship…Does in integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality?

• Pope Benedict, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 151.

I think the Holy Father actually defines art somewhere in this book, but this is the best quote I could find for now. I think he connects art with Logos, but I will keep looking.

 

[rwoehmke]

I read recently that people from South of the border are flocking to the more pentacostal religions because of the greater emphasis on emotion rather than cold reason in their liturgical rites. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that music that moves one closer to God is the “Art” required?
Jesus, once said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath( Of course that situation had to do with husking grain on the sabbath and not music.). Doesn’t it make sense than that any music that moves one into an experience of the presence of the Lord and an attitude of worship becomes proper. The problem arises naturally because the people attending Mass are quite a diverse bunch of folk whose emotions and thoughts are triggered by very diverse set of stimuli.

 

[jbuck919]

I think the Holy Father actually defines art somewhere in this book, but this is the best quote I could find for now. I think he connects art with Logos, but I will keep looking.

I think the Holy Father was, understandably and in my opinion correctly, trying to bring a level of elevation to the discourse. Art is not about anything mundane. However, in practice in the US, he won’t even win over some cardinals with that, let alone the average parish Joe. The notion that artistic excellence equates with snobbism and elitism, in part because it must be mediated by experts, is simply too ingrained.

BTW, in spite of what I have implied before, Catholics have no monopoly on this phenomenon. Many Protestant denominations have moved in the direction of abandoning their own traditional aesthetic for blended or praise worship, or whatever you want to call it. (The extent to which the traditional aesthetic was worth maintaining in the first place varies from denomination to denomination.)

 

[Wonko_the_Sane]

See, this is the thing I am getting at.

Unless cue finds a definitive definition of true art, then we are essentially screwed.

Art in itself is so objective and so diverse that I, as a lover of the “traditional” music for liturgy, have difficulty giving a rational and reasonable explanation for true art, and the reason why some music is considered true are, and some is not.

See, I know full well that Haugen and Haas isn’t true art.
But why?
I can only answer that giving my own opinions and perceptions.
Nothing subjective, which is what the Liturgy is all about - objective truth.

 

[SMHW]

This is entirely my opinion…

It will be tough to define ‘true art’ but I would say that art, and specifically music is a language for communicating to the ‘heart’.

I think Pope Benedict makes some good points: music should “integrate man by drawing him to what is above” True art speaks to everyone. But IMO, true art will never be liked or loved by everyone because not everyone can accept the message. A lot of people WANT to disintegrate into “formless intoxication and mere sensuality” in the process of worshiping.

I do think there is a place for the ‘less pure’ forms of music. Such music often speaks to people where they are and and in a language that they can understand. And that is what God does. And I think that in some cases people need to be touched at Mass.

One of the wonderful things about music is that if you start with music that reflects how you feel and gradually begin to change the music to reflect how you want to feel, the music will actually effect a change. Now worship is more than mere emotion but I do think music has the power to change our hearts to recognize God for who He is.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Some kinds of art transcend the trends of historical periods, be it music, architecture, painting, or what have you. A Gothic/neo-Gothic structure will stand the test of time as a thing of beauty, while a concrete 1960’s church out of a scene from “The Jetsons” was an eyesore when it was built and will not get any more attractive over the years. Google the Oregon State Capitol to see what I mean – it is seventy years old and hasn’t gotten any nicer. For another example, take a typical metal sculpture as one might find on a college campus. In that location, they consider this rusting hulk “art,” but if the same sculpture were in your front yard, the neighborhood association would force you to haul it off. Beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder.

 

[pprimeau1976]

See, this is the thing I am getting at.

Unless cue finds a definitive definition of true art, then we are essentially screwed.

Art in itself is so objective and so diverse that I, as a lover of the “traditional” music for liturgy, have difficulty giving a rational and reasonable explanation for true art, and the reason why some music is considered true are, and some is not.

See, I know full well that Haugen and Haas isn’t true art.
But why?
I can only answer that giving my own opinions and perceptions.
Nothing subjective, which is what the Liturgy is all about - objective truth.

Because when it comes to worshiping God, nothing is objective. Different cultures should be allowed to worship the one true God in their own way. The Byzantines had their way, the Romans had theirs, yet they were both perfectly acceptable. Why are we so shocked and threatened that in the United States, more “American” forms of music and worship are being introduced?

Did you happen to see when John Paul II was in Mexico to canonize Juan Diego? In the context of the mass, I remember seeing Mexican women using an Aztec custom to bless John Paul II. My memory could be flawed though. They took a pagan Aztec custom and gave it *new meaning. *This is no different than turning a pagan Roman custom and giving it *new meaning *and calling it Christmas.

To sum it all up, the ways in which we worship really don’t matter as long as we stay within the norms provided by the Church. It’s not about the way we bless, it’s about the Person (or Persons) who blesses. It’s not about the way we celebrate His birth, it’s about He who was born. It’s not about the song we sing, it’s about Who the song is about.

I hope this answers your question without offending you.