The Power of Music

[pnewton]

I don’t want to go over each point, but what you say is not all in objective violation of the GIRM. For example, the first point is not set in stone. The GIRM allows:

However, in order that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more easily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the different times of the year or for the different categories of Saints. These may be used instead of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung.

So a bishop could allow for choices outside the Lectionary, including paraphrases.

Also, any legalistic reading of the GIRM, even if you ignore the word “general”, must recognize the differences between the words “should” and “shall.” I think it best to let the bishops do their job, even if you are a really good reader and have studied the GIRM.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t know anything about intricate chant.

That is tougher. The notes are easy enough to follow (you’re quite right, square notes are easier to read), and it’s no more difficult staying on pitch for chant than any other form of vocal music. The real difficulty though, is having everyone on the same note at the same time. Chant is meant to be one voice, with no single person’s voice sticking out. For the simple stuff that everyone knows, it isn’t so bad. But when you get into melismatic chants of the propers, especially graduals and offertories, the average person in the pew isn’t going to get it.

For us, as a schola, the gist of our practices is refining that “one voice” sense. It means everyone being on the same note, at the same time, for a musical form that is not metered. That also means ironing out the little quirks in everyone’s voice, ensuring people place the accents in the right place, breathing unobtrusively in a manner that doesn’t disrupt the flow, etc. It takes years of practice for a schola to find its voice. You start out with the simple stuff and work up.

Easy Kyries, such as XVI, or Sanctus/Agnus XVIII, or Gloria XVI (or even VIII, which I’m sick of but which many folks seem to know) are certainly within reach of the average parish.

 

[EmmaSowl]

texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the different times of the year or for the different categories of Saints.

This refers to special events and states that the texts have been chosen. That means that there was already an official set of texts before the GIRM was approved. Unless someone can point me to those texts to prove me wrong, I’m guessing that they don’t include popular hymns.

I think it best to let the bishops do their job, even if you are a really good reader and have studied the GIRM.

I agree. I am referring to paid workers and pastors who are not obeying their bishops. And there is a litany of saints who believed they had the right to point out when a bishop was not doing his job, and I believe I am encouraged to stumble in pathetic imitation of those saints if I am sincere and willing to be corrected by anyone I’ve falsely accused.

But they do not correct me nor explain why I am wrong about thinking things are disobedient. The few who try to sway me actually try to convince me why the disobedience is preferable. Those are the nice ones. Others yell at me. Others shun me.

I’ve heard that the term “Voice of the People” is actually nowhere to be found in the V2 documents, but I have heard that term often. In my long experience of hearing it, I have found that those who use it actually mean “Voice of the Right People” (translation: voice of the people who agree with me - everyone else should stop rocking my boat).

 

[pnewton]

Unless someone can point me to those texts to prove me wrong, I’m guessing that they don’t include popular hymns.

And herein is the problem. We can all have our own beliefs, but only the bishop has the authority to say what this means, and how it should be implemented. I answered that point. You do not see it. If a bishop does, then it exists in his diocese, and a paraphrase is allowed.

I would note that not all communication to from bishop to priest is known to everyone, so it is not knowable that priests are being disobedience. As to the voice of the people, again, no one knows all the voice of the people. A priest cannot please all the people all the time, any more than any other mortal can.

 

[EmmaSowl]

And herein is the problem. We can all have our own beliefs, but only the bishop has the authority to say what this means, and how it should be implemented.

Are you saying that a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM? If so, why do we even have one?

I answered that point. You do not see it. If a bishop does, then it exists in his diocese, and a paraphrase is allowed.

Where is the list of things that a bishop can paraphrase according to his whim? Does it include the Gospel?

I would note that not all communication to from bishop to priest is known to everyone, so it is not knowable that priests are being disobedience.

But it is knowable if a choir director disobeys. If a choir director is using a guideline and the pastor doesn’t know what that guideline is (as I explained in my personal example), then it can hardly be said to have gone through the chain of command starting with the bishop - unless the chain of command skips pastors, associate pastors, and deacons and goes straight from bishop to choir director.

As to the voice of the people, again, no one knows all the voice of the people.

That’s for sure! That’s why it’s wonderful to be a Catholic who can turn to the Voice of the Bishops in Union with Rome.

A priest cannot please all the people all the time, any more than any other mortal can.

A priest should not be trying to please everyone. He should be trying to please God by his obedience and trying to help his sheep understand why obedience is pleasing to God.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, a bishop can make those decisions. You can call it a whim, but that word is just a way of insulting a decision you disagree with. We have the GIRM as a guide, even if not every layperson agrees.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Yes, a bishop can make those decisions. You can call it a whim, but that word is just a way of insulting a decision you disagree with.

I want to understand this correctly: are you saying that you believe a bishop has the right to paraphrase the Gospel Reading if he so desires?

 

[LilyM]

Peeps:

And the Church has included “Gather Us In” in the approved Catholic hymnals for 50+ years now. So it’s obviously on the “appropriate for worship” list, in spite of the gagging reaction that so many CAF posters seem to have.

I personally am so thankful that Holy Mother Church recognizes that there is more beautiful and appropriate music than just Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony (a style which very few cultures in the world appreciate and are able to sing).

Not every fashion in liturgical music has withstood the test of time. Some of the guidelines the Church has developed were in response to excesses in polyphony itself, after all, which in some instances had gotten so ornate that the sacred text being sung was no longer intelligible.

Sometimes experimentation works and sometimes it doesn’t. This is the nature of experimentation. The Church has been very clear that popularity alone is a poor standard for sacred music.

“excesses in polyphony”? Reminds me of the Emperor in the movie Amadeus telling Mozart that he had too many notes in his music.

I did sing in choir once upon a time. There is nothing wrong, if using a familiar text such as the Our Father or the Lord is My Shepherd Psalm, in playing with music a little at the expense of intelligibility - everyone knows the words anyway.

 

[PetraG]

“excesses in polyphony”? Reminds me of the Emperor in the movie Amadeus telling Mozart that he had too many notes in his music.

The different voices were singing different syllables on top of each other at the same time, such that the text was unintelligible to the listeners. This is obviously problematic to anyone trying to follow the prayer being sung. (Palastrina avoids this.)
In other words, it wasn’t necessarily musically problematic, but it was very much liturgically problematic. “Everyone knows the words anyway” doesn’t help if it takes blind faith to know what is being sung during the Mass. It is one thing if some people present don’t understand the words; it is another if literally no one could hope to pick the words out of a word salad of syllables.

 

[pnewton]

No, I did not say that, or anything close to that.

 

[EmmaSowl]

No, I did not say that, or anything close to that.

Then could you help me understand your point better?

I said:

Where is the list of things that a bishop can paraphrase according to his whim? Does it include the Gospel?

And you replied:

Yes, a bishop can make those decisions. You can call it a whim, but that word is just a way of insulting a decision you disagree with.

Since I misunderstood your point, could you clarify it for me?

 

[PetraG]

Since I misunderstood your point, could you clarify it for me?

I took her to mean that a bishop legitimately is the supreme liturgist in his own diocese. There are limits, but he does have a great deal more authority than people may think.

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying that a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM? If so, why do we even have one?

Sure. The first part of the post said, “Are you saying that a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM? If so, why do we even have one?”

That was the part I was responding to, not the Gospel. My second sentence was, “We have the GIRM as a guide, even if not every layperson agrees.” There are limits, of course.

 

[EmmaSowl]

I took her to mean that a bishop legitimately is the supreme liturgist in his own diocese. There are limits, but he does have a great deal more authority than people may think.

If there are limits, what are they and how do we know what they are? I thought the document which described those limits was the newest GIRM (which I and all my liturgist friends and frienemies awaited with baited breath). If it is not the GIRM, what is the document that lays out the limitations?

 

[EmmaSowl]

Sure. The first part of the post said, “Are you saying that a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM? If so, why do we even have one?”

That was the part I was responding to, not the Gospel.

I guess I got confused because you referred to “whim” which was only used in the section of my post where I brought up the Gospel.

So, in answer to my question “Are you saying that a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM? If so, why do we even have one?”, you replied:

Yes, a bishop can make those decisions.

Then again, I must ask why we even have a GIRM if a bishop is not bound by it. Also, what is the document which says a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM?

 

[PetraG]

If there are limits, what are they and how do we know what they are? I thought the document which described those limits was the newest GIRM (which I and all my liturgist friends and frienemies awaited with baited breath). If it is not the GIRM, what is the document that lays out the limitations?

I only know our Archdiocese, which publishes exceptions. For instance, under Archbishop Vlazny the direction read that the faithful remained standing after the Agnus Dei. Other situations where there was a choice would come from the Office of Divine Worship or a letter from the Archbishop to the priests. It isn’t announced at Mass, but neither is it a secret.
As far as I know, some variations are at the discretion of the bishop and some require ratification/permission from the episcopal conference or the Vatican. The amount of latitude undoubtedly also depends on the Pope. The Pope is the Supreme Liturgist of the Church.

Then again, I must ask why we even have a GIRM if a bishop is not bound by it. Also, what is the document which says a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM?

A bishop cannot “do whatever he wants,” but he has some latitude for making local variations. He has real authority in the realm of defining liturgy in his diocese even though it is not without limits.

For more information, see: GIRM, Chapter IX: Adaptations within the Competence of Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences. There is a defined process.

 

[pnewton]

Then again, I must ask why we even have a GIRM if a bishop is not bound by it.

It serves as a norm, a general guide, listing options.

Also, what is the document which says a bishop can do whatever he wants with the GIRM?

“Whatever he wants” is an exaggeration. He does have authority to make decisions concerning the liturgy though. From the GIRM

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the High Priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful in some sense derives and upon whom it depends,[147] must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the Priest at the altar (cf. no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds

 

[angelic06]

Some options: the ordinariates under Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic constitution “Anglicanorum Coetibus”. I don’t know where you live, but I am a canonical member of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. I am at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston, TX. Excellent music at our principal Mass (11:15 am with adult choir) and at the 6 pm Mass which features cantor leading the John Merbecke setting of the ordinary, a capella. Granted, at least one parish uses contemporary style, but from what I heard, none of the other forty something parishes and communities have imitated their style.

Eastern Catholics, such as Byzantine, Maronite, etc.

Traditional Latin Mass (FSSP, diocesan).

A rare Ordinary Form in Latin.

A rare Ordinary Form in English with excellent chant and choral music (yes, it exists in my city).

I, too, also believe that the quality of music is important, but I am tired of arguing with people over it. So, I simply voted with my feet. I came to my first [then] Pastoral Provision parish, now ordinariate one, Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church, San Antonio, TX in 2006 and fell in love with the beauty of its Mass and architecture - as well as the orthodoxy of the preaching of its sacred ministers.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

https://ordinariate.net/parishfinder

 

[EmmaSowl]

I only know our Archdiocese, which publishes exceptions. For instance, under Archbishop Vlazny the direction read that the faithful remained standing after the Agnus Dei.

Omg, you’re so lucky that this was actually published in your diocese! A statement clears everything up. As I mentioned, I came to the painful decision to stand because that’s what was happening during Cardinal Mahoney’s Masses, even though he never made a statement. I decided that his practice was a “direction” even though he never made a statement. And since Bishop Gomez hasn’t commented, I am still standing.

My practice is to err on the side of what I hate doing if there is any sort of justification because I am trying, with all my heart, to obey legitimate authority and not stand on preference. I am aware that the kneeling/not kneeling after the Agnus Dei is legitimately a prerogative of the local bishop.

However, why a bishop would (legitimately) institute a practice that is not the norm in the US but refuse to make a statement to his flock about it remains a mystery to me. Why would a bishop not want to go on record about his decision?

Other situations where there was a choice would come from the Office of Divine Worship or a letter from the Archbishop to the priests. It isn’t announced at Mass, but neither is it a secret.

If it’s not a secret, why isn’t it announced at Mass?

Seriously, are the faithful considered to be unworthy of receiving instruction? If it’s not announced and different priests/liturgists/cantors feel free to do different things at different Masses in the same parish, where is the unity? Where do the faithful turn to learn obedience?

For more information, see: GIRM, Chapter IX: Adaptations within the Competence of Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences. There is a defined process.

Thank you for this. I will read it over the next few days and, most probably, will return with questions.