What constitutes "Sacred" or "Liturgical" Music?

[Lazerlike42]

My question is prompted by this issue as it relates specifically to weddings, but it is a more general question.

As I was reading the blogs today, I came across a post on Fr. Z’s blog about wedding music, and what is and is not perrmitted. In reading the comments, I learned that the famous Bridal March from Lohengrin is often not permitted in Catholic weddings. After a reading the comments there, various websites, and various threads from this forum, it seems that two reasons are given for this:

1. The march is secular music, and is not sacred or liturgical
2. Lohengrin is an opera containing some immoral material, making the use of a piece from it inappropriate.

I want to primarily focus on the first reason. In particular, what makes a piece sacred and/or liturgical? Now I have read many Church documents, and I know a fair amount about liturgy, and I happen to be a musician and composer myself, so I am reasonably well able to understand these things . So far as I can tell, that which makes a piece sacred or liturgical is that it was composed for that purpose, which leads to the rather absurd notion that a man may compose the same piece, with the same notes, harmonies, orchestrations, and so forth, and yet if he begins with the intention that it be liturgical it is so, whereas if begins with the intention that it be secular, then it is not.

Of course, the Church lists some criteria for sacred or liturgical music, such as that it have beauty and that it not be trite. However, there are many very beautiful and non-trite works which were composed for secular purposes, yet would fit in perfectly at a liturgical event - for example, Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.

And this brings me to a second aspect of the question. One of the threads here on CAF suggested this really quite wonderful part of a church web site which gives much advice for wedding music, including allowing individuals to listen to a wide variety of possible selections. It appears to be a very doctrinally orthodox church, and it also expresses all of the same ideas about sacred and liturgical music that I have seen elsewhere. However, when I look at the selections suggested on the page, they are all beautiful, yes, but many of them were composed for expressly secular purposes, just like Lohengrin - for example, Handel’s Fireworks and Water music, or Pachelbel’s famous Canon in D. Thus, I sense either a deep hypocrisy or something which I am quite entirely missing.

In terms of both weddings, and more generally liturgy in general, I would greatly appreciate any help in understanding this better.

God bless

 

[VociMike]

Just taking a quick stab at this:

1. The text “should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources” (Sacrosanctum Concilium)
2. “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple” (Pope John Paul II, citing Pope Pius X)

 

[passus]

It is a matter of the particular church’s choosing whether or not to allow “classical music” to be played during services inside the church. There is no document on the matter and I wouldn’t really expect there to be; such Church documents are concerned really with the textual settings of the pieces, hence their dictations regarding Scriptural lyrics and so forth.

I don’t find a secular intent in composition to be a very valid point of debate to use to support an exclusion of compositions like “The Bridal Chorus” from church services like weddings. There are a number of organ and instrumental preludes, postludes, interludes, and other bits that church organists love to use during Mass and I can assure you that nobody’s checking up on the source of “what the organist played before Mass on Sunday.”

 

[VociMike]

…such Church documents are concerned really with the textual settings of the pieces, hence their dictations regarding Scriptural lyrics and so forth.

The Church is also concerned with musical form, which is why she holds “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” (Pius X, quoted by John Paul II). John Paul II later says “Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.”

So both suitable text and suitable musical form are necessary for sacred or liturgical music (as opposed, I suppose, to simply “religious” music).

 

[Sarabande]

And this brings me to a second aspect of the question. One of the threads here on CAF suggested this really quite wonderful part of a church web site which gives much advice for wedding music, including allowing individuals to listen to a wide variety of possible selections. It appears to be a very doctrinally orthodox church, and it also expresses all of the same ideas about sacred and liturgical music that I have seen elsewhere. However, when I look at the selections suggested on the page, they are all beautiful, yes, but many of them were composed for expressly secular purposes, just like Lohengrin - for example, Handel’s Fireworks and Water music, or Pachelbel’s famous Canon in D. Thus, I sense either a deep hypocrisy or something which I am quite entirely missing.

I typed up this long response earlier and lost it all. I hope I can get my thoughts across without losing it.

I honestly don’t think there is a concious or subconcious hypocrisy here. It is how the music is viewed and the knowledge of the music director himself/herself.

One thing to remember, the only true sacred music is chant because its origins even prior to Christianity has always been in the sacred realm. Although other sacred and religious liturgical music have grown or was refined to evolve organically from chant, all other music has had some sort of secular origin from the polyphonic sacred music to many of the hymns we have sung in the past and today. The difference is how the pieces can be refined in order to be appropriate for liturgy and not sound too secular in style. Does the style represent and bring to mind too much of a secular feel in rendering? Does it sound too operatic, broadway-like, rock/folk music-like, like a symphony orchestra, etc. Also the intent of the piece of music. Was it composed for an opera, musical, ballet, etc.? Or was it composed strictly as music with no secular connotation at all.

Classical compositions has always lend itself well to compositions for no other reason but the music itself. It is called ‘absolute music’. This is music without any secular or religious connotation. Most organ preludes, postludes and instrumental music during mass are absolute music. It was always my understanding by my reading and other mentors that absolute music is permitted at mass because of the realm it is in. In a sacred setting, although no connotation in its original intent of composition, it can inspire spiritual thought and prayer because it is absolute music. If it doesn’t, then perhaps it should be rethought about the use at mass.

The majority of the instrumental music on that website is considered absolute music and not composed for secular purposes, thus permitted.

There are exceptions, though, which I will tell my bridal clients about when giving them that website to listen to.

• Largo from Handel’s Xerxes. In all honesty, even though this clearly states it is from his opera, the majority of people - even some of these musicians who put it on here, don’t realize that Xerxes is an opera. Some think it doesn’t really mean anything, because all they see is “Largo” which is only a term for a tempo of a piece. But in reality, it is actually also the aria “Ombra mai fu” - an absolutely gorgeous piece, but has nothing to do with the sacred
• The other two that usually have blurred lines are Handel’s Water Music and the Royal Fireworks. Some will argue that since it was not composed for an opera or ballet, it is ok to have. Others argue that since it is to represent, for instance, the royal fireworks, it is taking itself out of the realm of absolute music. With these two pieces it is really up to the musical director and the pastor to sit down together, do their homework and decide whether or not it would be appropriate.
• The Four Seasons by Vivaldi is what is called program music, thus taking it totally out of the realm of absolute music. The music sets a scene or mood by the titles of each movement. So, to me, although not technically “secular”, because it is not really absolute music, I wouldn’t recommend it for a Catholic wedding.

All of the vocal pieces are set to religious/sacred text. Heinrich Schutz’ “Wedding Song”, for example, (NOT that horrible Stookey piece) is set to a passage from the Book of Ruth. One could say, though, that the “Wedding Hymn” shouldn’t be permitted because the melody (not the text) originally came from the opera Tolomeo. Although most people wouldn’t know that. It is sold as a religious piece of sheet music. I know, because I’ve sung the aria with the original text before. That said, so many of our hymns and polyphonic pieces (polyphonic music was considered “liscivious” and immoral, also banned by a couple popes until it was refined to be appropriate for mass) that we hold as purely sacred/religious music for mass had its origins from bar songs, folk songs and other secular works. “Ode to Joy” for example. Original melody was a drinking song, Beethoven made a masterpiece out of it and then it became a hymn. (I have heard of a few pastors outlawing it in their parishes because of the origins, but then some of these also permit very secular-sounding hymns in its place )

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. There is so much you have brought up that I find interesting, but have not the time to undertake because I have to prepare for a concert tonight. God bless.

 

[Sarabande]

The Church is also concerned with musical form, which is why she holds “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” (Pius X, quoted by John Paul II). John Paul II later says “Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.”

So both suitable text and suitable musical form are necessary for sacred or liturgical music (as opposed, I suppose, to simply “religious” music).

Very true - you summed that up quite nicely.

 

[Chatter163]

The answer to the OP’s question lies herein:

vatican.edu/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25121955_musicae-sacrae_en.html

 

[passus]

The Church is also concerned with musical form, which is why she holds “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” (Pius X, quoted by John Paul II). John Paul II later says “Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.”

I would just point out that these extracts are open to vast interpretation. You’ll notice that nowhere in *Tra le Sollecitudini *is the specific “musical form” these lines refer to defined in any certain terms. Just like I originally said, there is no document that says “saxophones are not allowed in church” or “no hemiolas.”

 

[Sarabande]

This also may help in showing how solo instrumental music is permitted and used during the mass. Most solo instrumental music is absolute music unless otherwise indicated in the title that the composer gave to it, such as solo organ music representing the virgin birth or the way of the cross.

From the “Musicam Sacram”

VI. Sacred Instrumental Music

1. Musical instruments can be very useful in sacred celebrations, whether they accompany the singing or whether they are played as solo instruments.

"The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lift up men’s minds to God and higher things.

“The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.”[43]

1. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.[44]

Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

1. The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent.

1. In sung or said Masses, the organ, or other instrument legitimately admitted, can be used to accompany the singing of the choir and the people; it can also be played solo at the beginning before the priest reaches the altar, at the Offertory, at the Communion, and at the end of Mass.

The same rule, with the necessary adaptations, can be applied to other sacred celebrations.

1. The playing of these same instruments as solos is not permitted in Advent, Lent, during the Sacred Triduum and in the Offices and Masses of the Dead.
2. It is highly desirable that organists and other musicians should not only possess the skill to play properly the instrument entrusted to them: they should also enter into and be thoroughly aware of the spirit of the liturgy, so that even when playing ex tempore, they will enrich the sacred celebration according to the true nature of each of its parts, and encourage the participation of the faithful.[46]

 

[VociMike]

I would just point out that these extracts are open to vast interpretation. You’ll notice that nowhere in *Tra le Sollecitudini *is the specific “musical form” these lines refer to defined in any certain terms. Just like I originally said, there is no document that says “saxophones are not allowed in church” or “no hemiolas.”

The Church makes it clear that Gregorian chant is the supreme model and permanent standard against which all other forms are judged, and that sacred polyphony is also held up as a particulary estimable form. And that judging is most accurately done by those “steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae”.

 

[passus]

The Church makes it clear that Gregorian chant is the supreme model and permanent standard against which all other forms are judged, and that sacred polyphony is also held up as a particulary estimable form. And that judging is most accurately done by those “steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae”.

And as any first semester music history student could tell you, all forms of music as we know them have descended from chant. The proximity of the relationship between chant and rock and roll, for example, would be a matter of debate, which I really don’t think is appropriate for this thread.

 

[VociMike]

And as any first semester music history student could tell you, all forms of music as we know them have descended from chant. The proximity of the relationship between chant and rock and roll, for example, would be a matter of debate, which I really don’t think is appropriate for this thread.

Umm, OK.

 

[Sarabande]

And as any first semester music history student could tell you, all forms of music as we know them have descended from chant. The proximity of the relationship between chant and rock and roll, for example, would be a matter of debate, which I really don’t think is appropriate for this thread.

You are right the proximity debate between chant and rock-n-roll is not appropriate for this thread because it really has nothing to do with the question.

Of course the western music scale was developed through the work of those in the middle ages who began musical notation - thus the start of composing western art music. At the same time, throughout all of the centuries there was always “policing” of the music being used for mass.

People of the past are no different than they are today. They were always trying to incorporate their “pop” styles and melodies from their kind into liturgical worship. Polyphony, for example, had its origins in a secular style. Any kind of harmony was considered frivolous and “liscivious”. In a historical biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine that I read recently, her shared court with her husband Henry, was highly criticised for the use of polyphony. Contemporaries and religious leaders of the day believed it to incite lust and other kinds of carnivourous and immoral behaviour. Some even called it devilish music, and was banned for a while by the Church.

It wasn’t until Guillame de Machaut refined the music to be more like that of sacred chant so that it was acceptable to be used as sacred music at mass.

That’s the key issue. How can a style of music be rendered or refined in order for it to be appropriate for liturgy. Most other styles throughout the centuries - although using the western scale which was derived from chant although the style itself was not derived from chant - had to rework the compositions in order for it to be closer to that of the supreme music of the Church. Not necessarily have to sound exactly like it, but to have a close connection to it. Anton Bruckner’s sacred motets come to mind. They have a truly 19th century feel, but at the same time is immersed in the connection with chant. The same with Durufle, Faure and others.

The other aspect is how the music is rendered. Do we want a pop singer or opera singer belting out an Ave Maria chant in her own “rendition” without any concern or knowledge of what chant is about? Do we want that with later pieces too? Is a soprano who is more used to singing Verdi and Puccini going to be able to render an earlier classical sacred vocal piece as opposed to a soprano whose “forte” is in the baroque and classical periods? Can an instrument mostly used for secular music be used appropriately for sacred and religious music without making the listener associate the instrument with the outside, material world? Can a musician see the difference between creating music and creating sacred music? Sometimes they/we can’t.

Unfortunately, because it is music and art it is so easy to say that everyone will have different opinions onto where the line is drawn. The Church has dealt with this for centuries. It is nothing new. It has had ups and downs in liturgical music. During the down times there was always controversy and differing of opinions until it was settled - and that sometimes took decades, even generations. We are in a down point for liturgical music, thus all of this debate and controversy now. Things are slowly being done in order to bring a balance again back to the state of liturgical music. That’s how the Church usually works…slowly, instead of making rash decisions immediately.