What/who regulates the use of music in liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
otjm said:
Maybe 40 years ago; certainly not today. At least, not in any parish I have been in or visited.
Click to expand...
This is the music in 90% of parishes I have ever been to. I should clarify - - music in the style of Broadway tunes (large leaps, soloistic style, not suitable for congregational singing), or pseudo-folk style.
It would appear that there are a tremendous number of people who would disagree that the music is not in keeping with the guidelines.
Click to expand...
You certainly have an opinion; And I have a different one. I find that 4 part harmony by trained professional singers singing something from Palestrina detracts from the Mass; I don’t go to hear a concert; I go to pray and worship.
Click to expand...
So we can agree to disagree; you have your opinion, I have mine.
Click to expand...
But your opinion doesn’t align with the clear teachings of the Church. How do you reconcile that in your mind? It just doesn’t matter, maybe? What about the rest of us who are distracted from the Mass by the pop-style music of Haugen, Haas, etc, and we KNOW that the Church says that we should get chant and polyphony.
Why are we Catholics being deprived of the music that is part of the Mass - - and why aren’t children taught this in Catholic school? I’ll never understand it…:mad:
 
27lw said:
This is the music in 90% of parishes I have ever been to. I should clarify - - music in the style of Broadway tunes (large leaps, soloistic style, not suitable for congregational singing), or pseudo-folk style.

But your opinion doesn’t align with the clear teachings of the Church. How do you reconcile that in your mind? It just doesn’t matter, maybe? What about the rest of us who are distracted from the Mass by the pop-style music of Haugen, Haas, etc, and we KNOW that the Church says that we should get chant and polyphony.
Why are we Catholics being deprived of the music that is part of the Mass - - and why aren’t children taught this in Catholic school? I’ll never understand it…:mad:
Click to expand...
The matter you are referring to is hortatory, not mandatory, but you wish to make it mandatory.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is that you obviously do not like any contemporary church music. You are certainly entitled to like something different, but your characterization of it comes across as bordering on a pretentious snobism. Pardon me if I, along with the rest of the majority of pew sitters, am/are lowbrow.

It should be pointed out that each major change in liturgical music over the centuries was at first rejected, and only eventually became accepted. Go check your musical history sources.

I am not going to say you are wrong if you like certain types of liturgical music; that is your opinion and I have no problem with it. As I said, Rome is undoubtedly aware, after 50 years of history since Vatican , that precious few people are attracted to either Gregorian chant, Palestrina, and etc.

If Rome felt that the parishes in the US were in the wrong, they could have said so in the multiple revisions of the GIRM, or in Redemptionis Sacramentum (correcting abuses) or in another document.

The silence has been deafening.

No one is prohibiting parishes from using that music; but it is clear that very few have any desire for it. Just as it is clear, if one pays attention to the area of classical music in general, that very few are attracted to it; that is why symphonies struggle to make budget in many areas.

I do not wish to debate with you. Rome has shown, after 50 years of silence, that the type of music is not an issue with them. I would hope that you could find a parish within a reasonable distance to you, which could fulfill your desire for the music you prefer.

I am quite happy with my parish.
 
Generic_Name said:
Songs influenced by bad off-broadway and hippie folk tunes? Even if the text is solid, stylistically it detracts from the Mass and is not in keeping with Church guidelines concerning sacred music.
Click to expand...
27lw said:
This is the music in 90% of parishes I have ever been to. I should clarify - - music in the style of Broadway tunes (large leaps, soloistic style, not suitable for congregational singing), or pseudo-folk style.

But your opinion doesn’t align with the clear teachings of the Church. How do you reconcile that in your mind? It just doesn’t matter, maybe? What about the rest of us who are distracted from the Mass by the pop-style music of Haugen, Haas, etc, and we KNOW that the Church says that we should get chant and polyphony.
Why are we Catholics being deprived of the music that is part of the Mass - - and why aren’t children taught this in Catholic school? I’ll never understand it…:mad:
Click to expand...
What I would appreciate knowing is: Is this really and truly a website called “Catholic Answers” or are the whole lot of you just a group of people from the United States?

Frankly, if this is not truly an international website of Catholics, populated by English speaking members of the Church from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, this is not a place I need to be. What you are saying, with your “Broadway critiques,” has no meaning even to the rest of the Anglophone world, let alone to us in Europe.

Broadway tunes? In all my decades as a priest, I have never heard such a thing at a Mass I have either myself celebrated or participated in – neither in English nor in any other language.

And, no, the world that is beyond the very confined borders of the United States of America assuredly do not live in a Church populated exclusively by chant and polyphony.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
What I would appreciate knowing is: Is this really and truly a website called “Catholic Answers” or are the whole lot of you just a group of people from the United States?

Frankly, if this is not truly an international website of Catholics, populated by English speaking members of the Church from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, this is not a place I need to be. What you are saying, with your “Broadway critiques,” has no meaning even to the rest of the Anglophone world, let alone to us in Europe.

Broadway tunes? In all my decades as a priest, I have never heard such a thing at a Mass I have either myself celebrated or participated in – neither in English nor in any other language.

And, no, the world that is beyond the very confined borders of the United States of America assuredly do not live in a Church populated exclusively by chant and polyphony.
Click to expand...
Yes, Father, the majority of what passes for liturgical music in most parishes I’ve visited in the US has a heavy broadway/pop influence. Yes, the text is (usually) sacred, but the melodies and harmonies are certainly not. I cannot answer for the rest of the world, only what I’ve experienced.

The only masses I’ve heard in Europe had a HEAVY dose of unmistakably sacred music, even if the language was not one I could speak. On the flip side, if I did not know English, I might have a difficult time identifying what passes for liturgical music in most US parishes as sacred.

If I’m not mistaken, Sacrosanctum Concilium (as well as other church documents on sacred music), emphasizes not only the pride of place that should be afforded to chant, but also that contemporary music, to which I am not opposed, should be of a sacred nature. To me, if it sounds like a 1970s musical play, it isn’t of a sacred nature.
 
Generic_Name said:
Yes, Father, the majority of what passes for liturgical music in most parishes I’ve visited in the US has a heavy broadway/pop influence. Yes, the text is (usually) sacred, but the melodies and harmonies are certainly not. I cannot answer for the rest of the world, only what I’ve experienced.

The only masses I’ve heard in Europe had a HEAVY dose of unmistakably sacred music, even if the language was not one I could speak. On the flip side, if I did not know English, I might have a difficult time identifying what passes for liturgical music in most US parishes as sacred.

If I’m not mistaken, Sacrosanctum Concilium (as well as other church documents on sacred music), emphasizes not only the pride of place that should be afforded to chant, but also that contemporary music, to which I am not opposed, should be of a sacred nature. To me, if it sounds like a 1970s musical play, it isn’t of a sacred nature.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c2a2.htm
 
Usige said:
That always assumes that a change is possible. I had offered to form and train a schola and had also offered to donate funds to fully cover the difference between Breaking Bread and the Adoremus Hymnal. I was told point blank that it wasn’t needed, since “we don’t do that kind of music”. We have 5 masses in English and 1 in Spanish so it’s not like having a schola or choir that does more traditional music once a month could not be accommodated. I’m talking about a parish of 6000+ 2 here the only music allowed outside of Breaking Bread is from OCP’s Choose Christ. Two years ago the pastor insisted on Latin Mass settings for Lent (“because we’re Catholic” to use his words). Three quarters of the choir members threatened to quit if they had to sing “old fashioned” music again (despite the fact they seem to like stuff from the 70s and 80s 🤷).

My point is that simply staying doesn’t mean you have an option to change anything. If the music director thinks that Marty Haugen or Matt Maher is the only option and the pastor doesn’t want to lose them then you really have zero chance to change things. I simply offer up my suffering when listening to the music choices and then go home and offer my sung prayers to God.
Click to expand...
Our schola took a different approach. Rather than base ourselves at one parish (tried that, got kicked out), we instead are a troubadour schola, we chant at a different parish every month, at the cathedral (Solemn Vespers and Mass during Advent and Lent), for special occasions, funerals & weddings, and the odd concert/recital.

It seems to work. Rather than being seen as “those tiresome traditionalists”, parishes see us as a special occasion. We don’t disrupt their “regularly scheduled programming”, we’re instead perceived as a rare treat and the regular choir is equally happy to have that Sunday off. Most parishes are happy to have us. The odd one isn’t, so when our choir director calls and is told no, he “shakes the dust off his sandals” and moves on.

It must be working. I’ve been with the schola for 14 years and the schola itself is going on 20 years. We’ve even had about 5 new recruits in the last two years. We’ve never not had a parish to sing in during our regular season (September through May).

And this is in very liberal (both theologically and liturgically) Quebec.
 
Generic_Name said:
To me, if it sounds like a 1970s musical play, it isn’t of a sacred nature.
Click to expand...
Too much of our parish music (in French) sounds like a ditty for a laundry soap TV commercial. The rest of it is too syncopated and un-melodius to be singable by the average parishioner.

I’m not closed to modern sacred music. With emphasis on “sacred”. I’ve heard some really nice vernacular sacred music coming out of the monastic world.
 
Well, the topic of music at Mass is always a hot one!
It’s just too bad that at the very least, that music directors and priests could strive not to choose irreverent music and instruments. I do find it interesting that some people think that some parts of Vat II can just be ignored, and since the Vatican hasn’t spoken, we can keep on safely ignoring that which we do not like.
 
27lw said:
Well, the topic of music at Mass is always a hot one!
It’s just too bad that at the very least, that music directors and priests could strive not to choose irreverent music and instruments. I do find it interesting that some people think that some parts of Vat II can just be ignored, and since the Vatican hasn’t spoken, we can keep on safely ignoring that which we do not like.
Click to expand...
What parts are we ignoring?
 
  1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.
It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.

Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
 
27lw said:
  1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.
It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.

Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
Click to expand...
The rest of instructions, which follow what you quote, is what matters more:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
  3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
And, indeed, the National Conferences of Catholic Bishops did just what the Council Fathers write…as the bishops reacted to the success of the vernacular liturgies by giving the wide diffusion they have today…just as they implemented the mandate for inculturation of music and musical instruments: “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed”

We were blessed to have such extraordinarily insightful Council Fathers…may the Lord be thanked for His gift to His Church.
 
27lw said:
  1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  2. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.
It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.

Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
Click to expand...
Father Ruggero answered most of your points but I’ll tackle the one on Church music. First of all, I will remind folks that I can competently sing Gregorian chant and have belonged to a Gregorian schola for the past 14 years. But that doesn’t mean I believe Gregorian chant should be used everywhere, all the time.

Gregorian chant is not easy, especially these days when Latin isn’t even taught in public school any more. It doesn’t use the same musical notation as modern music. Most rural parishes where I live struggle to find a cantor, let alone a choir that can sight read square notes. Most parishes do their best. Do I like all of what I hear? Not all of it. Do I doubt the sincerity of those who do their best to perform music for Mass? Not one bit.

Sacred polyphony is even more difficult to carry out. Do you think you can find a choir and orchestra capable of bringing the great polyphonic Masses to your parish every Sunday? Dream on.

However some places do have the resources. In Montreal, Mary Queen of the World Cathedral, Notre-Dame Basilica, and St-Joseph’s Oratory are three that come to mind all of which have great choirs that sing polyphony every Sunday. In the beautiful liturgies of the Benedictine world, Gregorian chant most certainly still does occupy pride of place. “Pride of place” doesn’t mean every parish, every Sunday.

It means we will entrust Gregorian chant to people who take seriously enough to execute it competently and make sure it doesn’t die out. It is used at the big liturgies at the Vatican. It is used throughout the abbeys of my, and many other, Benedictine congregations. It is kept alive by scholas like the one I belong to. We sing it regularly, once a month, in different parishes of our small city. By making of it a special occasion that people look forward to, we are, indeed, giving Gregorian chant pride of place. Pride of place means we make it something special, to be used when the occasion and the resources allow. Many people come to our abbey because of the Gregorian chant. It makes it a very special place, and the competence of the monks in singing it ensures that it is treated with all the respect that “pride of place” truly means.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The rest of instructions, which follow what you quote, is what matters more:
Click to expand...
Why do points 2 and 3 matter MORE than point 1? In essence, it says that the vernacular MAY be extended.
However, in some parishes, there is rarely (or even never) any Latin used. Some people are under the impression that Latin was abolished by Vat. II.
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
  1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Click to expand...
  1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Click to expand...
And, indeed, the National Conferences of Catholic Bishops did just what the Council Fathers write…as the bishops reacted to the success of the vernacular liturgies by giving the wide diffusion they have today…just as they implemented the mandate for inculturation of music and musical instruments: “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed”
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why it is thought, that North Americans could benefit from, understand, navigate a Latin Mass, say in the late 1950s, but by 1968 or so, “an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy was needed”. That makes no sense to me. : ) Why did people all of a sudden need to be inculturated, in parishes that were well-established with people who had been Catholic all their lives?!
 
OraLabora said:
Father Ruggero answered most of your points but I’ll tackle the one on Church music. First of all, I will remind folks that I can competently sing Gregorian chant and have belonged to a Gregorian schola for the past 14 years. But that doesn’t mean I believe Gregorian chant should be used everywhere, all the time.

Gregorian chant is not easy, especially these days when Latin isn’t even taught in public school any more. It doesn’t use the same musical notation as modern music. Most rural parishes where I live struggle to find a cantor, let alone a choir that can sight read square notes. Most parishes do their best. Do I like all of what I hear? Not all of it. Do I doubt the sincerity of those who do their best to perform music for Mass? Not one bit.

Sacred polyphony is even more difficult to carry out. Do you think you can find a choir and orchestra capable of bringing the great polyphonic Masses to your parish every Sunday? Dream on.

However some places do have the resources. In Montreal, Mary Queen of the World Cathedral, Notre-Dame Basilica, and St-Joseph’s Oratory are three that come to mind all of which have great choirs that sing polyphony every Sunday. In the beautiful liturgies of the Benedictine world, Gregorian chant most certainly still does occupy pride of place. “Pride of place” doesn’t mean every parish, every Sunday.

It means we will entrust Gregorian chant to people who take seriously enough to execute it competently and make sure it doesn’t die out. It is used at the big liturgies at the Vatican. It is used throughout the abbeys of my, and many other, Benedictine congregations. It is kept alive by scholas like the one I belong to. We sing it regularly, once a month, in different parishes of our small city. By making of it a special occasion that people look forward to, we are, indeed, giving Gregorian chant pride of place. Pride of place means we make it something special, to be used when the occasion and the resources allow. Many people come to our abbey because of the Gregorian chant. It makes it a very special place, and the competence of the monks in singing it ensures that it is treated with all the respect that “pride of place” truly means.
Click to expand...
I think you have done an admirable job. I dare to say that you and your group are probably an exception? I don’t think that in most American parishes anyone would say that Gregorian chant has “pride of place”.
There is also always talk of resources. Here’s an example: I attended the Easter Vigil this year at a very large parish (the pastor stated that the church holds 1300, and it looked pretty full to me). This is a wealthy suburban part of town, and I don’t think they are hurting for money. The music provided was probably 90% pop-rock, with guitars, drum kit, vocal rock-style wailing. They had a strong choir of about 60 people, piano and organ. They did their style well, but I don’t think anyone could pretend that parish has Gregorian chant as “pride of place”. All those people, and especially the kids, are having their liturgical sense formed that rock is a normal standard part of Mass.
 
OraLabora said:
But that doesn’t mean I believe Gregorian chant should be used everywhere, all the time.

Gregorian chant is not easy, especially these days when Latin isn’t even taught in public school any more.
Click to expand...
In this regard I think the prediction of Dom Prosper Gueranger, the founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, bears repeating:
"…We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
In this regard I think the prediction of Dom Prosper Gueranger, the founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, bears repeating:
Click to expand...
Regardless of his prediction, “it is what it is” and we have to work with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top