Why was song removed?

[benedictgal]

How does one deterimine whether or not music is “sacred”?

One of the things that Sing to the Lord actually got right, to a certain extent, is the criteria of the three judgements:

The Liturgical Judgement
Is this composition capable of meeting the strucual and textual requirements set forth by the liturgical books for this particular rite?

…Textual elements include the ability of a musical setting to support the liturgical text and to convey meaning faithful to the teaching of the Curch.

The Pastoral Judgement
Does a musical composition promote the sanctification of teh members of the liturgical assembly by drawing them closer to the holy mysteries being celebrated? Does it strengthen their formation in faith by opening their hearts to the mystery being celebrarted on this occarion or in this season? Is it capable of expressing the faith that God has planted in their hearts and summoned them to celebrate? …Will this composition draw this particular people closer to the mystery of Christ, which is at the heart of this liturgical celebration?

Musical Judgment
Is this composition technically, aesthetically, and expressively worthy?

Of course, Pope Benedict XVI has stated that certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.

 

[Newbie2]

One of the things that Sing to the Lord actually got right, to a certain extent, is the criteria of the three judgements:

Of course, Pope Benedict XVI has stated that certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.

So there is really no objective way to determine whether or not songs are “sacred enough”, right? Obviously, there are ways to determine whether or not a song is clearly unfit for liturgical use i.e. lyrics inconsistant with Catholic teaching, but it seems that it’s pointless to say if music is “sacred” or not when we lack the criteria to make a determination.

 

[otjm]

However, even if the texts seem to be okay, the musicality of the song can render it unfit for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. All Sacred Music is religious, but, not all religious music is Sacred. There is a big difference.

I can’t think of too many songs as sing-songy as a couple we sang in the 1950’s early 1960’s. While they were Marian songs, muscially they were every bit as atrocious as some of the songs we now have.

Having said that, there is a difference between something sung for what might be considered the equivalent of a high Mass in the OF, and a hymn sung in what might be the equivalent of a low Mass. To say that hymns at Mass are inappropriate and we need to sing only Grogorian Chant or polyphonic pieces goes a bit farther than the Church has. There is a time and a place for everything.

I am not trying to defend every piece that OCP puts out. However, there seem to be some folks out there whose opinion is that if it is not Gregorian Chant or Palistrina, it is not liturgically fit; they are a bit young I would suspect, and do not know what was done years and years ago. In addition, people in general have a tendency to take short cuts in their critical thinking process and pick up phrases and opinions that are not necessarily substantiated in fact. Having seen songs from OCP (specific ones) attacked for being un-litugical and unfitting for Mass when they are text or paraphrases of text from the Old and New Testament, I am led to believe that they have not really thought anything through, but simply are parroting someone else’s criticisms - who also played the “Ready! Fire! Aim!” routine.

I will agree that some hymns musically are better than others. What I tire of is the across-the-board condemnation of any and all hymns - except perhaps those originating somewhere before 1960. But I would much rather participate in a hymn at Mass than sit and listen to Gregorian Chant get slaughtered by a choir that has no clue - or worse, a parish (saints preserve us!). Not even my favorite group - our local Trappist abbey - can do chant the way it should be done, largely because of aging.

 

[benedictgal]

So there is really no objective way to determine whether or not songs are “sacred enough”, right? Obviously, there are ways to determine whether or not a song is clearly unfit for liturgical use i.e. lyrics inconsistant with Catholic teaching, but it seems that it’s pointless to say if music is “sacred” or not when we lack the criteria to make a determination.

That is why we have the writings of the Popes to assist us in making that determination. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. **Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). **Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

His predecessor, Venerable Pope John Paul II, also offered this guidance:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “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”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

Thus, it is helpful to read the authoritative documents of the Church in tandem with the relevent Papal writings. They help to explain what the documents state and are a good source for interpretation.

 

[Palaeologos]

Yeah, we really should get rid of all that old junk - all those songs that are based on the Old and New Testament. Really, what do they think singing is about? Imagine, singing a song based on a Psalm! The very idea is outrageous!

There are plenty of great hymns which are based on Psalms. “O God, our help in ages past” comes to mind, as does “The King of love my Shepherd is” and “All people that on earth do dwell.” The offices are full of hymns from Scripture as well; all the canticles, excepting the Te Deum, are Biblical. And (as I’m sure you’re aware) the offices feature psalms sung straight through as well.

So you’re way off target when you attack my stance as somehow excluding Scriptural hymns. I’m all for that. What I’m not for is banal dreck with no liturgical or theological content. The aforementioned Ms Farrell’s production, “Bread of the World,” is a prime offender in this category. It’s supposedly a Eucharistic hymn, yet there is absolutely no hint of the doctrine of the Real Presence or of the sacrifice of Jesus; there’s a lot of “bread” and “wine” in the words, but no “body” or “blood”. Hmmm, I wonder why so many Catholics disbelieve in the Real Presence these days?

And really, would it be too much to ask for lyrics to rhyme occasionally? This “My Freshman Notebook of Rilly Deep Pomes” approach to songwriting grates.

 

[Newbie2]

That is why we have the writings of the Popes to assist us in making that determination. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:

His predecessor, Venerable Pope John Paul II, also offered this guidance:

Thus, it is helpful to read the authoritative documents of the Church in tandem with the relevent Papal writings. They help to explain what the documents state and are a good source for interpretation.

I beg to differ. What criteria is there in these guidelines that allows one to determine whether or not a song “espress(es) adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”?

These are very vague, general statements (guidelines) that any lay person would come up with if they put some thought to it. Music is subjective, and while lyrics may be objective, most times they too are subjective and very difficult to subject to certain criteria, especially as vague as what you’ve quoted for us.

I’m not saying that there should be no criteria or that there are not lyrics that are blatently outside even the vaguest of guidelines. As well, it’s very difficult to come up with guidelines that aren’t too vague.

But to suggest that we have objective principles in place to look at a particular hymn and be able to deem it as unsuitable or not, based on the vagueness of the quotes given, methinks is pie-in-the-sky-ish. There is way too much room for interpretation when we’re discussing “musical genres”.

 

[benedictgal]

I beg to differ. What criteria is there in these guidelines that allows one to determine whether or not a song “espress(es) adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”?

These are very vague, general statements (guidelines) that any lay person would come up with if they put some thought to it. Music is subjective, and while lyrics may be objective, most times they too are subjective and very difficult to subject to certain criteria, especially as vague as what you’ve quoted for us.

I’m not saying that there should be no criteria or that there are not lyrics that are blatently outside even the vaguest of guidelines. As well, it’s very difficult to come up with guidelines that aren’t too vague.

But to suggest that we have objective principles in place to look at a particular hymn and be able to deem it as unsuitable or not, based on the vagueness of the quotes given, methinks is pie-in-the-sky-ish. There is way too much room for interpretation when we’re discussing “musical genres”.

With all due respect, I would not be so quick to dismiss the writings of the Popes, especially since one of them, Pope Benedict XVI, is a classically trained musician whose own brother is a renonwed (now retired) choirmaster.

The problem is that we have been so utterly conditioned to accept the tawdry, the banal and the mundane and have not even bothered to demand something better. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass certainly deserves better.

Don’t even bet on the publishing houses reading the documents. Peter Kolar from WLP proved that point to me when I told him that his Misa Luna setting (Spanish version) violated Liturgiam Authenticam because it had paraphrases and took liberties with the texts. OCP is far worse. I counted nine versions of the Gloria that were in violation of the Church’s documents because they were paraphrases and heavily edited compositions.

 

[Newbie2]

With all due respect, I would not be so quick to dismiss the writings of the Popes, especially since one of them, Pope Benedict XVI, is a classically trained musician whose own brother is a renonwed (now retired) choirmaster.

I’m doing no such thing.

Read my post carefully. I’m saying there’s no objective criteria to apply to a song anywhere in the writings that you quoted. This makes such writings of **limited **usefulness. Does such and such a song “fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy”? The writings give us no criteria to make such a judgment.

Yeah, for rap or reggae or heavy metal, such genres are unsuitable for liturgy. Those are “duh” assessments. What we’re talking about is questionable songs; ones that in the mind of one priest, bishop and music director are completely suitable while in another diocese, they would not be deemed so.

I ask again, where is the criterion beyond the vague statements in these writings that are useful for making a call on a song?

The problem is that we have been so utterly conditioned to accept the tawdry, the banal and the mundane and have not even bothered to demand something better. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass certainly deserves better.

I agree. But what about the questionable songs written for liturgy? Where is the line to be drawn?

Don’t even bet on the publishing houses reading the documents. Peter Kolar from WLP proved that point to me when I told him that his Misa Luna setting (Spanish version) violated Liturgiam Authenticam because it had paraphrases and took liberties with the texts. OCP is far worse. I counted nine versions of the Gloria that were in violation of the Church’s documents because they were paraphrases and heavily edited compositions.

“In violation of the Church’s documents”; better be careful how you word things lest some think your POV as purely legalistic.

 

[benedictgal]

“In violation of the Church’s documents”; better be careful how you word things lest some think your POV as purely legalistic.

Actually, the CDWDS stated that the documents, especially Liturgiam Authenticam and Redemptionis Sacramentum needed to be followed when composers set the parts of the Mass into music. In fact, the Prefect Emeritus of the CDWDS, Francis Cardinal Arinze, made that perfectly clear when he promulgated the early release of the new translations of the Ordinary of the Mass.

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you for helping make my point.

Sorry, but I simply don’t understand how you think what is written in these documents is sufficiently specific enough for making judgment calls on questionable music or lyrics.

I guess I’ll leave it at that.

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for helping make my point.

Sorry, but I simply don’t understand how you think what is written in these documents is sufficiently specific enough for making judgment calls on questionable music or lyrics.

I guess I’ll leave it at that.

Actually, I did not make your point. When I say that the CDWDS said that the particular Mass settings are in violation, it is because I personally heard it directly from them (4AM phone call). The GIRM, RS and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy specifically state that no one has the authority to change the official texts of the parts of the Mass. Paraphrasing is not allowed. The CDWDS was very specific about it when it released the first sets of the new translations so that composers could set them to music. This is not just applicable to the English language, but, to all languages.

With all due respect, the documents are there. They are read in tandem with the writings of the Popes (MPs, Encyclicals, Apostolic Exhortations). These writings help to give an authoritative interpretation of the documents.