Ecclesiastical Music : A Definition
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I ran across a definition of Ecclesiastical Music. Quite extensive, I thought it might be another springboard for discussion.

    Here is the link to the definition in its entirety:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm

    Here is part I:


    Ecclesiastical Music
    By this term is meant the music which, by order or with the approbation of ecclesiastical authority, is employed in connexion with Divine service to promote the glorification of God and the edification of the faithful.

    Nature and significance
    Just as St. Philip Neri spontaneously sang the prayers of the last Mass which he celebrated, so is all true religious music but an exalted prayer — an exultant expression of religious feeling. Prayer, song, the playing upon instruments, and action, when arranged by authority, constitute the elements of public worship, especially of an official liturgy. This was the case with the pagans, the Jews, and also in the Church from time immemorial. These elements constitute, when combined, an organic unity, in which, however, music forms a part only on solemn occasions, and then only in accordance with the regulations of proper authority. As man owes to God that which is highest and most beautiful, music may employ on these occasions her noblest and most effective means. Church music has in common with secular music the combination of tones in melody and harmony, the division of time in rhythm, measure, and tempo, dynamics, or distribution of power, tone-colour in voice and instruments, the simpler and more complicated styles of composition.

    All these, however, must be adapted to the liturgical action, if there be such, to the words uttered in prayer, to the devotion of the heart they must be calculated to edify the faithful, and in short must serve the purpose for which Divine service is held. Whenever music, instead of assuming a character of independence and mere ornament, acts as an auxiliary to the other means of promoting the worship of God and as an incentive to good, it not only does not interfere with the religious ceremony, but, on the contrary, imparts to it the greatest splendour and effectiveness. Only those who are not responsive to its influence, or stubbornly cultivate other ways of devotion, can imagine that they are distracted in their worship by music. Appropriate music, on the contrary, raises man above commonplace everyday thoughts into an ideal and joyous mood, rivets mind and heart on the sacred words and actions, and introduces him into the proper devotional and festive atmosphere. This appropriateness takes into account persons and circumstances, variations being introduced according to the nature and use of the texts, according to the character of the liturgical action, according to the ecclesiastical season, and even according to the various needs of the contemplative orders and the rest of the faithful.

    Natural religious instinct urges man to honour God by means of music as well as by the other arts, and to heighten his religious exaltation by joyous singing. This significance of singing in connexion with Divine service has never been lost sight of. Under the Old Law the music of the Temple filled, in compliance with the commands of God Himself, a very elaborate role. Songs of victory of a religious nature are mentioned in Exodus 15, and in Judges, v. Often the prophets are elated by sacred music. David beautified religious ceremonies by hymns and the use of instruments (Amos 6:5; Nehemiah 12:35; 2 Chronicles 29:25 sqq.). With him appears Asaph in the role of poet and singer, and the "Sons of Asaph" with other families were, from the days of David organized into classes (1 Chronicles 25). The primitive Christian Church was, on account of external circumstances, very much restrained in its religious manifestations, and the adoption of the music of the Temple, in so far as it had survived, would have been difficult on account of the converts from paganism. Furthermore, the practice of religion on the part of the early Christians was of such a purely spiritual nature that any sensuous assistance, such as that of music, could be for the time easily dispensed with. Nevertheless, the words of St. Paul, even if only taken in a spiritual sense, remind one forcibly of the conception of music in the Old Testament: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19). Tertullian relates that during Divine service Holy Scripture was read and psalms sung, and that even Pliny had ascertained that the Christians honoured their Lord before dawn by singing a hymn (Apol., ii). Eusebius, in confirmation "of the regulations heretofore followed by the Church" quotes the testimony of Philo, who relates that the Therapeutae, during their festive repasts, sang psalms from Holy Writ and other hymns of various kinds in solemn rhythm in monodic style with choral responsories (Hist. Eccl., I, xvii).

    Whatever may have been the nature of the singing of the Therapeutae, Eusebius bears testimony to the traditional custom of the Church. While St. Athanasius restricted the singing of the psalms to a kind of recitation, St. Ambrose introduced in Milan (and the greater part of the Western world) with great success antiphonal singing of the psalms "after the manner of the East". St. Augustine asks himself whether it would not be more perfect to deny himself the delight derived from singing, but concludes his reflection by concurring with existing practices, and frequently testifies to the customs of his time (cf. Confessions IX.7 and X.33; In Psalm 21 and 46; Retr., ii, 11). St. Jerome, referring to Ephesians 5:19, exhorts as follows the young whose duty it is to sing in Church: "Let the servant of God sing in such a manner that the words of the text rather than the voice of the singer cause delight, and that Saul's evil spirit may depart from those who are under its dominion, and may not enter into those who make a theatre out of the house of the Lord". A certain class of liturgical singers are also mentioned in the "Canones apostolorum". The above-mentioned antiphonal and responsorial chant intended for the people shows that the singing was not confined to the choir. St. Augustine wrote a long hymn to be sun by the people in the form of Psalm cxviii — not in classic metre, but in popular accented verses with sixteen unaccented syllables and rhyming on the final vowel. Hymnology in classic form goes back to Ambrose and Hilarius. But sufficient has been said to indicate the practice and nature of chant in the early Church, under whose fostering protection it developed so wonderfully later on. History bears the most convincing testimony to the importance which the Church has always attached to music in connexion with her worship.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Church regulations

    The interest taken by the Church in music is also shown by her numerous enactments and regulations calculated to foster music worthy of Divine service. The right of the Church to determine the matter and manner of what shall be sung in connexion with her liturgy is incontestable. Narrow-minded musical partisans seem disposed to fear that music as an art does not receive due consideration, if it be not permitted to go its own way uncontrolled. These fears generally have for their basis the theory that art is an end in itself, and should not serve, except indirectly, any end outside of and other than itself. This principle could only have a certain justification, if the external dependency were to hinder the full development of music. But this is not the case. In point of fact, the history of its development shows that ecclesiastical music need fear no comparison between its achievements and those of secular music. Many competent musicians have frankly admitted this in the case of the simple Gregorian chant — not only men like Witt and Gevaert, but also Halévy, Mozart, and Berlioz. Halévy considers the chant "the most beautiful religious melody that exists on earth". Mozart's statement, "that he would gladly exchange all his music for the fame of having composed the Gregorian Preface", sounds almost hyperbolic. Berlioz, who himself wrote a grandiose Requiem, declared that "nothing in music could be compared with the effect of the Gregorian Dies Iræ (cf. Krutschek, "Kirchenmusik"). Ambrose says: "The fundamental power, animating all music which is not made but which grew (as is the case with the folk-music), belongs pre-eminently to Gregorian chant." For this reason Gevaert considers the most characteristic quality of the chant to be the fact that it never grows stale, "as though time had no power over it". Not the most conspicuous, but the most simple artistic means produce the deepest and most lasting impression, when skillfully employed. The first requisite is that the sentiments contained in the text be given true expression, and be not obscured by obtrusive external forms. It must be acknowledged that pieces like the Te Deum, Lauda Sion, the Lamentations, the Requiem Mass, as well as many an introit, gradual, and tract, afford a never-failing pleasure, that they employ only the simplest means to express the desired mood, that they are admirably adapted to promote devotion.

    The Church, however, does not despise artistic means of a more elaborate nature, as is shown by the long jubili of the traditional chant (as contained in the Vatican edition) and still more by ecclesiastical polyphonic music (Palestrina style). Upon this style modern musicians of the first rank have pronounced favourable judgment. Wagner was an enthusiastic admirer of Palestrina; Mendelssohn made every effort to collect masses, impropreria, psalms motets of the old masters, which he preferred to all ecclesiastical music by modern writers. There are, indeed, many works by Orlandus de Lassus, Allegri, Vittoria, wherein the most elaborate means of expression aroused, but which, nevertheless, conform to every liturgical requirement and are, as it were, spontaneous outpourings of adoring hearts (cf. contrapuntal or polyphonic music). Besides plain chant and the polyphonic style, the Church also admits to her service homophonic or figured compositions with or without instrumental accompaniment, written, not in the old ecclesiastical modes, but in one of the modern major or minor keys. Gregorian chant the Church most warmly recommends, the polyphonic style she expressly praises, and the modern she at least tolerates. According to the "Motu proprio" of Pius X (22 Nov. 1903), the following are the general guiding principles of the Church: "Sacred music should possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, or more precisely, sanctity and purity of form from which its other character of universality spontaneously springs. It must be holy, and must therefore exclude all profanity, not only from itself but also from the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it. It must be true art, for otherwise it cannot exercise on the minds of the hearers that influence which the Church meditates when she welcomes into her liturgy the art of music. But it must also be universal, in the sense that, while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music, that no one of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them."

    Regarding modern music, the "Motu proprio" says: "The Church has always recognized and honoured progress in the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages — always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently, modern music is also admitted in the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety, and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions. Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, care must be taken that musical compositions in this style admitted to the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of theatrical motives, and be not fashioned, even in their external forms, after the manner of profane pieces." It is very much to be regretted that the greatest masters of modern times, Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and Beethoven, devoted their wonderful gifts mainly to secular uses, and that their masses are entirely unsuitable for liturgical purposes — an unsuitability freely acknowledged by Mendelssohn, Liszt, and Wagner. The reason for their inadmissibility lies in their treatment of the sacred text, the instrumentation, in the fact that they do not conform to the liturgical action, and often in an undue elaboration of form which seriously interferes with the devotion of the faithful. A few compositions by these masters (such as Mozart's Ave verum) do not deserve this reproach. The mere fact that a Gloria or Credo by Haydn, for instance, delays the progress of the service twenty minutes, while the other parts of these masses are of equally excessive length, is sufficient to render them unsuitable for liturgical use. The following words from the "Motu proprio" are applicable to numberless compositions: "Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears least suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy during the last century. This, of its very nature, is diametrically opposed to the Gregorian chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but ill to the requirements of true liturgical music."

    Thanked by 1Drake
  • Drake
    Posts: 219
    After that extensive introduction, it is difficult to add anything more of value, but I'll give it a shot.

    Drawing from experience, the suitability of the music is also related to the devotion of the singers themselves. For example, there are a number of professional choirs who sing sacred polyphony for its beauty (rather than its truth). Often these choirs are not comprised of members who *believe* what they sing. Contrariwise, there are small, volunteer choirs who attempt the same music. These volunteer choirs are less refined, yet they are drawn from among the faithful. The point is that, despite the natural, technical superiority of a professional choir over a parish (volunteer) choir, the supernatural faith of the volunteer choir is more suitable to the music and the purpose of the music. There is a quality in sacred music that only faith can elicit.

    In my opinion, the best sacred music is the product of a composer who believes and is humble (knows his limitations) and a choir that believes and is likewise humble.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • I like what Drake has said and believe that he has pointed to a necessary ingredient, or disposition, to the sacred, be it music or any art. Still, I would question whether the striving for a higher musicianship in our efforts is necessarily lacking in humility and indicative of Drake's 'unbelief'. It doesn't seem to me that he meant to imply that it was, but there are many who do. When true believers have the musical competence to soar it is inexcusable for them not to do so. Achieving the highest level of performance one is capable of is prayer, and may be iconic revelation when accomplished with true belief and humility. We do not refrain from building the likes of Chartres, Ely, or St Peter's because they exceed the talents of 'humble' people who could only build in wattle. To do so would be a false humility which robbed God of the return on his gift of talents. Ditto painting, literature, music, cooking, and other manifestations of divinely endowed genius. The enemy, I think, which Drake might wish to expose, is false, self-congratulatory pride, not excellence in and of itself. But, even when this is, regrettably, present, the 'performance' may still inspire others and glorify God in the minds of hearers. Why do I say this? I invoke the proceedings of the Donatist controversy; and point out that excellence in and of itself glorifies God, not the persons gifted with its potential. When I view Alfred Brendel playing a late Beethoven sonata I am moved to tears at the profound beauty which he reveals in the music, the profound genius of Beethoven's musical thought, and the God-made miracle of Brendel's mind. I have no idea what Brendel's faith is, or his personal morality - but God is inelluctably glorified... and I am blessed.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    the less refined...volunteer choir is more suitable to the music and the purpose of the music. There is a quality in sacred music that only faith can elicit.
    I'm afraid I can't quite see the humility in this picture.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Drake
    Posts: 219
    Richard, unfortunately, the most important part of my comment got lost in the ellipsis. It is not the less refined volunteer choir but the *supernatural faith* of the volunteer choir that is more suitable to the music.

    M. Jackson Osborn, yes, I agree. "Striving for a higher musicianship in our efforts" is certainly not opposed to humility, nor did I intend to imply that. Actually, a humble choir would always be striving for improvement.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I agree with drake. I would go further however and say it is the heart that most matters to God, not the technical presentation of sacred music. This is a very touchy and interesting subject which I would like to expand upon at the computer as I will need a keyboard to talk this out. Thank you drake!
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    Well, don't let me misrepresent you; it depends on what you mean by "best" then. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting a double-blind experiment where subjects listen to the Tallis Scholars alongside a recording by unquestionably sincere amateurs and check a box for the one that sounds motivated by supernatural faith, so are we back to God being the only audience that matters? When I make a mistake I do indeed hope some glimmer of contrition will be discovered, but speculating on God's taste in music would seem a bit presumptuous when I have been placed in the post of servant to earthly listeners.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    so are we back to God being the only audience that matters?


    God is always first but beauty and "best" are part of what he deserves right under a pure heart. It's not either or... It's both.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Then again, Drake is on it.


    John 4:23
    But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.


  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    God is always first but beauty and "best" are part of what he deserves right under a pure heart. It's not either or... It's both.

    Now that is a conclusion upon which we agree, francis.
    All of the elevated nobility mentioned above seems to me a bit of a mirage, as there are doubtless truly humble souls in choirs great and small, and maybe in equal measure a number of divas. That is where we directors have our greatest challenge, to not only utilize the artistic and aesthetic abilities of that mixture, but also convince them to strive for excellence through true discipline to the art, which is the media: choral music. Choral music, in my reckoning, stands as unique among all worship arts, it is corporate in any formation imaginable. But, in worship it is not a commodity. The T. Scholars can render to near perfection an 8 part motet at Stanford Memorial Chapel, and some in the audience might associate that performance akin to a religious experience. But that's not a "both" experience. A simple two part piece by Richard Shepherd rendered not only with basic choral precision, affect, and intent (its programming for a specific moment or recollection in a given calendar service) by a modest choir prepared with both "the basics" and an understanding of "why this, why now?" could prove more successful within the context of actual worship. Art for art's sake at worship is not a hill for which I would die defending.
    Thanked by 1francis