FYI The link is sending me right back here. Is it me? (Chrome)

How could anyone presume to write an article about the correct "role" of choirs without even mentioning proper antiphons, without reference to the GIRM, or without pointing out the fact that "hymns" are not the default music of the Liturgy?

I would be curious as to what Dr Bullock's doctorate is in.
(Yeah, I did it. I just ended a sentence with a preposition.)

Her article on Funeral Music suffers from the same lacunae.

Save the Liturgy, save the World!

Yeah, I did it. I just ended a sentence with a preposition

There is no rule against that in English - another error enshrined and sanctioned by time. From Oxford Dictionaries comes the following:

Some of these groundless rules (termed ‘fetishes’ by Henry Fowler in 1926) have a long history. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, some notable writers (aka Latin-obsessed 17th century introverts) tried to make English grammar conform to that of Latin – hence the veto on split infinitives and also the ruling against the ending of a sentence with a preposition (also called stranding or deferring a preposition).

Her article on Funeral Music suffers from the same lacunae

I noticed that, too.

I'm not saying anything negative about the article in question...

But...

http://www.catholicsun.org/2011/12/15/singing-the-mass-part-one-liturgical-music-as-participation-in-christ/
http://www.catholicsun.org/2012/01/19/singing-the-mass-part-two-a-short-history-of-liturgical-music/
http://www.catholicsun.org/2012/02/13/singing-the-mass-part-three-sacred-musics-role-in-evangelization/
http://www.catholicsun.org/2012/03/19/singing-the-mass-fourth-and-final-part-practical-points-for-singing-the-mass/

When I was in the Archdiocese of Louisville I had disagreements with Dr. Bullock about this approach so I'm not shy about speaking up. It is as if "Vatican II" somehow changed the theological and liturgical meaning, as well as all preceding directions and church documents, of and about the Mass. Her concept deriving from a limited notion of "full and conscious participation" is that the congregation has to be physically doing (or not doing) things in order to accomplish what is conscious and nothing should get in the way of that. The congregation is primary in this focus. So the choir is just basically an extension of willing singers clumped together in a corner from the congregation in this manner of thinking.

Why have them at all if this is the case? A cantor (which she mentions as a "revived role" - I'm still trying to figure that one out) and instrumentalists of any kind would be enough. That's the issue, isn't it? In other words, any type of real choir or intentional practice of beauty is an obstruction to the focus on the congregation and can only happen in limited "slots." And it's a real shame as the documents of the Second Vatican Council do not discourage beauty in the least. And, it's true, she completely ignores the issue of sung propers.

It is these limited interpretations of these documents that have downplayed what is beautiful and what brings us into the sacred. But I think it has been more than just a limited interpretation. I'll say more below.

Anyone observing this "style" of liturgy described by Dr. Bullock quickly notices that the styles of music actually cause less participation, not more. Most everyone in this forum understands the reasons why this is true.

But what is really sad is that the sense of mystery, and how that can come actively alive in the Mass through good, intentionally practiced and executed ritual and music is downplayed. It's all just a string of activities when you truly get to the bottom of this type of thinking. Nothing is given the opportunity to be beautiful, creative or inspirational. The liturgy is thus utilitarian.

But I have to say that this can also happen when good choirs are present. Which is what I alluded to above. Less participation can also occur, if you really think about it, when excellent choirs and organists are present. It can become a show just as praise bands can become entertainment. We need to be careful. The focus on the liturgy needs a good sense of "give and take" between the participants.

This is not a give and take in styles, much like a buffet to have musical options for everyone's enjoyment, but in the sense of understanding what each role (celebrant, congregation, choir, lector, etc.) does well and enabling that to happen. Organists need to know when to back off when the congregation is singing well, for example. Propers sung by a good schola understanding the inherent rhythm and modes in chant can lead into significant and meaningful prayer. It just seems like today there are so many roles that aren't working well together, or even ignored, and just put into time slots within the Mass. This is how, I think, we get the type of thinking proposed by Dr. Bullock. And it's how we live our lives in modern society. Everything is in it's time slot and most music is entertainment. Why wouldn't the congregation's participation be different in this type of thinking? What is liturgically significant is not understood as leading us into something "other worldly."

So the Dr. Bullocks of the world are actually teaching us something. I don't agree with her, and she knows it, but I also think we need to understand why this thinking has surfaced and been prevalent for so many years. It's been a reaction to liturgies where many have thought the focus was more on musical quality more than actual prayer and participation. So I think I get it. It doesn't make it right and I'm not defending the position.

The answer to good liturgy and music, I think, will be found in the understanding of where we all are coming from rather than being reactionary or defensive.

But that's just my own humble, most likely flawed, expression of an opinion.

God bless Judy. To me, the article sounds more like a didactic approach and marching orders, i.e., "this is how you're supposed to do it!" But I think we can help her get beyond that. :-)

Thanks for allowing my personal opinion. I don't speak up much but I wanted to add my "two cents" since I've had some experience in Louisville.

Gary Marks

My pastor likes to say: "Active participation could mean listening."
To me, the choir participates in their way, and the non-choir congregants participate in their way, and not always feeling pressured to sing like the choir. For some it's their prerogative to sit near the choir and be a pew-chorister; okay, some people just need to sing at church. The article makes it seem like she wants everyone to be the choir.

Second Melo Magnus: just a rehash of everything that's been said in the past 50 years.

This is a wonderful, planned economy-style explanation of the (old) party line found in SttL, but really from a viewpoint that I imagine wishes MCW was still in effect and that maybe Sacrosanctum Concilium, Mediator Dei, heck even TLS, had never happened.

I did get a chuckle when we were thrown the proverbial bone of "special song at the offertory". This is probably because we just did three movements of a polyphonic ordinary today along with said motet, etc., etc.

These articles are worth posting since they illustrate the fact that it takes time to absorb an ecumenical council. I like to think we are able to view things more dispassionately now in 2014, taking the best from all eras.

I think Louisville will be just fine. Abp. Kurtz has a very good heart, from what people whom I trust have told me, and some place as Catholic as that part of Kentucky will be fine in the long run!