Could it change? Absolutely.

Will it? As much as the PTers want it to, NO.

I think the main question that he proposes (despite the title of the post) is more so SHOULD it change . . .

The only purpose of "changing the understanding" would be to silence those who now appeal to the "primacy" from the documents.

THIS.

He is saying in the last paragraphs, "We'll use chant if you think it will float your boat; otherwise, not".

If you apply this way of thinking to other areas of church teaching, you end up as the so-called "cafeteria catholic", or you leave the church.

To avoid the reader's making this leap in reasoning, Fr. Ruff admits of a hierarchy within church teachings: "There are core dogmatic teachings, and then there are moral teachings, within which teachings on sexual ethics have greater stability than those on social and economic issues, and then, much further down the line, are statements about the nature of worship, including those about the primacy of Gregorian chant". He concludes the paragraph that "statements of musical and artistic ideals are necessarily contingent and changeable".

I don't think I buy this. For one thing, his list does not seem to consist of like items; the reason social and economic issues are "farther down the line" of changeability is because they have to do with the suggested application of general principles to real life scenarios, rather than the general principles themselves. And isn't that what the recommendation of chant is - a general principle?

Furthermore, although I am not familiar with the document Musicam sacram referenced in the next paragraph, I do not find that Fr. Ruff proves it to be saying that a level of a piece of music's fulfillment of its liturgical function should be judged by what the congregation thinks of it.

Sure, we can all agree that "the purpose of music in worship is functional". But isn't this what Dr. Mahrt is always saying - that an introit is stylistically different from a gradual, such that each is very subtly suited to the particular liturgical action of which it is a part? Furthermore, that chant possesses this subtle suitabilility to a degree which is not attainable by other forms of music? Thus, objectively, other forms of music simply do not function as well as Gregorian chant. Use the Graduale Romanum, folks.

Finally, regarding our subjective opinions:

It is the job of the church to form our conscience; Fr. Ruff admits this. May not the church be allowed also to form our musical conscience?

Vale in Domino,
Jonathan

I posted a long response at the site where the article appeared.

Xpost from response at PTB:

As much as I appreciate and am yet able and prepared to lead musical prayer and praise in a multiplicity of genres, I find the reductio ad absurdam (not sure if that's correct Latin) rationale of what's "popular" according to polls or anecdotal argument very disabling to fruitful deliberation of "authenticity" as regards the Roman Rite.
To paraphrase, has "The mandate of Tra le sollecitudini been tried and found wanting, or is still wanting as it has not yet been tried?"
Locally, I submit to the sensibilities of my pastor who is ostensibly representing those of my bishop. But philosophically, I stand with Dr. Kwasniewski and Prof. Bruce Ford. As long as "de gustibus" factor supplants the called-for and time-tested disciplines, we will never know the fullness of the sacral tongue's efficacy (as opposed to living or dead languages.)

If give the people what is a worthwhile rule, what about those who legitimately want chant? Why is there room in the big tent for every secular and popular adaptation, but those who desire the traditional forms of worship are banished to cemeteries, forced to fast until oddly scheduled afternoon Masses, made to commute hours each weekend, driven from their communities by capricious shuttering...?

Hymni_Veri_Valoris, on top of that, the overuse of worship aids is an annoying thing too. Are they a good thing? Yes. Can they be useful for the congregation? Yes. But if you are in a situation where you use the jubilate deo ordinary an cantor/choir propers, I've heard some say that it'd be better not to have these things sung if there isn't a worship aid. Wshat ever happened to prayerfull, active listening and meditation? You don't need to have everyt everything in front of you at every moment to participate in a Mass.

The fast before communion is one hour, regardless of which Mass people attend.

Noted.

I was under the impression that adherents of the EF abide by stricter fasting rules.


But the rest of my point, of course, is valid: In many quarters of the Church, pastoral considerations only apply to some groups and not to others. Or to put it another way: Liberality is in short supply among liberals.

I was under the impression that adherents of the EF abide by stricter fasting rules.

I know many people who, even when regularly attending the N.O., still, for reasons of personal devotion, follow earlier pre-Mass fasting regulations, whether it be the 3-hour Fast or the earlier one, from Midnight. I can't blame them -- I find the hour before communion to simply not be long enough to be of much use as 'fasting'.

But the rest of my point, of course, is valid: In many quarters of the Church, pastoral considerations only apply to some groups and not to others. Or to put it another way: Liberality is in short supply among liberals.

My major beef with the list of "observers" for October's Family Synod is the conspicuous presence of Orthodox Patriarchs and Protestant theologians and representatives and the equally conspicuous absence of Bishop Fellay, with whom we are supposed to be "dialoguing". But I guess in intrests of ecumenism, we need to exclude those who hold Catholic Doctrine...

Could the Church's understanding of the primacy of Gregorian chant ever change?--Pray Tell

Ask the people who said in the very early sixties that the Church would never stop using Latin in the mass. Stranger things have happened.

True, R.C. But why not include him, even with the other catholic observers/non voting members?

Why the superior of the Jesuits, and not of the F.S.S.P.? Why not Mons. Burnham, he might n't be a bishop, but he is an Ordinary? It just seems to me that certain groups were specifically left out of the equation.

It's worth noting that this "give the people what they want" proposal is nothing new. It's been around a long time.

As a former Theology professor used to scoff: "Nothing new, nothing profound!"

JonathanKK: not familiar with the document Musicam sacram referenced

www.vatican.va has the document.
Unfortunately the redecorated webpages disappeared the link.
So, Google to the rescue ...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

The timeline ...
1963-dec-04 Sacrosanctum Concilium ("SC")
1964-sep-26 Inter Oecumenici (SC Instruction 1)
1967-mar-05 Musicam Sacram (SC Instruction "continuation and complement of preceding")
1967-may-04 Tres abhinc annos (SC Instruction 2)
1970-sep-05 Liturgiae Instaurationes (SC Instruction 3)
1994-jan-25 Varietates Legitimae (SC Instruction 4)
2001-mar-28 Liturgiam Authenticam (SC Instruction 5)

SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
MUSICAM SACRAM
INSTRUCTION ON MUSIC IN THE LITURGY
Given 5 March, 1967
[...]
3. [...] the present Instruction. This does not, however, gather together all the legislation on sacred music; it only establishes the principal norms which seem to be more necessary for our own day. It is, as it were, a continuation and complement of the preceding Instruction of this Sacred Congregation, prepared by this same Consilium on 26 September 1964, for the correct implementation of the Liturgy Constitution

The failure to call Musicam Sacram what it really was, the SECOND Instruction, allows it to disappear from lists of "Instructions for the correct implementation of the Liturgy Constitution".

why not include him [Fellay], even with the other catholic observers/non voting members?

Pope Francis can nominate whoever he likes. But doing so would present a number of difficult questions about whether Monseigneur Fellay should accept such an invitation, and about how he should be treated and how he should act. Fellay is currently not in full communion with the Church -- so it is not possible to say that he's a Catholic in good standing. He is a member and is the head of an unrecognized religious order, and was unlawfully ordained a priest, and was unlawfully consecrated a bishop, and is under suspension from exercising priestly ministry and is prohibited from exercising the ministry of bishop.

Yesterday Fellay met with the new head of the CDF, Cdl. Müller, for the first time, and they resolved to continue the course of theological discussions to gradually resolve the difficulties between the Society and the Church.

Every ritual tradition has its own proper language and its own proper style of chant. For the Roman Rite, that’s Latin and Gregorian chant. For Catholics of other liturgical rites, it’s different: Coptic Catholics, for example, have no expectation that Latin or Gregorian chant be part of their spirituality.

The same might be said for those in the Anglican Ordinariate, though the Anglicans’ surge in interest in “things Roman” over the past 150 years or so, as well as the Roman origin of Anglican worship itself, makes that demarcation “blurrier”.

I think the West does suffer, though, from a “one-size-fits-all” application of Roman liturgy. The idea of “the liturgy is the same everywhere” is hogwash: the Church (in and out of union with Rome) has always had a plethora of liturgical traditions, even into the 19th century, and even in Europe. Around that time was when most of the last pre-Tridentine regional variants of the Roman Rite were abandoned; today only a handful of such remain in use. It goes without saying, too that Catholics in uniate Churches experience Catholic liturgy in a very different sense than even these.

(One of Liturgiam Authenticam’s most misunderstood phrases, I think, was the “essential unity of the Roman Rite”. I think that was in reference to precisely the history of those regional variations that died out fairly recently: the idea being to avoid going back to that state of affairs.)

In terms of cultural trappings, what most in the U.S. conceive of as “Catholic worship” is closer to a high-church Protestant worship service than what we would properly term “culturally Roman” worship—a testament to which being the low number of Catholics who know how to sing even the “Jubilate Deo” chants or who hear Gregorian chant or Latin in the liturgy on a regular basis.

On the one hand, the reasons for the abandonment of Gregorian chant are clear: ordinary folks never really “lived” it as our tradition, and we still don’t. The emphasis on physical action from the congregation in the XXc liturgical reforms was, in some ways, like an armor-piercing bullet fired straight at traditions like Gregorian chant, or almost any such tradition that we might consider even remotely esoteric. These really do exist in tension: Protestants had their hymns as a tradition that was “their own”, but it’s a relatively simple one and so one that John Q. Protestant could “own” with relative ease, even notwithstanding some funny turns of phrase in some more archaic texts. By contrast, Gregorian chant is far more esoteric and requires much more practice to sing confidently and with understanding.

This is not to say that I favor abandoning Gregorian chant or relegating it to the status of “one tradition among many”. It is, and should remain, like Latin, inextricably part of the Roman Rite. The bigger question, I think, is: what purpose does the “essential unity of the Roman Rite” serve today?

I can't say I liked that article. He misses what to me is the key point. Chant has primacy of place because it is the chanting of Scripture. All other forms of music emphasise the music over the words, chant emphasises the words by means of the music.
In the context of liturgy, all other words, no matter how ancient, venerable or sublimely penned take second place to the Word of God, which chant serves to highlight.

For this and no other reason, chant has primacy of place - not cultural, or artistic or any other values.

Other hymns and hymn styles do use scripture as a reference point too, and these are to be preferred to treacly hymns without reference to scripture of course, but even so, and I include ancient hymns here, where the text has taken a secondary role to the music, it should not serve as the model, as chant does , being Scripture first, served by the music.

(And yes I know not all chant is direct scriptural quotation, but even among chants there is a hierarchy, surely).

It is interesting to observe the evolution of prayer and music at IHOP, an evangelical church in Kansas which has for some time been practicing 24/7 prayer in their prayer, which is streamed live online.
Listening to their regular services, you see they are coming out of the usual familiar pop music type of worship style, done rather well with guitars, percussion etc.
But as their prayer room style evolved a new style is emerging, While still using the same instruments the following things are observable:
They sing more and more from scripture, quoting and repeating lines antiphonally.
The musical accompaniment has got sparser and simpler, tending more and more to a simplified melodic style, which if it was stripped of the modern sounding instruments would be increasingly chant-like.
Now I am not arguing that they will end up singing Gregorian chant, what I am suggesting is that, even when coming from a musical style we would often think of as far away from Gregorian chant, once you start to do two things - focus on scripture and sing and pray a lot - something of the principles encapsulated in Gregorian chant start to emerge.
This is the context, in the temple worship of David that formed the psalms, and in the early church, from which chant emerged - simple, suited to much meditative repetition, focussed on scripture.
To argue that chant should not be the model, one would, IMHO have to abandon one or both of these two things - leave off singing scripture, or leave off singing frequently.
One hopes a Benedictine monastery would not be going in that direction.

I do find one piece of consolation in the article. This:

Graduate students, whose average age is considerably younger than that of the monks, are much more affirming of the value of Gregorian chant than monks. Graduate students affirm more strongly than monks that it is important for a Benedictine monastery to preserve Latin chant. They are more likely to desire more Latin chant in the liturgy, whereas a very large group of monks, including those who affirm the value of Latin chant, say they would like less Latin chant in the liturgy.

Not consoling for the future of the monastery, though.

"The reasons for the abandonment of Gregorian chant are clear: ordinary folks never really “lived” it as our tradition, and we still don’t."

"One of the reasons Gregorian chant was so easily abandoned was that it stopped being the work of the people centuries ago... Chant was something the priest and choir did, so the sense of community ownership was missing."

Both excellent points.

Chant has primacy of place because it is the chanting of Scripture. All other forms of music emphasise the music over the words, chant emphasises the words by means of the music.

THIS

Dad, despite the blatant truth of the affirmed statement regarding sung scripture, folks like our brother TF will gleefully point out and hammer that it was the SLJ's/Deiss/et al who brought "scripture" into the OF.

Regarding the PTB combox, the freelance semantical twists that some employ there can be frustrating. If you want an illustration, read from about comment #37 onward.
Here's my latest retort:

Dear Rita,
Regarding “musicology,” that was “shorthand” for all of the regional/ritual chant forms over early and evolving Christendom. So, most of us do have familiarity with the fact that Ambrosian chant is not Sarum, Gallic, Mozarabic, Corsican, Coptic, Gregorian or other chant in substance. That’s all that meant.

I also thought you’d get that I was calling into question yours and Anthony’s qualification and specificity regarding only “Gregorian Chant” as the crux of the issue. Yes, the documents specify it so when they call for “it” having primacy of place. But, isn’t “Gregorian Chant” itself a term that describes a genre rather than a specific species of chant. After all, myth or truth of its origins aside, these chants were collected and collated from many monasteries in many regions. “Gregorian Chant” might be more equal to saying “Popular Music Anthology” than a “Strict system of musical composition” such as serialism or species counterpoint.

So, my point is broader- just calling the question of “chant” having primary place is more honest than the semantic reduction to “Gregorian.” And whether its popular, feasible, desired, despised or rejected is besides that point. It is called for to be “recognized.” It is invited to the table. And there are many, and not all enclaved in CMAA btw, particular PIPs, who want to keep company with it at worship.

To Todd’s beating of the dead horse of CMAA intransience, that is not my lived experience. I’m the one who’s been to the colloquia. I know the hundreds of DM’s who personally have said in my presence that they’d die happy if chant was provided a real opportunity, a platform if you will, at just one of multitudes of Sunday Masses. And the systemic intolerance for that notion, for whatever cultural reasons, is a repugnant refusal to think with the mind of the Church, which is explicit. Just one Mass. Take my word or not, just because CMAA to Todd seems like an echo chamber of ideologues, doesn’t make it so. And his point likening the suppression of chant to art music in general doesn’t hold water either. You won’t find many priests who out of hand dismiss the occasional singing of a Latin hymn, motet or even ordinary movements within the general construct of the vernacular OF Mass.

But chant? Good luck. I’ll never forget a powerful Msgr. out here who remarked to me “Why would you choose that? It doesn’t uplift ME?!?” He said it with palpable, vehement disgust.
.

On Wendy's birthday this year (won't say which, not that dumb) we hired a personal chef (he's trying to break into the Food Network rotation.) Among the early courses he concocted some version of a dish whose primary element was Brussel Sprouts. I equate those to escargot on my list of things I don't need to taste ever again.
But he manicured the recipe so artfully that I had to admit, they were freaking GREAT!
Hence Kevin's Law of Foodie Thermodynamics rules in many disciplines.
Next time our chef's gonna try his Mexican infused magic upon Haggis! Care to join me, MaryAnn?

A similar whine is "give us our contraception!"
Whatever, most Catholics are doing it anyway, so what they're looking for is validation, and change only for the sake of wanting it their way.

I am perfectly happy with them having their contraception. Perhaps they won't produce any more like themselves.

She meant me, ya daft Byzantine! ;-)

Charles is my dad's name, so I'm open to lunch with both y'all!
Of course we'd have fun- sangrias or cervezas are a must. :)