Yes, Jeff says it well.

Also - another aspect to this is the fact that the Church - both individuals in it and the institutional Church - seem to value being pastoral over all else.

When it comes to liturgy, we often see priests bend. But we also see bishops bend. Now of course someone will come along and say "Well there's some bishops who don't care what the Church says about liturgy." OK, fair enough. What about when you see the highest ranking (most prominent) bishops bending? Or people in the Vatican? Or the Pope himself?

We've seen all of these things and I dare say that Pope Francis wouldn't approve of the "it'll be the Church's way as outlined in the documents or the highway" approach to liturgy. In fact, I don't think Pope Benedict actually approved of it or operated that way either.

Now some liturgy people are quick to point out that Pope Benedict was very uncompromising, and he could be - but on matters of FAITH AND DOCTRINE. Never on liturgical practices. With those he simply led by example and tried to use his influence.

So until I see a sort of magisterium from the highest levels of the Church on down that illustrates it differently, I'm going to operate with the notion that the Pastoral is practically the most important - because that seems to be what is being modeled at all levels.

Fair enough. Thank you for the good discussion on this.

Deacon Fritz, whom I am delighted to see making his presence and spiritual acumen felt in this forum, has asserted that to prevent the loss of a soul is pastoral reason enough to trump musical considerations at mass. Who can, or would, argue the contrary. One is left wondering, though, how it is that (in my experience and from what I have heard) pastoral reasons seem to trump musical ones only in favour of those who are peeved over chant and other fine music from our heritage. It never seems to occur in favour of those who are rightfully put out at the various junky musical idioms encountered at our masses. The loss of a soul doesn't seem ever to be a concern of clergy or others when it is a matter of chant and good music. Pastoral concerns do not concern them. Nor does the loss of their souls seem to be of concern to anyone. 'Pastoral concerns' is nearly always a fig-leaf for musical rubish and clerical cowardice in the face of the implacable foes of musical decency. (If their souls are really in danger, it is not on account of chant or a Vaughan Williams anthem, but of their utter contempt for the feelings of those who might differ with them!)

But, on the topic of "losing souls" to musical / linguistic concerns ... that begs the question of what the REAL problem is anyway. If somebody leaves the church because Latin was reintroduced, they have a much deeper sickness in their soul, and that sickness would have remained right alongside their favorite tambourine jam.

And it works both ways. In my case, it wasn't just the music... but that was a good excuse to leave, when I had whatever other issues buried along with the heartfelt sense of "This just ain't right" any time I went to mass.

THE POINT BEING that the so-called "pastoral" nature of contemporary music DRIVES PEOPLE AWAY TOO.

Pastoral means don't be a jerk.

People don't leave because of Latin. They leave because of jerks who introduce Latin.

"I left the church in adolescence because of goofy liturgies."

So, it was you who was divisive, not the liturgies, according to an earlier idea in this thread (not one I am sold on, mind you).....

Also, Latin and chant--as wonderful as they are--are not of divine mandate,

DIsagree.

Fear of change is the only driving force in today's congregations. Having experienced dramatic changes that have driven others from the pews, they are all waiting for the next shoe to drop, the next bearded young priest with a guitar and a motorcycle to be foisted on them.

Well, tomorrow at 8am I'll have braved the valley fog to chant with our fellow Royce Nickel at what is promised to be an all-Latin OF. It 's already been booted out of the host church into the gym at the last minute, no politics there I'm sure.
In the meanwhile I hearby command everyone who reads this to purchase the CD/download of Paul Jernberg's MASS OF ST. PHILIP NERI (done with real priest/celebrants, deacons, lectors and the amazing St. Peter's Schola under J.Michael Thompson. Listened to the whole thing twice last night. It is simply the finest example of a thoroughly, totally sung English chant Mass ever recorded. Better than Ecclesia Dei up in Portland, and that's saying a ton. Do it.
I'm going to post a total review at the Cafe soon, and I now publicly call upon the CMAA board (if not already considered) programming this whole project for the OF at the Duquesnes Collqouium '15. Serious as a heart attack.

(Granted, I am not of the opinion that the OF cannot be corrected, at least from its modern expression, but I have seen very few Sunday OF Masses sung, how shall we say, well.....well?)

When the EF was the norm before Vatican II, it wasn't sung well in most parish churches in the U.S., either.

Why is it that "pastoral" is never considered in favor of those of us who favor more traditional worship?

Strange how that "pastoral" stuff only works in one direction. You have a good point.

Was it beards in 19th-century Russia? Always. A beard is God's glory. Is not outrage!

A beard is God's glory.

Indeed.

You're doing it wrong.

Pastoral means don't be a jerk.
People don't leave because of Latin. They leave because of jerks who introduce Latin.

What Gavin said. I don't think anyone ever really left over Latin, or over tambourines or guitars. That have left over people in authority who were so convinced of the rightness and importance of their own views concerning what is, at the end of the day, adiaphora, that they are willing to cram it down peoples throats without ever listening to their objections, showing any willingness to compromise, or even trying to explain themselves. It happened in the 60s when Latin when out and guitars came in; it happens now when guitars go out and Latin comes in. In fact, it simply happens all the time, because it is part of our fallen human condition.

I often find that those who remain unpersuaded concerning a change will often tolerate it if the person making the change has made a good faith effort to explain it and listen to objections, and if they have put in the time (usually measured in years rather than weeks) building faith prior to implementing a change.

Jerkness is no more inherent (objectively less so) in those who propose good music as implied in the Church's proceedings than it is in those who pretend to have authority to obstruct them. There are, to be sure, numerous aspects of our religious culture which can, technically, be considered adiaphora, but the labelling of them as such is nearly always pejorative, or, if not that, an implication of their utter unimportance (to the speaker). People who don't receive what is rationally and pastorally presented to them may also be jerks. Outstanding jerks. This is not helpful. Most who present better alternatives to the predominant liturgical and musical praxis of our time are not jerks. This is not helpful. Do not most of us cultivate a diplomatic and pastoral approach? Some need improvement, but calling them jerks is neither helpful nor pastoral. This exercise into cute but unsubstantial aspersions is not helpful.

This should not be taken to undercut Deacon Fritz's admonition. None of us should want to repeat the bitterness and rancour that characterised the unfortunate developments of the past few decades. Kindness, diplomacy, and a profoundly pastoral conscience are needed by all. People (most of them) will respect what is genuine. Always speak passionately about what you love. Do not waste words on what you don't.

No!

(Well, it all depends on your manner and how you go about it.)

"Is it jerkness to be intensely passionate about good liturgical music, and find some types of music not suitable for use in the most solemn act of Christian worship, and not hesitating to let those who are not experienced in a musical field know what is inappropriate for worship, that such errors might be remedied?"

The "not hesitating to let those who are not experienced in a musical field know" part is what's likely to result in jerkdom.

I'd be delighted to explain my views in a diplomatic and pastoral fashion if there was someone who would listen in the same manner. Many are not willing to.

Personally, I've found there is only one, almost-foolproof way to introduce any kind of liturgical or musical change in a parish, and that is; do it for Lent or Advent, and just continue it the rest of the year. That's how chanting the propers was introduced in my own parish.

Have you ever personally yourself ever tried to make precisely this change (increase of Latin singing) as a musician in a parish?
Even if you have, which I doubt or you wouldn't be so blithe, I think all the name-calling unsavory.

I'm not sure who is being called a name here. I don't think I, or anyone else, have said that anyone posting on this forum is or has been a jerk. I don't know anyone here well enough to make such a judgment. Nor am I saying that everyone who leaves over a liturgical change leaves because the person introducing that change is being a jerk. The point is that being "pastoral" does not mean using this or that kind of music, or making or resisting changes, but means at least in part not being a jerk.

And, not that it really matters, but in fact a number of years ago I instigated greater use of Latin chant in the parish. At the time we had a music director who knew a lot about chant (PhD in musicology and worked for a while as an organist as an FSSP church in Austria) and a pastor with notable pastoral skills who explained that chant and Latin were a beautiful part of heritage as Catholics and that we should become more familiar with it. He had built up several years worth of good will prior to this, had gotten people to try unfamiliar things in the past, and was excellent and patient in explaining why he made the decisions he did. Many liked it. Some did not. But no one threatened to leave the parish, much less the Church, over it. It never was a major part of what we sang; we still did the Mass of Creation on occasion, still sang Gather Us In, but it at least had a place at the table, particularly during Lent and on big festivals like Christmas and Easter, and people liked it.

A few years later we had a different music director (great guy, but not very familiar with chant) and a different pastor. When I noted that we used to do some Latin chant and hadn't in a while we tried some during Lent, but there was no real enthusiasm for it from either the pastor or the music director, so the minute a complaint came in it was dropped. There are other pastoral complexities involved that I won't bore you with (I'll just say the "don't be a jerk" principle was not always being assiduously observed). So now I believe the only Latin chant we ever do is the Pange Lingua on Holy Thursday, which we've done for decades.

I'm not saying that everyone who meets resistance or even failure when trying to make a change does so because he's being a jerk. I'm saying that if you want to move a congregation to a place you think is better for them then a good tool to have in your pastoral toolkit is non-jerkiness.

I was going to use a stronger word than "jerk". You can consider it a stand-in, if you will - I don't approve of obscene language on the forum, and will not instigate such, myself.

I don't think anyone ever really left over Latin, or over tambourines or guitars.

With respect to FCB, I want to distance myself from this comment (while being honored by our agreement on the larger point). I think there are a lot who do leave solely because of liturgical change, regardless of how it's implemented. Of course, you know what they say about the plural of "anecdote"...

Jerkness is no more inherent (objectively less so) in those who propose good music as implied in the Church's proceedings than it is in those who pretend to have authority to obstruct them.

Again, this is anecdotal, but in my experience and reasoning, it IS more of a problem in our circle. Jackson asks, "Do not most of us cultivate a diplomatic and pastoral approach?" Yet I see so many stories on here of people being fired, placed in professional peril, or dealing with voluminous complaints while making significant changes to music programs, and I HAVE to wonder whether these people were simply being arrogant, condescending, and callous buffoons.

And I reason that we are more at risk for this behavior because we know ourselves to be in the right. Just ask any military leadership in history; it's easy to ignore basic principles of conduct if your task is a just one.

and not hesitating to let those who are not experienced in a musical field know what is inappropriate for worship,

See, here's part of the difficulty. Letting people know that you know more than them is jerky. It's rude. It's condescending. Most of all, it's unnecessary. That's just a basic part of good manners that anyone should follow. But how do you justify a decision you make with your superior knowledge? I don't necessarily have the answer, as I've been labeled "arrogant" most of my life. But there's a way to do it, and a way not to do it. Figure that out for yourself.

I'm reminded of a few parables: I was at lunch with some staff colleagues, and the subject of funeral music came up. One staff member, a good friend, shared with us her love of a particularly sappy and terrible song, and how she wants it at her funeral because of the deep meaning of the (shallow and sappy) lyrics. I thought instantly how much I despise this song, and how tasteless one must be to derive ANY pleasure from it.

This woman had opened herself to me, and shared something which was very meaningful and personal. That has to first be respected.

Secondly, this weekend I attended a recital given by my sister-in-law. My brother asked me to pick up flowers for her, which resulted in me being just slightly late. I snuck in during applause after the first work, and covertly sat down with my family. Just as the applause died down before the next piece, my 3 year old niece scowled and yelled out for all to hear, "Uncle Gavin, you're late!!"

I suspect the same impulses which drove my niece to be so rude to me drives many in our circle to act like jerks. A just zeal for that which is (in our case, literally) proper, and a fiendish lack of concern for the emotional state of the victims of our zeal.

I have found the fastest way to kill chant and polyphony is to do them and nothing else. I think the reason I get away with doing traditional music is that I don't beat the congregation over the head with the same thing continuously. I love early music, but for many folks, a little can go a long way. There is also a point where much of it starts to sound alike. When I play an organ piece from the 16th or 17th century, there will be an organ piece from the 19th or 20th century played somewhere else during the mass - I include postludes in this, even though I know they are not officially mass parts. I do the same with choral works. Balance is the key, and excess of any kind tends to annoy folks. We have 21st-century ears and one period of music used to excess will eventually cause a push-back from the congregation.

Charles,

We have 21st-century ears

Unless there are some young teens here, everyone has 20th century ears, but I would ask what ELSE you mean to convey by this.

and one period of music used to excess

Would that include the 'nothing before 1960' period?

will eventually cause a push-back from the congregation.

Are we in sales? Our obligation is to do what the Church instructs us to do, to the best of our abilities. Just as there is beautiful music composed in more than one style, the Church has set up criteria upon which to decide which is right and proper -- and which is left and improper. The "push-back" from the congregation should only indicate the pace of implementation, not the direction.

Are we in sales?

Yes, we are in sales, marketing, administration, housekeeping, and a host of other jobs that get thrown into church music. Christianity has been a sales and marketing job from day one.

21st century ears: I suspect that when people heard nothing but Josquin, their attitude was generally, "man, that Josquin really rocks," or the equivalent expression of the day. Modern congregations have heard a variety of music since then and much of what they have heard would have shocked dear old Josquin out of his panties.

The "push-back" from the congregation should only indicate the pace of implementation, not the direction.

That congregational push-back can often determine whether or not you keep your job. More ideologues die from self-inflicted wounds than from attacks by others.

Direction? Give me a break. The church can't seem to agree on much of anything related to music these days. Some would also say on plenty of other things, as well.

Our obligation is to do what the Church instructs us to do, to the best of our abilities.

Well, that's one way to think about things, and undoubtedly true. But I'm a Thomist, so worry when the language of obligation comes to dominate things too much. I tend to thing more in terms of ends and how to attain them. If one thinks of ministry (musical or not) starting from law and obligation, then one will drive oneself crazy with the thought that there are laws being ignored or flagrantly violated. But if one thinks in terms of an ultimate end (eternal happiness with God) that is served by attaining more proximate ends (e.g. the cultivation of virtues). I think this can make a few differences in how one approaches ministry:

*The cultivation of virtue takes time, so unlike obedience to a law, which one might expect to happen instantly, acquiring certain virtues should be expected to be a fairly drawn out process.
*The distinction of ultimate and proximate ends might help one live with the fact that while from an objective point of view the Dies Irae is musically superior and theologically more profound than Be Not Afraid, for a particular congregation at a particular time and place the latter might help them attain their ultimate end more than the former (not unlike the way that, while celibacy might objectively speaking be a higher state of life than marriage, for a particular person it might not be what will best lead him to his ultimate end).
*Ministry is a matter of practical reasoning, not speculative reasoning, and so does not lend itself to the kind of certainties that speculative reason trades in. Knowledge of which style of music to adopt (of what penance to assign, of which religious education curriculum to adopt) simply could never be possessed of the same certainty as, say, our affirmation that the Son is begotten and not created.

A Thomist could easily think of worship in terms of justice: what is owed to God and to the people.