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."
I'm afraid I can't quite see the humility in this picture.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.
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.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.