LifeSite shouldn't exist. I refuse to engage with it on any level, and I think others should avoid it equally.
Certainly your prerogative. Does make you come across as a triggered snowflake, though. Good luck with that.
Pro-Life intent shouldn't be engaging in religious debate
But even better would be to go back to the early fifties by having a lot of other services than Mass. Vespers has at least one hymn, could have more. Exposition and Benediction. These were the ways Catholics got their hymn sining in my youth. And now that ther are in most places clerics who cannot say Mass (deacons) they should be encouraged to lead more diverse worship.You can have it all during Mass.
I agree, chanting is not inherently "better" as a general proposition. But it is better, at Mass to use the texts the Church has provided, and essential to avoid unauthorised texts. Now most of the texts are prose, with no rhythmic structure, and that needs chant.
Peter evidently thinks that the Tridentine Mass was perfect, but I agree with the Fathers of Vatican II that some reform (not neccessarily what we got) was desireable, including some use of the vernacular. The Anglican church developed forms of chant that I think better suit the structure of the English language, they were also (officially) very restrained in their use of hymns.
The splendours of Gregorian chant are another matter. They are certainly sacred, but not "more sacred", and having developed in monasteries, where the monks chant ten times a day, they are not likely to be well adapted ti the average parish on a Sunday. That is why people developed 'Rossini propers' and 'Chants Abrégés'
Rose, a very interesting comment, thank you for asking the question.
The traditional concept of Catholic "Liturgy" is that it is God-centric, not man-centric. Although we derive spiritual and sometimes physical consolation and sustenance from the Liturgy, that is not its primary purpose... which is the adoration of God. The music, as an integral expression within the Liturgy is likewise primarily written and directed to God, not toward those in attendance. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have music that we don't connect with or understand... it just means that we might need to work harder to develop an appreciation for certain music (like chant) and not discount it simply because it doesn't appeal to us.
In the Gospels, we hear of Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus. Our Lord visits their house, and Martha is busy with all of the details around being the hostess, preparing the dinner, etc., while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus, listening to His discourse, In exasperation Martha asks our Lord to rebuke Mary - to tell her to get busy and help with the dinner preparations. His response is that "Mary hath chosen the best part". Commentaries from various authors indicate that this differentiates the contemplative (Mary) from the active (Martha), indicating that the contemplative is more perfect than the active.
Vocal prayer (whether spoken aloud or not) and music share these same characteristics. That is, prayer / music can be inherently more "contemplative" or more "active" in scope. Put another way, all music is a mixture of what appeals to the intellect (contemplative) and what appeals to the emotions (active) - all music has elements of both, though in different proportions.
When we recite a rosary, part of the advantage of a repetitive formula (the Hail Mary's in particular) is that it frees our minds to meditate on the mysteries rather than the words themselves. Music tends to act in the same way. Musically, chant is the equivalent of the repetitive vocal prayer - it is inherently more conducive to meditation because it is inherently more intellectual than polyphony or hymns, which tend to be more attuned to our emotions.
Herein is the biggest challenge for both singer and auditor. Chant takes work. Not just work in terms of singing it, or singing it well - but work in terms of appreciating it, of understanding what it conveys. It is difficult to develop that understanding or appreciation with limited use. The more accustomed one becomes to its use in the Liturgy, the more one begins to develop an appreciation.
Chant is preferred by the Church (numerous writings of various popes and from various councils) not simply because it is a "treasure", not simply because it is "ancient", but because it is best-suited to worship. Nor is this view unique to Catholics. The Jewish faith and a wide variety of Eastern religions incorporate wide scope for chant in their services of worship. The origins of chant far pre-date the Catholic Faith - it is a one of the many things that are common between the worship of the Old Testament and the worship of the New. Again, "preferred" is not intended to mean "exclusive".
As for books, one that might help is Papal Legislation on Sacred Music. You might try this link. https://www.thefreelibrary.... Thanks for your question and insights, and best of luck to you in your journey!
John and Anthony, thank you both for sharing your thoughts on this. I have copied and pasted your responses into a separate document so that I can re-read them a few times, because I confess that your arguments are incomprehensible to me at this point. That is my fault entirely, not yours at all, because your explanations are clear and lucid. I am simply not able to wrap my mind around what you're saying, because I have to somehow sync it with what I knew for most of my life--and that was evangelical. In other words, I was a non-denominational evangelical (as in Billy Graham-style) for longer than I have been Catholic, and I was steeped in the music of the Protestant tradition more than most Protestants are. I went to Christian school for my entire education, including college and pre-K, and I was a regular church-goer for the most part.
In that world in which I grew up, music (hymns, worship and praise, children's songs, etc.) was part of my daily routine. At school we sang every morning, lunch time, and sometimes even in the afternoons. I went to probably hundreds of chapels in school, where we always sang several songs. Even my college required daily chapel, and sometimes those chapels were nothing but "worship chapels," where the lights were dimmed and we just sang in worship and praise. My churches sang a lot, too, and Christian music was often available on the radio or tapes/CDs. Honestly, if anyone cared to listen to my below-average voice and if I could remember every song I ever learned, I'll bet I could sing a concert for three days straight.
Trying to understand the value and importance of chant, as you're explaining it, is like trying to understand another language. I conquered theology enough to decide to convert after four years of intensive study and searching, and my foundation there is solid--but I have become increasingly miserable in regards to my need to connect through music because my original parish (where people actually sang because they sang songs that people liked singing) is now three states away, so it is important I come to terms with traditional Catholic music, especially chant. It's increasing around me in almost every church I attend (I'm a member of one but attend several for reasons not relevant to this discussion), so I need to get it and learn to appreciate it.
Just the other day for Christ the King Sunday, it so happened that we concluded Mass by singing the beloved song I mentioned in my first post--"Crown Him With Many Crowns." I left the church in tears that I had to fight to keep my husband from seeing, because it was so awful. The congregation sang it as if half-asleep. The pianist played it at half-tempo, and no one even seemed to hear what they were singing. Many Protestant churches would have raised the roof!! It would give you chills to hear it sung the way it should be. At Easter there would even be trumpets, and the pace would be joyful and enthusiastic. Even my last parish would have sent the song to the rafters, because for some reason the Catholics there embraced singing. They sang like Protestants--the only Catholic church I've ever seen that does that, and I've visited many. I miss it badly.
Again, I really, really appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and I will chew on them a while and check out the book you mentioned. Because of my study of Orthodoxy, I have a little dim understanding about what you're saying about liturgy, because there are some similarities between how they view liturgy and music and how the Catholics have traditionally viewed it--similarities I haven't started to see until now that chants and some pre-Vatican customs are making a comeback in my diocese. There, I think, is my starting point--that convergence, so I will start there with your thoughts kept handy. If I can come to a deeper understanding, it will help me appreciate chants and other aspects of the liturgy more and perhaps even come to like them. Thank you!
there is a sense of the transcendent to be found in few places like it is found in chant.
but only that it is us that needs to conform our tastes - the method of doing that being left to the individual, but it probably has to include, particularly in our age, a re-formation of our understanding of what the liturgy is
the chant is the font from which all of this music flows, and is still inspiring musicians to create new and beautiful works today
in the mid fifties was that it became possible to celebrate Mass in the evening,
If anyone has ideas for that, I'd love to hear it!
Well, we don't know much about music that was not transcribed.I'm a bit foggy here, but didn't Hindemith posit that ALL Western music flowed from Chant?
Even Christus Dominus allowed some evening Masses :-In 1957 he replaced the fast from midnight with a three-hour fast from solid food and alcohol and a one-hour fast from other liquids. Ordinary communicants would calculate the time until the moment they took communion; priests fasted based on the time they began saying Mass. The new fasting rules opened the way to scheduling evening Masses,
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-laws-of-fasting-and-the-evening-mass-8951Rule VI. If the circumstance calls for it as necessary, We grant to the local Ordinaries the right to permit the celebration of Mass in the evening, as we said, but in such wise that the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon, on holy days of obligation still observed, on those which formerly were observed, on the first Friday of every month, and also on those days on which solemn celebrations are held with a large attendance, and also, in addition to these days, on one day a week; with the requirement that the priest observe a fast of three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages, and of one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. At these Masses the faithful may approach the Holy Table, observing the same rule as regards the Eucharistic fast, the presumption of Canon 857 remaining in force.
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.