No Difference In Church Attendence Based on Worship Style - LCMS Data
-
I can't find my copy of Hazell's book, or get access to it online it seems. Is Rev 22:19 cited in the TLM? Cranmer, of course, has it read publicly (31 Dec).
-
Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
-
Related to this discussion: Peter Hitchens reviews a book on The Boomers, written by a Ms. Anderson. Here's a part of his review:...Andrews cannily observes another often overlooked convulsion in thought: “The most glaring objective consequence of the boomers’ embrace of mass culture has been the death of both folk culture and high culture. Earlier generations felt obliged to graduate from the good-time music of their youth to opera and classical, upon reaching a certain age. Not the boomers.” I had never seen anyone make this point before. Yet it was exactly my decision to graduate in this way that opened a tiny gap between me and my contemporaries, which has widened over fifty years into an immense gulf....
That 'music' commentary should ring some bells on this forum; but the criticism of Ms. Andrews could certainly apply to the NO/EF discussion as well. -
Back to the original topic - - there was a difference of one at my OF parish today. Our music director was let go a few weeks ago, and now we have a young substitute who plays very enthusiastic renditions out of "Gather" on the piano (which we have for unknown reasons next to the organ). I just couldn't take the pounding jazzy stylings during Mass. It felt like it was desecrating the Mass. I had to get up and leave at the Offertory.
-
There is a phenomenon that I have noticed and recognized it as a topic in a choral techniques class under the heading of "ethics." I will cite an example. In a city near which I lived awhile back, there was a parish that had a pastor who had a bit more musical training than usual and who had aspirations to be a conductor. He was willing to utilize some funds with which he hired an orchestra, vocal soloists, and then mounted performances of masses requiring such forces for various occasions at the church. Quite a few singers who were residents of communities surrounding the city flocked to participate and some number of these abandoned their regular parishes altogether in favor of participating in these opportunities to sing the music of significant composers with full orchestra, etc. Now, there were parishes in the surrounding suburbs, towns, and villages that lost their most valued choral singers and cantors to the attraction to this place. Not only did they lose their regular singers, but they also lost the voices that would have spoken in favor of more substantial music programs in their home parishes and would also have contributed to their support. What influence might this have on the quality of music programs in the area? Is the program to which they have been attracted really a good liturgical program, or is it just the child of what my college choral prof called "empire builders?" How healthy is the concentration of all the people with an interest in "good music" in one place? What are the ethical implications of such a situation?
-
Gee, JCR, why don't you ask Mgr. Schuler of St. Paul, MN?
What if there were no "quality" music programs within 30 miles or so, thus singers who wished to offer a great beauty to God had to travel to this parish/choir? What if pastors of churches within 30 miles or so thought that the St Louis Jesuits were the epitome of Catholic musical culture? What if their Mass praxis reflected that musical opinion? What if the parish musicians at all those other parishes did not know how to play the organ (as is the case at my parish) and were abysmal choral directors?
What then? Should those singers be forced to endure less-than-mediocre celebration of the Mass and even worse noise-making from the "musicians"? Is your suggestion that such an arrangement should be treated as "too bad, so sad, suffer!" rather than their being able to offer the best? -
jcr, I have seen similar things happen where the appeal of one place to musicians draws them away from everywhere else. It becomes a case of, "our gain is your loss." But, you have to have good musicians to accomplish really good music, so I suspect there is no really good answer for this. Unfortunately, musicians can be, either by necessity or desire, a bit of self-serving whores who are for sale to the ones who can benefit them most.
dad29, my own observation is that the pulling of adequate funding from music and cultural programs in the schools has resulted in a class of musical, should we facetiously say, musical "ignorami," if there even is such a word.
Right about the embrace of mass culture by my fellow boomers. I never bought into it but so many of my acquaintances did. They were aided and abetted by the same in too many church leaders who should have known better. I remember a Rome educated priest of middle age bopping along to "Michael" who rowed his damned boat ashore as he processed down the aisle in full vestments. I remember thinking, "does this guy even realize he looks like a fool?"
An aside, I always hoped Michael capsized that boat and drowned. -
self-serving whores who are for sale to the ones who can benefit them most.
Capitalists? Or NBA players?
Charles, that insight was really striking. MOST people on this board have not abandoned fine music in favor of the Beach Boys, we hope. So then why are there so many 'church musicians' who have abandoned Willan, Williams, Peeters, (not to mention Bach, Mozart, Buxtehude, et.al.) in favor of the schlock in "Gather"?Thanked by 1CharlesW -
"The best is the enemy of the good" is a fine slogan for first aid medicine, but dubious as an ethical imperative for church musicians. If I had been told I could aspire no higher than Willan & Peeters I'd have ended up not in the parish trenches but out of the good-enough-for-Sunday workforce altogether.
-
Many years ago, Roger Wagner ran a choral-conducting seminar attended by about 200 area choir directors from many churches and schools. He asked the crowd 'How many of you have sung Beethoven's Missa Solemnis? How about Bach's B-Minor? Bach's Magnificat?'
Only about 25% of the group raised their hands.
Roger commented that every one of the attendees should have sung at least one of those pieces before they could claim 'choral director' as a title.
He didn't grade on a curve.Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
How healthy is the concentration of all the people with an interest in "good music" in one place? What are the ethical implications of such a situation?
Assuming the people traveled to this locale of their own free volition and weren't "poached" as such, I'd say there's absolutely nothing ethically improper about it.
As fine as it is to decry good musicians seeking refuge in the one parish that will appreciate them, I can tell you form experience how EXCRUCIATING it can be to be the only trained musician at a parish where people do not sufficiently appreciate or encourage your talent. The end result is absolute atrophy as a musician since it is impossible for a single person to elevate musical culture sufficiently. Even a music director can only do so much; I've found myself in many "lead a horse to water..." situations where people still didn't respond. You need cultural buy-in as much as good music itself.
One may legitimately wonder, “where have all the good musicians gone?” but an equally valid question is “what real good is it keeping musicians in isolation who are never permitted to sing beautiful music (by ecclesial or political force or by mere dint of the fact that there are not other sufficiently competent people to participate with them) or reach their full potential; what good is it to cause musicians to starve to death on individual parish islands all abandoned when they could otherwise achieve great things together?”
I am terribly blessed in that all of my immediate colleagues are all of like-mind as far as returning to tradition is concerned. My pastor and I were joking the other day that if someone decides they don't like our music, they are going to be surprised that when they hop over to the next town they will be greeted with the same good music. Hopefully they will realize our program isn't so crazy after all.
I am doubly-blessed because there are three priests (my pastor included) who take turns quarterly hosting TLM cantatas and we directors sing in each other's scholæ for these masses. Recently a group of us got together and sang a Tallis mass and some other wonderful motets, as well as the full florid propers. Frankly, it revived my musical soul. If I were a free agent, I would—without hesitation—attend mass at the most beautiful parish with the best music. No question. And I'd drive up to an hour for the privilege too (and I have in the past). -
I found, in 20 years of dealing with a volunteer choir, I had some good years and some mediocre years. In that situation I tended to rely very heavily on the few really good singers I had. When one of them would leave for whatever reason, it made a real difference in the sound quality of the choir. Given that I was in an inner city church didn't help attract singers. Many lived in parts of the city 25 miles distant and were not eager to drive such distances for Sundays and mid-week rehearsals. I could never blame them for it since I might not have been willing to do it, either. Such is life.
Snob appeal can be a factor, as well. Certain churches in town are well funded and attract the "elegant" people. They are large and can offer more. "Fad" churches generate their own appeal and can attract more people and often better musicians. At least, they have the money to pay for it. -
I am a retired church organist and music director; “retired” in that I just became entirely exasperated with aging congregations where I was the youngest person in the room, and the bellicosity became terminal. It is said that churches are hospitals for the soul, but I always seemed to be assigned to wards for the criminally insane.
For those congregations where sentient thought was on a higher order than “he plays too fast” or “all Jews are going to hell and we should pray that way on Good Friday again” it seems to me that any Catholic congregation could be successful if they separate the theology of the TLM’s past from the TLM as an ordo and just accept it as another way of celebrating under the umbrella of post-V2 theology, which is, as we see Pope Francis trying like hell to keep the focus on, the ONLY theology. John 23 removed “perfidious Jews” from the Missal, but by golly what a mistake THAT was to some of the frighteningly backward Gommar DePauw types (yes, I remember THEM - “tenete traditione” indeed…). The bottom line is that there are more important issues that committed religiously-inclined people should attend to (racism, poverty, voting, trumpanzee terrorists, vaccinations, jobs, police violence, etc.) rather than “half the congregation is destined to hell because they listen to their mass in English with the priest facing them. With praise band. With girls on the altar. Pope Francis. Joe Biden.” :::sigh:::
It’s like we organists used to say: the problems become so big because the stakes are so small.
And Catholics Can’t Sing, Still.
Now I fly little airplanes for fun. A lot more enjoyable than making music for the inmates.Thanked by 1MarkS -
This made me laugh out loud... really!but I always seemed to be assigned to wards for the criminally insane.
Btw... making (all or many) Catholics sing is highly overrated... you just need a small choir and God will be very happy... especially if they are pure hearted children. The people will then “fully participate” by simply joining their hearts to the choir’s voices. It is simply astounding, practical and musically fulfilling for all and God is truly praised. -
That made me chuckle too.
-
The decisions and teachings about reforming the liturgy made in Sacrosanctum Concilium are binding on Catholics
No, there are no "teachings" involved in the prudential decisions made by SC.
Directives are not "teaching" at all. Did the church "teach" that the office of Prime is to be suppressed? Of course not!
The decisions are binding by authority but do not in fact constitute "teaching."
Truths can be fallible or infallible; prudential directives-- "do this" or "don't do that" are simply not in the category that infallibility applies to. -
The question of musical styles is tangential to the more important question. What are we communicating by how we celebrate mass? If we communicate that mass is a speed bump on the way between waking up and the kids' afternoon soccer game, then it is no wonder that people fall away when the speed bump gets a bit too high. If we communicate that mass is supposed to make us feel good and be uplifting, then when the bad times come and mass is boring or uninspiring, then it is no wonder people drift away.
An earlier poster talked about priests developing a cult of personality. Fair enough. But why do priests lack "personality"? Is it because they are burnt out or simply phoning it in? There are priests who are not the most dynamic speakers. But what do they do to compensate? Do they ignore the fact and continue to try and give 20 minute homilies?
Or do they work to refine their craft and give a short homily making a single excellent point.
Mass ought to represent the central drama in human history. It is a place where the temple veil between heaven and earth is torn asunder and we get a glimpse of the real Holy of Holies. That should be what we are communicating.
Musical style is related but tangential to this. If we choose music because it generates an emotional response, on the day it fails to generate that emotional response, it fails. If we choose music because it is of a particular style or quality, it fails if someone disagrees. But if we choose music because it is the best return we can make to the Lord for all his goodness to us and communicate that, then, perhaps it will succeed. -
Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that practical norms should be established. (Sascrosanctum Concilium 3)
Principles are truths that form the basis for issuing wise norms. Principles are indeed taught in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
The often-cited "liturgy is the source and summit" quote is an example of such a teaching about a principle.
This is also a teaching:But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28] . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (SC 11)
As is this:Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. (SC 14)
As is this:For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it. (SC 21)
And a switch to norms based on principles is indicated here:In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms: (SC 21)
There are teachings about the nature of the liturgy in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Nothing new; mostly reaffirmation of prior teaching or new ways of expressing those past teachings.
There are also norms and directives. What is new in the Constitution are not the principles about liturgy, but that the council fathers decided to issue general norms for revising the liturgy because they judged that such reforms would better assist the Church in being faithful to long-standing and objective principles about liturgy in a much changed world.
All are binding on Catholics. The Church is not going to abolish the Novus Ordo Missae nor reverse the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II, even though some such as Peter Kwasniewski and his devotees wish for that to occur.
Often, saying "Vatican II is non-binding" or such is a veiled expression of hope that the council will be reversed and the church will return to 1962 or 1955 or whatever year they decide is when Catholicism was last unadulterated.
-
Unfortunately, some TLM folks are more motivated by ideology and politics than religion. They don't have a lock on that since it appears elsewhere in the church, as well. But you are quite correct that the church will not abolish the Novus Ordo and will not denounce Vatican II. To think otherwise is to be living in the land of fantasy divorced from reality. Peter Kwasniewski along with the Church Militant folks are people I can not take seriously.
However, I do believe we can take what we have been given and make it better. We pretty much know the areas that are below par and that could be improved. The motivation just has to be there to do it. As of now, that motivation is spotty. -
Just a minute....
Peter and Jeff and 'Church Militant folks ' didn't start out with an agenda to sell newspapers. I think you'll also find that they didn't start out as promoters of the TLM. What has happened (it seems to me) with all of them is that they have actually imbued the spirit described here: they fully, consciously, and actively (as that word should be understood) participate in the liturgy because they accept what the Church has always taught. -
they fully, consciously, and actively (as that word should be understood) participate in the liturgy because they accept what the Church has always taught.
Unfortunately, they don't appear to accept what the church is currently teaching when it doesn't suit their whims and preferences. -
Charles,
What actual teaching do they not accept?Thanked by 1CCooze -
Watch the Church Militant youtube channel and listen to them bitch about something wrong every day. They carp and snipe about the liturgy, the bishops and cardinals, the pope, and on and on. The church is not made in their image and I suspect that is their basic complaint.
-
It sounds more like you don't like their tone (CM's). I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of theirs either and haven't watched them for some time. I wouldn't measure the legitimacy of the desire to restore traditional thought and practice in the Church by them. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits regardless of who says them though.
-
Charles,
Their (CM's) bulldog tone doesn't mean that they deny or refuse any point of Catholic teaching.
For reasons not having to do with this thread, I don't do much with/on/for Youtube.
I'll repose my question: Which teaching of the Church do Peter K, Jeff Ostrowski and Church Militant deny? Throw in the SSPX for that matter. What actual teaching do these persons reject or deny? To short circuit one possible answer: expressed pastoral exhortation isn't the same thing as doctrine, or dogma.
-
They don't, as best I can tell, deny any dogmas. They surely are attached to the High-Renaissance formulation of the mass from the 16th century (almost idolize it) and don't like what the church has done liturgically since. Today's topic is, "PA bishop silent on predator..." I guess they will beat that one into the ground for the next month.
-
At 229 posts in this thread and counting, in only 15 days? Talk about beating something into the ground.I guess they will beat that one into the ground for the next month. -
Wait until next month. LOL. Now you know we can't stay on topic.
They were attacking the bishop here because he followed the medical advice he was given concerning communion. He was doing the best he could to keep people safe during the pandemic. No good deed goes unpunished. Tell that to the anointed who think everything should be done their way.
Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
Can you say that about the Vatican these days?They don't, as best I can tell, deny any dogmas
(e.g., communion for those living in adultery, or those living in unatural relationships) -
Just making a counterpoint, Charles... we should not scrutinize those who don’t need it and ignore those who do... We are then hypocrites at its worst...
-
Kwasniewski et al have argued directly against the liturgical principles outlined in Sacrosancum Concilium many times, I've seen this happen enough that I tuned him out. Reform of the Reform, to this group, appears to mean undoing the reform and repealing SC. When I have more time, I'll try to find sources for this...if someone has direct evidence to the contrary, please share that.
-
I thought I'd throw that "ethical problem" out to see what responses might come in. Of course, there is no "correct" answer to the problem since there are too many missing pieces of any given situation here to give a valid answer. The grousing of the fellow who lost three good singers from his choir of ten or the choir director who had her only reading (meaning he knew up from down) tenor is understandable. Why could they be seduced away so apparently easily? Well, in each situation there is a different tale to tell.
BTW, I can vouch for Roger Wagner and his absolute grading scale. Having grown up in LA it was impossible to avoid the influence of this remarkable man. A choral student I knew had a small, aging Baptist church choir and Wagner went to sit in on a rehearsal. Following a weak attempt at a fairly new piece the young student said to his choir ,"Well, not what I'd hope for, but the Lord will understand." Wagner didn't miss a beat. "No He won't," he said. "The Lord has perfect pitch."
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
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.
Categories
- All Discussions21,508
- General Music Discussion7,776
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115