Indeed! It's good that a truly "diverse" group of speakers has been invited.

Are you mentally thinking back to all you've commented on regarding Mr. Haas?

Should we even ask what the music will be for the Mass and Vespers?

I will be interesting to know! I'll post of course.

First it was Jeffrey's friendly bantor with Todd Flowerday on the podcast. Now Jeffrey's given equal billing with Mr. Haas (my, aren't we all getting older?) at an independent workshop.
See, my neo-symposium proposal's already taken root!
If we can make it passed Dec.21, 2112, I see Ruff, J. M. Thompson, NPM and Tucker brokering an alliance organization that is an official advisory board to the BCL/USCCB, ostensibly named
Honorable (and) Orthodox Emissaries (and) Restorers (of the) Ordo's Eminent Superiority. "HEROES," indeed.
"Save the liturgy, save the world!" spaketh G.
Now, where's my tie and my pie?

From an article written by a to be presenter, Kevin Johnson:

"Twenty-first century liturgical reform efforts, such as the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal have given these same pastors more reasons to impose a Euro centered model of worship on black churches. Pastors must take care to impose current liturgical reforms in a manner conducive to the cultural expression of worshipping communities as mandated by Vatican II. African American culturally based worship models are forward looking, progressive, creative and universal in nature and will never fit into a pre Vatican II mold. African American worship is expressive, vibrant and depends largely on the music of its culture to express itself in spirit and in truth. Catholic documents fully indicate the Church's commitment to liturgy."

The complete article:

http://www.nbccongress.org/features/african-american-sacred-music-01.asp

It is so hard to get people to understand that when people leave another religious culture to join another....they may be joining to be part of the new and abandon the old. So many churches in this area (sort of South US) really drop the ball by jumping on the praise band baptist train. They can't seem to get it in their heads that people in an area that is so culturally Baptist, when people go to a Lutheran, Prebyterian or any other denomination's church they want it to be ultra-Lutheran, Pres or whatever....not competing with the Baptists...but standing on their own.

I have worked with 100% southern Black Episcopalian churches where they were exclusively high-church. Kevin Johnson fails to understand than Vatican II has failed as it has been implemented. In the immortal words of Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us.

Please, for those of us who live in the South of the US, much of religious culture is shaped by the attitudes of two distinct but interrelated groups, that of Southern Baptists and that of the African American gospel tradition. These two groups hold powerful sway over much of the experience of Southern US Christianity. Unfortunately for Catholics, those folks who have "converted" to Catholicism have consistently tried and in many cases successfully brought their musical traditions to the table, thinking that they are "sharing" with Holy Mother Church. These came people have not been properly catechized and have no clue about the ecclesiological and theological underpinnings that do not match to this music. We ourselves are to blame, for the lack of catechesis and the soft allowances have made for one hell of a mess.
Mr. Johnson and others, thinking that they have brought the "Black "experience to Catholic life, are just imitating their Protestant brothers and sisters with no regard to the theology and praxis of the Roman liturgy. Preaching has even become a desire to "copy" TD Jakes and other "famous" preachers in the area. Sadly, parishioners of the African American nature feel like they are not being "given" their tradition, when in fact it is a sad commentary on their lack of catechesis and what they need to do is go back to the Baptist or Gospel tradition that they came from. What is really interesting is that the African descent folks (people from Africa) feel confused about their lack of understanding about "their" music, when in fact, "their" music is the Missa de Angelis and other chants that they miss hearing here. It makes for real chaos at times. I know very intimately this problem, all of these folks are in the parish I live and work in. It thus causes emnity between these seemingly similar groups. I find my greatest support among the African descent folks, who clamor for chant and polyphony.
But then, who really reads the words and pays attention to what the songs are saying? After all, its just about us and God.
(Please note who I put first)

Kevin

I'm sure there is some common ground here to be found, but anytime you are dealing with an attempt at measuring the value of worshiping the one true God in comparison to one's "experience" at church, you have a long road to hoe to get there . . . personal experience in this context is a synonym for "emotion," and most of us here agree that emotion has no place in liturgy per se . . .

This is also an interesting take, and as I see it, relevant to the discussion: in a nutshell, the case is made for how the Jansenist tendencies of some of the Irish Church, and by extension, the Irish led Church in America has brought on some of this; IOW this "movement" for "improvement" (shades of Jesse Jackson) can in this context be seen as an antidote to a rather bleak and dry form of Catholicism with a marked pessimism which in many cases had clung mostly to the Usus Antiquior low mass as the norm.

http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/05/save-liturgy-save-world-from-jansenism.html

I think this has some bearing on the present state of affairs. If this indeed had been the norm for many churches here, it is not a wonder that this would be rejected at some level, and so let us not be so quick to fault or reject out of hand this desire to infuse the liturgy with "soul" as this has been the desire for lots of groups when faced with the drabness of some Catholic expressions liturgical. This is not to say this "desire" for better liturgy has not wrought abuses of its own, sadly, indeed it has. But I am pointing to motivators that drive some of this and they are not necessarily wrong motivations.

Denominations exist because of their differences. When they adopt the practices of other denominations they lose their individuality, most often the reason that people were moved to gravitate to it in the first place.

There is no reason that a prayer service cannot feature contemporary Christian rock or Negro Spirituals. People can choose to attend if they like. But the Mass should be the Mass, with music that approaches the ideal of the Graduale Romanum as much as is possible within the pastoral situation.

I think Frogman's latest comments really sum it up nicely - the Mass is the Mass. Litrugical music is not Devotional music. Save the devotional music, in all of it's genres, for prayer services and other get togethers, and keep it out of the Mass. Thank you Frog!

Come to think of it, the English-language propers could be the basis for some appealing music in choral settings based on African-American musical tradition. This would actually be the sort of inculturation the Church's documents call for.

We'd have gospel renditions of introit texts such as:
"Hear, O Lord, the sound of my call: hasten to me, O God".
(I"m imagining this in the style of, say, Sandra Crouch.)

Now, I wouldn't recommend the use of such music where it doesn't reflect the culture of the majority of the congregation.

Fascinating thread. I would love instruction on how to reconcile some of the statements in conciliar documents that seem to open the door to a multitude of cultural expressions in the liturgy.

For example, in Sacrosanctum concilium, there’s an entire section (III.D) on the necessity of adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples. A “competent territorial ecclesiastical authority” is supposed to be in charge of “adaptations” to, among other things, sacred music.

Or from Musicam sacram: “61. Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas, will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working.”

Even though Musicam sacram mentions Gregorian chant first in its list of “sacred music,” it also lists “sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious” (4). What does that encompass?

Today we inaugurated a chanted Novus Ordo Mass at our diocesan center (chanting the 5 propers of the day from the Graduale Romanum), and the celebrant began his homily with a brief comment that our celebration was how Vatican II envisioned the Novus Ordo Mass. I believe that is true, but I would not be sure how to defend that statement against the “adaptations” that seem to be encouraged (not just tolerated) in the conciliar documents. Help?

Cheers – Joan

chonak,

I think the same, that there are some real possibilities for the inclusion of some of these styles (sub genres) I think the problems come up in the presentation of the music ala the choir is generally in front, and for me, all choirs in front just command way too much attention, and Gospel music is quite theatrical, and hard to contain in the sense that the soloist becomes a sort of preacher and exhorter cheerleader, what have you. On the other hand, if you suggest any kind of "reining in" of the music, you are hand cuffing it and not allowing the cultural norms to remain intact.

What is the middle ground approach that would make sense? (these are all non-expert musings) Well, I would think that all choirs should strive not be a visual magnet, and detract from the meditative aspect of the Mass, so physical placement is important, ideally in a loft, though other placements may make sense. Instrumentation is another can of worms. Laying instrumentation aside for the moment, the role of the soloist in gospel music would need to be tightly defined, or go with ensemble arrangements mostly, and there also would be needed a certain distancing the music from obviously parroting secular styles, and this is hard to do, as gospel itself, understood as the (protestant) church version of urban blues, has that as part of its genesis. Still, I think it can be done and done beautifally and fittlinly, but not without a proper understanding of Catholic patrimony and tradition.

In this "ideal" that Dr. Johnson seems to be arguing for, you have a full band, various music styles but inclusive of "right now" arrangements of the latest gospel styles, (which are heavily "band driven" and have little in common with "traditional"gospel, ala Mahalia Jackson, Five blind Boys, James Cleveland - really two different genres). You also have the free form expression (non musical) within the liturgy itself, running commentary, applauding this and that, improv, and just a stylistic overlay with the mass becoming somewhat a backdrop. There is not much here that is different from the black protestant church, (except perhaps that the protestants resonate with some of the lyrics sung much more, as they are more of a "Bible" church, just more familiar with Bible texts). Of course, he would not say this in so many words, but this is the "ideal" as I have witnessed. He mentions St. Theresa of Avilla as a model, and this was the home of the now infamous now defrocked Fr.George Stallings, founder of Imani Temple. Look that up. This is all done in the name of keeping things relevant to the hip hop generation. Johnson even laments that the GIA hymnal "Lead Me Guide Me" (gospel - Catholic) is in danger of being over utilized, not to the exclusion of chant or the like, but to the exclusion of these more modern takes on AA worship musics. Quite remarkable when one really understands that much of gospel was simply "re-dos" of established hymns, so this is a break from even AA tradition that he seems to be suggesting.

I would want to keep it clear that the observations I am offering seek not to challenge the ideal - as in liturgical model(s) - suggested by Dr. Johnson on the basis of its cultural underpinnings, but simply because it is just one more offering of the modernist post Vatican II (misinterpreted VII) "have it your way" (our way - my way?) approach to things liturgical and as such just misses the heart and soul of what liturgical practice is really for and about,.

I am not going to bring anything new or incisive to the direction this thread has taken. I think that it's great that so many capable minds and hearts here will doubtlessly contribute circumspection to Jeffrey as he prepares to address this convention and advance the ideals he consisely expresses in SLaC to "diverse" contingencies within the "big tent."
Jeffrey's citation of Fr. Ruff's portrayal of the "liturgist vs. musician" axiom is particularly apt, and I'm heartened that he doesn't necessarily agree with Ruff's conclusion the twain shall ne'er meet. From Mike O'Connor to Savae (in San Antonio) to Juan Pedro Gaffney of San Francisco (and everyone in between) musicologists have proven a continuum between the first world's music and the new world's indigenous forms that were, in fact, syncretized. The Liturgy survived, and perhaps thrived.
Couldn't the same contiuum be found evident in other missionary efforts on other continents during the age of exploration? In aborginal populations in Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas, diatonic (as well as modal) harmonic and melodic forms seem to be ingrained forms of religious choral singing/expression for many centuries.
So, if we can be discriminate (in a positive sense) when discussing issues that pertain to liturgical forms and structures, versus those of musical forms which are by decree deigned to serve the Liturgy, then maybe some musicians' eyes and ears can be focused upon the discipline that the Church requires that chant and psalmody is, in fact, the font of every blessing.

Mia:
"So Koreans should all go to Korean Catholic churches, and Germans go to German Catholic church and AA go to ... and promote their culture in our liturgy in this mixed country?"

It is my understanding (and many will no doubt reinforce this) that this WAS the case pre-vatican II and has been minimized in the wake of the council, for better or for worse. From what I've heard, an Irish-American Catholic did NOT go to an Italian church for Mass. Italians didn't go to the German church, and Germans didn't go to the Polish church. I've even seen bulletins from the old days listing "Polish Mass" - I'm guessing that meant the sermon and hymns were in Polish? This does continue today, with Mexican parishes and black parishes and even a few less-aggressively Euro-ethnic parishes. There's German parishes with German Masses, Polish parishes with Polish Masses in the area. Even at the High Mass I played at for Christmas, the choir sang Stille Nachte. And I even know of a few parishes where even today (for example) a non-Polish person will receive a VERY icy welcome.

I echo Mia's concerns. This strikes me as divisive. One thing that remains inspiring about the Roman Catholic Church is that, unlike the protestant denominations where Episcopalians are Anglos, Lutherans German (or Scandanavian), etc; the Catholic Church is composed of all sorts of races and social groups. On the other hand, isn't there SOME suitable sense of ethnic pride? Again, should Stille Nachte be banned at a church which stands as a historic spot for German immigration into this city? Should the Polish never sing Serdeczna Matko (only Polish hymn title I know) because of the few who don't know Polish? Should the Italian-American churches remove all their silly roccoco designs so as to appease Irish sensibilities? That strikes me as lunacy. Worship according to the Rite, yes, but don't be afraid to do so in the same way your ancestors did, so long as there is no exclusion of your brothers in Christ.

And your mention of Korean Catholics is quite interesting, as I have a friend who goes to a "Korean Catholic Church". She's relatively traditional, but is always complaining of the xenophobic and "this is the way KOREANS do Mass" attitudes there. So again, by all means celebrate your ethnicity within the bounds of a) faithfully and fully following the Rite, and b) avoiding the xenophobia of the immigrant churches of times past.

The Mass is from God to us through the Church. We don't own it nor control it with our pride, whether it's personal or ethnic. We are invited to participate to the Heavely banquet. The more we free from ourselves and focus on God, we will receive His grace more fully. The two goals of the Mass, Glorifying God and Sanctifying the faithful cannot be seperated. The more we mix elements of social agenda and other social activities in our litrugy, we will loose the sight of the His Kingdom of Heaven. The Mass is where we get to be in Heaven on earth. And this liturgy cannot be controlled by any individuals or any ethnic groups. Singing hymns of different ethnic groups here and there, and praying for social problems are different from having them control over the litugy. I'll sing my Korean hymns at home, or with others for the personal devotions, but when we go to Mass, does it matter which race I'm from? (I have more important things to worry about than about the race to enter the Kingdom.) We are all one race in this Heaven on earth.
(Gavin, I'm very proud of my Korean cultrue, I share it with others as much as I can. And so do most of the Koreans, and it's not just about Mass. We have to remember that we came here to live in this country. And America is a country with a beautiful custom and tradition and we have to respect them. We also have to remember, "In Rome..")

Thanks, Noel. Please just cover your ears if you hear anything negative about Koreans.

그래, 그건 민사 및 지능형 언급했다.
Yes, that was a civil and intelligent comment.

Mr Z et al,

You have named the whirlwind, so to speak. The question is, does a Catholic culture trump ethnic identity? In my little part of the woods, it all depends on who you ask. For some, yes, for others, no. Sadly, it depends on where that person came from. I suppose it is how you see the intersection of prayer, ecclesiology and liturgy.

That is the 64,000 question I keep asking, given the age of "multi-culturalism" and the horizontalist notions of liturgical experience.

Miacoyne,

it's Korean characters--do you have the right fonts installed on your computer? (can you read Korean on the net and type in Korean?) If you do, then you may need to adjust your browser settings to read them. If you don't, it's easy to install them. I could help you if you like.


As for the culture question and this thread:

I would say a balance must be struck. In the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Rites, the liturgies are in the local language (Russian, Greek, Coptic, et al.) and definitely have a cultural flair according to what church or rite it is. A Russian Church is Russian, with it's own hymn style and even icon style; a Greek church has very Byzantine music and Greek icons, etc. But they all use the same liturgy--St. John Crysostom's--and it is recognizably liturgy no matter what language or place it is. They still have incense and chant and ad orientem priests and what have you. They still have sanctity and reverence.

So, you can have an American Catholic worship style which would be in English and perhaps kinda high-church Anglican or something. They might have a particular way of making icons and crucifixes, maybe more anatomically correct or something, I dunno. They might use SATB hymnody along with their chant and have other little peculiar yet subtle things that differentiate American Catholicism from Italian Catholicism, say, or Polish or Spanish Catholicism. The goal is not to make everyone fit into a particular Roman mold and use only Latin and have everything the same. People are gonna bring their culture to their church because culture is what shapes people's worldview. The way they understand life and living is affected by their culture. American culture is really messed up, but the hope with the church is that in bringing the culture to the church, the church will sanctify the culture (rather than the culture poisoning the church). But the latter might be what has happened... I don't think a balance has been struck at all when it comes to American Catholicism: I think their was a wholesale sellout to protestantism, particularly the evangelical varieties, when it comes to liturgy (and architecture! egads!). But I also think that happened because Roman Catholicism was so inflexible, completely ossified in Trent, people kept pushing trying to bend things just a little, and eventually everything just shattered.

Regarding "ethnic" worship, why don't we apply the same principles to architecture? Let's sand-blast off those silly ornaments in Italian baroque churches. Tear the woodwork out of German churches. Paint over gaudy blues in Polish churches. Or apply it to music uniformly: stop all this German-sounding polyphony, favoritism towards Venetian composers, French harmonies (not to mention the German 6, French 6, and Italian 6!), etc. Make sure your organ stops all have Latin titles, and they all have bland non-descript sounds. In fact, what the heck are we doing with all this Gallic chant?? Throw out that garbage, we're going to be CATHOLIC, not French!!

This is the logical conclusion of what people are proposing - a Church which exists as a uniform culture with no variance. At no time in church history has this been in any way the goal! The only reason we have Latin in the liturgy is because the West wanted to adapt the Greek Mass for the Romans!! German Catholics can build churches like Germans, so why not let them sing like Germans too? Celebrating legitimate ethnic custom is a fine tradition, one our Eastern friends (like Jam) do very well. Using ethnic hymnody, favoring music by national composers, and to a SMALL extent incorporating the language don't diminish Catholicism at all.

(PLEASE NOTE: I'm so sad I have to write this, but I know someone is going to write something about how horrid it is to sing "Pan de Vida" at Mass or something. I'm NOT advocating, and in fact condemn, ANY of the following: fake ethnicism (putting Spanish words to pop music and calling it "Mexican music"), xenophobia, syncretism (the blending of Christian and non-Christian religious practices), putting any culture's pop music into the liturgy, dividing a parish into the "English Mass" and "Spanish Mass", ANY practice which is against the spirit or letter of liturgical norms, adjusting American culture for illegal immigrants, or anything that falls into any of the above categories. If you're going to write back about how terrible any of the above are and how wrong I am for espousing it, you're just wasting the Internet's time and agreeing with what I JUST SAID. My point is simple: when you walk into a church, you don't have to forget that you're Korean, Mexican, Irish, Polish, Czech, or American.)

Miacoyne, we don't actually disagree with you, as far as I know. At least, I don't.

The "multiculturalism" that is foisted upon us at Masses sometimes isn't really multiculturalism at all.

We should have Gregorian chant at Mass. We should have lots of it, and polyphony, even SATB hymns--anything that is reverent and beautiful and brings your mind to God and holiness. We're saying that church music doesn't have to fit into a purely Roman mold--only Latin, all the time, in a particular style no matter where you are... you can chant in English; chant isn't only for Latin. Although it's good to have Latin, also.

Basically, we're arguing both against Roman Catholic fundamentalists, who insist that the Latin-Rite Mass should only be EF in Latin with specific architecture and icons etc., and free-form Catholic liberals who think anything goes.

A balance CAN be struck. Culture can come to the church can be sanctified and become part of the church in that area. That would manifest in particular liturgical nuances (such as different vernacular languages), but NOT a radical departure from liturgy as we know it; it would manifest in a particular style of iconography, but NOT in "modern" or pop art styles; it would manifest in a particular kind of architecture, but NOT spaceship churches and other church buildings that don't resemble church buildings in the least. Just because you don't want spaceship churches doesn't mean everything has to be gothic cathedrals. Just because you don't want crooning guitar pop songs doesn't mean that some SATB hymnody isn't good in worship (think "Holy, holy, holy" and similar songs. Not chant, not polyphony, but still good).

The happy-clappy-guitar-love-song-joke-filled liturgies are NOT what Gavin and I advocate. That's not multiculturalism. That's profanity.

I would agree with the idea of Latin as prime and other cultures and identities relegated to a lesser status. I'm simply advocating against a supposed abolition of all ethnic expression in liturgy. It is very sad that people can't even distinguish Latin from Korean, but that doesn't mean we need to hide every non-Roman expression.

As a model, I hold up the Christmas Midnight High Mass I played for. A historic German congregation had their Mass in the German-style church, the choir sang "Stille Nacht" before Mass, and I played Brahms for a prelude. Also, the whole of the propers was sung in chant, all texts during the Mass and the processional hymn were Latin. There was even Victoria's "O Magnum" (Spanish) and Franck's Mass in A Major (French). The organ was a historic 19th century American instrument and the sermon and closing hymn were in English. Note that this had Catholic identity in a German manner, and no right-minded American Catholic would have felt ill at easy by any of it.

"It's very hard to imagine Korean tradtional architectures, which are mostly associated with Budhist temples, with Catholic liturgy."
I would definitely consider a Catholic church built in the style of a Buddhist temple to be syncretic, which I condemned above.