Defending proper music (or at least denying bad)
  • A non-musical but influential co-worker of mine, in a attempt to defend low quality music one of my choir members refers to as "happy slappy music", asked 'do not hymnals (including the ones we use) have a nihil obstat'? He didn't know the term of course, but I walked him through the concept he was grasping at. Turns out some do but most from our two mammoth publishers have just a Concordat cum Originali, so HERE are TWO questions or you all:

    1. What, if any, authority does a concordat cum originali have over completely original texts? We're not even talking 20th generation warmed over paraphrases of Scripture, but 100% completely original texts...isn't this indication meaningless in such cases (to substantiate the point my co-worker was trying to make)?

    AND

    2. Although I countered with the standard defenses from Sacrosanctum Concilium and the USCCB's 2020 article "Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church", can you recommend any other defenses against "but we really like that song!", especially ones which are more recent or come from the USCCB rather than Rome? Articles, rules, guidance, or even statements, press releases, interviews...whatever.

    Thanks all, and pray for me!
    Thanked by 2DavidOLGC LauraKaz
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    I believe the concordat cum originali is required for and only applies to the liturgical texts that are in missal/hymnal combos such as "Breaking Bread". It affirms nothing more than that the liturgical texts in the missal/hymnal combo faithfully reproduce the texts in the official editions/translations of the Church's liturgical books.

    It does not apply to the songs in the hymnal.

    Your second question reveals what a problem has been created by fifty years of poor liturgical practice. Large numbers of Catholics have been conditioned to think that Mass is a religious jamboree at which any sort of music is okay. There is no sense of standards nor norms for music, and in that case personal preferences influence many of the decisions about what music is sung.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,723
    One word on Nihil Obstat: they are only as good as the person granting them.

    I once owned a "catholic" prayer book (dedicated to St. Joseph) that was granted such official approbation, and it (I kid you not) had prayers to the Egyptian demon god Ra in it, along with buddhist prayers, and a whole bunch of other absolute nonsense. I sent that book to its eternal reward via a cleansing bonfire. Lord have mercy on all involved.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,723
    Another resource is the Chirograph by JPII (2003) on the centenary of the publication of Tra Le Solicitudini. He reaffirms the important teachings of his predecessor.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra.html

    A few choice bits:
    The attention my Predecessors thus paid to this delicate sector was constant. They recalled the fundamental principles that must enliven the composition of sacred music, especially when it is destined for the Liturgy. Besides Pope St Pius X, other Popes who deserve mention are Benedict XIV with his Encyclical Annus Qui (19 February 1749), Pius XII with his Encyclicals Mediator Dei (20 November 1947) and Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (25 December 1955), and lastly Paul VI, with the luminous statements that punctuated many of his Speeches.


    I have also stressed the need to "purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated"[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.


    4. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, "sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action"[11]. For this very reason, "not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold", my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that "if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious"[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category "sacred music" has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

    St Pius X's reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able "to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church's faith"[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

    5. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all "true art" or which does not have that efficacy "which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds"[15].

    Yet this quality alone does not suffice. Indeed, liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite. The various moments in the Liturgy require a musical expression of their own. From time to time this must fittingly bring out the nature proper to a specific rite, now proclaiming God's marvels, now expressing praise, supplication or even sorrow for the experience of human suffering which, however, faith opens to the prospect of Christian hope.


    In this regard St Pius X pointed out - using the term universal - a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: "...while every nation", he noted, "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 subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them"[16]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.


    No. 7 sees him reiterate that Gregorian chant is to receive first place.

    12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.


    So the moral of the story is, TLS still holds force, and was reaffirmed as recently as 2003 via a formal magisterial letter straight from a Sainted Pontiff. Do with that what you will.
  • Phinneas,

    Turn the question around on the one deploying it:

    If a powerful member of the liturgy committee (someone you can't throw out of the parish) really liked Latin chant, would you support that Latin chant supplanting all the other music, or even just one of your favorite hymns/songs on the grounds that he really liked it?

    The point isn't to say that the music is dreadful or wonderful, but that the argument "we really like it" isn't a proper criterion on which to make a decision in reference to the liturgy.
  • LauraKaz
    Posts: 73
    I'm surprised that referencing "Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church" didn't make much of an impact, considering that it was published only 3 years ago by the USCCB. Depending on what your coworker is trying to push, it may even be singled out for critique in that document.
  • If your friend is really interested in this topic, I did a presentation on this very topic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-nFfGACnM

    It is an hour, but I hope he would find it compelling enough to watch the whole thing.

    Or, if podcasts are more up his alley, here is a two-part conversation I had with an Arch-Diocesan Theologian:

    https://thinkingfaith.libsyn.com/dr-brett-salkeld-and-michael-raney-on-conversion-and-music-part-1

    https://thinkingfaith.libsyn.com/dr-brett-salkeld-and-michael-raney-on-conversion-and-music-part-2

  • Phinneas,

    You could also ask which "original" the steroid-and-sugar hymns concord with?
  • Thanks all, lots of good feedback. I am growing in my suspicion that the person in question simply has not only an agenda but a chip on the shoulder, and no amount of reasoned arguments or support will change his POV. Maybe I can drive him mad with the calm assurance of the truth....

    It's quite sporting that we've chosen the liturgical ministry to which everyone feels entitled to have an opinion, especially when the mouth's vociferousness is in direct relation to mind's ignorance.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,723
    It’s the classic “death of the expert” problem. People believe that they get to have definitive opinions on everything, even those things in which they have no expertise.