Daniel

What kind of strictures in particular?

Reading some of these comments reminds me of the controversy following Pope Benedict's use of Haydn's Harmoniemesse on Pentecost. I think more importantly than the particular genre of the music is the intent of the composer. Is the intent to glorify God, His church, and to bring man to Him; or is it to glorify Man and relegate God to second place?

I know church musicians who seem only to want Gregorian Chant (old Solesmes method) and Renaissance Polyphony (un-accompanied). These people are the ones that sneeze at the historical performance practise (yes, you red that correctly!) of accompanying these pieces. They follow the pseudo-regulations of the infamous 1920's black list, and don't look at anything else, failing to notice that other than Lassus, Palestrina, and Victoria (In approved editions), the only other composers mentioned were the compilers of the list and their cronies! (And you thought copyright was bad today?!) These are the people who think that, following a pseudo-musicological fad, that all accompanied music is somehow inferior to 'pure music', un-accompanied choral music. Well..."Danny Boy" was originally sung un-accompanied - does that make it and more sacred than a Mozart Mass?

I think that the Church has room, and has always had room for other styles of SACRED music. There have to be regulations, but not Puritanical Edicts. Lets have more Mediaeval Polyphony, lets have more Orchestral Masses, lets get together and commission a piece by Arvo Part, John Tavener, or Judith Bingham, and yes, lets have Gregorian Chant, and Classical Polyphony. (Lets burn the guitars and bongos.) But let us not get into Puritanical squabbles about styles and genres.

And in the words of Bach: SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Salieri said:

I think more importantly than the particular genre of the music is the intent of the composer. Is the intent to glorify God, His church, and to bring man to Him; or is it to glorify Man and relegate God to second place?

The intent of any composer, no matter who they are, is not and should never be the deciding factor as to whether or not the music is "pure" or "sacred". And far above deciding whether music is pure or sacred, the more important judgement is whether it is "liturgical".

...all accompanied music is somehow inferior to 'pure music', un-accompanied choral music. Well..."Danny Boy" was originally sung un-accompanied - does that make it and more sacred than a Mozart Mass?

A Capella on it's own does not make music pure or sacred in any way whatsoever. Witchcraft ceremonies employ that mechanism. It is, however, most purely human. 

I think that the Church has room, and has always had room for other styles of SACRED music. There have to be regulations, but not Puritanical Edicts. Lets have more Mediaeval Polyphony, lets have more Orchestral Masses, lets get together and commission a piece by Arvo Part, John Tavener, or Judith Bingham, and yes, lets have Gregorian Chant, and Classical Polyphony. (Lets burn the guitars and bongos.) But let us not get into Puritanical squabbles about styles and genres.

Michael says it well. Is the particular arrangement, score, setting and style of music matched to the particular liturgy being celebrated? I have an orchestral Mass that I myself have composed, but it is a grand scale liturgical work. I would never assume to 'perform' this music at any liturgy unless it was a grand scale liturgy. The LITURGY determines what music is appropriate. If it is a pontifical Mass (such as you mentioned) well, grand scale music is fitting. Those are rare liturgical events. If it is a gathering of church musicians from around the world (a CMAA colloquium gathering for instance) well, the nature of the gathered body would also call for the same.

What we are addressing here is the diberate outlawing and exclusion of the heart of roman catholic sacred music from it's own center of existence... The burden of proof does not fall to the church in justifying the use of it's purest forms (chant and polyphony), she defends these herself. On the contrary, we must question and scrutinize those musical forms that are new and even foreign to it's rite. The burden of proof falls upon those who would challenge the norm. That is where the abuse usually persists.

You know, it would help greatly if the church would stand behind, and support what it claims to be "its own music." Other than some stale, never followed, and sometimes contradictory, documents on music from years ago, I don't see that the necessary church backing is there to support only one type of music. My pastor says it well, I think, when he states, "Our music should be both sacred and reverent." That's not a bad guideline to follow.

I have wondered if those documents are held in high esteem on this forum, because they state what so many of us want to hear. I think those documents are not respected at all by most of the bishops. It's not the fault of the people. Granted, sometimes it can be the musician's fault. I will stand by my observation that the the leaders of the church in the U.S. do not support those documents. Another problem is taking documents that apply to music in the EF, and trying to extend them to the OF. That usually doesn't work. The two forms are different enough that what the older documents decree doesn't always fit the mass as it exists today. But again, the bishops are in charge, so a good bit of the blame rests with them if the music is not "right."

Back to the subject at hand. I just got a call today informing me that the rector of our cathedral felt that the congregation was not ready for a Latin Vespers service. One of the priests and the organist will be helping us do this in another more receptive church. This cathedral still thinks of itself as a parish where the bishop occasionally celebrates Mass. Sad, really.

Dan, it always is and thank you. They did mention that they are gradually introducing the English evening prayer, but it's very haphazard at the moment. I suspect you are right, though. The rector probably isn't ready. Nice guy, but I think a bit worried that someone might complain.

Yes, but for those of us who feel that there is a benefit from a liturgical language and find that adapting chant that was written to express Latin words into English, Swahili or whatever, to be not only annoying but very difficult to do, we are still very saddened when institutions charged with celebrating the Latin Rite do whatever they can to "protect" us from the Latin language. I pray that the church will find a permanent means of serving us. I have a feeling that the SSPX is waiting to see what will happen.

No, our Byzantine liturgies are in English, although hymns and carols can be used at appropriate times of the year that are in Old Church Slavonic. That was never a spoken language, but it was close enough to other Slavonic languages that it was understood. Once we did a memorial for deceased members of a Ukrainian family in, what else, Ukrainian. For the RC parish where I work, the masses are in English, following the current directions in the missal approved by the USCCB for use in the United States. The only exception is Lent, when we use a Latin chant mass. Most folks think that's about enough Latin for the year, although we do sing motets occasionally that are in Latin.

"The current directions in the missal approved by the USCCB for use in the United States." is not an accurate description of the language of the GIRM.

The vernacular may be used after a parish decides not to celebrate the Ordinary Form in Latin. The GIRM does not "direct" that Mass should be in the vernacular. The US Bishops attempted to get Rome to do this and it was denied. [of course, this assumes that someone cares about what Rome says]

The moment that anyone decides that English or any other language than Latin is the language of the Mass is the moment when they are no longer truly Roman Catholic. Anglican Use people have a wonderful liturgy and they are Roman Catholic....but it's not a cobbled together translation. And they are very clear that they are Anglican-Use Roman Catholics.

Current guitar-worshipping, adding to the Mass and leaving things out and personalizing the Mass advocates need to move on and out.

GIRM:

Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that "the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people" and gave the faculty for its use.16 The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

13. Indeed, since the use of the vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis regarding the mystery that is inherent in the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council also ordered that certain prescriptions of the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the homily to be given on Sundays and holy days17 and the faculty to interject certain explanations during the sacred rites themselves.18"

Anglican-Use Parishes are now becoming more and more available to Roman Catholics who deny Latin as their heritage. It's great that they have a place to go now, and many of us can't wait for them to do so. Anglican-Use Roman Catholics are welcomed by a beautiful language that they have honed over centuries, it's time to abandon the miserable attempts over the last 50 years which represent in many ways local situations rather than the Roman Mass text.

There are people not following the rules and doing Latin instead of English in the Diocese?

No, not much latin in Chattanooga (as CharlesW said, we need to keep our pastor happy).....but with the new translation, if they start saying all the words in the missal (and only those) in the order they are written.....that will be a huge step forward.....!
But there is interest in latin in the pew.....so hopefully it's just a matter of time!

Omygosh Charles! We had no idea about your closet Latin Mass! JK. I'm jealous. Man the Protestants are gonna be shocked when they get to heaven only to find out that the hymnal is titled the "Seraphic Antiphonalis Universalis"!

After all, MY cup of tea is critical to MY prefs and style of worship...

The phrase I often hear is,

"The Catholic Church is big enough to include everybody's prefs."

That's because the church isn't supposed to be giving tea parties.

You and me both, Charles. How come you aren't directing music in your own church?

Dear CharlesW, Thank you for inc the Cathedral! HAHAHA! And remember, we also have a Spanish Mass and a guitar mass.
We'll see if there will be any changes after Feb 1.

Donna