The organizing principle of Inwood's approach is the ethnic make-up and stylistic habits/preferences of a given "assembly."

This could be the organizing principle of a DJ''s selection at a strip club.

It has no particular reference to the sacred.

What kind of music is suitable for Holy Mass (more specific than "worship"), what musical values are appropriately sacral, etc., -- these concerns don't even enter the discussion, even though Inwood thinks (rightly) to say:

the underlying question here is whether all music is potentially capable of being used in the praise of God.

I think his answer is probably yes. And he would simply be wrong.

I would suggest that paying attention to the utterances of Paul Inwood is a colossal waste of time, unless one is engaged in the musico-liturgical version of opposition research.

Deleted due to agregious ad hominem attacks.

That is awful!! I am not stuck in the 15th century, and often find good music by contemporary composers that I can use, both for organ and for choir. This isn't any of that good music. Yikes!

Moreover, he wrote THIS , um, thing.

I wouldn't worry about it, Jeff. Paul inwood crticises others for a loack of scholarliness in their approach, but it's distinctly lacking in his own pontifications, which are long on generalisation, short on evidence and embarrasingly self-regarding. What he's really saying here is: don't worry about all that old, boring, out of copyright stuff - buy new liturgical music instead. If you've ever had the misfortune to play or sing any of the triteness in which he specialises you'lll understand the flaw in the argument.

Deleted due to agregious ad hominem attacks.

Before his discussion of music, he makes an astonishing claim. He says that parishes are clustering and that we are facing shortages of priests and fewer Mass times, inferring that the Church is shrinking. I don't see any evidence of this. Do any of you?

The Archdiocese of Boston projects that within a decade most parishes within its jurisdiction will be sharing a pastor. Many, including the parish in my town, do so now. Such conveniences as daily mass in the home parish will soon be a thing of the past and principal liturgies and activities will be shared affairs. A quick perusal of the photographs of priests in the recently published archdiocesan directory supplies the reason. There aren't many younger ones and the majority are obviously aging.

When I first came to the Boston area as a student several decades ago, Catholics were estimated to be around 55 per cent of the total population. Today it is somewhere in the vicinity of the low 30s. That it is even that high is due to the substantial wave of recent Catholic immigrants. To be sure, the original figures were inflated. One claimed to be Catholic simply because one was Irish or Italian, etc. Commitment to attending Mass was something else. And let's not forget Boston was the epicenter of the abuse scandal. We'll be paying for that well beyond my lifetime.

On another note: I've been troubled by the nature of this forum entry. Inwood, who represents the prevailing view in most Catholic circles, raised a couple of legitimate points worthy of debate. Only a couple of the above comments actually engage those points in a proper intellectual manner. Disagreement with a point of view is one thing, an ad hominem attack is another and unworthy of our organization. (His worth as a composer does not pertain to the original discussion.) In fact, I disagree with one suggestion that we are wasting our time engaging in dialogue with people like Inwood. If those espousing the goals of the CMAA don't believe they will ever persuade any of those within the opposition, then what possibility do we have for ever becoming mainstream?

May I make a suggestion? Use Dr. Mahrt's Sacred Music columns as models. His views are always backed with documentation; though his thoughts are provocative and critical, they never demean the sincerity of others.

In fact, I disagree with one suggestion that we are wasting our time engaging in dialogue with people like Inwood. If those espousing the goals of the CMAA don't believe they will ever persuade any of those within the opposition, then what possibility do we have for ever becoming mainstream?

As a general point, Randolph, I agree with you. In the case of Paul Inwood's posts and comments at Pray, Tell, there are some practical problems that create an exception to the rule. One is that Mr. Inwood's comments include ad hominem attacks on the moral and scholarly integrity of those who disagree with him, while he himself is not willing to engage in the substance of points made - when he doesn't respond with insult or Aunt Sally, he blithely ignores them. Examples of these failings can be found on 'Pray, Tell'.

Another is that it's difficult to engage with him in any meaningful detail on 'Pray, Tell', as Fr. Ruff limits the number of characters you can use to 900 (unless you're Paul Inwood, in which case you get to write continuation comments!), and censors comments in a way that goes beyond the removal of offensive material to the deletion of substantive points he doesn't like.

His worth as a composer does not pertain to the original discussion

I would suggest it does. He has a professional interest, as publisher, trainer, diocesan functionary and significant producer, in a kind of liturgical music that he wishes us to include in the repertoire, out of christan charity to those whose tastes differ from ours. Considerations of liturgical tradition aside, poor music (I would rather gnaw my arm off than sing another Gathering Mass) has no place in our liturgies, especially when it displaces so much that is good. I would be quite happy to justify this judgement with an analysis of some of Mr. Inwood's work, but frankly, life is too short. If you're interested, look some out.

by the way, i think its important to have dialogue and get past the liturgy wars. however, such discussions should be based on mutual respect. i see very little in inwoods comments and i suspect that until we see value in the other such discussions will be merely lessons in frustration.

Michael, around here there definitely is shrinkage: not necessarily of the Catholic population, but of the number of Masses available. A few years ago the parish in my suburban town (pop. 20,000) had three resident priests and nine Masses for each Sunday. Now it's two resident priests and five Masses. The number of faithful attending Mass has remained about level at 2400.

So the situation Inwood describes really does exist. Of course I think it needs to be addressed in terms of the Church's ideals for the liturgy, not in terms of various people's unformed and subjective tastes.

Jeff Ostrowski quoted Paul Inwood and then asked us to respond:

Historically, the music of the Church always kept pace with, and even led the way with, the musical idioms of the secular world. It was only in the 19th century that the ‘antiquarian’ movements spearheaded by such as Guéranger in France and the Caecilians in Germany re-erected the twin pillars of mediaeval plainchant and 16th-century polyphony as paragons of liturgico-musical virtue.

Anyone care to respond to this?

I've never heard this theory before. I thought everyone knew that Gregorian chant has been upheld by the Church for centuries and centuries.

To say that the Church only started to use ancient chant in the 19th century.....wow. Totally bogus.

More recently Jeff Ostrowski said:

Although I cannot speak for all on this forum, Inwood's comments were put forth "dogmatically," stated in a matter-of-fact manner.

Because I had never heard this point of view before, I wanted to bounce it off others.

Not bogus at all. You might want to read Chapter Seven of Deacon Dr. Edward’s Schaefer’s excellent Catholic Music Through the Ages (LTP Hillenbrand, 2008) to have Inwood’s observations corroborated.

Paul Inwood did not say, “Chant was never honored by Church until the 19th century.” Paul Inwood did not say, “the Church only started to use ancient chant in the 19th century.”


Paul Inwood is my friend of twenty years. I sent him the url of this conversation and he makes the following reply:

What I did say is that music in the Church kept pace with the secular music world, and even led it, up to the 19th century. It was at that point that Guéranger and the others went back in time. I am perfectly in sympathy with Guéranger's reaction to the third-rate sentimental operatic music that was filling churches before he started his crusade. What I question is what he actually did about it. He and the Caecilians could have taken other steps. Instead they tried to put the music of the Church into the deep freeze, when historically it never had been. That is the problem whose after-effects we are having to deal with today.

I most certainly did not say that the Church never honored the chant until the 19th century. The Church institutional did of course propose the chant as the most perfect form of liturgical music. It is simply that the Church pastoral in fact did not take any notice of this opinion!... Even the bastardized "Ratisbon" version of the chant was very little used in comparison to other musical forms, from before the time of Palestrina up to the time of the restoration by Pothier and Mocquereau, and classical polyphony fell out of use as the development of music moved on and was only used again in any quantity from the beginning of the 20th century.

I am an active participant in many internet forums on liturgy and liturgical music. Sometimes the tone of some contributors really dismays me: anger, ridicule, derision, calumny, detraction—a catalog of the sins against verbal justice that Saint Thomas Aquinas decries in Questions 72, 73, and 74 of the 2a2ae of the Summa Theologica.

ALL of us have been hurt by some of what has happened in the past forty-five years. Can’t we offer that suffering to fill up “what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24).

As a student of the writings of C. S. Lewis, I am sure that this unjust tone is the work of Screwtape. The enemy of our human nature sees how the Eucharist would make us one in mind and heart and so he works overtime to attack us through our tenderest sensibilities, to music and to language and to beauty. Saint Michael and all angels, protect us . . .

When Daniel Bennett Page (whom I respect) wrote the following, he was not being uncharitable, he ran the risk of appearing to be derisive and derision is objectively sinful:

Danger!!! You've been warned!!! Uncharitable comment follows . . .
When one reads the intellectual diarrhea of Paul Inwood, one thinks, "Hats back on gentlemen, an idiot."

Michael Olbash reasoned:

I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the writer that a variety of musical styles can work together in the same liturgy: antiphons, psalms, and hymns; chants and motets; choral and congregational; medieval, Renaissance, baroque, classic, romantic, 20th century, and new music. Or by variety did he mean the greatest hits of the 70's, 80's and 90's? Most of that music, falling under copyright, cannot be said to belong to any ethnic or cultural "worshiping tradition."

Knowing Inwood as I do, Inwood would not agree with the definition of variety as the greatest hits described.

David Saunders story confirms the predisposition to derision on many sides of these very sensitive conversations.

I completely agree with Randolph Nichols observations.

Richard Chonak said wisely:

So the situation Inwood describes really does exist. Of course I think it needs to be addressed in terms of the Church's ideals for the liturgy, not in terms of various people's unformed and subjective tastes.

Jeff Ostrowski and Richard Chonak directed our attention to two pieces written for children’s choirs and didn’t seem to take time to also mention Inwood’s newer publications (http://www.magnificatmusic.com/new_8.htm), his older publications (http://www.magnificatmusic.com/pubs_3.htm), and his efforts to keep in print the music of his great mentor, Fernand Laloux (http://www.magnificatmusic.com/Laloux.htm), the great choir master at Farm Street, the Jesuit Church in London. I have worked with Paul and experienced his incredible musicianship, especially his organ skills. He accompanies chant in the style of the Dom Paul Benoit and Dom Joseph Warrilow. How I wish all of this list could have heard his piece for the dedication of a baptismal font which we used in the dedication of our cathedral.

http://www.magnificatmusic.com/inwood_5.htm
http://www.farmstreet.org.uk/music.htm

I wish that Mr. Inwood would join our conversation directly, but here is a response to his response. Gregorian chant was an ancient art form by the second century of its existence, yet it continued to be the music of the Church. Let's go even farther forward, say to the 16th century. Chants that had been around for 400 years were still being sung as the principal music of the Church. Yes, the Church used to be at the forefront of musical and artistic tastes, but the Church's ability to do so was severely compromised by disestablishment movements in the 18th and 19th centuries and a more rapid progression of styles in the secular world. Remember that the cutting-edge music of the Church took time to develop. In any case, I propose that chant continued through the centuries, with only a short period of dormancy (mostly due to Joseph II's hair-brained liturgical ideas that deprived us of 20 years of sacred music by Mozart and gave us the Low Mass as standard). We should thank the French monastics for giving us back what was ours.

.

Dr. Ford attributed to me a written statement I never made: please double check this.
While i never shy away from controversy, I did not write the material beginning "Danger!!! You have been warned!!!".

Richard analyzed:

I'm not convinced that "Christ the Living Water" is fully a step in that direction, since the text is so centered on "us": "set us free", "give us voices", "help us now", "turn our hearts", "live in us".

It claims, "we sense you, we feel you", which is a puzzling expression theologically. As you know, Christianity is not a religion of seeing, sensing and feeling, but of faith in the Word which comes by hearing. Such an expression breaks the authenticity of the song for people whose spiritual life does not give them such experiences of "sensing" and "feeling" God's presence. The words "we sense you, we feel you" become an expression of self-congratulation.

The song calls over and over again to "set us free...to die and rise again with you.. live in us and set us free", and disregards the fact that for nearly everyone present in church, this has already happened in baptism. So what sort of yearning for liberation is being sung about? It almost sounds as if we were singing about the wish to get over our hang-ups.

Let me address your second paragraph first. We would all benefit from reading Saint Augustine's sacramental theology, the heart of which is his lapidary phrase: Sacramentum est tamquam visibile verbum ["A sacrament is, as it were, a visible word" In Evangelium Ioannis tractatus 80:3]. For my students I expand this to the whole sensorium: seeable / hearable / tastable / touchable / smellable / sensible word. Of course faith comes through hearing and we walk by faith and not by sight, but the Word of God Is at the Mercy of the Body, as Louis-Marie Chauvet so beautifully says; and sight / hearing / taste / touch / smell will replace faith in the Kingdom, where there will be no self-congratulation but only gratitude for what God has done.

Inwood's text for "Christ the Living Water" is light years away from the Pelagian and Semipelagian texts of so many of the post-conciliar texts. His text is mystagogical, as is the First Letter of Peter, unpacking the meaning of what happened and continues to happen through Baptism.

Michael O'Connor said:

I wish that Mr. Inwood would join our conversation directly, . . .

He will apply, when he returns to England later today. Like me, he and his wife Catherine Christmas (I might add: a full member of the National Liturgical Committee of England and Wales, at the invitation of the Bishops of E and W) were at the Anaheim Religious Education Congress.

"emp1211" said

"I am perfectly in sympathy with Guéranger's reaction to the third-rate sentimental operatic music that was filling churches before he started his crusade."

Really? He's selling it but I'm not buying. If Mr. Inwood were truly to believe this than why would his music be in such stark conflict with this attitude toward Sacred music. It would be like saying "I hate foreign cars, I only like American cars", then going out and buying a Toyota or Honda. I must, with all due respect, question the sincerity of statements like this.

Well, I too am selling it. Would you buy it from me?

Randolph,

I really appreciate everything you wrote.

Without making excuses for anyone's comments or intentions (which we cannot know, anyway) I would merely point out that I'm not surprised at some of the comments.

An analogy would be if I were to publicly state, "Yesterday, I invented Gregorian chant in my backyard." I promise you I'm going to get some snarky comments, especially if I were a major publisher of Catholic music.

The fact remains that this is more a historical question than a religious one:

Historically, the music of the Church always kept pace with, and even led the way with, the musical idioms of the secular world. It was only in the 19th century that the ‘antiquarian’ movements spearheaded by such as Guéranger in France and the Caecilians in Germany re-erected the twin pillars of mediaeval plainchant and 16th-century polyphony as paragons of liturgico-musical virtue.

The easiest thing to do (if one is asking whether the Church has always honored chant) is run to the Paleo (available in all major music libraries) and look at the various examples of JUSTUS UT PALMA. You will see examples of carefully preserved MSS from many, many different centuries, I believe starting in the 9th and going to the 19th. Furthermore, although people could not generally write down music before the 9th-10th centuries, whenever they did start writing the melodies down, we find the SAME melodies in countries all over Europe and beyond (and remember, there was no internet in the 9th century!). This means without a doubt that these melodies were sung for many years before the 9th century.

That the Catholic Church not only preserved its chants for at least 1,000 years (using them in her Liturgy) but also literally invented music notation in order to preserve these melodies, proves beyond a doubt that the Church thought very highly of these melodies (despite the above quoted sentences). That the Church did this is a wonder, and even atheists cannot get over this fact: they marvel at it, and rightly so. They marvel at the way the Church preserved her ancient chants for use in the liturgy. People don't go to such lengths for something they don't care about. People don't say, "I think I'll spend the next six months copying a manuscript I won't use at Mass, and use up my only piece of skin I have to write on. I think I'll do that so I can not use it at Mass."

Furthermore, throughout history, there were always pieces that were considered as secular (much of it for dancing [and much secular music was not preserved, by the way, BECAUSE it was not cared for and used by the Church]) and pieces that were considered as Sacred. I don't buy the idea that because Palestrina's music was incredibly advanced, that therefore all modern styles (jazz, rap, etc.) are allowed by current Ecclesiastical legislation. Read Vatican II ! Read what the Popes had to say about Sacred music !!!

But, again, historically speaking, the quoted statements (above) are patently absurd, when you take into account the evidence.

Discussing this has nothing to do with 'lack of friendliness,' or anything like that. I personally know and like several of the people invoked above, but I don't see the advantage in bringing it up. It is actually charity and service to the Church. Does a wise mother let her child believe in monsters? Or does she gently correct? Some of these notions, especially the notion that the Church allows all styles of music at Mass according to current legislation, need to be eradicated. Because, ultimately, (again, without analysis of motives, etc.) they are evil and wrong, objectively speaking.

Paul Inwood's point is:

The Church institutional did of course propose the chant as the most perfect form of liturgical music. It is simply that the Church pastoral in fact did not take any notice of this opinion!...

The institutional church, indeed the monastic church, preserved the chants; but the pastoral church didn't use them, until the late 19th century. It would be interesting to catalog the number and date of Justus ut palma chant MSS and set that list beside a similar list of Justus MSS from the age of polyphony on.

This statement is not true, Dr. Ford.

Also, the fact that chant underwent a rather bad period (see my first post on this, above) starting around 1650 doesn't somehow 'block out' or 'negate' the usage for centuries before.

Furthermore, there are not two "churches."

I'd like to point out that Dr. Ford misattributed a comment of mine to Olbash in a blockquote above.

I can't say for sure what Inwood means by "style x" or "style y," but in my experience, the pastoral musicians who play his music generally lump 1000 years worth of composed music in the "classical" style, and divide music of the past forty years (which has comparatively little stylistic diversity) into multiple subsets. According to this model Machaut, Scarlatti, Schubert, Langlais, Gounod, Lassus, and Gregorian chant does not represent musical variety but the contents of Breaking Bread or Gather Comprehensive does.

I don't entirely disagree with Inwood's historical perspective on chant and polyphony, at least as far as the facts are concerned. Chant and polyphony based on chant did fall out of widespread use. He seems to go a step further, though, to suggest that this recent restoration is reason to question chant and polyphony as the paradigm for sacred music. Why is the past suddenly important? Don't we hear time and time again the phrase "that all changed with Vatican II"? Couldn't one also say

"Historically, the Church has always had high standards for artistic quality, particularly in the area of music, where it has always embraced composed music and sought out trained musicians to perform it. It was only in the 1960''s and 70'sthat the folk Mass movement, spearheaded by such as the St. Louis Jesuits, eschewed musical composition in favor of popular song forms, consecrated the guitar as the primary instrument of worship, and ousted the liturgical choir so that the cantor-soloist could reign supreme."

Really, what does history have to do with the argument at hand? The question should be "What does the Church say now?". For those who say the Church needs to change with the times, Inwood has actually touched on a point that Fr. Ruff makes in his book on the liturgical reform: the current practice of performing polyphony of different style periods along with chant that has been restored to wide-spread use in editions based on the earliest manuscripts is about as modern as one can get!

(And in fairness, I think the "Ch-ch" Alleluia is great and could be a lot of fun in the classroom. I wouldn't, however, mistake it for a piece of liturgical music).

Might I add that "contemporary music" is almost never heard in the Catholic Church. I suspect that most people would rebel against truly contemporary styles as much as some to resist chant. Like the Victorian hymn, the soft-rock "love song" was installed in the 1970s by the youth and perpetuated by them as they grew older and remained in the music ministries. This will pass in time, but it was only possible in the 20th century when popular music overtook art music (convenience categories of course) as the dominant preference among the educated -- not the masses; they have never had great influence on ecclesiastical music. The 80s and 90s saw a trend of multicultural music that paralleled immigration trends and post-modern artistic thought. Whatever we say about church music, it has certainly reflected the post-Vatican II ideology of opening to the world's influence. Here and at other commentary sites, I believe there is a strong reaction to this reality by promoting a reconnection with the longer part of musical history, stemming from a desire for the Church to provide spiritual stability and a connection to the supernatural when both things are out of fashion in the physical secular world. That's my take.

He will apply, when he returns to England later today. Like me, he and his wife Catherine Christmas (I might add: a full member of the National Liturgical Committee of England and Wales, at the invitation of the Bishops of E and W) were at the Anaheim Religious Education Congress.

For more information about the Anaheim Religious Education Congress, including a list of presenters and topics, go here: http://www.recongress.org/

Thanks, don roy.

After trying once again, I've decided that I'm just not "MusicaSacra forum" material.

Cheers and good luck to all in their endeavors.