"Is our devotion to liturgy or to making people do what we want them to do?"

Congregational singing is something the Church asks for explicitly beginning with Sacrosanctum Concilium, and outlined in detail in Musicam Sacram. Further, it is not something that we should make or force people to do, but congregational singing clearly should be fostered, encouraged, promoted, etc (with care not to persecute those who choose not to sing). A devotion to liturgy would include a devotion to fostering a congregation that sings well. So yeah, any liturgical musician should be judged (in part) on how well he/she accomplishes this.

One can disagree that congregational singing should be a priority, but then one disagrees with the clear instruction of the Church. As a liturgical musician, in my mind ignoring this instruction is no different than ignoring, for instance, church instruction that Gregorian chant has principal place in the liturgy.

Chonak, I should not speak for him, but I believe Gavin was being facetious., and knows full well that he was describing the rite right. Or the right rite. Or something.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

"Wisdom! Let us be attentive!" Gotta love it.

The Trisagion is right before the reading of the Epistle... So it is pretty early on, but not as early as you'd think. First comes the Great Litany, the First Antiphon, the Little Litany, the Second Antiphon (including Justinian's hymn), the Little Litany (yes... again), the Third Antiphon (usually the beatitudes), the Little Entrance, and THEN the Trisagion.

(you know it's an Eastern liturgy when "let us complete our prayer unto the Lord" means a good forty-five minutes of liturgy is left)

Of course the prodding of the deacon is very ceremonial and ancient. The reason modern-day prodding would be out of place in the West is because, well, it doesn't belong. Okay, that is totally circular reasoning. I guess it's because it would be completely contrived and used according to the whims of a particular pastor or music director, rather than that of the church throughout the ages. That's the problem the Western church is trying to escape from right now--the liturgy being subject to random people's whims.

Over at [some blog]

I hope that we don't get dragged down into petty internet flame wars. We are above all that. The Vatican refers inquirers here, to this site.

IanW, I wasn't referring to you alone, but nothing is stopping anyone from getting his own blog.

My concern, frankly, is that there are too many miscreants in the world for our little band to keep track of, and it would be far better to simply focus on doing our work right than to worry about all the conspiracies being hatched against us -- and there are sure to be more with time. If someone comes up with an intelligent misguided response, we can address it calmly and charitably on a thread. As you can see, there is already a healthy diversity of opinion here, and we seem to be able to handle it without going for the throat.

Ian, if you flamed my blog like you flame Pray & Tell, I would delete your comments. Although I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view, your hostility level is very high, and no one wants to be insulted.

Mia's question strikes me (a hymn writer) as key: "Then, why are we forced to sing someone's private devotional songs, instead of the Church's liturgical prayers?"

"Congregational singing should be encouraged, but it can't be an excuse to dumb down the liturgy one iota, and it can't interfere with more important things like interior participation."

I agree without qualification with Chrism's point here. I think the reason so many of us agree with Jeff is that we're imagining (fantasizing, really) a congregation standing mute to "On Eagle's Wings". But a congregation could have the liturgy of the colloquium and they'd be staring at their watches waiting for it to end. There is a problem; congregational singing is a MANIFESTATION of it, but not the actual problem itself.

I've arrived super late to this whole discussion. On the whole I agree with the spirit of the article. As it happens we have robust singing at my parish (with the exception of the Mortem Tuam, which people are perhaps wisely waiting for the next Council to do away with) and this is without a lot of the usual props. The cantor is hidden to most of the congregation, the choir is completely hidden, very rare use of worship pamphlets, etc. We don't sing like Baptists but we sing.

Here is what I disagree with in the article: "Without exception, every individual Catholic reserves the right to himself or herself to stand quietly in prayer, knowing full well that whether or not he or she sings makes no difference to the graces being offered at the Mass. We are free to participate externally or internally based on our own desires... Here is the controversial claim that I would like to make: there is nothing wrong with this."

The problem I see with this claim is its extreme individualism. Singing is one of the positive practices of our religion. Yes, ultimately it is optional for individuals. But many things are optional. Using a missalette is optional, but it can be a help to prayer. Dressing up for Mass is optional, but it is a salutary reminder of the importance of what we're doing. Now dressing up for Mass is liable to have a positive sense-level effect on others: they may well be edified by our estimation of the Mass's priority. On the other hand, practices that deepen prayer in the Mass, such as using a missalette, praying before Mass, studying before Mass about the saint or the mystery of the day, reading the Liturgy of the Hours in preparation for Mass, sacramental confession--these are edifying on a much deeper level. They are often "optional," strictly speaking, but they open the experience of Mass for grace, preparing us and those around us to be good, receptive soil.

The question is whether congregational singing is like dressing up, or like praying before Mass.

Dressing up is both edifying and potentially distracting. A spiffy hat or bowtie, just like an orchestral Mass, might, for some individuals, detract from recollection.

But the question I've always had is this: Is it possible to pray and sing at the same time? As a cantor for 3/4 of my life, this has been a question that I have sometimes felt I could answer "yes" to. It is possible to not only sing but to lead singing and be recollected at the same time. It is even possible to lead singing in a way that increases my own recollection.

IanW: why are you so concerned about what happens at [that blog] ? there are literally thousands of anti-catholic blogs out there. why are you so concerned about that one? does the moderator censure comments? of course! what did you expect him to do? if the truth gets out, his crowd is in major trouble. actually, they already are in trouble. let them be. let them huddle together and spread lies. don't concern yourself. go out and do something positive for every negative lie they tell.

" It doesn't matter if you give them "someone's private devotional songs" or the Church's liturgical prayers, the response is the same. Actually, I wager people will be less likely to sing when given the Church's liturgical prayers..."

Gavin, it's the familiarity, as Jeff mentioned. I know it's one of the most difficult work, but I think music directors have to help people to be familiar with singing liturgical prayers and keep them as their own. It may take long time, and lots of sacrifice and patience. If you are young, you might be fortunate enough to see the change. (In our modern culture, everything demands quick results and we seemed to give up so quick.)

i might be missing something but i as a rule find ians comments spot on and perfectly reasonable. ive seen plenty of vitrol but never from him.

What I understand from the Pope's writing on Choral Sacntus is that we don't have to put away beautiful Choral Sanctus, especially the polyphony, even in OF, that can carry us to the realm of heaven. He is not discouraging the congregational singing at all, provided that the congregations can participate internally and externally. Aren't there plenty of room in our liturgy for both choral Sanctus and congregational Sanctus? He is very much in emphasizing on internal participation in his writings, not to disregard the external ones, but because external participations have been over emphasized in local churches last 40 years.

Kathy, I'd love to learn those hymns. Can you show me some or direct me?

Thanks.

Mia,

Google search for Ambrosian Hymns, or Ambrose Hymns. Here is a place to begin for modern versifications of Ambrosian hymns: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/bio/a/m/ambrose_m.htm Also, try searching Google "books" for Ambrose Hymns. Some of the versifications will be already familiar.

Ambrosian hymns are the source of iambic Long Meter.

Regarding the tunes I have very little knowledge; I wonder if anyone knows quite what they sounded like. I don't know much about the current Ambrosian Rite's music or its relationship to the music of St. Augustine's time. For modern Ambrosian hymns, I'd begin here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlq-q5ud4ZI and http://www.cantoambrosiano.com/Inni_Ambrosiani.htm

I have waited a while and read all the responses before writing my own.

I am in full support of the CMAA and all of the ideals which it represents and supports. But I am perhaps more moderate than most of you, and there is a reason for this. I have come to the conclusion that all liturgy is pastoral - and that with that reality, we are simply not where we need to be at this time to celebrate liturgy according to the absolute ideal.

At the point that I realized that even masses in Rome at the basilica are using short non-chant refrains, strangely similar to what many American composers are writing, even now in this Pope Benedict era, I realized that we are NEVER going to win an "all chant, all the time" argument in the parishes of the United States.

My former diocese got a new bishop - he was embraced by all the conservatives, hated by the liberals - his reputation proceeded him. He has been known to be hawkish about scrupulous adherrance to liturgical dictates. He soon appointed a new diocessan worship director, who holds a doctorate in liturgy and whom he knew and respected. In a conversation with her, even SHE told me that she didn't see responsorial propers as the ideal in our liturgies of the diocese and that she favored a strong entrance hymn which enabled congregational singing. THIS IS A PERSON WHO SUPPOSEDLY HOLDS THE SAME VIEWS AS THE CONSERVATIVE BISHOP, and she is saying she doesn't think it's best to chant or even sing responsorial propers for the entrance procession.

We are just not at the point in liturgy today where we can go back to that "ideal" of chanting the introit with no congregational participation. Introduce introits from By Flowing Waters, use Chris Tietze's Introit Hymns, but don't think you will sell anyone on the argument that Roman Liturgy in this post-concillior age should dispense with congregational singing.

PaixG. I really don't think anyone here is saying "all chant, all the time" argument or "dispense with congregational signing."

Unnatural emphasis on congrational singing in Mass has caused lots of trouble. I think congregational singing is meaningful when the Liturgy is done properly. And each parish is different, and some might take more time than others.

After two years since my schola started to chant, our parish started to sing Agnus Dei (seasonally and in Daily Mass only yet), and a couple of places our pastor started to chant. I started to hear more' thank you' from the congregations. In other parishes our schola sing, we started Communion Proper in English, but still sing a communion hymn afterwards. For the first time we sang Introit in English last Sunday, it was beautiful. (Many of my schola members never sang in a choir before, and it's not easy. But we sing in many parishes as much as we can, because trained parish choirs are not doing it in this area. But there have been some changes in parishes which make us keep going. One of the parish, which has been mostly contemporary music with piano and all, started to quote Church's document about the importance of singing chants in the liturgy in the church BULLETIN. This is a big news for us.)

As we know there many people here who do a lot harder work. I'm just giving a small example of my experience.

It is wonderful to attend a weekend Mass without music! I cherish these experiences where my participation in the Mass can remain focused. How true and holy are the words of the Jesus Christ received when they are finally heard without the effects of jingles and pop music.
long ago: During our travel after a long week at an NPM convention, I and a few enthused musician from our parish attended Mass in Montana. It was a Sunday evening, very simple music and and a minimum of singing that was dramatically low energy compared to the NPM liturgies: yet a student in our group said she was glad to attend a "normal" Mass where she could actually pray.
A college friend of mine who had avoided Mass for some time had returned to Mass with me during the 1970's. Afterwards she told me,
" they really keep you busy now. You can't even slip in a Hail Mary."

Jeffrey: You have a good understanding of ritual and congregation participation. Catholic congregational singing was at its best during May crownings, Stations of the cross, benediction, and novenas. These were profoundly different services than the Mass, they were less of a ritual but still important public prayer where the Catholic congregations eagerly embraced its participation and needed hymns to worship during these services. In these types of services there were cultural expressions, they were seasonal, simplified extensions of the Office and they were ecumenical in the sense that there was nor requisite sacramental initiation for the participants. There is certainly a need for this type of worship- but the Mass is different.

Kathy,

I'm sorry you think my comments angry, and I'm perfectly happy with your right to exercise that judgement on any I might leave on your blog (which I look forward to reading). The organisation and ambition of 'Pray, Tell', however, make it so much more than Fr. Ruff's personal blog. It is a joint venture of Liturgical Press and St. John's School of Theology. The Editor is open about his liberal theological and liturgical assumptions, but he also proclaims his intellectual ambitions for the site, a determination to establish dialogue with those who think differently, to be "open-minded" and "self-questioning", and to have done with "yesterday's progressivism".

This is admirable stuff. When I read it back in December of last year I was hopeful of some good, thought-provoking reading, and the prospect of reasoned engagement between different perspectives on liturgy. Unfortunately, that's not how it's turned out. A surprising number of the posts are lightweight and lacking in rigour. More disappointingly, there have been too many cheap shots at the conservatives with whom the Editor claims he wishes to engage. This makes his stated aims more difficult to achieve, not just because it puts people off, but also because it encourages facility in those who fire the shots.

The Editor's post on Jeffrey Tucker's piece that is the subject of this thread is a case in point. Tucker's post at NLM is a thought-provoking take on a problem that's bedevilled liturgists and musicians since the post-Conciliar reforms (and, in other forms, well before that). It is usefully iconoclastic, because it questions a commonly held assumption amongst liturgical progressives and many of us who consider ourselves more conservative. It benefits from his background as a convert from a particular Protestant tradition, which allows him to recognise and critically assess that assumption while others leave it unexamined; and it's all the more interesting for being a work in progress, evidence of ongoing reflection on practice and ideas. In the light of this, Ruff's post and further comments were disappointing. Anyone who had read his manifesto could reasonably have expected a considered analysis and conclusion, particularly from a scholar with some experience in the field. Instead, the post was little better than a condescending snigger that included the claim that Ruff's own research negated Tucker's thesis. In fact, Ruff simply failed to address Tucker's point that the use of hymns to substitute for (rather than supplement) Propers is a recent innovation, and his response to Tucker's comment to this effect addressed a different point (the liturgical status of hymns in particular institutions in the Middle Ages).

The general standard of discussion is not helped by the site's 900-character comment limit, which reduces the opportunity for useful analysis. That said, poor analysis and argument are failings, not crimes, albeit they are disappointing. The recurrent gratuitous insults thrown in the conservative direction are, though, reprehensible. In the Editor's case, this is usually a matter of unpleasant condescension – conservatives are immature, have little better to do than comment on blogs, and are fixated on the peripheral externals of liturgy – but he permits worse from others: Paul Inwood, for example, who doubts the good faith of those who disagree with his own view of liturgical development, or Richard Giles, who questions the spiritual integrity of liturgically traditional Anglicans.

If Fr. Ruff were to apply his own comments policy to such posts, they would not appear, at least in the form they do. The site invites “comments that contribute to civil, thoughtful discussion … Pray Tell does not permit personal attacks, libelous statements, or the use of vulgar, hateful, or harassing language.”. Not only are these quite reasonable controls not applied to himself, or to the distasteful outpourings of Inwood, Giles and others, but he has reacted with anger to comments that point out this inconsistency, and it has been known for them to be modified or removed. So, too, does he routinely censor comments that question the value of the 900-character comment limit and its inconsistent application (if you're with the Program, continuation comments are no problem; if you're not, they are). References to particular acts of censorship – the indication, for example, that a comment is no longer as its author posted it – are removed immediately.

My feelings about all this are mixed. I guess there is some anger; that's an emotion I feel whenever I encounter unreflective clericalism and hostility to free speech. But above all there's disappointment and sadness that a project which promised so much has so signally failed to live up to its own laudable ambitions.

As for Mr. Inwood: I make no apologies for criticising his words and behaviour, or for satirising his music and self-promotion, particularly under a post about music, musicians and the ethos of our liturgy.

Best wishes,

Ian.

IanW, I agree that musicians can complicate getting a drink of water - at times. ;-) It's likely we all want to do the most beautiful and best-performed music we are capable of. But it's important to not leave the congregation behind.

Kevin: well said.

I dismissed pray tell going out the gate. That doesn't mean I will never participate, but the gravity of comments should remain where we are supported and understood. On "our" sites. Why lend credibility to chaos? When you befriend yourself inside the walls of another's castle you may eventually find yourself chained up in their dungeon. From what I read here, it seems like that has proven to be the case.

I agree Adam. For one thing, I will always be grateful to Fr. Ruff for his friendship and his brilliant scholarship, despite our differences (which is a presumptuous way to put it, given that I'm a punk and he is a giant). Also, my brain needs the back and forth stimulation of challenges and responses in order to function. I'm very happy about the airing of differences. We can all improve our understanding this way. So I'm really happy about Pray and Tell. Life would be super dull with this kind of engagement.

the argument can also be made whether it's best to spend time engaging the anthony ruffs of the world, at a time when there's so much work to be done. i think it is probably better to simply go out and do good. if (and when) the anthony ruffs of the world are ready to accept the church documents on music, they can find them on this site, the adoremus site, the vatican site, etc.

Francis, I think the definition of dialogue is, "I promise. This won't hurt a bit." My experience with ecumenical dialogue has been the Catholics in the room attempting to minimize the Faith and exclaim, "See! We are just like you."

My experience with ecumenical dialogue has been the Catholics in the room attempting to minimize the Faith and exclaim, "See! We are just like you."

I've actually had some pretty awesome ecumenical dialogue with Catholics. One conversation I remember in particular involved the Immaculate Conception (which the Orthodox do not accept) and what exactly original sin is. The Catholics were whipping out Thomas Aquinas and doing a very good job of explaining their beliefs, and an awesome Greek Orthodox priest, whose guests we were, was doing a good job of defending ours. We never came to a consensus, of course, but the dialogue brilliantly exposed where our differences actually lay--a fundamental worldview difference that involves much more than one Marian dogma.

Ecumenical dialogue can be done well, if the idea is to learn from each other, dispel myths and lies we believe about each other, and seek the Truth together. It goes wrong when people want to be all just one big happy family tomorrow, and therefore settle for some kind of least-common-denominator Christianity. Dialogue is only real and useful when both parties keep an open mind, but firmly refuse compromise.