Liturgy and Church Music : by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict)
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Adam, I think the key word there is system.

    The context is a little complicated, but there was a time in the not-so-distant past when seminarians, especially from certain religious orders, were required to study theological texts that were ultra-systematized in unhelpful ways (e.g., citing only commentaries on Aquinas--often misinterpretations--instead of Aquinas himself, and ignoring Patristics, or even the Bible, altogether).

    The breakthrough of the 1950s (or perhaps 1930s, depending on how far back you look) was the opening of the theological door to the early Christian Fathers and the re-examination of their writings in the light of the Bible itself.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Wow Doug.

    Most the opened doors were openings to errors.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Francis, yes, sorry. I didn't mean to make it out like you completely misunderstood. I was originally hoping that my extra emphasis on "the" made it clear and then tried to restate the same thing in another way. There was a time when only Thomism was acceptable, and nothing else, even the Church Fathers.

    And perhaps opening doors led to error, but what I am trying to articulate is that the Church certainly found value in the writings of the Church Fathers--witness the Council documents--and "secular" philosophies such as phenomenology--witness JP II's Evangelium vitae. That the Church officially finds these methods acceptable is manifest in the two passages quoted above.

    Personally, I do not have the philosophical or theological training to justify the value of one over another. I get more out of the Thomistic books I have read (Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson) than I do the writings of, for example, de Lubac and Rahner. But I also get a lot out of Balthasar and Guardini, who are far far afield from Thomism. It is writers like Balthasar and Guardini (cited, in positive ways, by Ratzinger in the foregoing article) whom the "opening of the doors" vindicated. They were moving away from Thomism long before it was fashionable, and LONG before it was officially acceptable.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici (29 June 1914), Pope Pius X said: 

    The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Once the debate was allowed within the walls if RC institutions the warning by our Holy Father was ignored and we now see it's fruit.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Personally, I don't believe that thinking more carefully about Origen (inspiration for Theology of the Body) or St. Augustine sent the Church down the poop drain, as you seem to suggest.

    I also don't see the purpose of citing Pius X when JPII made it clear, in multiple encyclicals, that Thomism is no longer the official philosophy of the Church. Moreover, JPII himself did not write strictly as a Thomist, either in his own work as a philosopher or as Pope. Indeed, neither has Pope Benedict--far from it. Pope Benedict writes much more along the lines of Balthasar, and if I am not mistaken, they were actually close companions--personally and intellectually--before Balthasar died.

    Lastly, to be clear, I am in no way suggesting that Aquinas was deficient and thus unnecessary. Neither did the Council Fathers, JPII, or Benedict XVI.

    There is a MOUNTAIN of academic and non-academic but scholarly literature about this, Francis. Pius X's statement was one piece of the Thomist revival begun by Leo XIII, but it was merely that: a piece to be considered alongside other pieces of evidence.

    As a historian, I feel like saying that our minds are dulled by looking at texts out of context...
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    This subject deserves another thread! Who shall host it? You or I? (if it is I, then we will wait till I finish this one.)

    You must be careful with philosophy especially within the last 100 years or so and when it is earmarked from within the walls of the RC Church. Many times it is not consistent with truth and often is not Catholic.

    I would venture that you explore mountains that I don't have any interest to entertain.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Please do, Francis. I have enjoyed reading this thread as it has developed.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    To circumvent the mountain, a very good read is After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (2002) by Fergus Kerr, OP (note a Dominican, just like Aquinas).

    Kerr himself is not only sympathetic to Thomism but gives a good historical account of its development in the 20th century. In my own research on this topic, I cited this work with complete comfort.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I love theological geekery... I just wish I had the capacity to keep up.

    But, as this latest exchange will be moved to another thread- could we get back to the good sir, Cardinal R. and his thoughts on Sacred Music?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Exactly my tact, Adam. Sorry for our tangential theological rambling.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Part VI

    All of this is now replaced by creativity, in which the autonomy of those emancipated attempts to corroborate or ratify itself. Such a creativity, which aspires to be a functional expression of autonomy and emancipation, is—precisely on that account—diametrically opposed to any form of partaking. Characteristic of this creativity is arbitrariness as a necessary expression of the rejection of all prescribed forms or rules, unrepeatability because repetition would already imply dependence, and artificiality because it is necessarily a case of purely human production. And so we see that human creativity which refuses to receive and to partake, is contradictory and untrue in its very nature, because man can only be man through receiving and partaking. Such creativity is escape from the conditio humana and therefore falsehood.


    OUCH! Doug... look at this sentence.

    This is ultimately why cultural decadence begins at the point where along with the loss of faith in God a pre-established reasonableness of being must also be called into question.


    UhOh... Doug won't like this part. ^ LOL.

    Let us now summarize our findings so that we can draw consequences for the point of departure and the basic form of church music. It has become evident that the primacy of the group derives from an understanding of the Church as institution based upon a concept of freedom which is incompatible with the idea and the reality of the institutional. Indeed, this idea of freedom is no longer capable of grasping the dimension of the mysterium in the reality of the Church. Freedom is conceived in terms of autonomy and emancipation, and takes concrete shape in the idea of creativity, which against this background is the exact opposite of that objectivity and positiveness which belong to the essence of the Church’s liturgy. The group is truly free only when it discovers itself anew each time.

    We also found that liturgy worthy of the name is the radical antithesis of all this. Genuine liturgy is opposed to an historical arbitrariness which knows no development and hence is ultimately vacuous. Genuine liturgy is also opposed to an unrepeatability which is also exclusivity and loss of communication without regard for any groupings. Genuine liturgy is not opposed to the technical, but to the artificial, in which man creates a counter-world for himself and loses sight of, indeed loses a feeling for, God’s creation. The antitheses are evident as is the incipient clarification of the inner justification for group thinking as an autonomistically conceived idea of freedom. But now we must inquire positively as to the anthropological concept which forms the basis for the liturgy in the sense of the Church’s faith.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Haha, Francis. No I'm with him. It's a nice lead in to his conclusions later.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Doug... don't mind me... I am just pulling your leg. I would actually love to meet you sometime! I think our conversation could go into the wee hours of the morning! I cannot afford to fly to the Colloquium as I am in the middle of nowhere... perhaps you would like to vacation here in the Tetons!
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    Re: patristics, etc.

    When you study any subject, you have to be grounded in good sense and good values (and preferably, devotion and right worship), or your comprehension of the subject will be less clear -- in a way analogous to not having taken pre-requisite subjects, and thus not understanding what the material is talking about. But where it really hits the fan is your application of what you learn; without a good foundation, you will apply things in crazy ways.

    Now, one way to deal with this is to teach people very little, very quickly, and to teach them to apply it in these specific ways. This was how a lot of seminaries and religious institutions used to be, and not just Catholics. A lot of post-Vatican II institutions did the same thing; they just did it from a different ideological perspective.

    What folks wanted to get back for the Church was the lively intellectual curiosity of the Irish schools, the good cathedral schools, and the medieval universities, which necessitates a bit of tolerance for possible chaos. But if you can be sure that people do have that good grounding, even the chaos will tend to be inside a certain range. People like our current pope thrived in the new post-WWII atmosphere; they could make good use of the intellectual elbow room.

    OTOH, there were plenty of people who didn't know what to do with their freedom, or who were serving some ideological idea about the Church instead of the actual Church in front of them. The fact that they often got bad or biased information from their own bad or biased teachers or fellow academics made it worse. But it wasn't giving them freedom to study patristics that was wrong; it was not giving them good foundations or pulling them back from the edge.

    If it hadn't been the Sixties, the info that some early Christian altars faced the people would have elicited a "Huh. That's interesting" or possibly "Let's shoot a movie that shows people old liturgical stuff!" Since it was the Sixties, they picked out one isolated factoid, ran with it, mistranslated by its light, stomped other people with it, destroyed historical churches for it, and then tried to make people forget there had ever been anything else.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    This notion of the artificial freedom sought after by people exploring their creativity reminds me a great deal of the problem of musical discipline:

    A piano player (take me, for example) who has only a rudimentary understanding of the playing method, and only spent a small fraction of the time doing rote exercises that I should have, can sit down and pretend to be creative, and can get some small pleasure in that artificial freedom. But the truth is, I'm remarkably limited by my previous lack of discipline and practice. My creative ideas, however original I feel them to be at the time, will certainly fall within a very narrow range of standard chord progressions and melodic formula. My piano playing is an enjoyable past time to me, but will never reach the heights of the sublime (it won't even reach the heights of people paying me for it.... thank God my parish has an organist).

    There's a concept here that I'm trying to get at, but I'm not articulating the way I want to. So I'll just say:
    Do you know what I mean?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    That is actully a very good analogy, Adam.

    I have a friend here. His favorite band is The Who. How high into sublimety are his expectations for liturgical music?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Genuine liturgy is also opposed to an unrepeatability which is also exclusivity and loss of communication without regard for any groupings.

    The allusion to the Tower of Babel. Latin, anyone??
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Genuine liturgy is also opposed to an unrepeatability which is also exclusivity and loss of communication without regard for any groupings.

    Liturgy is, at the human level, a ritual, a established [repeatable] set of actions performed for symbolic value [communication]. Without repeatability, the liturgy's effect is undermined.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668


    Part VII

    2. The anthropological pattern of the Church’s liturgy

    The answer to our question is suggested by two fundamental statements in the New Testament. Saint Paul coined the expression logike Iatreia in Romans 12:1, but this is very difficult to translate because we lack a satisfactory equivalent for the concept of logos. It might perhaps be translated “logos-like worship” or worship fixed or determined by the Spirit, which would also echo Jesus’ statement about adoration in spirit and in truth (John 4:23). But it is also possible to translate adoration stamped or marked by the word, adding of course that in a biblical sense (as well as in the Greek meaning) “word” is more than mere speech or language: it is creative reality. To be sure, it is also more than mere thought or spirit: it is spirit which explains and communicates itself. The relationship to a text, the rationality, the intelligibility and the sobriety of Christian liturgy have always been deduced from this fact and presupposed as the basic norm of liturgical music. But it would be a restrictive and a false interpretation to understand this norm as strictly requiring of all liturgical music a very close link with the text, or to declare the intelligibility of the text to be a general requirement for all liturgical music. After all, “word” in the biblical sense is more than text and comprehension includes more than the banal perspicuity of what is obvious to everyone, what is to be compressed into the most superficial rationality. It is quite correct, however that music which serves the adoration in spirit and in truth cannot be rhythmic ecstasy sensual suggestion or stupefaction subjective emotional bliss or superficial entertainment. It is rather subordinated to a message to a comprehensive spiritual statement which is rational in the highest sense of the word. In other words it is quite correct to say that such music must correspond in its innermost nature to this “word” in a comprehensive sense, indeed must serve it.

    And so we are quite naturally led to another text which makes the really fundamental biblical statement about worship by clarifying for us the importance of the “word” and its relationship with us. I refer to that sentence in the prologue of Saint John’s gospel: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory” (John 1:13). First of all, the “word” to which Christian worship refers is not a text, but a living reality: a God Who is meaning, communicating Itself, and Who communicates Himself by becoming man. This Incarnation is now the holy tent or tabernacle, the point of reference for all cult, which is a gazing upon God’s glory and does Him honor. But these statements of Saint John’s prologue do not convey the complete picture. The passages will be misunderstood unless we take them together with the “farewell speeches” of Jesus, in which He says to His disciples, “If I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again. I go away, and I come unto you. It is expedient to you that I go, for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you (John 12:2 ff., 14:18 ff., 16:5 ff., etc.). The Incarnation is only the first step in a longer process which moves to a final and meaningful conclusion in the Cross and the Resurrection. From the Cross, the Lord draws everything to Himself and bears what is corporeal, i.e., man and the whole created world, into God’s eternity.

    The liturgy is subordinate to this movement, which we might call the basic text to which all liturgical music refers: music must be measured from within by the standard of this line of motion. Liturgical music is a result of the demands and of the dynamism of the Incarnation of the Word, for music means that even among us, the word cannot be mere speech. The principal ways in which the Incarnation continues to operate are of course the sacramental signs themselves. But they are quite misplaced if they are not immersed in a liturgy which as a whole follows this expansion of the Word into the corporeal and into the sphere of all our senses. It is this fact which justifies and indeed renders necessary images in complete contrast to Jewish and Islamic types of worship. This is also the reason why it is necessary to appeal to those deeper levels of comprehension and response which become accessible through music. Faith becoming music is part of the process of the Word becoming flesh. But at the same time, this “becoming music” is also subordinated in a completely unique way to that inner evolution of the Incarnation event which I tried to hint at earlier the Word become flesh comes to be, in the Cross and Resurrection, flesh become Word. Both are permeated with each other. The Incarnation is not revoked, but becomes definitive at that instant in which the movement turns around, so to speak: flesh itself becomes Word, is “logocized,” but precisely this transformation brings about a new unity of all reality which was obviously so important to God that He paid for it at the price of the Son’s Cross.

    When the Word becomes music, there is involved on the one hand perceptible illustration, incarnation or taking on flesh, attraction of pre-rational powers, a drawing upon the hidden resonance of creation, a discovery of the song which lies at the basis of all things. And so this becoming music is itself the very turning point in the movement: it involves not only the Word becoming flesh, but simultaneously the flesh becoming spirit; Brass and wood become sound; what is unconscious and unsettled becomes orderly and meaningful resonance. What takes place is an embodiment or incarnation which is spiritualization and a spiritualization which is incarnation or em-body-ment Christian incarnation or embodiment is always simultaneously spiritualization and Christian spiritualization is em-body-ment into the body of the Logos become man.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Here, we see that music takes a much more intricate role to that of merely 'servicing' the Word. Chonak was driving at this point earlier... the intimate link between music and the ritual that it unfolds. Excellent sacred music is almost so one with the Word itself that it is almost impossible to separate one from the other.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668


    Part VIII


    4. The consequences for liturgical music

    a) Basic principles

    To the degree that in music this conjunction of both movements takes place, music serves in the highest degree and in an irreplaceable manner that interior exodus which liturgy always is and wants to be. This means that the propriety of liturgical music is measured by its inner conformity to this basic anthropological and theological model. At first glance, such a statement seems far removed from concrete musical realities. But the statement becomes very concrete indeed when we consider the antithetical models of cultic music which I mentioned earlier. Or we can recall the Dionysiac type of religion and its music, which Plato discussed on the basis of his religious and philosophical views. In many forms of religion, music is associated with frenzy and ecstasy. The free expansion of human existence, toward which man’s own hunger for the Infinite is directed, is supposed to be achieved through sacred delirium induced by frenzied instrumental rhythms. Such music lowers the barriers of individuality and personality, and in it man liberates himself from the burden of consciousness. Music becomes ecstasy, liberation from the ego, amalgamation with the universe.

    Today we experience the secularized variation of this type in rock and pop music, whose festivals are an anti-cult with the same tendency: desire for destruction, repealing the limitations of the everyday, and the illusion of salvation in liberation from the ego, in the wild ecstasy of a tumultuous crowd. These are measures which involve a form of release related to that achieved through drugs. It is the complete antithesis of Christian faith in the Redemption. Accordingly, it is only logical that in this area diabolical cults and demonic musics are on the increase today, and their dangerous power of deliberately destroying personality is not yet taken seriously enough. The dispute between Dionysiac and Apolline music which Plato tried to arbitrate, is not our concern, since Apollo is not Christ. But the question which Plato posed concerns us in a most significant way.

    In a way which we could not imagine thirty years ago, music has become the decisive vehicle of a counter-religion and thus calls for a parting of the ways. Since rock music seeks release through liberation from the personality and its responsibility, it can be on the one hand precisely classified among the anarchic ideas of freedom which today predominate more openly in the West than in the East. But that is precisely why rock music is so completely antithetical to the Christian concept of redemption and freedom, indeed its exact opposite. Hence, music of this type must be excluded from the Church on principle, and not merely for aesthetic reasons, or because of restorative crankiness or historical inflexibility.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Part IX

    If we were to continue our analysis of the anthropological foundations of various types of music, we could render our question even more concrete. There is an agitational type of music which animates men for various collective goals. There is a sensuous type of music which brings man into the realm of the erotic or in some other way essentially tends toward feelings of sensual desire. There is a purely entertaining type of music which desires to express nothing more than an interruption of silence. And there is a rationalistic type of music in which the tones only serve rational constructs, and in which there is no real penetration of spirit and senses. Many dry catechism hymns and many modern songs constructed by committees belong to this category. Music truly appropriate to the worship of the incarnate Lord exalted on the cross exists on the strength of a different, a greater, a much more truly comprehensive synthesis of spirit, intuition and audible sound. We might say that western music derives from the inner richness of this synthesis, indeed has developed and unfolded in a fullness of possibilities ranging from Gregorian chant and the music of the cathedrals via the great polyphony and the music of the renaissance and the baroque up to Bruckner and beyond. This pre-eminence is found only in the West because it could arise only out of an anthropological foundation which unites the spiritual and the profane in an ultimate human unity. And the pre-eminence disappears to the degree that this anthropology vanishes. For me, the greatness of this music is the most obvious and immediate verification of the Christian image of man and of the Christian faith in the Redemption which could be found. Those who are truly impressed by this grandeur somehow realize from their innermost depths that the faith is true, even though they may need to travel some distance in order to carry out this insight with deliberate, understanding.

    This means that the Church’s liturgical music must be adjoined to that integration of human existence which we encounter through faith in the Incarnation. Such redeeming release is more toilsome than that sought in ecstatic frenzy, but this toil is the exertion of truth itself. On the one hand, it must integrate the senses into the spirit, in accord with the impulse of the sursum corda. Pure spiritualization, however, is not the goal, but rather integration of the sensitive powers with the spirit, so that both taken together become the complete person. The spirit is not degraded by taking in the sense faculties, but actually receives thereby the complete richness of creation. And on the other hand the senses are not rendered less real when they are permeated with the spirit, because thereby they participate in the spirit’s infinitude.

    Every sensuous desire is really quite limited and ultimately incapable of intensification because an act of the senses cannot go beyond a certain limit. Those who expect release from an act of the senses will be disappointed, or “frustrated,” as we say today. By being integrated, into the spirit, the senses, receive a new depth and reach into the endlessness of the spiritual adventure.

    Only there do they recover themselves completely—on condition, of course, that the spirit too does not remain uncommunicative. In “lifting up your hearts,”—sursum corda—music of faith seeks the integration of man and finds it not within itself but only by going beyond itself into the Word made flesh. Sacred music which forms a part of this framework of movement thus becomes man’s purification, his ascent. Let us remember, though, that this music is not the product of a moment, but participation in history. It cannot be realized by an individual, but only in cooperation with others. And thus such a sacred music also expresses entrance into the history of the faith, and the mutual relationship of all members of Christ’s body. Such a sacred music bequeathes joy and a higher type of ecstasy which does not extinguish personality, but unites and thus liberates. Such a sacred music gives us a foretaste of that freedom which does not destroy, but which unites and purifies.