This is darn near a month old now, but I found this comment by our own Sam Schmitt to be quite insightful:

"The basic problem I see is lack of knowledge / training in liturgy. By this I do not mean simply a knowledge of liturgical law, as necessary as that may be. That just gives you the do's and don'ts. Even those who have read and studied the documents very often lack any sort of sensibility for the tradition of the church - the "soul" underlying the letter of the law. Liturgical law cannot supply good taste, familiarity with the Catholic tradition, and prayerfulness. I'm talking about the "ethos" of the Catholic liturgy, which cannot be learned from a book. Familiarity with a church where the liturgy is celebrated with a full Catholic spirit - often seen only in monasteries - can be of immense help here.

Take the example of the big rousing hymn to open a mass. This is certainly "allowed" in the rubics, yet is it a *good* choice? I would say no - not just for a legalistic reason (it's last on the list or whatever), but from a consideration of the nature of modern strophic hymns and the nature of the Eucharistic liturgy. The ethos of modern Catholic liturgy is in many ways different than that of a hymn - at least the way a hymns are commonly done and understood today.

I would summarize this difference under the headings "Catholic" and "Protestant" (for lack of better terms). Let me throw out some descriptions: Catholic: contemplative, reflective, indirect, symbolic, interior - the liturgy is Christ's work; Protestant: didactic, proclaimative, explicit, verbal, outgoing - the liturgy is what we do. Obviously these are neither exclusive not exhaustive - it's a matter of emphasis and what is at the "core". The liturgy is (or should be) beautiful without being pretty or precious, simple without being cheap or only adequate, moving without being sentimental, powerful without being overwhelming, symbolic without being arcane, formative without being didactic, personal without being solipsistic, public without being common, other-wordly without being narcissistic, sensual without being self-indulgent.

Now think of the big hymn opening mass as opposed to a Gregorian chant introit. Which is more congruous with a Catholic understanding of the liturgy - what it does, and more to the point, *how* it goes about doing it? I think this is the source of the disconnect we have all felt at certain masses where the music / vestments / architecture etc. just don't match what is really taking place - it does not manifest what is going on in the liturgy. Over-the-top Broadway, casual small talk, and to a lesser extant, a gigantic hymn at the opening, don't "fit." Even such things as microphones chip away at a proper ethos.

Needless to say, recently there has been an emphasis on the more "Protestant" elements I listed, presumably because people thought they were lacking in Catholic worship. The "new liturgical movement" can be seen as an attempt to recover some of these qualities (hence it is often accused of "turning back the clock.")

With so many options, there is little guidance on what is the "better" option - or what is more to the point, what is better about it, how it is in accord with a proper understanding of the ethos of the liturgy. This is why a knowledge and understanding of tradition is so important; it is the "key" that opens the door to the full beauty ad power of the liturgy. "


Original post (don't know how to hyperlink in html, sorry):

http://www.chantcafe.com/2010/10/reality-in-catholic-music-massive.html

Thanks for this, Sam!