They get it . . . we don't
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    One of the major Cable networks ran a Christmas special on Christmas Eve. It was not really told from a Christian perspective. For instance, they had on one "professor" who claimed the entire Nativity story was a fable...a legend...a tale. He explained that it was "very natural that the Gospel writer would make up all kinds of nonsense; for instance, about Jesus being almost killed by an evil king, because Moses was almost killed at the time of his birth by an evil ruler as well, and the Gospel writer wanted to identify Jesus with Moses. People who listen to fables would like these sort of things." The "professor" (and I use the term loosely) is certainly free to doubt the Nativity story if he chooses...but I'm interested in the fact that he accepts the story of the birth of Moses as historical fact!

    IN ANY EVENT, in the background during all these discussions, Gregorian chant (WELL-SUNG) was played. Christian rock was not played. Praise and worship was not played. Metrical hymns were not played. Gregorian chant was played.

    They get it . . . we don't . . . yet . . .
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    It troubles me that there is an idea that metrical hymnody is opposed to Gregorian chant. It has never been this way, since the early Fathers of the Church. Many Fathers and Doctors have written metrical hymns, and they have been chanted for centuries.

    Metrical hymnody is part of the "sound" of the Church. Optimally, of course, it sounds like Gregorian chant. The two, at best, are together.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    True, Kathy, but I'm sure what Jeff was getting at as "metrical hymnody" was more A Mighty Fortress and less Conditor Alme Siderum. That's what most people consider metrical hymnody.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Kathy, metrical hymnody had a firm place in the Catholic church until everything devotional, including little old ladies warbling Mother Dear, O Pray For Me and all liturgical events, including Forty Hours, Vespers, the Requiem Mass and more, were suppressed and replaced with the one-size-fits-all Mass. This would appear to put more emphasis on the Mass, rather it has resulted in the alienation of many Catholics who treasured liturgy other than the Mass as part of their lives.

    Like statues of the saints that were ripped from the niches they occupied in the church walls, many other things were thrown away. Want to say the Rosary? Monday night? No, just come early for Mass on Saturday afternoon. Want to attend Benediction and pray a Novena on Wednesday night? No, that's when we have out financial planning groups meeting.

    The inclusion of markedly Protestant hymns in the new Mass has caused a backlash that damns all hymns in many minds, which is wrong.
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    this has always been a pet peeve of mine ever since i saw that wonderful series on educational tv (when it really was educational) called civilization by kenneth clark. the background music was always in the period under discussion and wether it be perotin organim for the middle ages or vintage jazz when discussing art deco it added so much of the flavor of the age.
    reciently i saw another art series only this time in discussing the gothic cathedrals the background was the mozart ave verum played on a synthesizor!
    the musical ignorance of an otherwise educated america never ceases to amaze and alarm me.
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 497
    Jeff makes a very interesting point, namely that when secularists in the media use music to evoke "serious historical Christianity" feelings in their audience, they use gregorian chant-sounding music. Just as for visuals, they use men in roman collars and gothic (usually episcopal or anglican) church buildings. The point being that even the secularists know these historical markers of Christianity. Catholics largely don't know them as practical realities or actively seek to shed them. I would argue that there is a connection, or interaction, between these two phenomena.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    People tend to forget that the Dies Irae is 'metrical hymnody,' in most regards.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    Jeff, I agree with others that your overall point is well taken. But the movie Becket used the Veni Creator to evoke "serious historical Christianity" feelings. Metrical hymnody belongs on our institutional Pandora channel.
  • rob
    Posts: 148
    Or, maybe they and "we" both get it: the antiqueness of the chant is what makes it so well suited for various dramatic purposes, but also makes it vulnerable to being perceived, at best, as being irrelevant to present day expressions of a living Faith? At worst, the use of chant at Mass might bring to the minds of many only the secular contexts in which they are now most likely now to hear it (e.g. cable news network specials and the movie versions of Dan Brown thrillers).

    Just wondering.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    They get it alright... They use authentic music but weave a fabric of lies over top of it. They use the music to try to authoritize the lies and tie it to the "great deception" perpetrated by Rome. It's the same with Brown and many new age schemes using propaganda tools of indoctrination. Many Catholics were scandalized and left the faith over that movie... They accomplished a little of what they intended and music was carefully crafted to their end.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Possibly we are ready for a discussion of when hymns are required (sequence) at Mass and lists of other times when they are also appropriate taking the emphasis off getting rid of them at Mass?
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Happy, Holy Christmas Everyone!
    You know, I'd suggest that the good professor spend a half hour watching his own television the next time HBO's documentary, "Top Ten Monks," is aired. (It's about the Stift Heiligenkreutz Cistercians and their Chant CD project, et al.) He might then get a clue that serious people, over serious time have seriously deliberated that which he claims is myth, and found much more than the fruits of a fable; we've found joy, eternal joy both now and forever.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    Kathy

    The response to hymnody that is negative is only because hymnody was used as the perpetrator against the proper music of the liturgy (pun intended)
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    I can see where it is very easy for a secular (agnostic or atheist) scholar to look at the New Testament and think "St Luke knew his OT very well and simply made up stuff about Jesus to fit the prophesies." The Nativity story fits this model perfectly with the right location, lineage, and virgin birth. One wonders how the story was related. Did the Apostles simply quiz Jesus about this during some down time? Perhaps the Virgin related the story. Wouldn't it be great to actually know this? It's interesting to think about, but if one can believe that God was incarnate, died and rose from the dead, these details seem much more plausible.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I have heard more than a few scholars (Catholics among them.. usually Jesuits) who have exegeted (is that a word?) all the beautiful literary technique in Luke to show how it is full of symbolism and literary device and poetry. The conclusion is always something like, "therefore, it didn't happen that way. This shows that Luke was taking poetic license with the facts."

    Oh, really?

    I guess the Author of Life, the Architect of the Universe, the Great Artist is... what? Incapable of creating a reality rich with literary technique, poetic device, theological symbolism, and profound beauty?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    Exactly. How could the Creator be creative? How could Beauty make something beautiful?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I mean... okay- I don't take the biblical historical accounts as word for word factually accurate.
    But, c'mon.
    "This has literary and theological significance" must be the absolute worst reason for dismissing something as non-factual.
    "How could he have known?" is the second worst reason. (What? You don't believe in divine inspiration either? Why exactly are you a priest...?)
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Adam, well they are right. Luke's style is perfectly congruent with the creative writing style of his day. It shouldn't, however, surprise anyone that what he relates, true as it is, comes off in that style. One has to wonder if Mary really spoke the Magnificat exactly as Luke records it. Was her Greek so good that she could compose such an elegant statement on her journey? Fundamentalists have no problem confirming that every word of the Bible is exact and every event happened as it is recorded. I don't really have any intellectual or spiritual trouble thinking that the Gospels reveal facts, but the writing serves an evangelical need.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I'm not suggesting that there is NO creative or literary license taken. I suspect the Magnificat did not occur EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. Perhaps she spontaneously sang a bit of Hannah's canticle, and Luke infused it with his own (Spirit-inspired) theology. Perhaps she exclaimed the opening line (in her own language) and Luke filled in the rest. Perhaps it's a hymn she composed later in life, and she shared it with Luke (is it impossible they knew each other). Perhaps it was a hymn popular among Jesus' disciples, and Luke knew that it was one of Mary's favorites. Perhaps a lot of things.
    Or perhaps she really did spontaneously compose the entire thing as recorded in the Gospel. I don't know.

    But I reject the notion that, because it's of literary or theological significance, we should dismiss as non-factual the essential elements of the story: the virginal conception, the trip to Bethlehem, the relationship to the Baptist, the presence of angels and shepherds, the arrival of the Magi, the massacre of the Innocents, the flight into Egypt. Maybe it's anti-intellectual- but I refuse to believe that my religion is founded on a myth.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    One has to wonder if Mary really spoke the Magnificat exactly as Luke records it. Was her Greek so good that she could compose such an elegant statement on her journey?

    Mozart, who unlike Mary was burdened with Original Sin (and likely a few others), wrote his music without ANY corrections.

    The more we learn about Michaelangelo's work, the more he knows.

    And JSBach did not write his music for musicology scholars. He wrote it for a parish full of regular people....
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    It is not true that Mozart wrote music without any corrections.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 679
    Mary had at least three days of walking to do. You can do a lot of pondering in your heart and compose a lot of songs, given that much walking time.

    More to the point, if you gave the Lord a thank offering for some wonderful thing He did for you, you _had_ to compose and sing a new song. It was a rule.

    Now, if you want to wonder whether Mary composed in Greek, or rather, in Aramaic (or even Hebrew), and if you want to say "Yeah, Luke or somebody else probably translated Mary's song", that's different.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,229
    There are apparently reasons to think the Magnificat may have been composed in Hebrew.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 679
    Awesome! One for Mary!

    Actually, though, I should have pointed out above that it's not strange or unusual to compose poetry on the spur of the moment, if you live in an oral culture. If you hang around songwriters and musicians for long enough, people will usually come up with a verse or two, and that's without formal training. In a reasonably educated oral culture, good impromptu verse will be composed and remembered by people like poets, or groups of women used to making up songs to fill work hours.

    Irish poets (who in medieval times still composed orally at the spur of the moment, as a ritual act of Christian prophecy) were not above pointing out, in their Marian petitions, that Mary was one of them.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    “Poetry and Hums aren't things which you get, they're things which get you. And all you can do is go where they can find you.”
    -Winnie the Pooh
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Well, we have a whole forum of scholastics here! Not such a bad thing, really. I'm fascinated by them. Please don't get me wrong. I don't need for the Magnificat to be Mary's creation. If Luke, the stunning writer that he was, took some poetic license for propagating the faith, that's fine with me. @dad29, I'm not sure how that freedom from original sin makes someone more creative. Doug is correct that Mozart corrected his work as much as anyone else. He was quite capable of ripping things off quickly (he was working in an established style and had quite a lot of experience) but his miraculous ability is a myth.

    This all begs the question "if Mary were that literary, why is there no Gospel of Mary?"

    Again, it doesn't matter to me how many artistic layers have been applied to scripture. I'm not a fundamentalist.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    Here is why very little was recorded by or about Mary:

    +++++++


    4. Mary's part in the latter times

    49. The salvation of the world began through Mary and through her it must be accomplished. Mary scarcely appeared in the first coming of Jesus Christ so that men, as yet insufficiently instructed and enlightened concerning the person of her Son, might not wander from the truth by becoming too strongly attached to her. This would apparently have happened if she had been known, on account of the wondrous charms with which Almighty God had endowed even her outward appearance. So true is this that St. Denis the Areopagite tells us in his writings that when he saw her he would have taken her for a goddess, because of her incomparable beauty, had not his well-grounded faith taught him otherwise. But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary must be known and openly revealed by the Holy Spirit so that Jesus may be known, loved and served through her. The reasons which moved the Holy Spirit to hide his spouse during her life and to reveal but very little of her since the first preaching of the gospel exist no longer.

    1) God wishes to make Mary better known in the latter times.

    50. God wishes therefore to reveal Mary, his masterpiece, and make her more known in these latter times:

    (1) Because she kept herself hidden in this world and in her great humility considered herself lower than dust, having obtained from God, his apostles and evangelists the favour of being made known.

    (2) Because, as Mary is not only God's masterpiece of glory in heaven, but also his masterpiece of grace on earth, he wishes to be glorified and praised because of her by those living upon earth.

    (3) Since she is the dawn which precedes and discloses the Sun of Justice Jesus Christ, she must be known and acknowledged so that Jesus may be known and acknowledged.

    (4) As she was the way by which Jesus first came to us, she will again be the way by which he will come to us the second time though not in the same manner.

    (5) Since she is the sure means, the direct and immaculate way to Jesus and the perfect guide to him, it is through her that souls who are to shine forth in sanctity must find him. He who finds Mary finds life, that is, Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life. But no one can find Mary who does not look for her. No one can look for her who does not know her, for no one seeks or desires something unknown. Mary then must be better known than ever for the deeper understanding and the greater glory of the Blessed Trinity.

    (6) In these latter times Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, power and grace; in mercy, to bring back and welcome lovingly the poor sinners and wanderers who are to be converted and return to the Catholic Church; in power, to combat the enemies of God who will rise up menacingly to seduce and crush by promises and threats all those who oppose them; finally, she must shine forth in grace to inspire and support the valiant soldiers and loyal servants of Jesus Christ who are fighting for his cause.

    (7) Lastly, Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.

    St. Louis de Montfort, 'True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary'



    Very frankly, don't be fooled by her humble state. She is extremely powerful and well endowed with many, many graces and gifts... and Jesus has made her the dispenser of those gifts and graces more than we all understand... indeed she IS the ONLY perfect human being, and the Great Mother of us all.
  • musings
    Posts: 23
    Very interesting turn from the inception of this topic. This is part of what is interesting about being a musician in the Church is that the music permeates every understanding of the Faith on many levels. Biblical scholarship is moving along at a great clip and there are some who have taken to task the approaches that say that Luke manufactured the infancy narratives to mirror and support Jesus as the New Moses. A most interesting although not an easy read, is the NT Wright Book Jesus and the Victory of God. He has a book that precedes this volume (about 700 pages with copious notes) and one that follows. He is a meticulous scholar, although not Catholic, but presents the Bible as being more factual than was thought in the scholarship of the 1960s -1980s. He takes other scholarship to task in light of newer evidence and this supports the Bible as being more accurate than fiction. So, in your spare time, or if you don't want to listen to the same homily for the fourth time that day, tote along a copy of Wright's book.

    How rich we are to be Catholics!!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I really get a lot out of the literary analysis approach to, for example, the infancy narrative of Luke. I just have to do some mental translation in my head:
    "Luke wrote it this way to show how Jesus is the King."
    ---->
    "God had it happen this way to reveal that Jesus is the King."
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    I'm not sure how that freedom from original sin makes someone more creative

    It doesn't necessarily make her 'more creative,' but it certainly enhances whatever creativity she had.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    Sin inhibits the full expression of who we are, of what God intended for us. Sin detracts and distracts us from achieving the fullness of Gods will for us. Sin takes our gifts and turns them in the wrong direction. It neutralizes our effectiveness for the Kingdom of God.

    Because Mary was perfect, she fulfilled the entire will of God for her life down to the smallest detail. Nothing was left unfinished, nothing was done half-heartedly, and nothing was incomplete.

    If each of us avoided sIn in our own lives, this world would much more reflect the Kingdom of God. To learn more about it, consider reading the book I mentioned above.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 679
    She worked behind the scenes helping the Church get moving and stay together, and helping John do his thing, and she probably was the ultimate church lady when it came to finding people to do all the various things that needed doing. But she probably got a lot more enjoyment out of, say, talking to Luke and seeing what he'd manage to do with her old stories, than she would have gotten from writing them down herself. (Or having them written down by a Roman scribe or court reporter or professional emanuensis; there were tons able to do the job and probably quite a few church members among them.)

    Some people express their gifts most by getting other people to express their own gifts. It's a mom thing or a teacher thing, often.

    I'm sure a lot of you music directors do this. :)
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    OK I'm being the D****'s advocate here for the sake of discussion. I'm actually writing a paper for a conference on musical exegesis of the reformed Mariology of the immediate post-Trent reforms, so this interests me very much. Here goes. I've always been a bit unsettled about Mary's perfection as commentators such as St. Louis propagate. As the model Christian and representative of the Church (especially in CC) wouldn't we want her to be fully human, thus making her acceptance of her role that much more admirable? I don't know. Maybe that's a bit too Lutheran... Anyway, I'm going to go my merry way being happy that the Biblical accounts present truth, but are not exacting histories. BTW I do have a special place in my heart for the Virgin. She protected and inspired me during my dissertation years (my diss was on Marian polyphony) and I thank her for that.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Oh yes, I'll just have to disagree that sin inhibits creativity. How can one prove that Wagner would have been a better composer had he not sinned in so many ways? The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever, and only one of them had much interest in things beyond this world.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    I don't think that this:
    Sin inhibits the full expression of who we are, of what God intended for us. Sin detracts and distracts us from achieving the fullness of Gods will for us. Sin takes our gifts and turns them in the wrong direction. It neutralizes our effectiveness for the Kingdom of God.


    means the same as this:
    ... sin inhibits creativity.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    But it was proposed in answer to my question, I believe.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872

    Oh yes, I'll just have to disagree that sin inhibits creativity. How can one prove that Wagner would have been a better composer had he not sinned in so many ways?


    It has nothing to do with his talent and skill in composing but everything about the way it was directed.

    The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever, and only one of them had much interest in things beyond this world.


    Imagine there's no heaven. Our generation lived out the fruit of their music and their ethos. Creative? Yes. God driven? You tell me. Satan and his cohort are also a very creative lot.

    So let's be more specific... God driven, worldly driven, fleshly driven, or just plain driven by evil himself. Creativity is never a neutral... It serves one of these aspects or a blend of any of them. (well, maybe not the satanic and Angelic (Mary's) realm simultaneously) Never the two shall agree.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    BTW... I think YES was far more talented and creative than the Beatles... hands down. Just not as popular. But as we well know, popularity has nothing to do with quality.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    You are right, Jeffrey. Creativity is not a power unto it's own end. It always expresses through a medium, and is conceived through the intellect joined to a spirituality and a human soul.

    So if we speak about being more creative or less creative, sin has no bearings on the amount that one person can express. However, the way it is channeled or directed is more what I am referring to. I would also say that aligning ourseves with either the kingdom of darkness or Light can produce an epiphany on either side. We see this manifestation on rock stages often, and for the most part are not putting forth creations of the Light.

    A lot of the "Christian" music that we find in our churches IMHO are heavily manifestations of the flesh.

    Most of what is on TV is a blend of the last three.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    wouldn't we want her to be fully human,

    There's no contradiction at all. Remember that sin is a defect, or a 'subtraction' from perfection; thus, Mary, sinless, IS fully human--more than any others (save Adam and Eve before the Fall.) You can get a better read on that in Thomas Aquinas.

    Sin darkens the mind--thus Mary's mind was not 'darkened,' but as perfect as the human mind can be.

    To the examples of Wagner, (and every OTHER great composer), it is true that they were great, talented, musicians. But they could have been even MORE so except for original sin (and actual sin).
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    OK, thanks for the discussion everyone. This prompts me to go back and read some more Aquinas. It's been a while. I'm not completely following the implied line of reasoning that since Mary was a perfect human that she was also creatively gifted, especially since we admit that there are very creative humans darkened by sin.

    @Francis, I love Yes, but check their bio. They were heavily influenced by the Fab Four. It's not a great comparison, though. Two completely different approaches and goals, really.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,872
    Yea, all those Brits played off of each other. I just enjoy the virtuosic aspects of Yes... Although their spirituality (especially Jon) is very new age. Their concerts also draw a very weird bunch, but Heh! I was there numerous times... I just never drank the kool aid.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    I saw them last in 1984. Amazing stuff. Chris Squire inspired me to learn the bass guitar. Also Paul McCartney, Jon Entwistle, and Geddy Lee.
Add a Comment