GC not European, but Universal
-
Can't remember who I was talking to about this but here it is:
"Greogorian chant intends to make heard the voice of Christ in such ways as to capture souls seeking redemption. It may well take some effort to get Eskimos, Tahitians, or New Yorkers to articulate Latin correctly. But would not the effort induce greater appreciation for the sanctioned and recommended art expression of the worship of our Holy Mother, the Church? The liturgy is not some European embarrassment forced onto other, suffering cultures. It is a universal expression of religion and of higher value than any particular human culture in its excercise."
Frater Gabriel Law, C.R.N.J., Sacred Music, Summer 2010, Vol. 137, Number 2, pg.12 -
.
-
In what sense, Doug?
-
You notice, though, that people of a certain culture rarely complain about Latin or chant. It's usually someone designating themselves to speak for them.
-
The liturgy is not some European embarrassment forced onto other, suffering cultures. It is a universal expression of religion
I don't think these are the only two options. -
Now that I read it again, Ian, I realize that I initially thought he was saying Gregorian chant is universal (because the quote opens with a statement about chant). The non sequitur about liturgy caught me off guard, I guess, and I would recant what I said earlier.
Nevertheless, I agree with Adam that the statement about liturgy presents a false dichotomy. -
I don't see the false dichotomy.
Had it said this:
The liturgy is not some European embarrassment forced onto other, suffering cultures. It is the universal expression of religion
then, I'd see one.
Am I missing something? The odds are definitely non-zero. -
Yes, aquinasadmirer, that change would make it much more offensive.
My only point was that I can think of a few more characterizations of the liturgy that aren't "European embarrassment" and "universal expression of religion." The pairing seems meaningless, but maybe I just need more context. -
DS-
I'm with you.
I think the defenders of traditional liturgy who respond to the attacks of Euro-centrism by pretending that the Liturgy is not a product of a particular culture are either being disingenuous, or seriously fooling themselves.
There are more solid ways of defending tradition than having a myopic view of world culture and talking in ways that liberals and progressives (aka the people who need to be won over) immediately react against as racist. -
In some ways chant is much more universal than it is European. A "said" Mass is certainly more European/ Irish/ American than it is African or Far Eastern. When people in many cultures pray, they chant.
-
Yes.
Chant as an idea is universal.
Gregorian chant specifically is particular.
Particular to the the Roman Rite, which we celebrate.
(See how easy that is).
In any case- as I said to JT in Houston:
Concepts of universal culture and inculturation are interesting and important in some cases, but they really don't have any bearing on the biggest offenders in the realm of "culturally adapted liturgy," namely: upper-class white suburban parish who like to add pseudo-exotic elements (drums, dancing) to Masses and rail against the Eurocentrism of the Roman Rite.
"Yeah, well- you're European. Get over it. We're not trampling over your native culture. This IS your native culture." -
I agree, Adam. Traditionalists tend to ignore the legitimate, sanctioned efforts to inculturate the liturgy, or else lump them in with false attempts and then decry the whole endeavor.
-
I have a problem with Gr chant being called European. Consider that the idea of Europe as one culture is fairly recent and not welcomed by many folks actually living there. Consider that the vast bulk of Gr chant rep predates any sort of a unified Europe, though it is fair that Charlemagne was trying to unify a particular area.
Having been in music school so long (and now missing it), a pet peeve of mine was how the many faces of the region of Europe are lumped into one. How does this respect those peoples? Do we really think Germans identify with the culture of the Iberian peninsula, or the Irish Celts see themselves as blended with Sicilians? But we continue to apply these terms...
Yes, Gr chant came from several cultures over several centuries, mostly within a larger region. But that does not make it 'European' in the sense we use the term today, especially when one considers the influence of Jewish worship and other Eastern Christians.
And I agree with Mike O'Connor that the outcry against Gr chant usually seems to come from self-appointed spokespeople for various cultures than from the people themselves.
In the schola I direct, Ive sang Gr chant with people from Kenya,
Iraq, Lebanon, Korea, China, the Phillippines, etc. They love Gr chant and see it as their own, which as Catholics it certainly is. Gr chant is not the expression of one culture. It is much more so an expression of One Faith. -
hmmm... i would wager that the labeling of GC as European stems from a revisionist mentality that does not want to see the Roman Catholic Church as The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Would it be fair to say that if you don't subscribe to its dogma then you would most likely not admit to its universal and timeless liturgy including its native musical forms?
-
Mary Ann,what you say in the first paragraph reinforces, not rejects, the idea that Gregorian chant is the product of historical forces embedded within particular cultures. Whether it is from "one" European culture or not is a superfluous issue. Sure, there are those that conceive of "Europe" as a single culture, but that is pure ignorance or chauvinism.
What Gregorian chant "expresses" is a different question from how it was produced, and I think these questions are being conflated. Consider Beethoven's symphonies. These were undeniably the products of Austro-German culture (and as an aside, who would question that these works are "European," as opposed to, say, "African?"). In the period shortly after Beethoven's death (i.e., 1830s-50s), these works were co-opted by many Germans as symbols of democracy and national unification, two goals that led, more or less, to the failed 1848-49 revolutions. At that point, were the works German as opposed to Austrian? Did they actually express democracy and national unification, or was that the meaning imputed by their listeners? At around this same time, German musicians were attracted to the United States because of its democratic ideals and relative openness to German immigrants. These musicians quickly assumed leadership roles in the New York Philharmonic, founded in 1842 (but then called the New-York Philharmonic Society...how's that for accuracy in reporting a founding date?). As the New York Philharmonic and other similar organizations in Boston and elsewhere performed Beethoven's symphonies, American listeners also heard the sounds of democracy in the music. One critic, John Sullivan Dwight, even called the music "music of this age," understood more easily by contemporary Americans than Beethoven's original Austrian audiences, who were weighed down by oppressive government. Does that make the music American? German? Or Austro-German? Does the music verifiably express democracy at that point, or was that meaning imputed by its listeners?
Without going into the rest of the reception history of Beethoven's symphonies in America, let me fast forward to the present. As a musicologist and university instructor who specializes in symphonic music, I frequently give pre-concert lectures for professional orchestras. At one of these lectures, for a concert of Sibelius's music, I asked the question, "Does music have a national identity?" Is Sibelius's music Finnish? Is Rachmaninov's music Russian? Most people thought, "Of course it is! You can hear in the music!" That is a debatable point, of course, because I could write music that "sounds" Finnish or Russian; a Tahitian could write music that sounds like Gregorian chant. Back to the story, then I ask is Beethoven's music German? You wouldn't imagine how vehemently the audience insisted that Beethoven's music is universal, and capable of bringing peace and social harmony to the world!! Does that make it true? Does that make his music "not German" and "universal" instead?
Bringing the issue back to chant, we have to be careful about two things: first, confusing the content or "meaning" of music with the historically contingent circumstances of its production and continued use. No one would argue that Gregorian chant is an "American" product, but it certainly has had and does have currency in certain American Catholic liturgical arenas. Those are both historically verifiable facts.
The second thing we must be careful about is making claims about what music "expresses." Can music intrinsically "express" a national or any kind of cultural identity? That is a difficult question to answer. Theodor Adorno and others have argued that music's structures are embedded within and reflective of the cultures that produced them. We don't have to accept that, but as informed thinkers we should at least consider it. If this is true, then Gregorian chant is "European," or "pan-Western-European+Eastern Christian+Jewish"--whatever we want to call the cultural conglomerate that produced chant--and expresses certain cultural values. Why is the music monophonic, for example? I teach my students that it is because chanters wanted to sing with "one voice" to God, representing a single faith. That cultural value simply would not have produced heterophonic music. The flip side of the question is what listeners impute onto the music; that is, meaning is constructed by listeners, as opposed to something "in" the music itself. If this is true, and history frequently bears this out as we saw in the Beethoven example, then we have to be skeptical of "universal" claims about musical meaning. Meaning can only ascribed by individuals living within culture, correct? Who am I to say what it means for someone else? Gregorian chant, as part of the larger liturgy, has a defined and shared meaning that can be transmitted over time, but here we are speaking of its identity as liturgy, not as music per se.
Lastly, perhaps music can "express" a faith, but the objects of that faith are universal, not the music. If non-Catholics use Gregorian chant to meditate, is it really "Catholic" at that point? Context--that is, culture--always matters. -
I would also say that since traveling the globe has become easy and since global communications came to be in the last 100 years that cultures are less geographically defined and most can be found to exist in all other parts of the world. I would also then say that the RC culture is not attached or dependant upon a geography, a nationality or a local custom.
Because chant is the primal expression of most if not all spiritualities, chant is then the perfection of the spiritual rite. You can then very easily say that all spirtitual rites utilize a basic musical form. All of these forms develop or originate as a seed in a particular locale, but then are carried like seeds on the wind, their identity and expession go with them. They all take root in other locales, and that is how all spiritualities become universal.
The thing about GC is that it is the one spiritual form of music which was given to us through the lineage of Christ. THE (His, RC) Church made it her own and that is why it (including its Latin language) are the epitome of Christian rite musical form - globaly. All other forms of spirituality either do not find their roots in Christ, or they originally were Catholic and decided to break from the Church and create a separate theology and a musical form and/or expression that reflects and more importantly differentiates itself from the mother musical form and spirituality. It becomes a bastard of the mother so to speak.
This is why hymnody is such a controversy on this forum. This is because most hymnody is a bastardization of the pure musical form (GC). It has the familial traits of the faith because it was derived from the mother. However, it was birthed as a bastard because it eminates from a spiritual culture that deliberately threw off the patrimony, the Father, which is only found in Roman Catholicism. -
Even the OFFICIAL "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" includes Rites outside the Roman one, languages outside of Latin, and Chant genres outside Gregorian.
The UNIVERSAL aspect of our faith is salvation through a God who comes to dwell with us, feeds us with his body, dies and rises again and in so doing brings us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge, from debt to freedom, from death to life. These are universal themes that show up in culture after culture (in inspired, but very incomplete, forms) and which ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the life and work of a particular person who lived in a particular culture at a particular time, and whose teachings legitimately spread into dozens of related but disparate cultures which developed different Rites and different musics. It is not the music or the particulars of the Rites which are Universal, but the faith that they express, and the elements they hold in common (an altar, bread, wine, a priest, etc.).
NONE OF THOSE FACTS, however, dismiss the proper place of Gregorian Chant or European Polyphony for those of us whose spiritual heritage is, in fact, the ROMAN RITE. -
"I would also then say that the RC culture is not attached or dependant upon a geography, a nationality or a local custom." Except that all believers are part of cultures. The relationship of faith, Church, and culture is much too complex for an internet forum, IMO.
-
The internet forum is capable, but fear of a logical conclusion after discourse can be intimidating.
-
I would prefer to read Aquinas or some other authority.
-
Major differences arise between Beethoven (and Sibelius, for that matter) and Gr chant.
B is one composer from one time period and one/two specific regions. Gr chant, on the other hand, is comprised of several genres, written by who knows how many composers, over several centuries (10+ incl hymns and sequences) and several geographically and politically distinct regions.
Hence, I would not consider the claims of regional (let alone national) identity or universality through the lens of great familiarity with B.
Additionally, the idea of expression is very different in B and Gr chant. The great majority of B's works (being subject to everything he had *published* in seminar) are instrumental, and much more free to conjure up ideas of
expression in the listener.
Gr chant, by contrast, was composed as sacred and religious text illuminated by a single vocal line. The expression of faith is made clear by its very structure and intent. Text is a crucial determiner in what music
seeks to express, I would say more so than the context of culture, especially as Gr chant, again, encompasses much more than one culture and one time period.
As far as the modes/scales/recurring melodic patterns, we can be fairly certain they don't come from peoples living in Asia or South America at the time. But, at this point in scholarship, we can't really limit these to purely one (large) region, so terming Gr chant Eurocentric or even European doesn't seem to fit either. (I'm not saying you claimed that, Doug, just trying to bring it back to the topic.) -
But Doug... I thought you didn't care for Aquinas?! What would the other authorities be?
-
Adam:
Those other Rites outside the Roman one, are patristic... they are true children of the Church, including their rite and music form and language, although perhaps smaller in stature or less known. They do eat the body and blood of Christ. All other 'christian' denominations do not. The Anglican spirituality is riddled with unknowns when it comes to partaking the Eucharist. -
Doug: All believers are part of a SPIRITUAL culture when we speak of the music. Geography or nationality really have no bearing any more. I am German, Czech, American, Slav, and who the heck knows what else, but I am Roman Catholic in my spiritual culture, totally, unwaveringingly 100%.
-
they are true children of the Church, including their rite and music form and language, although perhaps smaller in stature or less known.
Yeah- that's my point. -
Good point. Their chant is just as beautiful and authentic as the GC.
-
Mary Ann, I appreciate and agree with your last post, especially the last part.
Just bouncing off a couple other points here:
1) I would caution against assuming a text determines what the music expresses. Any music can set any text, after all. Does polyphony, for example, diminish the meaning of texts originally set to chant? Text and music are two separate animals, even when, as most claim, they grew up together.
2) Aside from that, I think we agree that Gregorian chant is the product of human hands, and for me at least, where it came from specifically is not the main issue. What concerns me is that someone might make the logical leap from "Gregorian chant was produced across times, places, and cultures" to "Gregorian chant was therefore universal" (or "Gregorian chant therefore transcends all culture").
In a much earlier thread I went on a rant about the word "ideal." I have similar feelings about the word "universal." How can something created by humans be universal? I think of God, truth, beauty, and goodness as "universals." Giving chant such absolute or superlative labels just leads to alienation, in my opinion, and often doesn't pass logical muster to boot. We can value chant, and argue for its pride of place in the liturgy, without giving it these labels. For authors like the one quoted in the original post, they seem like a rhetorical crutch (but again, I didn't see the context). -
Francis, I believe in the whole person. No matter how hard I try, my spirit cannot be removed from my body or from the circumstances in which my body finds itself. John Paul II wrote a lot about this--and I mean a lot.
-
Doug
I belive in the whole person too. I am one. But the truth is the Roman Catholic faith has grown up and matured into adulthood, and it is what it is. It is the presence of Christ Himself in personae Christi. Speaking of the spirituality of the whole person, you cannot separate the language from the rite or the music. It is one whole entity. The bastardization or grafting of other forms onto the true root of the tree is what I am addressing here. That is always where confusion, personal preference and tastes begin to cloud the picture, whether it be a pope, prelate or PIP. -
"You cannot separate the language from the rite or the music."
The Church allows separating music from the text. It isn't a dogmatic part of the faith. -
When exactly did that maturation occur? At what point in time was the liturgy and the music of the Church "fixed"?
One of the councils?
Sometime before the birth of Palestrina?
37 minutes after Solesmes finally figured out what Gregorian chant was supposed to sound like?
Just before the inauguration of John XXIII?
francis: We all admire your devotion Gregorian chant. But you can love it and defend it and champion it (and liturgical orthopraxis, and the primacy of the Roman Rite, and all the other things you believe in) without thinking and sounding like a horsey-blinded fundamentalist or a person whose never taken a sociology class. -
Doug:
I was using your analogy of the whole person... I was not being literal. I compose new sacred music myself, but not with the intent to displace the honorable and noble position of the chant or polyphonic works of days past. -
Adam:
I am simply giving my opinion as you give yours. Why do you find my opinions offensive? Because I see it as the whole truth?
We are all constantly maturing. It doesn't stop. We all constantly sin and grow in holiness. We keep moving forward, keeping what is good, and shedding the bad. The Church does the same thing. There is no 'point in time' when music was fixed.
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." 1 Cor. 13:12
It is not the rite that is primal, it is The Faith. You may call me a fundamentalist if you would like... I guess I am fundamentally Catholic, no bones about it. As for sociology class, you know that as well as I that you don't survive as a DoM without being an expert in sociology in the American Catholic Church... I just don't have the piece of paper to prove it. -
Doug said:How can something created by humans be universal? I think of God, truth, beauty, and goodness as "universals." Giving chant such absolute or superlative labels just leads to alienation, in my opinion, and often doesn't pass logical muster to boot. We can value chant, and argue for its pride of place in the liturgy, without giving it these labels. For authors like the one quoted in the original post, they seem like a rhetorical crutch (but again, I didn't see the context).
Doug:
It's universal because Christ's church is not just human. The Church is the manifestation of the Bride of Christ, whom He takes to himself without wrinkle or blemish. He anoints it with supernatural authority and power and grace. It's works (made by humans) become Universal the more the earth acquires, learns and practices her truths, sacraments, devotions, etc.
To follow on your analogy, Beethoven wrote universal music. It connects, it transcends, it acquires belief in the very thing it promotes... beautiful music... regardless of race, creed, geography or nationality. (as you know, I don't care for Beethoven, however... his music does nothing for me... you can have him. Bach, on the other hand, is a wonder of wonders.)
It is no different than GC, except that GC becomes a more elevated art because the Church chooses to 'marry the music to the liturgical text'. It is in a sense, consummated to be such. That is why the Church also upholds sacred music on a level that no other art can attain. It is made so by its consummation to the rite.
And my apology, but the digital version of this article is not available yet from CMAA, however, so you truly should read the rest of the article. I highly recommend you subscribe! -
This, by the way, was the first part of this article I put up here on the forum a while back:
more of the same -
Here's a test question for your universal theory:
Can you name a composer (or even a single piece of music) outside the Western musical tradition that you consider as universal as Bach or Beethoven?
Gregorian chant, being a part of the Western musical tradition (and moreover, not being art music), does not count. -
What does Western mean for you when it comes to composers?
If you look up the music of many famous composers, they become famous because their music 'hits' a universal chord in people, so to speak.
Here are a few that seem universal to me:
britten
bruckner
chopin
copland
debussy
elgar
handel
haydn
holst
liszt
mozart
pachelbel
rachmaninoff
stravinsky
tchaikovsky
wagner
Not sure which are Western, but what does Western have to do with your question? -
"However, it was birthed as a bastard because it eminates from a spiritual culture that deliberately threw off the patrimony, the Father, which is only found in Roman Catholicism."
Hmm.. which hymnody are you talking about. Office hymnody rose from the original Ambrosian examples that were created to ward off heresy, hardly "throwing off" the patrimony, I think. -
Michael... the key word in my statement is 'most'. Not Gregorian Hymnody of course, but hymnody that was conceived apart from the RC faith. BIG DIF! We all LOVE Gregorian hymns... they are the MEAT in meat and potatoes...
-
By the way... watch out for my horsey... it stops for no dog, cat ...or rat!
I lived and worked in the midst and for the sake of ecumenism for 17 years, and during that time, lost my sense of faith and direction all for it's false claims for being "brotherly, sensitive and accepting of other faiths and denominations..." then i fell off my horsey, just like Paul... except it wasn't a fall. GOD knocked me off! (actually it was the Virgin Mary, and she is much more gentle about it... but it might as well have been God... he sent her to the task)
Ecumenism is just the latest and greatest heresey in my book. -
And now, Adam, here's my question to you? Which ones were spiritually rooted to the Catholic Faith?
britten
bruckner
chopin
copland
debussy
elgar
handel
haydn
holst
liszt
mozart
pachelbel
rachmaninoff
stravinsky
tchaikovsky
wagner -
stravinksy and wagner were ravaged by the demonic realm.
when stravinsky composed and premiered the rite of spring, i think it was 1909, he escaped through the studio window of the concert hall as the audience went birzirk and threw anything that was mobile. He proclaimed, "i did not compose Le sacre du printemps; i was simply the medium through which it passed"
Was he any less gifted? No, doesn't change the God given talent... I think he was the greatest composer of our time... but then again, so did satan. -
I agree with Law's concept of GC's universality because in the article he he expands
the idea that chant facilitates inculturation. Chant will carry the vernacular into a tone of voice that many cultures will easily recognize as sacred, holy and catholic, And that chant is efficacious in the formation of a pius soul. So many hymns and popular refrains have wonderful texts yet I have always found them lacking the correct tone of voice for the Mass. The melody or the form of the piece can do violence to texts where we supposed to recognize our Shepherd's voice; For example: The Agnus Dei set to a polka, Psalm 23 set to a tango - "Shepherd me O God," or even our best traditional hymns can impose too much of their their own character and do not humbly serve at the sacrifice of the Mass.
In the prior comments there are two things that seem to left sort of unraveled:
"How can something created by humans be universal?" I hope that this question does not indicate a doubt that body, soul mind and will are not united. We all do it! even when we sin. Incarnation!
Also I think Aquinasadmirer distinguished "the universal" from "a universal." I don't think this is valid. -
This just reinforces my point- those are excellent composers all. But you KNOW (or you should know) that they are all part of the Western musical tradition. (Western as in European- semantics aside, this is an identifiable culture or group of cultures). If you don't grasp this basic point, which should have been covered first semester of music school, then you seem highly unqualified to talk about universalism in music.
You are taking Western art music as the standard, perhaps the only, legitimate expression of music. It's no wonder, then, that you think it's great forerunner, Gregorian Chant, is the most universal. But cultural myopia doesn't substitute well for understanding.
Look- I'm sympathetic to what you're getting at. The overthrowing of Western culture over the last century across all realms, from philosophy to religion to music, is highly distressing. The anti-European self hatred of good liberal intellectuals who champion every cultural expression except the ones that made them who they are have taken the simple facts of cultural diversity and historical abuses of power and turned them into a full-fledged Gospel of relativism where nothing can be judged or deemed unworthy. These are the people you (and other traditionalists) feeling clawing at your brain when I point out Eurocentrism, because they are the people who decided that a Eurocentric viewpoint was a grave sin.
But I'm saying that those of us whose spiritual heritage is the Western tradition of liturgy, music, and philosophy need not defend ourselves by pretending that it isn't specifically and particularly Western and European. You don't have to place a value judgement on how Gregorian Chant is better than (for example) Syrian Chant. You just have to lay claim to it and say, "Gregorian Chant is mine." God has given the Roman Rite to some and other Rites to others, even the official Roman Church says so, and each one is of equal worth and dignity. Even the variations that grew up outside the care of the Bishop of Rome are possibly legitimate, as two popes have shown with the acceptance of Anglican traditions into the fold. Benedict has been particularly adamant about this, and his Summorum Pontificam can be understood to mean that there is and should be great diversity within the rites celebrated by the Church.
Some who are misguided point to that diversity and exclaim that there is nothing fundamental. Others, driven by historical guilt, seek out every exoticism except their own. And in response, it is common for the traditionalists, the protectors of the faith of their ancestors, to dismiss the diversity as non existent, or to claim their own tradition as the source and summit of all other forms.
Let us not fall into that trap, it is as self-centered and ignorant as the liberal heresies. Let us not claim that one Rite or one language is the universal standard, but instead say, "This one is my standard, and the standard of my people. This is the language and the music and the ritual that has made us who we are. This is what God has given to us, and it is what we have available to share with others." Let us teach it to our children- not because it is the only thing that any child should learn- but because it is what OUR children should learn. When we evangelize, let us bring people into this tradition, because certainly God led that person to us, while another is led to be taught by those of another language or Rite. Let us teach our own family, many of whom have forgotten, about the heritage that rightfully belongs to them- not because that heritage must belong to everybody- but because surely it belongs to those who celebrate the Roman Rite. -
Adam:
There may be other composers that have a universal appeal that aren't in my list of (western) composers, but which ones are you speaking about? Please give names.
I didn't say GC is better than Syrian Chant, or Coptic Chant or any other. What I am saying is that Roman Catholicism has within its treasure the universal expression of music in the Catholic Rite (joined to the Roman Catholic Faith), which is GC. Universal, meaning that RC's throughout the world can and do utilize the same music, the same language, and it is truly universal in that regard.
Other than that, what is the diversity in the rite that B16 cites as you understand it? Can you also point me to particular citations you are speaking about? And what is the particular 'diversity' that traditionalists are dismissing in your opinion? Please be as specific as you can with examples. What you are saying, or building your case on doesn't have facts, just concepts.
I already agreed that other rites are authentic AND their musical form of chant. If you are speaking about 'rites' outside of Catholicism, then again, please be specific. -
Adam:
I read the entire document of the Pope which you mention,
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm
and it has nothing to do with diversity of rites. It has to do with two rites, the NO and the EF. It has nothing to do with music except that the EF would naturally require the GC. So what Benedict is adamant about escapes me. Please show citations and explain. -
@Adam, very well-said!
-
When I became a Catholic, I converted because I believed the Catholic Church holds the Truth, nothing to do with my cultural background as an oriental. I sing Gregorian chant, because it's the Church's own music that she proclaims as the most suitable music for the Latin rite. I learned, and try to learn prayers of the Liturgy in Latin, which is far different from Korean than from English, because it is the universal language for Roman Catholics, especially for the Church's universal Liturgy. I’m not a sociologist or theologian, but my faith as a Roman catholic, cannot separate the spiritual aspects of the Liturgy and Gregorian chant, and their universality. When I realize that I’m a part of universal church through the Liturgy and Gregorian chant, my ethnic and the cultural background become more meaningful in my life. I have a schola member who is a Korean. We share about our faith and the place of Gregorian chant in the liturgy of Roman Catholic Church. If she ever go back to Korea, she wants to teach Gregorian chant to Korean Catholics. The church is growing there, and the faithful are more than ready to embrace the tradition and the culture of the Roman Catholic Church and the liturgy that is given from God though His Church, including Gregorian chant as the integral part of the liturgy.
-
I probably have my Papal docs mixed up, I thought what I was getting at was covered in SP. Someone else will have to fill in the blanks here, but I understand that B16 has also encouraged a more liberal use of the Rites specific to various ancient locations and orders- Ambrosian and Dominican, for example. And his welcoming in of Anglican tradition is well known.
SkirpR- Thank you so much.
What I'm trying to get at, and this is of utmost importance in my mind, is that we can champion the things we champion without falling into the sins and ignorances that liberals/progressives so often (and rightly) accuse traditionalists of: cultural triumphalism, a myopic view of diversity, judging all cultures through the lens of Western European values, intellectual imperialism. -
Adam, agreed.
-
Diversity is better respected when there is unity. I love and am proud of the tradition and culture of my native country, which I continue to share with my family and neighbours even in America. But I don't feel our culture is disrespected because we don't sing Korean hymns in Holy Mass, (or because we don't use rice cake and rice wine instead of the host made of wheat and wine from grapes, and the priests don't wear our traditional costumes in Mass.) Rather, I feel more grateful that I can sing Gregorian chant in Holy Masses with other Catholics from different countries, and feel honored to be in places like Colloquium where liturgy is celebrated with respects to what the Church instructs and desires the most. But I also found that there are so many devoted Catholics around me, regardless of their cultural background, who didn't have chance to experience and learn deeper meaning of liturgy which transcends time and space. Through Gregorian chant I feel truly connected to the universal church and our Lord in the Holy Mass, who is God. When we experience God in the liturgy and better relationship with Him, we can develop better relationship with others also on our daily lives and care them through charity that is based on truths, rather than just sorry feelings. I think I have very very small knowledge and faith compare to other musicians here (and poor English), but I believe that we all are seeking truths with sincerity and humility and trying to promote music in our parishes that can help others to focus on God, rather than ourselves, in the liturgy.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,601
- General Music Discussion7,828
- Job Openings1,367
- Management of Music Programs840
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics515
- CMAA Notes293
- Events669
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony532
- Hymnody842
- Gregorian Chant: General2,622
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology59
- Vernacular Plainsong683
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant68
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire421
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,237
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children208
- Music Education: General217
- News Items243
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism730
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,014
- Opinions116