Dr. William Mahrt addresses this EXACT question if you fast-forward to 0:40

I hope the relativists have enough self-awareness to realize that relativism is itself a cultural product and not able to claim objectivity.

OK...

This is a link from Wiki on one of the types of Eastern Ancient music. Doug got me started down this path.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ANCJAPAN/MUSIC.HTM

Well, this may be shocking to you, but here goes:

Been there, done that… WAS ONE. Let me explain:

I have over the years come to understand that spirituality (not religion) is one of the most influential if not the most single influential aspect of how man creates and enhances a musical form based on the simple harmonic species, and how music is unspeakably intertwined with the spirituality in which is was conceived.

What I am trying to say is based upon my lifetime of reading, studies, formation, observance, listenings, practices, analyzations, all linked to my own experience in other spiritual forms before I became fully formed into my Catholic faith, and then more importantly, as I became immersed in it.

For numerous years (after I finally emerged from 'the force') I did a lot of studying on spiritual practices including shamanism, witchcraft, masonry, (including the great white brotherhood, gnosticism, rosicrucianism, babylonianism, new age spirituality, mormonism) eastern Vedic spirituality (Hinduism), mantras, creation spirituality, goddess worship, earth worship, the formation and spirituality of mandalas as spiritual floating cities, Buddhism, satanism, Aztec spirituality, Incan, American Indian, magic, magick, (black and white), sorcery, divination, alchemy, and more.

I know now that music is not separable from its spiritual roots. When a music, especially ritual music is confected (composed), it conjures (for lack of a better word) an ethos which invokes certain spirits that are aligned with its practices, rites, and is channeled or focused through its priests, priestesses and practitioners (including its composers and musicians).

The world has been engulfed in the swirl of everything under the Sun (including a lot of those spiritualities mentioned above, none of which are of Christ). This is why the Catholic Church entered into a significant period of confusion and loss of identity in the last 100 years or more. This is why Catholicism has been on the decline in the past forty years. 60 percent of Catholics no longer attend church and a larger percentage don't even believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist - body, blood and divinity. Some and maybe many who entered the seminary were not catechized and many rejected the faith wholesale. The fruit of that is easy to see this day and age where diocese after diocese is going bankrupt over law suits. "Guidelines" were put in place to help 'steer' the cause of music in the liturgy. Were they good? Were they theologically solid? Did they hold to the patrimony that sacred music always held in high esteem? Mostly not.

Popes wrote letters and encyclicals warning of erroneous doctrine surrounding her sacred practices, rites and spirituality. Did we listen? Did we heed the warning? Mostly not. How many of us have read the encyclical on Modernism?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Now the church (B16 and his conclave) are now in an all out battle to protect and warn against music that is alien to its rite, (rock, folk, jazz, pop, etc.) styles that are conceived and nurtured in other spiritualities. When musicians attempt to fuse music of other rites or spiritualities to the rite of The Church, a clash occurs. This occurs on a subconscious level, unbeknown by most prelates, musicians and especially the innocent followers of the Faith who sit in the pew. This 'fusion' creates an ethos that produces a negative effect, much like a conflict or collision in the spiritual realm. The first and most obvious fruit is division. And where has this collision obviously occurred? Well, for one, in the music. It has been a grave error to adapt and to buy into a wholesale adoption of other musical forms into the Roman rite. It has been a spiritual disaster.

Adam wrote:

What we need to do is give these people their own culture back. We need to help them understand that everything about how they live and think and believe in things is rooted in the Church that built Europe. The Roman Rite, and Gregorian Chant, and the Latin language, and classical theology- these are the rightful property of all the people mumbling along to "Gather Us In." We can champion these things, and bring along the progressives, the liberals, the relativists, without making claims about transcendent culture, or indulging in historical revisionism, or engaging in cultural imperialism, or otherwise looking (from a liberal's perspective) like ignorant, self-important, snobby racists.

What we need to do...

Many things about how the people live and think and believe is not rooted in the Church that built Europe. They are built on other spiritualities, not of Christ. The mumbling people are the ones who do not know how to speak clearly, because they have not been taught, they have not had a shepherd, they have been left forsaken by their own Church and do not even know their faith. That is why most Catholics no longer attend the Mass. That is why most of them don't even believe that they are receiving the body and blood of Christ when they come forward for communion.

We, who do try to live as Roman Catholics, are devoted to living out our faith as fully as we can. We are not out to change a liberal's perspective and argue him in. We are, however, out to convert his heart… his intellect will eventually follow along.

So as a spiritual force, Gregorian Chant is one of the penultimate expressions of our two thousand year old Faith. If we simply lived out what was handed down to us, and sang the song, (instead of playing the Beatles and Peter, Paul and Mary) and lived the truth of our faith, and brought it to others, there would not be the "con-fusion" that has occurred even within the walls of our own Church. GC above all, focuses a spiritual force, a force of angelic power that cannot be seen but is certainly perceived. The kingdom of darkness hates it. It is the Song of Christ Himself... The Song of the Lamb.

What we need to do...

is to be only concerned with what Christ told us to do. He didn't care about what others thought about him. He told us the world would not understand us and that we would be dragged into the courts for what we believe. He told us some of us would be put to death on account of it. He died because of what He said.

We are no different from Him if we are truly his followers. So we will continue to lead the unknowing into knowing the Faith, consecrate the host and give his body and blood out to those who will believe in Him and receive him. We will sing the chant, and rant the rant, and those who have been 'GATHERED IN' had better GET IN the Barque of Peter or be swallowed in the waves.

“Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” -G.K. Chesterton

Not recognized it?
Friend Charles- that's been (at least half of) my entire point.

One need not view Gregorian Chant as Universal (from a cultural studies or musicological perspective) in order to proclaim wholeheartedly that it is universal to the Roman Rite.

I think if you go back and read my posts, you'll find that what you say I'm not saying, I really am saying.
Or else, I really, really need to be more clear in my writing.

Well Adam, I guess our perspectives are just different. I see GC as an 'anointed' form of music given to us by Christ through the Holy Spirit who operates in and through his members who are filled with the Holy Spirit, and I take it you don't. I guess we will have to leave it at that. Good debating this with you, however. I have come to know you a whole lot better, and for that I am grateful.

"My head hurts..." F.N.Koerber

By the way... do you 'like' to sing GC? I never asked that!

For some of us, GC and Liturgy are not separable, and nor the Liturgy and our faith. When it settles in the bone, it's not easy to explain it.

I think a central component of Adam's point is that while GC can be considered truly and authentically Catholic (i.e., "universal" in one sense), it isn't "universal" in other ways.The word "universal" means different things in different contexts, and it is helpful to tease out these meanings, whatever those may be. Otherwise we are talking past each other--one person thinking we are talking about X, another about Y.

"The word "universal" means different things in different contexts, "

The quote in the orginal post has been diviated by some and brought GC in a different context. I found it pretty irrelevant.

"we are talking past each other--one person thinking we are talking about X, another about Y"

Certainly it happened. (although we learned somethings while talking past, especially interesting talk about the scales. I thank you to Francis for the fascinating explanations, sorry for the headaches though.)

BTW, for those who are still not convinced about GC as universal in Roman Liturgy, the followings might help. (although most of people already know them.)


[Tra le Sollecitudini]
...Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the suprememodel for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.




"Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have reiterated his insistence on the primacy of Gregorian Chant and the value of the traditional Roman polyphony in the liturgy of the Church. On November 22, 2003, the anniversary of Pius X’s Motu Proprio, Pope John Paul II said, “With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the general rule that St Pius X formulated in these words: 'The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.’” On June 24, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI spoke in similar terms: “An authentic renewal of sacred music can only happen in the wake of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.”
http://vultus.stblogs.org/

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given first place in liturgical services." (Section 116, the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)

Are the Church Fathers proclaiming certain 'cultural triumphalism' in their writings and the Church's documents?

If you love someone so much, wouldn't you want to find out what s/he desires the most? If you love God and His Church, wouldn't you want to find out what She desires the most for her liturgy and trust what She desires the most is also pleasing to God most, and what pleasing to God also sanctifies us the most.
I hope we pray Gregorian chant with trust and love of His Church and humility to God who gave us those blessings. So singing Gregorian chant becomes truly "Singing is for those who love," as St. Augustine says.

(would it also help if I tell you that this is posted by someone with slanted eyes and live on kimchi, which I am very proud of?)

I don't like the use of labels such as "fundamentalist" either: they tend to convey bogeyman images. On the other hand, I haven't been able to find where anyone applied the phrase "fundamentalist Catholic" to Francis. Was it in this thread or some other?

Everything Catholic is not Roman, and all chant is not Gregorian. There is a tendency among some of its proponents to make exaggerated claims for its preeminence. But it truly is only "universal" within the Roman Rite - or at least it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, it is dead as a doornail in most of the U.S. Roman Rite for any practical purpose. That's the real problem.

I think we are using universal in different ways.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahony and all, is an expression of the Church in its fullness—the same with the Latin Church or any of the Eastern Churches. We all know none of these are the entirety of the Church.

For Gregorian Chant to be universal, we need not tarnish the dignity, or universality, of any other ecclesiastical music tradition.

(I do not know that I am expressing the same idea as is francis, but that is my intent. Furthermore, I think it is possible that we are all in agreement.)

I was the one who posted that horsey-blinded stuff.
I didn't know it had been changed/edited/censored.

I feel like my point has been totally misunderstand. (This is underscored by mia's at least twice insistence about "those of you who remain unconvinced that GC is universal to the Roman Rite.... I've said over and over that it is exactly that- universal to the Roman Rite.)

I consider Francis (and just about everyone here) a friend. I don't think he is a horsey-blinded fundamentalist (or a racist, or a cultural imperialist). My big point is in all of my going on and on was:
1. There are legitimate and widespread views concerning sociology and comparative cultures among a particular class of people which would stand in opposition to the idea that GC is "Universal."
2. It is possible to have those views (ie. "be a liberal") and still be a devout and faithful Roman Catholic.
3. The voicing of certain opinions in certain ways will be viewed by those people as suspect: Eurocentric, imperialist, etc.
4. It does damage to the worthy cause of increasing the use of Gregorian Chant in its native environment (the Roman Rite) to not understand how liberals will hear and understand certain viewpoints, and to go about voicing an opinion in such a way that will get the voicer dismissed in the eyes and minds of the people most needing to hear what that person has to say.
5. The merits of our tradition can and should be championed in a way that is sensitive to the ways that liberals and progressives (and other people not predisposed to value tradition) think and understand things. In fact, it is imperative
that we do so, otherwise we are (almost literally) preaching to the choir.

(This is underscored by mia's at least twice insistence about "those of you who remain unconvinced that GC is universal to the Roman Rite...

Adam, I'm not sure you are included here. It's your opinion.
I simply reminded others here and myself that why Francis and some are here take GC as universal , especially since we have a mixed group here. I stated my faith in Church's teachings as my ideal although I'm in parishes where I can't speak of those without limitation. I believe this forum is a place you can share ideals and Church's teachings which are imperative for the Reform of the Reform. (of course, we know in missionary lands, the process of bringing the Church's tradition of the Liturgy takes much longer) You and I may have differences in how to go about, but I want to make clear that I would not point at one person as not taking GC in first place in the liturgy. If you think you are, that's not mine. (if you want to talk about this further in a personal manner, it would be better to do so in whispers for other readers.) Yes, in our schola, we share info. and faith on Church's teachings, but we do also respect different stages of parishes and individuals.

MO

These are astute observations on the part of yourself and your students. However, this seems to limit music to only a human innovation as a tool of communication. I would submit to you things that go beyond this reality.

Music IS a means of communication

Absolutely. But music does not just communicate with humanity, it also communicates with the spiritual realm. It not only communicates with it, but it influences it in significant ways.

Because music is rooted in the harmonic species, of which we earlier discussed, its foundation is indeed universal. Lets examine, for example, a rock concert and the phenomena of the mosh or "mash" pit. Just do a google on the subject and spend ten minutes reading about it. Remind you a little of the scene of the prophets of Baal? This is directly incited by musicians (of incredible natural talent) but for the most part not directed by themselves but a spiritual force which they weild, most of them ignorant that they are doing so. Injury and violent death are not uncommon. Is this just a human experience? No, it is very spiritual.

Now let's take the Sanctus which occurs at the central point of every Mass.

Here is the wiki entry:

"The Sanctus (Latin: Holy), sometimes called the Tersanctus (Latin: Thrice Holy), is a hymn from Christian liturgy, forming part of the ordinary of the Mass. In Western Christianity, the Sanctus is sung (or said) as the final words of the Preface of the Eucharistic Prayer, the prayer of consecration of the bread and wine. The preface, which alters according to the season, usually concludes with words describing the praise of the worshippers joining with the angels, who are pictured as praising God with the words of the Sanctus:

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus
Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua.
Hosanna in excelsis.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Hosanna in excelsis.[1]
The first part of the Sanctus is adapted from Isaiah 6:3, which describes the prophet Isaiah's vision of the throne of God surrounded by six-winged, ministering seraphim. A similar representation found in Revelation 4:8 appears to be the basis of the Trisagion, with which the Sanctus should not be confused. In Jewish liturgy, the verse from Isaiah is uttered by the congregation during Kedusha, a prayer said during the cantor's repetition of the Amidah (18 Benedictions) before the opening of the ark:

The priest along with the musicians and the congregation are joined by the spiritual forces of heaven at this very point at every licit Mass. Music is an integral part of this rite.

Now let's consider Igor Stravinsky' premier performance of Les Sacra de Printemps. Simply look it up on wiki- premiere performance and you will read about the most famous mosh that ever occurred on classical music. Take note of what the music is describing... a satanic rite. Coincidental? Highly unlikely.

Like language it can only communicate between those who understand it

By my examples above, you will quickly admit the music rises above human understanding and intellect. It is a natural material science which is directly linked to the supernatural heirarchy of the spiritual realm. The two are inseparable.

3. As in languages there are those who are very adept with it and can understand its finer nuances. There are also those who can only understand simple commands and statements

Most musicians don't even understand its finer nuances when it comes to the spiritual realm. They think it is all controlled and created from their own human power and skill. They don't realize that music is a gift just like painting is a gift. I believe that angelic beings act upon a musician to weild a spiritual power that forever alters one's internal makeup. That includes any and all who are recipients of the music. And if the truth of the harmonic species is what we think it is, then music also has a power to alter the makeup of someone who is deaf, dumb and blind.

4. Like a language, it has dialects and patois that are understood by small communities

Again, because music is primal and spiritual, it is not limited by communal boundaries. Take the phenomena of jazz.

Jazz is a musical tradition and style of music that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in the Southern United States from a confluence of African and European music traditions. From its early development until the present, jazz has incorporated music from 19th and 20th century American popular music.[1] Its West African pedigree is evident in its use of blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note.[2]

The word "jazz" (in early years also spelled "jass") began as a West Coast slang term and was first used to refer to music in Chicago in about 1915.

From its beginnings in the early 20th century jazz has spawned a variety of subgenres: New Orleans Dixieland dating from the early 1910s, big band-style swing from the 1930s and 1940s, bebop from the mid-1940s, a variety of Latin jazz fusions such as Afro-Cuban and Brazilian jazz, free jazz from the 1950s and 1960s, jazz fusion from the 1970s, acid jazz from the 1980s (which added funk and hip-hop influences), and Nujazz in the 1990s. As the music has spread around the world it has drawn on local national and regional musical cultures, its aesthetics being adapted to its varied environments and giving rise to many distinctive styles.

wiki

One origin (primarily spiritual) but one that became universal each with its own dialect, very similar to the phenomena of Catholic chant.

5. Like a language, it can be misunderstood

As much as I love Beethoven, it takes a rudimentary understanding of Western musical conventions to even begin to like him. Conversely, Westerners rarely understand even the basics of the musical expression of Japanese theater music where percussion instruments provide the emotional underpinnings (and no it's not intuitive at all).

Many children who have no grasp of Beethoven on an intellectual plane have an immediate connection on an entirely different level of their subconscience. Just like the mash pit victims they participate on a spiritual plane that has nothing to do with knowledge, geography or independent culture.

So I would put forward that music is primarily a spiritual act which is embelished and magnified by the talent (raw ability) and skill (intellectual understanding and facility) of the musician.

I would leave us all with a reference from Aquinas' Summa:

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the praise of the voice is necessary in order to arouse man's devotion towards God. Wherefore whatever is useful in conducing to this result is becomingly adopted in the divine praises. Now it is evident that the human soul is moved in various ways according to various melodies of sound, as the Philosopher state (Polit. viii, 5), and also Boethius (De Musica, prologue). Hence the use of music in the divine praises is a salutary institution, that the souls of the faint-hearted may be the more incited to devotion. Wherefore Augustine say (Confess. x, 33): "I am inclined to approve of the usage of singing in the church, that so by the delight of the ears the faint-hearted may rise to the feeling of devotion": and he says of himself (Confess. ix, 6): "I wept in Thy hymns and canticles, touched to the quick by the voices of Thy sweet-attuned Church."

Adam: They are multi-lingual.

Doug

Yes.

I have five, but they preferred Bach when they were infants. Sorry, Ludwig!

... and you?

My son, now 22 months, loves TV theme songs. Does that make them universal too?

"Do you think He will have a separate room for us Romans up there?"

I hope so! LOL ;-) Then you can define dogmas and legislate to your heart's content.

Adam

That one is as old as GC!

Francis, thank you for taking the time to grab all those definitions, but I'm afraid we will disagree here. Musical style doesn't really cut across culture that well. American popular music is liked in Africa because they can hear the roots, which are based on their own music. We can all be musical "tourists" but there is no music made by man or woman that is heard as universally applicable to anything. I suspect that you want to believe that GC is somehow sanctioned by God, but it's good enough that it is sanctioned by the Church. While missionary churches may find something foreign about it's musical theory, Western ears find it foreign in a temporal sense. I believe that restoring GC to the active life of the Church is extremely important, but I can't and won't try to find some natural or supernatural underpinnings for it. Tradition is good enough for me.

another great article on universality

Cantus Universalis: A Glimpse at the Supra-Cultural Value of Gregorian Chant

http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201007/2082675531.html

There are thousands of testimonies like the few above, and i will gladly provide you with the links and /or content and the credibility of those who wrote them.

Please present me with the names, credibility and testimonies of those who would argue against the universality of GC, and I will give two to one for each you present. So far I have three of you. Correct me if I am wrong. Adam, Doug and MIchael. Are there any others?

This isn't up to a vote.

It's a matter of perspective, and some degree of intellectual honesty would (I hope) cause you to at some point say, "Ah, yes- there are legitimate perspectives other than my own."
Bringing Mozart into it further reinforces the "Universal, but only to the West" concept.


I feel like you've missed at least my point, and perhaps the point of the other "dissenters" here, and just kept going on and on. I seriously feel like we're having completely different conversations.

Well, I presented the Church's perspective, and dissenters insisted it was my opinion. So, I politely bow out of "my opinion" and give you others who also back up what the Church puts forward. What more can I say?

Would anybody mind too much if we were to sink this discussion?

It's nowhere near as good as the old "What are you doing on Friday evening?" thread.