What a cheap shot at musicologists! I would hazard a guess that virtually all musicologists and historians working in this era realize the methodological pitfalls. Indeed, some musicologists use infrared and ultraviolet photography to reveal ink that was erased from vellum pages to make room for newer writings (usually literary or record keeping).

Doug,

Do you think that book is really wrapped in an authentic MS ? I snapped a picture of it, but I don't know if it is authentic. It was in a place where I found many mediæval MSS.

Thanks, DougS.

I understand your concern. However, in this age of revisionist history, I am sure you can understand Jeff,s, mine and many other's concerns. Especially in terms of the liturgy of the RR, sacred music is treated (very harshly by its own, I might add) as an archeological dig, and belongs consigned to the petri dish of opinion, dissection, documentation and then cataloguing. It is not treated as a living, developing entity that comes to us over centuries of time and growth. The science of this kind of examination has gone awry, and we will defend it from the scrutiny of those who are quick to dismiss it as no longer viable or relevant.

Am I being fair?

DougS:

I am not speaking of musicologists specifically, just the general tendency that this attitude toward 'things past' disembodies it from the fabric of our every day life. Mahrt is definitely on the authentic side of the matter, and is probably "THE prime example" as he leads the charge in actually employing his studies in the every day practice of leading chant in the liturgy.

Perhaps Jeff is more addressing the the 'leaps of faith' that are touted as fact, or as this is the way it used to be type of thing?

DougS

Well, that is certainly reassuring. Yea, we sing hymns alright. It's about all we sing these days (whatever the definition of a hymn is... we all keep on trying to figure that one out).

I like to hold up an ideal to shoot for, and it winds up being much lower (in real life) than the ideal itself. Catholic Church musicians who actually make a living as such, well, they live a very precarious existence. And those who know what the Church actually prescribes in terms of her liturgical music, well, they live even a bit more on the edge, constantly challenging the 'status quo' to come up a bit higher. The sad part is that we are so low now (in general) that coming up a bit higher means singing hymns instead of I, IV, V praise songs. That is what can be so discouraging at times.

Then there are those who can only 'live' in the ideal world intellectually in their minds. They are completely removed from the reality of actually serving the liturgy (musically) because their knowledge and musical aspirations are so far above the real world (and the failing Church), that it is nearly impossible to reckon the two. I have been there. I know others who have been there. These are the 'caught betweens.' They are the ones who go out looking for the gold with their metal detectors, those who try to unearth what is truly valuable. They are the wayfarers, the prospectors, the searchers, those who are after pure gold. Problem is, you can't live a lifestyle like that for too long and expect to have a family life, so it becomes a real strain.

Then there are those who are willing to do anything to collect the check and eat 'in peace'. Not true peace, just willing to look away from the ideals and not cause waves so they can keep on collecting the check. Unfortunately these are the ones who sell their souls to mediocrity and novelty. This is what the likes of OCP represent... the constantly changing, shifting ground of sand on which no house will stand when the storms come through.

Then there are those who can somehow survive, living the challenge of both reality and championing the ideal and finding some kind of middle ground where some cannot live with them and some cannot live without them. These are the survivors, the movers, the shakers.

Then there are those who have found a haven where others of like mind can gather, those who truly know and can actually experience the beauty and the depth of our musical heritage. They are like those tucked under the wing of the Almighty, safe and secure and hidden away from the world. I suspect some monasteries enjoy that kind of protection, and a very few parishes around the world, perhaps.

Thank you for your work toward helping us to unearth the pearls and then sell it all to buy the Kingdom of God.

Charles, all *tonal* music. Schenker's Ursatz is an unfolding of the tonic triad.

I wouldn't say "never," Francis!

http://www.tcnj.edu/~joss/2008/2008 Fried.pdf [small PDF]

Kathy:

I am not referring to people and the end of the world, I am referring to the weeds of music that is in our liturgies. Simply a metaphor.

Good point, but I wonder if they mean autonomy in the sense of an autonomous Rite, as opposed to an autonomous Church.

I don't really know what happened either, but I am glad you are least admitting the possibility that you are able to learn something you didn't know previously.

Thanks for posting the "autonomy" quote, DougS. With the help of a web search, I found the paper and read most of it.

The author indicates that there was tension over language in the liturgy in the Czech lands for some time, inasmuch as they had received the Gospel from SS. Cyril and Methodius, who brought liturgy in Old Church Slavonic; but later bishops were appointed from the Bavarian hierarchy and brought Latin liturgy.

Regarding JMO's criticism of what he perceives to be an erroneous tendency among musicologists, I agree it would be easier to evaluate his point if he had given an example of the error.

Francis, how does the phrase "Church sui iuris" fit into what you are calling the anti-Christ?

Given that there are now (and have been) autonomous rites in full communion with Rome, how does an autonomous rite necessarily equal an autonomous church?

Francis, we are finally seeing eye to eye, but this brings me back to my contention that we can't say the situation we are in now has "never" happened before. Let me explain:

We can be certain that some Czechs wanted nothing to do with Rome, but that wasn't really the driving force behind the use of Czech vernacular at the liturgy. If you had read the paper, you would have learned that the Pope allowed an abbey in Prague to celebrate the Roman rite in Old Church Slavonic, an unusual mixture at the time. What happened in the following years was not unlike what has happened since VII: the practice began to spread, eventually included the Czech language, and some people took it overboard. Indeed for a few radicals, the vernacular liturgy was seen as a gateway for reforming the Roman liturgy altogether (still sounds familiar, doesn't it?). But the real question that remains is whether or not the non-Latin liturgy approved by Rome could have grown organically into an authentic Czech liturgy equal in ritual status to the Slavonic liturgies in communion with Rome. Maybe this is what moderate but faithful church leaders in the Czech lands wanted, maybe not. We will likely never know because the efforts were cut short. The Church had other problems to deal with and this issue was tainted by the extremists.

So, much like today, the vernacular in the liturgy spawned radical contingents who, it seems, really don't care what Rome thinks, but I for one am not ready to say that Rome was "wrong" for allowing the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular--just because these people ruin it for many.

There are models for authentic liturgical (and musical) growth. Those who reject the notion of growth and change altogether are just as much "the anti-Christ" as those who value change for its own sake.

DougS

I do not agree or see eye to eye, but it was an intersting discussion as it has further enlightened me on your perspective. Thanks.

Chonak

I don't worry about anything really. Of course they aren't a threat to the Church.

et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam

On the other side of things, we American Catholics live in mass confusion (pun intended) BECAUSE of these influences which are 'allowed' to exist side by side with the Church in the name of the Church.

Do you have a music position in an RC Church that favors all types of music in the liturgy? Have you been to the "Catholic" liturgical conferences where they pray to the four winds in Aztec regalia?

Let me lay this out so that there is a little more sequence to the discussion:

Francis: "The Church went into experimental mode with the liturgy since the 60's in a way it never has in the history of the Church."

Doug: "I wouldn't say 'never.' Here is a similar scenario."

Francis: "it seems this was a very different scenario than what we are dealing with today."
"If they were desiring autonomy from Rome, then logically, this movement was in opposition to the Church, and not within it."

Doug (paraphrase): "Maybe it wasn't 100% schismatic. We don't really know for sure because there were mitigating factors."

Francis [referring to similarities between the Czech lands and the U.S. and supporting my contention that we actually have seen this scenario before]: "This, I fear, is what the AmChurch has been brewing for years."

Doug [actually supporting Francis with actual data]: "the Pope allowed an abbey in Prague to celebrate the Roman rite in Old Church Slavonic, an unusual mixture at the time. What happened in the following years was not unlike what has happened since VII: the practice began to spread, eventually included the Czech language, and some people took it overboard. Indeed for a few radicals, the vernacular liturgy was seen as a gateway for reforming the Roman liturgy altogether (still sounds familiar, doesn't it?)."

Francis: "I do not agree."

So where exactly is the disagreement?

Francis: How did you arrive at this certainty?

Doug: Jan Hus, a Czech, was killed at the Council of Constance for heresy.

Do we really need to have witnessed this to be certain?

---

Francis: Schismatics, apostates or heretics? Which branch did they represent?

Doug: All of the above.

Do we really need to clarify this point?

---

Francis: What PROOF is there of this? Maybe it WAS!

Doug: The Pope allowed it.

---

Francis: must have been heretics... their efforts were truly fodder for one of the greatest heretics of them all.

Doug: Correct, the ones who took it overboard turned out to be heretics. The ones who had permission were not.

---

Francis: When vernacular becomes more important than the overall unity of the Church, then it becomes a defective motive. Motives are spiritually more important than outcomes. Unity will always stand above diversity or cultural preference.

Doug: I agree with this and have said nothing to the contrary.

---

Francis: Who is rejecting the notion of growth and change?

Doug: There are many, especially the sedevacantists.

---

Francis: [Quoting D: are just as much "the anti-Christ" as those who value change for its own sake.] Who says?!!! (Edited to fix C+P error)

Doug: The Church that excommunicated them, or no longer accepts them.

I said, above: "Those who reject the notion of growth and change altogether are just as much "the anti-Christ" as those who value change for its own sake."

You asked me, "Who says!?????????"

Referring to the sedevacantists and other groups like SSPX, I said, "The Church who excommunicated them."

No one called you a sedevacantist. No one said you weren't Roman Catholic. I am a Roman Catholic, too. I am not a sedevacantist.

I agree with what you're saying about the Czechs chewing through the leash. The point still stands that we have a lot of that going on, and that what the Czechs did isn't all that different from what is happening now.

So my question still stands, where exactly is the disagreement? You keep saying what I'm saying but still present it as if we are engaged in combat.

DougS,

I certainly don't want to attack all musicologists.

However, I have seen the tendency in some of the CONCLUSIONS I've read by musicologists in JAMS and other places.

I'll keep a lookout for a good "case-in-point" — but (really) that wasn't the point of the blog. Or, it wasn't supposed to be the MAIN point.

Thanks for your comments!!!