VIBRANT is the dumbest buzzword ever applied to liturgy and/or liturgical music.

I've given up on every interview that poses a question regarding vibrant liturgy... Seriously, what is the alternative? A dull liturgy? Yes, sir, that's what I hope to bring to your parish, is a dull liturgy. Way to cut to the chase in this interview by bringing up a vibrant liturgy. I can't do that, but I can do dull. Everybody loves dull. Right? Right.

What a stupid, stupid word.
Let's add it to the terms to be "forever forgotten"

Latin is the language of Vatican II.

Sorry to all contemporary stylists. I speak only in facts, and fully recognize that this fact-speak is rather dull.

We now return to your regularly scheduled vibrancy.

How about:

"A serious-minded Catholic sacred musician would like to apply to the full-time cathedral parish position in order to bring a quick end to the destruction of liturgical music poisoned by the false dichotomy known as the "spirit of Vatican II" and replace it with chant and polyphony called for in every document before and since 1963."

+1 to Gavin

I think we all have to struggle against the temptations to despair. I know exactly how you feel, David, so I won't offer you any of the cliches we've all heard a million times about why evil is permitted in the world. But as a bit of encouragement - think of this. Every one person you bring to seeing the liturgy as a place of goodness, truth, and beauty becomes an evangelist too, in a sense of the word.

I have been running a series of articles in my church bulletin in which I explain what I'm doing and why. Over the months, the responses to the music have very gradually been changing from hostility and confusion to openness, even sometimes appreciation. This is a very "typical" parish, btw!

But every one person who comes closer to God because we present them with His truth and beauty in our music will bless you for it. And if we remain faithful to leading God's people to the best of our ability, our reward will be great in heaven.

Hope that helps.

I often wonder what the point is in me trying so hard to get my contemporary-music loving parish to appreciate better music. I am not allowed to do any antiphons, so the most I can do is a good choir piece here and there and a chanted kyrie. But they complain about that too. At what point does "hang in there, your reward will be great in heaven" turn into "just get outta there and wipe the dust from your feet?"

I think it's important to keep up our work in the trenches and to use grassroots influence to spread a love for authentic sacred music. Progress is slow. I think it would help a great deal if the Congregation for Divine Worship succeeds in creating a commission on sacred music to address areas of ambiguity. It seems for every argument a sacred music director or a good pastor makes from the texts of Vatican II and other liturgical documents, there is a counter-argument pointing out the options allowed and abandoning the Church's treasury of sacred music in the name of pastoral sensitivity. The laity have to do their part in spreading the movement, but we need the Magisterium to back us up.

Lest we forget how terrible things were not 10 years ago, remember that the internet has done wonders for us as lovers of tradition and sacred music. One of the biggest fights I remember having with some in parish leadership on the business side only a decade ago was that it was too expensive to purchase new music (which I found laughable considering how much was spent on those throw-away hymnals/missals). Things like the CMAA website, CPDL, etc. have taken that argument away. One can create a very reasonable music program for next to nothing. A competent music director can be obtained even on a part time basis, especially if the parish can direct students to them, and include first right of refusal to funerals and weddings.

With the money issue being handled very well, new priests are being ordained with a strong love of tradition. Soon they will hold the pastorates of the larger parishes, and the issue of a uncooperative clergy will go away.

Another thing that the internet has given us is things like this board. How many times before forums like this did we all think that we operated in a vacuum...doing the Lord's work in the devil's land with nary a like-minded soul for thousands of miles? This board has changed all that. Some of us have found like-minded colleagues very close. Others have found that, while there aren't many like-minded souls close to them, they can reach out via this board for ideas, suggestions, and just to vent. It's invigorating.

However....

There will still be hold-outs....at least for the foreseen future, as we can see in the aforementioned Cathedral posting (which I think most of us have probably seen). However, those hold outs will shrink soon. This will all take time, folks. But I'm very pleased with what I've seen and am excited for the future. Don't fret, friends....we're winning!

Adam S.

Change does come slowly. I am in my 8th year in my current position. When I arrived the repertoire was "cocktail church music", piano accompaniment and a general "do as you please" attitude. Since then we have installed a new organ, vested the choir, regularly sing the propers, the dialogues and the Latin lanuguage is no longer foreign. Having said that, I am still saddened by those who will not accept how we truly pray as Roman Catholics and it is still a daily battle with those who demand to be entertained in church. It does weaken my soul. Regarding the above mentioned cathedral job posting, I find it interesting that the word "prayer" is not mentioned at all - isn't that what we are really all about?

AMEN to the last two posts!

The problem with the word vibrant is that it is an extremely loaded term. If we are going to be truly honest about sacramental theology, EVERY celebration of the liturgy is indeed vibrant, no matter the music, the demographic, or the charism of a parish.

Clare H posted very beautifully on Feb 14 (above) regarding how the term vibrant means "full of life." Is not every eucharistic liturgy full of life... and true life, at that?

The problem is this:
If a young parish can be described as vibrant, then how do we describe an old parish? If a parish with contemporary praise&worship is vibrant, then how do we describe a parish with gregorian chant as its primary source of sung prayer? Conversely, if we describe the Solesmes monks as vibrant in their expertise of chant, then how do we describe a parish which uses anything else?

Maybe these are all great? No. If we describe all of these things as vibrant, then aren't we nearing (or arriving at) relativism in liturgical celebration? Dangerous territory.

---

Vibrant is a loaded term. To ask for a vibrant liturgy is to frame your particular taste for liturgy as "full of life" and to frame any others as "dull" or "lacking in life," and for this reason, it should be excluded from all description of liturgical music.

Even the most deplorable liturgical music still takes place within the celebration of the Catholic mass, and true vibrance, true life, exists in the fact that Jesus Christ himself comes among the faithful, fully present in the eucharist.

So who cares if the music is your idea of "vibrant" or not? Under these terms, all liturgical music is vibrant, as it exists within the celebration of this great mystery. Let us not lose sight of this.

The term vibrant is only used by those with an ulterior motive, who wish to frame the discussion in light of their own personal taste in liturgical worship. Personal taste is opposed to the truly vibrant (full of life) communion of the people of God celebrating His presence in the eucharist, and it is therefore a selfish and devilish trickery to use the term vibrant (full of life) to describe any music program, as it skews all discussion towards personal tastes and does nothing to further the Kingdom of God within His church on earth.