What of the World?

Adam Wood

I'm starting to sketch out some ideas for a Cafe piece, and I'd like to start it with the thoughts and ideas from the crowd here.

When we talk about the job of a Church Musician, specifically in the realm of programming (deciding what to sing), we tend to focus on a handful of issues, balancing, compromising, or forging ahead based on:

-Church Directives -- what is required or requested by the Church

-Tradition and Custom -- local or universal, continued or reconstructed

-What can we "get away with" -- balancing the desires of the PIPs [ppl inpews] and the PIPs [ppl in pwr] with what we, in our professional opinion, think is right or good

-What can we "get away with" -- balancing the capabilities and resources available with what we would want to do if we had unlimited talent and money

Those are are all good and reasonable things to think about, and (I think) cover most of the spectrum of issues in music programming that I regularly hear.

But none of that (it seems) considers the people most in need of the Church: people not there already.
The unchurched, the lapsed, the seekers, the spiritual but not religious, the nones, the "Good without God."
(And let's not forget- the Protestants, the Muslims, the Pagans....)

So, a series of questions:
-Is the Church's Evangelistic mission one with which people who plan/prepare/execute liturgy should be concerned about?
-How much concerned should we be about it, as compared with other aspects of the Church's mission (for example, the Sanctification of the Faithful)?
-If Evangelism is something that musicians and liturgists should be concerned about, what should those concerns lead us to do?

I have a lot of thoughts, but I'd rather hear other people's first.
I'd also like to see if we can get past the usual way a conversation like this might go...
Goofy Person: Evangelism means folk mass and singing Praise songs, because the kids like it.
Grumpy Catholic: No. That's dumb.
End of discussion.

Thoughts?

(BTW- If you could do me a favor: Try to avoid, "So-and-so already covered all of this in his book. Go read it." Just sayin')

Thanks.

melofluent

I'd also like to see if we can get past the usual way a conversation like this might go...
Goofy Person: Evangelism means folk mass and singing Praise songs, because the kids like it.
Grumpy Catholic: No. That's dumb.
End of discussion

.
In your generations' lexicon: this.
Great topic, will give it some thought later today.

JulieColl

Excellent questions, even critical questions! The vocation of providing music for the liturgy is something I ponder frequently since my own experience has taught me that well-executed sacred music is the most powerful reminder we have on this earth of the "other-worldly."

I've always been intrigued by the concept of the "numinous" as described by Hilaire Belloc--that ache of the human heart for the divine which is triggered by scenes of immense beauty, or by exquisite art and music.

Mother Cecilia of the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, gave an interview to the National Catholic Register this week and she spoke of how

" . . . music . . . in the context of the liturgy, has a tremendous impact on whether the souls is drawn above to higher realities or is left on the level of the senses. I can attest to the power that beautiful, sacred music has on the soul. I don't believe I would have been open ton my vocation if I had not been introduced to he ancient, sacred musical patrimony of the Church.

Hearing, for example, Allegri's Miserere, works by Palestrina and Gregorian chant for the first time at Mass had a tremendously moving and powerful effect on my life. This was, it seemed to me, the music of heaven, and hearing it made me want heaven all the more."

francis

The authentic sacred music of the church is one of the most powerful ways to evangelize the world. By its very nature it removes us from the every day,the common, the secular, and transports our mind and heart, indeed our very being into the infinite, the mysterious, the holy and the beautful. Those are the things of God and all humans crave them to their very depths.

Andrew Motyka

Is the Church's Evangelistic mission one with which people who plan/prepare/execute liturgy should be concerned about?

As members of the Church, we should each always be concerned about her evangelistic mission regardless of our status or position. So as a person, yes, we should be concerned. As someone who plans/prepares/executes liturgy (and we all know that those aren't really people who do that), I think that concern gets shelved.

Liturgy, especially the Mass, isn't the time for evangelization. It is the time when we Catholics "do what we do." There are many reasons why, simply put, the Church used to just kick all non-baptized people out before the Eucharistic Prayer started. The Mass is our thing. Evangelization and, as some pastors could learn, catechesis are not the point of Mass.

The Mass is formative, but not educational.

Jani

These are questions I've been kicking around the past several days Adam, after having been to the Colloquium in Salt Lake City this last week. I've been thinking especially about how the music that has been the norm in my parish for the past 20 years -of which I am largely responsible for (read "to blame") might have impacted the larger community. To be fair to myself, there won't be a lot of converts come over from the LDS church either because of or in spite of the music, but still...

Considering the size and resources of a given parish, yes we need to be concerned about evangelization to the extent that what we choose to sing is appropriate, beautiful, and uplifting. For instance, I can't pull off a majestic 4-part-harmony-anything because the bodies aren't there, so it would be stupid to try. I can, however, pull off a couple of simple chant pieces with alto and soprano, and I guarantee it will move people. When I joined this forum 8 months ago I didn't know an introit from an ordinary from a proper, and my idea of "normal" church music was what is commonly called the 4-hymn sandwich. I have since radically changed my tune, so to speak, about this.

I can't say anything about people in power because it isn't an issue with me and never has been - if power rests with anyone here, it is me. I guess that might fall under "what we can get away with," and I do have sympathy for those who must answer to someone else's agenda. As for the pip's - they have embraced the few chants we've adopted over the last several months and I don't doubt that they will embrace whatever I implement based on what I learned at the study week.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the movement toward the sacred needs to continue, full steam ahead, within a parish's capabilities, and that grievances towards such need to be answered with immediate, gentle educating.

melofluent

Point taken, Andrew. However, I've been prone to quip that the first five of months of HHFrancis' tenure seems to demonstrate a co-mingling of "ora et labora" and "lex orandi, lex crendendi" as the culture within which we all should dwell daily. In terms of the latter maxim, I don't know how one can nuance any black lines between how fit worship edifies or not the Christian soul to "Go out and proclaim the Good News." But the mandate is intrinsic to the Liturgy and life. Didactic catechism (save for correction of abuses) is also neither the intent of worship, nor the ideal focus of homiletics. But, the symbiology of our ritual actions that eventuate in sacramental efficacy are not self-evident to every soul at Mass. I would cite as an example of a happy union that speaks against the totality of your point about the "point of Mass" would be Fr. Pasley's homily about the Dies Irae at Colloquium 2012. It was at once evangelical and catechetical to this hearer and entirely appropriate within the liturgical context of the Requiem.

JulieColl

Liturgy, especially the Mass, isn't the time for evangelization.

There is indeed an intrinsic connection between the faith and the liturgy. While the primary purpose of the liturgy is the worship of God, it is also simultaneously a profession of faith.

I was just reading a few weeks ago a really enlightening discussion of this theme in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei where he explains the connection between the faith (lex credendi) and the liturgy (lex orandi). Here's the introduction of Paragraph 47:

"The worship [the Church] offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. "God is to be worshipped," he says, "by faith, hope and charity."[44]

In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith - it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian - along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church."

Adam Wood

Part of what sparked my thoughts...

It is a terrible thing to have seen the vision, and to be so wrapped up in its contemplation as not to hear the knock of needy hands upon our doors.

It is a terrible thing to to hear the knock and have no vision to declare to the one who knocks.

-Phillips Brooks, Visions and Tears

JulieColl

Thought-provoking quote by P. Brooks, but to be perfectly honest, there has been in every age those who neglect their duties to God and man, and the fact that there are some who don't live up to their obligations and responsibilities is not a fault of Christ manifest to them in the Mass, but rather a consequence of their own personal choice.

I'm not saying this is Brooks' point, but it might be tempting to categorize those who are wrapped up in a more traditional expression of the liturgy as being less inclined to help their neighbor.

However, is it just a coincidence that just as we made the liturgy more relevant to modern man, and eliminated much of the ceremony and mystery as well as the so-called "negative theology," that is, the mention of sin, sacrifice and propitiation for sin, that we have also seen a corresponding dramatic decrease in the missionary activity of the Church? Why is that after the traditional Mass was thrown on the metaphorical ash heap of history, the nursing orders, the foreign missions, the schools, the orphanages, etc., all (pretty much) came grinding to a halt?

melofluent

@Julie 12:21
Was the liturgy "made" to be relevant to modern man, or "made" to be conciliatory (pardon pun) and referential to protestant worship modes? I say that because the association you make between the shift in liturgy having the other ricochets has only found purchase in western countries, first in Europe, and now in AmChurch. I don't think there's enough evidence of similar trends in sub-equitorial, Asian, Latino, SE Asian and Oceanic catholicism, in fact it's probably an "au contraire" vision thereabouts.

MHI

.

JulieColl

@melofluent

I'm not too familiar with the Church in Asia, so I can't really say much about it. I think the meteoric rise in the Catholic population in Africa is a marvelous phenomenon; if it weren't for that, I don't know if my parish could continue to have daily Mass since there are two faithful African priests who say Mass for us every day.

I'm not saying you're making this claim, but I don't think anyone can ipso facto attribute the success of the Catholic Church in Africa to the Novus Ordo, since it's also possible that the traditional Latin Mass could have been just as successful in attracting converts---but we'll never know for sure since either claim is impossible to prove at this point.

I hope it doesn't look like I'm blaming the great reduction of Catholic missionary activity totally on the reform of the liturgical rites. Obviously, the modernism that took hold in large sectors of theology is also a relevant factor, and I'm sure there were numerous other factors as well.

melofluent

This isn't a new observation-most of the "happiest" and faithful young (and old) families I've seen at our parish school and parish over two decades are those who obviously believed in what they commited to in their wedding vows, to accept children given them by God, a principle affirmed famously and ubiquitously ignored in Humane Vitae. And also to this day I have folks privately share that they leave the confessional still under the impression it's perfectly "normal" to follow one's conscience regarding procreation.
You know where this is going. As soon as the systematic deconstruction of teaching authority from Paul VI (as HV was "his" to many folks' dismay) through the bishops and down to the priests, this "modernism" devalued the moral authority of the Church, even among "gas and go" RC's and Cafeteria Catholicism reigns to this day.
Ergo, to think this wouldn't put liturgical goals at odds or even erode the PiP's lack of interest in what is done, sung and said at liturgy according to the noble goals of VII though and docs, would be naivete pure and simple.
Besides trying CPR on RotR, what other issue did our beloved B16 try to awaken Western catholicism over during his pontificate? Net zero.

As a Post Script, this is excerpted from a Zenit interview with Cdl. Ranjith that Kathy posted at Cafe:

ZENIT: Are you saying that without a sound liturgy, it becomes merely a human enterprise?

Yes, a human enterprise, and it ends up being a boring exercise. It doesn’t change, it doesn’t transform. Transformation is very necessary for the faithful.

ZENIT: Some argue that the liturgy is mostly about aesthetics and not as important as, say, good works carried out with faith? What would you say to that argument?

Aesthetics are also important because human life is also conditioned by aesthetics - settings and symbols in aesthetics which help man lift his heart to God. Therefore, aesthetics have a relative role; they’re important but not the most important; that is the inner communion achieved in the liturgy, inner communion of the faithful with the Lord, and the community with the Lord. That is what is most important.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-ranjith-on-forming-the-faithful-to-live-the-liturgy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+zenit/english+(ZENIT+English)

Gavin

I tend to agree with Andrew Motyka. The Mass is by definition for people who are already in the doors.

Although maybe we can change it a bit: Since the evangelists are at Mass, is there anything we can do in music and liturgy to aid THEM in bringing people into the Church?

Adam Wood

Since the evangelists are at Mass, is there anything we can do in music and liturgy to aid THEM in bringing people into the Church?

This is a great point. Anyone? thoughts?

Earl_Grey

How about offering them the sacred Liturgy of the Church in all its glory--without adding to it or taking away from it, or making it more modern, contemporary, relative, protestant, American, etc. ?

People can only know that with which they are familiar, and they are not familiar with the Liturgy of the Latin Rite because it hasn't been presented to them when they come to church.

If we (both musicians and clergy) put as much effort into preparing and presenting the Mass as it is given to us by the Church and laid out for us in the Missal and other pertinent liturgical books, as we do in trying to invent something new, I think we would be in a much better position to then go and glorify the Lord by our lives, i.e. to evangelize.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Adam,

I have several thoughts, some of which might surprise you.

1) The "liturgy" involves more than the Mass. Accordingly, we need to invite people to Compline, Vespers and such. When we sing these simply, and without ostentation, we will instruct them that we don't read Holy Writ, but we sing it.

2) As a convert, I always found it depressing when people tried to sell me "Catholic -lite." Just as teens, given the chance to choose, will pick staying in bed over getting up, if what they get in both cases appears to them to be catering to their (fleeting) tastes. We should show them our liturgy in all its glory, not attempt to replace same with our glory.

3) Music, to evangelize, must first turn a hearer into a listener. That can't be done if the music is merely what one already knows. Music must draw us in, which it can't do effectively if we tune it out.

4) To separate the evangelical mission from the sanctification of the lay faithful is to separate two things which are linked. (I'm not going to make the case that they are identical, but they certainly are linked.)

5) Specific suggestions: chant, whether it is a hymn such as Aquinas' Adoro te, or Missa Cum Jubilo or Vox in Rama audita est .... or whatever, needs to be part of the evangelical work of the Church; we should represent texts - even in English - which allow the hearer (or singer) to enter more deeply into the love of God, so some hymn-like setting of the Anima Christi, for example, is a good idea, as is a polyphonic Mass.

6) In some theoretical sense, the Missal of Paul VI was supposed to draw Protestants home, so the mere celebration of this Mass, as written, should advance the cause.

7) Don't be afraid of silence. If we think we need to be (constantly) making some sound, we don't give room for ourselves (or the unchurched) to hear the still, small voice.

8) Remember what someone (Pope Pius, I think) told Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: the church doesn't need you; you need the Church.

Andrew Motyka

I tend to agree with Andrew Motyka. The Mass is by definition for people who are already in the doors.

I agree with your agreement. The acoustics in here are great. Anyway, your short statement said it better than I could. The liturgy does help with evangelism, but indirectly by feeding the evangelists.

francis

Also, host sacred music concerts that are devotional in nature. I have composed two in the past four years to evangelize to those that don't know God, and to educate those deeper that do. I had 150 people show up for my second endeavor, and you have to understand, that in a town of 8000 people during what is called the shoulder season in our town, (everyone goes away on vacation because we all make our living in winter and summer here), that was a phenomenal turnout. I had people driving 70 miles to come see it, and many who approached me after the event said "this is great, do more of this!". They were doctors and well respected people from other denominations in our town. There can never be enough sacred music concerts.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories