WARNING: impending rant and obtusity ahead.
My apologies to donr for raining on the parade.
I’ve been somewhat in a funk since Thursday evening. I wasn’t during the week, quite to the contrary. But we had our annual music leadership plenum meeting. I won’t go into details, but the pastor and parish administrator (one of our many deacons) were present (unusual) as the pastor wanted to address his concerns for the future of our music programs. Towards the end of his remarks he reiterated the simple, oft-emphasized conclusion that our primary objective was to effect and bolster the singing of the congregations. Then he opened the floor to remarks.
We mostly have choirs leading music for our 18 Masses, but we do have one led by a song leader, who started the first discussion with something like “Father, you say you want us to ensure congregational singing, but every memo I receive in an email seems to say that the congregation is actively participating by remaining silent and listening….” And so on.
This bald misunderstanding of the dissemination of real and vital information in order to broaden the perspectives of our roles, only to then be mischaracterized as a rationale to revive museum liturgy, along with the general tenor of contradiction between camps, and the now ubiquitous analysis that “we’re talking passed each other” has-

Now convinced me that no one bothers to actually read and comprehend the actual content, context and potential outcomes of the written word, whether in print or on a screen. The irony is that two of the main objects of interest in liturgics are 1. comprehension; and 2. meaning in a profound understanding.

So, with whom shall we exchange ideas and apologetics. We can hardly manage it among ourselves. And we’re not the pinnacle of academia here nor would we want to represent ourselves as such. But I am constantly advised to try to “talk to the people at their level.” And I try in our bulletin and monthly parish newspaper. But I believe if you get one person to actually get passed a first column or paragraph, they are more likely to skim the rest looking for buzzwords to pique any further interest. And by then, their agenda informs what they think they’re reading and a sort lack of objectivity disables actual comprehension.

I’m of a mind to simply teach those interested chanting to chant, not to talk to them about the glories of chant and the rightness of the reform.

To add a sociological coda I’d simply cite that we, as a nation of peoples, may have seen the window of critical thinking nailed shut. People made their minds up about the guilt of George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin almost immediately after the event. A jury will sign, seal and deliver a verdict that will only bring more despair, disenchantment and divide among us very soon.

As a former public school teacher I went to countless sessions devoted to a. equipping the young to read and comprehend; b. developing their cognition and critical thinking skills and c. challenging them to apply those to their own lives for their own benefit. But any teacher who kept their ears and eyes open during these sessions knew that that the real but hidden truth and curriculum is whatever they’re fed at home socially by their parents, and moreso by the television, then the electronic games, and then….?

Melofluent,

I'm going to disagree with Wendi because I read all the way to the end of your post.

I sympathize that we can't defend a position when the hearer (or interlocutor) is really interested in buzz words. Cognizant of this fact, Pope Benedict used the buzzwords to try to open minds and, hopefully, hearts.

This raises an interesting question. Are we starting at the right place in the discussion? If we attempt to defend chant since it is suited to the Roman liturgy, and promote chant as deserving "pride of place" because of Vatican 2, we've accepted that the Mass is theocentric and is therefore not something we create, but is something we receive from God through the Church. Most of the time, our interlocutors don't accept such a premise, whether consciously or merely unquestioningly. Many people are quite happy believing contradictory things at the same time.

Melofluent,
I feel your pain, I have one Mass out of 6 that I am able to provide "some" Sacred Music for. However, I put together a Singing and Note reading Class based on the Ward Method and our pastor has been coming to every class. Others have been asking me about Sacred Music and Latin and I try to explain it the best I can.

If we keep our mouths shut and only speak to those who ask questions or want to join the choir we will be missing out on a whole generation of people who simply don't know. They can't know what they don't know. Someone needs to bring it up.

Thus the idea of Sacred Music Apologetics. The apologetics movements in the country as of late was basically started by Mother Angelica with EWTN and Karl Keating (I think) of Catholic.com (Catholic Answers). If I remember the story of Catholic.com.
One of the Story's I love to tell is that one of the apologists was listening to a Protestant radio show and was tired of listening to all the Catholic bashing. So he called in to ask if he could have an hour to give the
Catholic response. He never got a call back, he kept pushing the issue and nothing happened until he formed a company call The Bible Christian Society and with that name and him being the president called and threatened to sue if his side of the story wasn't heard. He got is one hour, than another, and then got his own show on that radio station. John Matinoni is one of the leading apologists in the field and hosts EWTN's Open Line, I think on Wednesdays.

My point is that only if we keep it to ourselves will it only be amongst ourselves.
If you want to tree to grow you need to fertilize it, water it, and prune it.

All I am suggesting is that we try to follow what is currently working for the people who are getting the Catholic message out.
I don't believe that most of the people even knew what EWTN was 10 years ago and the apologetics movement really didn't start getting strong until 5 or 6 years ago.

In Phoenix, 3 years ago the Catholic Men's conference had a few hundred people, last year it had a little over a thousand. Its making a difference because they are dedicated and have good speakers who go out and get the message out.

I am suggesting that we do something similar only because IT WORKs. Follow a model that works and it might just work for you. Its kind of like franchising.

Check out John's web site for his story The Bible Christian Society

Wow, I guess the time is even more critical than I expected, just to boost our own morale.

My parish just buried the choir and all that remains now is one spoken Mass, one Mass with the synthesizer playing the 4-hymn sandwich, and one Mass where my son will play the organ. All the progress we had made last year in singing the antiphons was erased and we have gone backwards to where now even the responsorial psalm is spoken.

This is precisely why we need to raise awareness, get the message out, if more PIPs would want it, it might start taking off again.

There are always lulls in advancements. All the great saints have had dark times in their faith. Don't give up on the dream.

Besides we have a large population of kids out there who will be coming of age soon and rejecting everything their parents stand for. Or they will yearn for something more. We need to be ready for the time when the pendulum swings this way.

"You right wing Catholics are just trying to force your beliefs down our throats and take us back to before Vat II."


I'll take a whack at this one.


Why does anyone go to Mass?

If we go out of obligation, to whom do we owe this? To God, surely, and not to anyone else.

If we go because we want to worship God, does God want to be worshipped in any particular way? Worship of God comes in many forms: public and private. Private worship doesn't hold to the same rules as public worship, precisely because it's private. The highest form of worship is to give God the gift He loves the most, which is His own son.

None of this depends on being "right wing Catholics". If you, my questioner, want a reason to get out of bed, wouldn't it be so you could do something worth getting out of bed to do? Worth it to you, sure, but also worth it objectively.

The "opinions" we hold don't come from 2013, or 1958 or whenever, but from outside of our own time. That's why they matter: we didn't invent them for this argument, but someone has already investigated the question, and come up with a reasonable answer which doesn't depend on the time in which we live.

What we try to offer, and encourage you to offer with our help, is what the Church tells us is worthy of the worship of God. If the Church can't tell us this, then the one authority on God in the whole world can't tell us anything. If we can't learn about God from someone who already knows about God, then we can't learn anything about God at all, and so we can't please Him, and so we're all going to Hell. (Someone can go to St. Louis or Chicago, even if he doesn't believe it is there.) Instead, having these rules and a road map allows us to hope in God and hope for heaven.

That can be true: some people don't change their minds, even in the face of perfectly true answers; but it's still worthwhile to make that response.

I used to do a fair amount of apologetics writing on the net in various forums. Some people posing challenges are bitter opponents with a harsh ideology, criticizing the Church for emotional reasons; since their opposition isn't based on rational motives, they aren't converted by rational responses.

Still, reasoned responses in the face of their challenge can benefit silent onlookers by showing that the Church's teaching is meaningful and good. The lurkers observing the interchange make their own judgment about which side is working for the good, the true, and the beautiful, and some of them do move closer to the Church as a result.

Don, I'm with you 100%. Apologetics and evangelization takes many forms. (And John M's story is amazing.)

When reason and written or spoken communication shuts down, Jesus can reach hearts by way of beauty. Our sacred music also explains the Faith, and also evangelizes.

When parishes and dioceses are enmeshed in liturgical identity crisis, other avenues can be found to reach the seekers and the seeking faithful. Do not lose hope- look around and ask God to find an open avenue!

One such group that eats up sacred music, at least in my area, are the homeschoolers. (Full disclosure: I also homeschool) Tap into that community and you're reaching *a lot* of kids with a good amount of time to focus on their interests. Parents love it- their kids are learning the Faith, and it's academically rigorous.

Just one idea, anyway.

DO NOT FORGET
We have a wonderful, and vital cause in promoting sacred music. Sing it from the rooftops! :)

I recently did a wedding. The two pieces of music that got the most attention from the guests were Palestrina's Sicut Cervus and Soul of my Saviour which we sang in 4 voices. Sicut Cervus got the greatest attention and after the groom did me the disservice at the reception to point me out to all the guests I was getting an endless stream of inquiries about it.

Do something traditional and gloriously beautiful and they'll keep on asking for more.

@Adam, I would agree with you on most of what you say. However, even though we are out in the world promoting Sacred Music there are people who have never heard it or have heard it only in movies. There is a whole generation of people who have grown up in P&W churches and have never heard Latin, don't know what the purpose of Liturgy is. I heard someone say that only a 3rd of Catholic's poled gave an accurate description of what the Eucharist is. That is troubling and there are Catholic Apologists who are going around giving speeches, doing cruses, making trips to the Holy Land, and doing radio and TV spots to try and change that.
All I'm suggesting is that we do something similar. Then as these people start to grow in their faith and start to understand, we will be ready for them to also get the music right.

I guess I'm not concerned as much with changing anyone's worldview (that is ultimately the action of the HS) as I am with sharing good news. People can receive it or not.

Agreed.

People can't argue with positive anecdotes, they can sense they didn't know what the Church really says about sacred music and explore on their own, and they can ponder what's possible if they allow themselves to do so.

The first reading from todays (OF) Mass corresponds well with this.

The big difference in worldview that I run across is the fundamental purpose of the Church. Most people I run across don't believe that the Church has a whole lot of authority, certainly no more than any other religious entity or even secular institution. In that environment, the "best" church is the one that services my spiritual needs the best.

Yes, and in such a worldview where people claim to be Catholic and attend Mass and receive the Eucharist while not accepting her teachings on any number of social issues, why should they not think they are entitled to their own opinion on music? Particularly when there are parishes and pastors who are more than willing to accomodate them.

I suspect I'm in the minority here, but I find the Catholic apologetics movement largely worthless. It's just a bunch of angry over-paid people trying to compete and see who can be the angriest and most overpaid. Then when they get into arguments with protestant apologists, watch out... "Protestantism is bad!" "Catholicism is bad!" "Your mother wears combat boots!" "No, YOUR mother does!!" Meanwhile, very little is accomplished. Donr is right that it has helped many grow in understanding what they believe... but couldn't that be done without the adversarial nature of it?

If arguing over sacred music, liturgy, whatever were a fruitful endeavor, comboxes would be filled with converted chant gurus. All it ever accomplishes is making both sides more firmly entrenched in their position. Now they're not only more convinced the other side is WRONG; they're also convinced the other side is full of jerks, too.

Sacred music apologetics? Well, the first spiritual rule of evangelisation: if you think you are bearing The Truth to Those People Over There and don't keep in the front of your heart and mind that God's purpose in doing so might be to show you some more Truth through Those People Over There (and not merely the "truth" of how right you already are but one that might actually surprise and change you), then you've already gotten off course.

I am happy that Liam's already called the question, as I don't have any other delicate response to this,

For the worship of God, chant and polyphony are superior to modern forms of music which are designed to appeal to our sense of community or our skill as performers.
Case closed.

but that it reflects a myopia that cannot honestly be defended. Our cause and case is related conceptually, but not analogous to Pilate's "Truth? What is truth?" We don't need to dwell on the likely sentiment that cgz's actual statement (and which we are inclined to agree) but there are elements of its construct which are self-negating. I don't want to itemize, if you re-read it closely you'll get my drift.
But within our own realm, at best, chant (I'm going to omit polyphony because even the defintion of it in our own documents is a wide canyon) is deemed most appropriate for its inherent qualities, its geneology and its DNA for worship in the Roman Rite. It is not a matter of superiority over inferiority, it is not a matter of community over individuality, and it certainly is not a matter of fact/truth over opinion. It is our custom. And it exists among many other customs, including the nebulous polyphony, with our own rites, not to mention the customs of our related rites and the Orthodox.
This is what I tried to convey in my original response, to evangelize on behalf of chant (and...) is one gnarly, ginormous beast of a task, if one is using words.
When you can, wherever you can.....just chant. And then some more. show people that to chant is to love and that YOU are in love with the chant because it is the best you can re-gift the Father from your heart, in your art.
I've heard of "flash mob chanting." I'd sooner (and just might get up the courage) spend time doing that amongst our own. Go into an English or Spanish or.... RCIA session just before its time start and chant something really well. Then'd we'd be doing something true to ourselves as chanters.

Well, the first spiritual rule of evangelisation: if you think you are bearing The Truth to Those People Over There and don't keep in the front of your heart and mind that God's purpose in doing so might be to show you some more Truth through Those People Over There (and not merely the "truth" of how right you already are but one that might actually surprise and change you), then you've already gotten off course.

On the one hand, there is a grain of truth to what you say. On the other hand, the premise behind your observation is the death knell to all missionary work. Francis Xavier, Francis de Sales, Dominic de Guzman, all knew that they had what others lacked, and that they had a duty to convey it. We can discuss intelligently all manner of methods, but what value is there in denying what Holy Mother Church, through her saintly pope Pius X, has said on this topic? From Pius X to Pius XII the Church grew. Since John XXIII the missionary impulse has been severely truncated.

We don't really need a controversy of rites every time we engage a foreign culture, do we? Will syncretism with atheism help spread the Gospel or save souls?

the Catholic apologetics movement largely worthless. It's just a bunch of angry over-paid people trying to compete and see who can be the angriest and most overpaid. Then when they get into arguments with protestant apologists, watch out... "Protestantism is bad!" "Catholicism is bad!"

I have heard that sort of apologetics myself but it is not the current movement among apologists. There are even books about how not to do apologetics with mistakes they have all made, like what you are suggesting. This all needs to be done with the Love of Christ and his Church in mind.

I am not saying we should go around bashing the other side, I not even saying we should go and pick a fight. I am merely suggesting that we have the answers in our back pocket, maybe even literally a card we print up with common facts about why Sacred Music should be used that can be left in the back of churches.

I brought this up because I see a lot of what I believe we are all about in the Catholic Apologetics world. All they are trying to do is have an answer for questions protestants might have available to them at all times in many forms. Like for example: Why do Catholics pray to Saints, or Where in the bible does it say I need to confess my sins to a Priest? There are answers to these questions that have been around for 2 thousand years. We also have information from Church fathers and other writers that back up the case for Catholicism. CMAA has similar tools. The issue is that know one knows about it. I never knew about CMAA until I stumbled on it. If it were promoted more I would have come to it sooner I'm sure.

Do you have an idea of how many responses from the real vox populi to the articles about music have come to anyone's inbox? Take a guess.

Zero would be my guess, but that doesn't mean you are not effecting anyone.

Ex: If you go to the mall and leave the keys in your convertible BMW while you go shopping for 5hrs your car will be stolen. thousands of people will pass by the car, the majority will say boy what an idiot or not even notice, several will think about reporting it to the mall cops, 1 or 2 may actually do it, 1 person may even sit with the car for a while. and 1 person will steal it. The majority of people in this situation will not blame themselves for leaving the keys in the car but for a breakdown in the morality of society. When actually the majority of people were just fine.

My point is that the advertising of the keys in the car can be similar to advertising Sacred Music or any other advertising. Thousands will see or hear the advertising, most will do nothing about it. A few will think about it seriously 1 or 2 will join the choir and maybe 1 will fight against Sacred Music.

Even though this is true for all advertizements companies spend millions of dollars for that very small percentage of people.
The more you advertise and in the more different way you do it the more effective you will be.
You most likely do not remember an advertisement you heard on the radio this morning while driving into work, but with the radio, billboards, TV, pamphlets, salesmen or ? you will at least subconsciously go to the store see the product on the shelf, want it and buy the product.

donr, I take your point happily, as you compare sacred music to a Beemer cabriolet if nothing else. However, using you analogy if you assembled a cohort crowd of sales managers around a BMW (for sale, in the mall), do something like the sign and drive for $179 a month, no small print (Volkswagen) pitch, get one person to take it for a spin, s/he does so, and upon arriving puts pen to paper and drives off, chances are you'll do better than 1 positive or negative. (Of course a 179 BMW's a dream, it's an analogy!)
The second point that is somewhat off-putting is a shift of terminology from apologist to marketeer, or "advertising." The inculcation of a chant revival begins in every locale like the proverbial mustard seed. It's prominence is that small in CatholicLand. But planted in good soil by good farmers, tended and nutured to full harvest will season the feast for a whole lot of folks. Once it's planted, you don't take out a page in the Sunday supplement and advertise your mustard stand on the corner of First and Main.
Let's say both "potatoe and potahtoe" instead: draw up the apologetics primer like Tucker did over at MS with 24 FAQ's about sacred music, and then the farmers/chanters flash mob at the 2014 NPM, either sanctioned or ad hoc. See if that draws a crowd.
And Adam, I was typing as our similar observations were emerging. Succinct you are.

My opinion on the endeavor of apologetics having been made, I would like to address the original idea:

It seems like on CMAA forum, people are always saying "someone should, someone should." You know what? You're someone.

@Gavin..

It seems like on CMAA forum, people are always saying "someone should, someone should." You know what? You're someone.

This is exactly why I am taking this on. Unfortunately this requires the village and not just the idiot.
We all have talents that we can provide to the cause.
One might be just playing the organ and/or directing the choir.
Another's might be in talking with people.
Yet another's might be to get up infront of a crowd of 10,000 people and give a great speach.
There are Teachers, Profits, Scholars, and Poets, they all do a different function.

Yours might be to guide a movement, to listen to what is being said and to say: "You know what you said on the radio last night isn't exactly accurate, you could have said something like...".

Point is we all have a hole to fill.

Sorry. "Some of us were created"

Yes, Bootsbrown. God does have a preferred method of worship. It starts with acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with God.

Maybe it would be good to start there, with the "mercy" and the "humbly" and the "justly" and assume that other people have good will.

I say that because your first posts began on a confrontational, accusatory note:
"Am I to understand that God has a preferred method of worship..."?
"I'm suspect I'll be shot down by people more in tune with what God prefers"

Now instead of insinuating that other people are arrogant --

No, let me change that:

Instead of insinuating *anything* about other people's views, instead of putting words in other people's mouths, maybe it would be good to go a little more gently.

Because those of us who care about this cause of sacred music are -- for the most part -- trying to do what the Church has been teaching us for a hundred years about sacred music. We're not making it up ourselves.

Your welcome. I understand your commitment and will let you work out the right liturgical response to the Church's direction. I guess I have been easily led astray and will not insinuate anything about your concerns. It's not where I've been led to place my energies and I guess I will ultimately walk where I am led in my old age.

CR (Bootsbrown) I, too, welcome your contributions to the forum. Happily or otherwise, if you were "led astray" to this forum post and thread by an email, that email was not generated by myself. So, I regret that your ire was aroused; you, myself and a whole bunch of other folk are being subjected to the musings of an unknown hacker of questionable intent.
As to what you've stated, you know what goes on in your church, your parish. You know that your sensiblilites are respected and in no way mitigated or corrected from edict above. What you couldn't have known is the years and years of background of discourse here and elsewhere. This is a place where many find refuge to discuss their dreams as well as woes. You have to remember that the wellspring of new waters you ascribe to Bl.soon St. John 23 were to others a desert in which they've wandered for forty years. Nothing ecclesial is ever in real practice going to be universally acknowledged or accepted. But there is no cause for bitterness or resentment from any corner, in our particular vineyard.
The church does count time in centuries. God has no preference. But we humans do have a responsibility to examine the worship cultures thoroughly, not only through our own eyes and inspiration, but also within the disciplines that are, for some, still waiting to be discovered in the actual documents written in response to VII.
There is no reason to lose hope for your vision, nor to anticipate mourning the loss of a "church" yet to come.
Charles

So, we have an Oprah-cised church, Oprah-cised government, Oprah-cised media, and it's all about me and how I feel and what I like. Got it!