Catholic singing culture?
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,483
    I had an interesting Sunday, in the morning, I played at a Presbyterian Church.
    They had a 70 rank organ, and we needed it all cause there were about 300 people
    in the congregation, and they sang
    the roof off the building. The choir director apologized that during the summer
    there were only 100 volunteer people in the choir. In a half an hour rehearsal,
    They put together a complex anthem and sang it beautifully in the service.
    That evening, I played for mass at another nearby well to do Catholic parish.
    Very nice organ and piano. The large congregation was pretty much totally silent
    except for a few that tried to sing.
    What is wrong with our culture? What is going on?
    We go on and on about participation. The other churches don't even
    mention it, they just do it.
    I think we need a lot of humility... And realize that as a singing culture
    We haven't really got out of the starting gate.
    Comments welcome....
    Thanked by 2Gavin ZacPB189
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    For many Protestant Christians, especially those for whom the celebration of Holy Communion only takes place a few times a year, singing is the main act of adoration in the service. I might even say it is like a sacramental: it is a physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual act; it is a personal confession of faith made amid a confessing congregation; it is the high point of their full, conscious, active participation in the service. And if they sing classic hymns, their singing is an act of solidarity with past generations, going back to the Reformation, which they regard as practically a rediscovery of the gospel.

    Indeed, singing has not come to hold as dominant, as expressive, as influential a role in the spiritual lives of Catholics as it does in the lives of these separated brethren.
    Thanked by 4Adam Wood Mark Husey IanW Cailín Ceol Naofa
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,413
    Many and (very) subtle are the ways that communicate to Catholics that singing comparable to that of many Anglican and Protestant churches is Not Wanted, would be threatening to the clerical caste, especially were it lead by a choirmaster-organist who really, really knew his (or her) business. Compared to many non-Catholic churches, scads of Catholic congregations are hardly alive in church, and, I have noted that the clerical caste seems satisfied with that and often very subtly cultivate it. The clerical caste, as a rule, do not want congregations to be really, fully, alive at liturgy. Quiescence and maleability are preferred and are less threatening to them. If, on the other hand, a pastor who really wanted a live and singing conregation, he would have it!
    Thanked by 5ClergetKubisz Adam Wood CHGiffen Gavin Mark Husey
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,508
    Singing is the main act of adoration in the service. I might even say it is like a sacramental: it is a physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual act; it is a personal confession of faith made amid a confessing congregation; it is the high point of their full, conscious, active participation in the service. And if they sing classic hymns, their singing is an act of solidarity with past generations, going back to the Reformation, which they regard as practically a rediscovery of the gospel.

    Insofar as Catholics sing hymns, do hymns have the same functions? I hold this opinion while writing hymns.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,184
    Yes, except by and large solidarity with past generations, going back to the mid sixties.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,508
    A little farther than that, I think! I'm reminded of the story of Pope Benedict's brother's return home from the war.
    He finally was released on June 19 and hitched a ride on a milk truck back to his hometown, Traunstein.

    His family was happy to see him. "Of course, for full joy, something was missing. Since the beginning of April, there had been no word from Georg," he remembered. "So there was a quiet worry in our house."

    Suddenly, in the middle of July, in walked Georg, tanned and unharmed. He sat at the piano and banged out the hymn "Grosser Gott, wir loben Dich," "Mighty God, we praise You" as father, mother, sister Maria and Joseph rejoiced. [This is actually Holy God, We Praise Thy Name--the Te Deum.]

    The war was truly over. He wrote: "The following months of regained freedom, which we now had learned to value so much, belong to the happiest months of my life."

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/19/pope-recalls-being-german-pow/#ixzz2aR9jbjeT
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Jahaza
  • AP23AP23
    Posts: 119
    To do:

    1. Encourage Catholics to sing.
    2. Convert the protestants to Catholic.
    3. Question whether it is fine or not for Catholic organists to play at protestant services. (comments on this one please)
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Question whether it is fine or not for Catholic organists to play at protestant services. (comments on this one please)


    I saw a video with Cardinal Arinze commenting on this. I don't remember his exact comments, but personally I think it depends 1) on the strength of faith of the organist to hold fast to their own faith, and 2) whether that person is also making, or has made a good faith effort to share their talents in the service of the Catholic Church.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,483
    It also depends on whether the catholic organist has children to feed.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW marajoy Mark Husey
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    When one uses the wrong yardstick, it should be unsurprising that one comes to the wrong conclusion about the measurement taken.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Many Protestants also don't complain about 30-minute sermons. Let's not let the "clerical caste" get wind of this fact.
    Thanked by 2chonak IanW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    I have wondered if, after Vatican II, the hierarchy looked at the Protestants and thought, look at the Protestants. They sing, they dance, they are joyful, they have large parking lots and huge buildings, they paid cash for a $7 million dollar building (a large Baptist church here did exactly that), they tithe and are rolling in money. We should be more like them. Or as we unenlightened say, monkey see, monkey do.

    30 minute sermons. No, let's keep that one to ourselves. We wouldn't get 30-minute good sermons, just longer versions of the same. :-(
    Thanked by 2DougS IanW
  • Mad_Dan_EcclesMad_Dan_Eccles
    Posts: 51
    Many Protestants also don't complain about 30-minute sermons.


    But many many more would probably like to complain!

    30 minute sermons with real guts to them are one thing, but very few ministers of whatever persuasion have the ability to deliver something that truly merits that 30 minutes.
    Thanked by 2DougS IanW
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Fair point, Mad Dan! Protestant churches certainly have their share of bloviating.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Our congregation sings like birds. It's quite interesting, actually, because I don't think I've had to do anything to encourage it. They will even try to sing unknown songs after a few verses. They're troopers when it comes to singing at Mass and I appreciate it, for sure! I try to give them something new every month, and then repeat it throughout. For example, I introduced Bernadette Farrell's "Bread For the World" (we use the OCP music issue in lieu of an actual hymnal because the last hymnal we had before it was the old "People's Mass Book," which is a fine hymnal, but had been there probably since the church was founded) as an offertory for June, and we did it almost every weekend. They eventually caught onto it, and they can sing it quite well.

    I think that it comes down to the parish level: what is the community like where the parish is located? Are they singers, or not? If they weren't traditionally singers in the pews, they won't suddenly become so, no matter how great the music is. You have to encourage it somehow: training, etc. I think that most congregations will sing songs that they know: they actually like to do so, and enjoy singing at church. There are always going to be those people that simply won't sing and no matter what you do, you can't make them. I say let those people be, and let them enjoy the singing of the others. Quite often, I have found that the people that don't sing are uplifted by the simple act of hearing others do so. In my opinion, that's our job: helping to lift hearts, minds, and souls to God, whether they actually sing the music, or if just hearing it is enough.

    So, to help you sort through all of that, it all boils down to two things:

    1. What is the attitude of the parish community towards music? If it is supportive, they will be more likely to join you in performing it at Mass.

    2. What are some songs that the community knows and identifies with? More people are going to be willing to sing those songs than ones they don't know.

    Either way, I think that having the music available and providing the service are the most important things we can do as music ministers to foster a good singing culture: it starts from exposure. Also remember that some people are just shy, and won't even try to sing if they think everyone can hear them (hence proper use of organ!).
  • Mark HuseyMark Husey
    Posts: 192
    Most of my comments begin with "being in the South, where Catholics are a minority," and this one is no exception. At least under my previous pastor, we used a blend of Protestant (and even overtly Evangelical) hymnody on one end of the pole with Catholic staples and added them to the spikey-high-church other-end-of-the-pole that included polyphonic settings of the Mass ordinary, all which I learned from my experiences playing for mainline Protestants and high-church Anglicans. While this might be repulsive to liturgical purists, this kind of inculturation proved particularly effective in our setting: our congregation sings a broad spectrum of music fearlessly, they are discerning as to the style of pieces without demonizing them, the non-Catholic choral scholars we recruit take the best of the Church's mission with them to their various and sundry places, and we make a couple of converts in the process (not the least of them the president of the local Lutheran Seminary).

    A steady diet of comfort food will weaken the body, but the occasional serving of it lightens the soul.

    Our new pastor begins tomorrow and my first thought is "Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine."
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Adam Wood Mad_Dan_Eccles
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,483
    Wow, Lutheran president, I would like hear about that.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,413
    To be fair, I have witnessed a (relative) few Catholic churches at which the singing is real, heartfelt, singing. Too, I have been told that the singing is not necessarily 'up to par' at all Protestant churches. Of course, some will quickly point out that singing is not an end itself and that Catholics prize other aspects of worship, such as reverence and respect. While there is a shade of truth to this assertion, one might observe that, nonetheless, singing is an act of adoration, it is a spiritual offering and experience of the highest order, and standing mute when song is appropriate, normative and expected is definitely not respectful nor reverent.
    Thanked by 8Gavin SkirpR Spriggo Adam Wood melofluent CHGiffen ClergetKubisz ghmus7
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    The dumb, mute congregations at Catholic churches are a scandal, and ought to be a source of shame for these people. It is a flat-out refusal to give God the glory due unto Him. No excuse or hogwash about "interior" this or that can cover up that basic reality. End of story.
    Thanked by 5Spriggo Adam Wood Andrew_Malton ClergetKubisz MarkThompson
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I will post the following paragraph from Musicam Sacram (that document which unfortuneately some EF traditionalists claim doesn't matter because it was written in 1967, and some OF progressives claim doesn't matter because it was written in 1967).

    16. One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song.


    However, I can understand those who may rebel against being "forced" to sing. In my Catholic elementary school experience (and beyond) I remember teachers, pastors, etc., "guilting" us into singing. This is like being forced to play softball at a family reunion. It's enjoyable and serves its purpose when everybody wants to do it. When it becomes "mandatory fun" it can make you dislike what otherwise would have been at worst a neutral experience.
    Thanked by 4M. Jackson Osborn CharlesW Andrew_Malton CHGiffen
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    The dumb, mute congregations at Catholic churches are a scandal, and ought to be a source of shame for these people. It is a flat-out refusal to give God the glory due unto Him. No excuse or hogwash about "interior" this or that can cover up that basic reality. End of story.

    Yes, but I'd remind us all here that it's a bit dependent on when you're wanting the congregation to sing. They ought to sing the Ordinary. But being reluctant to sing during communion is understandable, to me.

    And it's a bit dependent on what you want them to sing. When I'm attending another Mass, I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to sing a sacro-pop "Glory to God." (I just "interiorly" imagine Gloria XV.)
    Thanked by 1IanW
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,413
    Wise words, Skip -
    The best way to get people to sing with their hearts in geuine prayer is to be one whose un-self-conscious example of that song is irresistable and infectuous. I doubt that many were ever moved to a full spiritual expression of anything that they were guilted into. Some of us may need to re-examine our paedagogical and catechumenical methods. Singing is an act of love. We sing because we are in love with God. We sing because, to paraphrase Holy Father Benedict, no other means of expression is adequate.

    And, your quote from Musicam Sacram might well have been penned by none other than Augustine of Hippo.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    And it's a bit dependent on what you want them to sing. When I'm attending another Mass, I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to sing a sacro-pop "Glory to God."


    I would suggest (and also suggest that MJO would suggest) that this is precisely the source of the scandal, or (at least) a major contributing factor.

    (I mean the programming, not your refusal to sing along with it.)
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Amen to SkripR's point about nagging at people for not singing. People sing to express their faith and devotion, so they need clergy and musicians to build up faith and devotion. Not taunting like a drill sergeant, not imitations of black ministers, etc.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn melofluent CHGiffen
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    The dumb, mute congregations at Catholic churches are a scandal, and ought to be a source of shame for these people. It is a flat-out refusal to give God the glory due unto Him. No excuse or hogwash about "interior" this or that can cover up that basic reality. End of story.


    The problem with this is that those who flat-out refuse to sing don't care what anyone says or what it might say about them: they're not going to sing, and that's the choice they've made.

    I also recognize that experiencing the music from a listener's standpoint can be just as uplifting and inspiring as singing. I understand that giving glory to God is the pinnacle of our song, and is also its purpose, however does it not also have the dual role of inspiring others to glorify Him in other ways? Perhaps if our music turns hearts, minds, thoughts, and prayers more earnestly towards Him, that is also glorious.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Spriggo Gavin
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Heartfelt singing. I can't help but think about my recent visits to our local baseball stadium. Available to be sung are items such as "Take me out to the ballgame", "O say, can you see?", "Sweet Caroline" and "YMCA". All of these could be, arguably, appropriate for their venue. On the other hand, who seriously means "buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jacks", even assuming that most of the people have any idea what "Cracker Jack" is. Who seriously means, especially when singing to the mascot, " touching me, touching you"? (In our hypersensitive environment, I'm somewhat stunned that the song is allowed, but I guess that's a bridge too far.) Does anyone actually believe that the bombs are still bursting? Of course not.

    People sing these songs quiet lustily. I'm not sure what singing lustily indicates.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 762
    On the other hand, maybe Catholic congregations don't want to sing. Perhaps they have a lot in common with the Quakers, except their worship is framed by the enactment of the Sacrifice and its liturgical context.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    @cgz
    You make an interesting point, but I'd posit group singing is part of the experience and the tradition. Maybe people don't know what "Cracker Jack" is anymore, and despite basic some basic functionality with liturgical Latin, I can't translate Adoro Te Devote or Pange Lingua word-for-word in my mind as I sing them....

    I don't think a lot of people think about songs word-for-word when they sing them. Instead, I think when people just in songs "lustily," it's because they know them well and agree with what the songs represent. In the case of a baseball game, it's the tradition of the sport, their hometown, and their country. In the case of a Latin Eucharistic hymn, it's the case of their faith, their Church, their Savior.

    If you choose not to sing in the ballpark or the church, I don't hold it against you. But I'm fasicnated as to how you're convinced every possible instance of a massed crowd (who is not a trained choir or schola) singing together is somehow wrong.
    Thanked by 4Gavin Adam Wood CHGiffen ClergetKubisz
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    SkirpR,

    What I meant was not that singing lustily was a bad idea ( which I will explain in a moment), but that the fact that people were singing lustily didn't mean that they 1) understood what they were singing; and 2) heartily agreed with the sentiments of the songs - or cared, for that matter.

    In my young life (I'm only 45), I've attended many events -- which I won't catalogue for you - for which the purpose was to get excited. As I've said elsewhere recently, it matters what feeds the fire. Large groups of people, using the "get excited" mantra, can then be used as a powerful weapon mob, which can easily be diverted from its "original" agenda.

    I'll never make a salesman: "Get excited. Be excited about getting excited. Get excited about being even more excited. Now....... Go out and ............."

    Now -- to the example I said I would explain.

    Near the end of my time in a wonderful parish with a straight-shooter priest I was asked to play for a funeral. I agreed. I found that the family of the deceased wanted the Latin chants which were available in the missalettes, and a few simple hymns, and..... they didn't need much organ at all, for they sang well. Those present prayed for the repose of the soul of the deceased.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    What I meant was not that singing lustily was a bad idea ( which I will explain in a moment), but that the fact that people were singing lustily didn't mean that they 1) understood what they were singing; and 2) heartily agreed with the sentiments of the songs - or cared, for that matter.

    In my young life (I'm only 45), I've attended many events -- which I won't catalogue for you - for which the purpose was to get excited. As I've said elsewhere recently, it matters what feeds the fire. Large groups of people, using the "get excited" mantra, can then be used as a powerful weapon mob, which can easily be diverted from its "original" agenda.

    I'll never make a salesman: "Get excited. Be excited about getting excited. Get excited about being even more excited. Now....... Go out and ............."


    I think I'm understanding the nuances of your viewpoint better. I agree that the get excited to get excited about something is rather pointless. But I do tolerate it, particularly when it involves entering into a worthy tradition.

    Now I don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the funeral story you related -

    Near the end of my time in a wonderful parish with a straight-shooter priest I was asked to play for a funeral. I agreed. I found that the family of the deceased wanted the Latin chants which were available in the missalettes, and a few simple hymns, and..... they didn't need much organ at all, for they sang well. Those present prayed for the repose of the soul of the deceased.


    But if I may, let me insert a hypothetical or two to the story -

    Let's say along with the family who sang so strongly, who through which prayed for the soul of their deceased loved one, there were also a few acquaintances in attendance. Perhaps from work or something or other - maybe not in the Church, or fallen away from the Church. I think, given what the family was doing so authentically in their singing, there might have been a better chance that at least one of these hypothetical acquaintances might have felt an urging to join in the singing, if for no other reason than to honor their deceased acquaintance. And even if they decided not to join in - or weren't familiar with the music - the experience of that well-sung congregational music as sung by the family might have provided the impetus for them to think about their own faith, opening up the possibility of conversion or a return to the Faith.

    Obviously we must be on guard against the kind of co-opting of a frenzied crowd you described, but I think the benefits of having a singing congregation (one of which I hypothesized about above) are generally greater than the risks. And I think the risks of discouraging it are generally greater than the benefits. However, we all tend to view these sorts of things through our own experiences, and I can easily imagine a number of parish situations where the opposite may be so true that it could lead one to believe it "better to be safe than sorry."
Add a Comment