How would you reply to this?--Seriously
  • Where would you even start? In a discussion of liturgical music, a liturgist responded this way when shown the letter that AB Sample wrote to the Marquette diocese before he left there:
    " Sound liturgical music takes many forms; and not all "sacred music" is appropriate to the liturgy.

    The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - which is the overarching document or lens through which any liturgical decision needs to be made - makes it clear that the criterion to be considered ABOVE ALL ELSE is the full, conscious, and active participation of the entire assembly. That is the primary lens through which we make our decisions.

    If it is unintelligible and unsingable; if it does not lead us to worship, to encountering the living God - it is not suitable - whether Gregorian chant or contemporary hymn.

    I agree that the starting point, musically, is the Ordinary; these parts should be sung before all else. Likewise, attention ought to be given to the Propers and to the Orations and Dialogues. But it must also be stated that the US Bishops have made it clear that we are not bound to chant; metrical hymnody is perfectly appropriate in place of the entrance and communion antiphons. Decisions regarding what and when to sing ought to be driven by the principle of progressive solemnity, as also clearly stated by the US Bishops.

    There is no "universal" or generic liturgy; all liturgy is particular and inculturated. While organ and Gregorian chant are part of our history, they are not the musical idiom that necessarily or automatically speaks to or expresses contemporary faith. They are not magic bullets. They were forms proper to Europe at a certain time; they are not necessarily the best option in every place and across all times. Such a claim would be a form of musical fundamentalism; and, as Catholics, we are not fundamentalists.

    For example, it is interesting that the text you sent mentions polyphony, but such a musical style flies in the face of all the principles that you quoted - it makes the music primary, reducing the text to an almost unintelligible level. In fact, the renewal of Gregorian chant was a reaction against polyphony, which had become the "official" musical style of the Baroque Church. But it is part of our history, too. It had its time and place. As did the ancient church teaching that ALL instruments were forbidden... a tradition that carried into the practice of the papal chapel well into the 1800s (where we get the expression, "a capella" for singing without instrumental accompaniment).

    Liturgy changes: the core does not change (we gather, listen to the word, take/bless/break/give the bread, and then are sent on mission), but the WAY that we have done "this" in Christ's memory has changed dramatically across the ages and across the globe. Language, vesture, art, architecture - all change.

    And so does liturgical music. It must, because it expresses a LIVING faith. I understand where the Archbishop is coming from; but it must be stated that he is offering only ONE possible approach, the approach that he has discerned is best for his flock, his time and place. It is not THE approach to liturgical music - and not necessarily the best approach for music in this diocese. The liturgical documents allow for a range of options, and we always make our decisions within those boundaries."
  • Leaving aside the sense that I've stumbled into the second half of a heated discussion, I would say that, "it must be stated that he is offering only ONE possible approach, the approach that he has discerned is best for his flock, his time and place," applies also to the Second Vatican Council. Those fellas made a play, and it turned out the way it turned out. Now we have to figure out what to do.
    Thanked by 1TeresaH
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    The person who's writing such things may have a full set of practical reasons for them, and he's not all wrong, but he really isn't representing the Second Vatican Council's teaching fully.

    The Council's teaching on sacred music is found in the document "Sacrosanctum concilium", chapter VI.

    The Council calls for music to foster full, conscious, active participation. This "active participation" varies depending on the various parts of the liturgical action: sometimes the congregation's part is to listen attentively; sometimes, to watch a procession; sometimes, to sing an acclamation. All of these are aimed at fostering interior participation in the mysteries that are celebrated.

    The Council directs that:
    * The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.
    * Gregorian chant .... should be given pride of place ["principem locum", the first place]
    * Polyphony ... [is] by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations
    * Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them

    The Council did not endorse any indifference toward the Church's musical heritage of chant and polyphony: instead, it values it and calls for it to be practiced and lived and taught to the nations.

    I know and you know that these things have not been widely done in this country in the past fifty years. Americans have their biases in favor of doing things that are new, of doing things that are "our way",, of doing things that seem easy and efficient, and so these wishes of the Council for sacred music have not been generally followed. But at least we should know what the Council called for; and what the Council values, we should value and keep in mind as an ideal to which we can aspire.

    The Council also writes:
    * sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action

    This is also an important principle: singing the authentic liturgical texts is more valued than the singing of songs and hymns. The Church wants us to sing the Mass, not just sing songs at the Mass.

    If pastors want to implement the Council's vision, they need to be gentle with souls, which is always the Catholic way, and gradually foster the singing of the people with sacred music of high quality. It could take several years to build up to the Council's ideal: a fully sung Mass, with sung ordinary and propers, and with music mainly from the Catholic heritage. Whether the music is in Latin or English is not that important: what matters most is that the music be liturgically appropriate and be as beautiful as the skills of the musicians and congregation can achieve.

    And first of all, the example needs to be set by the priest who sings his dialogues. He can set the tone of the celebration by letting his first words be the simple sung invocation: "In the name of the Father and of the Son..." Instantly he can lift up the faithful out of their everyday mindset into an attentive participation in the rite.
  • As with so many things, this is a balance of ideals that exist in a state of inherent tension.

    On the one hand, yes, “full, conscious, and active participation”, as generally understood, includes some degree of congregational singing. On the other hand, preservation of the musical patrimony more or less implies (requires?) that such music (which generally excludes the congregation’s singing) be part of the Church’s liturgy. Considering the congregation’s participation “above all else” does not imply the reckless desuetude of art music (esp. choral music) that some seem to want it to be.

    As I see it, it’s perfectly legitimate to give some, perhaps even all, of the Proper parts of the Mass to the choir. There is still plenty for the congregation to sing—much of which (esp. the “first level” from Musicam Sacram) is “untapped” in most places. We thus arrive at a “dialogue” among the various “players” in the liturgy: celebrant, congregation, and choir.

    Alternatively, have the choir sing part of the Ordinary (e.g., the Gloria), and have the congregation sing more of the Proper, and/or more hymns, to “compensate”. This can work well on Christmas, for example, when lots of folks look forward to singing carols: have your choir sing the Gloria and maybe a short communion motet, then do carols throughout otherwise.

    A formula that I have seen work well is to use simple (e.g., Anglican Use Gradual) chants for the Proper, then do hymns alongside them. You thus “cater” to both traditions.
    Thanked by 1TeresaH
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    Not sure I can add much to the excellent comments, but just one clarification.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium 14 states that "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else" (emphasis added). So I wouldn't go so far as to say that SC teaches that participation "is the primary lens through which we make our decisions" about the liturgy. SC is talking about the reform of the liturgy, not every last decision we make on a day-to-day basis.

    In support of this, you can point to the document of the US bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, Sing to the Lord, which, following earlier documents, lays out three criteria ("judgments") for selecting music for the liturgy: liturgical, pastoral, and musical. It seems that your liturgist friend is shrinking it down to one - "participation" (and, as others have pointed out, a rather limited version of that concept). In essence it's a reduction of the "threefold judgment" down to only one - the "pastoral." But the liturgy makes liturgical and musical "demands" as well which shouldn't be ignored.
    Thanked by 2teachermom24 TeresaH
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Moreover, to assume "pastoral" means "encouraging active participation" (whatever THAT means) is also problematic.

    Often "pastoral" is used to mean "things people like," which is a serious misunderstanding of the idea of pastoring, or shepherding, people.

    A shepherd's job is to keep the sheep safe, to make sure they are healthy and well fed, to promote their growth, and to cause them to move to where they need to be. The best shepherds are able to keep the sheep happy and comfortable while doing so, but no real shepherd would think that moment-to-moment happiness and comfort are the primary goals.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Another musician has noted that 'the single most difficult thing for a church musician to do is to remove oneself from the current culture and get into the culture of the Church.'

    This follows Benedict XVI's observation that 'culture' is derived from 'cult'. We cannot, as church musicians, accept the culture of America--largely Protestant and pragmatic--and at the same time practice the cult of Catholicism in worship. Better put, we cannot ram American culture into the Mass without seriously endangering the aim of the Mass.

    "Participation" in the Sacrifice of the Mass means (strictly speaking) to nail oneself to the Cross of Christ: to sacrifice oneself as an oblation to God as did Christ. Does the music, then, generate a desire to sacrifice 'self'? Or does it affirm 'self'? Hmmmm?

    So unless the liturgist and musician understand and live in the cult of Catholicism, they are unable to feed the flock. If the music does not illustrate, or illuminate, the text (the Word), it is not of the Catholic cult, and it is as tinkling cymbals or sounding brass.

    Think your liturgist friend will get that?
  • It's a fairly reasonable, if overly cliched statement from the liturgist. Of course, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to liturgical music - that would be a good common ground. The liturgy should also take on the best of whatever culture it is in. And it is not the case that you can always and everywhere just make the decision to incorporate chant and polyphony. You have to have a decent acoustic, frankly, for chant to come alive, not to mention good singers. And polyphony is even harder. You might be able to agree with this liturgist that far - assuming he/she is not one of those who thinks chant and polyphony are inherently bad.

    Here's some pushback on a couple of cliches, though:

    1 - That this music "had its place" in a certain time in Europe. A red herring here. The music also "had its place" in mission lands around the world. Just look at Mexico as one example. For centuries there was a fruitful interplay between Old and New World - churches and organs built incorporating native art, native composers as well as Spanish expatriates. There is a wonderful tradition of chant, polyphony, and organ in Mexican history stretching over centuries. Of course, the big publishers now would like to condescend and pander to Mexicans as second-class citizens in every way, with second-class music. The liturgist probably thinks that Mariachi is a 'genuine' form for Mexican culture, but chant or polyphony would be foreign. In fact, Mariachi is European brass-band music that came to Mexico relatively recently and has less pedigree than chant and polyphony in that culture.
    Second point to the above, America is in large part a European melting pot (although to be sure, it's tipping more toward Asian and Latin now). So pigeonholing music as "European" in no way makes any kind of argument about its use in America.


    2 - The liturgist needs to brush up on music and music history. Polyphony is a very broad term - music in many independent voices. Each era has had compositions in a polyphonic style. To suppose that polyphony=Renaissance is to be ignorant of basic music theory and history. I could write a polyphonic composition tomorrow...
    And I think it's pretty clear that the Church says "polyphonic music is by no means excluded" in this broad sense. SC is not just referring to Renaissance music; it is making a distinction between monophony and polyphony and saying both are acceptable. Naturally, the polyphony of the Renaissance golden age has a special place in the treasury, but it's not the only polyphony.

    3- Renewal of chant...not sure where to start here. It took place in the late Romantic era, that's two eras later than the Baroque. It was not a reaction against polyphony - if it was a reaction to anything it was an alternative to theatrical, operatic music in the church. And a distinctive feature of Baroque music was its clarity - melody and figured bass, rather than the full polyphonic texture of the stile antico. And...never mind...I could go on but there is just too much wrong with the liturgist's knowledge of music history.

    4 - Polyphony is unintelligible. This is indeed a battle that has been fought since the advent of polyphony. But it should be said that a huge amount of polyphony is perfectly intelligible. Especially that from the 16th-century. A sensitive setting by a master actually brings out each line of text in a meditative way rather than obscuring it. Go listen to Byrd's Ave Verum or the Josquin Ave Maria or any 4- or 5- voice Palestrina Mass and tell me that polyphony is inherently unintelligible. The liturgist is repeating a cliche, but clearly has no familiarity with the repertoire as performer or listener.
  • As I eat my lunch and read back over this thread, I am intrigued by the concept of something having "had its proper time and place". Every human artefact, whether a work of art, a book, an invention, a system of thinking, an institution has "had its place and time" in the sense that it began at some point and place in human history. In other words, there is no significance whatever to this argument.

    Dickens "had his proper time" - but we still read his contributions to human culture. This is more true than ever in our age of global communications and unlimited media. When a human being creates something of note, that thing becomes the property of the human race.

    Only a simpleton or liturgist would try to apply this line of thinking to liturgical music, where, I suppose, most people don't know any better. But the liturgist should know better, right? Eucharistic Prayer I "had its time and place". The Nicene Creed "had its time" As did the gospels and epistles, and every single other thing or text or aspect of Catholicism that was not invented or written down today. Before Lunch. In the room where I am sitting. I guess those things are all of them foreign to my incredibly up-to-date experience.
  • My previous blog post is now two minutes old. It 'had its time' and now as I am moving to the practice room it is no longer relevant to this discussion. LOL
    Thanked by 2chonak TeresaH
  • Mass transcends space and time. At Mass we are present at the fulfillment of the entire word of God. The exodus, king David, the parables of Jesus and His death and resurrection happened so his people could truly worship the Father at this Mass. These events, and scriptures reach their true purpose when they are celebrated in the Mass as they now give praise to the Father and become part of our redemption . In this sense all salvation history- is actually present to us. the many events in the Bilbe are happening again as praise and thanksgiving to God. Songs that do not reflect this holy textures (though easy to sing and intelligible) will obstruct our spiritual participation in such a perfect event. Participation does not mean everybody sings everything but it does mean preparation, fasting and prayer.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz