I understand that Msgr Marini is in a difficult situation.

Might it be in concord with his statements to pose the following: does the level of willingness to die to self partly depend on whether it's really dying to self or betraying Our Lord?

Bill,

Is your question to Noel or to me?

Charles (Melofluent)

Much confusion all round. Must be the result of too much reading of Amoris Laetitia?

Is your question to Noel or to me?

Should be addressed to Richard Chonak, our esteemed host.

Richard - et al -

I will try to anonymize for the purpose of being helpful instead of turning this into a full-throated rant.

Although I currently live in an EF environment, I have opportunities to interact with OF environments. I am always on the horns of a dilemma as to what is the best thing to do.

In one parish, EMHC are more-or-less in evidence. These annoy me, and I won't receive from them because I believe that their use is being promoted beyond what the Church allows in her official documents, and because I believe that their overuse is demeaning to the dignity of the priesthood and, therefore, bad for vocational nurturing, not to mention a bad example for our children (everyone's not just mine). When I am occasionally invited to help out with music in an OF situation, I have to ask "how bad will I let it get, since I'm basically hired hands, before I won't participate?" Is the My little Pony Gloria bad enough to exclude myself from the situation, since I have no chance of persuading the organizers that this music doesn't belong at Mass? Or, is it only when Simon and Garfunkel make an appearance that the line has been crossed. Is it a question, as Adam Wood often posits in these types of questions, of doing what I like versus what I don't like -- in which case I should give ground -- or is it a matter of making the liturgy a "mutual admiration society", as my mother-in-law used to call her games with her (then) 3 yr old, and, therefore, the desecration of the House of God?


I urge all involved to do an examination of conscience. It is simply wrong to allow the gilding of a golden calf, no matter what the regulations "allow". It is, similarly, wrong for individuals to impose their own "personal restorations"(Rome's expression) on the liturgy, whether this is the priest, the head of the liturgy committee, the organist, the choirmaster or (heaven help us) the soloist. By way of analogy, it is right to turn the other cheek, but it is cowardice to deny Christ.

Addressing more specifically the words of Msgr Marini which Noel gives us to consider, it is noteworthy and expected that he feels that all deference should be to the priest, even when he may be objectively, um, 'out of step' with the Church's teaching with regard to music and liturgy. This is to be expected isn't it? And, in 'real life' probably everywhere in the world, this dynamic represents existential reality.

I'm not 'exactly' countering this in toto, for, indeed, this is for the most part as it should be - but there are ancillary 'should be's', among them someone (such as bishops??? such as musicians and parishioners themselves???) to expect (and if necessary impose) that their priests will themselves be obedient to the preservation, fostering, and cultivation, of that music which the Church is on record as explicitly wishing and requiring.

There is no reason that priests, any more than the rest of us, should get a free ride when it comes to instituting obediently the Church's desires concerning music and sung liturgy. Nor any reason that their people should not hold them accountable in these regards. They are not gods. They are in persona Christi for an hour or so periodically throughout the week when celebrating sacraments and rituals. Other than this they are quite fallible and, often, willfully ignoring or forbidding those very things which they do have specific authority to see to. There are far too many priests who love nothing more in heaven or in earth than being obeyed, but who, themselves, are poor, incredibly poor, examples of liturgical and musical obedience. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander' - nor should we shrink from impressing that upon them.

Msgr Marini, perhaps 'betwixt a rock and a hard place', painted an idyllic picture of holy concord. However, he did not venture to address the more fundamental realities in parishes throughout the world, nor even begin to note that The Church expects something in the way of fidelity to musical and liturgical Norms from priests and bishops, a fidelity from too many of whom it does not receive, and, for some strange, very strange, bizarre, reason does not insist upon. (Don't we all know that if 'Rome' really wants something Rome will get it? Don't we know that if bishops and priests really want something they will get it?!)

If the Church's will were a reality in our parishes, Gregorian chant in Latin and English, our patrimony of choral music, organs, hymnody, fine choirs, congregations that can will really sing with confidence, priests and people celebrating fully sung liturgy, and more would be commonplace throughout the Church. Far from it! They aren't. What should have been the Vatican II Church does not exist. So called and self-styled 'Vatican II' people are not really Vatican II at all. The fault is that of the hierarchy and the presbyterate, and our seminaries - and the people are counseled, as always, to be docile. Msgr Marini could have done much better in service to Justice - and in service to the Church's recorded expectations about liturgy and music.

In closing, permit me to note that I know, have known, and have met, priests of a profound sanctity such as was literally astonishing, in whose very presence one could have abided speechless all the days of one's life, whose wisdom and grace, not to mention humility, were almost beyond comprehension. For them I am thankful, deeply grateful. They are believable as Christ-like to those who come saying as did those Greeks of old, 'Sir, we would see Jesus'. I only wish that there were more of them.

The best way to inculcate obedience is to demonstrate it. This is why bishops such as Conley, Bruskewitz, Barber and a few others have such thriving dioceses. The bishops are known to take seriously the teaching of the Church, not merely as a set of things to teach, but also a way to live.

Therefore, the best way to encourage liturgical discipline is to practice it.

Let it be noted, however, that children are taught to obey legitimate authority in all things not sinful and not sinfully commanded.

Jackson,

I completely agree that there is an objective, ontological difference between power and authority.

A priest friend of mine has noted that the Devil's triumph at Vatican 2 is to make obedience to legitimate authority disobedience to Tradition.

Such are the times in which we live. Power may coerce (as has always been true) but only authority can command.

Prudence requires that we (in our morally and legal right position) do not become what we so (rightly) despise.

We may not be able to stop the evil, but we don't have to cooperate with it.

A deferential question,"can you cite chapter and verse supporting that? can sometimes diffuse an objection (it can also exacerbate the issue, it must be admitted).

I don't think this is something I would ever be able to get away with doing. At least not in the situation I was previously in. If I had said that to my priest, he would have been very upset, and likely dismissed me from the position outright. His view was that he shouldn't have to discuss his decisions with me: if he said so, it was. Period.

In another situation, simply mentioning the titles of the documents was enough to get someone to back off, but this person was not clergy. The trick there was that this person thought she knew better than I did what the Church norms were for liturgy, then I started quoting SC and the GIRM, and she had no clue they even existed.

As for diffusing an objection from clergy, I think asking for justification would simply be met with firm insistence that the priest is the boss and the musician should just do what he's told. I think this also has to do with the relative experience levels of the people involved: if you have an older priest and a younger musician, the priest could resent the question as a kind of insubordination, and could simply reiterate his legitimate authority and refuse to discuss the topic. If it was a younger priest with a more experienced musician, say, someone who has been in the parish significantly longer than the priest and is well respected in the community already, the priest would be more likely to give the request some consideration and be open to what the musician has to teach him.

.

.

.

It is a good thing to clearly understand what the job requires before you take it. If those requirements are spelled out, it is unprofessional to take the job and not meet those requirements. If you don't like the requirements, don't take the job. You don't have a right to take the job and further your own agenda, if that agenda is different than what you agreed to provide.

There are similar issues in some other professions. A pastor may overrule a DRE about curriculum issues for parish religious ed; he may overrule a parochial school principal about school policies. And of course pastors are subject to the directives of bishops, and priests don't have the option lay people have, to negotiate or at least get a clear policy statement about hot-button issues before taking the job.

If doctors of music et. all are going to whine and complain in their positions and throw tantrums over music selections, then why should priests and finance committees commit professional salaries to them

RPhillips,

Musicians shouldn't demand exorbitant salaries, but that's another can of worms. Musicians shouldn't whine, but again, that's a different question.

Clergy (as popes remind us) are servants of the liturgy, not its masters.Since priests are supposed to be responsible for the beauty brought to the worship of God, even if they don't like the people charged with executing that they should commit professional salaries to those they assign the duty of using their competency to adorn the liturgy fittingly.

Those charged with the duty of music at Mass should be exemplary Catholics, because anyone charged with a liturgical office should be.

If you feel that it is somehow against God's will to play music your boss asks you to play at Mass, do you what your boss asks, then go to confession.

If you have to go to confession after obeying your boss's instructions, then either 1. your boss's instructions were not moral to begin with, and/or 2. you need to get away from that boss.

This entire thread is precisely why I'm seriously considering chucking my music profession and the DMA I slaved for (and underwrote with my own money) in favor of a completely different career.

It's also why several very talented young organists I know (one of whom I have the pleasure of teaching) will never darken the doorstep of a Catholic Church.

If I have to choose between my professional integrity, my financial stability or the welfare of my soul, guess which one wins.

I am too old to change careers, and have retired from the careers I previously had - neither was music. I did and do church music as a side activity. But I, too, have about had enough. When I leave this job, I will never work in another Catholic church.

Blessed is he who endures to the end.

"Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5:3-10

Lofty thread.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Deja vu, again.

There is no way to discern what does, or does not, constitute real tradition. The merits of tradition can only be judged from the perspective of whoever is evaluating it - thus it is an opinion.

You're painting with a broad brush here. Please be more specific, because it seems that these statements could be interpreted as denying the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which was a major way the faith was handed down before Scripture was codified, and stating that it is only "opinion" that the Church handed down certain tenets of the faith through what is termed Tradition. Again, we probably have a discrepancy in the definitions.

I would argue that yes, there is a concrete way to discern what constitutes a tradition. Again, here is the dictionary definition of a tradition:

noun

1.the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice:
a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.

2.something that is handed down:
the traditions of the Eskimos.

3.a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting:
The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.

4.a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.

5.a customary or characteristic method or manner:
The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

6.Theology.

(among Jews) body of laws and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and originally handed down orally from generation to generation.
(among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not originally committed to writing.
(among Muslims) a hadith.

7.Law. an act of handing over something to another, especially in a formal legal manner; delivery; transfer.

I would posit that the simple fact that there is a dictionary definition of what a tradition is means that it's not "just opinion:" it has to meet the definition or it's not tradition. That being said, there are many practices in the Catholic Church that are definitely traditions, examples of which can be given upon request because they are too numerous to name at this time.

There is no guidance from Holy Scripture on what does, or does not, constitute real tradition when it comes to music, or for that matter, the morality of any particular taste in music.

Correct. Scripture does not give us any guidance regarding the Church's traditions for music. However, it is worth stating that it doesn't have to be in the Bible for the Catholic Church to pass it on as a traditional practice. We are not Sola Scriptura, so we have Scripture AND Tradition: together; one does not trump the other. Again, please reference the above definition of tradition. Per that definition, there is absolutely guidance from the Church as to what constitutes tradition in music. That tradition has been identified and passed down throughout the centuries of the Church as chant.

Don't we think that if Jesus had meant to achieve the salvation of humanity through music, he would have done so? With clear instructions on what to sing, how to sing it, when to sing it? Maybe even a composition or two? He turned water into wine, so he certainly could have turned his disciples into a perfectly tuned choir. Jesus did not give any guidance whatsoever on music or music traditions.

I think that these statements are second-guessing the Lord, and His intentions. This argument seems to point to your next statement as support for why you think it really doesn't matter what kind of music we have in the church environment:

Jesus did not give any guidance whatsoever on music or music traditions. What he did do was give us guidance on how to live.

Are you meaning to suggest that it doesn't matter what kind of music we have in the church environment?

are we not guilty as music directors or musicians in whatever capacity, of becoming disciples who argue about whose music is better in the kingdom of heaven?

No. Because that's not what we're talking about. We are discussing the maintenance of traditional practices within the Church, and how to best deal with situations where you are asked to abandon them, often without explanation. We have clear, explicit documentation from the Second Vatican Council that outlines what liturgical music should be like. This is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church: nowhere is that information to be found in Sacred Scripture, yet it still forms part of our patrimony, and is part of the long established practices of our faith. On the subject of music not really being discussed in the Bible, I will posit the following question for your pondering: if Scripture doesn't tell us what kind of music, or when or where to perform for the liturgy, how then did Catholics for centuries know, other than long established and passed down traditions, how to sing the Mass, and do it in relatively the same manner from generation to generation?

We ignore the fact that Jesus gave us no guidance on music, and ignore the very words he said which should guide our conversations and conduct. The sermon on the mount is among other things a very good guide on how to be a music director...and on how to be professional with those we work with and work for.

Again, you seem to suggest that because it's not in Scripture and Jesus didn't directly say anything about it THAT WE KNOW OF, then it doesn't matter what kind of music we have in the liturgy. The fact is, we don't know everything Jesus told His disciples. We don't know if He did or didn't address the issue of music. I have, however, learned from an esteemed colleague, Dr. Mahrt, who I believe learned this from a Jewish rabbi that the Gregorian Psalm Tones predate Christianity, and are related to old Jewish chants, such as those Jesus and Mary would have known in their time. I have addressed that claim already.

Also, and again, you use that word "professional." I have already given my discourse on that as well.

Amen! Our Lord values obedience to one's superiors.

@clerget: One suspects that "Rphillips" is a troll, someone who is a lightweight in understanding of musica sacra, and chameleon for the sake of a paycheck.

BTW, ask any Orthodox Jew exactly what Christ and the apostles sang at the Last Supper. They'll sing it for you. It's called 'tradition.'

Clarification of several rather bold assertions in a comment above is in order, lest they should be accepted as truth by some unwitting soul. Otherwise, I think it imprudent to continue in a disputation which seems to be a dead end.

+

On the matter of what Jesus and the disciples sang at the Last Supper, it is almost universally accepted in the scholarly world that this 'hymn' was, in fact, most likely one of the Hallel psalms (CXIII-CXVIII) associated with Passover. There can be no doubt that it, like any and all psalms (indeed, all of Holy Writ) would have been sung. 'Psalm', of course, derives from the Greek which indicates a text that is to be sung. ('Psalm' and 'hymn' are, in fact, almost interchangeable translated designations in the New Testament for most anything that was sung.) The music would have been not unlike that associated with temple worship, which would have been, to our ears, rather oriental, a species of speech song, a cantillation somewhere betwixt speech and what we would call song.

The nearest extant examples in our tradition would be the tones for prophecy, epistle, and gospel, plus those for collects and prefaces, even the exsultet. Notable, too, would be some of our psalm tones, which are known to be direct descendants of formulas typical of the temple's music. Indeed, to this day the Jews of Yemen sing psalm CXIII to a likeness of our tonus peregrinus, long associated in the Church itself with that very psalm CXIII, In exitu Israel. A moment's reflection will bring the realisation that as psalm CXIII is traditionally associated with our tonus peregrinus, it may, then, have been very similar to what Jesus and his brethren sang. Too, it is reasonably inferred by a number of scholars that Jewish music was inevitably the subject of cross-pollination with Aegyptian temple music. This Semitic chant-cantillation was the primary influence on early Christian singing, bearing fruit in the Syrian churches, and from there to the West. Our Western liturgical chant (commonly called 'Gregorian') is a direct descendant of these eastern traditions, a fact borne out in the obvious orientalisms in appreciable portions of the Gregorian repertory, particularly the most ancient tracts and some of the more ecstatic graduals, not to mention literary attestations. And, from there, I think, every music student knows the subsequent development of the Western musical tradition from this chant, chant which no less a musical luminary than Mozart et al. recognised as the bedrock of all our music. How exciting that this bedrock rests in the soil of temple music formulas! How more exciting, yet, that these formulas were known and sung by our Lord himself and that our own plainchant is related to them!

So, contrary to what was rather audaciously asserted above, we know quite a lot more than 'nothing' about what Jesus and the disciples' 'hymn' may have sounded like and what it was. While on the subject we may note that when Jesus recited psalm XXII on the cross he would have (painfully) sung it. No one of Jesus' world would at any time not have sung sacred writings. Further, it may be asserted with relative certitude that when Jesus famously read the scriptures before the elders he would have chanted them, for so holy was Holy Writ held by the Jews to be that to have read it in a spoken voice rather than sacred cantillation would have been thought all but blasphemous. (And, to some of our minds, that continues to be the case.)

+

Next, on the matter of tradition: the above assertions about what is and isn't tradition were, likewise, rather audacious, if not foolhardy. Tradition is most certainly not 'opinion'. Yves Congar, in his masterful Tradition and traditions, likens tradition to the enfranchisement of our ancestors. As many will know, the very word is from the Latin tradere, meaning 'to hand down': it is that ancestral gift which is given, passed, from one generation to the next. A people without traditions are a spiritually poor and culturally dead race - a gruesome fact well-known by conquerors who wish to destroy a people by erasing their language and traditions. (There are parallels of this in the behaviour of not a few in the Church, lay and cleric, male and female alike, in the years following the recent council!)

A people who have dis-enfranchised their ancestors have committed cultural and spiritual suicide. They are, literally, 'at sea', rudderless in the storm of history. Tradition is the crown, the corona, of any culture, especially a religious one. Tradition is the carrier of what is believed, what is reverenced, what is fundamental to the human spiritual condition. Tradition is identity, one might say, the DNA that gives to the next generation the spiritual formation that had been 'handed down' to the last one. Without it, one is free to create from whole cloth his and her own existential construct - another thing which has obvious parallels in the post-Vatican II Church. When one reduces tradition to opinion, when one lies and says of a council that it 'did away' with things that, rather!, it explicitly directed should be preserved and fostered, one has not only disobeyed the only real authority, but enfranchised him- and her-self to be the arbiters of a bleak traditionless, inauthentic and non-authoritative ruin - the very relativist vacuum that Emeritus HF Benedict warned against.

Some traditions bear what is fundamental, one might say de fide, to our Church. These are Traditions with a capital 'T', being the Church's teachings, divinely received, about the sacraments, holy orders, moral teachings, scripture itself, all that was commanded by Jesus himself, or was handed down directly by the Apostles, things that are immutable, fundamental to the faith. Others enjoy a lower case 't', and may be anything from clerical celibacy, ritual, wedding rings, cruciform churches, any given hieratical language, vesture, Christmas trees, making the sign of the cross, distributing Maundy money, chalking 'CMB 2017' over the door of one's home, and on and on. But, even the non-capital traditions carry spiritual blood and may serve as anchors, or pillars, along our life's way. They, often, are mirrors and illustrators of their upper case cousin Traditions. While 'Traditions' are indelible and changeless, 'traditions' may from time to time change or give way to new developments, but none of them are to be scorned or set aside lightly lest harm be done to individual or societal psychic health and identity. One should be wary of those who hold traditions or, even worse, Traditions, in a less than respectful reverence. As for being so untutored as to think them 'opinions'? How unfortunate - unfortunate for that mind and for all who are subject to its influence!