Except that can't be true because that would contradict Church teaching. I've seen plenty of liturgical events that display far-flung languages with ostentatious display of multicultural elitism.

This may be helpful...


My thoughts:

"Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of "inculturation" which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided."

It seems clear that what is being said is that elitist forms of "inculturation", that is, that bring local culture into the Liturgy, but that delve into an ARTISTIC language that is incomprehensible is what is being warned against, not a spoken language.

So music that is elitist from the past or the present is to avoided, music of modern forms such as some works Ligeti's and Stockhausen that would draw attention away from the liturgy through its style.

It's pretty clear that the word language is not spoken, but rather a way of describing the tonal and rhythmic language of music in this case.

I'm a novice at reading documents as well, and am also someone who is eager to find support for contemporary music in the liturgy. Even with my particular lenses on, the meaning that immediately jumped out at me is what FNJ was getting at: This has nothing to do with spoken language (which should be either Latin or the local vernacular) but is rather a rule (?) about musical language.

Regarding Gregorian chant as being "incomprehensible," that's covered: the directive only concerns music with "possible artistic value." That means (it seems to me) that music with definite artistic value is already allowed. The question of comprehensibility seems to only come up when:
-the music is selected based for its use in an attempt at inculturation AND
-the artistic value is not definite AND
-the (questionable) artistic value is part of the reason that some individual is championing this particular piece of music.

THEN (if those conditions are met), the comprehensibility of the musical idiom should be a guiding factor.
THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE! If you are doing something for the sake of inculturation, and yet the assembled people don't "get it," then you've just failed at your stated goal.

Thus!
The possible incomprehensibility of Latin, Gregorian Chant, or Sacred Polyphony (even if, indeed, they are completely incomprehensible) is not a reason to avoid them (at least, based on this quote).

Several things come to mind.

First of all, it seems to me that John Paul II is not referring to language in terms of words. Rather, I believe he is employing the use of the term "language" to refer to style or genre, i.e., the musical "language" of a particular composer or school. For instance, the musical language of Langlais, while of high artistic merit, may be incomprehensible to a rural farm parish, to use an extreme example, and would be inappropriate for that congregation.

But, if one takes it to mean words, to suggest that Latin is incomprehensible ignores an important concept (that I heard Rev. Skeris speak about on a repeat of "Mother Angelica Live" just this morning). We have been celebrating the Mass in the vernacular long enough now that even when we attend Mass in a parish that speaks only Spanish, Polish, German or French, we can still follow along, because we know (if they've not tampered with the Mass) that the Kyrie is followed by the Gloria, and when the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei occur within the order of things.

To introduce a Latin chant Ordinary, while perhaps new, is hardly "incomprehensible", any more so that when an English-speaking congregation has a music director introduce a multi-lingual Taize song.

This would also seem to halt the introduction of music that, for one reason or other, was not accepted by the Church in the early years of chant.

I guess part of the issue is that the answer that we reach as to the meaning of the wording must make sense. Why is it important that esotericism be avoided? Let's see if the answers so far make sense in relation to the Sacr. Conc.:

37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.

122. Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man's genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God's praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men's minds devoutly toward God.

To my mind, inculturation is valuable only to the extent that it makes sense to the people for whom the adaptation is made. Otherwise, why make the adaptations? On the other hand, it seems to me that the adaptations need to be of a high quality; the word "genius" is used in all these passages. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive positions. I think what the Pope was doing was to ensure that the drive for utilizing "native genius" is not used as carte blanche for esoteric expression created by an artistic elite.

I'm not sure that "language" should be conceived of in a metaphorical sense. That seems pretty unlikely in the context of such a pronouncement. I think it's safe to assume that spoken language is meant, and that the issue is that sometimes the language sung in a setting cannot be understood by the hearers as it is being sung, even if it's their own language. It's not that the language is Klingon. I think that it's more like the position of polyphony before Palestrina, where the Latin text was difficult to follow.

As I said, this statement doesn't seem to affect the use of Chant and polyphony, since it seems unlikely either of those musical languages would be used for the goal of inculturation. The comprension test, as it were, seems only to apply when the piece of music in question was selected for the purpose of inculturation. A piece of music selected (for example) because it is the Proper Introit text, in the official language of the Church, to the melody set down in the official books of the Church need not adhere to any standard of comprehensibility. (At least, from the narrow vantage point of this statement).

Well, we were all careful to omit the use of the word ineffable.

"[T]he sacred sphere of the liturgical celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or compositional and performance practices introduced without careful control."

This should have been used to keep music based upon rhythm rather than text out of the Church.