Yes! So here is the post. and here is what she says:

1) The music was complex, multi-faceted, but did not overwhelm or call attention to itself. It was rich but subdued and served God through the liturgy.

2) Latin and chant were in evidence. Sanctus and Agnus Dei. A beautiful piece sung by two women, at Communion. (I know I have blog readers who were there, and if you can provide a list, feel free! Please also tell me what the second Communion piece was - centered on Jesus’ words about going to Galilee - I’d like to post it.)

3) The propers flowed seemlessly in and out of the spoken words. No gaudy, prolonged introductions.

4) The Responsorial was done in a way that I’d not heard, but that Michael tells me is an option that more are becoming aware of, particularly since it evokes some elements of the Liturgy of the Hours: the response was chanted twice at the beginning, the soloist chanted the entire Psalm through, and then the response was chanted again. I thought it was very conducive to prayer.

Mad, mad props to Mr. Noel Jones, who is the music director at St. John’s - they have a good website for their music ministry here, and if you are in East Tennesse wanting to sing some good music - I’m sure they’d love to have you.

David, take my word for it on this uniformity issue. All attempts to impose it are nearly certain to lead to disaster. Anytime a pastor says "oh, we want the parish to be united in its music" look out! Yes, in theory it sounds ok, but the practical reality is that, given today's situation, it will lead to equally mixed up and unimpressive liturgy across the board: a bit of this and a bit of that. Our own parish was wholly wrecked with this approach. All choirs were reduced to a fraction of their original size. It was demoralizing for everyone and completely devastating to the parish. We lost more parishioners during that 5 year upheaval than ever before or after. The only unity that resulted was unity of resentment against the person who imposed this rule. The effects are still with us.

People can theorize all they want about united parishes and bringing everyone together, but it is an apodictic truth that no man can change: Catholics are attached to particular Mass times and have absolutely zero interest in what happens at the Mass before or after. Each Mass time is associated with a specific demographic and culture. It was always true before the council and it remains true now. These modern-day Robespierres who attempt to change this might as well try to reverse the flow of the Mississippi.

Diversifying Masses permits progress to occur in increments. Each Mass time learns from the other. This allows for experimentation and when something doesn't work, it affects only one Mass. Also, inevitably, competition develops between the crews of people working in specific times. This is a good thing actually, not a bad thing. Pastors who permit this to develop normally and naturally are wise indeed.

The what is to decentralize control as soon as possible. A transition to sacred music absolutely requires at least one safety-valve Mass that permits people who hate the change a chance to do their thing. People vote with their feet and their dollars. Not to worry: change will come in time.

Another major benefit of letting different Masses do different things is that this dis-empowers the committee. Actually, the goal should be to never permit another committee meeting to take place. Such committees always and everywhere leave people seething in anger. No one says what he or she is really thinking. The compromise that seems to make everyone happy falls apart hours later on further reflection.

It does no good at all to drive the strummers out of the parish. It is their parish too. They have made a contribution over the years and don't believe they have any less right to be there than anyone else.

So everyone should just agree to disagree, apply their talents in the best way they know how, and go about their business. A healthy but respectful competition will emerge. In time, sacred music will prevail through quiet persuasion. In the meantime, and I really believe this, peace in the parish is more important than being correct about music itself.

As for the job of directing falling to you, it is a matter of citing your health etc. and pointing out that this contemporary group is wholly capable of directing itself. After about 4 months, they will come begging you and then you will be in a position to suggests some changes.

Let me add one more thing. Nothing soothes people over like abject apologies and statements of appreciation for their work. This might be enough to fix whatever problems have emerged from the attempt to unify the Masses.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your particular situation. My advice is more general and each situation is different.

Thank you, Jeffrey, this is terrifically sound advice.

You should become a professional church music mentor. . . oh, wait, you already are!

The parish I serve has approx. 11,500 (+/-) members.

For the most part the music prior to my arrival was heavily driven by the typical "hum and strum" mentality. Hymnody was used, but most of the music came from Gather 2nd ed., and unless the one organist they had was playing (at that time only the 7:30 every other Sunday, 9:00 with the choir or 11:00 with a "vocal ensemble" of individually miked voices) the organ wasn't used, everything was accompanied by guitar/piano/flute/cantor.

MJ, it's funny how that seems to work: the "youth group" Mass (which is always an occasion of sin for me because they make me SOOOO angry) sings whatever they want, but the choir cannot exceed a certain percentage of Latin and its own itty bitty Mass. Otherwise the Dead Language Detectors go off, the Felt Banners unroll from the ceiling to dampen any lingering sounds, and the parish is filled with the Spirit of Vatican II Chant Suppressant.

Unfortunately, the one component missing from this is the Mind of the Church.

Do we really want our pews filled with mind-numbed, dumbed-down, fat and happy quasi Catholics who have been fed a steady diet of whatever is trendy from collumn A and a side order of what the liturgy calls for from collumn B? And in doing this, just what are we saying about the "5 different worshipping communities that share one building?" Worse still, what are we saying about the authentic liturgy of the church?

Remember what the Holy Father said to the attendees of WYD '08:

"Dear friends, life is not governed by chance; it is not random. Your very existence has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose (cf. Gen 1:28)! Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness, and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth."


Also, I wonder if by having some Masses feature music that is more in keeping with the "mind of the Church" it will, not unlike Benedict's easing of the restrictions on the EF, create a "gravitational pull" where those who become more steeped in the music of the tradition will draw more people to the Masses where this kind of reverence is heightened, thus making the starkness of the "contemporary Mass" become all the more obvious.

My 2 cents.. I really hate the blended music Masses. PGA, you definitely would annoy me, but as you say, that's your goal. How do you like having everyone ticked off you? Is it working to make the parish a better place? Just curious. Anyway, the reality of the parishes (except for a lucky few) is that they are filled with entitled Americans who have no modesty when they complain to Church's representative (the priest). Wonder why so few guys are going into the priesthood -- all work and no respect. Communities used hold priests in high esteem and it was an honor to have one over for dinner. The "modern" Church has made their lives so difficult by offering "options" for just about everything. One Mass-One Chant is my mantra from now on. As long their are choices, people as a group will choose the lowest common denominator music. People get uncomfortable when they don't completely understand religion (wonder why Pentecostalism is so popular? It's a simple message). I ask myself every day "How did anyone manage before 1968? How on earth did the Church stick around for all those years when it was clearly so wrong about so many things!"

OK, rambling today. I tried the unified list of hymns for every Mass at both of my jobs. It worked ok in the place where every Mass was cantor and organ, but in other parish there were different ensembles and the guitars just couldn't do the Victorian hymns. You don't want 6 different parishes under one roof? It's gonna happen anyway with that many people. Parishes never used to be that big when there were more priests. You have a hispanic parish that is segregated by language and culture and family ties no matter how hard you try -- btw why should we deny them their ethnic parishes when our Irish, German and French ancestors had theirs? Also you have age groups that tend to stick together and then the rest. It's gonna happen no matter how you program the music.

(Avoiding the temptation excitedly report new empirical research on the applicability under different institutional constraints of Gresham's Law.)

I also admit to defusing arguments by starting to discuss dropping the Hymn After Mass...it freaks people out...to consider such a thing...pointing out that they have received the Body of Christ and had some time of silence and a prayer and blessing and dismissal....why then do a big HYMN which is a prayer and make those who want to sit or kneel and pray get up, interact and all....just end the Mass, let the choir sing or the organist improvise on chant and go home, people.

That felt good. Thank you for letting me vent.

I'm pleased by the outcome of the meeting of our parish "temporary advisory committee" tonight. By proposing that the contemporary group be given, within reasonable limits, wider latitute in their music (by not insisting that they use the same "playlist" that all the other Masses use on any given Sunday) while also permitting broader use of Latin chant, etc., at other Masses, all in the spirit of promoting greater peace for the parish, I was hailed for my wisdom in this matter.

My thanks to Jeffery! I may have just secured both my sanity and my job by this!

I suspect that things are going to be going swimmingly this program year.

I understand your point of view, CharlesW.

However, the prevailing point of this particular thread is regarding coming up with a solution to diffuse the "I hate hymns/organ" versus "I hate guitars/contemporary songs" battle that wages daily in many parishes like mine on a regular basis.

I currently don't even have the luxury of introducing chant to our Masses (all in OF), let alone a broader use of hymnody, because there has been for several years now an attempt to homogenize the music so that we have what some call "blended worship" and what I've come to realize is nothing more than an equal distribution of misery. At any given Mass, something gets played that makes someone angry, uncomfortable or resentful. By adopting the philosophy described above by Jeffrey, rather than shackling everyone (including me) to a policy where I have to play music I don't at all like (contemporary) and force guitar players to struggle with hymnody that they don't like and can't play, we arrange it so that one Mass is exclusively "contemporary" music, while most of the remaining Masses will likely employ hymns and the like, and one (or more) of them will eventually employ unaccompanied chant in Latin.

I believe that if this approach is employed, over time the Masses that feature the purest music of the Church will begin to exert a "gravitational pull" on the others, and people will out of curiosity begin "sampling" the other Masses to find out what they are like. Eventually all of the Masses (or perhaps all but the "contemporary" music Mass) will draw into conformity with the principles of the use of music most in keeping with the "mind of the Church." And, it will be the people that will make this happen, rather than a forced program.

I think this thread went sour fast, which says a lot coming from someone as pessimistic and cynical as myself. However, David just mentioned why: we see a program like Noel's and instantly think "Oh gosh, I can't pull that off!" But David, and others, I suspect Noel's church isn't without the annoying folk people. 3000 people? I bet he gets SOMEONE after every Mass to tell him how his music destroyed Christianity for them. But he still forged ahead.

I've been there. I suspect that the majority of people at my old parish HATE me. It seemed every parish council meeting had some large group of people present demanding my immediate dismissal. There were many families I avoided walking by in the parking lot lest I get an earful. And I saw what happened if we used Latin or chant: the next week, the pews would be EMPTY at the offending Mass. I lived and worked with the assumption that some 100 or so (it was a very small church by Catholic standards) people despised me. I had dwindling resources because fewer and fewer people would step up to do the unpopular work.

But I still accomplished things. The people who attended the late Mass now KNOW the Latin Gloria. The whole parish KNOWS the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. People aren't in the dark about what the Church wants anymore. The priest IS the driving factor in this - you need a guy with chutzpah, which most priests seem to lack (I thought we only ordained MEN??) When someone complains about chant, you NEED a priest who will say "The Church requires chant have pride of place" and when they respond "I don't care what the Church says!" is willing to call the person on their lack of faith. You also NEED a guy who isn't going to follow the Gregorian introit with "Good morning everyone, how about this weather?!!" But all the same, I suspect that no, Noel's church ISN'T any different from any of ours.

I'll just flat out say it: If I work in a Catholic church again, particularly one where I need to "fix" things, I won't do it with a weak pastor. I won't do it if I'm reporting to a committee. But if the pastor is willing to back me up and wants a correct, reverent liturgy, I know I can do it. There is a HUGE social change that needs to happen in Catholicism again. And it's many MANY generations away. But we can still get work done in the here and now, and Noel's proving it. We all need to say together: "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE-" ummm maybe not that!

"It's one thing to keep alive the treasures of the past and apply them to today. It's quite another to live in the past and act as if the rest of the church is still there."

Charles, first of all, thank you for permitting me to serve as organist for the recent wedding...you have a lovely, traditional sanctuary. The family was very pleased not to have to celebrate this Mass..in the gym!

We are doing a choir school right now, using only music that falls under the guidelines of the Church. It includes music of Bruckner (1824-1896), Tchesnokov (1877-1944), Adrian A. Cuello Piaquibis, living in Colombia, work composed May 2007 in Zaragoza, along with chant....

It is our job to discover and include music that is either Chant or Polyphonic of the ages...and of today that easily falls within the guidelines of the Church. I'm sure that there are people who would prefer to only do chant from spider-web covered tomes...but you and I agree that the the Church is a place for Sacred Music.

And also, I know that Harmonia Vocal Quartet enjoys singing at Holy Ghost as well...thanks again.

"If we want a program like Noel's built up, we HAVE to be willing to think outside the box (but still within the Mind of the Church!) and just DO things."

It helps if you have a VERY supportive organist who is equally concerned with the life of the church, the choir and cantors, and your work....

And a thick skin when you DO things....

We are still building...and not just a new Sanctuary.

Noel, you are most welcome. I have no problem with anything you are doing, and it sounds like you are doing good music from all the ages, which is what I have advocated for years. I don't have the "chant vs. non-chant" battle at Holy Ghost, since the majority of the congregation actually likes chant. If anyone hates me, it's the contemporary crowd because I never give in to them. They have their mass, and need to stay there. But the EF is off the table for now because the powers that be feel it's available elsewhere in town for those who want it. So, I work within the framework I have - OF, with some chant, some polyphony, some hymns, and even the occasional Anglican anthem.

…and that also mandates that we have to KNOW we're doing the right thing!

Having this forum sure helps in that regard.

I'd credit these things in order of happening for the music at SJN

First of all, banning microphones and amplification of any sort for choir or cantors at all times, which lowered the sound level in the sanctuary and made it a lot gentler and prayerfull just being in the building.

Then:

1. Pastor who welcomed change but with a clear view of pastoral keeping it on an even keel.
2. A Catholic Organist, Mary Lewis, who knew the parish, played at least 8 years there, humble and hard working.
3. Choir willing to accept that everyone attending Mass would know from the music that they were in a Catholic church from the style, the theology, the singing and the absence of rhythm instruments, including the piano.
4. Mary Weaver joining the choir with her Chant Terrierist Attitude.
5. Making the trip to the St. Cecilia Workshop last February with singers from the choir.
6. Knowing from day 1 that I would have to reeducate everyone in the choir to get the ready for the live acoustics of the new church.

And more than anything else, being willing to be in a position in which I realized that I might be fired any day at any time because of my views on Catholic Church music. And trying not to let it affect my job performance. Knowing that what I was doing had to be the right thing to do no matter what other people thought, but making sure that It was happening at the right time and to the correct degree.

At this point I'm just a part time employee [with benefits!] at the church and have to restrict my church work time dramatically [the string chamber orchestra, the brass ensemble, children's choir, adult choir and cantors rehearsals are all crammed into Wednesday evening and Sunday morning in a matrix that almost requires a computer to keep track of] and work other jobs just to be able to stay on there. My background as a Morgan combined driving horse trainer, a composer-arranger, a tonal designer of digital organs-especially when combined with pipes, has kept us financially afloat.

Please keep Ellen (my CAGO wife organist/choirdirector and now Board Member of the Sewannee Church Music Conference as well as part-time employee as o/d at an Episcopal Church) and me in your prayers in the hope that someday I will be blessed with a full-time position in this work that I love.

As a cantor and chorister, I just want to say how unbelievably good it is to sing for Noel. He's the reason I'm at St. John Neumann Parish. And he's the reason the choir has more than doubled during his tenure.

Also, lest you think he can't spell the word "terrorist" in reference to me . . . he's making an inside joke about the inordinate number of dogs I live with.

Mary

Well . . .

Just as conversations began to take place regarding the different music at different Masses issue, our know-it-all, meddlesome sacramental prep person has chimed in and stated, without equivocation, that

We can't have that conversation until the broader implications on the catechesis we've been doing on unity are discussed. Besides, you start changing the music at the 9 AM to more traditional, and you'll have people who are lectors, servers and EME's calling and asking to be moved to other Masses because they don't like or want the more traditional stuff.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

It was the same old saw . . . "We need to be concerned about the unity of the parish, and if we start dividing, like they did 10 years ago over at St. Swithen's-in-the-Suburbs, we'll have the same problem they did . . . multiplicity of divided communities worshipping under one roof. They're not a community at prayer anymore, and it's had a profound impact on their spiritual life."

So, now what?

Well, if they want unity then you have to schedule one Mass. And cancel all others. Otherwise people will choose to go to early Mass because they like to go four wheeling, late Mass because they party late, and Saturday night Vigil because they hate getting up at all on Sunday.

So let's force them to UNIFY!

And where, oh where, is the Rubric that establishes the office of Sacramental Prep Person? Why is it important that ALL Masses must function at the lowest level of music that the parish is capable of?

And what was the church doing, having High Masses and Low Masses any day of the week in the old days?

I'm afraid this is a battle (or a catechetical moment) I'm completely unable to seize. I'm up against years and years (over 20 at the hands of this particular sac. prep doyenne at our parish) of poor formation in the Faith, and I'm simply not up to it. I'll give you an example . . . she's convinced that it's more engaging to move the location of the lector from one place to another within the body of the church when presenting the readings at the Easter Vigil because it "represents God moving through history." I simply can't make this stuff up. If she's that convinced of her own cleverness as against the inherent mystery and beauty of the received Tradition of the liturgy, and people for the most part either support her, or are afraid to challenge her, what can I do? She'll challenge or block any attempt I make to bring a modicum of the Tradition into her comfortable, suburban, dumbed-down liturgical understanding. (Above all else, I believe she's afraid of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, an expression that makes her cringe. She walked away when I dared to suggest that the architecture of our building was more reminiscent of the theater style common among the "Protestant Brothers and Sisters" as she calls them, than a proper, recognizable Catholic architecture. Of course, this deteriorated into the "priest with his back to the people and the people being alienated and detached from the action at the altar," as opposed to my suggestion that it was really about all facing God together in prayer, but I digress).

I'm reminded of the instructions the disciples were given. They were told to go into a town or village and preach the Gospel. If they weren't received, or if their message was rejected, they were to leave the town and at the gate stop and knock the dirt from their sandals and move on.

While I understand the obligation to do everything we must with humility and charity, there is also the reality that some will actively try to thwart our efforts and in the process unknowingly (or knowingly) reject important tenets of the Faith. As the disciples were told to only stay as long as they thought was prudent, I think too that we shouldn't stay in a place where we're not wanted or are met with wantonly cruel treatment by folks who wish to reject out of hand what we represent.

And I will wager that she is a volunteer. They get more rabid than paid employees.

And that's a wager you'd loose. She's paid. Handsomely. And has been on staff for 20 years. Paid to have the kids in First Communion class create an altar cloth complete with their hand prints (in various primary colors) which is then carried up and placed on the altar during the First Communion Mass the offertory whilst the cantor(s) wail away on that hoary chestnut, "We bring to your taaay-bull . . . a gleaming cloth of gold." (I should point out that despite the fact that I'm the DM for the parish, she is given a say in what music is used for the celebrations of first sacraments, what with her vast knowledge and understanding of the subject. Eh-hem.)

I'd rather lock her in a room, bound to a chair, forced to listen to the complete works of John Henry Cardinal Newman and all of the writings of the Holy Father (including what he wrote before he became Supreme Pontiff) that talk about the evils of the deformed liturgy, and what about our current situation can be blamed on folks like her.

Then I'd restore the application of bastinado as a way of eradicating heresy.

However, charity requires that I pray for her conversion.

On another thread I called for a novena to St. Cecilia and Our Lady. Somebody suggested that it be a monthly occurrence, commencing on the 22nd of each month, the date in November that St. Cecilia is commemorated.

We have one who prepares the children, too. Why is it that they are old flower children? Nothing is more unappealing than an old dried-up flower. However, she has no say in the music or the liturgy. I hate to harp on this in post after post, but it all comes down to the pastor. If he is solid, orthodox, and has a spine, then the nonsense stops.

There is one thing you can do about her: go to seminary and become a priest. Unless you're willing to do that, you have to wait until a priest with the willpower to suppress her comes along.

It's not at all Christian, but I'd be the sort to push her buttons subtly. I had a discussion with a rather liberal priest after Mass where he asked if I do "contemporary music". "What do you mean?" I asked. "Well do you ever direct like a youth ensemble?" "Oh yes! Absolutely, at my last church I directed the children in some Gregorian chants, they loved it!"

I'm reminded of the old saying: "Convert your enemies whenever possible. If you can't convert them, render them harmless. Destroy them only as a last resort." I suspect this woman will not be converted, but I'd do what I can to render her harmless. And that means saying no to her suggestions - presuming you report to the pastor. If you can't convince the pastor that someone with a doctorate in music doesn't need to be taking orders from someone who can't play an iPod and is functionally a heretic, then that's not the guy you want to work for. And if, as I understand to be the situation, you don't have a pastor, just cut her suggestions.

Anyway, I'd point out to her that you ALREADY have lectors and servers choosing which Masses to go to, so what does it matter if they make that decision based on personal preference in music as opposed to wanting to sleep in or "get Mass out of the way"?