I'm becoming more convinced that we must look at this as an effort to blot out the sin of Modernism, or in its present form, Secularism.

I just heard a brilliant explanation of the effects of secularism within the context of formation of conscience in preparation for the elections in November. However, what the speaker had to say about it was relevant to our discussions.

The three big "errors" of this sin, or the stumbling blocks, if you will, are: 1) materialism or the seeking out of "things" to make us happy, a direct result of the industrial revolution, 2) the need for gratification or "pleasuring", or the need for things to produce a positive and pleasant personal response, a result of the sexual revolution, and 3) the demand that these things happen immediately, a result of the technical revolution. I see this as applicable to our situation in that the "liturgical reformers" succumbed to all three of these by creating a liturgical paradigm in which people receive a material sense of "possessing" the Mass (as a "community"), they sing songs, hear homilies, even watch dancing and the like, as a means of producing a sense of pleasure from their "active participation" and that the Mass must do this quickly, if not immediately, hence the need for everything to be dumbed-down and understandable.

Rather, what is needed, and what we need to strive for is a sense of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a gift given rather than something taken or seized, a sense and understanding of what is beautiful rather than pleasurable in the music, language, ritual and movement within the Mass and a return to the sense of mystery and contemplation as against instant, total gratification.

Perhaps there is someone with a stronger grasp of the sociology and anthropology of what the Church has been through in the last 40 years who can help us develop a more measured, deliberate and charitable way of directing the needed changes in the liturgy. Otherwise, I share in Jeffrey's fear, and add my own as I discussed in other threads, that being slow movement that is not carefully measured and regularly evaluated will turn into inertia or backwards movement, and ultimately the loss of the Catholic soul.

I think that when life hands us roadblocks, sometimes it's not a bad idea to take detours. The task at hand in the average parish is to shift things towards the sacred music idiom. Over time, the roadblocks are bound to disappear on their own. There is much that can be accomplished in the meantime.

In the face of insistence that the congregation sing the Sanctus, why waste energy on a fight? Isn't it easier just to shelve the polyphonic setting and program one of the easier Gregorian settings?

While the Graduale Romanum is the ideal, realistically it's an ideal that will only be achieved in a few parishes for the forseeable future. Singing all the propers every Sunday is a tall order for the average choir. While we ought not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good, chant poorly performed has devastating consequences for the reputation of chant generally. Cantors of intermediate ability warbling through tracts and graduals while using the organ as a crutch made a generation of Catholics fearful of the words "High Mass." We would all agree that this is not what we want to return to. By all means, let's promote choral excellence and chant education as a remedy; let's also heed Thomas Day's warning about the Catholic temptations of the "greatness syndrome" and the "idols of excellence," which have afflicted choirs of the Graduale and Glory & Praise persuasion alike.

So if you have the ability to sing the Graduale and Alleluia well every week, I can understand how you might be frustrated at never being allowed the opportunity. This circumstance, however, is just not an issue in most parishes. In the meantime the task at hand for most will be to move toward simple, singable modal settings of the responsorial psalm, perhaps enhanced with alternate fauxbourdon verses. Why not make it a priority to have the congregation learn all of the Alleluias in the Simplex?

Laszlo Dobszay has pointed out somewhere that throughout history Gregorian chant has been more a musical language than a fixed repertory. The immediate goal should be to learn this musical language and have it live in our parishes. Without this in place, we're not even in a position really to "get" what the repertory of the Graduale Romanum wants to tell us.

All of these little fights seem rooted in one big, false dichotomy: "active participation" vs. "sacred music." I think that it's absolutely crucial to the success of the movement toward sacred music that we promote active participation even more enthusiastically than the active participation camp. Our rhetoric should never even hint at "Catholics can't sing anyway, so let's drop the pointless charade and let the choir sing for them." Instead, it should be: "Catholics don't sing, and this is a serious problem. The conventional solutions to this problem have failed miserably. We have a better solution." The solution lies in the "homely music" Thomas Day talked about. If you can successfully have the congregation singing the simple dialogues and responses throughout the Mass, you will have more active participation than most parishes dream possible and no one will raise an eyebrow if you plunk a Gregorian offertory in place of the hymn that no one in the pews ever sang anyway.

My point, I suppose, is that if we find ourselves expending too much energy on the little fights, we're probably getting ahead of ourselves--the first priority is to neutralize the "active participation" argument by working towards making active participation a reality, as opposed to an abstract theory wielded as a weapon by those who oppose the Church's model for sacred music.

Jeffrey, I am going to start another thread on Dobszay and “alius cantus aptus” because I don’t want to derail the original conversation.

Migration to the EF from the OF won't be a problem in areas where the EF is non-existant or minimal (very early/late/odd time/remote location). And I think that is one of the reasons that some dioceses are still being very slow on this - they don't want the competition. (Interestingly, during the early years of Ecclesia Dei indult Masses, many areas used those these as a way to get rid of complainers. "If you don't like it here, we suggest you go to St. Ethelbert's...")

Well-celebrated and attended EF Masses could have an effect similar to school vouchers on the average Ordinary Form.

"It seems that some traditionalist Catholics wouldn't go along with reverent, substantial liturgy. Many prefer the quickie Low Mass with no frills. Would they pray the Liturgy of the Hours on Sunday in a parish? Would they swallow a Tridentine High Mass every Sunday and holy day?"

True, though my impression is that this is less the case with younger people.

"If all church musicians with traditionalist sensibilities bolt mainstream parishes, two things may happen. They risk a professional, cultural, and artistic isolation. They also impoverish average parish music ministries that need to stay anchored in a wholly "catholic" approach to music."

But this problem would be mitigated if the Tridentine mass was introduced into more "average" parishes. Unfortunately, your sentiments are self-fulfilling prophecy - it is just this attitude that discourages the mainstreaming of the traditional mass.

"I think the EF is a dead-end for Roman Catholics. We don't need it to have great music and reverence."

Why we can't have great music and reverence in *both* forms? If the pope is correct, each has the potential to enrich the other. Many priests are on record saying that their celebration of the EF has enriched their understanding of the liturgy. Though I now play and sing at a OF parish, I myself have been enriched through my singing for the EF in the last few years.

Sam Schmitt

I think the EF is a dead-end for Roman Catholics. We don't need it to have great music and reverence.

Yes, maybe, but what an end!

And to say we don't "need" it to have great music and reverence ignores the reality of the musical, liturgical and cultural wasteland most Catholics have been forced to endure at "gunpoint" by the irresponsible proliferation of the junk trowelled out year after year by OCP, GIA, et. al.

I'll agree, there are traditionalists out there who have their heads in the sand, and want to be "left alone" to their quickie low Masses. The same is true for many mainstream Catholics who, with arms folded, keep their mouths firmly shut during the whole of a Mass with "Fr. Friendly" and "Mr. Caruso" at the mic bellowing the latest "fad ditty."

I'm reminded of a quote from an address given by the Holy Father I recently read over at NLM, and I think it merits re-posting here:

The liturgical cult is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, as also of catechetical teaching. Your duty of sanctification of the people of the faithful, dear brothers, is essential to the growth of the Church. I was prompted to specify in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions of the exercise of this duty, regarding the possibility of using just as well the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) as that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Fruits of these new provisions have already seen the light of day, and I hope that the indispensable pacification of spirits is, thanks be to God, coming about. I appreciate the difficulties that you encounter, but I have no doubt that you can achieve within a reasonable time satisfactory solutions for all, so that the seamless robe of Christ does not tear further. No one is too many in the Church. Everyone, without exception, must be able to feel at home, and never (must he feel) rejected. God who loves all men and does not want to lose any entrusts to us this mission of pastors by making us the Shepherds of his sheep. We can but thank him for the honour and trust that he has placed. Let us strive therefore to be always servants of unity!

Todd, I'm glad you're here to offer your thoughts. They are most welcome.

If all church musicians with traditionalist sensibilities bolt mainstream parishes, two things may happen. They risk a professional, cultural, and artistic isolation. They also impoverish average parish music ministries that need to stay anchored in a wholly "catholic" approach to music.

I have to agree. In regards to the first point, that isolation may be very welcome after the cuts and bruises that have been received by some who just want a proper reverent musical approach to the Mass. We get bombarded with the need to be pastoral (codeword for appeasing the lowest musical desires for simple love songs at Mass) and to be "relevant" to today's world. You know what, though? I go to church to escape the world and to get a taste of the eternal. If the angels are singing Carey Landry tunes, I'm less interested in heaven. That may sound harsh, but I avoid churches where this music is offered in place of the Church's liturgical texts. To address the second point, I truly believe that many parish musical establishments chase off decent musicians. I'm not a stellar singer (just ask incantu!) but I'm one of the most sought after creatures on the planet -- a man who will sing in church choir. I currently don't do that because I've finally gotten to the point where I get physically ill when the piano starts an introduction of an OCP tune. The byproduct of learning the Church's wheat is recognizing its chaff.

Sorry to be in such bad mood, but after I read Pes's description of his situation, I wanted pack my bags and leave this part of the country immediately.

David - If your playing the music is causing physical ailments, there is something seriously, seriously wrong. Added to the evident problems you're experiencing in dealing with your pastor you are frankly in an unhealthy environment. You mention "...if I want to keep my job..." but that appears to be a less than glowing option in itself.
With all sincerity I would suggest you consider a temporary leave of absence from your position. Perhaps some time in a monastic retreat would give you a chance to better discern how your skills and talents can best serve the Church.

DA
I have taken the liberty of contacting you directly. Please excuse if this is an intrusion.

DBP

Todd, I have to call you on this one. You statement, and I'll say this nicely, is nonsense.

Musicians of any sort unwilling to play and invest in any quality music outside of their comfort zone do themselves no good.

OK. I don't have a problem with that, but your next statement is non sequiter.

It's my opinion a good church musician must be familiar with lots of instruments, and able to play more than one, plus be able to sing.

You mean like organ and guitar or do mean organ and piano or synth (I'm guessing the latter)? If things continue as they are then your statement is true, but I predict that few highly qualified organists will look to the Catholic Church for a living. Some might rejoice in this, but what a tragedy that would be. The ability to sing is a plus, but not necessary in some larger establishments that have a separate choir director. My main point is that a good organist should not have to know all these other instruments for a Catholic Church job. Maybe for a Baptist or other Protestant gig, but the organ should be enough for our Church. I believe there are docs and statements by the pope that suggest as much.

The best musicians are unafraid of diversity: Renee Fleming recorded an outstanding jazz cd; Bela Fleck plays bluegrass, jazz, and classical; Gershwin was a master of the pop song plus a fine classical composer.

Here's the part that sinks the argument. Being unafraid of diversity as a performer is completely different from embracing a hodge podge of styles in Church music. On a side note I would also argue that Fleming's jazz recording was nice but hardly outstanding. Compare it Ella, Billie, or even Diana Krall. Bela Fleck is awesome, but he makes a living of crossing boundries. It's his schtick. Gershwin has never been accused of being a high quality classical composer. Even he lamented that much. He had others do his orchestrations and his forms are quite klunky even if he had a knack for a good tune or two. If he had lived a bit longer, he might have developed nicely, but we'll never know.

So, yes, a few fine performers venture out into other areas out of boredom or a sense that they can do no wrong as a musician, but they are (and I'll even add Yo-Yo Ma here) the exceptions. When asked to sing opera, I doubt seriously that Fleming would suggest that she should sing it more in a popular style in order gain more of an audience. Even she knows that there is an appropriate approach to every idiom. Well, every idiom but Catholic Church music, I guess.

Mike, I'm not inclined to engage this exchange exhaustively here. But I lean towards accepting Todd's assertion there is no definable idiom known as "Catholic Church Music." Anthony Ruff's chapter on Musicam Sacram more or less abets this contention by showing a documental exegesis that debunks a clear understanding of what constituent forms constitute the thesaurus sacram, or sacred treasury of RC musical traditions.
"...(I)t is not possible to identify the treasury of sacred music definitively with any repertoire of music old or new. (I add) However, this does not mean that the notion of a "treasury of sacred music" is too vague to have any meaning in the implementation of liturgical reform." {SACRED MUSIC AND LITURGICAL REFORM, p. 357}
I believe the qualities outlined by Todd here and in his latest post at CS that would best benefit parish and cathedral DM's in the future would provide the Church with leadership that is conversant AND capable of developing authentic and aesthetic improvement in the quality of worship at her liturgies.

Todd,

"It's my opinion a good church musician must be familiar with lots of instruments, and able to play more than one, plus be able to sing."

I'm please you framed it as your opinion, because the church law does not agree with this. The church outlines the instruments of choice....organ and the human voice, particularly in choir. And not solo voices.

And the forms of music you feel all church musicians should be familiar with? Same thing. No. Ruff's wrong. Sacred music is based the truth that the music MUST be sacred. Catholic Church music MUST be Sacred. And what can make it sacred? Three tests:

1. Melody with a Catholic Text.
2. Based upon a melody sung to a Catholic Text.
3. Sounds like music that belongs ONLY in a church.

To be Sacred Music....must be either 1 or 2 or both.
To be Church Music...can be any of the three

Church Music permits the playing of Bach. That's the loophole that carries with it all the wonderful organ music that belongs in church.

But the French have ALWAYS, always, always known the difference. And the organists promulgated the great chant tunes all the time by being ready to play EXAMPLE 2, which is 2 from above, at the drop of a....beret.

Here...Marcel, play us a tune....and he gives us a double fugue (Messrs. Haugen and Hass, can you say , "double fugue"? Great, now write one and call us when you are finished.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq_gzOneZqM

The playing of the French church has always been based upon their work introducing chant....sometimes accompanying it, often improvising on it to fill time, for processions....and they taught it, chant, as part of music theory and Americans sat at his feet and the feet of Nadia Boulanger.... http://www.nadiaboulanger.org/ descending like flocks of seagulls on the streets of Paris to take daily theory classes in her home....

Belgium (flor peters) also followed this practice.....

We have come along way...SONS OF GOD, HEAR HIS...EAT HIS BODY, BODY DRINK HIS BLOOD to ONE BREAD, ONE BODY...over fifty years we have moved a long way....further and further from a music that is truly Sacred....

[my opinions must be tempered by the ongoing rumor of the past two years...popped up twice at a chant workshop we led over the weekend...."he's really good at this...." pause "you know, he's not Catholic." Fr. Varbel, who baptized me in 1948 (yes, I was born in 1947, but spent a few extra days in the hospital due to jaundice...) was, as far as all of us knew, in full priestly power and permitted to confirm the sacrament of Baptism in a valid manner, to the joy of my parents, both converts....but my father, born to a Catholic mother whom following her marriage in the rectory to a non-Catholic, then went with the entire family and his girlfriend (if you want to see Russell on Tuesday nights, you have to come to church with us, said Grandma Lizzie) and took classes and became Catholic following the death of my Grandfather, while most of the kids were still in school. Lizzie was feisty. She eventually had my grandfather disinterred from the Masonic are of the cemetery (did I mention he was non-Catholic?) and re-interred in the main cemetery so that she might eventually be laid to rest beside him, which she did, RIP 1958.

Which is how I ended up in Catholic grade school for 8 years. That's where I became intelligent and civil.

Noel, thanks for the video! I usually find Dupre's playing (as opposed to his composition) to be very lacklustre, but this is great. Of course, let's hope that he didn't do this in the liturgy - lest he add something on to the Mass! ;)

Todd, right about the 4-hymn sandwich at the TLM AND the Pauline Mass. It needs to go. We have texts that belong in those places that should be sung first. If there's time afterward, no problem with a nice hymn. Subjectivity? I think if polled 100 people, 90 or so would be able to pick out the church music from an aural line up of tunes that include rock, country, jazz, hip hop, chant, hymns, and pop love songs. I think you also know what a church idiom is but would rather promote a more varied approach. Hey, that's your call, but I for one think things need to be changed. frogman is right, sacred music needs to be set apart from the everyday. BTW why bring up other Rites in the Catholic Church? I think most of us here are Roman Rite, with a few former Byzantines. Also, age of the music is only part of the equation. Chant has a foundational place in the Roman Rite according the Church so it must be used, but I'm totally happy to hear modern compositions that aspire the highest of human abilities. The post-modern equivalence of pop to art was a short-lived fancy and I believe that philosophy has run its course. Why can't we have music to grow into rather than music that panders?

Protestant Worship glorifies the individual and for Protestant Music all ceases...except the offering. I have served in Protestant churches for many years. Protestanism has created an aura over things in worship that adorn Catholic liturgy.

If the choir, pianist, organist and minister of music at Athens Second Baptist here in Tennessee leave the church all at once the 10:00 service the next Sunday would be 30' long rather than an hour. And people would leave because they did not feel the had gotten enough church that day, and find other churches.

If your choir, organist, director and all did not show up this Sunday, Mass might be a few minutes shortened. But it WOULD STILL BE THE MASS.

Music is to adorn liturgy. Not become it. Protestants have abandoned the True Presence. Their worship is empty, and centers on all the things that they can to make a Worship Experience.

Todd, you may, like a good attorney, argue the meaning of words. But you cannot argue the meaning of the Mass.

Others have abandoned it. I call them Protestants. I may be painting with a wide brush. But list for me the Protestant churches that believe in the Presence of Christ in the form of His Body and Blood....

You seem, to protest too much.

"But list for me the Protestant churches that believe in the Presence of Christ in the form of His Body and Blood...."

The Lutheran, Anglican, and more conservative Reformed confessions all bear witness to this.

Gavin,

Having been raised Presbyterian, then converting to the Episcopal church, serving several Lutheran Churches, becoming orthodox Anglo-Catholic and finally "swimming the Tiber," I think I can speak with some little authority on this.

The Lutherans perhaps in their very earliest history believed in some form of Real Presence, but their developed understanding no longer accepts this. (They do not have a sustained, received teaching on this subject). They believe in some type of "consubstantiation" wherein the bread and wine take on a mystical presence of Christ, which is confected not by the words of institution spoken by a priest in alter Christus but rather by the fiat of the whole gathered community. They also believe that this mystical presence "fades" or leaves the bread at some point in time after the celebration. In one Lutheran parish I served, one which was ELCA but very conservative (celebrated the eucharist every week, rare in those days), if the pastor wasn't available to preside at the service, a "worship deacon" would stand at the altar in cassock alb and lead the whole of the congregation in the recitation of the words of institution. Lutheran theology doesn't believe in holy orders, either. An ordained Lutheran minister receives his (or her) faculties to celebrate the Lutheran sacraments again by the fiat of the community he or she is serving. Once a minister leaves a parish assignment, their "faculties" are suspended until imposed by the next community.

Anglicans (apart from Anglo-Catholics, who have a much more orthodox understanding of the Real Presence) and Episcopalians also do not believe in the doctrinal teaching of transubstantiation as the Catholics do. Louis Weil, a Jewish convert to Anglo-Episcopalianism wrote an excellent and by Episcopalian standards very orthodox book on the subject of the liturgy, stated that during the celebration of the liturgy of the eucharist, the whole of the congregation is lifted out of time and space, and bread and wine become the very same bread and wine broken and shared by the disciples, thus making the same promises of eternal life proclaimed by Christ to his disciples available to the immediate congregation. This is a wonderful metaphysical description of a small part of the reality of the transubstantiation, but it's not the same.

Reformed confessions? Really? Perhaps they have a teaching that says if you believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the bread and wine, we won't teach you otherwise, but we also do not teach that as a matter of our faith and doctrine.

In a Catholic church, a Mass celebrated validly and licitly renders the body and blood of Christ present on the altar regardless what the individual in the pew believes. In the Protestant churches, this is not their received teaching.

If I may, there seem to be several threads of late that have tended in the direction none of us want this forum to go, namely toward polemics about contemporary vs. traditional music, arguments about style, and some heated exchanges that hit at professional judgments. I just say that my whole experience in this field lead me to believe that such exchanges accomplish nothing. No one learns from them. They only make our lives more difficult and hectic. Let's not let this forum go this direction.

This forum is here so that we can all help each other and learn from each other. It is not a debate forum. Disagreement is fine but let's always make it productive, not intentionally provocative. This is not a forum for anyone who only wants to vent and otherwise throw punches.

Gavin,

Thank you for your clear points.

I guess my only point is that with Catholic received teaching, there is a consistent dogma that isn't influenced by individual belief or degrees of belief. The bread and wine become the presence of Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity, regardless personal volitive belief or fiat.

With the various denominations you mention, the belief is varied and open to degrees of personal interpretation. For instance, orthodoxy for Lutherans can vary from sect to sect, and there's no over-arching "magisterial" authority on the matter. To be sure the Catholic church has a similar situation in that orthodoxy runs the gamut, but nevertheless it's what the Magisterium has to say that counts.

Jeffrey,

Understood. I'll let my previous comments stand as they are and get back to learning chant.

Wow, great commentary Priorstf. In reflection, I think you're right, although I'd say this more succinctly: many of the roadblocks Jeffrey mentions (that we all run into) are of our own making.

You have a guitarist, trumpeter, flutist who won't go away? That's not a roadblock. Ask the guitarist to join the schola. Tell the flute player you want her to play for a prelude and hire the trumpeter for Christ the King. Why does it have to be about telling talented people they're not talented or valuable, just because they don't (yet) subscribe to your ideology?

The inter-lesson psalm is only a roadblock if the Mass is all about forcing your ideology through on people. If it isn't about that, there's so many worthy settings of the psalms to use, from Guimont to Jeff's own psalm-tone models. Restoring the Gradual doesn't need to be a priority if one wants to follow the mind of the Church.

There are ways to "elbow in" on the propers. Perhaps one might have them recited before the hymn, and then at a later date have them sung before the hymn and later on eliminate the hymn altogether. Perhaps one might, as I did, use a seasonal psalm in place of a proper, with an eye to moving it toward a responsorial singing of the proper.

There ARE legitimate roadblocks. I'm not going to sit here and pretend our friend David just can't get past his own foolishness enough to get chant done in his parish. He's facing real roadblocks. I've faced my own, and we all have some of various kinds. BUT we have to recognize which are easy enough to overcome and which are just in our own minds, lest we become too discouraged by the task ahead of us.

Back to the original subject matter: I do worry about the opposition of the OF and EF, because that is how some would choose to cast it, with the impression that they are somehow unrelated and opposed. I agree, Jeffrey, that the music can be the uniting link. As you know, though, there is a bit of an antagoning going on among less orthodox Catholics to keep any sort of firm theology (whether through the propers being used, or even good hymns/songs) out of Mass. I run into this a lot.

Also, to Charles W: I always like to remind people that think there is a shortage of good communion hymns that the communion antiphon is not often explicitly eucharistic. I am trying to move our communion selections to a better mix of communion texts and general psalms, gospel passages, whatever.

Lastly, I do tend to agree that there some who would Protestantize the Mass. I am reluctant to argue about things that are official "options" in the missal, but just look at the prevalence of Eucharistic Prayer II in masses (even Sunday masses), use of Form C of the penitential rite, the increasing length of homilies in relation to the rest of mass (or perhaps the decrease in emphasis in other areas, etc.) Again, although there is an indult for it, I see this in communion-in-the-hand: Mother Teresa, for example, and all the holy fathers of recent memory opposed it because it is much easier to go on autopilot at Mass when one has that option of reception. Add to that most people in the US believe this is the "ordinary" way or receiving and not an indult. Perhaps my judgement is somewhat tempered by the fact I am a convert to the faith, but nonetheless I feel these are valid points.

Also, Jeffrey, hope I am not adding contention the thread with these points. I agree that one of the attractive things about the CMAA forum is that there isn't any personal attacking or insulting. Hope we can keep civility going, and I humbly accept the reminder.