Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
somehow, this doesnt suprise me. Dissapoint-yes, and I dont think Haas et al will be too upset.
This would certainly not be a new thing to occur.
That being said, I quickly took a look at Todd's synopsis which conveniently employs the usual "progressivist" misinterpretation (contra to many clear clarifications) about active participation and the criteria for that; he also misappropriates that matter of "singing the Mass" to the progressivist camp. I would suggest there are some indeed in that camp who are at least for that idea, and then there are many in it who seem less so.
I would further suggest that if they are for singing the Mass, then let us see the Introit tract used more frequently. Further, let us see the gradual tract used now and again, or the Credo sung.
Finally, if we are going to sing the Mass, let us see the actual texts of the Mass used for the basis of this song, and not paraphrases upon the texts -- which many of the most frequently used bits of music are guilty of.
All this aside, I believe the "progressivist" camp are beginning to get very worried as they see their program slowly, but surely, unravelling.
I expect we'll still see some progressivist surges, and indeed, I don't doubt that whatever document the U.S. Bishops may come out with may be as such as Todd describes. There will be some dragging of the feet going on after all. We've seen it recently with the translation, which was only overcome because of the persistent intervention of the Holy See and her representatives.
So be it. The trajectory of the Church is fairly clear.
How is "singing the Mass" a "progressive" preference? Quite the opposite! It's a rare, RARE thing today to attend a Sunday or Holy-Day liturgy in a Catholic parish and find the Mass sung. It's practically non-existent, except in those few traditionalist-minded communities.
Most progressives' vonception of a "Sung Mass" is what we have today: a tacky Low Mass with tacky hymns.
I can tell you that in the entire Archdiocese of Miami, the only Sung Mass is the Tridentine indult, celebrated once a week, Sundays, at 8AM in a bad neighborhood.
The Sunday Mass should be entirely Sung, from the opening sign of the Cross to the Dismissal.
"So be it. The trajectory of the Church is fairly clear."
How, Shawn?! Because the Holy Father recently said some nice words to an old traditional priest-musician? That means nothing without follow-up, and you know it.
When I see concrete steps to restore sacred music, not new books or some nice words to traditional musicians, then I'll believe you.
Any word on when this document will be out?
"I can tell you that in the entire Archdiocese of Miami, the only Sung Mass is the Tridentine indult, celebrated once a week, Sundays, at 8AM in a bad neighborhood."
We know we're in the right when we find ourselves amongst the tax-collectors and the publicans.
What status will these two documents have when the GIRM, updated as recently as 2003, was the official response of the USCCB to the SC?
Also, what's the point of even having these two other documents, if not to rival the GIRM? Why not simply work with the GIRM, revise, etc.?
It's hard not to conclude that MCW and LMT are designed to fork discussion and thereby divide. Not good, and it makes no sense from a policy point of view.
Personally, I think that Holy Mother Church should just re-establish the Index of Forbidden Books, adapted to litrugical music, and place any and all works of Hagin (sp?) and Haus (sp?) at the very top of such an index.
ThomasMore
I'd like to know whether the USCCB Office of the Catechism could claim hymnals as catechetical texts and subject them to review as such. See their work here.
Sorry, I meant to link to their working protocol. From everything I've seen, Archbishop Alfred Hughes is a good guy to be in charge.
"How is "singing the Mass" a "progressive" preference?"
It's been promoted in the mainstream liturgy press and by publishers since at least the late 70's. While traditional musicians were making themselves scarce, the "conservatives" I knew in the 80's were promoting hymn-singing and big organ music.
Active participation, by the way, is not spun by traditionalist musicians; it's defined in Sacrosanctum Concilium and reinforced not only in the GIRM, but in the Roman Missal.
I'm pleased for the link to my post. Thank you.
To reply to the questions:
The revised MCW (probably another title) will be out in about two years, I'd guess. It will be voted on by the bishops, and the intent will be to put a bit of weight behind its prescriptions. It will supplement liturgical law as set forth in the Roman Missal, but bishops and pastors will likely have great leeway in implementing.
Arguments such as "non-authoritative" or "Not voted on by the bishops" will be off the table.
"It's been promoted in the mainstream liturgy press and by publishers since at least the late 70's."
Todd, then why is one so hard-pressed to find a single sung liturgy in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99% of our mainstream Novus Ordo parishes? Why is it that sung Masses are *only* found in parishes that celebrate the Tridentine Rite, or a "Tridentinized" Novus Ordo?
As to Todd's synopsis: Translation: business as usual, rubbish as usual, heresy as usual, no pastoral sensitivity toward traditional and conservative Catholics (who are just dismissed quite casually). His tone and the substance of what he says is problematic. He's quite mistaken: authority can say, "If you can't do modal chant or polyphony, don't have music. Offer a Low Mass. Use hymns and popular religious songs for special devotions and processions, not for Mass." See, it's not so hard or so complicated.
PS
What they need to do is ban all hymns at Mass except for a communion or recessional hymn, and insist that only modal music and polyphony are allowed at all for Mass settings (whether in English or Latin). Better not to have any music than to have happy-clappy. No mariachi Masses, polka Masses, or any such thing. But the bishops and bureaucrats are too PC and too gutless to do what needs to be done.
Dear all:
I think this is a good time to revisit the book, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" which pretty much lays out the historic underpinnings as to why the typical Sunday Mass is not sung. I totally agree with the author that the power of the Roman Mass comes from the vocal exchange between the celebrant and the congregation, whether it's in the vernacular or Latin. The few times I've seen the Mass chanted in English, the experience was actually quite thrilling. I suspect the reason why many priests do not chant the ordinary is not because they are opposed to it but because they are uncomfortable with their vocal quality. Tom
Yes again to "Why Catholics Can't Sing". I recommend it to just about everyone who asks me pointed questions just to hear my equally pointed answers. I also highly recommend his sequel "Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo." It goes into even more detail about the excesses of the 1970s.
TJM, I wish more priests would understand this: many of us out here who can't sing well love it when a priest chants in a humble voice. It's not the "vocal quality" we respond to, it's the fact that the priest has sacrificed his pride for God. It's the humility, the service of it. That is what's inspiring.
Good Fathers, please sing! We will sing with you!
Until today, I had never visited the blogsite "Catholic Sensibilities." Having reviewed the postings and associated information there, I think that the site would be more aptly named "Bourgeois Catholic Sensibilities." It is riven with the same facile, simplisitic analysis and sloganeering that has come to represent the only practical expression of this I-Want-a-Church-I'm-Comfortable-With movement.
There is of course a place for politics. But when approaching the sacred, politics must not be brought into the equation. The thought expressed on that particular weblog would make reform of the liturgy just another Us-vs.-Rome dispute, that same dispute that has satiated the hunger of many arm-chair liturgical revolutionaries...a revolution that has required little or no personal sacrifice on their part. In sum, the perfect revolution for a bourgeois.
There is simply a great chasm lying between authentic Catholic culture and our bourgeois liturgical revolutionaries The chasm cannot at this time be bridged because these "revolutionaries" have no idea how far off the mark they really are. And they're very likely too lazy to find out.
To attempt to introduce these people to authentic Catholic liturgy would provoke the same blank, oblivious stare one would find on the face a monkey presented with an El Greco altarpiece.
This liturgical crisis (which may well ultimately resolve in the next several years) is largely a crisis of bishops. The bishops are always and at all times the chief "liturgists" of their own dioceses. It is high time that they deal with many "liturgical consultants" appropriately.
Todd,
First, I note you avoided the other points. That being said, you did say:
"Active participation, by the way, is not spun by traditionalist musicians; it's defined in Sacrosanctum Concilium and reinforced not only in the GIRM, but in the Roman Missal."
Indeed it is, and it has also been clarified by looking not only at its historical use under Pius X and Pius XII, but also by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Arinze as head of the CDW, not to mention other Cardinals, the present Pontiff as Cardinal, etc.
Hence, the point stands.
Not many moons ago some lady reported in a blog that her sons call what currently passes for church music "Jesus is my boyfriend" music. Boy, in those 4 words her sons captured the essence of musical water torture invented by the St Louis Jesuits.
Let us not forget, there are millions of dollars at stake here. MH and company may actually have to work for a living unless they have become millionaires already.
The music is more powerful than words. If new translations were required for the text, the tex must have good music or the entire effort was a waste of time.
"Jesus is my boyfriend" music
LOL~ A hit, a palpable hit, you must confess it...
"...the power of the Roman Mass comes from the vocal exchange between the celebrant and the congregation..."
Do tell.
With regard to why more priests do not sing the liturgy, it should be noted that most priests of the past few decades received little to no musical training. The best that most of these priests can do is attempt to imitate what they've heard other priests who know how to chant doing. And to be fair, they often do not have the time (if they are doing their work as a priest) to get CDs and other resources to train themselves how to do something that they should ideally have learned before they were ordained.
It should also be noted that some seminaries are just now starting to implement more in-depth music programs. So, perhaps we can look forward to some of the newer priests chanting more often.
With regard to the point someone made about needing to have music lined up for the new texts, everyone should note that Fr. Samuel Weber OSB is already working on this -- using provisional texts. Obviously some changes may have to be made when the Missal is finally released, but since it is not expected that any drastic changes will be made to the new translation (which is currently awaiting approval), this initial work that Fr. Weber is doing is very helpful and should be easily adapted to whatever minor differences exist between the provisional text and the final edition. Folks can see more about Fr. Weber's project, and find out how to receive his emails, etc, at the following page: Adoremus Bulletin: A Musical Offering.
Shawn, but none of these guys are interpreting it in the average parish. For most parishes, active participation is defined as a combination of exterior and interior commitment to the liturgical text, sung or spoken.
A choral Sanctus, for example, would not be normative for the Roman Rite. And if done consistently, it could be considered a liturgical abuse. SC and the documents on the Roman Rite are very clear about interior participation alone being insufficient for the fruitful celebration of Mass.
As for your other points, we can all read the documents. We know that many options are given to musicians. A monastery or school that's able to do all the assigned texts of individual Masses? That's excellent. But that's not the situation in parishes, as we all know.
But I would say that a parish that manages to put ten or so sung Masses on the weekly calendar, including psalmody, ritual music, dialogues, and Mass propers is a good bit ahead of the parish that has one High Mass with it all, and little left over for the others.
Sorry, Shawn. Any look at the periodicals of NPM, OCP, GIA and others for the last twenty-five to thirty years will find the urging of movement (not a proclamation of perfection) toward the ideal of singing the Mass. Now if you want to crow about singing the Mass "my way" or "the right way," please go right ahead.
Wow, such much liturgical abuse, week after week, at the Bromptom Oratory and St. John Cantius!. Even the Pope needs enlightenment on this point.
Look in the sacramentary and see what it says about who sings the Sanctus. Do you follow all the directives of the Roman Missal or only the convenient ones?
Tridentine Masses are not obliged to follow the directives of the Roman Missal; they have their own.
It's not for me to determine if the pope is unenlightened. The Missal gives its direction, and until changed, it describes the normative practice for the Sanctus.
It happens quite often that worshippers approach liturgy as an entertainment vehicle. Spiritual entertainment perhaps, as the Elvis Evensong at Truro seems to have been. But if the choir is there to perform, and emphasizes this in policy with paid section leaders, an intention to reinforce silence from the pews when singing is invited and called for, then I don't mind taking issue with good Pope Benedict on this one.
Todd, you're more papal than the Pope? In terms of who's violating the norms, substantially and regularly, I would say the left-wing liberals in the Church are by far the more guilty party. Tom
Those links I posted describe full Mass settings in the new rite as well as old.
You know, people naturally assume that all things beautiful, traditional, and chant-like are from the old, as if the new rite just scrapped the Graduale.
A child I know was at summer camp run by nuns. She was singing the Kyrie Orbis Factor, and the nun came up to her and said: "How is it that you know the Kyrie from the old Mass?"
It's so sad!
I'm not surprised that the US Bishops' document is a 'done deal'. To move forward in any substantial way, the 'reform of the reform' must have proper liturgical music. Derail a 'reform' of liturgical music, and you deal a severe blow to any serious liturgical reform. As I've stated on several previous occasions, I don't expect ANY real liturgical changes of substance in my area, and the current 'done deal' of the American Bishops is a move to assure that 'reform' will be dead on arrival.
In terms of who's violating the norms, substantially and regularly, I would say the left-wing liberals in the Church are by far the more guilty party.
I would say that some of the flakier violations of rubrics are done by "left-wing liberals" but more conservative types are hardly exempt.
For example, I see priests of all ideological stripes distributing communion at Mass from the reserved sacrament as a regular practice. This, I think, constitutes a graver "liturgical abuse" than, say, using glass chalices or filling additional chalices during the Agnus Dei or using extraordinary ministers of holy communion on a regular basis or wearing the stole on the outside of the chasuble. I think it is graver not only because giving communion from hosts consecrated at the same Mass is something the Church has mandated for far longer, but also because there is a real theological principle at stake (apart from the principle of obeying rubrics): it is of the nature of participation in a communion sacrifice that one share in that which is offered. While one can justify communion from the tabernacle in cases of necessity (it is, after all, the one sacrifice of Christ that is made sacramentally present at every Mass), it certainly distorts the sacramental sign by separating the offering of the sacrifice from the sharing in it.
Why do folks not jump up and down over this, which is probably the most widespread violation of the liturgical norms in the Church?
Todd,
Your distinction could be used to write off anything and everything in that way. Second, "these guys" are Popes and key Cardinals in areas of authority over the liturgy, doctrine, etc. One would hope that would have some weight for you.
As for the practical arguments, it is funny how I've seen small indults pull together an introit and gradual quite effectively, not to mention other small communities.
Rather, I would propose another alternative: that this false understanding of active participation which believes everyone must be participating externally as often as possible -- hence, singing and entrance hymn rather than contemplating the introit; or singing a psalm, rathering than listening to the gradual.
Progressivists are very cemented in their views in this way. But their view, while not completely incorrect, is distorted and one-sided to an extreme.
As for you other comments, ultimately, the critiques you are so ready and willing to throw out here, about cafeteria Catholicism, about selective appeal to authority, are the very things you have and continue to show yourself quite guilty of personally.
Indeed, the "triangle" model of authority in the Church seems to be inversed for you it would seem. That seems to be your ecclesiology.
I would suggest you stop with the semantics and be honest. Make your case and be willing to stand by it.
Be honest about your thinking about tradition, Papal documents, the documents of the CDW, etc. I don't believe you are doing that.
Shawn, the real truth of it is that traditionalists write off an entire document of an ecumenical council. Here we are 43 years after SC and the Tridentine Rite has no revised Lectionary (just one example among several), nor have I ever seen a call for one to be proposed, lobbied, or insisted upon.
You can't even get the progressive view right. The St Louis Jesuits were composing songs for congregation with schola or soloist in the 70's! They weren't alone in realizing the value of dialogue singing at Communion, for the Psalm, and at other times. No serious liturgist I know promotes external activity by everyone all the time. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.
Conservative church musicians play just as fast and loose with documents as anyone else who tries to impose their narcissism on the liturgy.
You say the pope's argument finishes a discussion on a disputed item. I'm suggesting the Roman Missal gives us the wisdom to follow -- most of the time. At worst, this is a kind of gnosticism: people who know where to find the right person's right words for the right argument triumph. Sorry, I'll stick to the Roman Rite I'm given and continue to advocate for prayerful good sense at liturgy.
So here's an interesting question:
If the "new" Music in Catholic Worship ends up even still remaining in disagreement with longstanding and forceful decrees such as Musicam Sacram, are we obliged to follow those parts which are contradictory?
Are we obliged to heed parts of it which are without precedent, such as the repeated use of the phrase, "All else is secondary"?
Gosh, reading these comments from far-off Australia is quite interesting. Such passion! I don't know who or where you are Todd, but you, dear me, you have a high-handed manner of writing...
Come off it, Tod. The revised lectionary pertains to the reformed liturgy, not the preconciliar missal. SC talks of a richer and wider selection of scripture for the missal that was about to be drawn up. Of course, at the time of its writing nobody, other than the Bugnini cabal, would have thought that the preconciliar Roman Missal and the Pauline missal would be so radically different...
As for narcism in the liturgy, you really must be joking. Priests often celebrate themselves at their tables and the whole rite revolves around the projection of their charisma and their improvision of great chunks of it. You will recall the solemn clause in SC which admonishes any cleric who would take it upon himself to change one word of the sacred liturgy.
There is some narcism in Trad circles, a bit too much interest in the peripherals, maybe. But you can keep your words. The last 40 years proves you wrong.
Interesting that everyone seems to be avoiding Todd's point about the MIssal's clear instructions on Sanctus. Todd is not even being rigorist, but is taking the more Roman approach of occasional non-implementation for due reason without prejudice for the law. This is quite the no-brainer under current liturgical law. I guess the silence must constitute concession of Todd's point in that regard?
Btw, there is a theological purpose to the current instruction: the actual joining of the voices of the Church Militant to those of the Church Triumphant in the Court of Heaven.
Liam,
RE: the Sanctus question.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote extensively about this in his book _A New Song for the Lord_. Now I am not going to claim that this book has some kind of retroactive papal authority, but I do think that Ratzinger, and many others, have made enough good points in support of the choral Sanctus to occasion an honest discussion about why centuries of accepted and even loved music in the Roman Rite is now considered anathema because of the most recent instructions, which, by the way, contradict a long stream of tradition (e.g. the GIRM).
This is the essence of the matter: At what point do the faithful have to speak up and say that they're being asked to forsake established custom in favor of the latest scholarly fads which are likely to change yet again when another smart guy writes a new book about the history of the liturgy?
Moreover, Musicam Sacram, which is special legislation that has never been revoked (and it would have to be to be invalidated), says that the Sanctus can indeed be sung by the choir alone and that *in other cases* it is sung by the congregation, or by the choir and congregation, etc. There was an excellent lecture this year about this very topic at the CMAA's annual colloquium.
Dear all:
How do you square what has happened over the last 40 years with Veterum Sapientia? You know, the encylical that John XXIII wrote saying that "Latin is the language which joins the Church of today." I find it indeed ironic, that on the very eve of widespread, international travel, the left which so craves this "we are world nonsense" would have abandoned the unifying richness of Latin for a myriad of vernacular languages which heightens differences. Tom
Todd,
More and more you are demonstrating an inability to handle debate without getting personal:
"You can't even get the progressive view right..."
Stop being disrespectful.
Second, you've heard no traditionalists call for a reformed lectionary? Well then you must not read this blog very closely! Matters such as updating the calendar, admitting this or that reform as being laudible has come up many times on the part of various traditionalists, not the least of which myself. I've also read such ideas in various traditional liturgical conference compilations. You are generalizing about the positions of all traditionalists, but that is simply a reductio ad absurdum.
Second, revising that lectionary is up to the Holy See, or at least for the Holy See to initiate, but can it do so right now? Yes, but not without serious pastoral issues at hand, precisely because of what is now freely admitted to have been a not so well handled liturgical reform that caused much hurt. But don't lay this on those who have no power to make those reforms.
Second, that the Pope and Cardinals have had to comment on the excess of external activism as a view of "active participation" is proof enough of a real problem and misperception that exists. You will note as well that I did not state every progressivist holds this view (just as I did not state that they all are more for singing at Mass rather singing the Mass); only that such a view is out there on the part of various progressivists.
Finally, as you know, church documents sometime need clarification and interpretation, which is where the Pope and the like come in, or official organs like Notitiae. This is fairly straightforward.
It isn't those of the reform-of-the-reform, nor certainly all "traditionalists" who reject Sacrosanctum Concilium; a good number of the latter and all of the former are actually defending it. On that charge, if you cannot admit that, for one reason or another, many progressivists have effectively skipped over the parts about organic development, about Latin, about chant, about these clarifications on "full, conscious and active participation", then there is really nothing left to say in that regard, for there is much evidence of the fact, and many of the same churchmen I have spoken of earlier who speak of these problems.
The Church, as you well know, is speaking on these things in a variety of ways. Paul VI was quite frank about these matters after the Council, warning people about the errors that were going on with regards the liturgy. JP2 spoke of it, Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken on it, Arinze, Ranjith, on and on. Do all they thus also deny SC, the Council and whatnot because they do not agree with this progressivist vision and gospel you are proclaiming? No.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
Ultimately, you may hold onto whatever personal opinion you wish. But it is only that, your personal opinion. Show me papal authority, or definitive interpretations to back up your positions and we can talk.
Push come to shove, I firmly believe I could stand in front of the Holy Father and speak of these things without significant correction. Do you honestly feel the same way about your positions?
Give me your list of arguments and objections to the liturgical positions I have stated about active participation, about chant, about organic development, about liturgical translations and Liturgiam Authenticam, about Sacrosanctum Concilium etc. and I'll happily pay the cost of faxing them to Rome and the CDW.
I'm happy to concede Shawn's point that a discussion of Lectionary reform has happened here. I applaud that. At a very minimum, Catholics can and should agree on the near-universal positive developments since Vatican II and go forward together from there.
There are obviously huge pastoral obstacles in place for both the 1962 and 1970 Rite. I suspect nobody's leaving the liturgy tussles completely happy these days. And possibly that's good for our egos. And I include mine on that list, certainly.
"'You can't even get the progressive view right...'"
"Stop being disrespectful."
You can make an honest effort, Shawn, to find an actual quote and refrain from making up one's adversary's arguments. I personally dare you to find anything I've written that suggests that everybody must sing everything at every Mass. Or even at any single Mass.
My 1975 Sacramentary says this about the Sanctus:
"At the end of the preface, (the priest) joins his hands, and together with the people, concludes it by singing or saying aloud ..."
Michael may think I'm high-handed, but I don't need to read Notitiae to understand plain English. I can read and understand it in a Latin Sacramentary just as well.
Conservatives and traditionalists do just what liberals do. They read the documents they want to read, and move on a path of least resistance, if not one of comfort. The worst of us are narcissists in doing so. Some of us are passionate about liturgy and will continue the discussion long into the night. In that case, it more often boils down to what our pastor will allow, and the good or less good choices we ourselves make. And there's a middle ground of folks who are just trying to do the right thing--however they see and sense that.
I'm finding these NLM discussions very tedious. I'm not at all convinced many of you would succeed as a chant director. Jeffrey and Arlene no doubt have their training, and more importantly, their passion for great church music. Most parishes out there would not have singers, pastors, and parishioners supportive of efforts to implement a music ministry composed of nearly 100% chant and polyphony. Many would want their contemporary music; it has great meaning, even if we quibble about artistic value.
I think there are people out there who could redo a parish music program in the NLM image, given time and patience.
But let's take stock of the situation on this thread. Y'all are going bonkers insulting me and trying to disprove things I've said and not said. And it's not like I detest like chant. I love it. It's like heaven when I go on retreat because I get to pray it with monastics four to six times a day. I love early music and classical sacred music and expose my child to concerts of those styles as well as recordings at home and in the car.
But if you can't get along with someone who is in 90% agreement with you on the basic values of liturgy, music, and plainsong, what realistic h
But if you can't get along with someone who is in 90% agreement with you on the basic values of liturgy, music, and plainsong, what realistic hope do you have of converting a parish full of people raised on Madonna or Hank Williams or who pack an Anglican cathedral for Elvis Evensong? Good night and good luck.
Mmmmm some good reflections Todd. I like the idea that this comments forum is for the exchange of knowledge rather than put-downs. Recently I have read some remarks under various posts (not this post actually) which I have found inappropriate and even distasteful. Perhaps there could be a better focus here on scholarship and the sharing of information.
Am I foolish to try to return to something way back in the thread?
Why priests don't sing -- and what training they have?
Someone said, many priests don't feel comfortable with their singing voice. That's true. And that they often lack good musical formation.
Seminaries are getting better at that, but there are so many things to emphasize -- and really, do you think they're going to kick a guy out because he doesn't sing? Ok then, he'll sing in the seminary, but never again. See the problem?
(We did a fair amount in the seminary; and yet, this is what happened: guys I know, who can sing, don't do much of it, sorry to say.)
Of course, there is one remedy that would help: if seminary Masses were more consistently sung -- but then, you have to deal with the faculty...
Another point: you may not realize that priests do hear negative comments about singing the Mass. I sing almost everything for solemnities, which means I only sing some of it for Sundays, and a little on weekdays. I have gotten negative comments, but also positive.
So be sure to give direct encouragement to your own priests and music directors and choirs!
The good Father states what I posted on another article, that the seminary curriculum for liturgy and music is grossly inadequate, in conservative and liberal seminaries, period. Sadly, the Council never solved the real problem when revising the liturgy, education (as if it could). One has the same minimalism today as there was in the past. So minimalism still exists, it just looks and sounds worse than before! No music as opposed to crappy music laced with heresy, fiddlebacks, as opposed to cheap polyester and on and on...
Todd:
With great sincerity I say; any message you do have gets lost in the vitriolic tongue with which you say it. When people disagree with you or point out holes in your arguement, don't take things personally dude, it ain't worth it. With regard to your last post, I still think you don't know how to weigh various liturgical documents concerning the liturgy talk to your local canon lawyer. Second, I'm being honest here, I get the impression, perhaps I'm wrong, that you feel the music director should have a greater part in the liturgy than he or she should. Lastly, in my experience, I think you sell people short on what they might like or not like regarding the use of chant.
So, is it the position of this board that we can regularly ignore current liturgical law if there is scholarly argument to be had that that law is poorly thought-through? For some reason, I remember this interpretive approach in other contexts....
I have no problem critiquing the merit of a current liturgical rubric or law. But that, of course, does not undo it as rubric or law. Many folks have had to grit their teeth and comply at least most of the time with such things.
I think Todd's point about music directors is that, just like he can be the biggest obstacle to his own goals in that regard (and he has over the years discussed how that is so), so anyone else is likely to to be so. It's the human condition. People armed with lots of intellectual argument also have a tendency to discount the syndrome too much....
***
Btw, I completely agree that the problem of the non-chanting priest is the key switch to toggle here.
Fr. Fox,
You raise some good points about seminary liturgies and priests who can sing. Fortunatly where I am we are working on that. I happy to say that on Feasts and Solemnities a large part of the Mass is chanted, although this is dependent upon the priest. On certain special occasions the entire Eucharistic Prayer is sung.
Based upon a lot of reflection on the issue and reading I have come to the conclusion, and I recall reading this in a Church document somewhere, that in chosing a celebrant, preferenace should be give to the priest who is obviously gifted in singing, not necessarily the senior most member of the clergy, although there, obviously there is some discression here.
For example in a seminary, there is Msgr. Smith the rector, but he doesn't sing very well, and admits he is virtually tone deaf. There is also Fr. Jones, who is only 5 years ordained, and is the newest memeber of the faculty, but he had a beautiful voice, and has been formally trained in voice and chant. On the seminary feast day, most would say let the rector say Mass, since he is the senior member of the formation team. However, Fr. Jones should in fact be asked to the the celebrant. Now the Bishop were present then obviously the situtation is different.
It is also true that there are many priest who can sing, but don't not even on a Sunday, which I find frustrating.
I also believe that if a priest cannot sing, he should recognize this as limitation, and not.
Todd, I'm new, but I should be very sorry if you stopped posting here. I don't always agree with you (not that it matters), and I enjoy tweaking your nose sometimes (apologies), but your perspective is -- in this day and age, for better or worse -- pragmatic. And for that reason, worth minding. I for one would be happy to sing chant with you.
My advice to priests is to sing. Forget about being tone deaf. So what? It is difficult to insert words into sung text when you are chanting. So chanting avoids abuse.
I find Ratzinger's explication of the choral and split-Sanctus to be confusing. Can someone explain to me, in plain English, how an elaborate polyphonic or split-Sanctus would/could be wored out in a Novus Ordo? It fits nicely in the Tridentine Mass, where the canon is silent and there's no sung Mysterium Fidei. How does this work in a Novus Ordo?
I was once a Cantian postulant, but I forget how they solved it. I think they did/do a silent canon, even for the Missa Normativa, when they have a choral sanctus.
Thanks for the comments.
I have to concede I don't post here to convince anyone of my viewpoint. If I had that goal, I might be more successful in brainwashing...I mean convincing you that you were wrong or something.
Being in the minority, my goal is to do what I cannot do in a parish: be a gadfly, and poke holes in your arguments. The minority often functions that way in a social system. And since I have no way of getting beat up online (the worst they can do is ban me; and I think we'd all see that as a concession of defeat) I might tend to be more forthright in my opinions. I have no delusions I'm any more vitriolic than anybody else here. The only difference is that I stand out because I don't think like most of the rest of you. That's not vitriol.
Gelasius, nothing we've spoken of deals with canon law. We're talking liturgical law and its interpretation in the opinions of theologians, pope, curia, and bishops. On your second point, your impression is wrong. And on the last, I think people would enjoy chant, but I think they need a leader both skillful and diplomatic. Quite frankly, I would do a better job than most of you because I wouldn't browbeat them or insult them about it. After Liam's chanting priest toggle switch, I'd say the next issue is chant being done poorly is why older Catholics resist it. Why are some young people drawn to it today? I'd say in part because the leaders doing it today are largely better at it than their forebears before the Council. The young have no negative experiences of it.
My observation on the priest singing issue: seminary experience is totally different from what a priest will face in a parish. In school, you are part of a group, you are generally not leading prayer day in and day out, as you will be in a parish. Any priest would benefit from private voice and/or speech lessons, not for the purpose of making him into a soloist, but for developing the physical skill set and the mental confidence to be able to proclaim or sing his parts so as to contribute to the liturgy.
In small parishes, that priest will be a liturgical leader, and must also be able to pass on the rudiments of his vocal training.
Either of those involves a higher confidence level than singing in a choir with other studfnts.
Liam:
The difference between Ratzinger and the modernist liturgists as that, unlike the latter, he speaks in conformity with centuries of Catholic tradition and just plain commonsense. Assuming that the Church does not want to hang on to the Tridentine Mass forever, is it rasonable to believe that it was the intention of the Council, and today the Church, to do away with centuries of polyphonic and orchestral Masses? Doubtful. Very, very doubtful, and I thin kwe should err on the side of tradition.
I wonder if someone could comment on the following paragraph from the preface to Fr. George Rutler's Ignatius Press book Brightest and Best: Stories of Hymns:
The hymns that follow [in this book] complement the Liturgy but are not part of it. The whole Mass itself is its own gigantic hymn, and it is only by indult that it is said at all instead of being sung. It is liturgically eccentric to "say" a Mass and intersperse it with extra-liturgical hymns. Hymns may precede or follow the Mass, but they should never replace the model of the sung Eucharist itself with its hymnodic propers. . . . The Church has normally reserved other hymns for other forms of public prayer, especially the Daily Office. And, of course, all hymns can be part of private prayer, following the Augustinian principle that he who sings prays twice.
Anyone who's heard or read Fr. Rutler knows he's ordinarily very precise and correct in whatever he says. But on exactly what might be, in particular, the part I've emphasized be based?
"Being in the minority . . ."
Woah! In what parallel church-universe are you and your school in the minority?! Where do I sign up to join?!
The concept of a "said" liturgy is anathema to the orthodox Church of the East, though sadly most Eastern *Catholic* parishes have adopted the practice to some extent.
Eric G
But that is private opinion versus clear liturgical law. Everyone likes to think their private opinion is more in continuity with tradition and commonsense. But that doesn't displace positive liturgical law. The Roman way of applying the law and allowing for occasional non-compliance without prejudice to the law would seem to be sufficient to provide for the Conciliar intent regarding the treasury of the Church's music.
"The Roman way of applying the law and allowing for occasional non-compliance without prejudice to the law would seem to be sufficient to provide for the Conciliar intent regarding the treasury of the Church's music."
Let's just say that Ratzinger's theses are in conformity with the traditional "Roman way" but the Modernists aren't, by their own admission most of the time.
Todd,
"I personally dare you to find anything I've written that suggests that everybody must sing everything at every Mass. Or even at any single Mass."
What am suggesting here is that such an attitude seems to exist amidst the progressivist camp, at very least by means of the way the matters are approached, whereby the faithful not singing this or that is deemed to be undesireable since they are not "actively participating". I did not say you personally hold this.
Liam,
Liturgical law should be followed.
What people can do is speak of prudential arguments about why they believe liturgical law might be changed, tweaked, etc.
As well, there can be the normal debates about liturgical law, how it is to be understood, interpreted, etc.
I believe there have been insults and insinuations flying in all directions.
Everyone needs to stop, take a deep breath, move away from the emotional aspects of these arguments, and come back to the table to debate and discuss.
On the question of voice training for the clergy --
I suggested to the formation team for permanent deacons in my diocese that they could schedule an optional day for those preparing for the diaconate in which we could learn some of the basic diaconal chants (e.g. the invitation to the sign of peace, the dismissal, how to sing a Gospel reading, maybe even the Exultet). They looked at me as if I had three heads and then said that maybe this is something people could learn from parish music directors, once they were assigned to parishes.
Yeah. Right. Like that's really going to happen.
FCB
A diocesan workshop is a superb idea. Even better would be to have it occur at the request and sponsorship of the bishop. Make a CD for each participant that they can play in the car. These things are far from difficult.
In fact, NLM could have a little chant download page, complete with scans of the music. These chants are so short, I bet even .wav files (directly burnable to disc) wouldn't take too long to download.
What do you think, Shawn?
Thanks for your reply, Shawn. I need to point out you were the first one who brought "total exterior participation" to the thread in response to one of my posts. I don't have a doubt that a few misguided and weakly-educated souls in leadership think this way. I think this is far from a mainstream view. I know of no published liturgical composer who advocates this. In fact, the criticism of voice-of-God and the too-high sung notes is quite often misinterpretation of a writer's intention of a solo or choir section.
On the vocal coaching by the parish music director ... I've done it, will do it. The diocese needs to provide it, and the bishop needs to insist on it.
Todd,
Indeed I did bring it up that way. But just know that doesn't necessarily mean I am accusing you of it, only using it as a springboard for a point or additional item of concern.
I'll try to make that more clear in the future however as one could easily interpret it that way.
Pes,
I'm open to it any resource like that, of course, though obviously we'd have to do it ourselves so as to avoid copyright issues.
Shawn
Great. I'd like to drop a thousand bucks on a 24 bit digital recorder, and here's my excuse! :^) No, I'm kidding.
Sort of.
Eric G.,
Indeed, the split Sanctus and Benedictus would involve saying the Canon silently, and many insist that the rubrics allow for this. Also, a choral setting of the Sanctus would not necessarily require that it be split.
To those who might say that there is no way a choral Sanctus can be done, I feel compelled to stress that this is earnestly in dispute. It is not a mere disregard for liturgical law, and neither is it a matter of scholarship, etc. taking precedence over liturgical law.
Actually the dispute rests on which liturgical document takes precedence. This is a tricky question which is answered differently by various experts. Some say that the most recent document, which at this point I think would be the 2000 GIRM, would take precedence. Others have pointed out that Musicam Sacram, which supports choral Sanctus settings, is special legislation which must be specifically revoked in order to be invalid, and that this has never been done.
I think Ratzinger's argument from Tradition in favor of the choral Sanctus is the most sensible, but unfortunately it's the one that is least likely to convince the local parish priest. Somehow we've got to untie the legislative knots, and, at the same time, be sure that the legislation is written and interpreted with a great respect for the democracy of the Church Triumphant--Tradition.
I think our present disagreement comes more from confusion out of Rome rather than from either side being dead wrong.
Ekkehard VI
Normally, in Roman liturgical law, the later and particular instruction acts to qualify a general older instruction. That would especially be true here where the later instruction specifically addresses the current Missal and the earlier one does not.
That is not to say that a choral sanctus can not ever be done. Neither Todd nor I argued that. An occasional or periodic choral sanctus (for example, on solemnities perhaps when you may have many people in attendance who are less inclined to sing anyway? Or on very hot days when a congregation is listless? Et cet.) would simply be a pastoral concession of non-compliance with current liturgical law. The problem comes when one tries to elevate a choral sanctus by principle or consistent practice into a norm that effectively supercedes the current norm; that requires further legislation to be valid. As for the exception by custom, that's a bit trickier to use than many people (usually progressives....) realize, but this is a situation where some qualified jurisdictions could claim it validly.
Btw, this really only affects polyphonic and similar settings of the Sanctus where the congregation has zero role; obviously, a congregation could be given the chant to sing part or all of it. Even then, some communities precede the choral sanctus with a spoken or sung congregational setting. Et cet.
Liam,
I understand your point, but wouldn't you agree that the "Vatican II Missal," i.e. the 1970 version promulgated in the name of the Council, should be in harmony with the Council's instructions, including its admonition to foster sacred polyphony, which had been ignored in most places before the Council?
Bear in mind, too, that Musicam Sacram was an instruction to "carry out" Sacrosanctum Concilium's instructions on music, and again it called for the fostering of our musical patrimony. It seems to me that our present particular liturgical law ought to owe obedience to the more general liturgical law which had a direct commission from the Council.
This puts people of all outlooks who love the Church and have good intentions into quite a tough spot. When and how often do we say "yes" to a choral Sanctus? If a family requests one for a funeral, should we say "No"? This is one of the best arguments for returning to a greater awareness of the tradition that has been handed down from one generation to the next.
I agree congregations can sing most of the chant settings of the Mass. A few might be reserved for "all-star" congregations, however.
Ekkehard
You are reading the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy like an Anglo-American constitutional lawyer rather than a Roman. SC is not a self-executing or implementing piece of legislation as such. Musicam Sacram is legislative in nature, but again it could not impose a restrictive interpretation on the subsequent development of the Roman Missal and the legislation pertaining thereto.
HOw many families in a given parish are requesting a choral-only sanctus? How many funerals are being held on Saturday mornings to accommodate this request, which is the most likely time for a choir to be available outside of Sunday liturgy? It would seem that this would ordinarily fit handily into the Roman practice of occasional non-conformity with law without prejudice to the law (a practice which explains, btw, Abp Marini's non-conformities, as it were). In the Roman way, the law is the law, and there is practice, which ideally is fairly congruent with the law but not necessarily fully congruent at all times and in all places. So long as no one tries to elevate occasional non-congruence into a rival or higher norm, the Roman legal peace is kept. It's a way of thinking and practicing alien to folks from the Anglo-American legal cosmos.
I should explain a bit that the Roman legal tradition places a high value on the abstract beauty of the law as an ideal that is not to be denigrated. It is, however, understood that real life may require dispensation from rigorous conformity, and the prince-sovereign or his viceregent or similar delegate possessed not only legislative authority to promulgate the law but judicial-executive authority to determine how compliance might be dispensed with in an equitable manner. This notion is a horror to people weaned on the American idea of strict seperation of those functions, and the Anglo-American culture of narrowly tailored laws with explicit exceptions, et cet.
Consequently, American Catholics in particular can have a difficult time grasping liturgical law and practice. Progressives have been at times notorious offenders in this regard, but the phenomenon knows no necessary ideological boundary.
As for "when and how often": prudence would dictate that, I would think. It would be very unRoman, however, to do it openly with the attitude that the law is an ass, as it were. Rather, the Roman way would find a way to ensure that the law is honored in some way, to avoid the impression of dishonoring it. It's hard to put in words, but the Italians seem to have such a gift for it...
Liam,
If the Roman law is as you describe it (and I've heard similar descriptions in the past), then how is it that something which is allowed and even commended can later, in the view of some at least, be effectively prohibited by another document?
It would seem to me that the wiggle room in Roman law would be permissive rather than prohibitive.
Because that thought process is essentially an Anglo-American approach to law.
Incidentally, regarding the Choral Sanctus, the Westminister (Catholic) Cathedral Choir does a polyphonic Sanctus 3-4 times out of the 7 Sung Masses they do every week--and I know that the Cathedral Choir in Denver even splits the Sanctus /Benedictus 4-5 times a year with the rector's approval (they sing the Choral Sanctus even more times a year without splitting it).
Kurt
That practice does not modify or supplant the current liturgical law.
Liam:
You're now sounding like an Anglo-American jurist. Look, if his holiness,Benedict XVI, described by even leftists as perhaps the greatest theologian and liturgist to occupy the throne of Peter in centuries,allows the Choral Sanctus, that ends it. And his informed views on liturgy should be accorded much greater weight than the views of arm-chair liturgists (I include my self in this category).
Regards, Tom
Tom
Actually, no. The fact that the Pope permits something does not change the legislation. His opinions expressed before he became pope were private opinion, however well founded. And he could continue to maintain and express his private opinion as Pope and it would not affect legislation until he legislated. He seems keenly aware of the distinction between the two things, much to the ire of many who expected him to be busy with liturgical legislation of his own preferences. He seems instead keen on delaying such gratification. It may indeed come about, and I would not decry that, but it hasn't happened yet.
Citing pontifical permission as if it were legislation is usually a trick of which certain liturgical progressives are accused....
The whole nature of the dispensary practices of Roman law are that someone in authority can permit non-compliance without any effect on the obliging nature of legislation. In Anglo-American law, that kind of permission would have to be made into a standing exemption from the law; not so in the Roman way.
Liam, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but if the Supreme Pontiff permits and even encourages a choral Sanctus, as he did when he celebrated Mass at St. Peter's where Mozart's Coronation Mass was used, he has the authority to dispense with "legislation." Moreover, in his role as supreme teacher, it would appear that he is providing pretty straightforward guidance on the issue. Lastly, legitimate liturgical practice was never surpressed by the Novus Ordo missal. I believe an eminent cardinal in the curia recently made that assertion recently. Tom.
tjm
The pope can dispense with compliance with legislation. To relegislate, he must issue new legislation. If you think to the contrary, then you must take what his predecessor permitted under Abp Marini to be normative as well.
Musicam Sacram has not been abrogated but to the extent subsequent legislation makes a particular direction, MS is limited thereby for the ritual to which the legislation is directed (ie, liturgies conducted under the current Roman Missal).
This argument is now reminding me of arguing with so many earnest lawyer-wannabe progressive liturgists over the past couple of decades.....
Liam:
I think there is a huuuuuuuge difference between re-instituting or permitting a centuries time honored practice and some of the nonsense propogated by Archbishop Marini. I'm sorry if you cannot or will not see the distinction.
Tom
Tjm
Actually, I had earlier acknowledged custom which would apply in certain jurisdictions that have actively maintained the practice. Custom has a number of wrinkles (including that it has to be a custom of a jurisdiction capable of receiving law, which there can be some dispute about mere parishes satisfying, but I digress), but clearly this practice would constitute not merely custom or even immemorial custom but centenary custom, and thus be accorded higher deference. And I would not take the current Missal instruction to constitute reprobation of a sort that would obviate such a standing custom. *But* parishes that have not maintained the custom actively are more likely to have to depend on the dispensary approach I discussed at length rather than the exemption afforded by custom.
This may seem very nit-picky. But failing to do that will ultimately undermine your goal because you would be seen by many as simply manipulating the current law toward your own ends, and any hint of that will subvert the goals of reforming the reform, and badly.
Liam, although I appreciate your points, I still think its safe to say that the use of a chorale sanctus has not been abrogated. I think if you and I sat down and went through the Ordo and its rubrics in greater detail we would find conflicting instructions and the like. What I face in my parish are real problems of liturgical abuse perpetrated by my pastor who is in his early 60s (who is also clearly an adherent of the 1960s mindset). For example he says "The Lord is with you" He changes the words of the consecration formula, i.e. instead of saying "do this in memory of me," he says " do this because I love you." At communion he does not take communion until he has distributed it to the eucharistic ministers, in clear violation of the law. He encourages the congregation to say the Per Ipsum with him. His latest kick is to substitute the Apostles Creed for the Nicene Creed at all masses. When you mention this to him, he simply says, I like to do it this way. Liam, what do you do with a situation like this? I wish I were dealing with a chorale Sanctus.
Tom
TJM
My condolences on your parish's situation. My usual response when faced with such a situation is to be glad it isn't worse (which it could be) and try to find ways to build a foundation for constructive growth in his wake by building relationships with people, not only the like-minded, but also those not so inclined who may have seen his excesses as unfortunate nevertheless. (Sidebar: One tack I've taken to the "Lord is with you" trope is to ask why Father wishes to deprive the People of God of a blessing provided for in the rite; can we ever be blessed too much?)
When dealing with folks like him, all the more reason to mind our own jots and tittles when recommending this that are not clearly licit in most places using the current Missal like a choral-only Sanctus on a regular basis, as it were. If one wants to foster respect for the rubrics, one has to model it and well rather than grudgingly (that's actually sort of my whole point in this thread if you realize it).* Does that seem fair? No. But it's what we have to do, even if we have good reasons to think there is a way around them.
* People who are not rule-inclined will tend to give your rule-based arguments more credence when they realize you accept rules ungrudingly when they also work against your own preferences. I've had to use this a number of times over the years in tending to people like Father and his eager fans.
Liam, Good advice. Are you a priest? Tom
TJM,
I have looked extensively through the rubrics governing the Sanctus. I would be very, very surprised to find anything supporting a choral Sanctus.
Musicam sacram has come up in mention on this blog - this document says that a congregational Sanctus is preferable (34). While it doesn’t say poppular singing of the Sanctus is obligatory, the later documents (GIRM, Sacramentary) do.
What the Pope does is another matter, and it does not change the objective reality that we may not act outside the rubrics of our own volition.
It would be really nice if someone could pose this question to the CDF: “The GIRM says the Sanctus is sung by all, but the Pope had it sung only by a choir - so are we allowed to do that, too.” Whether Dies iræ is to be permitted as a sequence at requiem Masses would be another great clarification to have.
And, of course, the GIRM should be changed in short order to reflect these clarifications - if indeed the Sanctus may be sung by the choir only and Dies iræ as a sequence is permitted at funerals.
TJM
No I am not a priest (nor religious for that matter). I've just witnessed a lot of milk (and blood) spilled over matters liturgical over the years.
Tom, I am sorry for your parish's lit. situation too. Changing the words of the consecration, brr...
But His latest kick is to substitute the Apostles Creed for the Nicene Creed at all masses.
In Canada this is "normal" -- I am pleasantly surprised when I encounter the Nicene Creed on Sundays, which is done in only two of the dozens of church's I've been to Mass in, in the last few years (from Cathedrals to tiny parishes).
AM,
I don't have a copy of the Novus Ordo Missae with me. Is the Apostles Creed permitted in the Ordo? Or is this something Bishops have received an indult for?
Tom
I don't think the possibility of using the Apostle's Creed at Mass appears in the Roman Missal. If someone has a copy reading this perhaps they could check.
It doesn't mention the possibility in the IGMR.
(It is used when Baptism is combined with the Liturgy of the Word, of course.)
Yeah, our visiting priest a few weeks back went through great rhetorical hoops to avoid masculine references to God.
“The night before he was betrayed”
became
“The night before the betrayal”
while
“Through him, with him, in him”
became
“Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ”
That stuff just sounds hokey to me. I really look forward to guys like that retiring. Yeah, it won’t be fun to close/combine parishes, have parishes run by laypeople, etc....but at least the priests we *will* have won’t be going out of their way to “improve” upon the Mass as the Church gives it.
"...the GIRM should be changed in short order to reflect these clarifications - if indeed the Sanctus may be sung by the choir only and Dies iræ as a sequence is permitted at funerals."
And this is what I fear is NOT going to happen with the "new" GIRM. As an 'employee' of my parish, I follow my orders. Do I either feel or know that all of the documents we have been given to guide us are accurate translations from the Latin, or even contain the intent of the Roman Curia? Not a chance!
I have now heard the Sanctus/Benedictus separated a number of times in both the Old and the New Litrugies. I have no problem with it. I've even been in the choir singing it.
I would prefer for my own funeral either the Anglican Use or the Tridentine Indult in order for the Sequence to be used. Otherwise, well, it's no longer classified as a Sequence, so I would not dare to ask for it as such. However, it does seem that the English rubrics involving the musical choices between the Readings leave open the possibility of just about anything to be sung.
Are either of the above options "pushing the envelope"? Probably. But who has been pushing the envelope in the other direction for 40 years now, and with no real historical precedent?
The Dies Irae is allowed under the clause which says "..any other appropriate..." although this clause refers specifically to pieces sung at the Offertory or Communion rather than between the Readings.
As to the more general discussion, it would seem that the choral Sanctus has not been specifically dis-allowed, especially if one considers that choirs have always been considered to be proxies for "the people." Thus 'joining with the people' does NOT exclude choirs. There is a pertinent discussion (pre-VatII) which identifies "degrees" of participation by the laity; significantly, even the least "degree" (Amen, Et Cum Spiritu...etc.,) is called "participation."
Yes, the spoken Mass is indult, not normative.
Finally, Todd seems to fudge a bit on MSW. It was NOT "legislation," because only the Pope (or CDW with his approval) may "legislate" on matters liturgical. See Canon 2 (IIRC.) The BCL was normative but not authoritative, (motu proprio) and remains such today.
For a very interesting discussion about participation, visit Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog, and listen to his homily from the Feast of the Assumption which he delivered at the beautiful Solemn High Mass in Camden NJ's Cathedral.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
