Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Well said!
I could not have stated this better. Bravo! Tom
Perfect.
"Cognitive pedagogy is not the primary purpose of music, so, no, it is not important that all people gathered always and immediately 'understand the words.'"
Bingo! The idea that the text must always be immediately accessible to the listener is a protestant one.
This post is right on target. I have to admit I am not very hopeful that there will be a massive change on the part of the publishers and "composers" of today's so-called sacred music, and this for two reasons: greed and pride. As you stated quite well, this industry is lucrative and the publishers are well aware that real liturgical renewal would render their services useless. And many of the "composers" of this music will not tolerate the truth that their talents may not be needed (at least not in the way they would like to contribute).
I guess the only way we can change this is to stop buying their "hymnals" and sending "music ministers" to their conferences and training workshops.
Yes indeed! But WE already know this. The most useful course of action would be to educate PASTORS and PRIESTS about the role of music! Most competent parish musicians aren't "shot down" by the music publishers... they are vetoed by the pastor and / or priests of their parish. In most (and I mean 99.9%) of parishes, a music director asking to use chant at Mass would be answered with something like "perhaps we can chant the kyrie during Lent" or something like that.
Chironomo,
Precisely.
These are indeed well kept secrets! Someone needs to spread the word!
There was never an ysuch "legislation" from Pope Clement. That's just another spurious legend made up centuries after the fact.
Still a solid principle, though.
Eric G., I'm not sure who told you that but see Msgr. Hayburn on Papal Leg. (1979), J Funck, Epistola ad Corinthios Sancti Clementi (Tubingen: 1877, pp. 135) and Romita, Jus musicae liturgicae (1947).
First, thanks!! for a well-written and absolutely spot-on analysis.
Second, given that the first legislation was written in ~95 AD and the most recent was written in about 1975, you can deduce that ignorance isn't new--AND that it's not likely to disappear anytime soon.
Jeffrey,
"Epistola ad Corinthios Sancti Clementi".
Is that the genuine 1st Clement, or the so-called spurious 2nd Clement? I only ask because I'd like to read what he says, and the context.
That would be Clement 1. I can't imagine there is anything phony about this. I mean, it's in all the regular scholarly literature.
I'm curious as well Eric why you are so confident of that given scholarly literature on the point.
Outstanding. Simple clear and to the point.
I wish there was something written at about this level but of booklet length so I could buy copies for all our "music ministers".
Generally a good post, however, I would quibble with a few points:
The music of the Mass is not of our choosing; it is not a matter of taste; it is not a glossy layer on top of a liturgy.
I do think that the multiplicity of options for the music of the Mass (texts, forms, etc.) does pragmatically render it a matter of taste to some extent. Maybe it would be clearer to say “liturgical music should not be of our own choosing”.
Hymns are permitted as replacements for what should be sung but only with reservations.
Actually, is there any officially approved set of hymns out there for the Mass? I suppose the office hymns (Latin and vernacular) are approved by default.
The music of for the Mass is found in three books: the Kyriale (for the people), the Graduale (for the schola), and the Missale (for the priest).
Forget not Musicam Sacram’s endorsement of congregational singing of the proper.
To advocate Gregorian chant is not merely to favor Latin hymns over English ones, because chant hymns make up only a small portion of chant repertoire. It is to favor a sung Mass over a spoken one, and to favor the music of the Mass itself against substitutes.
I don’t know that I agree. Can’t I have a completely sung Mass (including the readings) that has no Gregorian chant?
Vatican II hoped to see that vernacular hymnody would decrease and the sung Mass would increase.
Maybe I should know this, but where does Vatican II hope that vernacular hymnody would decrease?
And the first step to education is to have an educable spirit.
Actually, I would say the first step is for educators to ascertain where people are and to meet them there. For most people, “church music” means “Here I Am, Lord”. I think you would reach a lot more middle-aged ladies who want “Be Not Afraid” for their mother’s funeral if you would meet them where they are.
Will musicians and publishers that have been working for decades in a spurious paradigm—the billions involved do not confer liturgical legitimacy—be willing to rethink matters?
I wish, Jeffrey, you were saying this as someone who knows these people. I think your words would reach ears of influential people more readily.
I would be surprised if it’s “billions”. And don’t forget the USCCB - they make a pretty penny off the Lectionary.
Can’t I have a completely sung Mass (including the readings) that has no Gregorian chant?
Cantor, I would argue maybe on this. And that's contingent on the text. The singing of the Mass requires that we sing - the Mass. Not texts in substitution of the texts of the Mass, but rather the Mass. I would argue that in terms of spirit of the law that a hymn paraphrase of the Introit is equally as bad as a hymn paraphrase of the Sanctus. The distinction lies in Pope Pius's "singing the Mass" vs. "singing during the Mass".
Cantor, some of this is known by reading the actual history here. Too many people attempt to read Liturgy Constitution as if it were solely a legal document; people read it the way Prots read the bible. In fact, it is embedded in a time and it reflects a real history and sociology of the Church. I would highly recommend Dobzsay on this point.
On another point, yes, you can have a sung Mass without Gregorian chant but the point as phrased doesn't exclude that.
Oh and on the point about billions. Sounds like too much doesn't it? I agree. But maybe not. OCP is not a public company, so we can't know its size based on that. Neither is it a regular nonprofit. It claims to be a religious nonprofit affiliated with a diocese so the IRS treats it like a Church, and there are no disclosure requirements (and rightly so, I would add). None. Has it done a billion in business in the last 30 years? I would expect so but you are right that I can't prove it.
Pamphleteers of the Church, unite.
I'm curious about the heckler. What was he furious about?
Jeffrey wrote:
Has it done a billion in business in the last 30 years? I would expect so but you are right that I can't prove it.
You know, I’d bet a look into this could bear some fruit. Some WLP people once told me that they (not GIA) are the second-highest grossing Catholic music publisher....which implies that kind of information is compiled and given out on some basis.
I’ll bet everyone here would be keenly interested in seeing it...maybe start with the diocese?
Gavin wrote:
Cantor, I would argue maybe on this. And that's contingent on the text. The singing of the Mass requires that we sing - the Mass. Not texts in substitution of the texts of the Mass, but rather the Mass. I would argue that in terms of spirit of the law that a hymn paraphrase of the Introit is equally as bad as a hymn paraphrase of the Sanctus. The distinction lies in Pope Pius's "singing the Mass" vs. "singing during the Mass".
I agree - but what about a polyphonic introit that matches the chant text? That is what I meant.
Yes, my one worry about this list is that it doesn't quite give proper weight to polyphony.
on the heckler, some guy came prepared to demonstrate that Latin in liturgy is contrary to Church teaching etc., kept throwing bogus citations at me and disrupting the scene. I didn't stay as cool as I should have.
Jeffrey,
You should have thrown in out of your class.
Private property rights, and all that;)
Cantor, that's of course what I meant also. I'd say a polyphonic setting of the introit is just as useful to the rite as chant. In Latin or English.
Thank you very much for this.
Great! I'm going to send this post to my guitar and bass playing friend who becomes Archie Bunker when he talks about Music in the Mass. "That stuff about what the Vatican II documents said is a bunch of hooey, Edith, those people just want to force us to use chant because they like it."
I love that distinction between "singing the Mass" and "singing during the Mass." I never heard that before. It made me think me of people who pray the Rosary during Mass. They are praying during the Mass instead of praying the Mass.
I like polyphony as much as the next person, but I would dispute the argument that a polyphonic setting of an introit is "just as useful" to the rite as the chant. I still think chant is preferred, polyphony being either interspersed (i.e. things sung in between singing the propers) or a rare treat (such as an occasional polyphonic requiem).
I tend to agree about hymns. I think an occasional hymn isn't a bad thing, but (I have been told, and it makes sense to me that) one of the reasons the regulations about singing some parts of the Mass and not others were relaxed was to get rid of the four-hymn sandwich. It doesn't help at all that even a significant proportion if not most traditional vernacular hymns are sentimental and doleful. I seem to recall St. Thomas considering excessive use of vernacular hymns superstitious.
I am a 16-year-old young man living in America, who has been called to the priesthood. I have found in my heart a great creative spirit, one that has been able to explore many human themes, and one that has been seaking and called to seek theological themes. I have been studying and praying on many theological themes, and been having deep prayer/meditation on basic and advanced themes, messages, and scripture.
I not only have skill with eloquent words, but also have skill with crafting beautiful paintings with my hands through my heart, and music with my heart's movable and unmovable rhythm. While the unmovable rhythm (i.e., the rhythm my heart gives when it is unmoved by the world, and moved only by my soul, my inner emotions, and especially the Holy Spirit) is the most beautiful, I have also studied the moved music, mostly to correct mistakes. I am creating several pieces of literature that combine all of these forms of expression.
Since I have been called to the priesthood, once I am ordained I will dedicate my spare time to studying music theory, and, with much prayer, compose beautiful music, released freely to the Church.
Please pray for my progression, and that the music I create is one which truly reflects God's message, and one that is able to inspire movements in other's hearts after my own at composition.
WOW! This is a rather brilliant post! Go for it Aaron, im prayin for u. Im 19 from South Africa also called to the priesthood. Studying Music. May the heart of the Church prevail on this matter!
I felt rather sublime after last night's All Saints' Day mass, and therefore I made poetic prose verse. My writing style will be much more easily understandable by the time I actually get past the conceptual stage of making my...
... video game. I know it sounds like the project couldn't live up to the depth that I insinuated that it would be able to, but the designing stage of the video game is easily the easiest, and requires barely any effort on my part. The "gameplay" is simple a medium through which the media of the writing and artwork will carry towards the player.
This statement:
"The music of for the Mass is found in three books: the Kyriale (for the people), the Graduale (for the schola), and the Missale (for the priest)."
is not correct. The "Kyriales" that were published before Vatican II were always described as "excerpts from the Graduale Romanum" ("e graduale sacrosanctae romanae ecclesiae desumptum"). They were used largely by choirs or religious communities which did not sing the propers to plainsong.
No officially sanctioned "Kyriale" has been published for the Novus Ordo, although there is at least one unofficial version, printed in Germany.
The Missale contains all that is to be said by the priest - with or without notation, depending on the edition!
The Graduale contains everything that is to be sung at Mass, except for the tones for the lessons (which don't appear in 99% of altar editions of the Missal either) and the tones for the prefaces (which were, and are, to be found either in the Missal or in separate publications). The preface to the Gradual, for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass, assumes that apart from the priest, it is the choir which does all of the singing, of both Ordinary and Proper.
If Jeffrey can point me to a preface to an "official" Kyriale which says "these are the parts of the Mass which are to be sung by the congregation" I would be interested to have the reference. Likewise, if the Graduale suggests that this is so, please tell us where. In practice, Catholic church music is rather more fluid than Jeffrey suggests. Instead of being dogmatic about who sings what, it would be more correct to say: "The Gradual, the Missal and some additional reference material (eg instructions on tones for the lessons and the Gospel) provide all the basic information about the music for the Mass. Certain parts of this music may only be sung by the priest. Other parts may be sung by the choir or by the people, according to local circumstances."
Reading this, I realise that even this may be too rigid - there are occasions when a tone-deaf priest or bishop actually requests that a member of the choir should (for example) intone the Gloria or Credo.
I sympathise with Jeffrey's basic approach - he is quite right to emphasise the close inter-relation of music and liturgy. He is right that generations of catholics have been short-changed by musicians, publishers and the church establishment. But he should beware of over-stating his case.
Like anonymous, I too am not comfortable with generalizations about music. Although that is, I hope, what Jeff was making: generalizations. I'm always bothered by those who say that the Gradual is music for the choir alone. It seems to me that the ideal default situation, all things being quite equal, is for Graduals to be in the pews and the congregation to sing the antiphons. Now that is horribly unreasonable, but surely we must realize that the congregation can and debatably ought to have a part in the antiphons.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Jeff said on a basic level. I would be glad to print this in my parish bulletin, and I doubt that at our early Mass, where the Introit is chanted by the congregation, anyone would cry out "but you said this part is for the choir!!"
right, these are generalizations, and yes, i know there is no official Kyriale - but this is the name used for the book with the ordinary parts. These are broad divisions. If someone, anyone, wants to sing propers with us, please do! I think that would be great.
Mr. Tucker-
I appreciate your post and understand that Vatican II gives pride of place to Gregorian Chant, but what do you make of these words by Pope Paul VI, spoken upon the promulgation of the Norvus Ordo:
"We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant."
link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
P6691126.HTM
Was it not Paul VI's intention to allow Gregorian chant to fall into desuetude with the introduction of the new Mass? Wouldn't his deliberate "parting" with the past supercede the "pride of place" given to chant by V2? If you think not, how can his words and the text of Sacrosanctum Consilium regarding chant be reconciled?
I just read through the quoted document quickly. Why have I never heard of this before? It does put the current state of liturgy in a new light. It's a Papal document, with all the weight that carries. It shakes my world.
Yes, I know this statement, which is quite sad - no statement better illustrates his confusion or the confusion of the times. We must remember that there is a vast space of time between 1963 and 1969.
Further, 5 years after the Pope said this, he was engaged in a desperate attempt to save the chant with Jubilate Deo.
Once has to wonder what could possibly account for such confusion. There is also a vast space of time between 1969, when Pope Paul VI was willing to part with chant, and 1974 when he issued Jubilate Deo to “save it,” as you say. In that space of time, the baleful course that the liturgy would take down to our day was set in motion. Responsibility for that is due largely to an episcopate all too willing to jettison Latin & Gregorian chant, yes. But it is also due – honesty demands it be said - to a Pope who not only allowed it to happen but also sanctioned it, as the intentions expressed in his general address which I quoted make clear. No Latin (except possibly in the Ordinary), no chant – that is what Paul VI intended for the Norvus Ordo. The consequences of these and other changes in the Mass have not simply been “sad” but catastrophic. As you are well aware, an aversion, even hostility, to Latin and chant have been nurtured by years of vernacular Masses performed in deliberate antithesis to the Traditional Latin Mass (which always gave, and still gives, pride of place to chant). What kind of Catholic faith is molded under such circumstances? Yet it was Paul VI who referred to Latin and chant as mere “silken garments” (similar to the “glossy layer on top of a liturgy” mindset you counsel against). It was Paul VI who set the use of Latin and chant in opposition to “active participation,” as section 12 of that same address shows (vs, your “no contradiction between chant and participation” comment).
Clearly, it will not do to refer to Vatican II as a defense of liturgical renewal while ignoring what Pope Paul VI, the one with the authority to change the Mass, said. And whatever the reasons for his change of heart regarding chant in 1974, Pope Paul VI’s issuance of Jubilate Deo, judging by its effect, was clearly a matter of “too little, too late.” The damage was done and Paul VI, if he realized his mistake, did not have the heart or will to rectify it sufficiently. It has been left to the sheer good will of later Popes, such as our current one, to set us back on the right course. May his efforts bear lasting fruit.
While your re-education effort is laudable, and the actions of Pope Benedict XVI respecting traditional worship hopeful, I would kindly suggest, when we lament “people's level of knowledge of the basic facts of liturgy and music” or the “musicians and publishers that have been working for decades in a spurious paradigm,” that we also keep in mind exactly who and what got us there.
I'm not sure that Pope Paul VI was announcing the demise of Chant as a positive thing... the tone seems to imply that he saw it as necessary but lamentable. It doesn't conflict with the teachings of the council because the documents advocate the development and continuation of tradition, not the maintaining of the actual chants themselves. He certainly isn't promoting or advocating the crap we've ended up with!
Does anyone know how I might reach Father Michael McDonough? He previously worked at EWTN with Mother Angelica?
Thank you, Leta Gustin
Chironomo-
Whether Paul VI saw the loss of Latin and Gregorian chant as a positive development or not, I don't know. The point is that he sanctioned it, he allowed it to happen and moreover, he provided justification for it. If it was the intent of SC to give chant "pride of place," how can Paul VI's decision to "part" with it not be considered a conflict? And whether or not he could forsee the consequences, how can it be denied that it was his decision to allow for the loss of chant that contributed to the subsequent degradation of sacred music in the Mass?
I want to ask for permission to translate this article into Spanish and to publish it at the enciclopediacecilia.org website, which is a site in Spanish dedicated to music and the Catholic Church.
I never liked the "my way or the highway" approach when "contemporary" music was taking over the Mass. I don't like it now that the reverse is being attempted. People in the pews never sang the graduale chants and they never will. (unless these people live in a monastary). When the documents stress "full, conscious and active participation", most reasonable people would probably not include listening to a choir sing words they do not understand in that category.
"One Bread, One Body" IS sacred music in a style that was never popular (never existed) outside of Church and is more liturgically appropriate than some of the very theatrical, showy music of the masters of the 18th and 19th centuries. Hymns are one choice mentioned in a non-hierarchical list of options for certain parts of the mass.
I love Gregorian Chant, as well as Palestrina, Tallis, Josquin et al.
and include them in my parish Masses. But I will also include prayerful, sacred music that most of the people love to sing.
Commenting by HaloScan
