I just stumbled upon this remarkable document from the Autumn 1963 issue of Caecilia, the predecessor journal to Sacred Music.
What follows is an official petition concerning music in the liturgy. It urges greater focus on the issues at hand, with special concern shown for the propers of the Mass, the training of choirs and priests, the furtherance of the Gregorian ordinary, the discouragement of the then-growing practice of vernacular hymnody at Mass, and limiting (at the start) the extent of vernacular to parish Vespers.
On every point, this document is correct and history bears this out. These were great experts on music here. They knew that vagueness and slogans were not enough to do what needed to be done. Moreover, they were not reactionaries but rather true advocates of the Liturgical Movement: see the plea for the congregation to be encouraged to share in the singing at Mass, but not at the expense of the structure of the service. This is not a call to preserve the status quo (see even the criticism of the 1958 decree on music) but rather a plea for a more solid framework for progress in the future.
I’m particularly struck by #4 and the suggestion that a sung Mass be made possible within the Low Mass, to be handled by a Cantor alone. This of course is the most common Mass structure we see today but it also most commonly lacks propers of the Mass. It’s as if the worst of the old (four vernacular hymns) ended up by default combining with the worst of new to create this modern hybrid we know so well.
One senses a profound worry at the heart of this document that if the Council was not specific enough, disaster could befall the music of the Mass. Would that the Caecilian’s plea been heeded!
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, passed later this very year, did not necessarily contradict anything in this petition, and it even gave a ringing endorsement of Gregorian chant, but it lacked the specificity and failed to correct for the abuses which the Caecilians anticipated.
Note finally that two years later, Pope Paul VI called for the successor organization to the Society to be given a leadership role in guided the development of music following the Council. (It goes without saying that this wish was not fulfilled.)
Everyone who sniffs at the stuffiness of the old Society of St. Caecilia ought to consider the foresight revealed in this petition. It is time that history acknowledge who was right.
The American Society of St. Caecilia respectfully submits to the consideration of their Eminences and their Excellencies, the Most Reverend Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, the following petitions.
1. Regarding the place of music in the liturgy:
In view of the fact that the church has always regarded the function of the cantor and the trained choir, as well as that of the singing congregation, as an integral and necessary element of public worship, this Society is sincerely hopeful that the Fathers of the Council, before making any changes which might affect the structure of the services, will give earnest consideration to the importance of these traditional elements. While this tradition is not founded upon recent documents, we should desire the retention of the principles so clearly outlined in Pope St. Pius X’s Motu Proprio and in the Musicae Sacrae Disciplina of Pope Pius XII.
2. Regarding the Propers of the Sung Mass:
If any changes are to be made in the structure of the Proper of the Mass, this Society respectfully urges that the Fathers of the Council give careful thought to the fundamental structure of the service, and therefore to the meaning and value of each part, clearly preserving the roles of the cantor and trained choir. This Society also begs that art and beauty, which are inherent and not foreign to the casting of the Proper parts, not be sacrificed to the single issue of simplicity and brevity.
3. Regarding the Ordinary of the Sung Mass:
Since the necessity of a clearer insight into what worship really is presses for a greater sharing by the people in the song of the Church, this Society earnestly recommends that the congregation be encouraged to share in the singing at Mass, not necessarily according to the medieval and mistaken norm of the Ordinary as a unit, but with due regard for the place the various chants have in the fundamental structure of the service. It therefore also pleads that the great treasures of medieval chant and classical polyphony, as well as the riches of modern and contemporary music, not be discarded on the untraditional plea that there is no place for participation by listening.
4. Regarding the music at Low Mass:
This Society respectfully urges that consideration be given to maintaining the sung mass as the norm for congregational service, and where necessity demands, that provision be made for a simplified form of sung Mass that requires only the service of a trained cantor to supplement the singing of the congregation. The singing of hymns at low Mass, a solution suggested by the 1958 decree, is not completely satisfactory, because it remains extraneous to the action at the altar.
5. Regarding the use of the vernacular in the sung liturgy:
The Society of St. Caecilia recognizes that the vernacular problem is a pastoral problem, but even more basically a problem involving the proper attitude toward worship. Because music is an integral part of worship, the problem is necessarily also a musical one. This Society therefore urges care and caution, since the musical problems involved are certainly very great, whether in creating a new music for a vernacular text or in adapting a vernacular text to the rich store of chant and polyphony and other music from the past. The Society especially suggests vernacular adaptations to the offices of the church which have fallen into disuse, notably parish Vespers.
6. Regarding the practical realization of a sung liturgy:
The Society of St. Caecilia urges the Fathers of the Council to implement the repeated wishes of the Holy. See by encouraging the musical training of both clergy and laity, and especially of choirmasters and organists, according to the norms laid down in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of September 3, 1958, so that the ideals of a reverential and artistic musical worship may be realized.
The above articles have been approved by the Most Reverend Gerald T. Bergan, Archbishop of Omaha, the. Liturgy and Music Commissions of the Archdiocese of Omaha, and by the Boys Town Liturgical Music Institute’s eleventh national session.
For the Society of St. Caecilia:
September 12, 1963
Msgr. Francis P. Schmitt, President
Rev. Francis A. Brunner, C.Ss.R., Secretary
James P. Keenan, Treasurer
Epilogue: After the Constitution was passed, with its strong endorsement of chant, the same writers were actually rather calm. Wrote Fr. Schmitt: “I have every confidence that the post-conciliar Commission on the Sacred Liturgy will keep things, officially at least, within the guidelines of the Constitution.”
It was not to be. Their worst fears were realized in time.
The singing of hymns at low Mass, a solution suggested by the 1958 decree, is not completely satisfactory, because it remains extraneous to the action at the altar
This is the infamous "Low Mass with Music".
And the authors of the piece are right: it simply doesn't work.
You must have been very successful in bringing the archives to light.
Seems like the CMAA server died.
works fine for me
[The Society] therefore also pleads that the great treasures of medieval chant and classical polyphony, as well as the riches of modern and contemporary music, not be discarded on the untraditional plea that there is no place for participation by listening.
I think this hits the nail squarely on the head, too. Would that a few "liturgists" had read this.
We read and we know this, and we don't need to peruse periodicals from the 60's to find it. Listening to a musical performance is not participation as the council bishops defined it (SC 30), nor is it what is called for explicitly in the rubrics of the Roman Missal. Where participation is concerned, I tend to be a red-n-black man, myself.
If however, the music involved the kerygmatic mission of Christ, that is, the preaching of the Word in song, then yes, listening can be a liturgical act. Not the only or the most proper act, but an important one.
"Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural." (Pope John Paul II, an ad limina address to the Bishops of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska,October 9, 1998)
"In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy."
(SC 28)
Todd,
I don't see any contradiction between JPII's address and SC 28, do you?
No, Peter. Nor do I see any contradiction between my stance and the pope's statement. Are you and I just talking past each other and not hearing?
Your statement, "Listening to a musical performance is not participation as the council bishops defined it (SC 30)", though, seems to contradict JPII's address. Did the bishops of the Council really say that "Listening to a musical performance is not participation"?
The "chants and music of the liturgy" are not the same as "musical performances." They technically look the same, and to an untutored or non-Christian observer, they might especially seem so.
The gist of my criticism is when music for the liturgy becomes performance at liturgy. Something might have the text of the Mass, but the spirit, attitude, and perception of what is presented is far from the ministry of preaching the Word. And as bitter a pill as this might be for some, the St Louis Jesuits or Marty Haugen psalm settings are more in keeping with the spirit of the liturgy.
If musicians, as monastery musicians do, are able to present sung propers as part of the inspired Word of God, and not just a musical treasury to share with an audience they would otherwise lack, then yes, they fit with the prescriptions of the liturgy.
On that score, I'm always going to be an annoying voice of conscience for church musicians. That's not going to end.
So you agree that listening to "chants and music of the liturgy" — quite opposite to "musical performance" — is participation, right?
In terms of your personal preference to the St Louis Jesuits or Marty Haugen psalm settings, what do you think about the Council's declaration of Gregorian Chant as the first place in liturgical service? Did the Council prescribe something absurd out of bureaucratic ignorance on parish situations and quite not in keeping with the spirit of the liturgy?
"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given first place in liturgical services." (Section 116, the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
Peter, it isn't always participation. Sometimes it's entertainment. If a community expects to come to Mass to be entertained, even by good homilies and great music, it has not achieved the ideals set down for it in the liturgy. Good pastoral leadership needs to move a worshipping congregation beyond entertainment.
Your reading comprehension is faulty regarding SLJ or other modern psalm settings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd, I’ve been always thinking contemporary liturgical music settings are more often about socializing and entertaining. And I am all with the Mother Church in acknowledging “Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy.” GC is more meditative and even counter-cultural. The role of CMAA is making the liturgical and musical ideal of the pastoral Council possible. I am really optimistic and excited about the perspective.
"I’ve been always thinking contemporary liturgical music settings are more often about socializing and entertaining."
No.
They are about faithfulness to the liturgy and an emphasis on Scripture and on participation.
I realize that not all traditional musicians incline toward performance. But I see enough evidence on the internet that suggests that too much of it may be a usurpation of the role of the assembly as defined by the Roman Missal.
yes yes, everyone knows that canard.
By the way, I've stopped using the term "performance" as a swear word when in it comes to liturgy, light of Fr. Ruff's comments on this. It is an extremely superficial way to argue
http://www.chantcafe.com/2010/07/fr-ruff-on-performance-as-swear-word.html
It can be a superficial way to argue. But not always.
In your posting audio and video from the Colloquium, for example, we gain a window on certain possibilities–not just the programmed lists of music, but also the cues (and occasional miscue) for the worshiping assembly.
Fr Ruff offers an important caveat in the excerpt you posted, one that I agree with. In a strict sense, church musicians do perform, bring to form, that is, sacred music. But do musicians–and I would ask this of myself as well as any other colleague–retain a liturgically-based notion of singing? People on this blog, posters and commentators both, have questioned this regarding those who present/perform contemporary music. It's a valid question there, and its equally valid for me to ask it of others. I would say there are a few settings which might merit the questioning:
– A disregard for the principle of progressive solemnity: is the Sunday or feast irrelevant to the timing of rehearsal, the choice of repertoire, or the heightened sense of performance? In other words, does a church musician pick a random Sunday to sing something distinctive, or is there a reason in the realm of liturgy or pastoral ministry that informs it?
– Do we find confusion in the congregation for a performance ill-conceived? For example, do people start singing only to find they were "incorrect"?
– A frustrated leader or ensemble lacking an audience for admittedly great music, but one which isn't a "draw" in the concert setting.
And again, I don't condemn any of these situations outright. I think they merit the question: is this musical group performing music as an alternative to a concert setting?