Here is a question I was asked this morning:
What if the people (even the clergy) find the chant distracting or boring; then it serves no real liturgical purpose at all. Chant in this case is not achieving the prime aim the Church has asked of liturgical music – “its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries”
This critique of chant could also be made of the entire Divine Office and the Mass too. What if prayers they don’t move a particular people to devotion? What if a group says that this arrangement of set prayers do not dispose them better toward the sacraments? For that matter, what if someone says that the sacraments aren’t so great either? Many people do not like prayer either. Should we consider getting rid of them too? In this case, the entire religion becomes shaped by the community’s subjective preferences.
The liturgy knows something that the complainers may not know. No everyone is prepared to appreciate what the Church has to offer in any aspect of its belief and practices. In that case, what is needed is conversion and formation. The primacy of form in the liturgy is wiser than any critic. The suggestion that the liturgy better prepares people presumes that people are properly formed to accept that preparation.
Form is ordered to an end. "Primacy" can be misunderstood in that regard – which is to say it's not an appropriate word, it's just a word that requires interpretation to be understood correctly.
which is NOT to say. Sorry.
too bad, it's what the Church requires. The Church shouldn't cater to spoiled, self-centered brats and the lowest common denominator.
Liam raises a point that I think is at the heart of this issue. As I have mentioned before in previous comments, couching any sort of devotion in language that centers on experience shows a tendency away from classic metaphysics. "Form is ordered to an end." This is precisely right. Our telos (final cause … "end") is God, and the path towards this end is always a conforming of the self towards it. God is the simple reality, not us. In other words, it is we who need "conversion" – we do not convert the end (God, the liturgy, etc.) to suit where we are now. If chant, or anything else in the liturgy, does not "speak" to us, then it is we that need to change. (Of course, this assumes that the chant is being done in a way consonant with its nature … poorly performed chant is another issue.) The modern/post-modern thought that would have us reduce religion and conversion to personal experience is the source of this type of argument.
The beautiful thing about the liturgy is that it is supposed to give us the sense that we are involved in something bigger than us, a dramatic act in which we have a part to play (however passive or active, interior or exterior that may be), and much like an actor must conform himself to the role he is given, so must we in our liturgical presence. (Of course, this analogy breaks down, but the point I think is clear.) If instead we see the liturgy as something that should conform to our subjective experience, we are not only arrogant, but we are also naive. If the past forty years have taught us anything it is that subjecting the liturgy to an arbitrary creativity that seeks to "speak" to people does anything but increase liturgical consciousness; it, in fact, does quite the opposite.
The kind of argument you featured here is simply a variation of the argument that the "form" of prayer must be suited to the individual in order to be of any value. It was what drove the "home-made liturgy" movement and the endless variations of the Mass by individual priests. The argument is unfortunately rather attractive: Who knows better than I do what kinds of prayers, music and postures will bring me to a greater and more spiritual experience?
The answer of course is the counter argument: Who knows better than the Church what kinds of prayers, music and postures express the faith and teachings of the Church?
The question then becomes, "Which one matters more?"
The liturgical progressive will say that prayers that don't move the individual to greater spirituality are pointless.
The liturgical orthodox (conservative…whatever!) will say that prayers that move the individual but fail to express the faith of the Church are pointless.
The argument then goes on for music and posture in pretty much the same way. There really is very little common ground.
Which is precisely why the conversation needs to focus on first principles. Your question, "Which one matters more?" is indeed the question. The common ground must be in the investigation of this question. There are other forms of it, of course, such as, "What is the nature of worship?" The crux of it is on trying to properly situation the "experience" of liturgy with the ontological reality of liturgy. Classical metaphysics gives priority to … well, to metaphysics, whereas modernity places experience first. You see, this is first and foremost a philosophical question. Essence before existence or existence before essence?
Kin haz Oreoz 4 Youkarist? Why not? I likes them. Jesus would have used Oreos, if he had them.
As the rest of you have said more eruditely…there's a word for "have it your way" Christians: Protestants.
During my years as a Wiccan (and I belonged to the Catholic equivalent in that movement), I noticed that people tended to get rid of or modify religious practices that took them out of their comfort zone….and by so doing, cut themselves off from whatever change that practice could have created in their psyche. If worship is a lever that lifts us toward Heaven, then there must be an immovable fulcrum. If we design ritual to fit exactly who we are, we're trying to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps; there is no "other" there to move us. If worship is not different from everyday life, why bother? Yes, God likes it, but what's in it for the worshipper? If we see the architecture, hear the music, and speak the speech of the mall, should it surprise us when people blow off Mass and go to the real mall?
Given (as noted above) that the Chant is well-performed….
It is a matter of the laity being able to discern and apprehend 'beauty.' And that's a function of education, to a great extent.
One could propose that Chant, through its elegant and simple beauty, makes the majesty of the Mass just that much more evident, or more palpable.
The phrase 'noble simplicity', therefore, is the perfect description of Chant.
That's not to denigrate OTHER noble beauties such as polyphony, or the Austrian works, all of which also possess that quality.
The argument, I think, centers around the balance between "heart" and "mind." It is no co-incidence that Pius X used the conjunction "and" linking them in his encyclical: "…to raise the minds AND hearts of the Faithful to God."
What most often is advanced as 'liturgical music' these days is "heart" music, with a little "mind" thrown in; thus, it is inadequate, no matter the intent of the composers.
Chant is both 'heart' and 'mind' music. There is recognizable sentimental appeal, but it is balanced by recognizable intellectual appeal.
The church musician has a heavy burden, for he must teach the faithful (and often the clergy) about Beauty, or this argument will be endless.
I wonder, if through all this elegant and elaborate metaphysical dialectic, if some advocate/proponents of "primary place" run off the rails in thir zeal, into the realm of "worshipping worship?"
To Dad,
Regarding the "heart v mind" dilemma. I've always loved Samuel Barbers ADAGIO FOR STRING (QUARTET.) Somewhere in time I remember someone advanced the notion that Barber's intent for this work to be the setting of an "Agnus Dei" as currently exists. Personally, I don't have an interest in the chicken/egg axiom, I do wonder how people would determine whether the Adagio is "heart" or "mind" or both types of artistry.
Jake makes mention of first principles, and he is quite right. How can you seriously convince otherwise someone that finds the chant distracting or boring? Does it come down to "culture", or the lack of it? Someone who only knows the latest hits on his MP3 player may no longer be sensitive to art music. I say "no longer", because art appreciation is culturally conditioned. Those who appreciate art music may themselves have different tastes and preferences, but I doubt very many would be bored or turned off with Gregorian. But, then, how many appreciate art music in the first place?
There is a subjective element in a person to be able to grasp beauty, but it is primarily conditioned by the prevailing culture. That is why I have often thought of Catholicism today essentially as counter-cultural, not only in beliefs, but in using the language of art. It is a big mistake to try and make Catholicism just like the prevailing culture. Catholicism has always had it own culture, which sadly almost disappeared after Vatican II. It has its own music, its own aesthetics, it own Worship. Can one appreciate Gregorian chant if one is not part of that Catholic Culture, a culture that is usually radically different from the prevailing one?
Ted points out yet another parallel between morality and liturgy. In both the Church proposes objective principles … In both there are many who fail to understand the Church's teaching … In both it is because of an unformed conscience.
For starters, you don't have to like it. We have forgotten discipline and submission to authority, and now it's all about MEEEEEEEEEE!!! There's a universality to chant, at least there could be, if more parishes sang it. You won't hear it in the grocery store, and none of us speak Latin at home, so it's a great equalizer. Like most music, once you become familiar with it, it will grow on you. Gregorian chant is unifying–as in universal. When did Jesus ask that we all be diverse? Gregorian chant also teaches and requires humility, something else our popular culture has forgotten. Ask the chant haters if they're humble enough to do what the Church asks, or is it all about THEMMMMMMMMMMM…
Humbly, let us not miss the point: Mass is not about my boredom or lack thereof. Mass is not liturgitainment. Mass is about praise, honor and glory and worship given by me to the one true God. Our "teacher" the Church, in her wisdom, offers pride of place to Gregorian Chant and polyphony. Chant challenges us to know more substantively – the Truth – and in so doing, we enter into the sacred mysteries with greater love of the person Who Is Truth and our brethren. Thanks, Karen W.
Okay, three additional questions:
1. Are we evangelizing our own with all of this cut and dried, black/white, one of us/not us rhetoric, or have we become entrenched in a crusade mentality?
2. Do all of you who portend to express the "mind of the Church" attend Colloquia AND go home and manage real parish/cathedral programs, and deal with real time people and situations? Teach the clergy? Got decades?
3. Restatement of earlier question: Is it possible that the climate of the debate/discourse has gotten so white hot that a significant number of voices express their understanding of the paradigm, the ideal in terms that border upon idolatry?
Sometimes it seems that to be a "true believer" in RtR lately, one has to sign onto a pact that we'll just overturn the status quo overnight because we know it's right (we have the documents, ask Fr. Z) and all we need to do is just do it.
Can anyone say: "Been there, done that, got the T shirt in '67?"
What happened to "brick by brick" and "progressive solemnity?" I mean, really?
There are some interesting points raised here. It was I who asked Jeffrey the original question. I would like to take the argument back to reality though i.e. what is realistically feasible in the average parish, and not denigrating people who don't understand chant (which is a sure-fire way to fail here). Obviously there are highly successful instances where devoted musicians have turned things around in a parish, so yes, it is possible to do this and no-one is denying that. The question is will there ever be enough people to do this on a widespread scale? The other question is one of human psychology – if the Church states that chant clothes the liturgical prayers in a way that SHOULD enrich them for the congregants, but people who earnestly try to like it and still don't, who's fault is that? Who's responsibility is it to fix it? Surely the Church has greater obligations here to rectify this (mainly via the efforts of enthusiastic, tireless and committed musicians) rather than the poor parishioner desperately trying to make sense of things. I'm not suggesting the parishioner has no obligations, but blaming them, and expecting them to travel the whole "distance" here, betrays a profound misunderstanding of basic human psychology.
Well, as regards feasibility and pace of change, the need to bring people along, etc., I've written half a million words on that. The transition question has been an obsession of mine for some 20 years. The combox is not the best spot to summarize it all, but let me say that musicians who love chant are working every day, in the best way they know how, to get from here to there, and do so with wisdom and sensitivity all around. I see no evidence of scorched-earth policies around here.
I've met many people who don't "like" classical music — to them Bach is "loud" or "scary" and Mozart, as the Emperor said in the movie, has "too many notes." It's a matter of learning to hear what one is hearing — sometimes it takes a while, or something as simple as a music appreciation class (especially if one did not grow up with good music). It brings to mind the interview I saw on EWTN with Fr. Fromageot in which he mentioned "learned perceptivity" (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/11/fr-robert-fromageot-fssp-on-life-on.html). Perhaps the people you mention simply need a bit of coaching to broaden their auricular horizons?
Somewhere in time I remember someone advanced the notion that Barber's intent for this work to be the setting of an "Agnus Dei" as currently exists. Personally, I don't have an interest in the chicken/egg axiom, I do wonder how people would determine whether the Adagio is "heart" or "mind" or both types of artistry.
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. The arrangement actually works (!) but no one who's sung it would recommend it for use at Mass, any more than Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.
1. Are we evangelizing our own with all of this cut and dried, black/white, one of us/not us rhetoric, or have we become entrenched in a crusade mentality?
2. Do all of you who portend to express the "mind of the Church" attend Colloquia AND go home and manage real parish/cathedral programs, and deal with real time people and situations? Teach the clergy? Got decades?
3. Restatement of earlier question: Is it possible that the climate of the debate/discourse has gotten so white hot that a significant number of voices express their understanding of the paradigm, the ideal in terms that border upon idolatry?
1) Of COURSE it's a crusade, as is evangelization, which doesn't use armaments. Neither do most church musicians I know; all they have is persuasion and, ideally, the wherewithal.
2) Speaking for myself, the answer is "yes." I've attended them AND worked in typical OF parish settings AND in EF settings. Trust me, the same persuasive and documentary-sourcing skills come into play in both environments.
3) If you're acquainted with Mgr. Hayburn's book "Papal Documents on the Liturgy", you are aware that about 5 dozen Popes have been preaching "ideals" since the year ~75 AD.
We should do less?
Maybe some "adult-friendly" instructional animations are needed. I mean, when we were kids, we learned about classical music in a non-threatening way from things like Looney Tunes and that Disney thing about the orchestra. So maybe we need some happy friendly chant catechesis videos, since it's the adults who are scared off and not the kids. 🙂
You know what strikes me? Chant and interpretative dance could actually play well together (not in church, of course). I mean, a lot of the "mood markers" in chant are not obvious to the newbie, but a dancer could make them more easily visible. Like the begging for mercy in a Kyrie, or the happiness in a joyous chant.
Well, okay, that's not happy funny cuteness or animation. But anyway… it could be done.
Suburban: yes, it could.
But with that, you also concede the larger field/question, which is 'How to get the Faithful to understand Beauty'.
And then there's a second issue: that of 'noble simplicity', which Chant presents.
Quite a few years ago, a very good woman, who had underwritten the battle against the Iconoclasts here in SE Wisconsin, died. She had specifically asked that I be the musician for her funeral Mass. Her son (a HS classmate of mine) could not believe that the Chant Funeral Mass would be musically 'sufficient'.
He was educated, you see, but not knowing. And he is an icon for lots of folks we all know, members of the laity, who have been deprived of an education in Beauty.
That is the battle which must be fought.
Dad, is there any higher Beauty in this part of the cosmos than the chanted Requiem?
That gift given to me I will pass onto my loved ones when my time comes.
is there any higher Beauty in this part of the cosmos than the chanted Requiem?
Not that I know of.