This morning at Mass, at a very mainstream parish packed with visitors from all places around the country, the entrance song was Puer Natus Est, from the Graduale Romanum. It was sung by two women’s voice alone, without any accompaniment. They sang the antiphon, the Psalm, Gloria Patri, and the antiphon again. The procession of the celebrant and servers took place during this time, along with the incensing of the altar. An amazing stillness settled over the entire place, to the point that one sensed not a single muscle movement from among the hundreds of people in the congregation.
To be sure, this is not entirely what people might have expected. The usual fare is a familiar carol, perhaps gussied up with trumpets and flutes and various other things played by the musicians who mysteriously emerge to be featured at these splashy holiday events, and then vanish once it is over.
This is did not happen this Christmas. Instead, what the people heard was woven into the fabric of the Mass as thoroughly as the celebrant’s part. As just as the people do not say everything with the celebrant, they did not sing with the schola; they stood and listened instead.
But did they participate? Most certainly. The environment and the music itself nearly compels it. How so? A floating chant this beautiful, and yet strangely minimalist in this world filled with incredible noise and racket at every turn, does not provide the complete experience with its notes or words alone. It is so pure, so comparatively sparse, even stark but full of movement, and where? It is moving toward something and upwards to something not found outside these walls. The chant’s very remoteness elicits something from within us, drawing on our hearts and minds and asking us to provide something to complete the picture.
And what is that something? It is a prayer. That prayer can be for something very personal, for something or someone that has been causing us pain. It could be about terrible things we’ve done or opportunities we’ve missed to do good. It could be a prayer of thanks for the wonderful blessings that surround us. It might be even more vague: perhaps just a sense of having some connection to the transcendent for the first time in a very long time. It gives us a sense of peace and safety even in times of turmoil.
The chant lasts a surprisingly long period of time but somehow not long enough, because this peace we feel is luxurious. It feels right, perhaps not at first but after a few minutes as time itself begins to fade in importance. The discomfort we felt at the outset, when we heard those initial notes that seemed so isolated, has given way to comfort and a realize we are surrounded. We are now used to the sound of still voices singing one line and we realize that there is only one place and one activity that provides us with this sense of transcendence. We have entered the presence of holy things. God is with us. Christmas is not just a history; it is a reality and this reality is being lived in the liturgy.
We don’t sing chant only because it is what is being asked of us; we sing chant because the liturgy loves it and the faith loves it and because it is, speaking from the purely pastoral point of view, exactly what we need and want. Hearing it and experiencing it is a challenge and it does ask something from everyone; and that something is the humility to listen to the Word and to dare to allow our hearts to be changed.
Our usual entrance fare is the gussied up
"O Come all Ye Faithful" trumpets, tympanies…etc. followed by a sort of shy introit or generic chant during the incensing. But through the influence of so many people at this site we have been adding more and more beautifully sung chant to the Mass. So, a few minutes before Mass I simply asked the pastor if we could opt out of the gathering hymn for the real introit and verses.(the men of the schola were really ready! the pastor was ready and I believe the congregation was ready too) He gave a quick consent and asked me to say a few words to the congregation about particpating through listening before Mass. The words I spoke were very much like those posted above. The congregation seemed enthused and excited as I told them why the don't have to sing. Imagine that. We had full Gregorian propers, no organ, they were exciting! Something I have not heard on CHristmas in 45 years. The ordinaries were from the Meinrad English Orbis Factor, accapella too, and there was no awkward sense that something was lacking.
Just a few years ago we were a small choir burdened with the Celtic alleluia and the Creation Mass and last week we sang the propers at our cathedral, we were told that we were the only guest choir that has sung liturgial music at our cathedral, and that we are the only choir in the diocese singing propers.
Many thanks to all at this site who have guided us over the years. You given us new joys. Ralph Bednarz
And, Anonymous, this is how the revolution takes place. One chant at a time. One person, like yourself, getting things to the stage where your priest takes your suggestion and as a result we all move forward.
Thank you.
I don't know if it's pastoral or not. But the same legislation that lists the propers as the first choice among many options also list a dialogue between the faithful and music leadership as the prime way of rendering the propers and their psalms.
If the people didn't sing either the psalm verses or the antiphon, then the choice is likely not optimal liturgically. Not pastoral either if people are accustomed to a singing role at Mass.
Listening to or even watching music is what many in our society are accustomed to doing. They play musical instruments far less these days. Fewer sing for fun, unless they yell out pop songs in a bar to canned music.
It might be said that contemporary sacred musicians are more countercultural than Jeffrey's picture of liturgy here. I'm sure that for some, it was a spiritual experience. For others, it may well have reinforced the spectator approach to music our culture provides so amply. At my parish, they did sing metered Christmas songs (except for the Entrance at Lessons and Carols). Not even going to get that experience in a bar these days.
If the discussion has turned to the love of music, then certainly many varieties of music are capable of bearing that load.
"It might be said that contemporary sacred musicians are more countercultural than Jeffrey's picture of liturgy here."
Indeed, it might be said.
I have my own 3 teen age kids. I'm trying hard to teach them Gregorian chant as well as other children in a schola. But I see many of their friends and my students continually listening and SINGING along those pop and rock music from ipod, music vidoes and etc. How is that bringing those casual music of pop culture that are many times accompanied by sentimental movie-like scenes to sacred liturgy be even considered countercultural? Maybe helping the teens to sing Gregorian chant in the liturgy is more counterculrural than bringing the pop culture to the liturgy?
Silence. So important. Mr. Tucker is correct about its absence in the modern world. Some of my former students would tell me that they have to have noise around them all the time. They go into panic when there's silence. Some can't even sleep without some noise.
Chant emerged out of a world of silence — and not just the silence of the monastery. The whole world was quiet before the internal combustion engine and electronic media, to say nothing of cellphones. Just about the only place one finds much silence is in courtrooms, although even there bailiffs have their hands full confiscating cellphones, shouting out "SILENCE IN THE COURT!" when people laugh, and sending out mothers with plaintive infants. Even in our houses, the furnace, the air-conditioning, all have their hum.
One notices the contrasting silence in a certain car-free city: Venice. Yes, there are boats with engines. But go into the back streets — really alleyways — and you can hear your foot fall, hear the rain on the pavement. The city must have noise ordinances for such close quarters; I've never heard the blare of radios and television (although I've only been there in the winter).
Silence is necessary to hear His voice. And out of silence emerges all great music. And in all great music, the pauses are as important as the sounds. One thinks of the pause in the last movement of Beethoven's 9th, after the von Gott, or after the titanic climax in the 3rd mvt. of Bruckner's 9th, or near the end of John Adams' Fearful Symmetries. In all three cases, a fortissimo climax. Then silence. Then the listener is suddenly in an heretofore unimagined new world.
Chant indeed emerges out of silence. The Liturgical restoration is as much about spiritual silence as it is about spiritual sound.
Not that I'm opposed to the Dialogue Mass, mind you.
Thanks, Mr. Tucker, for this reflection.
Todd
Can you post the directives about the dialogue being important during the propers?
"Listening to or even watching music is what many in our society are accustomed to doing. They play musical instruments far less these days. Fewer sing for fun, unless they yell out pop songs in a bar to canned music."
What a compelling misconception of the industry and function of music in contemporary cultures, Todd. Back in our day, we didn't have Guitar Centers, Sam Ash or Sweetwater. We didn't have the proliferation of all manner of musical expression that doesn't require the gatekeepers of recording companies and R&D professionals funneling what they wanted us to sing/play/listen to. We didn't have International Song Composition competitions that viewed by hundreds of millions, much less the American Idol/Sing Off phenomena which proves that creativity, innovation, evolution and singing have kissed, and that kiss now spans the globe. We didn't have massive choral expositions not only in concert halls and churches, but at theme parks, on cruise ships and other venues year round all over the world. For every kid that comes closer to music by emulating Van Halen on Guitar Hero/Rockband, there are many more actually playing in their garages than ever before. When did we see Drum Corps elite groups attract hundreds of thousands to first stadiums, and now local theaters for incredibly disciplined and exciting programs and competitions?
Sure, there was Berklee back then, but were there whole curricula devoted not just to performance, but engineering, marketing, law and business, staging, etc. at major and specialized universities and institutes?
But, despite that all that massive participation in music making, (inwhich Karaoke is just as viable as a campfire singaround, btw) both the popular and classical/opera/theatre genres and industries have little to offer or inform what our Catholic tradition recognizes as sacral, musical expression.
I think we all agree that the heirachical options in our music legislation have a both/and ethos available to us locally. But I can't agree that the portions of propers and some ordinary movements that are (either) globally or locally delegated to choir or congregation _encourage_ the "spectator" (a misnomer, I think) attitude among the PIPs. I think the most ideal unions of text and music naturally call the worshipper to a higher appreciation of "participation," one which is instantly known and realized as authentic, rather than conventional. YMMV.
"But the same legislation that lists the propers as the first choice among many options also list a dialogue between the faithful and music leadership as the prime way of rendering the propers and their psalms."
Todd loves to cite GIRM 48 which applies to the Introit and Offertory chants and does indeed suggest in the first place that these two chants be sung antiphonally between choir and congregation.
He always seems to forget, though, that GIRM 87, which legislates the Communion chant, places the choir singing alone as the FIRST option:
"This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people."
His reading is not only historically isolated, narrow and legalistic, but it is also internally inconsistent with itself.
Jeffrey in his post here says: "But did they participate? Most certainly. The environment and the music itself nearly compels it."
I find this most interesting – how does he make this claim? How does he know that they were "participating?" Did he ask them? Does he have some objective way of knowing what is in their mindset as this took place in the service?
All of us – including myself, so I am not trying to point fingers here – can make a claim based on our bias, because we so desperately want it to be so. There is so much in this post that is very subjective, and even if what he says here IS true at his parish, this does not mean that this would be a universally shared experience of "participation." Please, let us not forget the ENTIRE challenge from SC: "full, conscious, and active." No matter how one wants to interpret these three descriptions, I find it difficult for anyone to make the case, that actually instructing the people NOT to sing, or join in, can be seen as paying heed to this call.
I know, you are all steaming up here.. so bring it on….
@Anon:
It depends on how you define "participation". Many liturgical theologians, including Pope Benedict, have said recently that there was a common misunderstanding of what "full, conscious and active participation" was after the council. The common and shallow conception was that this was essentially some kind of visible outward activity. Congregational singing was a sure way to know that people were engaged in some kind of "activity".
I find it very interesting that Sacrosanctum Concilium's great mandate on active participation falls under a section in the constitution entitled "The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation".
"Liturgical Instruction"
This section is primarily on education!
The Liturgical Movement that led to Vatican II thoroughly discussed what "active participation" meant, and it wasn't "activity". It was an intelligent engagement in the sacred mysteries. It was a prayerful and mindful engagement in the liturgical rites, texts, actions.
This can happen when a worshiper is completely silent. Pope Benedict has said, as have many others, that active participation is first an foremost an inward participation. It can and should find an outward expression, but it is not fundamentally necessary.
Well, I guess if we make Pope Benedict the last word on all matters, or the supreme liturgical expert/theologian, I guess that is where the discussion ends for some. Yes, there are many liturgical theologians who have recently said that things regarding participation where mis-interpreted (just as there are many theologians, and Popes – John XXIII, Paul VI, who would disagree) Obviously outward "activity" as you put it, is not the goal in of itself, but neither is such vocalized activity seen as an aberration. Give me a break…
In terms of the Liturgical Movement that led to Vatican II, I think you would have many who would disagree that active participation can only happen when a worshipper is completely silent. Where does this come from. Does "intelligent engagement in the sacred mysteries" only mean silence? Engagement in any liturgical or ritual activity demands more than silence. This is not negating the role of silence, but to hold it up as the ultimate form of "full, conscious, and active participation" is amazing to me.
Let's all look ourselves in the mirror, and ask ourselves some honest questions. While maybe not the case for everyone, isn't some of this just the pure and honest belief that we are interested in musical aesthetics alone for its own sake? Could it be we do do want to hear the voice of the assembly, because it is too raw for our musical sensibilities? Could it be that some of us do want to move beyond preserving the musical treasury only?
I am baffled by so much of this. Personally, I love it all – I am classically trained, I use chant, polyphony, hymnody, even the demonic "contemporary" music that so many here tend to vilify. Why does there has to be only one genre/form/style (whatever you want to call it) that can celebrate the liturgy well, and celebrate the transcendent? We use words like "tradition" – whose tradition? Only the Euro-centric form of Gregory the Great, as wonderful and glorious as it is? The true tradition is Jesus Christ – his life, death, resurrection, and the eternal breaking into the world today.
For us to honestly believe that this great tradition, the Paschal Mystery of our faith can only honor and hold one musical expression to me, seems unbelievable to ponder. Who really knows for sure, the mind – and the musical taste – of God?
What are we so afraid of? Musical quality of course, is vitally important… but to say that genres other chant cannot be done with such "quality" is simply absurd.
Fr. Gelineau was once heard to say, there are 2 types of music – music I like, and music I don't like. It seems to me, this is at the root of so much of the "warring" going on around musical styles in the liturgy.
I would encourage you to carefully re-read my comment. I do not concur with any of your assertions.
I think that the Mind of the Church is clear on what active participation really is. This is not merely the opinion of a pope, but is clearly shown in the continuity of Church documents and tradition. It is not easily understood on the surface, but requires that one become "thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the liturgy" (SC 14). Congregational singing certainly should be a part of this, but if it is not rooted in an active participation that is first and foremost an "interior participation" (Sacramentum Caritatis 64) then I would submit that it has missed the mark.
"What a compelling misconception of the industry and function of music in contemporary cultures …"
Charles, if this is true, it would fill me with more hope. I've never been bereft of instrumentalists and singers, but I've sensed an erosion of keyboard skills in the young. And the lack of organ students is a worry to me.
"He always seems to forget, though, that GIRM 87 …"
Two things: Jeffrey described the entrance rite of Mass, not Communion.
Second, GIRM 87, in fact, describes the USCCB pastoral concession to GIRM 86, which describes the Communion chant by the faithful "to express the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the 'communitarian' nature of the procession to receive Communion."
I have no reason to doubt Jeffrey's claim. I remember a remarkable experience of Monteverdi's 1610 Vespers in a concert hall. It was indeed deeply spiritual. But it was a concert. And the limit of my "participation" was a delightful workshop the day before with the vocal ensemble leader. Great experience. But not liturgy.
Dear Anonymous, I wish you would identify yourself. I have only heard this quote used two times before:
"Fr. Gelineau was once heard to say, there are 2 types of music"
And both times they were in blog comments from David Haas…
Regardless, the content of the last anonymous post is filled with questions that are too expansive for a blog comment box.
I can assure you though of what this conversation is NOT about: taste, preference, aesthetics, Euro-centricism, contemporary vs. traditional (I too am a "contemporary composer"), merely musical considerations, et cetera. The question is much deeper, and I do believe that the answers are to be found very clearly in the Mind of the Church. But we do have to do some deep and honest digging to find the truth.
"Jeffrey described the entrance rite of Mass, not Communion."
You spoke of "the propers" in your comment, Todd:
"But the same legislation that lists the propers as the first choice among many options also list a dialogue between the faithful and music leadership as the prime way of rendering the propers and their psalms."
Perhaps, for the sake of the readers you could be more specific in future comments regarding "the propers".
"Many liturgical theologians, including Pope Benedict, have said recently that there was a common misunderstanding of what 'full, conscious and active participation" was after the council.'"
I'd say in turn there was a gradual refinement of what participation looked like. We do have SC30, which describes the ideal outward participation as envisioned by the council bishops.
In addition, we also have the regulations of the GIRM and the rubrics of the liturgy. There are times the people should sing. There are times they should sing in dialogue with priest or music leaders. There are appropriate times for a collective silence. And appropriate times for a silence while other things are going on.
Rather than focus too much on the pope's particular quote, I'd appeal to a broader principle in SC 7: the sanctification of the faithful. This principle, along with liturgy as Christ's act of worship directed at the Father, are the basis of Roman liturgy. Not the particulars of getting there.
Interior conversion and union with God is essential to the Christian life. But that can be accomplished in ways outside of liturgy, as well as within it. As long as good liturgists attend to the need for silence, I have no problem focusing on appropriate exterior liturgical dialogue in song, or even giving the assembly a lion's share of the music.
"Perhaps, for the sake of the readers you could be more specific in future comments regarding 'the propers'."
Sure. The Roman Rite provides ready texts for the entrance and communion songs. The GIRM, in sections 48 and 86, envision these to be a dialogue between choir and people, as a first choice, above the third option of choir only.
Reading the rubrics as well as the GIRM, and aware of the successes and problems on the ground in getting people to express their faith in song, I generally reject the notion that Jeffrey's example of Christmas entrance proper is ideal.
Does that mean it should never happen? I wouldn't argue that. I would never do it. But I can imagine a scenario in which it might be useful.
"The GIRM, in sections 48 and 86, envision these to be a dialogue between choir and people, as a first choice, above the third option of choir only."
Nope. Sorry, Todd. You are most certainly wrong.
I prefer not to enter into this sort of legalism, it will get nowhere. But to put GIRM 86 and 87 at odds like this is pure insanity. Especially keeping in mind your absolutist interpretation of 48. Pure nonsense. Insanity.
Adam,
It is better to stick to arguing the principles of the liturgy.
You know well that the USCCB was granted amendments and pastoral additions to the GIRM. GIRM 87 is one of these.
GIRM 86 speaks of the Roman principles of the propers. These texts are intended to be sung in a dialogue. This is neither insane nor legalistic nor absolute. My post concedes that no one option is the "absolute" best in every circumstance. My good friend Jeffrey is on shakier ground with his passionate and relentless promotion of the propers as the ideal repertoire. That, I can respect, even if I disagree.
My argument for a broad interpretation of the GIRM and the Missal is inclusive of a wide variety of texts, styles, and approaches, and in the long run, is more in keeping with the history of music in the Roman Rite than the promotion of any single approach.
The difference we enjoy here is not one of absolutes, but one of percentages.
I will note the blind spot of many of the promoters of propers: that the St Louis Jesuits and their successors were on to the structure of the propers, their basis on the psalms, and the utilization of the dialogue envisioned by the GIRM long before reform2 was a liturgical/political movement in the Church. Likewise the promotion of quality in repertoire, looking at the liturgy with the mind of the Church, using the texts of the Church, and developing a liturgical spirituality inclusive of silence, dialogue, and full-throated participation.
Thank you for the continuing full-throated discussion.
Adam.. why should it matter WHO I am?
By the way, David Haas is not the only one who is aware of this particular quote by Fr. Gelineau..it is an accurate quote, not a myth, that I have heard far more than twice uttered at public workshops and the like, by several different liturgy/music types, and not all of them in David's camp.
Instead of trying to "discover" who the person is, let's just debate what is being brought up here by myself and others. This just illustrates what seems to me to be an alternative motive here – who is saying what and why? Who cares? If you "find out" who it is, then does it give one a more deliberate reason to pass them off as enemies of someone else's truth?
As I said before, I was not accusing you specifically, or saying that everyone is guilty of my accusation. In fact, I did not intend for it to be a harsh accusation, though I can see how it could have come off that way. I just think it is very human. Again, some honesty here. There are certain genres or composers whose music I do not take to personally, and because of that, I would not choose to utilize it. We all have preferences, and those preferences are bound to be reflected in our choices. We are human, and I would defy anyone here who would say that their own personal musical tastes and preferences NEVER enter into their decision making.
At the same time, I try (not always successful, I admit) to detach a bit, and try to see how a certain type of music can and does both support and signify (within that style) that which you rightfully quote as "imbued with the spirit of the liturgy." I just refuse to accept any stance that would require that first of all, only one genre (in the case of Jeffrey's post – chant) can embody that spirit, and secondly, that that silence, while certainly an integral part of worship, is the ONLY possible starting point.
Obviously, the interior conversion and union with God that Todd points out is essential. But also, as he points out, this need to slam "outward" participation is just a bit too much. When you say "Congregational singing certainly should be a part of this", it just seems a bit of a minimal nod toward the worshipping assembly, sort of an aside, or a nagging reminder. All of their participation, interior AND exterior should be held high, and held as an important priority in our pastoral work.
Todd, I would like to hear more explanation of this:
"GIRM 86 speaks of the Roman principles of the propers. These texts are intended to be sung in a dialogue."
I would like to see where GIRM 86 says anything about sung dialogue. Please show me.
GIRM 86:
"While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy
of heart, and to highlight more clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful. If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be
ended in a timely manner.
Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease."
"Instead of trying to 'discover' who the person is, let's just debate what is being brought up here by myself and others."
Good point.
"I would like to see where GIRM 86 says anything about sung dialogue. Please show me."
Two separate sentences. GIRM 48 speaks of the dialogue, as we all know by now. The Communion antiphon + psalm is of the very same structure as the entrance chant.
If I were really taking an absolutist position, I wouldn't allow for Gregorian antiphon plus people on the psalm, or people on the antiphon plus choir on psalm verses, or the contemporary settings of proper or other psalms or even hymnody all as possibilities for the entrance.
Let's concede that choir-only music as a regular practice isn't quite in alignment with the ideals of the Roman Rite. That doesn't eliminate the liturgical presentation of musical heritage. Far from it. But it does place this heritage at the service of the liturgical spirituality of the faithful. Not the other way around.
Dear Anonymous:
I am able to hold a conversation with you only based on the context of your reply. Since the content of this conversation is so "very human" I usually find names to be helpful!
As you are probably aware, the quote you cited from Fr. Gelineau is actually a quote from Duke Ellington, who also said once "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing"… which might be helpful in our discussion of the subjective elements of music that is used in liturgy.
Regarding my thinking on congregational singing I would refer you to Musicam Sacram 29-31 which outlines a plan for the proper role of liturgical singing. The goal at my parish currently is to honor the degrees or priority given here so that "the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first."
Unfortunately most American parishes implement the third degree with complete disregard for the first, and often even the second!
This is a guideline, surely, but remains the most authoritative instruction on sacred music given from Rome, and surely should be read in continuity with liturgical legislation like the General Instructions of the Roman Missal and Roman Gradual.
"Two separate sentences. GIRM 48 speaks of the dialogue, as we all know by now. The Communion antiphon + psalm is of the very same structure as the entrance chant."
Yes, and GIRM 87 uses the exact list of as GIRM 48. But the difference lies in the description of "how" the Communion chant is to be sung:
"This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people."
So this would be pretty strong evidence, I think, Todd, that the current liturgical legislation envisions singing by the choir alone. If you were to equally apply the method of interpretation to 87 that you apply to 48 then you would clearly concede that the preference in liturgical legislation is for the singing of the Communion chant as found in the Graduale Romanum by the choir alone.
I would never espouse such a fundamentalist legalistic interpretation, as you do in GIRM 48. I am only pointing out that if you apply the same interpretation to 87 you will concede to my point above. This is my only point.
Adam, I appreciate your response to my question as to why you want to know who I am. Thanks for that. Certainly, that would be my preference as well… perhaps I will at some point "reveal" that information. At this point, the "context" as you put it, seems more important than my specific identity.
Regardless of the origins of the quote, it really does not matter, except for the fact that if someone such as Fr. Gelineau had utilized it, certainly gives it some credence in terms of the discussion of musical styles in worship. As one who had the pleasure of sharing a meal with him years ago, and who I have heard speak in person many times before he died, I have certainly learned his feelings on this subject, and his absolutely delight in the galaxy of musical expressions.
We at this forum, and at others, can throw quotes from SC, Musicam Sacram, GIRM, and STL about… this is not to say they are not important, far from it. Perhaps I am in danger of heresy, but it seems to me, that SC's call for "full, conscious and active participation," would still tend to reign in principle above other guidelines.
If quoting documents and legislation become the sole justification for any stance, above as you rightfully quoted the "spirit of the liturgy," well, I guess I lose.
So, just a question, I am curious – while I am fully aware that STL (Sing to the Lord) is not a document given recognitio from Rome, and while I also know it does not enjoy the level of "authority" as MS and other documents (even though it quotes them quite lavishly), do you believe that its celebration (not just tolerance) of an active singing assembly and the beauty of many musical expressions is at best misguided, or at the worst, a fundamental danger to liturgy in the US Church? It is presented in the Bishop's name, was voted in by a substantial majority of them. Yes, they too emphasize the importance of Silence and the notion of "interior" participation. But not to the point as to which you are presenting it here, and certainly not to the point of overwhelming the, as you put it – the "activity" of the praying assembly.
Are they downright wrong? Was STL a mistake that we just sort of have to tolerate and can bash because it was not adorned with specific Roman Authority (even though they did not pressure the US Bishops to withold it either)? Is there no wisdom here?
I am just curious what people here would say. Gregorian Chant is held high in STL (as it should be) – but what about some of the other values that it celebrates? Do we just ignore those?
Just another thought (and then, off to bed!)
Adam says:
"I think that the Mind of the Church is clear on what active participation really is."
While I believe that even in its narrow intent, this stance could be debated, let's take it at face value. "Mind of the Church?" What ecclesilogy is operating here? Who is the Church in this regard? Because an important image of the "Church" which is outlined bodly in Lumen Gentium, is that the "Church" is the baptized people of God? This is not some liberal stance, this is at the heart of V2, and certainly not repudiated by Benedict.
So if we are talking about the "mind of the Church" to determine what the true nature of participation is, I think the answers and conclusions would be very diverse indeed, and not as conveniently narrowed down in the way that many here would like it to be.
Or is this also a "mis-interpretation?"
When re-reading this past post, I notice many spelling errors. Sorry!
"So this would be pretty strong evidence, I think, Todd, that the current liturgical legislation envisions singing by the choir alone."
For dioceses of the United States, sure.
"If you were to equally apply the method of interpretation to 87 that you apply to 48 …"
If I had confidence in the "Roman" abilities of our bishops. As it is, I've aimed for years to get people singing at Communion. Where they prefer not to do so, I have no problem with the other American adaptation: have the choir sing at Communion, have the people sing after, and have the instrumentalist(s) play after the final dismissal.
"I would never espouse such a fundamentalist legalistic interpretation, as you do in GIRM 48."
Perhaps. I merely point out what happens when Jeffrey's same rigor to 48B is applied to 48A.
The difference is that I'm open to a lot of different spproaches, just like the rite: all people, different psalms, and the occasional hymn.
"I am only pointing out that if you apply the same interpretation to 87 you will concede to my point above. This is my only point."
Sure. I see it in the rite. My initial comment, however, was about the entrance chant, not Communion. Will you reread and concede this? Will you also recognize that the universal Roman approach in GIRM 86 is the union of the communicants' voices?
Clearly, the Roman Rite envisions more than one approach to congregational singing.
As for your question about interior participation, nobody is really denying this, not even progressive musicians. What many church musicians and liturgists object to is using interior participation as an excuse for choral performance.
We assume that the word "faithful" excludes the schola. And why assume that everyone in the pews are "faithful?"
"Perhaps. I merely point out what happens when Jeffrey's same rigor to 48B is applied to 48A."
I can assure you that Jeffrey, myself, and many other church musicians and liturgists look at MUCH more than the GIRM when we consider the role of sacred music in liturgy! This is really my point. While the GIRM is fundamentally important it surely must be read in continuity with other documents, with sound tradition, with a connection to the entire history of the Roman Rite. I believe that an integration of these things, along with faith and reason, we can discern the Mind of the Church. Interpreting one or two articles in a legal document in isolation, I would submit, can be very dangerous.
This is really all that I have left to say on the topic of the GIRM in this thread.
I think this is a very honest and clear statement, which I thank you for:
"As for your question about interior participation, nobody is really denying this, not even progressive musicians. What many church musicians and liturgists object to is using interior participation as an excuse for choral performance."
I see this very clearly, and I tend to agree with you.
The difference between choral performance, such as your Monteverdi vespers that you mentioned before, and Gregorian chant, is that chant is the singing of a liturgical text. This is something that is given to us, we don't create or select it. It is a part of the liturgy. It is no more performance than a lector reading an epistle or a priest giving a homily. It is a part of the rite. I am a huge fan of singing these in English, as should be made clear by the work I'm currently doing. My reason for singing the propers is not aesthetic, it is deeply liturgical. The propers are a part of the Mass and wisdom, experience and tradition show that asking a congregation to sing three new texts every week is next to impossible, although in rare situations it has happened. I think you would agree with this, Todd. No?
So singing the Gregorian introit, or a simple English version of the same text is not "choral performance", it is liturgical proclamation which is a part of the rite. This is why we sing Gregorian chant. It is not one flavor on a buffet table from which we choose, it is THE Roman Rite.
To exclude the propers from the Mass, I believe, is to ultimately hinder the faithful from their rightful FULL, active and conscious participation in the liturgy!
I find it puzzling why a comment that the schola should sing this entrance alone and the people should listen would give rise to a big debate on the overarching issue of the people's role in singing more generally. After all, even in this model, the people still have another 10 or more things to sing: Kyrie, Gloria, Psalm, Alleuia, possible post-offertory chant hymn, Sanctus, Pater, Mysterium Fidei, Agnus, more and more dialogues, maybe post-communion hymn, plus recessional.
It's as if I made a case for a glass of wine at dinner and the temperance league started marching for complete prohibition to prevent rampant alcoholism!
Let's put the other side on the hot seat: just why is it so darn important to you that the people bury their heads in a missalette at the very start of Mass?
"I can assure you that Jeffrey, myself, and many other church musicians and liturgists look at MUCH more than the GIRM when we consider the role of sacred music in liturgy!"
I know you do. But there are priorities within the Roman Rite. And we church musicians are bound to the general and particular prescriptions of liturgical law, unless we can demonstrate a clear improvement from a particular or even a general exception.
"… asking a congregation to sing three new texts every week is next to impossible, although in rare situations it has happened. I think you would agree with this, Todd. No?"
I would agree. This is why I dispute the utility of the propers. It is more likely to get the people singing simple psalm tones rather than 3 or even 2 antiphons of the week. I see keeping the people singing as trumping particular repertoire.
That said, the Tietze metricization and other efforts along those lines are helpful. But I rather dislike using hymns at entrance, and especially at communion.
"To exclude the propers from the Mass, I believe, is to ultimately hinder the faithful from their rightful FULL, active and conscious participation in the liturgy!"
I admire the passion, but I disagree. As long as the music we ask the people to sing is based on Scripture, and aligns with the Lectionary texts of the Mass, I think we're adhering to both letter and spirit of liturgical law.
A topic for another thread: the need for ordinary time propers to be aligned to the modern three-year Lectionary. Then I think the argument for them would be stronger.
"I find it puzzling why a comment that the schola should sing this entrance alone …"
As I find puzzling the insistence on choir alone when a dialogue seems a perfectly acceptable compromise and improvement on the four-hymn sandwich.
"Let's put the other side on the hot seat: just why is it so darn important to you that the people bury their heads in a missalette at the very start of Mass?"
It's been 19 years since I was in a parish that didn't use hymnals. Missalettes? What's that?
Singing music from memory would be ideal in a number of ways, and it does happen from time to time.
Let me toss a hot potato back: when people are sitting or kneeling, they are in a receptive posture for interior participation, be it at Mass or in prayer. Why do people stand to listen? When does that happen?
"Why do people stand to listen?"
To watch the procession, which is very elegant and wonderful, even inspiring! Give a whirl. It's pretty great. The first time I experienced this, it seemed right. It still seems so. A hymn is such a disappointment by comparison – esp. at this point in the Mass.
"But there are priorities within the Roman Rite. And we church musicians are bound to the general and particular prescriptions of liturgical law, unless we can demonstrate a clear improvement from a particular or even a general exception."
And I restate my point which clearly has not been taken: If you follow the prescriptions of GIRM 87 as you say you do in 48 then you will be bound to sing the Gregorian Communion form the Graduale Romanum, choir alone, every week!
This is your line of reasoning Todd. I am just showing how unreasonable it is.
I'm content to agree to disagree with you on most of the content of this discussion. We're from different liturgical schools of though and different generations. I just can't let something this egregious slide. Sorry.
"Why do people stand to listen? When does that happen?"
How about the Gospel?
Sorry, Todd, I just can't let these ones slide…
"This is your line of reasoning Todd. I am just showing how unreasonable it is."
Not at all. GIRM 86 speaks of the union of communicants' voices. It's not the voices in their heads.
And as I said above, there are more options for the American Communion rite. I have no problem with the choir singing during Communion if the people offer a song of praise afterward. That makes perfect sense to me.
"To watch the procession …"
You get a better line of sight sitting down.
"Not at all. GIRM 86 speaks of the union of communicants' voices. It's not the voices in their heads."
And it's this sort of fuzziness in the GIRM that requires additional sources to discern the truth. This is why treating it as an isolated legal document is so dangerous!
It makes me want to go and sing the Offertory antiphon of the Roman Missal as it is set to music there… (see this instruction in GIRM 74)
"The difference we enjoy here is not one of absolutes, but one of percentages." TF
I believe we can nuance the statistics, damned statistics and the rest until we're blue in the face, hell's frozen, and a cow has jumped the moon and still not agree to disagree that these "differences" and "percentages" are like politics, local. And whatever push-back from these arguments should be directed towards our bishops first; though I believe most of them would be quite content to let us bore each other to death and let God sort us out.
As a proponent of chant, polyphony, choral music and the most worthy of that which remains in "alius cantus aptus," I don't have much problem playing the percentages. What I see as problematic is the contention that the schola or choir is not recognized by some FCAP hardliners as having a distinct, unique and valid role and office at liturgy. However, that is not to tacitly endorse or validate any director's intent to disenfranchise or marginalize the congregations' or other ministers'access to exterior participation under the pretense of optional legislation subject to personal interpretation.
At some point, call me a naif, I believe that if we choose to soundly "build it, and they will come" the principles of the primacy of chant, buttressed as NECESSARY by polyphony, metric hymnody and song will re-orient the liturgy towards the sacred, beautiful and universal ethos we should all agree upon.
"And it's this sort of fuzziness in the GIRM that requires additional sources to discern the truth. This is why treating it as an isolated legal document is so dangerous!"
No, Adam, it's not fuzziness. Roman liturgical law is reflected in GIRM 86. An American exception is given after, in GIRM 87.
Besides, you're getting off track. I have no problem with a choir rendering Communion music, so long as the people sing a song of praise after Communion: another American innovation.
Time for bed. See you tomorrow.
"No, Adam, it's not fuzziness. Roman liturgical law is reflected in GIRM 86. An American exception is given after, in GIRM 87."
Hmmm… that's not what I'm reading. The section about "how it is sung" seems to be untouched by the US Bishops actually:
"87…Cantatur sive a schola sola, sive a schola vel cantore cum populo."
And before I call it a night I do want to respond very briefly to the last posting from the last "Anonymous" above.
I think that my theme in this thread has been "integration", and this is how I would respond to the questions posed. I think that we need to integrate the whole of the faith into our understanding of sacred music. This is no small feat for sure, and I cannot say that I have achieved this by any means.
I do think that many, in the early years of the Vatican II liturgical reform, did away a great deal of sacred music unjustly in the name of an incomplete understanding of "active participation". I do think that the experience that we have now, looking back at the past 47 years, gives us a greater opportunity to discern what was good, bad, effective, ineffective, true, erroneous, and move forward with a clearer and fuller understanding of sacred music in the liturgy.
And I also do agree that many of the battles that get fought in the realm of liturgy or sacred music really are ecclesiological at their root. I don't have time to get into this here, but I think that we know of the different interpretations of Lumen Gentium also, and the hermeneutics of rupture and continuity can surely be applied to this also.
I have a question for those here (e.g., Todd) who seem to argue that everyone should sing everything that will be sung at Mass — what then is the role of a choir/schola?
We have a Lector to proclaim the 1st and 2nd Readings as well as the Intercessions, and only they say aloud those parts — we all don't read aloud the Readings.
The Deacon or Priest will proclaim the Gospel and pray aloud the Presidential and Eucharistic Prayers (we don't say those prayers aloud, either).
What then is the unique role of the choir if the congregation is properly to sing everything? The cantor may still have his/her unique role at singing the Psalm verses and such, but what about the choir?
Maybe to lead the congregation in singing you might say? But, wouldn't that function be better achieved by disbanding the choir and having them sitting among the rest of the faithful?
What then is the proper role of the choir?
Christopher, Todd can answer but I think he would say: to lead the congregation in singing. This is what the old document Music in Catholic Worship said. In fact, this remains a common view. It is based on a misunderstanding of the musical structure of the Roman Rite, which has not just two liturgical spheres (celebrant and people) but three (celebrant, schola, and people). The loss of the propers as sung texts led to this confusion. People no longer saw a unique role for the schola at all, and with sociological results that are readily apparent: parishes do not foster choirs, musicians do not bother to sing with choirs that merely lead unison singing by the congregation, and musical knowledge and expertise diminishes when there is no real use for them anymore. It was really a tragic mistake.
While I agree with Adam, that yes, there are also different interpretations of Lumen Gentium, is anyone here willing to dispute the "the baptized people of God" as a central image of Church? I want to hear that argument (smile).
And again, I know there are several discussions going on here, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but what about my earlier questions about what some of you may think of STL? A grand mistake? The US Bishops are wrong? It really does not matter because this document has no "authority" in the eyes of some? Just curious.
In terms of the choir, this is what STL says: "choirs must be diligently promoted while ensuring that 'the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs… The choir must not minimize the musical participation of the faithful." Then later in the same paragraph is says in regards to choirs "they are able to enrich the celebration by adding musical elements beyond the capabilities of the congregation alone." (n. 28)
Then in the next paragraph it addresses the role of the choir to sing various parts of the Mass in dialogue or alternation withe the congregation, and also how it enriches the singing of the assembly by adding harmonies and descants. (n. 29). Then after this, it does certainly address the possibilities of when the choir may sing alone. (n. 30). Then, it talks about how it joins with the congregation in their singing (n. 31), and then addresses their ministerial role (n. 32) and its appearance (n.33).
Now, previous to this whole section, STL in four paragraphs addresses the importance of the "Gathered Liturgical Assembly" – and most certainly calls them to do much more than be silent.
Now, is all of this to be dismissed, because, well, STL does not matter?
Anon., it's no secret that there are many strains of thinking playing themselves out simultaneously in STL, none really reconciled with the others. This is well known and obvious to everyone involved in the drafting. The document is less like legislation and more like a crystallization of current opinion. I'm just pleased that the normative route got a hearing at all.
Jeffrey, certainly STL has a wide variety of perspectives being addressed, and at times they do conflict (depending on how one reads certain sections). But while it may not be legislation in the usual understanding, it certainly is NOT a "crystallization of current opinion."
Read the forward.. it is most definitely a guide for practice in parishes in the United States.
My question is still not being addressed – are we to say that the US Bishops are misguided in this document? Is STL to be dismissed?
I guess I will try again. STL has much to teach us. It is vastly better than the document it replaced. It does not however provide a clear guide to the musical structure of the Roman Rite and so it is missing that core framework that musicians need. A musician new to the Catholic liturgy could read this and come away with too many messages, too many unaddressed issues, too much remaining confusion about what's what. When it appeared, most serious people attached to sacred music both celebrated the progress that STL represents and yet drew attention to the tensions and ambiguities that drain it of pedagogical power.
I am fascinated by this… while I do find some ambiguities in STL, and do not find it to be perfect, paragraphs 137-199 provides a step-by-step "walk," so to speak of what you refer to as "the musical structure of the Roman Rite." Seems pretty clear to me, and developed well. SC, GIRM, LFM, are all referenced. Where are the tensions in this particular section that "drain it of pedagogical power?"
And even if it is not as clear as one would like, the initial question lingers for me: does this mean that we should disavow it or dismiss it? If it is true, as you say Jeffrey that STL has much to teach us, then why is it almost so universally absent from discussions on the Chant Cafe, CMMA, and other such blogs? If it has wisdom to bear, it is the official guidelines for music in worship in the US Catholic Church. We may not like it, but it should be part of the conversation.
The only time I have ever heard it mentioned here or at the Musica Sacra Forum has been in an environment of disdain and ridicule. I appreciate your saying Jeffrey here today, that it has much to teach us. I hope that in light of that statement, we would dust it off, and refer to it from time to time in these discussions.
Christopher, please be careful in representing my point of view here. I'm not even saying everyone should sing everything. I've promoted a musical dialogue between music leaders and people, even above hymn-singing. I've stated clearly that I care less for the tradition of hymns at the Mass than I do for psalm settings in the pattern of the propers.
That said, the choir has a role at every Mass. Not just the most-crowded one on Sunday. Holy days, too. Sacramental celebrations outside of Mass. And even weekdays in communities that can sustain them. My view is that music minsitry will be far busier than it was before Vatican II, or even busier than Chant Cafe contributors expect.
The role of the schola, choir, or cantor is the same as that of the priest: to lead people in prayer. Their role of praying for their own sake is subsumed in the role of ministry and service.
I would disagree with my friend Jeffrey about the lack of promotion of choirs. The largest hurdles are two: an American prejudice against the arts, and the pragmatism of many pastors and most communities, partly as a result of it. Pre-conciliar minimalism: you can have a priest saying all the right words at a Low Mass. The people's participation, including that of singing, is an extra.
My own stance over more than two decades is to have a choir, even a small one, at every Mass with music ministry. I don't believe in cantors leading music at Sunday Mass. A parish of any appreciable size should have enough talent to form a choir for every Sunday and holy day Mass.
"It does not however provide a clear guide to the musical structure of the Roman Rite and so it is missing that core framework that musicians need."
Musicians can start by reading the GIRM, and by reading the rubrics of the Mass. As Fr Z would counsel, the red-n-black.
Ok, fair enough. But here's the problem, and it is not so much a problem really but a reality that drives STL out of the headlines: what is true in the document is not new to Catholic teaching; it is merely a restatement of the main core of what Vatican II said about music, teaching that was completely ignored in the predecessor document. And I'm particularly pleased that STL actually mentions propers instead of claiming that the distinction between the ordinary of the Mass and the propers of the Mass no longer mean anything, as MCW claimed. As I say, it is progress when a fundamentally flawed document is replaced by a document that includes true things.
Maybe I should post what I mean by the musical structure of the Roman Rite. I've given a talk about this subject dozens of times and every time, the Catholic musicians in the audience are stunned that they've never had this explained to them.
OK – while I am not promoting the ending of choirs or scholas, I have to ask this question, and I guess I am not going to be as kind as Todd is (God bless him!): What about small parishes – I mean very small parishes, with no budget to pay for an accomplished musician that much of what is being talked about here requires – who do not have a choir at all, and the people in the pews are singing full-throated, with MAYBE a cantor, and MAYBE an accompanist of some kind, and most assuredly in these cases, not in the possession of a fine organ, or EVEN, the ghastly piano. But the people sing – everything, with gusto. I have seen it many times.
Is their worship inferior?
I cannot believe that we are finding documents and phrases to quote to specifically justify shutting up the people!
I still cannot help but believe that we are frightened of this prospect, of the community singing and taking a vital role in its celebration. God knows why…
If we're talking about the (de)merits of MCW, let's be clear that the document in question is clear about what it is and what is wasn't. It was never intended to be legislative. The purpose was catechetical, to steer parish musicians away from the four-hymn sandwich, and especially inferior music being published at the time.
One of its writers was a respected chant scholar. Though I will say that all four authors were priests–a shortcoming, in my opinion.
SttL was intended to be more than MCW–one of the reasons why it was in progress for such a long time. We've reached a point where, as Jeffrey aptly points out, musicians want direction. Pastors can't always give it. Bishops, at times, seem disinterested.
I'll also take this moment to clarify that this should be more about "education." Church musicians need something deeper. We need to be formed, continually formed by the liturgy we sing and we lead. It needs to be deeper than just the rubrics and legislation. But this formation must be rooted in the example of Christ: service for the sake of salvation.
Tradition is a fine foundation for building the structure. But the point is to enable the sanctification of the faithful, the core purpose of the Eucharistic liturgy.
Gregorian chant can certainly be pastoral, but keep in mind: it is only a tool. A tool created by human beings under the inspiration of God. It is used and utilized for others, not for the sake of music leaders themselves.
Jeffrey – nothing new in STL? Only a distilling of previous documents and teaching?
OK, what about the entire first section "Why We Sing" (n. 1-14) – this while referencing scripture and other documents, has certainly not been presented in this way before.
What about the pastoral directives addressing "Diverse Cultures and Languages" (n. 57 – 60). Important stuff here, not presented in this particular way before. It challenges that while the Western European tradition is to be held high, it also proclaims boldly that the cultural heritages that are not from Western culture need to be celebrated. Where is this element present in the discussion of chant and the musical treasury?
What about the re-ordering and re-defining of the three judgments for evaluation (Liurgical – Pastoral – Musical)? – this certainly is presenting new material.
What about the lavish presentation on the role of the composer (n. 81-85)? – mostly brand new stuff here, never addressed before to the American Church specifically.
What about the paragraph on the Human Voice (n. 86)? This section does not mention choirs or scholas, but "human beings, created in teh image and likeness of God.." This is certainly some fresh information to dig our teeth into.
What about paragraphs 67-71, which provides pretty a much a brand new lens for us to consider in evaluating repertoire, but also our entire approach to the ministry of liturgical music in general? This outlining of the "ritual dimension," the "spiritual dimension," and the "cultural context" is certainly new.
And there is more…
Nothing new here? Come on.
Anonymous is right. SttL has ample material for reflection. We could do a lot worse that reading it, and reflecting on our own practice through what it presents.
My suggestion is that Jeffrey, Adam, and others present the whole document on Chant Cafe. Produce a post daily (or nearly so) as I've been doing on Vatican II and liturgy documents for the past several years.
Go through the piece paragraph by paragraph and do it with an eye to the chant musician: what works, what is troublesome, and what is a challenge for your own improvement.
That doesn't have the sexiness of a lot of contentious topics in the Catholic blogosphere, but it would contribute to a constructive and formative discussion.
I could not agree more with Todd…
This would be a very stimulating discussion, that I believe could result in some real good dialogue and learning.
I don't think that I could say anything to improve on William Mahrt's detailed and very sober commentary in SM 135.1, starting on PDF page 47.
http://musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/sm135-1.pdf
But Jeffrey, we are not talking about what you might be able to improve upon, in terms of another person's article… I think what Todd is talking about (and I would agree) is that – why not stimulate a discussion here, among those of us who visit this blog? His piece as you say, is a commentary – how about a discussion here among us and others?
I read conclusions, girded by beliefs and assumptions, but the connections are not necessarily linked by data, as it were.
I should note that Adeste Fideles is probably one hymn that Catholic congregations of many stripes would still sing reasonably well in Latin. Typically interspersing the English and Latin verses. I've not see good reason here to let one of the few living and continuous connections to long-standing practice die on the vine.
I'd encourage the granular discussion of StTL, btw. One learns all sorts of things when a document like that is read and engaged completely and granularly.
Part the First
Todd offers-"My view is that music minsitry will be far busier than it was before Vatican II, or even busier than Chant Cafe contributors expect."
Todd, please be careful in representing my point of view here. (broad smile)I yet have a two county deanery memorial Mass for our recently departed bishop this Wednesday night, replete with combined "forces" and diverse musics, as he was a Mahoney protege. This on a night normally assigned for rehearsal and upon which I'd hoped to view "live" CBS's "Criminal Minds," which ironically provides perspective on how to stay sane.
I second two of Jeffrey's responses: SttL is simply an acknowledgment of a number of evident realities. Those would include, "Oops, we didn't exactly get it 'right' with MCW….uh, we want y'all to know that there is a body of, um, rules (just think of 'em as club rules) that are good enough to remind us we're s'posed to try to show the world that we're about being united (think of "I'd like to bring the world a Coke….in perfect unity -sic-,) oh, and we do have our own musical languages that, if you guys would take the time to learn 'em, would help the folks literally sing the same songs that our saints and angels sang back in the day, and which we know we're in communion singin' 'em in real time, whether in heaven and/or earth." You get the upshot, right? Secondly, SttL has been thoroughly discussed at our sister forum, in da past, mon. Dr. Mahrt's article provided much grist for those mills. And within this thread, SttL's true value is clearly subsumed by argument about the intent and license present in the prevailing documents, ie. IGRM, CSL, MS etc.
Todd, occasionally you understandably want to re-create Cafe/MSF in your own image, such as in "My suggestion is that Jeffrey, Adam, and others present the whole document on Chant Cafe. Produce a post daily (or nearly so) as I've been doing on Vatican II and liturgy documents for the past several years." Why, Todd? We're gathered here to chat, not to seminar, about liturgy and life. You're doing a great job at CS, I mean that. So, we have different raisin duh-truhz, and that's great, too! But, cautionary flag raised here, for my part I don't believe Jeffrey opened the Cafe to be the Rand Corporation for Liturgical Navel Gazing. And,for the record, Anon brought SttL to the table at 6:40, 12-26, rather than any Cafe contributor. That's not a bad thing, it's just kind of a "been there, done that" sort of thing for we habitues here.
Part, the second:
Anon, fellow traveler in the trenches, you posit: "What about small parishes – I mean very small parishes, with no budget to pay for an accomplished musician that much of what is being talked about here requires – who do not have a choir at all, and the people in the pews are singing full-throated, with MAYBE a cantor, and MAYBE an accompanist of some kind, and most assuredly in these cases, not in the possession of a fine organ, or EVEN, the ghastly piano. But the people sing – everything, with gusto. I have seen it many times. Is their worship inferior?"
There may be a few strident voices around who would provide you the knee jerk reaction that maybe you're hoping for. For myself, I'd rather try to look in my eye for splinters of my own doing than to concern myself with the gotcha of your question. My gut tells me that never is worship inferior, in any form. Jesus tells me that He came that we might have life in its fullness. I believe that the wisdom in the legislative documents are lamps towards helping us realize that fullness. What I will offer, in response to your question is another question. If the small church's congregation is capable of 100% full throttle
Oops, part the third….
…singing of "Let There Be Peace on Earth" on January 1 this coming Saturday, do you think that they'd also be capable of singing one of Adam Bartlett's Simple Proper antiphons? And, even though I conjured the former tune randomly, which of those two musical expressions direct our worship towards the Creator?
Pax tecum, meiner Freunden. (Sorry, channeling my inner Michael Praetorius.)
"Todd, please be careful in representing my point of view here."
Fair enough, and my apologies. I intended to describe the reality for Jeffrey and others: they have one Mass for their scholas. Charles, I know well you are in an even more advanced situation than I: large faith communities with multiple choirs and challenges liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral.
My intent was to say my vision of music ministry will be much busier than it was in 1950 (one High Mass, plus Low
Masses) or even today (one large choir, and assorted small choirs down to cantors, and sometimes nobody for the early morning Mass).
And as for the rest, I absolutely respect your (collective) freedom to run this blog as you wish. If you want to just chat, do so. Don't make people like me into your whipping boys for What Is Bad About Church Music. If we were sharing beers in a pub, (or lattes in a cafe)you and I both there would be good-natured pokes and nudges. But in the end, there would be thankfulness for good company.
The internet may make it easier to poke and nudge, but it doesn't mean we can't cultivate mutual thankfulness.
On that note, time for me to scoot from this discussion. Maybe I'll be back in the new year. Maybe not.
Todd, don't scoot from posting here. I'd even like to see your privileges restored elsewhere, and have said so.
I rather think we (the whole lot of us in the practical blog realms of CC, PT, MSF, CS etc.) are constituted and situated somewhere within the spectrum between the Delta Tau Chi and Lambda Lambda Lambda greeks, rather than the Omegas and Alpha Betas.
I've run out of movie mojo, so I'll salute you and all of us "whipped boys and girls" with the great maxim: "But, Father, I just want to sing!"
PDFTT
Oh, Ian, don't be a prat, it's Christmas, mate! Peace on earth and all that, eh what?
Ironically immobile while watching BBC "Top Gear." Pax.
Hmm, I must have gotten lost somewhere in this discussion. Not sure what all the heat is about. Maybe I shouldn't have taken a long lunch!
No heat eminating from California, Jeffrey. Save for that issuing near Al Gore's palacial beach house on the cliffs of Malibu.
It's all good, bro.
Actually, Charles, I don't talk like Dick von Dyke. I do, though, know better than to encourage creationists, faux-liturgists and other fundamentalists. Merry Christmas!
ps is it the Christmas 'Top Gear'?
Nope. We just get reruns so far. But they've become my favorite thing to watch on the tube.
No malice intended with the dialect, Ian, just trying to keep it light, as were you with your admonition. Apologies.
Look up "Fools rush in…" in the cliche dictionary, my picture's next to the definition.
They are gruesomely good viewing, aren't they?
… and a happy new year.
And to you and yours as well, Ian.
I haven't been able to muster up an authentic pouting face to display to Wendy for her having not parked a Bugatti Veyron under the tree. Sigh.
I feel a bit similar to Todd at this point.
While there is an occasional comment to the contrary, I feel that the agenda here at times is to ignore thoughts and even documentation that seems to go against the tastes and dispositions of most of the group here. I have to say honestly, I have learned a lot from reading and reflecting on many of the posts, even though I am sure some people think I am hostile to the cause of chant and the musical treasury. I am not, but I am not for it to the point where the congregation seems to be seen as a minor concern.
It seems that for many here, it is more important to assure the presence of a musical style or genre, then it is to ask the liturgical and pastoral questions that are more critical. It seems as though many in this group like congregational singing and "active" participation when they are singing the "preferred" music – meaning chant – but when they do not or cannot, well, then, they should engage in the convenient category of "interior participation."
Interior participation and the role of silence is very important – in fact, believe it or not, I preach it all the time to folks and groups whom seem only concerned with what I call "hyperdrive" noise making in the liturgy.
But the balance of both interior and exterior participation does not really exist on this blog.. it seems to tolerate exterior participation only minimally at best, at least when reading many of the posts here. It is VERY difficult to not hear many arguments offered here as being nothing but apologetics for those who want to listen to music sung by a choir or schola. God knows I love such music. The Bach B Minor Mass makes me weep like no other piece of music. But it is not liturgical music, that serves the ritual and pastoral demands of the liturgy.
Perhaps a dedicated discussion of STL is not what a blog here should be doing… that is fine. But if folks here continue to throw out chapters and verses of MS, GIRM and other documents, while completely ignoring STL, well that tells me a balanced discussion is not welcome.
I am sorry – the post that I previously shared, provided SPECIFIC examples of issues in STL that are not just, as Jeffrey and Charles seem to think, a rehashing of things we already know. Read the post again – examine my examples.. there are things there that should be part of these conversations. I have asked twice now, and now a third time – are the bishops wrong to have released STL in their name? Can we dismiss this document as much as many here seem to do, just because we do not like all that it may say?
Again – I ask another question (and not for the first time) – what are we afraid of? Why is the variety of musical expressions so demonized? How does it harm you? How does it harm the faith? Why is the singing assembly something that we are afraid to really advocate for in the strongest and most passionate of terms? Is maintaining a particular form of music – in this case, chant (which I love, promote and do, BTW) a more important goal? Are we really saying that liturgies that do not include chant are defying the sacredness of the liturgy? Are such parishes less faith-filled communities, and not really worshipping in spirit and truth?
Chant is beautiful, powerful and truly music that can capture the divine. We do not need to trash other musical expressions in order to defend this value.
These are things that concern me. It is important to know, that I am equally frustrated with "contemporary/folk/pop" church musicians who are also guilty of their own musical snobbery, and I challenge them regularly as well. The only difference is, that in discussions I have with them, while they may not like or utilize chant or classical genres, I do not hear them trashing them and/or the people who prefer it.
I have experienced so many parish communities, who represent so many different approaches in their music making and prayer leadership – and in them I see communities who are trying to pray authentically, doing it the best they can, and with a passionate concern for the people whom they serve.
So God bless you all… I hope the day will come when I feel all can surrender our biases, just enough, so we can really hear and be stretched a bit.
I'm sorry for having been out of this discussion today. I've been in meetings and attending to many other great needs.
@Anon – I think you have missed the boat. I don't know of anyone who has participated in this conversation that views congregational singing as unimportant. The only thing that is being called into question, it seems to me, is "what" the congregation is supposed to sing. Liturgical documentation and tradition speak very loudly that the primary song for the congregation is the Order of Mass and the Ordinary of the Mass. These are consistently represented as music that should be sung by the congregation. The sad thing is that most American parishes do not sing the Order of Mass and instead sing substitutions for the Proper of Mass which has traditionally belonged to the choir and remains supported as such in current Church documents.
I have read nothing about clashes of taste. This is surely your own imagination at work. I attribute this to the fact that relativism and subjectivism have been the primary governors of American liturgical music for the past 40 years. All this really leaves room for is a clash of personal taste. One's "judgment", be it "pastoral, liturgical or musical" over another's.
This is not the context of this conversation.
The singing of the propers of the Mass, whether in their Latin Gregorian setting, or in simpler English settings, is not about performance. There is no comparison of this to Bach's B Minor Mass. When is the last time you went to a Gregorian chant concert? I never have. They hardly exist. Because chant has been always reserved for prayer. It is sacred and it is the normative music of the Roman Rite because of this. End of story.
Regarding Church documents and "Sing to the Lord", I think that the Chant Cafe has treated them very fairly. The greatest authority in the Church documents goes to dogmatic constitutions, editiones typicae, liturgical law, and Roman instruction. Reflections from bodies of Ecclesial Bishop's Conferences fall very low on the hierarchical list. So it is from this perspective that I view them. I have read it, I find it rather insightful in many cases, but I view it in its proper place in the order of things, and its rank is pretty low.
I would be much more inclined to do a line by line analysis of SC, GIRM and MS before I would do so for STTL. This is the priority given by the Church, and I suggest that this priority should be followed in our reading of them.
Thanks, Adam, well stated.
Dear Anon, beyond the perspective Adam's outlined above with which I agree, I firmly believe you'll get a fairer hearing here than you seem predisposed to deny than is found at similar sites.
What seems to get lost in translation is that CMAA "habitues" as I called "us" are, in my direct experience, quite pragmatic and collaborative in their real-time gigs. And if you had time and inclination, you wouldn't have to go to far back in the archives here to find proof of that. That allowed, this is "The CHANT Cafe," after all. I can play "City of God" light years better than Dan, but I have no interest in debating that. If someone desired to somehow place that song in contrast to the musical language "we" revere, chant, well I'm sure we'd give it a go. And if that discussion turns into a moratorium bash on Dan or anybody else, I'll firmly remind us all that we're talking about the music, not the person or character, or even genre.
This last observation may seem like a dig, or ad-hominem-like: I'm happy that the SLJ's and OCP got a fair amount of buzz from their reunion CD, tour and book deal. But compare all that to the recent documentaries about the Carthusians, "Into Silence," and "Top Ten Monks," and the world wide impact of their "Paradise" CD. It may seem apples to oranges to you, but to me, the world is coming around to recognize "there's something about…." what we're about at the Cafe. YMMV.
Cheers and welcome.
Thanks Adam and Charles. I've been under the weather today and unable to engage my brain to think clearly. The kvetching about and on this blog with the attribution of thoughts and ideas drawn from left field sort — puzzling stuff — scrambled my brain to the point that I wondered if I was at the right place. Anyway, I seem to be recovering here, awake from a slumber. Maybe I'll try to tackled this after a good night's sleep.
Just stumbled on this post-Christmas free for all. Very interesting reading. @Anon. May I address one of your repeated concerns? Here you will find a group of people who all, at some point in their lives, realized that something was wrong in (mostly American) Catholic church music. The [no longer] contemporary songs that replace the Propers of the Mass have not held up well artistically over time and are sung now more from habit and the fear of complaints from one or two active parishioners. But more than a simple aesthetic cringe-worthiness of the usual fare, the triteness of the music just doesn't seem worthy of the ritual it serves. So, most of us wondered openly why this was. At some point we discovered Gregorian, or simpler forms of, chant. It struck as the only answer. It was a dignified musical setting of the prayers laid out in the ritual of the Mass. Personally, as a young person I wondered why the Mass was always the same. I was bored and stopped attending for a few years. I came back in graduate school to see if I could find out what I was supposed to be getting from the Mass. I joined the music ministry and had a good time playing bass guitar. I remember the day, though, that it hit me. I realized that something was terribly wrong. I wasn't praying the song texts. Most of them didn't seem to be prayers, anyway. I got the group to Christmas and left it. I started attending Mass w/o music and I finally got it. It helped that I was studying the liturgy as a musicologist, but in those quiet Masses, I saw the beauty of the ritual revealed. The music had actually gotten in the way for me. When I first attended a Mass that was completed chanted, though. I finally found what I was looking for. Chant was the only true musical prayer. I understood why it lasted for so many centuries, in the face of constant change in part music. You also ask about other cultures. History tells us that chant was quickly assimilated in Latin America and Africa. Indigenous styles do find their way into extra-liturgical singing, but this seems only to work within cultures. Here in the U.S. we have too many cultures to accommodate and it is really pointless to try. The old ethnic parishes could do it, but not the new multi-ethnic parishes. They need a unifying aesthetic and I believe the Church provides one.
I've gone down with the flu, but have just enough clarity of thought left to read and commend Michael's note, though not to comment on it. Still, that's not really necessary.
Get well, Ian.
To consider:
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/flowerday/04512.html
It is always interesting to visit sites and see what is going on in parishes as well, so here is one parish liturgy page for those who can access facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/STA-Liturgy/153736681322272?v=wall
And your assessment, FNJ, is…..?
It's like the old story about an art exhibit. There are two groups talking, one of art critics discussing the line, the perspective, the color and hue. The other group, the artists, are talking about the best place to buy turpentine.
I think that, within the present idiom, one could not do much better than that. It's obvious the instrumentalists are talented. Todd deserves massive kudos for training those cantors. The music is a bit quick and marcato for my taste – perhaps a tiny bit slower, and with a strong initial 1 beat would be great for the Hughes Alleluia.
But, and hopefully Todd knows the context of personal admiration for his real-world work in which this is offered, what is at all pastoral about music which requires the congregation to be CONDUCTED? We're getting lectured about the offense of any chant whatsoever at the liturgy, when others have their congregation singing mixed-meter music under a (figurative) baton.
That is to say, I think the whole argument about who is the pastoralest of them all is a bit childish. Short of leading the congregation in a very slow and deliberate single verse of "Jesus Loves Me", nothing is "pastoral" enough to cover everyone. Maybe it's ok if Todd's parish has an exciting Hughes Alleluia, and maybe it's ok if Jeff's congregation has to put off their first hymn for "Dominus Dicit".
I propose that both are fine and considerate (although both imperfect) realizations of varied liturgical concerns, and that well-meaning Catholics who don't like Jeff's approach are free to drive to Todd's church instead.
A good example of where the choir, clergy, and people together can participate in a beautiful entrance rite is Cranmer's Great Litany of 1544. It is based upon the Sarum Sunday procession, a Greek Orthodox ektene, and Luther's litany, and is customarily sung on Sundays, Wednesday, and Fridays. It can be sung either as a stand alone rite, or as introduction to Morning Prayer, or Mass.
It is often sung in procession around the church. It is made up of the celebrant intoning the petitions and the choir, plus members of the congregation responding. The chant I heard was "Anglican Gregorian". Sort of a mix of Orlando Gibbons with the rector intoning his part in Gregorian chant. It was very beautiful. A lot of possibilities here.
An alternative could be a reduced Litany of the Saints. Followed by having the schola and/or cantor sing the English or Latin introit antiphon and psalm verse while the celebrant changes into his chasuable.
Isn't it an oxymoron to ask whether Gregorian Chant is "pastoral?" After all, the singing of chants proper to the people in Latin is mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium, so it is by definition "pastoral" since the Council Fathers viewed it as inherent to the Latin Rite. In my experience congregations sing simple chants (whether in Latin or the vernacular) far better than they sing anything else.
As it was written, "In the name of "inculturation," or integrating church rites with local customs,"
The problem today is that the Catholic church is in dire need of inculturation, that is, integrating CHURCH RITES back into Masses that now reflect nothing but local customs. Proof?
From THEWEEK:
"How severe is the crisis?
"It’s “the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history,” says the National Catholic Reporter. Worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church now has 1.1 billion members, compared with 1.5 billion Muslims and 593 million Protestants. In the U.S., all the major denominations have seen their numbers decline in recent years, but the Catholic Church has taken the biggest hit. Since the 1960s, four American-born Catholics have left the church for every one who has converted, according to a 2009 Pew study. In 2008 alone, Catholic membership declined by 400,000. More than 1,000 parishes have closed since 1995, and the number of priests has fallen from about 49,000 to 40,000 during that same period. Some 3,400 Catholic parishes in the U.S. now lack a resident priest. “Catholicism is in decline across America,” says sociologist David Carlin. "
Since the 1960's. Their words, not mine. Restoration of the faith as it was may be the only thing that saves the Church. The church and its liturgy and music have gone through cycles over the centuries of straying away from the way things have always been and eventually taken in hand by Rome and made to understand that reform and restoration in all ways is necessary.
The failure to the US Bishops to present STTL to Rome for approval totally negates its use to guide music programs. They made the decision that it would not be approved by Rome and withdrew it, not even giving Rome the opportunity to comment or reject it. It reflects not what should be but rather what is in music in the USA.
I know of no one who has been attracted to the US church because of the music but many who have left because of it. Four leave for every one that has joined. That's not the sign of a healthy, vibrant community.
Hey, we got another convert! And four go out the door never to return.
Jeffrey, the point is not to reprint someone else's commentary, but to present it fresh for an open discussion.
I was very critical of Mahrt's commentary on my blog in March 2008. I know he is revered as a chant scholar, and I have no doubt regarding his musical expertise. From the view of liturgy and ministry, his commentary leaves a lot fo be desired.
C'mon, Jeffrey. Section by section. 259 posts. If you do it here, I won't have to do it on my own blog. Please?
Well, I have some feelings similar to Todd. Maybe this is not to be a seminar, that is fine. Conversations and bits and bobs of things to talk about is fine too.
But to pass off STL as being, covered by William Mahrt's commentary is to pass off and ignore entirely the things I brought up in an earlier post. No one as bothered to address what I felt were the "new things" that STL brought to the table. Charles agrees with Jeffrey, that STL is purely a summary of other things, and nothing more.
In answer to Charles – yes, the small parish congregation may be able to sing the propers as well as hymns and other pieces – but certainly not to the standard that most people here would find satisfactory I am sure.
It is obvious to me, regardless of a comment here or there that will throw a bone to a singing assembly – that most people here are concerned with the presentation of chant, often to the exclusion of the congregation. Even traditional hymnody is under suspect here, and of course, the demonic contemporary genres are anathema.
While I would agree that "interior" participation is important, it is way out of balance here, and I would agree with Todd, that the obsession here with "interior" participation seems just too much of an apologetic stance for the promotion of music sung by the choir or schola only.
I would honestly admit, that I am at times guilty of ignoring things that are placed before me. But it is interesting that no one other than Charles has responded to my scenario of an average small parish; also interesting that the many SPECIFIC items in STL that I brought to light are also conveniently ignored while claiming that there is nothing new to chew on. And to use William Mahrt's commentary and say that it is exhaustive is laughable, since he ignores at the start, any discussion of the things that I have brought up, and the things that he does comment on are certainly through the lens of his personal bias.
I realize that this post is a bit wavering back and forth between issues… I began to be part of this conversation to try to bring a different point of view to some things. I learn a lot from what so many of you share here, as is the case with other blogs. But I do not see much of that being reciprocated. While not seminars, I would hope that blogs such as this, and some of others, would be places where people would want to learn something from time to time. That does not seem to be the case here.
So, like Todd, I will have to evaluate whether or not I come back to visit.
God bless you all.