The ChantCafe and the New Liturgical Movement set out to “fabricate a theology of music” and falsely attribute it to Benedict XVI.”
Or so says this person. So far as I can tell, this is not the case.
236 Replies to “Have we fabricated a theology of music and falsely attributed it to Benedict XVI?”
Comments are closed.
Have these two web sites fabricated–this is what you seem to be asking. Deacon McManaman could be interpreted as referring to the "traditional" new liturgical movement (no caps) as a general concern. He doesn't mention the Chant Café at all.
I do think that there is a danger in exalting a particular way of doing liturgy and music above the mission of the Church. This mission is basic and essential: making disciples of Christ and preaching the Gospel to the ends of the Earth.
I do think many Catholics resist the mandate to evangelize. They don't like the word. They have other interests. They don't know how to talk to people about faith. They don't want people who are unlike them in the Church.
The Lord's example was to reverence persons more than things, and also to seek them out actively. I think there's a clear test: have you brought more people into the Church than into CMAA or to the Colloquium? Bringing people to Christ (and Christ to the unchurched) is part of our shared mission as Catholic Christians. It is our calling. We don't get to opt out of it because we sing better than we relate.
Todd
Classic example of a false dichotomy He suggests that those concerned with a correct liturgy tend to be very poor disciples: egotistical, selfish, controlling. etc. without giving any reasons why this is so. I could just as easily say that those who play fast and loose with the rubrics or accept any and all theologies out there are egotistical, selfish and controlling.
Why can't we have both the "right answers" and concern for our neighbor? "Correct liturgy" and evangelical fervor? Are we supposed to be content with the wrong or incomplete answers, or with sloppy liturgy because love is most important?
I would venture to say that he is falsely attributing to Francis what he does not intend to say. Charity should not be set up against good liturgy or accurate theology – in fact, these can be seen as forms of charity themselves.
The deeper question is the nature of the Church where we are leading people. Is it a praying Church that with every activity acknowledges the presence of the Lord? Is there beauty and truth? Or are we doing something less?
I'm sure I've mentioned before the example of the maintenance worker at one of the Chicago Colloquia, who lamanted the pop-style music at his parish and wished he could hear music like ours at his Church.
Outreach does not mean mediocrity–I wish this had been the motto of the immediate postconciliar reforms!
I've been involved with the EF Latin Mass movement for about 5 years, and Deacon McManaman's words resonate. I can personally corroborate his statement that some Latin Mass paradigms do, unfortunately, as he says:
"[create] a distance between them and the laity (who seem to be regarded as a necessary evil). I have seen this first hand, and members of my family have had their lives turned upside down as a result of this."
It's difficult to admit this because I know how deeply committed many people in the Latin Mass community are to this form of the Mass and I don't doubt for a second that they have the very best intentions in the world, and are focused on restoring a traditional expression of the liturgy, a task I believe is absolutely crucial to the Church's mission.
However, there is a model of the Latin Mass in vogue which really does treat the people in the pews as an afterthought, and in my experience also, I'm afraid the proponents of that model sometimes exhibit the kind of behavior the Deacon has described (with great accuracy!)
I might add, I'm very touched by the Deacon's article and if I could see him, I'd like to give him a little hug and tell him I've been there, too—sometimes I think someone should start a post-Latin Mass therapy group!— but please, please, please, Deacon M., don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A different model of the Latin Mass is possible, where the people are invited and encouraged to participate, and it does work very well. I like to call it the "French Provincial" model of the Latin Mass. It may not suit everyone, but my experience has been that people from the Ordinary Form immediately connect with this paradigm of the usus antiquior and feel at home with it right away.
Where are we leading people? To Jesus Christ. Where do we find him? In the Word of God, in the sacraments, and in the community through the lived example of the Christian life.
Beauty and truth is not to be found first or mainly in things: music, decoration, and finery. It is to be found in people. And Christians are obligated to show through their life's example the beauty and truth of Christ. That is basic evangelization of Ad Gentes and Evangelii Nuntiandi.
I don't believe Christ would dishonor music well-done, but I do think he would cite Isaiah 58 at many of us.
Todd
Where would I find more info about the "French provincial model"? I agree. How do we make the Tridentine Rite and especially the Novus Ordo Rite (singing in Latin, chant and polyphony, etc.) inviting for the "full, active and conscious participation of the gathered assembly"?
I think this is what both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis would agree upon. How do we have a prayerful AND evangelical liturgy, that combines the best of both Latin Chant and a clear outreach that embraces the inclusion and active participation of the community?
The Taize Community in France (BTW, would this be considered "French provincial"?) seems to be the best example so far.
So glad you asked! I like to call it that because it is the French traditionalist model of the Latin Mass. The best illustration of it is the 8-part YouTube video of the Latin Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet at Paris, although there are others, including FSSP France and Saint-Eugene-Saint-Cecile at Paris, a diocesan church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8jPgJeGuA&li…
When we first became involved with the Latin Mass movement in our diocese my husband found this series on YouTube and we were totally enthralled. What struck me right away was the position of the schola in the heart of the nave, among the people, instead of being tucked far away in a choir loft. That alone I think helps the people feel welcome to sing along with the ordinary, and sing along they do, and sing the parts of the Mass antiphonally with the choir.
For those interested in the Pope Emeritus' writings on sacred music, here is a sampling http://www.ceciliaschola.org/notes/benedictonmusi…
Although I would put this into the mix: Artists are people. Artists who follow Christ, as people of God, pour forth the beauty, truth and goodness of God into their artistic works (I'm thinking of architecture, music, icons, poetry, etc, here.)
Art is always created by people, and as that, it is a outpouring of God's grace throuth the works of people (just as all works of charity are. Christ has no hands, feet, eyes, voice but yours, says Saint Teresa of Avila.)
I am truly moved to deep prayer and contrition by the polyphonic works of Francisco Guerrero, to name but one example (who we will sing at the Colloquium). Hence, art and beauty, mediated through other human beings creativity, can be and is an invititation to true conversion.
I think the deacon's musings need to be understood as an attempt to illustrate the old proverb that the Evil One sends evil in pairs, so that we may flee from one and rush to embrace the other (the latter usually being the evil we are more inclined to rationalize with Noble Intentions because it is situated in our cognitive-spiritual blindspot). It's not only true at the extremes, but at all points between them.
As I type this I am listening to the Mass in E flat (for soloists, choir and orchestra) by Johann Nepomuk Hummel, the worthy successor to Haydn at the Esterhazy court. It is music of the highest order, and I can't think of a better way for the human spirit to reach out to God. Todd's pop music, on the other hand, drives me to despair. In invoking the Holy Spirit in defence of his prejudices (which I don't claim to do) he is surely in breach of the Second Commandment. Unfortunately he is so holier-than -thou that he doesn't even realize this.
For many devout people in the Church, including clergy, being a Catholic is about having the "right answers", that is, having "correct theology" and a flawless performance of "sound liturgy"; yet when it comes to personal contact with the world, not a few of these are socially and emotionally delayed: egotistical, controlling, neurotic, demanding, ungrateful, and ironically enough, irreverent – towards ordinary human persons.
Can I get a side of flim-flam with that ad hominem Dagwood sandwich? In any case, whenever someone tries to characterize me or my Faith, I point them to this: http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/08…
This looks like two different arguments to me. That is, the Todd and Kathy's back-n-forth…
Well, said!
I think he's forgotten that Pope Benedict's election was also under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“Dear friends, the Church is made visible in many ways: in charitable works, in missionary endeavors, in the personal apostolate that every Christian should carry out in his own environment. But the place where she is fully experienced as the Church is in the liturgy: it is the act, we believe, whereby God enters into our reality and we can encounter him, we can touch him. It is the act whereby we enter into contact with God: He comes to us, and we are enlightened by him. Therefore, when in our reflections we focus our attention only on how we may render it attractive, interesting, beautiful, we risk forgetting the essential: the liturgy is celebrated for God and not for us; it is his work; he is the subject; and we should open ourselves to him and allow ourselves to be guided by him and by his Body, which is the Church.” Pope Benedict XVI (Papal address Oct. 3, 2012)
The following is a link to Benedict XVI’s “theology of music”, which in actuality is him humbly as always attempting to explain the Church’s teachings on the truth, beauty, and goodness of the liturgy. http://media.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredm…
This is great! (Chiro etc) . Keep on praying …
I think this is a reason why the Novus Ordo is a flop : lack of consistency, and a feeling of being at the mercy of the priest and his "personal liturgical style". I have NEVER seen two priests celebrate the OF EXACTLY the same way – My pastor and a good friend of his, and Frs. Pasely et al. at Colloquium SLC were pretty close at the traditional end, but there are still some differences; and there are some priests in the area that are similar at the more, um, 'progressive a la 1970s' end, but still differeces in 'style'
Every EF Mass I have been to (from completely silent Low Mass to Dialogue Mass to Missa Cantata to Solemn Mass) have all been celebrated the same way : young priests, old priests, secular priests, religious priests, FSSP priests, bishops – they follow the rubrics and its exactly the same. Of course the quality of the music differed – psalm-tones v. full propers – and there are rubricised ceremonial differences, but the ars celebrandi was the same.
You're not at the mercy of a priests "personal liturgical style" (whatever that means).
While Rev. Dcn. McManaman clearly exaggerates some things, I think he points to some pitfalls that we who seek to foster traditional liturgy need to be conscious of and avoid. I believe that liturgy for us is an end in itself and not a means to an end – it is the public worship of the God Who is worthy all praise and therefore it is perfectly OK, virtuous even, to attempt to celebrate it as beautifully as possible – but for God, Who has no need of our praise, it is actually a means to an end, namely our sanctification and equipment with grace to bring souls to Him.
I think that keeping this distinction in mind breeds humility and helps keep the proper focus. If we celebrate the liturgy and participate in it well – as an expression of love for God, God will in turn do His good work in us.
when you get people to the church or returning to it. the beauty and reverence of the music will help to keep them there.
A lot of Catholics who support the kind of Masses Pope Francis says are missing an important point here. Yes we must reach out to bring the Gospel to all people and all the Popes have done that in their own way. I am upset to still hear the new Pope's supporters speak disrespectfully even now. The important thing to remember here is that when it comes to the liturgy the old saying goes"How we Pray is how we worship" It has already been revealed elsewhere that as a Cardinal in Buenos Aires he allowed "Clown Masses" If Catholics think there has to be simplification at the expense of reverence and beauty they are wrong. It is TRUE there was a theology of the liturgy under Benedict. Because of his influence the Latin Mass and the reform of the New Mass in 2007 was and is still bringing about a change we did not see even under John Paul II Same for the increase in Vocations they did not start under John Paul II it is the "Reform of the Reform" he talked about constantly.
We are the world in whole. If we had to choose between worshiping Jesus and following him, which would we choose?
"I have seen this first hand, and members of my family have had their lives turned upside down as a result of this…illness."
Families will often have their lives turned upside down when they seek Christ. This happens when some family members convert to Catholicism, become pro-life activists, promote the social recognition of traditional marriage, enter religious life, etc. Why should this not happen to families who have found the benefits of good liturgy and wish to share these with others, starting with their own children? If sacrifice is an illness, let us all be ill.
Pharisaism is a danger for anyone who thinks he possesses "correct theology" or the "right answers" (including Deacon McManaman), but the solution is not to throw away Truth or avoid serving it. In our free time, we are faced with choices–do we study Scripture this morning or do we go kayaking? They're both good. Here is where personal spiritual direction can help form good well-rounded Christians.
The Church's teaching on liturgy and liturgical music is as clear as its teaching on other matters. I don't think we should be accusing those who promote life, for example, of fabricating a theology of life, or those who promote apologetics of fabricating a theology of apology, or those who teach theology of fabricating a theology of theology. These are serious charges, and should be formally supported or withdrawn.
Thanks for the link. These has been very useful and helpful.
I don't think, in the interests of charity and justice, that Rev. McManaman needs to elaborate any further on his statement. It's very clear that he and his family were hurt and alienated after an encounter with the EF Latin Mass, and this article is his very natural reaction to that experience.
The essential point is that a model of the Latin Mass (and the behavior of the people organizing that liturgy) which make people, esp. people accustomed to forty years of the Novus Ordo, feel extraneous and excluded is what should be examined instead of one commenter after the next trying to "shoot the messenger."
There are others who criticized a model of the traditional liturgy which made the congregation feel like "detached and silent spectators", "outsiders or mute onlookers", "strangers", "mute spectators", and how about this one: "dumb and idle spectators".
Want to know who those other critics were? You might be surprised:
Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII in their documents on the liturgy.
I don't feel that the "welcoming" aspect of a 1962 Mass needs to happen in the Mass itself. I know of traditional communities that have very warm and welcoming coffee hours.
The article paints with a very broad brush.
Yes, indeed a coffee social after Mass is an excellent idea but that doesn't address the issue at hand.
I know there are several perfectly legitimate expressions of the 1962 Missal: the silent Low Mass where the altar servers only say the responses, a Low Mass where the people say the responses, a Missa Cantata where the choir sings all the responses and the parts of the Ordinary, and a High Mass where the people and schola sing the responses and parts of the Ordinary, and all variations thereof.
However, I don't think it can be seriously disputed that the preconciliar popes from Pope Pius X onward and the scholars of the First Liturgical Movement wanted the people to be taught to say and sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them. And if, as I pointed out in my last comment, Pope Pius XII described certain congregations that don't vocally participate at Mass as "detached", "outsiders" and "strangers" then he clearly meant that their lack of participation was causing alienation (a theme of Pope John Paul II's as well.)
There are many ways of implementing the 1962 Mass but whether all those models fulfill the desires of the popes is another question.
That's more a function of the fact that the EF in its current expression is self-chosen by celebrants and congregations. Make it universal, and it will acquire more variation in celebration, all the rubrics notwithstanding.
Since you've metioned Hummel's Mass a few times now, I checked out the Credo. Thank you, JP for the head's up! I could think of no better 'actual participation' ( I will not utter the mistranslated 'active participation') than hearing this at its rightful place in the mass. And, if I wanted, I could follow a translation. But, I'd rather listen to the Latin and let my knowledge of the translation and Latin derivatives guide my thoughts and prayers. I'd rather listen to the rather well-done word painting, so that I may fill in the gaps via the mood of the music. I guess it's too much to ask our people to think, anymore. It's all gotta be right there, uncomplicated and banal.
My own thought, having never participated in an Extraordinary Form Mass, is that we should be celebrating the Ordinary Form closer to what the Vatican II, etc. documents call for. Use of Latin, chant, polyphony, and hey, even an other appropriate chant (read hymn/song).
This has all been said before, here and elsewhere. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I don't want the Ordinary Form to be lost in all the conversation about the 1962 Missal. I think it was in Jeff Ostrowski's not-quite article that it's mentioned that the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are/ can be quite similar…IF the OF is performed in Latin, with chant, and, of course, all pious dignity (my addition).
Julie, I think you've misread him. He doesn't seem to care how the Latin Mass people pray the Mass, in fact he thinks it is the proper celebration of and understanding of liturgy, as espoused by the New Liturgical Movement in particular, which is theologically suspect. He seems to see a zero-sum game between focusing on liturgy and focusing on evangelization, of worshiping and living the Christian life.
As far as I can tell, his family members weren't put off by an experience at a Latin Mass, they were fully sucked into it and it caused some sort of painful reorientation in their lives, which he seems to blame on the quest for proper liturgy itself.
How right you are, JohnO. A fairly obscure example of aristocratic patronage at the beginning of the 19th century produced some of the finest Mass settings ever written – the six late Masses of Haydn which are the culmination of his illustrious career, the Mass in C of Beethoven, and Hummel's unjustly neglected five. They need to be heard in the liturgical context for which they were written. I remember the first time I attended Mass at the London Oratory. It was 1973, I was just down from university and was still trying to come to terms with the prevailing liturgical anarchy. I was hit with wall-to-wall Latin, chanted Propers, and Haydn's 'Nelson' Mass. I have never looked back.
Well, it was universal until the second half of the 20th century, and there isn't much evidence of varying styles of celebration. That liturgy was objective rather than subjective was taken as read.
Low Mass no music, Low Mass with hymns, High Mass, Pontifical High Mass, everything in between. You can go online today and find any number of sub-styles and genres within the Tridentine Mass.
The bottom line is that many people some of the time will think and believe what they want to think and believe. It's human nature, and the self-styled orthodox have no escape clause on the occasional episode of wilful blindness.
Todd
Well, I had to endure Glory and Praise until I was 17 (1994). We then changed to a parish that used Worship III. The Music Director was trained at Westminster Choir College here in the States. We used several fine anthems and hymns, but still the 4- hymn sandwich. One year, we used the Faure Requiem for All Souls' Day. I thought, "We're finally doing this the way it's supposed to be!"
I had a similar beginning as our sensible friend, thinking whatever music, as long as it was well done, was acceptable. But that thought never fit in with what I knew about Catholic music, the historic Catholic music.
Finally, a new under-talented OCP shill and a change in parishes pushed me to discover more about "liturgy." It's been a real eye-opener these last few years. The funny thing is, most of the lay people I talk to know that the sacropop/ folk style is not acceptable at Mass. They like the chant, the polyphony, and the Latin. My biggest obstacle? I bet you'll guess correctly!
Dear JulieC, so sad to hear of your experience. Perhaps the shortcomings of Man's conduct re. the EF spoke louder than the EF. God bless.
Dear LizM, thank you for the quote. It speaks so loudly on what is happening in our parishes, whether celebrating EF or OF Masses. The crux here is this, how do we understand this: "allow ourselves to be guided by him and by his Body, which is the Church". Some will say "The Church teaches us to read the black and do the red." Others would say "We are the Church so we decide." Personally, one is inclined to trust the teachings of the Church. Thank you.
Dear Clare, the Church is both. Mass concludes with "Ite missa est.", as powerful a command as any. Thank you.
In point of fact, "Ite, missa est" was simply the traditional formula for closing business in ancient Rome.
C., it's very possible I've unwittingly distorted the Deacon's remarks on the Latin Mass. It just seemed at the time when I read his article that his unpleasant experience with the Latin Mass was what had caused an emotional backlash and launched him on his criticism of the "new clericalism" which he spends the rest of the article speaking about.
All I can say is that I've seen the same thing happen to numerous people I know and I've been put off myself by an overbearing, Stalinist, high-handed, elites-only approach to the TLM. I keep thinking of what Liam said about fleeing from one and rushing to embrace the other and that exactly describes the instinct people have against a liturgy where they are apparently not wanted or valued at all (except as a warm body in the pew).
If you think about it, that may be what the whole post Vatican II liturgical revolution was about—running as fast and as far away as possible from the passive, silent Low Mass approach to which the preconciliar liturgy had declined on a wide scale, at least in English-speaking countries, and possibly in Italy as well.
Julie, you are quite right to identify the perceived problem with the Low Mass. So we have in 1935 the SCR not just authorizing but recommending the Missa Recitata in which the congregation not only joined in the server's responses but recited those parts of the Ordinary which the Choir sang at a Sung Mass. In 1958 this was widened to include the Pater noster (including the final Amen) and the Propers. High or Solemn Mass was not generally seen as a problem by the Liturgical Movement, nor did most of its adherents wish to dismantle the Roman Rite and replace it with something different, as happened in the 1960s.
However, a Low Mass was still a Low Mass, and when celebrated at the high altar of a large church, did not lend itself easily to this type of congregational participation. Additionally, joining in the Propers assumed a greater level of Latin literacy than most congregations possessed. The solution was to make greater use of the vernacular and bring the altar forward. If the priest faced the people he was clearly audible, and there seemed little point in using the vernacular if it couldn't be heard. The people could see more of the ritual action, which would enhance their participation.
Of course, most of the ritual actions traditional to the Roman Rite were swept away in 1967, thus removing one rationale for versus populum. There were always those (like Evelyn Waugh and Hilaire Belloc) who preferred the silent Low Mass to the High, and nowadays the contrast is all the greater, since most parish 'liturgies' are noisy and subjective affairs (Waugh remarked to Cardinal Heenan that it was a typically Germanic trait to equate 'participation' with 'making a row' and he had a point). Even the silences in the Novus Ordo have to be artificially imposed; they are not the "filled silences" of the traditional Roman Rite.
Even if (like me) one deplores many aspects of contemporary worship, there is a logic to them.
My brother pointed me to this blog. I'm the one he mentioned whose family was deeply hurt by people who had adopted the "vision" these websites promote.
I had never seen anything like it. A new set of priests moved in and wiped out everything that had taken more than a decade to build(a first rate 50 voice polyphonic choir, 25-voice high school choir, 50-voice children's choir, many outstanding cantors and more in training), definitely one of the finest music programs in the city. I wasn't fired but I was strongly encouraged to move on so they could implement the "vision". There was absolute confidence, without the slightest doubt, that the vision would take hold and the parish would embrace it. Now, two years later, after being an utter failure in every way, the only thing left of the music program being a small remnant of the original choir, the ones responsible are scratching their heads thinking,"Hmm, maybe we didn't think this thing through."
I just find the liturgical vision these websites promote tends to generate a certain hubris in people who subscribe to the vision. I recently read a paper on liturgical music written by a first year college student. I was shocked at the arrogance and cynical, mocking attitude of someone just out of high school, towards things she has no experience with. Such abundant confidence, but not the hard earned kind that comes from experience in the field. This is not fostering a mature spirituality, it's not even a spirituality at all, but I think some mistake it for one.
These websites don't promote so much an excitement for chant or polyphonic music as they do a disgust for all modern or various cultural forms of music.
I liked some of the comments made by Catholic Sensibility(on this and other places on this site). Like him, I'm also a great believer that the Holy Spirit is active in the world today, using the language of the times, local languages, in order to speak to the people of a particular age, generation, or place. This is something you see not only in church music but in the tradition of icons through the centuries as well. I feel like the vision of websites like this tend to block that action of the Holy Spirit working in the world today, and promote a narrow, one dimensional notion of church music. I think this movement has definitely hurt people and stunted the growth of many. If this was something implemented by the Church through Benedict XVI then I completely missed that memo.
Steve McManaman
smcmusic.net
Well, Steve, I feel badly that your Church experience was negatively effected by these 'new-comers.' However…
A fine 50-voice polyphonic choir that is now a remnant of its former self because its strongly encouraged to sing polyphony and chant?
What was this 25-member high school group: more of the same or a mega contemporary ensemble?
Did the children leave the choir, or was it parents lulling their kids in retaliation? I didn't read the entire memo; are you the music director at this parish? If so, why aren't you overjoyed to be teaching traditional Catholic music to the congregation.
In my experience, musicndirectorsnwho are not teaching chant and polyphony are deficient in training or skill. By training, I mean a knowledge of traditional Catholic music. By skill, having the necessary means to teach and lead this music. I had the misfortune of serving with a liturgist who lacked both.
I feel your pain. It's tough to realize a lot of what you thought was right is wrong. It's all there in black and white ( or red, if you will) continue to check out this site, and canticanova.com for excellent strategies in teaching this 'new style.' The middle way is best to achieve change. It looks like the new priests wanted it done overnight. Talk with them, too. There's still hope to resurrect this thing!
JohnO: I'm not sure what you find so unclear about Steve's post, but I think what you need is a basic course in logical inferencing. Try reading what he wrote, concentrate on it, don't make assumptions, be careful of affirming the consequent (a common logical fallacy), and just listen to what he said, NOT what he did not say. You need to listen, to hear, to allow yourself to be measured by what is said. Your post is replete with assumptions, so many that you simply missed what was actually said. You said "I feel your pain". No, you don't feel his pain. That's clear from reading your post. If you feel his pain, why do you add to it with your arrogance. Yes, you are an arrogant man masquerading as a holy, humble, reverent servant. You are so far removed from his experience, from the details of the situation he found himself in, and yet you take it upon yourself to give him counsel. Just what this Pope warns us about.
Perhaps John read Steve's letter on his own website:
http://smcmusic.net/the%20place%20of%20chant%20an…
With due respect to Steve, and with my sympathy, I think he has nevertheless misinterpreted through his own filtered lens many of the magisterial documents he cites. The issue is not about culture, but about a specific Catholic culture that was lost about 50 years ago, when the musical shoe was on the other foot. After 50 years perhaps there is now an attempt to regain that Catholic culture.
I don't really want to continue writing on here but go to my website to get a small taste(emphasize this is only a small taste) of what we did there.(smcmusic.net) For regular liturgies during the year we did a LOT of chant and polyphony, much more than is being done there now and certainly much more than just about any other parish in the diocese. But by no means were modern styles excluded. We did the whole spectrum of Catholic music. I was asked to eliminate all modern and ethnic music, everything except old traditional hymns. All the young people are gone because I was asked to "eliminate all young people: children, high school, college age students" from participating in the liturgy because "as you know young people don't make for good liturgy". The high school choir did much more difficult music(Renaissance motets plus a wide variety of other music) than the adult choir is able to do now. They wanted only professional(operatic) cantors, not people who came from the parish. I guess this was all part of the "vision". I certainly couldn't make any sense out of it. No, no, you completely misunderstand what was there and what is NOT there anymore.
His own filtered lens? Does Pope Francis have a filtered lens? Pope Francis had a guitar player and singer during his Holy Thursday Mass. Was that a recovery of specific Catholic culture? If I go to Mass in an African village, or a city in a Central American country, will I get a taste of specific Catholic culture? What you don't understand is that the Church is Catholic, which means "universal", or "of the whole" (all nations). The Church does not come in and substitute the culture with another culture, a specific "Catholic culture". No, the faith is proclaimed and embraced by a people, a people who already have a cultural heritage. That heritage is transformed from within by grace, not substituted with something foreign (a European culture of a specific century). The arrogance on this site is exhausting.
Listen all you arrogant, starch drenched sanctimonious Pharisees, you are not in charge for a reason, but Pope Francis is in charge, and he has a different vision, and he was chosen to be Pope, NOT you folks. Why? Because you are pompous, arrogant, self-centred know-it-alls, and terribly obnoxious I might add. But you keep writing on this forum, keep posting so that the Church wakes up, because everybody is reading this, bishops, cardinals, priests, nuns, laity, they're all reading this forum and discussing it. I went out to a Mall tonight and lined up for some chinese food, and the people in front of me were talking about this site, and so too were the people serving the food. I went to a bookstore (Barnes and Noble), and I overheard three people talking about this site and how important it is, how much they've learned about being a genuine Catholic. Everybody is talking about you. You are clearly doing a lot of good. Just keep writing, keep educating us dull minded fools who are hopelessly in the dark. But you give us hope.
It's amazing….now there's more info on the situation….why wasn't this presented before? Clementcrock…I don't even know what to say. Your replies are replete with leftist ideas. You, brother or sister, are making a LOT of assumptions about me. Are those assumptions based on my one post, or did you read several other of my replies on this site?
For the record my reply was based on what was presented here. Look at it that way. Kind of fishy, no? At any rate, there's most likely a third story as to what's going on in Steve M's parish.
Now if you don't care for what's posted here, I'm not the webmaster, but…feel free.
Clement…:
I do not see/hear guitars at St Peter's these days at all. On the contrary, lots of chant, polyphony, and some modern (local) compositions, very much in line with SC. You seem to be making rules out of the exceptions through a filtered lens also.
And here is the link to St Gertrude's in Cincinnati:
http://www.stgertrude.org/
The site may wish to show the best face, but I see little to complain about, except perhaps for a youth Mass which is sometimes on the "edge" in some parishes, but there is nothing here to say one way or another so unless one actually goes there…
I think John is right there is something fishy going on, a third story.
While I am at it, I am amazed that a deacon would actually write in such a reductionist way, unless it is a fake. But assuming authenticity, how can someone be so judgmental about fellow Christians, especially those who are trying to perfect the main purpose of the Mass? This is not to adore Christ, but to adore the Father with Christ. If this is "deliberately creating a distance between themselves and the laity (who seem to be regarded as a necessary evil)", then there is something deeply wrong with the Catholicism in Canada where the deacon serves. If anything, there is certainly a challenge given to the laity from the NLM to perfect worship, but then Francis is himself challenging Catholics and the world to totally turn to God.
Just visited your website, Steve, and the quality of the music is outstanding; it's an enormous tragedy such a fine musical endeavor was put out of commission, regardless of the ideology involved. You'd think most reasonable people could have worked out a compromise of some sort in order to keep the program in operation.
However, I've been around long enough to know that it's almost inevitable that passionate people with conflicting visions will clash, and I'm afraid this unfortunate incident may be symbolic of what's about to happen in the larger Church. More hostile encounters of this sort may occur since we all know there is an inherent tension between the OF and the EF and any potential reconciliation between the two is going to require all the patience and charity both "sides" can muster.
Jeff Tucker et al., deserve our gratitude for providing the testing ground, so to speak, to find solutions between people of good will on all sides of the sacred music spectrum; I'm convinced that is what both the former Pope Benedict and Pope Francis would encourage with all their hearts.
Very insightful, JP; you've given me a lot to think about. No doubt, the ideal solution is a traditional parish where a number of different expressions of the 1962 Missal are available. Of course, when your diocese only allows one Latin Mass a week, you must try to make that Mass the best fit for all involved, but you're never going to please all the people all the time in such a situation.
(In our case, we must travel (with 5 kids, a keyboard, amp, music stands and music) about 40 minutes to another diocese for an EF Missa Cantata in a cemetery chapel. It's actually a beautiful old chapel, and the cemetery itself is very old and picturesque so it's not as grim as it might sound. It would be wonderful to be in a real traditional parish with a menu of liturgical options, but sometimes you have to follow where your heart leads you and that's where we've ended up. Under the circumstances and with the guidance and support of a very wise pastor, we have tried to build a model of the liturgy that is as beautiful and accessible to as many people as possible. As always, though, there is much more to learn and discover but it has been a remarkable journey.)
I take it back. We both misread him!
In point of fact, things of ordinary origin are often giving deeper meaning over time by context and reflection.
Here are Jeffrey Tucker's thoughts on imposing uniformity in sacred music, as posted on the New Liturgical Movement:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/07/shou…
Bravo to Mr. Tucker for that sensible proposal. I would just add that until and unless there is more doctrinal unity in the Catholic Church, you cannot expect uniformity in worship. As the pastor in my old parish used to point out, the chances are very high that the person sitting next to you in the pew doesn't share your moral/theological beliefs.
Is it that people pray as they believe, or that they believe as they pray? I think after forty years of liturgical renewal, it's pretty easy to see it's the latter: lex orandi statuat legem credendi (the Church's liturgical praxis establishes the common creed) but as much as I would personally favor fine-tuning the present liturgy to reflect a more traditional expression of the Catholic Faith, that is going to take decades at the present rate of progress (although the new translations helped). Mr. Tucker's solution is, then, the most practical solution in the current situation.
I guess. I'm not quite sure what that was all about.
P.S. By the way, thank for your phrase "filled silences." The silence during the Canon of the Mass at a Latin Mass is exactly that. It's impossible to describe; words fail, as they should at such a moment.
Unfortunately, most people who talk about 'modern music' mean 'pop music' and the liturgical offerings of the Haagen-Dasz school, which simply can't be thrown into a liturgical mix which assumes an informal and subjective 'participatory' liturgy anyway. Grinning, joking and glad-handing prelates in the style of Timothy Dolan abuse the liturgy in a way that throwing in a bit of traditional music will not assuage.
Examples of modern music which are truly liturgical can be found in the works of James MacMillan, Jeffrey Ostrowski and Aristotle Esguerra, not unknown on this site, not to mention Adam Bartlett and Arlene Oost-Zinner.
Count me a skeptic on the links between doctrinal unity, virtue, and liturgy. The Church has long taught that the virtue of the priest does not affect the validity or efficacy of the sacrament. And recent troubles for prelates with very strong doctrinal reputations (in Kansas City and Newark) show that there is no natural connection between doctrine and virtue. If anything, it seems that personal confidence in tradition is a moral trap.
As for people praying, it's part of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God inspires people to belief. It happens through all sorts of music.
I do find it curious that the witness of the McManaman brothers is so easily dismissed. Not surprising, just curious. Self-professed Catholics, even those of a traditional bent, are human just alike anybody else. They sin, mistreat people, and abuse authority. They contribute to a lack of credibility and the poor reputation of traditionalist Catholics.
Todd
there is no natural connection between doctrine and virtue
It's hard to comprehend what you mean by this. Obedience is a virtue. Accepting Catholic doctrine is a virtue.
Hello my friends: I received an email from Julie who called my attention to this blog. I'm fascinated that an email of mine, which eventually became a short article on Lifeissues.net (Pope Francis and the New Clericalism), could start such a discussion.
I've been referred to as a reductionist. I'm struggling to figure out what that could mean. My problem is not with the Latin Mass per se. I love Renaissance choral music, and I do like Gregorian chant, but I also like other kinds of liturgical music, as long as it is done tastefully–and yet I'm not sure what that really means. I've heard not so polished choirs who were nevertheless very pleasing, because they were trying their best. I've also heard polished choirs that were a bit of a turn off, because it was too much about their sound and not enough about the praises of God–at least that was the sense I got. But I like what Clementcrock said above (who is one of my favorite authors, btw): If I go to Mass in an African village, or a city in a Central American country, will I get a taste of specific Catholic culture? What you don't understand is that the Church is Catholic, which means "universal", or "of the whole" (all nations). The Church does not come in and substitute the culture with another culture, a specific "Catholic culture". No, the faith is proclaimed and embraced by a people, a people who already have a cultural heritage. That heritage is transformed from within by grace, not substituted with something foreign (a European culture of a specific century)
That's a very important point, and Vatican II was very clear about that in the context of the Missions.
The title of my article was Pope Francis and the New Clericalism. As I said, there is a new clericalism creeping into the Church, and many of the older priests are aware of this and very concerned about it–and I am not referring to the older "liberal" priests formed in the late 60s, but the priests who are genuinely holy and solid, men who have suffered, and whose priesthood is not about "cassocks, nice meals, and laity fawning all over them", but rather about bringing the Good News of the Resurrection into the darkness of those without hope.
I've written about some of this in Basic Catholicism, which you can purchase here: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Catholicism-Dcn-Douglas-McManaman/dp/0991799658/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1366711448&sr=8-3&keywords=douglas+mcmanaman" target="_blank"> http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Catholicism-Dcn-Dougl…“” target=”_blank”>;http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Catholicism-Dcn-Dougl…“ target=”_blank”> ;http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Catholicism-Dcn-Dougl…
or Introduction to Philosophy for Young People: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-People-Douglas-McManaman/dp/0991799631/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367185421&sr=1-1&keywords=douglas+mcmanaman" target="_blank"> http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Peo…“” target=”_blank”>;http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Peo…“ target=”_blank”> ;http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Peo…
or A Treatise on the Four Cardinal Virtues: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/A-Treatise-Four-Cardinal-Virtues/dp/099179964X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1366711448&sr=8-2&keywords=douglas+mcmanaman" target="_blank"> http://www.amazon.com/A-Treatise-Four-Cardinal-Vi…“” target=”_blank”>;http://www.amazon.com/A-Treatise-Four-Cardinal-Vi…“ target=”_blank”> ;http://www.amazon.com/A-Treatise-Four-Cardinal-Vi…
Deacon,
You accused the New Liturgical Movement by name of "fabricating a theology of music". Do you have any evidence to back up the charge or can we assume it was made in error?
Do I have any evidence? Probably none that would convince you, but just in case I am wrong, how about you provide a basic outline of the principles underlying your claims about music, and then we will respond to them step by step, in the end revealing that what you have is a constructed theology of music, and not official Church teaching.
So the part about chant having pride of place, the peoele knowing their parts in Latin, and the call to preserve the treasury of polyphony is not church teaching?
John: Who's arguing with that? Yes, chant has pride of place. And it would be a tragedy to lose the treasury of polyphony. Wonderful. No argument there.
Do I have any evidence? Probably none that would convince you
If that was a child's explanation for leveling a false and serious charge against an adult, the case would be seen as empty, and the child would likely face some discipline.
Why should we treat you any differently? Simply because you're a clergy member attacking laymen?
Deacon Doug:
From reading the first paragraph of your article, you seem to be conveniently judging people by reducing them to certain categories, specifically traditionalists, like those involved in the NLM, to pretentious drama queens. The Mass is a drama, but I do not think most "traditionalists" are pretentious. I, am pretty sure they are very serious about what they are doing. And what they do means something important to them, because they do it for the glory of God. Some could be more flexible, but they can get upset when they feel alone in their quest for Beauty.
Actually, I am more perplexed now that you have given more information. What does this have to do with clericalism? If the server kisses the hand of the priest at Mass it is because the priest is in persona Christi. If the faithful give due respect to their pastor as spiritual leader, how is this clericalism? Or is everyone now a ministerial priest? Could you give some clear examples of this clericalism?
And how does culture fit into this? You talk about evangelization and mission. The liturgy is usually for those who have been evangelized. Are you claiming that even pagan music should be absorbed into the Mass? Perhaps you should tell those faithful Catholics in Africa who attend the Latin EF Mass to stop crawling on their knees when approaching the Lord for Communion. Or tell the Chinese in Hong Kong to disband their Gregorian scholas and start singing Cantonese songs. Things are not so clear as you claim them to be with applying the "principles" of Vatican II.
But to continue that thought "wonderful, no problem there." Do you admit the statements regarding chant, polyphony, and Latin are directives that came out of Vatican II? Maybe I'm wrong.
Sorry about the slight misquote
Did someone call for a fireman? It's 111 F out here in the San Joaquin, but I think I can spare a few minutes and some cool running streams and dewfall on this so unnecessarily volatile thread.
First of all my sympathies are extended to the deacon and his brother for the unwelcomed providence that has gutted an apparently thriving program, one that I might add is the sort of program of diversity spread among 18 weekend Masses for now 22 years. And I know for a fact that Todd's programs are managed and developed with that same eye for inclusivity based upon excellence with effort. And I also know, from attending a number of CMAA colloquia, chant intensives and other friend's parishes that what appears to be a narrow gate philosophy adherence here at the Cafe (I a co-founder and former contributor) does not necessarily mean either that: A. DM's, choirmasters and other "shot callers" who are learning to exemplify what the documents indicate is a clear paradigm FOR musicam sacram, nonetheless do not respect the divergent opinions, not only out of personal necessity but also a respect for the fact that our documents seem purposefully open-ended if not ambiguous. How could they be otherwise?; and B. The regular habituees of this forum, the Cafe, are in fact quite a pleasant group of folk once you've encountered them in some semblance of real life.
The crescendo of aspersions that crop up here now and then from both sides of the "music wars" encampments must be seen for what they are. There come in and out of rotation new front line soldiers, some battle worn and tried, others out of boot camp and ready for a first kill. That's what these forums encourage generally. And despite the Cafe's founding principles, this curve keeps coming round. I myself took a flamethrower to my good friend Jeffrey Tucker over a topic and upon a principle that overwhelmed me emotionally. So, I'm on permanent hiatus as columnist, but not commentator.
I've encouraged my friend and brother in Christ, Todd, to suffer the purgatorial pain and try a day or two of colloquium, and God bless him, it ain't likely to happen. But, we've gotton to know each other quite well elsewhere off the web, and we have perspectives that would benefit both our respective philosophical camps.
But if we keep shouting "Bogeyman" or niggling nomenclature to reduce us from dignified people with differing POV's, then every gem out of HHFrancis' homilies and letters will fall before swine. And I'd like to point out that CMAA's own AOZ has reminded us, especially in CMAA, that wasting bandwidth and C02 here and in the public square is a waste in all ways.
And I'm the first to condemn myself as guilty.
Will you burn this site down if I can find you one good person? Even if s/he's a Pharisee?
I was wondering whether or not I should respond to this, whether or not I'd be wasting my time. Then I read some of the posts above. I came across this:
Where are we leading people? To Jesus Christ. Where do we find him? In the Word of God, in the sacraments, and in the community through the lived example of the Christian life.
Beauty and truth is not to be found first or mainly in things: music, decoration, and finery. It is to be found in people. And Christians are obligated to show through their life's example the beauty and truth of Christ. That is basic evangelization of Ad Gentes and Evangelii Nuntiandi.
I don't believe Christ would dishonor music well-done, but I do think he would cite Isaiah 58 at many of us.
Todd
Now I am convinced that I'd be wasting my time. If someone has already made such a good point, and you can still say something like: "…but they can get upset when they feel alone in their quest for Beauty.", then it is clear that you are not listening. It seems to me that you are incapable of listening–someone made that point above. At this point, I would say that you are in love with a "culture", not a people who are in darkness. The Word was made flesh in order to enter into the darkness of human suffering, to redeem it, to bring it life and light. The cross is Beauty Itself. That's what we have to love first and foremost. As I said, I think you are in love with a "culture". You're just not getting it. Perhaps it can be compared to someone who has B.O. or bad breath–everyone else notices it but the person who actually has it. I don't think a few posts on a blog is going to open your eyes. Perhaps you have to live with or work for someone who has the "neo-clerical" virus. Unfortunately, that will very likely turn you into a raving liberal–most liberals are reactionaries. In any case, there are other documents besides Sacrosanctum Concillium. Read those and maybe then we can talk.
Wow, I think you confused me and Vic.
Based on the deacon's reply to Vic above, to me he's making zero sense: so liberal you're reactionary? Either a bad analogy, or nonsensical. I suggest we shut this down. No body is changing POVs from this… It's now a spitting contest.
Yes, but they are not the only virtues. A person can be obedient and accept doctrine as she or he understands it. But if they lack love …
Todd
Now, to the topic at hand-has anyone (Cafe/NLM/PTB/NPM) fabricated a theology of music, which presumes some sort of intentionality? It seems to me that everything crafted from human ingenuity in this world is to some degree inspiration, need and then fabrication. However, for purposes of this thread it seems that the discussion has been confined to the documents that were fabricated and promulgated from Vatican II "mandates." However, to say that as if that period of time existed in some vacuum is silly. You can argue John XXIII and Bugnini's intent until the cows come home or jump the moon.
What ought to be acknowledged without going all Rorate Caeli on everyone, is at least tied to the period of time from Leo VIII to Pius IX and X. Is the lifeblood of the Church inexorably tied to "how" we worship or just that we worship within our own eras?
We have a good bead on the theology of enjoining heaven and earth in song of unending praise, but what, where, when, how and when that is constituted demands an answer, a fabrication. Is it some sort of skeleton that we enflesh, or worse, some paper doll we fashion the trends of adornment upon? (continued)
None of Clement's questions are unworthy of attention and discourse. But to dismiss out of hand the Latin ritiual elements expressed in their rightful dialectics either in OF/EF, is to deprive the faithful of any geography or ethnicity of a super heritage that doesn't stifle the human spirit, intellect or worship in any way whatsoever. I may, if I can't attend another colloquium in my lifetime, never have the experiences I've had at Chicago and SLC as the local EF is untenable. And I lament that my best aefforts to ameliorate that will likely go unheeded until our garage schola which I don't lead chant my requiem. But then, in that moment I hopefully won't care, but I hope I remember that was my last will and testament to the proper worship of my Lord and Creator.
I can accept that there's some disconnect in the conversation. For my part, I don't accept the priorities of many of the musicians who comment here. I appreciate their commitment to excellence and tradition. But this is not the whole package of what is needed in ministry today.
After fifteen years of Catholic internet activity, we know that many camps tend to reinforce certain viewpoints, that dissenters are marginalized and treated with suspicion. There can be wilful deafness to what people are trying to communicate.
I think there can be fruit in listening to and talking with people who don't agree with us. If there is a lack of understanding, is it incumbent on us to go deeper, or to go off self-satisfied?
Todd
Clearly this is getting nowhere. We seem to be passing each other, non unlike Martin Luther and Church when the words being used had different meanings for each.
Culture is about people; it is a product of human activity and originates in the soul. I think it was Von Balthasar who once pointed out that culture stretches an arch between earth and heaven, between the spiritual soul and the body. A culture can be beautiful when it is founded on Truth and Beauty.
As for Todd's remarks, what he says is not necessarily false although he fails to distinguish the different types of beauty. I am sure that Stalin was beautiful, but perhaps not morally. He shared in Beauty to the extent that he had being, which is to say to the extent that he was like God, for the source of Beauty is God. Beauty leads to God.
Evangelization is important, but what about taking care of those that have been evangelized? They need Beauty too to get closer to God. The liturgy is important here.
By the way, dismissing arguments by referring the reader to read documents is silly, because you assume that you have the correct interpretation of those documents. That is problematical considering the "tensions", as Ratzinger called them, in not a few places in those documents. It is only now that we are starting to take another look at the conciliar documents to understand better what they actually meant, especially in the light of Church tradition.
Here are the principles held by the publishers of the New Liturgical Movement. Fisk away.
"The Church Music Association of America is an association of Catholic musicians and others who have a special interest in music and liturgy, active in advancing Gregorian chant, Renaissance polyphony, and other forms of sacred music, including new composition, for liturgical use. The CMAA’s purpose is the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority."
Mr. C. You're simply playing it safe. These are not the principles that underlie a claim. To have a special interest in music and liturgy is wonderful, and to advance Gregorian chant, Renaissance polyphony and other forms of sacred music is also a wonderful thing.
I have a special interest in iconography, and I am committed to advancing ancient iconography. But that is very different than making the claim that all sacred art must be iconography, or that the only images that ought to be permitted in Churches are icons–after all, contemporary sacred art is banal.
Get into your claims and then we'll see how many of those claims involve attributing necessity to what is only probable, or taking an opinion and raising it to the level of some objective and necessary truth.
Which one is Martin Luther and which one is "Church"? Do you all represent the "Martin Luther" part of the equation? Just curious.
Of course culture is about people. But to love a culture is not necessarily to be filled with supernatural charity. My love for a culture can be greater than my love for the people of that culture. And of course a culture can be beautiful when it is founded on truth and goodness (it's a bit redundant to say that a culture can be beautiful when it is founded on beauty, wouldn't you say?).
No one has addressed the point made above regarding Catholic as "all nations". The Church does not substitute one culture for another. It preserves all that is good in the original culture. Now here's my question, and I'd like an answer to it–otherwise we are going to argue in circles. What is "specific Catholic culture"? That was something employed above. Did the first century Christians have a specific Catholic culture? Did 2nd century Christians have a specific Catholic culture? 3rd century? 4th? Was it there right from the beginning? Of course, it was in development, as is all culture. But my question is: "What is specific Catholic culture?" Is it western or eastern? Or both? And has the Magisterium ever used such an expression? If so, where?
The following is from the USCCB site, and it expresses well the mind of the Church:
The diverse groups are made up of people at many different levels of acculturation to the American experience. While the Church has served as a conduit for this process of adaptation throughout U.S. history, the bishops today are very clear about the fact that the Church's mission is not to Americanize but to evangelize (You could even say "Europreanize"). This means respecting the languages, customs and style whereby particular cultures live their Catholic faith while seeking to form their emerging Catholic identity in light of the Word of God and Church teaching. Today this happens in the context of some strong, negative influences from contemporary culture and secular society. But the Church's response to these circumstances is not just negative or positive. It must be balanced and discerned.
The New Evangelization proposed by Pope John Paul II and further pursued by Pope Benedict XVI involves finding a fit between Catholic identity for today and the diverse cultural identities of the human family. That is why the U.S. bishops have set as one of their priorities the recognition of cultural diversity.
Deacon, YOU made the claim we are discussing. The burden of proof falls on YOU.
If a cop accused me of violating traffic laws, I would expect him to provide an example, and I would be outraged if he seized my car's black box so that he could examine it and tell me what laws I've broken.
Likewise, if someone here accused you of "heresy" without providing details, I would defend you.
But if someone were to accuse you of calumny against the New Liturgical Movement, your conduct here would make it difficult to form a defense. Why did you start posting here yesterday? To sell books? To serve as clergy to whatever lost souls you might find? No privilege of clergy immunizes you against the Christian's duty to protect everyone's reputation, nor a published writer's ethical duty of honesty.
This forum affords you an opportunity to withdraw the offensive words referred to in the title of this post, or to try to justify them if you can. You have done neither. It is a shame.
A person can be obedient … [b]ut … lack love
That is impossible because Love is not only the source of all Christian doctrine, but a commandment which every Christian must obey.
What you might say is that Christians can fall into the trap of using the exterior formalities of religion without actually growing in true piety. This is not a new claim, but is discussed with great insight by many Christian authors throughout the history of the Church, for example in Scupoli's Spiritual Combat (available here). But Scupoli goes on to say that these exterior works are nonetheless "powerful means for becoming truly perfect and truly holy".
That is far from impossible. Pharisees, prominent examples from the Bible, were obedient to the Law, yet criticized by the Lord for their lack of virtues.
Additionally, we're not talking about spiritual combat, but about dealings with flesh-and-blood believing Catholics sitting in the seat next to us.
I do not know who Scupoli is, but I do strive to understand Saint Paul.
Todd
I read Deacon M's article, and found that he specifically asserted that the people of the NLM are evil, and by posting here at Chant Café, implied that the people of the Chant Café are evil.
For those who know what I'm talking about, I share Taylor Marshall's criticism of Rorate Caeli for their reaction to Pope Francis.
How ironic that, in trying to support Pope Francis (who is showing himself to be a great Catholic leader), Deacon M has committed the offense that Pope Francis warned us not to do recently – speak with calumny against fellow Catholics.
Would that sane and temperate Catholic voices like the that of the late Lazslo Dobszay be understood by more clergy and church musicians.
Deacon M – you were wrong.
I'm not sure if you are all missing some of the posts above, but I've been replying to individual posts, and they appear to be hidden. So I'll re-post here something I posted above in reply to Vic:
No one has addressed the point made above regarding Catholic as "all nations". The Church does not substitute one culture for another. It preserves all that is good in the original culture. Now here's my question, and I'd like an answer to it–otherwise we are going to argue in circles. What is "specific Catholic culture"? That was something employed above. Did the first century Christians have a specific Catholic culture? Did 2nd century Christians have a specific Catholic culture? 3rd century? 4th? Was it there right from the beginning? Of course, it was in development, as is all culture. But my question is: "What is specific Catholic culture?" Is it western or eastern? Or both? And has the Magisterium ever used such an expression? If so, where?
The following is from the USCCB site, and it expresses well the mind of the Church:
The diverse groups are made up of people at many different levels of acculturation to the American experience. While the Church has served as a conduit for this process of adaptation throughout U.S. history, the bishops today are very clear about the fact that the Church's mission is not to Americanize but to evangelize (You could even say "Europreanize"). This means respecting the languages, customs and style whereby particular cultures live their Catholic faith while seeking to form their emerging Catholic identity in light of the Word of God and Church teaching. Today this happens in the context of some strong, negative influences from contemporary culture and secular society. But the Church's response to these circumstances is not just negative or positive. It must be balanced and discerned.
The New Evangelization proposed by Pope John Paul II and further pursued by Pope Benedict XVI involves finding a fit between Catholic identity for today and the diverse cultural identities of the human family. That is why the U.S. bishops have set as one of their priorities the recognition of cultural diversity.
Sorry, Chris, but I can't take you seriously. As for you, C., no, I did not start this blog. Someone posted my article, and you all took offense at the remark about fabricating a theology of music that I think is falsely attributed to Pope Benedict. I've explained myself enough, and you have replied. So, if that is not to your satisfaction, then as I requested above, provide a detailed outline of the basic principles underlying your claim, and we'll dismantle them one by one until the entire edifice is a big pile of rubble on the ground. But you've only taken little baby steps in that direction, and you've kept yourselves within the safe zone, and then dared me to attack. The fact that you've walked safely shows that you know where the line is and when you've crossed it. You are not crossing it for a reason. So take the plunge.
I'll bite at your invitation, Deacon. I hesitate to mention that I have somewhat concurred already with your "global" understanding of both ecclesial and liturgical evolution and you likely passed that by, and that's okay. I would like to dispense away with the liturgical aspects of Trent, assuming that you agree that the forementioned evolutions had a liturgical component arrive at their agendae, to which little relief or solidity was accomplished. But Trent also was a long, drawn out affair. The extant culture of that era was already sowing seeds in far flung potential colonial conquests and being grafted with varying success (+ in the Americas, – in Asia and Africa not already ensonsed in their own Christian rites.) Should you doubt that, consult the history of the villancico and other forms of enculturated hybrids that evolved in the Americas. Suggestion: don't cite the film "the Mission " on our behalf, it being a homogenized fiction. But one can neither cite the transplation of neo-European artistic cultural expressions, be they in music, architecture, liturgy or visual arts as a staple of 15/16/17th century colonial regions. (Haven't said a thing about morality, thus far, okay?)
You state the bishops today are very clear about the fact that the Church's mission is not to Americanize but to evangelize (You could even say "Europreanize"). This means respecting the languages, customs and style whereby particular cultures live their Catholic faith while seeking to form their emerging Catholic identity…
I think your argument would have been better suited had you stopped at "evangelize." Because the rest of your screed implies that evangelization is part and parcel of liturgy, which to some extent is true. But there are some bitter truths to defend if we take your path beyond the simple and inchoherent polyglot pastisches which pass for inclusive, enculturated event Masses at whatever scale at whatever church. One could defend to the death the sacrality of every aspect of the canonization Mass of San Juan Diego under JPII as illustrative of your demand for "respect." But I'm sure you find yourself discomfited on Dec.12 in any number of ill-executed mimicry of folklorico that is foisted upon a primarily Latino populace who no less about the history and significance of why OLOG and Juan Diego are monumentally huge and instrumental in the conversion of the Americas. Booking the available Mariachi band or having 30 minutes of felt Indian garb and pink flamingo (South Beach) headressed "dancers" gyrating to fiddle tunes isn't an authentic liturgical attribute. Another bitter truth-tell me how a gigormous thunder of taiko drum exhibition by caucasian taiko afficianados at this last spring's LAREC had jack to do with the conference's closing liturgy?
I digress. You are correct that you did not initiate this firefight. But, you have hardly demonstrated any "singing is for lovers" attitutde by offering to dismantle and raise this site to the ground, as I alluded to in my above Sodom reference.
As i do whenver these sorts of conflagurations flare up here, I invite us all to tone down the rhetoric and build up, rather than to deconstruct. Most folk seem to take that notion with a grains of salt. Let's hope you don't.
Errata (Jeffrey, get an edit button!)
"ensconsed"
"transplantation"
"know less"
I have no idea what the hell you just said here.
I did not start this…you all took offense at the remark about fabricating a theology of music that I think is falsely attributed to Pope Benedict…someone posted my article…I've explained myself enough…you dared me to attack
Look, I'm not a psychologist and I'm not going to treat you therapeutically. YOU posted YOUR article which attacked a specific publication, a web site known as the New Liturgical Movement (www.newliturgicalmovement.org),” target=”_blank”> (www.newliturgicalmovement.org), which is owned and operated by the Church Music Association of America. Though you have been asked several times, you have not provided a single example from that web site to justify your claims. You have an open forum here to correct this deficiency or to withdraw your attack.
Until you do, however, I can't see how a reader would dare assume that any of your other published writings on any topic, past or future, were or will be undertaken with a greater respect for truth and the reputation of persons than this particular offensive article.
ok, either this guy is permanently stoned or I'm really missing something.
Really, is there no one to answer Deacon Doug's question: "What is specific Catholic culture?" Is it western or eastern? Or both? And has the Magisterium ever used such an expression? If so, where?"
Could this be the key question?
Honestly, I don't really know what the principles of this movement actually are. As I said, I couldn't make any sense out of what they wanted from me:
No young singers(up to and including college age), no St. Louis Jesuit music, no music from the University of Stuebenville, no African American music, no ethnic music of any kind, no "Southern" music(whatever that is), and then a whole list of specifically banned composers: Marty Haugen, David Hass, Michael Joncas…and the list went on. I was told that none of this music is liturgical(an example of elevating an opinion to an objective and necessary truth?). And these were by no means the only limitations, there were many other nonsensical "directives" that would take too long to list. And there was never any explanation or discussion, what was implied was,"We think it, we say it, therefore it is true." The culture, history, norms of the parish were of no interest or concern to them.
None of this has any basis in Magisterial(or even Episcopal) documents, at least that I know about. As others have insightfully pointed out, this movement isn't just about promoting chant and polyphony, which most would agree is a good thing, it's equally, or more so, about "purging" the liturgy of perceived "impurities". But even in this there is inconsistency in the movement. There are the purists who think that only chant and polyphony belong in the liturgy. But there are others who also include hymnody from a certain era. There are others who include yet, the most saccharine sentimental songs from a certain era. People in this movement seem to have their own personal idea of what catholic culture is but it's very much based on "they know it when they see(hear) it." not any kind of Church documents, parish experience, or even common sense.
When I studied chant in the 80s and 90s it was just that, a bunch of people interested and excited about learning chant who would then go out to their respective parishes and incorporate what they could. It was all very positive, there was no sense that we were zealots for a cause and that parishes needed correction and parish repertoire needed purging. There was nothing negative attached to it. It was all very healthy and positive.
This new liturgical movement business is a whole other thing. My direct personal experience is that they are zealots for a cause, had just joined up because it seemed like a good thing and others were doing it, but they definitely had not thought things through on their own, nor sought the guidance of older, wiser, more experienced people. It was more a case of "Everyone's jumpin on board, let's go on board too, besides, the websites couldn't possibly be wrong." Honestly, and I mean this in the most charitable way, I think this kind of thing is attractive more to people who may have some kind of personality disorder.
Mr. Culbreth, with you on every point. It's very encouraging to see folks here trying to deal with the ISSUE at hand rather than the messengers. The latter can degenerate into an uncharitable mess, as seen in other blogs where having a difference of opinion is licence for savagery by the resident wolf pack. Pax.
Deacon M:
Re: Your statement: "Sorry, Chris, but I can't take you seriously."
Of course you would say that. But I take you seriously. You wrote and published an article stating that the people of "the New Liturgical Movement" are of "the Devil," and that seminaries should be on guard against them (i.e. purged of them). And what you wrote, what you did, what you are doing here on this site, is wrong.
When you commit an offense, you should admit it. But it seems you neither know nor care. It's too bad you didn't have a good editor to stop you from misfiring.
For those seeking a better understanding, may I suggest reading Pope Benedict's address to Bishops on the SPXX affair, or Pope Francis' recent address on calumny, and your brother's questions on Catholic culture might see some refreshing answers from great Catholic artists like Laszlo Dobszay.
' Marty Haugen, David Haas, Michael Joncas…and the list went on. I was told that none of this music is liturgical …'
The above is a remarkable statement. The above composers have wirtten some of the best liturgical music the Church has ever had.
Bravo! Spoken like a true gentleman and Christian.
@ Charles: I've only been on this forum for about a month but I'm always happy to see a post from Charles since he is consistently charitable, thoughtful and often quite profound. Sometimes I have to read his comments more than once to understand them, but I always thought that's my own educational deficiency, not his. : )
At any rate, I've found it very informative to pore through the Church's documents on the liturgy. I have a collection of the liturgical statements from Pope Benedict XIV to Pope Pius XII and what's immediately obvious is that this discussion of what constitutes sacred music as opposed to the profane has been ongoing for centuries and very clear and eminently reasonable guidelines have been set (and re-set) in the past.
Maybe this is a good starting point for discussion:
St. Pius X: sacred music must possess proper liturgical qualities, primarily HOLINESS and GOODNESS OF FORM, from which its other note, UNIVERSALITY, is derived." (my emphasis)
This is the helpful point in the article, out of the dozens of unhelpful generalizations and bizarre insults.
I have learned another great lesson from all this kerfuffle, Kathy. Never type a long response on a tablet keyboard. (I can hear both you and Liam saying "Charles, just dont type a long response, period!" 😉 But in this circumstance doing so earned me the libel of being "permanently stoned!" As a Californian, I'm confused as how to respond!
Strictly speaking, Catholic culture is the cultivation of the soul according to the mind of the Church. Practically speaking it encompasses the value sphere of the person, in other words, his worldview. Liturgically it encompasses the adoration of God in community. Devotionally, it shows itself in works of piety, and so forth according to Catholic teaching. It is what a Catholic as Catholic does, often counter-cultural to the prevailing non-Catholic society.
As for the question of music and inculturation in the Latin Church, the documents of Vatican II ask that Latin be retained for the liturgy; in the case of mission work, the readings at Mass may be in the vernacular, but everything else is to retain the official language of the Church. Gregorian chant has first place, and polyphony set to the text of the Propers is also welcomed when possible and desirable. This does not exclude some local works of the people as long as they are deign enough for adoring God in accordance with the mind of the Church.
Are Marty Haugen hymns part of Catholic culture? They should not be, and in fact are not. They have little to say about those ideas that are specifically Catholic, being mostly watered down universalist Christianity. Catholic hymns should have pride of place over the others if hymns are to be used at all in the Mass.
Pop style music does not belong in the Mass, because it is not sacred. The Mass is not for the pleasure of the people but for adoring God.
These are my opinions, so some may disagree with them.
You ended this off perfectly: "These are my opinions, so some may disagree with them". Wonderful. That's precisely what they are: "your opinions"–I say nothing about the validity of those opinions, just that they are your opinions. What you did NOT do is attribute all this to Benedict. In other words, you didn't overstate your case by giving your opinions an authority they simply do not possess.
This is the first sign of progress that I've seen on this forum.
I'll let Steve argue the finer points about music.
Vic's reply is not entirely subjective; that said, I agree with him. I would think that the documents to come out of Vatican II concerning Latin, chant, and polyphony, are pretty straight-forward. Just because we've ignored those documents for 50 years, or made a life in the loopholes contained in some of those documents, doesn't change facts.
Here's my opinion on Catholic culture: Catholic culture is the language, art, and music of the Catholic Church. I think the various documents speak very clearly about two out or three of those. So we must claim them or lose them. If we lose them, can we still be the Roman Catholic Church? Not a rhetorical question, BTW…
As for opinions regarding musical style… It seems to me that the church is pretty clear what She wants in terms of music. It should be our goal to GET there. Does that mean changing everything overnight, like what happened with SteveMcM? Absolutely not. There are several ways to gradually change ( no pun intended) the music OVER TIME so that we may achieve the musical and litugical goals of VII.
BTW, Charles C. I always enjoy your posts and insight into all of these matters. As someone accused of being quirky, we'll say, I'm with ya!
I’m a first time poster here. So far, and I hate to admit this because I've been attracted to this website and others for a couple of years now, but the deacon’s comments are by far the most interesting ones on this blog, at least to me, just clear and very logical and he presents ideas that I hadn’t considered before.(particularly the one about the Devil not being able to pull young people to the far left so he’ll do the next best thing and pull them to the far right) When I see that he’s posted I get excited to read it because it’s so clear and almost enlightening. I’m not sure it’s all true but almost no one else is contributing anything of substance to the contrary. We’re just crying about how he’s hurting everyone’s feelings. Come on people, let’s everyone stop crying and put something together to stop this guy. I'm being pulled in his direction!
oh my gosh, this is what I'm talking about, in the words of Arnold Schw: please "stop whining!"
I'm trying to figure out if there's any truth in this stuff or not. I don't care if someone is in general agreement with most other people on here. I'm not looking for agreement. I don't even care that much about civility and niceness. I just want the truth damn it!
Who ever listens to the Popes? At appears very few in Canada:
"Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)" PP Benedictus XVI, Sacramentum Caritas 62
"Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131)." Sacramentum Caritas 42
JohnO: You write: As for opinions regarding musical style… It seems to me that the church is pretty clear what She wants in terms of music. It should be our goal to GET there.
Well, no, it's not clear. It's clear to you, in your mind. Why? Because you confuse your opinion (what it is you like) with the official teaching of the Church. That's the point. For those who have read ALL the documents on music and liturgy, what is clear is that your position is narrow and does not faithfully express the mind of the Church. Yes, Gregorian chant has pride of place. Of course we ought to preserve the treasury of Polyphony. No one disputes that. But what does that mean? What it means for you is completely different than what it means for a normal "people-oriented" pastor who is called to serve in a small suburban parish that has only moderately talented singers and musicians, but who would like to serve by using their gifts for the liturgy. Yes, they are not great singers, but they're doing their best. They select music that is not inappropriate–they're not choosing the Beatles, or John Lennon's Imagine, or Led Zeplin, etc. But they like some sentimental Christian songs, like Michael W. Smith, or some Stubenville stuff, etc. Great. Wonderful. It's not my cup of tea, but the congregation likes it, and that's where they are at. To say that this kind of music is contrary to the will of the Church is nonsense. The documents don't support that claim.
So it's not as clear as you think. It's clear in your mind. Unfortunately, you confuse your mind with the mind of the Church. People who lack a sense of the limitations of human knowing tend to make that mistake. Some even hide behind a veritable orchestra of verbal obfuscation in order not to be understood, as a defense mechanism against possible criticism. But Catholic means "all nations". The Church embraces all cultures and transforms them from within. That does not mean that all cultural expressions are equal, or equally beautiful (although the question of what constitutes beautiful music or art is not simple, by any stretch). It's hard to beat polyphonic renaissance choral music, but there are not many people who have the talent to direct a choir to achieve that level. But the claim that this and only this, and not that, etc., that's you talking, not the Church.
Vic quotes: "Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)" PP Benedictus XVI, Sacramentum Caritas 62
Who has any dispute with this? The problem is that you read a whole world into this. There's a problem of hermeneutics, as is clear from the way you responded to posts above. There's a serious inability to interpret accurately and objectively, to actually read what was said. So I don't doubt that you would read a whole new universe into those words above.
Let's continue:
"Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131)." Sacramentum Caritas 42
Gosh, what was that introductory line again? "…while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions…" I wonder what that means. I wonder whether we need to even stop and ask ourselves what that means. Why don't we just pass it over and pretend it was never said, and just push Gregorian chant and Renaissance choral music in our parishes and ditch all these other styles and traditions?
I am impressed that you actually quoted this and didn't edit it in any way. But I just find myself wondering what it is that is going through your mind when you read that first line. Does your mind tune out until that sentence is over and done with?
Who ever listens to the Popes? At appears very few in Canada:
Actually, what you should have said was: "At least one person is not listening to the Popes". But the very fact that you said "very few in Canada" reveals a strange inability to form a proper inductive argument. If out of 100 Canadian bloggers on this forum, only a few actually listen to the Pope, then you might conclude that it is likely that few Canadians listen to the Pope, but the sample is not representative enough, so it is an invalid form of inductive reasoning. But that one Canadian, in your mind, fails to listen to the Pope, does not allow you to conclude that few Canadians listen to the Pope. Why do I bring this up? Because I think, as someone said above, that there's something wrong with your ability to think logically and validly. You're not the only one. Your minds are not sound, they are not clear, they are distorted. As Aristotle says: "As a person is, so does he see". You people need to get off this blog and start doing works of mercy, as Pope Francis recommends. Get your hands dirty and start working with the poor, the sick, the hopeless, and then you'll begin to manifest the divine beauty.
This thread has grown … interesting. Not having traced every typed word (nor do I really want to) I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.
I read a lot of people taking offense at newcomers to your site. Maybe it's time to step back for a day or two, and attempt to resurrect portions of this discussion in more digestible bites. I think y'all are trying to throw too much gunk into the discussion. It's not going anywhere constructive, far as I can see.
Steve's witness at his former parish was that a good music program that included chant, plus a lot of other musical styles, was gutted at the initiative of a new pastor. It seems that some babies (like polyphony) were thrown out with the SLJ's and their bathwater. And other composers banned. This is just silliness on the part of an otherwise sensible Dominican order. Were these guys CMAA members? NLM advocates? Colloquium attendees? I don't know, but apparently the damage across all genres was pretty severe.
There are indeed a lot of subjective judgments going on in NLM circles, people wrapping themselves in mantles of so-called faithfulness. The reality is that a lot of musical things go these days. They have for half a century now. The pope seems satisfied enough that if we're making honest mistakes in the cause of evangelization and the Gospel, he's willing to tolerate the occasional "blunder."
Whatever Pope Benedict said, did, or wanted seems to be out the door. And we all realize that in our parishes, the pastor is boss, and I don't recall the last time a bishop clamped down on a priest because he hired or fired the wrong or right sort of music director. So if the parish across town is singing Michael W Smith, Steve Angrisano, and David Haas, there's not a bloody thing any chanter can do about it. Nothing. And they will still have "Catholic" applied to their parish. And the CMAA folks in the music department will need to rely not on forbidden lists, but on the natural attractiveness not only of the music, but of their people as well. The last time I checked, the evangelical Protestant raid on dechurched Catholics is beating the crap out of the swelling numbers of neo-cons going to Mass in traditional chapels. Anybody concerned about that?
Todd
There is a difference between logic and rhetoric, between logos and pathos.
My experience of the Church in Canada has not exactly been very positive. There is no need to wonder why in the scope of a decade Catholicism in Quebec became almost extinct.
I never said that local compositions cannot be admitted into the liturgy. But they have to be Catholic and artistically equal to or, rather, superior to what they are meant to replace, namely Gregorian chant and traditional polyphony.
I think you misunderstand me, sir, or, more likely, I don't fully explain ( tough do do between lessons, when checking the Cafe!). We can take the people from where they ARE ( any of your examples above) and lead them to where they SHOULD be ( fact or opinion, interpret how you want) For example: I used the refrain of Psalm 27 as set by David Haas and Meinrad psalm tones as the Entrance hymn last week. Why? Because I want my congregation to make a connection between the printed Propers ( in our missal Entrance and Communion only) and 'the music.' In my parish, We are at the beginning stages of where I think we should be, in my humble learned opinion. Will we ever be where 'we should be?' I hope so, but frankly I don't know. I respect the idea of local custom/ pastoral discression. BUT… I think the overarching view of the universal Church should be kept in mind; hence my affinity for Latin, chant, and polyphony.
I've had to revise my plan several times. Much as your brother's priest's poo-pooed the 'new,' mine poo-poo an over abundance of LC&P. I now dress up English chant, I look for song settings of the Propers, and Latin is relegated to a few songs and the choir. Every week, season, year, I try to do more.
I don't think I said "this stuff" was contrary to the will of the Church. I think the Church wants to take a people from where they are and bring them into the catholic faith. ( another agrgument). Slow and steadybisnthe way to go. But, I think, it should be done. If we leave people where they are, they will lack for something
Deacon, sir, what is your main job at your parish? Just curious.
I am. Do we sell out to get numbers? I honestly don't know the answer. I think I'm a 'go down with the ship' guy.
The liturgy is not totally about the people. It is not about what the congregation likes or dislikes which is Protestantism. It is about God, about adoring Him. To adore Him requires special (sacred) form and content. Sentimentalism does not belong in the Mass.
The Church has given us ideals that everyone should strive for: Gregorian chant and polyphony. Contemporary music for the liturgy must use these as standards for composition. It is not found it today's pop culture which exudes of godlessness.
Singing the Propers in English according to the SEP (Simple English Propers) is not particularly difficult even for an amateur choir. But there has to be a will for this, which requires a change of orientation from this world to the heavenly world.
How many suburban parishes in Canada have even heard of the SEP? How many even know what the Propers are? Yet the Propers ARE officially part of the Mass.
You just have no idea what you are talking about. This is what I mean by "fabricating a theology of music that is falsely attributed to Benedict". This is YOU talking. What does it mean "they have to be Catholic"? What the heck does that mean? If they are written by a non Catholic, but a Christian nonetheless? And by what criterion are you going to judge that it is equal to chant or polyphony? And who said it must be equal to? Who? Benedict? It should be tasteful, indeed. But equal to? What does that mean? What a pompous man you are. What nerve!
"An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony." [Speaking in the Sistine Chapel following a tribute concert to Dominico Bartolucci, June 24, 2006.]Sentimentalism does not belong in the Mass.
What an arrogant fool! I'm sorry to say this, but you are simply too much. Logos and pathos. What a pompous **s. Of course your experience of the Church in Canada has not been positive. We got our problems, as does the U.S., but holy s***, with you around, yeah, there would be problems. I'd tell you to leave and "don't come back". People like you generate the reactionaries. If you were in charge of the music, I'd head out and find myself the fluffiest parish with the fluffiest most sentimental music there is, just to get away from the pomposity. Sorry man, but this is something else. I gotta get off this thing.
Thanks for that Vic. You've cleared things up for me.
We can take the people from where they ARE ( any of your examples above) and lead them to where they SHOULD be
Yeah, and you are going to tell us where they should be. Marvelous. I feel very confident now.
( fact or opinion, interpret how you want) For example: I used the refrain of Psalm 27 as set by David Haas and Meinrad psalm tones as the Entrance hymn last week. Why? Because I want my congregation to make a connection between the printed Propers ( in our missal Entrance and Communion only) and 'the music.'
I bet they all got it.
In my parish, We are at the beginning stages of where I think we should be, in my humble learned opinion.
"My humble learned opinion". Enough said! Wow!
Will we ever be where 'we should be?' I hope so, but frankly I don't know.
I do. Only if you are in charge will we finally arrive.
I respect the idea of local custom/ pastoral discression. BUT… I think the overarching view of the universal Church should be kept in mind; hence my affinity for Latin, chant, and polyphony.
Correction: the overarching view of Vic, the humble and learned music director, should be kept in mind.
I've had to revise my plan several times.
What a saint you are! What a heavy cross you are forced to carry.
Much as your brother's priest's poo-pooed the 'new,' mine poo-poo an over abundance of LC&P.
Look again. I think he's poo-pooing your humble and learned pomposity.
I now dress up English chant, I look for song settings of the Propers, and Latin is relegated to a few songs and the choir. Every week, season, year, I try to do more.
Heroic virtue!
I don't think I said "this stuff" was contrary to the will of the Church. I think the Church wants to take a people from where they are and bring them into the catholic faith.
You don't say! And the Church needs people like you to bring them there.
Slow and steadybisnthe way to go. But, I think, it should be done. If we leave people where they are, they will lack for something
The only thing that needs to be done is to remove, slowly and steadily, people like you from the music programs of our parishes. You've got an agenda, and you confuse it with the will of the Church. The Church is so much larger than your limited purview. Sorry Vic,
correction
A change of orientation from this world to the heavenly world! Wow! You are one piece of work! You need to get your a** out of the heavenly clouds and follow the descent of the Word into the darkness of human suffering. As for your question, I'll send out a questionnaire to all pastors to see how many of our parishes have even heard of SEP and how many know what the Propers are and get back to you. And if they don't know, we'll get you to come up and re-orientate our lives from this world to the heavenly world, and all our problems will be solved.
You ass, that was my comment. You'll dress it up, I'll call a spade a spade…
JohnO
No offense, Deacon, but who made you the authority on any of these matters? We could quote Vatican 2 and dozens if not hundreds of other magisterial documents, along with page after page of the writings of the Pope Emeritus, and you would still respond as though you personally should be making infallible pronouncements to the contrary. So I guess I'm wondering whether you have been personally selected to be a special magisterium all by yourself, and if so, by whom.
Since this is a family friendly site, perhaps the clergy might be persuaded to hold his temper and keep the opprobrium and obscenity levels down? That would be so nice.
To me, a GenerationXer and one born well after VIi, it seems to me that that deacon is a product of the 1960's: to hell with all that came before; if it makes you feel good, do it; I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK. What makes it worse, though, is that he keeps on proclaiming that he loves chant and polyphony, but if it's not for you, to Hell with whatever the Church says about it ( in the spirit of " I'm with ya, brother!)
This guy has sold out to the forces of progressivism a long time ago. He was so enraged that he could not discriminate between two different bloggers on this site: because of a similar message, he seemed to have confused me and Vic on a few occasions. He attacked a well respected blogger/ former contributor.
This guy must have been a football player in years past: a good defense is a strong offense. He makes assumptions, jumps on those with both feet, and proceeds to try to sell books. He leads with his jaw, and basically accuses others of which he is guilty.
Good luck, deacon. Your generation's days are numbered.
Please read a better translation of the documents. All things are NOT equal. The Church is clear as too what she wants. Do the documents specify forms other than chant or polyphony? Do our popes encourage music based on popular forms? Please stop your populist rant, all under the guise of "I love polyphony and chant…but it's just as sound as any baser form of music." Get a degree in music, or better yet, two. THEN we'll talk. I'm done
Some people are interested in truth, some people in entertainment. Left and Right are not Catholic terms. In the Church's eyes, there is good and there is evil. You can't get too "far good". The battle between good and evil is not a spectator sport, something you watch on television.
Following the Church's teachings and disciplines is always good. But there are many aspects of Church teaching. The Church is not a cafeteria. Picking one teaching, say, feeding the poor, and excluding another, like honoring one's parents, is not a recipe for getting to Heaven. Likewise, following the liturgical ritual to the letter in church doesn't mean you're a saint. Speaking of which, charity in argument is part of the Church's teaching.
The authors and editors of the New Liturgical Movement and the officers and members of the CMAA pledge to follow Church teaching and legislation always. Nobody's perfect, but I trust their intentions and the ones I know are well-formed Catholics. Still, it's possible that some of their readers will misinterpret what they are saying and miss the bigger picture. Don't be that guy.
I can't say I see the connection between General Sherman and this thread. It strikes me that y'all have had far too much practice, if not glee in ganging up on me over the years. How many others has CMAA chased away from its forums? People who arrived in good faith to discuss, sometimes at Jeffrey's express invitation?
A bigger problem I see with the Café and CMAA is the insider mentality. At worst, it could be taken as a brand of Gnosticism, an insider's knowledge of the Catholic faith. We know that's just not happening in truly orthodox circles. And Charles, my friend, while your friends have come to regard your obtusity with some affection, one has to admit it doesn't play as well to the uninitiated.
It strikes me that if you're judging a conversation by the way one side can impose its will on another, that the home team isn't doing so well. Maybe that feels like a march to the sea in comparison–who knows?
There's a charge in the linked essay that some Catholics place too much credence in a "correct" liturgy. I agree with that. Liturgy remains a means to an end. A wonderful means that is the specialty of most people on this site. Also an artistic expression that for some, has become a battleground, as Charles notes.
Is it accurate that Charles perceives this particular thread as a battle, and as a battle lost?
Todd
Sell out? Only to our own obstructions to the Gospel. The whole mission of the Church is to love others and to make disciples worldwide. Everything else is a means to that end. And an exercise in our getting out of the way.
Todd
I don't get that from the deacon at all. And when the documents don't go the way of some people, including some on this site, they conveniently ignore them.
"Infallible pronouncements" and "special magisterium" are caricatures of the argument with which you're being presented.
The differences in this discussion aren't about who can quote documents more often and more accurately. It's always been about the tolerance for wiggle room. A new pastor came in and gutted a parish music ministry Steve built up with parishioners. He has the "power" and the "right" to do that. The documents say so.
But the judgment involved is this: was it prudent to do so? Prudence is the key to much of this discussion.
Todd
Perhaps you don't see the fault of the deacon's ravings because he looks at the Church with Todd-colored glasses. You both subscribe to the thankfully waning insider mentality that has dragged the Liturgy down to the aesthetic proportions of a fifth grade skit, for decades. If not for the leadership of the Pope Emeritus, as in so many areas, we might still be dragging our knuckles on the floor of the caves of despair. You should see the light, Todd. Come, lice in the Light! (descending bass run IV-I).
(Haha, that was supposed to be"live." I wasn't technically saying that song is lousy.)
Liturgy remains a means to an end.
Liturgy is also the end.
So y'all have provoked the deacon to "ravings." Congrats on that. Do I get a notch for baiting you into the "Todd-colored glasses" comment?
I do like the lice, but the bass run is ascending from I to I-6. Generally, one uses the notes for a bass run, not the harmony.
Todd
Not in this world. The end is the making of disciples for Christ worldwide (Matt 28:19) and loving God and neighbor (the great commandment). Liturgy, when it doesn't or cannot further that mission, has turned on itself.
Todd
I do not know who Scupoli is
That would probably explain the impoverishment of your understanding of St. Paul. Not only did Fr. Scupoli understand the Apostle's teachings as a whole far better than you or I, but he was also able to express them in a refined and precise way that continues to edify even to this day. He is not alone in that, nor did he come up with his expressions by himself, but built upon the work of other saints, mystics and theologians in the Church who came before him, and his work in turn has been built upon by those who came after. In other words, he thought with the Church and interpreted Scripture with the Church, which is why he understood Scripture correctly.
Pharisees…were obedient to the Law
The Pharisees were not obedient to the Law, except in their minds, as Our Lord himself says – cf. Matthew 23:23.
Additionally, we're not talking about spiritual combat, but about dealings with flesh-and-blood believing Catholics sitting in the seat next to us.
This is spiritual combat, as is all Christian life.
Well, I think there's more than one side to this coin, Todd. I agree with your general summary of the mission of the Church. I think a parish should be a warm, inviting place. However, I also think that there's different types of warm-n-fuzzy, so to speak. That said, what is the point, the mission, if you will, of the Mass? Isn't basically to glorify and worship God? And if that's the case, why not have art, music, attire that's set aside for him?
One difference that I see with the evangelical Prots is that their worship service is very much "people-centered." I know that there are those who would argue for that (hey, we gotta get butts in the seats). I stand by my comments above (which I think were attributed to Vic by the Deacon…) I try to meet my congregation where they are/were (I've been at my current place for 2 years). I try to program some form of the Propers when possible. Why? Because they're part of the Mass. Am I always able to do that? No, and maybe this is where I thank God for "Option 4." At any rate, the goal is always full, conscious, and actual participation.
For the record, I enjoy your insights and appreciate your comments on this site. It's distastful when the "hate-parade" begins. As always, good talking with you.
JO
There is one Liturgy on earth and in heaven. Does Liturgy ever not further the Church's mission?
But it is certainly possible for things that happen at Liturgy to prevent the faithful from receiving the grace available. If the participants do not devote themselves fully to worshiping the Triune God at Mass, but instead treat it as a community ritual, social event or concert, they not only harm themselves but they may scandalize those around them.
John, actually Vatican II was explicit in a twofold aim of the Mass: believers joining in the worship of the Father and the openness to the sanctification of believers. Why can't we have art, music, attire, etc. set aside for the Father? We can, as long as it doesn't negate the other purpose of the Mass, which involves being open to the cultivation and development of holiness. The witness of the Gospels, especially the Lord's own teachings in parables, would suggest that God has a bias toward the outsider, not the insider.
In other words, you and I serve God and other people in the liturgy. The liturgy does not exist to cater to my tastes, or yours, or any of ours.
The propers are not a magic formula that permit us a short cut for doing better liturgy.
Todd
LOL! Maybe that was a Freudian slip.
When you read the documents you can clearly see a progression. When you read them carefully you get a sense of things opening up, not clamping down and purging. As Catholic Sensibility said somewhere on here something about building a repertoire, not deleting it, that's very much in line with what you see in the documents. Now obviously, if something was allowed in and it contradicts catholic teaching then, of course, it has to be deleted. But that's generally not what they're talking about.
Here's part of a document I'm sure goes ignored around here:
"2….
c. Congregational singing is to be fostered by every means possible, even by use of new types of music suited to the culture of the people and to the contemporary spirit."
Liturgicae Instaurationes
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy, September 5, 1970
Notice it's saying "suited to the culture of the people". It's not saying anything about an imaginary "catholic culture" . And it clearly encourages new types of music in the "contemporary" spirit. Is that pretty clear?
This movement is just dishonest in it's representing the will of the church. And I can tell you, the place I mentioned where I used to work, it had become a culture of non-transparency and often outright dishonesty to the parish, not only that, they wanted me to participate in it. That is not what the church is about.
You can tell things by their fruits. There's something wrong here, this is not God's work. I agree with the deacon, this movement is a fabrication. It's almost like a cult.
I guess this is what is called a no-holds-barred discussion. : ) Very illuminating, to say the least, and I applaud those commenters who persevered in charity and patience despite intense provocation, but it's good to remember that as the nature of music and culture has evolved (and devolved) there has been a perennial struggle in the Church over which new forms of music might be admitted into the liturgy (and many bitter arguments along the way you can be sure.)
Of all the papal recommendations on how to distinguish between the sacred vs the profane, I believe this advice from Pope St. Pius X (Tra le sollicitudini, 1903) is the most helpful:
"Sacred music must be holy, and therefore exclude everything that is secular, both in itself and in its rendition.
It must be true art. In no other way can it affect the minds of the hearers in the manner which the Church intends in admitting into her liturgy the art of sound.
It must also be universal in this sense, that, although individual countries may admit into their ecclesiastical compositions proper forms native to each, still these forms must remain so subordinate to the general character of sacred music that no hearer of another nation might be disturbed thereby."
Thanks for replying without attacking my person 😉 You know, I forgot that part about the VII aim of the Mass. Heard/ read about it a while ago…thanks for clarifying! Probably a forest-for-the-trees thing. I agree about the Propers not being a short cut. I will go one step further and say that poorly executed Propers make for a worse liturgy. Hence, my thankfulness for "Option 4." OTOH, I do take the POV that the Propers are little mini-lessons. A properly-executed Proper ( yes, I did that) can allow the assembly to sing and hear Scripture and allow them to be aware of what else is happening in the Mass. Songs and hymns don't always do that. And yes, sometimes they do: It was thrilling when, after the organ solo, the entire congregation sang "God We Praise You" at Offertory a few weeks ago. It was equally as thrilling when they all sang the refrain of David Haas' Ps. 27 and a cantor sang the verses on psalm tones during the Entrance. A multi-sensory experience…
Amen.
Well, I don't know that not knowing an obscure author, a non-saint, impoverishes my understanding of St Paul. Clearly, I'm not privy to the same information you are.
I focus on the saints, the people I know. As for the people sitting next to me, or the people across the blogging aisle, the spiritual combat isn't with them. The combat is within: my own attitudes.
Todd
"Does Liturgy ever not further the Church's mission?"
Are we talking about our failed attempts to impose our views? Certainly preachers, presiders, musicians have blundered badly, and even sinned, and yet the liturgy as a whole retains its efficacy. Even when it seems to be community ritual, social event, or a concert of the choir performing the Mass propers.
My own view is that God is praised by David Haas' full setting of Psalm 27, and people are moved to holiness through it. I think some folks are bothered by that, but I think it is true.
Todd
Most music composed today for the assembly is based on Scripture. I don't know that Psalm 27 functions better at entrance than Communion, at least an antiphonal form. If my community knew God Is Love to Abbot's Leigh, I'd rather have them sing the stanza-hymn at entrance. Good music directors have heads on their shoulders. Sometimes I thinnk we can make better Scriptural choices than what the ordinary time propers (which are totally unaligned with the Lectionary) give us. I pay more attention to them during Advent, Lent, etc..
I didn't have a problem programming Isaiah 43 for Communion instead of Psalm 18 this past weekend. I thought Haas' "You Are Mine" was a better fit. That's one of the drawbacks of the Propers: not enough material from the poetic passages of either Old or New Testaments.
Todd
Relying on your own lights to approach St. Paul is what is impoverishing. When you get around to re-reading St. Francis de Sales, you'll find his recommendation of Ven. Scupoli's book, which is still regarded as one of the most important books of Catholic spirituality. In fact, if you read any of the great books of Catholic spirituality, or even the Catechism, you'll find the same message which is the one Faith:
Liturgical rules should be followed, but there is a danger of thinking that liturgical perfection alone is progress in the Christian life. Even though there is a danger, liturgical rules should still be followed.
When two principles are held in apparent tension, especially when the principles are found in Sacred Scripture, treating the principles as opposed or at some level mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy which ruptures the unity of teaching, even unity within the Body of Christ. Charity AND liturgy. Beauty AND participation. Paul AND Scupoli. Vatican II AND Trent. Francis AND Benedict.
As a side note, I'm really curious…What did I say that would cause you to assume that I was asking you to wage spiritual warfare against other people?
I think we're mostly on the same page on this then. I've never seen the Mass propers performed like a concert, but I assume it's possible if pride gets in the way. When you said it, I imagined a choir and director bowing to the congregation after the Introit to thunderous applause, instead of bowing during the Introit and with the clergy and congregation facing the Cross at the Gloria Patri.
As far as the Haas Psalm 27, I'd never heard it before and Googled it. It struck me as distracting and awful. The problem with using the 3rd person here (i.e., it might work for "someone else") is that we tend to make this argument a lot in the modern age. Catholic truth works for me, but his morality works for him. So for myself, I've heard better tunes for this Psalm, and by better tunes I mean tunes with less distracting movement in the accompaniment, and a simpler and more haunting and catchy melody line that is easier to sing and remember, and that both of these combined help me to focus on the text. And I'd imagine that everyone else shares my opinion, because I have never found there to be much diversity of taste when it comes to liturgical music–just a lot of ignorance about other options and the force of acquired habits.
I don't find Pope Pius's advice at all helpful. It was also superceded by Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is good to know that sacred forms and genres can widen to include many varied expressions of human musical culture. For the greater glory of God.
Todd
Really? What in Sacrosanctum Concilium makes you think that it "supersedes" the teachings and disciplinary decisions of the popes who came before it?
I don't see how SC has superceded the above citations from Tra le sollicitudini. Are you saying that true art does not belong in the liturgy, or that sacred music should not be holy and so include the profane, or that it makes no difference that hearers from other nations could be disturbed by music from another nation. I fail to find any of these in Sc.
After looking at the available settings of Ps. 18, we sang Behold the Lamb (Willet) at Communion. I thought Ps 27 went very nicely with the first reading and Gospel.
I know most new music is Scripture based. Now, what does that music sound like without the words? 🙂 Just kidding with you! No reply necessary. You may be suprised that I was looking into jazz masses 3 years ago, and even programmed spirituals for the choir. (This was in a rather WASPy town, BTW) This whole thread has left me somewhat exhausted.
But you fail to cite the passage before and after:
"b. Sources for the entrance and communion antiphons are: the Graduale romanum, The Simple Gradual, the Roman Missal, and the compilations approved by the conferences of bishops. In choosing chants for Mass, the conferences should take into account not only suitability to the times and differing circumstances of the liturgical services, but also the needs of the faithful using them."
Note that it speaks of antiphons (chant), not hymns. How often do your choirs use the GR for the Introit and Communion?
"d:The Church does not bar any style of sacred music from the liturgy [13]. Still, not every style or the sound of every song or instrument deserves equal status as an aid to prayer and an expression of the mystery of Christ. All musical elements have as their one purpose the celebration of divine worship. They must, then, possess sacredness and soundness of form[14], fit in with the spirit of the liturgical service and the nature of its particular parts; they must not be a hindrance to an intense participation of the assembly [15] but must direct the mind's attention and the heart's sentiments toward the rites."
That is precisely what I have been saying. Godless pop music does not fit into this category of the sacred.
As far as c. is concerned, it was referring to the sung Ordinary of the Mass, following Pius X's idea of active participation. Otherwise section 2 as a whole contradicts itself. Also, c talks about new music being suited to the culture of the people, not chant, which is pretty sensible. But d gives the general standards to adhere to in all this, which is what I have been saying all along.
In case you have forgotten, the Graduale romanum, The Simple Gradual, and the Roman Missal are part of Catholic culture.
St. Nicolas du Chardonnet at Paris is not FSSP, but FSSPX. The FSSPX have tried very hard to promote the active participation that both Pius X and Vatican II had asked for. Ironically, they have more active participation from the people than do some NO Masses I have attended.
This is fine for the context in which it was written in 1903. When you read it as part of the history, as part of a whole series of documents it's interesting and always pertinent in some ways. But keep in mind that document came out long before the church had any interest in congregational singing or any kind of "full, active, conscious participation" and was really addressing issues particular to that time. As far as being the sole guide for a person responsible for developing a music program in a parish in this country for a possibly very diverse congregation, I actually wouldn't find this too helpful either.
The quote I made from Liturgicae Instaurationes has a very different flavour because the church is addressing something very different here that didn't even exist back then; the importance of congregational singing using music that is suited to whatever the particular culture as it exists today. The document is not denying chant and polyphony. This is a great example of the church desiring more fullness for us. That's not reducible to any kind of simplistic formula.
Rev. Deacon, Steve,
Sorry no-one gave you a proper welcome to this site, please let me do so. Let me share a little personal experience: I converted from conservative Lutheranism 6 years ago. I had come to the conclusion that Lutheranism was a dead end and that the Catholic Church, whose teaching I had long admired, was the one true Church. I found it pretty disillusioning, though, when I discovered that many ordinary, mainstream Catholics themselves question central points of Church teaching, cohabitate before marriage etc. However, the picture is very different at my local Traditional Mass, where everyone who attend are orthodox and serious Catholics. If I had not discovered that community I am not sure I would have persevered in the Faith.
Now I am absolutely not saying that communities who celebrate the newer liturgy can not also be orthodox and serious. Of course not – such communities make up probably 99.9% of the global Catholic Church. What I am saying is that in my experience there is a lot of good in the Traditionalist movement, and a lot of God's grace working there.
Are there also people who are too zealous? Who are tactless? Of course. We are all fallen, and zealotry and tactlessness are especially the failings of the devout, but I have met very few in the Traditionalist movement who was not motivated by a genuine and serious Faith and a desire for God's glory.
I have not met any who have "personality disorders" as you say, Steve, except perhaps one rather ill-tempered and narcissistic priest who actually went from loving the traditional liturgy to hating it in a matter of months. I think that comment was extremely disparaging and uncharitable to all of us who are involved in the movement for better and more traditional liturgy, but I understand where you are coming from, given that you have apparently come across some of us who were especially rude and unhelpful. In my experience they are not representative of those involved in the New Liturgical Movement, and I would like to remind you that there are also people on the modernizing side who are just as "Fundamentalist" in their stance against traditional liturgical practices and every bit as tactless. I have also met those, and I do not therefore judge you to be likewise.
Rev. Deacon,
You ask who is questioning the role of chant and polyphony? Well, in my experience very many people are. Only a handful of churches where I live use chant to any degree, and then only occasionally. The church I attend has been the only one to seriously keep up a tradition of gregorian chant in the new liturgy, but the number of Ordinary Form Masses celebrated with chant has been cut down from 4 to 1 a month the past couple of years. Some time ago, a layperson got a public fit in the diocesan newspaper because the Credo was sung in Latin at the annual diocesan pilgrimage.
Chant is decaying, yet it is not because good newer music is taking over. Its place is being taken by Mass settings from the 1970's (that are at best reasonable, at worst saccharine and in my opinion not conducive to adoration) and old hymns, most of them originally Protestant. We are not singing the propers and so not fully singing the Mass, as the Church in numerous documents wants us to do.
Are these things not worth correcting?
Todd, you are your own special creature, God love you. As far as I can tell, your reasons for dialogue are an attempt to justify your use of really lousy music because you think it's helping you make disciples, which is actually a really big claim.
I mean, most if not all of us work with apostolic intent. But you seem to be claiming that you have hit on the way of apostolic success, to the point of automatically denigrating those who aim at apostolic success in other ways–as magisterially taught. Which is all the more bizarre considering that you are well versed in what the documents actually say, as a cursory look at your blog demonstrates.
Methinks thou dost protest too much, and so does the deacon.
I don't recall saying I rely on my own lights (?) to approach Saint Paul. I just haven't been acquainted with Lorenzo Scupoli. Suggesting that missing one dude is an impoverishment is like saying a millionaire is broke because she doesn't have a $2 bill.
As for your question, I think so-called spiritual warfare is irrelevant to the thread.
Todd
I think you're going to have to make a stronger effort at listening and dialogue to get anywhere near what's going on with me, Kathy.
Once again, I will say the main difference between me and most of the people in the Cafe is not my dislike of chant and traditional music, but that I'm willing to cast my net much wider, and I'm unwilling to indulge the hermeneutic of subtraction as the main tool of discerning sacred music.
Todd
Todd,
You want dialogue? Engage in dialogue. Use your head and your discretion on other blogs as you do on your own. Reference documents. Don't use power tactics. Don't start fighting and namecalling out of the box. I know you know how to do these things, without punching and ducking like a belligerent adolescent.
Actually, Kathy, I didn't say I wanted dialogue. I merely suggested that if you wanted to avoid misdiagnosing me, you would have to make a better effort at it. Instead, it has been you who have used zingers such as "Todd-colored glasses" and "special magisterium."
We know from the documents that there's nothing against church teaching in any music Steve or I have programmed.
Todd
I don't think so. The Church's liturgy has moved from Latin to the vernacular and the propers have not quite caught up with the reformed Lectionary, especially in ordinary time. New compositions are still tried, and many different styles have been adopted for sacred music.
It is true that many compositions are quite poor. But just as important is how good music is presented and sung.
As long as we are singing the Mass ordinary, the dialogues, litanies, and psalms, and using good texts set to good music, we're on the right track. The truth is that even mediocre music from the St Louis Jesuits was a huge improvement over devotional and catechetical hymnody that came before it.
Todd
Todd for Bishop!
Charles, wow, I completely missed the point of the video and I still didn't couldn't make a lot of sense out of what you said, and this is from someone who is into "space" topics. Yes, I would say it's pretty stoner, but you're from California so it can be excused! LOL But don't worry, I won't judge. Seriously, if you're ever in Cinci please look me up. We'll have a few beers and you can wax poetic all you want and I'll enjoy it. I'm not kidding. I'm well aware that when someone is presented with something just out of their reach of their understanding it triggers their mind to work overtime. That happened to me when I first heard Mahler's 10th symphony. I sort of got it but it was just at the edge of what I could understand(harmonically) at the same time. But I soon learned to love that piece.
It seems my brother has been banned from the site. So I'll post his last post and say my goodbyes also, unless I've been banned too. ha ha
It's been fun. Sorry for any insults. No harm intended. It's all good.
Here's Deacon Doug:
Okay, if you all buy my book, I’ll let bygones be bygones.
Just kidding!
But I do have to laugh–or my colleagues will certainly laugh–, that I've been called a progressive and a product of the 60s. I've never been called a progressive before, only a radical conservative, a right wing nutcase, etc. Progressives (Lefties) who are products of the 60s don't defend Humanae Vitae: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moral…
nor the papacy: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe…
Nor do they defend Church teaching on women priests: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe…
But that's the problem with ultra rights. They label those who disagree with them as progressives. They are suspicious of those who see things differently.
In any case, Steve's quote says it all. That settles the debate, as far as I am concerned. The Holy Father has spoken. A colleague of mine (a Marxist who thinks he’s faithful to Catholic social teaching and who fancies himself a social activist) tried to set Pope Benedict against Pope John Paul II on Economic matters. But the Church is one, and her mind is one, and these left wing socialists who hide behind Catholic social teaching only take certain texts to support their position, and ignore other texts, like JP II's points about the free market and the welfare state. I think Steve's point is that the same thing is happening here. I find many of you on this forum are as stubborn and unyielding as the left wing liberals I work with who ignore Catholic morality and spirituality and who reduce Catholicism to a social justice ethic. No matter what Church documents I present to them or which pope I quote, they refuse to see it and instead focus on select texts separated out from the total body of Catholic teaching. It’s like a circle: you start at the top of the circumference; one moves so far left, the other moves so far right, and eventually they meet at the bottom and they are almost indistinguishable.
Anyways, it seems I’ve been blocked from this forum, so I’ll say my goodbyes. My philosophy professor, a great Thomist scholar, always told me that some people just need to be hit in the head with a two by four (reason will not wake them up). I apologize for the insults to some of you, but I guess I thought a two by four was the only thing worth trying. Pray for me; you’ll be in my prayers.
Todd: do you want dialogue?
I'm sure you've read a lot of, you know, saints and stuff, but it sounds like you're whining.
Spiritual combat is the entirety of Christian life, for "none shall be crowned who has not fought well." (2 Tim. 2:5). If you don't want to talk about spiritual combat, stop talking about the practice of the religion.
But keep in mind that document came out long before the church had any interest in congregational singing or any kind of "full, active, conscious participation" and was really addressing issues particular to that time.
False.
Speaking generally, yes I do.
Where you are concerned, I'm not sure. You seem unable to avoid dipping into the sarcasm.
Let me ask: can you avoid the sarcasm for this one day?
Todd
No, I think there was little interest in congregational singing in 1903. Music was seen as the function of a quasi-priestly class, and it was not seen as essential to the Mass rubrically. You can't deny the directives for the assembly in the 1970 rubrics were far beyond anything in the Tridentine Missal.
Todd
Todd: do you come to this particular blog in order to dialogue? If not, what is your goal here? If so, why are all of your tactics necessary?
It seems you've already lost one small piece of the spiritual battle, just by indulging the sarcasm. You've elevated one obscure author, which is fine if you consider yourself a particular disciple of Lorenzo Scupoli. But what "exterior work" has been missing in this conversation?
My original point involves this: that profession of orthodoxy and the external adherence to rubrics are not necessarily an indicator of virtue and holiness. One can be aLorenzo Scupoli. Or one could be an Eddie Haskell. One needs to look deeper than external loyalties.
Todd
I think I agree, there's an insider mentality here rather than a free discussion. Anyone who steps out of the party line better watch out. Just that alone has made me suspicious, especially in the last few days, of how much truth there can be in this. Maybe this battle has been lost. Well I've certainly seen questioned here things I had never questioned before so that's a good thing. It's always good to think.
What is important to remember about Scupoli is that he is far wiser than you are. It's more important than remembering his name. The same goes for thousands of other orthodox theologians throughout history who have addressed the topics at hand, none of which you have relied upon before stumbling into manifest error after manifest error.
It is not that Scupoli is great, which he is, but that he is greater than you. Yes, it is an impoverishment to not know him. But your expressions of theology here are themselves deeply impoverished, and not only impoverished, but objectively errant. So there are two impoverishments, which are linked by a common thread–your lack of understanding.
Still, you consider yourself a theological millionaire, and Scupoli a two-buck chuck. That's the most logically coherent justification of YOPIOS I've ever seen–"I am a great theologian".
If you don't want to read Scupoli, read someone else. But do us all a favor and stop spewing forth heterodox epithets like "there is no connection between obedience and virtue" before checking your thoughts with a Catholic.
Yes, Kathy, I come here to engage in dialogue with people who think differently than I. It exposes me to new viewpoints and keeps me honest.
Dialogue with people like John O, who seems to disagree quite a bit with me, seems civil and polite. Over the years, I've come to expect less of you. Hence, my unsureness about wanting dialogue with someone who seems not to want it herself.
Nothing more than that.
Todd
The comparative wisdom between Lorenzo Scupoli and me is irrelevant. You are the one discussing here, not he.
C, I appreciate this discussion is getting frustrating. But you are really addressing none of the concerns I've raised. Nor do you seem to read any of my posts with any comprehension.
Todd
But your point is half baked, resonating with false dichotomy.
1) Profession of orthodoxy is not a sure indicator of holiness, true.
2) But profession of heterodoxy is itself unholy and likewise scandalous.
1) External adherence to rubrics is not a sure indicator of holiness, true.
2) But external violation of rubrics is itself unholy and likewise scandalous.
With consistency, you leave out the second part of the truth, leaving only the first part, thus making your statements palatable to modernists and Protestants. It seems like I need to keep reiterating this.
And I think it is salutary to quote venerable authorities in discussion. I would recommend the practice, if you have any that back you up.
Watch out for what?
"Watch out for what?"
You always seem to have some snide remark for people.
And some of your posts are so dripping with pride.
It's revolting. Get off your high horse.
Is that really the kind of person you want to be?
No, it's not.
I didn't say anything about the profession of heterodoxy. You read that into the discussion. Just not there.
This conversation was, from my perspective, about wrapping oneself in the mantle of virtue solely by adherence to rubrics. A person faithful to the rubrics can be said to be obedient. But aside from the virtue of obedience, we can say nothing else.
If anything, an over-reliance on obedience to the detriment of other, higher, virtues may even be a problem. Consider Matt 23:2ff, Luke 11:39ff.
Todd
Personal jibes aside, ok, I will take you at your word: you want dialogue.
Very little of your presence on this sight suggests this. Every once in a while, one of your comments will show some basis and/or insight, and it's marvelous to behold.
Generally, however, your presence here is all about tactics, and totally unproductive to dialogue, which is why I've asked the question. Only commenting on threads you disagree makes you appear disagreeable, which is no way to begin. Charging on to be the first to comments on topics you disagree with and persistently deflecting the thread is not dialogue. It is directly opposed to dialogue, because it reduces ideas to political opinions. Forming alliances and coalitions and then having the audacity to say that others have an "insider mentality" is not even reasonable. It certainly does not come across as an attempt at diaiogue. "Liking" your own comments–whatever that conduces to, it certainly isn't dialogue. Perhaps it's monologue? I don't really know.
Thanks, man!
I will take your input to heart.
It is true that I tend to focus on the vigorous topics. I'm not a musician by training so Bach manuscripts don't interest me. I'm not a CMAA member, so those events hold no interest either. It is rare that the Cafe offers an open thread.
I will note that it is rare that I will attack a person with sarcasm. I may do so with ideas or practices. But I think I've gotten better over the years at that. Clearly, we all need a lot of practice to get better.
Dialogue isn't about being first or second, but about how one conducts exchanges. I have been very positive with many individuals on this site. I know I have mentioned more than once Jeffrey's personal generosity and friendship. Charles and I go back years. And most recently, I have found exchanges with John O to be pleasant. Sometimes those exchanges drift and a variation on a theme is explored, or a new topic comes up. I see nothing wrong with that. And as long as the site moderators don't ban me for it, they don't appear to have a problem with it either.
Unlike in real life, we cannot fall back on a friendly smile, a round of drinks, or a shared look over a steaming cup of coffee.
I don't know that the "insider mentality" comment was originally mine, but I tend to agree with it. I think y'all treated the McM brothers very badly. I think they stung you back with some comments, but no worse than what was dished out. My feeling is that y'all should be banned from comments here for a day or two to cool off.
Todd
OK, it seems we've been banished to Siberia for speaking out against the State. If this gets by the censors it will be our last post.
From Steve:
Charles, wow, I completely missed the point of the video and I still didn't couldn't make a lot of sense out of what you said, and this is from someone who is into "space" topics. Yes, I would say it's pretty stoner, but you're from California so it can be excused! LOL But don't worry, I won't judge. Seriously, if you're ever in Cinci please look me up. We'll have a few beers and you can wax poetic all you want and I'll enjoy it. I'm not kidding.
It's been fun. Sorry for any insults. No harm intended. It's all good.
Steve
From Deacon Doug:
Okay, if you all buy my book, I’ll let bygones be bygones.
Just kidding!
But I do have to laugh–or my colleagues will certainly laugh–, that I've been called a progressive and a product of the 60s. I've never been called a progressive before, only a radical conservative, a right wing nutcase, etc. Progressives (Lefties) who are products of the 60s don't defend Humanae Vitae: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moral…
nor the papacy: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe…
Nor do they defend Church teaching on women priests: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologe…
But that's the problem with ultra rights. They label those who disagree with them as progressives. They are suspicious of those who see things differently.
In any case, Steve's quote says it all. That settles the debate, as far as I am concerned. The Holy Father has spoken. A colleague of mine (a Marxist who thinks he’s faithful to Catholic social teaching and who fancies himself a social activist) tried to set Pope Benedict against Pope John Paul II on Economic matters. But the Church is one, and her mind is one, and these left wing socialists who hide behind Catholic social teaching only take certain texts to support their position, and ignore other texts, like JP II's points about the free market and the welfare state. I think Steve's point is that the same thing is happening here. I find many of you on this forum are as stubborn and unyielding as the left wing liberals I work with who ignore Catholic morality and spirituality and who reduce Catholicism to a social justice ethic. No matter what Church documents I present to them or which pope I quote, they refuse to see it and instead focus on select texts separated out from the total body of Catholic teaching. It’s like a circle: you start at the top of the circumference; one moves so far left, the other moves so far right, and eventually they meet at the bottom and they are almost indistinguishable.
Anyways, it seems I’ve been blocked from this forum, so I’ll say my goodbyes. My philosophy professor, a great Thomist scholar, always told me that some people just need to be hit in the head with a two by four (reason will not wake them up). I apologize for the insults to some of you, but I guess I thought a two by four was the only thing worth trying. Pray for me; you’ll be in my prayers.
Deacon Doug
We've been banished and censored by the authorities. Bye everyone, no hard feelings.
Deacon Doug and Steve
Charles, wow, I completely missed the point of the video and I still didn't couldn't make a lot of sense out of what you said, and this is from someone who is into "space" topics. Yes, I would say it's pretty stoner, but you're from California so it can be excused! LOL But don't worry, I won't judge. Seriously, if you're ever in Cinci please look me up. We'll have a few beers and you can wax poetic all you want and I'll enjoy it. I'm not kidding.
It's been fun. Sorry for any insults. No harm intended. It's all good.
Steve
No really, for what?
The disease can't be cured if it isn't properly understood. Obedience is not the problem, it's disobedience of the higher law. Cf. Matthew 23:23. Our Lord wants everything! He tells the Pharisees to continue to tithe on mint but also to obey the higher law of mercy, justice and faithfulness.
Someone faithful to the rubrics might appear obedient but if they avoid personal prayer, live in sin with their girlfriend, fire the music director or destroy a music program on a slim pretext, disobey the pastor's judgment on a slim pretext, treat immigrants as inhuman, vote pro-choice, rail against the bishops, act uncharitably in online forums, lie, speak as if the Tridentine or Novus Ordo forms as intrinsically evil, etc., they are really being disobedient.
We need to address that disobedience, that disconnect between perfect Christian form in Church and paganism outside of Church. But too many people see the disconnect and they say, aha, we should throw out the liturgy it must be of no avail. And so many are thus cut off from the sources of grace that allow us to live better lives in the world.
Correction…Novus Ordo forms *are* intrinsically…
I don't believe you.
I just saw that the McM brothers were banned from here.
Seriously, doesn't that speak volumes? I do agree with some of the viewpoints on here
but it's obvious, only certain viewpoints are welcome here.
I was first attracted to Catholicism because of it's depth and
broadness. In that sense I don't find this a very catholic site.
It seems to be only looking for truth when it agrees with what they think.
this debate has made me question if this site is really for me.
But you said "watch out" before they claimed to be banned. What did you mean.
I'm just now jumping in here but I see an old familiar argument with the same old confusions. Why is G chant favored? Why? Because it is homophonic? Because it is on four lines? Absolutely not. It's about the propers of the liturgy, which is to say it is about the Word. This Word is PART of the Mass itself. That is why G chant has a favored position. Do it in English? Fine. Do it in choral style? Fine. But replacing them with something else is highly regrettable and cheats the people. This is NOT about what you like or I like or whatever. It is about the ritual and the wisdom of the Church.
huh?
Doug told me last night he couldn't post, saying something about having to be approved by the administrator so he sent his comment to me so that I could post it and it wouldn't let me post either. I tried using my wife's email address and it still wouldn't let it go through. So I tried just doing that one line and it went through. I also wrote a short note to Charles and that went through too.
I don't know what's going on.
But I think the debate has kind of run its course. Maybe write to Doug and he can send his final post to you and you can post it?
I disagree.
The propers have never been really important to Catholic liturgy outside of monasteries. They don't even harmonize with the Lectionary. Many of them are tossed in when there are better options from the Bible.
You are right that this is not about likes and dislikes. It's not really about the liturgy either. It's political more than anything. I have to take a more anarchist approach than my friend Jeffrey. There is a wider treasure of Scripture than what the Church gives us in the Propers. And thanks to contemporary music, we have a better awareness of the more poetic passages from the Prophets, the New Testament, and Wisdom literature. This is a good thing that transcends "loyal" programming.
That said, there is a deep aural appeal to pure tone vocal music that avoids equal temperament. When chant is done well, it probably is due in part to that.
Todd
I heard about it from a private email.
Todd
Thanks, Steve. I say we press on! I think, bolstered by Jeffrey's surprise "huh?" that something glitichy and abnormal gave the impression of a ban from the forum. to my knowledge, that's never happened. I do remember that as a "moderator" certain privilleges were afforded me, but I never inquired what they were. Anyway, I nope you stick around.
The video clip as fable for this thread (maybe you've seen and remember the film version of "Contact.)
*Jodie Foster's character, Ellie, is a SETI astronomer/seeker/prophet sort of character, held at bay by conventional science, political forces, but she discovers (Sagan's "Encyclopedia Galactica") a radio map that is coded in math. As soon as they decipher its coordinates, everyone is aback at the first televised images of Hitler at the Munich games.
*All progress is stifled and sequestered by a magisterium of officials.
*In the scene i showed, Ellie is coached to think and see the "map or blueprint" for a device from a heretofore inconceivbable perspective, in multiple dimensions.
If you know the rest of the story, lots of contention, adventure, discovery, experience and awakening happens and she is called to account before the inquisition, where she confesses she can't prove what she believes, but why still a scientist she has utter faith in what she experienced and knows that is new.
Regarding this and what we do, I agree with you, Todd and many others (some in CMAA) who rightly argue that the mandates of our magisterial documents are at once both purposefully specific in some cases, ambiguous and open-ended in others, heirarchical within themselves and in relation to other preceding and succeeding magisterial documents. Papal or other academic letters are informative. And the upshot is that each bishop in charge of a see is to be literally the seer of how all of this and more "stuff" (like the publishers' and composers' roles, the local musicians' duties, the standards, assessment and accountability) proceeds.
You or Steve had mentioned that the 1903 MP of Pius X was superceded by the big three docs post-VII. Well, in my universal perspective (like the video) I see them all inexorably connected. This doesn't mean I've reached any philosophical or practical conclusion, as did the clerics who took management of your parish. As both artists and clerics, we all should strive for circumspection when we are debating realpolitick and issues affecting the faithful and our missions.
But I fear we live in a must unfortunate era where all this swirling access to fact, fiction and opinion and instant gratification makes a kid with an iPad in Tierra del Fuego or the Aleutian Islands demand pat answers now in a nanosecond. Not gonna happen in our business, fo' sho'.
I suppose, like in the bible, or in "Contact," it's about how we recognize each other in common, rather than as alien, pardon the pun. So that the scientist like Ellie learns about faith, and the Pharisees learn about tolerance and maybe even love.
Forgive the typos, again….used the tablet keyboard.
Check this, guys: http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452/F00027453…
Jeffrey, let's get this straightened out. Neither Cafe nor CMAA can ill afford to operate as a closed shop. MSF, okay. Cafe, no.
hmm Just as the McM brothers depart(are removed?) Jeffery suddenly steps in to the conversation.
Interesting timing.
Handsomely done, Deacon D. Hope you and your brother won't be strangers. I thought this was a fascinating discussion, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn from people from all sides of the spectrum. One of the unfortunate consequences of Vatican II—at least in my experience—has been that Catholics have lost their unity of belief. Chances are very high that the person next to you in the pew at Mass doesn't share your beliefs.
It's no wonder then that there is a lack of consensus on the liturgy and sacred music if we all probably don't agree on some major moral and theological points.
It all goes back, as I've tried to articulate before, to Lex orandi statuat legem credendi. (The law of prayer establishes the law of belief.) However, if you don't have unity in the liturgy, is it possible to have unity of belief? In other words, it is the liturgical praxis which establishes the common creed of believers, and not the other way around.
(I'll post an excellent quote from Divini Cultus in the next comment which beautifully illustrates that maxim since I'm running out of room here if anyone is interested in reading it.)
From Pope Pius XI in Divini Cultus:
"From the earliest times the simple chants which graced the sacred prayers and the Liturgy gave a wonderful impulse to the piety of the people. History tells us how in the ancient basilicas, where bishop, clergy and people alternately sang the divine praises, the liturgical chant played no small part in converting many barbarians to Christianity and civilization. It was in the churches that heretics came to understand more fully the meaning of the communion of saints; thus the Emperor Valens, an Arian, being present at Mass celebrated by Saint Basil, was overcome by an extraordinary seizure and fainted. At Milan, Saint Ambrose was accused by heretics of attracting the crowds by means of liturgical chants. It was due to these that Saint Augustine made up his mind to become a Christian. It was in the churches, finally, where practically the whole city formed a great joint choir, that the workers, builders, artists, sculptors and writers gained from the Liturgy that deep knowledge of theology which is now so apparent in the monuments of the Middle Ages."
I would like to retract my post from above, and I apologize to Jeffrey for any and all presumption on my part. Adieu.
As you may or may not have seen here, I used the refrain the Haas 27 and Meinrad psalm tones this past weekend as the Entrance ("Chant"). It got the job ( congregational singing, singing the Propers, using chant-based music for the verses) done. Just chiming in.
I fail to see what the links in this link have to do with music in the liturgy.
If the liturgy is to be an evangelizer in the sense of converting people to the Church (but which is not its primary end), then its music must be fairly universal in conveying sacredness.
Consider the example of somebody wondering what all the commotion inside a church is about and walks in out of curiosity. What will he see and hear? Will he encounter the preferred music of a closed group, the kind of music that this closed group can only understand, indeed of pop style stuff that is found everywhere in society and has nothing special about it for worship, and in some cases just a an occasion to display local talent? Or will he hear that universal music that has been tempered by the centuries and which speaks the universal language of beauty and truth, of the sacred to his very soul? In the first case I do not see him returning because the arrow of sacred beauty (yes of true love) has not pierced his heart. And if he does loke pop music it is likely he will hear it performed better everywhere else.
The point is, that the Church used Latin for 1500 years even all those centuries when no one understood it, has tried to have the best art music fit to adore God for almost that long, when about 50 years ago some one comes along and says that this has been all wrong- to me this is nothing else but pride, and the glorification of the modern.
I think the Meinrad would help a lot. Perhaps you could record this next time and post a video.
Click here, Vic: http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452/F00027453…
One of the main issues here at Chant C. is the question of the Propers. SC had asked for more scripture at Mass, but what happened? The Propers, almost all from scripture, were bumped in favor of hymns, so in many cases there is now less scripture at Mass than there was before the council. There seems to be an allergy to singing scripture for the modern man at least in English speaking North America. Of course there is no money to be made in it by the music publishers. But the practical reason is that the forms of modern music do not fit in well with the non-metrical nature of scripture. For a long time, since time immemorial, metrical psalms were banned, but now they are allowed by the USCCB, thereby giving more priority to the music than to the text.
Excellent point @ the primary end of the liturgy not being evangelization, and I would agree by conceding that the primary end of the liturgy is the "worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members." (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei.)
However, there is that mysterious connection between liturgy and dogma. The liturgy is also meant to be a "continuous expression of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity" (ibid) My question is this:
If this old maxim is true: Lex orandi statuat legem credendi (Let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief) then what does the fact that there is such wide diversity of belief among Catholics today after forty years of liturgical renewal say about the doctrinal efficacy of the Catholic rule of prayer in contemporary praxis?
If you doubt that very few Catholics agree on different aspects of faith and morals, then look up Nancy Pelosi's self-righteous endorsement of late-term abortion "as a respectful and practicing Catholic."
I can't concur with your perspective of propers, when displaced by hymns, as a net loss of scripture as a crux issue at stake here, Vic. And unfortunately, we don't have anything but anecdotal evidence that at St. Normal's in 1962 and before, that propers were comprehensively sung or recited in parishes that didn't have someone who subscribed to the periodical put out by the Caecilia Society. But the issue of propers v. hymns boils down to this: do we believe that the three processional propers as Option 1's constitute another "first place" in a heirarchy or taxonomy or not? Which boils down further to: propers are a uniquely qualified, treasured and validated worship expression of which no other "type" of music/text is integral to the Latin Rites of the Catholic Church.
Todd has made quite an extensive case arguing for hymns and sacred songs' scriptural content, when authentic, being just as integral and suitable. He's also reminded us that many post VII composers from Deiss/Gelineau onward set vernacular propers to their songs or tones, and that others have followed in that evolution with success, that others can't or don't accept as authentic.
But I think this whole discussions' two headed thrust is this: 1. Is the Mass an "either/or" endeavor, one inwhich we authentically worship and presume that propels missio for the next six days; or 2. "both/and" where the quality, not the secondary attributes (specis: homo sapiens, race: East Asian, eg.) is honestly elevated and worthy, but which calls each soul to leave Mass and literally do "ora et labora" as evangelists in the everyday world.
And to a point, the discussion has avoided the big bugaboo: is Mass in the vernacular a help or hindrance towards any of these ends?
"The propers have never been really important to Catholic liturgy outside of monasteries."
Nonsense.
Maybe you mean:
"The propers have never been really important to Catholic liturgy outside of monasteries for the past 50 years in English speaking countries."
Nope. I meant what I said.
The Mass ordinary has always gotten the lion's share of attention, both before and after Vatican II.
The importance of the propers is fading as modern composers have tackled and risen to the challenge of incorporating more Scripture into congregational singing at Mass.
Todd
Vic: I'm not really disagreeing with what you are saying here in this post. If somene walks into the local Cathedral and hears the St. Michael's boys choir (Toronto) singing this beautiful music inspired by faith, music that opens us up into the mystery of the Church in history, yes, you are right, that has a far greater effect than listening to sentimentalism, folk and pop, etc. The latter is not going to move anyone. In fact, you say it beautifully. But that's really not what the argument is with us (Steve and me). It's the idea that all Church music must be Gregorian chant and/or polyphony, and there must be no contemporary sounds, no Southern gospels, no negro spirituals, not this, not that, only chant and polyphony. That's not what the Church teaches. There are appropriate settings for certain kinds of music, and some musical styles are inappropriate in a Cathedral. But Pope Francis had very simple liturgical folk music on Holy Thursday when he said Mass at a youth detention center. He didn't act contrary to the mind of the Church. We don't have talented musicians or choir directors in our parish, just people who want to serve, who want to sing, who can work with the CBW. It's fine for a suburban parish. It would be nice to have the St. Michael's choir school at every Mass for every parish, but it's not going to happen, the talent is just not there in the population, and "Steve McManamans" are very rare (that's why these new young emotionally immature Dominicans at St. Gertrude's were so foolish and imprudent. They didn't know what they had; they were too young and too blinded by arrogance). It would be nice to have a Fulton Sheen as a bishop for every diocese, but it's not going to happen, it would be nice to have a Don Bosco or a John Vianney at every parish, it's not going to happen. Yes, we ought to strive to improve, make the music as inspiring as possible, but it's the self-rightousness and narrowmindedness that is generated in those who uncritically read these blogs, as if they'd caught some kind of virus, that is the major concern here. And again, there are subtle claims that are attributed to Benedict, but in the end are really a narrow minded theology of music that is not really a genuine expression of the mind of the Church. The needle is just a bit too far to the right and in the red zone, and if the meter were measuring a note, you'd be slightly out of tune, and when a number of you are slightly out of tune and begin playing, it sounds awful, unpleasant, unpleasing, discordant, not beautiful by any stretch of the imagination. That too fails to bring people into the Church. That should be clear to you that this is what we are saying. Take care,
In prayers,
Dcn D. McManaman
"But that's really not what the argument is with us (Steve and me). It's the idea that all Church music must be Gregorian chant and/or polyphony, and there must be no contemporary sounds, no Southern gospels, no negro spirituals, not this, not that, only chant and polyphony. That's not what the Church teaches."
This is exactly right.
The problem most of the Cafe crowd has with me is that I'm unwilling to jump on the bandwagon of total and absolute critique. Our difference isn't between people who like chant and people who don't. You might ask yourselves why there's so much infighting between people who share a deep love, reverence, and use for traditional music.
From what you are saying it seems you have little understanding of what the psalms are about, and why Ratzinger has pointed out that the Church has its own hymnal: the psalter. It may be informative to review the ideas of the desert Fathers and Mothers of the 3rd – 4th century.
This is forking into a separate idea thread. Perhaps someone may wish to start a discussion on this question on another blog.
Start a new blog on this topic: that might not be a bad idea. I don't think Todd even remotely denied anything about the importance of the psalms, though.
He had said earlier:"and the propers have not quite caught up with the reformed Lectionary." That's interesting because I have noticed that myself, they often just don't fit at all. I mean, if the propers were of such extreme and vital importance wouldn't they be among the first things to be reformed? That's the first time I've seen put into words what I've thought almost unconsciously for awhile now. I think I'm leaning with Todd on this one. It looks like the Church herself doesn't see the propers as being of such extreme importance as I've been led to believe in the past. very interesting.
The propers are mostly pericopes from the psalms and are of ancient origin. What do you mean by fit? The propers often have a life of their own in the EF. This is one of the nice things about the old Mass, that there are different layers of scripture and thought, not just some central focus that conforms to rationality. There is much more to liturgical worship than being focused on one issue.
They often, but not always have a reasonable fit for Advent and Lent and Easter. But the propers are a remnant from the one-year cycle. We have a three-year cycle today. To develop a deeper appreciation of Scripture, it would be good to blow up the whole propers thing and start from scratch. Likewise the opening and Communion collects. Bad translations aside.
Todd
Based on my experience, one can always make a connection between Propers and Lectionary… The Spirit works in many ways…. New post pease!
Amen!
I can read replies to my posts. I can take people at their word.
And for every CMAA person who is canned by a Vatican II opposite, there are a good handful of music people–maybe six to eight–pink slipped by pastors who lack any liturgical sensibility one way or the other. They need the money for a soccer coach, or a new parking lot, or a case of brandy and cigars.
It might be different in California, but liturgical ideology doesn't figure as the top reason for firing in what happens to my colleagues. But it's not unheard-of. My suggestion is that CMAA folk spend just enough time on the ideological pity pot, then get off so someone else gets a turn. That seems like playing fair to me.
Todd
Todd, you know darn well I wasn't being contentious about your intellect, please. You wanna keep your M.O. in tact that what people say on the internet is gospel, be my guest. But you and i both know that's not the whole picture.
(As an aside, I can't believe you still carry baggage about the chubby faux Fr. Z, dude's credibility shot years ago.)
What you fail to acknowledge, in grave seriousness, is that those CMAA people I cited are NOT sitting on a pity pot, they're still having to explain, which they try and are shot down, why "Blest be the Lord" (chosen by convenience and presumed popularity) doesn't "uplift" the celebrant and congregation as would Old Hundreth or "Cantate Domino."
So, let's acknowledge "Where's the beef" is not with the musicians primarily, but by the Nielsen programmed pastors that dictate and undermine the expertises of the people they chose in first place because of same. Pure BS.
Good morning, Charles.
I don't get your aside at all. Honest.
I also don't buy into the choice-of-two fallacy here. It's more than making a choice between a concertized Qui Habitat and a twangy Blest Be The Lord. Maybe the pastor is concerned about both of those extremes and what's called for is a Hurd or Manalo setting of Psalm 91 instead. Or at worst, the pastor is playing to the consumerist approach as he interprets it. And if so, you have to admit that the promotion of product on these pages is not really out of that ballpark.
The only way I see to get deeper is to have a real dialogue about this stuff, as you and I enjoy on our phone chats. We should face it: the blog format isn't built to carry that weight of mystery.
Todd
Abp. Sample's talk to the CMAA colloquium cites a theology of the liturgy from the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, with reference to sacred music: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/06/arch…
I actually found a clip of the 'Pinnochio Mass' in Argentina – it went way, way beyond anything I have ever seen here in the UK. I actually could not believe it. The Redemptorist in Ireland with the 'singing hat' forcing the congregation – children and adults – to sing a silly song after him was in the same mode – except I do not think that was at Mass. I experience all this as bullying by the priest. People may say all they like about 'pre Vatican II' masses but one thing that NEVER happened was each priest carrying out a DIY job on the Mass. It is to protect the people from these bullying clergy that the rubrics should be carried out to the letter.
Steve, it is all part of the bullying by the clergy that has been allowed to take root since the Council (see another comment of mine on here). It is interpreted as freedom for the clergy to impose their views on the people. THIS is at the root of very many problems in the Church.