It’s the same old obsession: how to get people to sing. That’s been the single-minded goal of music pundits for decades, and yet if you go into the average Catholic parish and see what’s going on, you will find the completely predictable thing in case after case. You will find an enthusiastic music director trying to get people to sing and you will find the vast numbers of people in the pews sitting or standing and refusing to do more than utter a few random sounds from time to time — and this is with very few exceptions. Among those exceptions are parishes with a solid musical structure in place and an enduring tradition that is not buffeted about by the latest offerings of the liturgical Top 40 producers.
I might suggest that this whole discussion is wrong headed. This goal — pushed to the exclusion of every other consideration — is superficial and wrong. If the goal is wrong, the means suitable for achieving that goal are likely to be contrary to the purposes of the liturgy itself.
Congregation singing is a result of liturgical coherence, not its sole and driving purpose. One must first focus on making the liturgy beautiful so that people have some sense of genuine personal inspiration to make their voices part of it. People will not be hectored, manipulated, pushed, rehearsed, badgered, or hornswaggled into raising their voices if the reason for doing is not apparent. Shuffling endlessly throughs strategies, tricks, and repertoire has not worked and will not work.
What we desperately need is discussion about the musical structure of the Roman Rite and the place of everyone and everything within that. That discussion is not here taking place.
"That discussion is not here taking place."
Good thing too.
The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy.
There is a certain strain within reform2, as typified by Jeffrey's post, that suggests there is something inherently magical in the performance of the Roman Rite. But the truth is that Christianity is, by instinct and tradition, a faith that one must practice. It is simply not enough to preach beauty for and about the liturgy.
There are just so many things wrong about this post, I have no idea where to begin.
Todd
The conversation addresses the importance of singing and song…and what a shame it is that some people don't feel they can sing. I agree fully – this is unfortunate; highly unfortunate. The problem here, though, is that the liturgy is being asked to be all things to all people. Guess what? It already is. The liturgy, and more particularly, the Mass, already has a purpose. Its purpose is not to teach people to sing and to encourage people to sing. These are wonderful aims, but they should not and cannot become the focal point or the reason for being there.
Wonderful post, Jeffrey!
Hi Todd,
Outside of your axiom per liturgy/people, which I'm not prepared to agree with at all, I don't think your response is really a response at all. I've read Jeffrey's post twice, and it is escaping my notice any association asserting the "magical" properties of the Roman Rite. I think you have more 'splainin' to do in order to back that assertion up. The following sentence is as true as it is innocuous, and I can't think that anyone including JT would bother to argue or nuance that.
So, as you leave your commentary vague and presumptive, perhaps you could begin by discussing jT's penultimate paragraph. How off the mark is his first statement about liturgical coherence and singing wrong-headed? How is he wrong by pointing out the obvious that FACP is not measured only by who sings what when? How is he wrong by offering as how liturgy ought be beautiful?
OTOH, in your's and my terms, performance pracitce factors in greatly. How can you not see that is also so in JT's scenario?
Is the people's vocal participation the source and summit?
Or is the Eucharistic Liturgy the source and summit?
Isn't the former merely in the service of the latter?
I am not saying the people are in the service of the rite, (which is not claimed by anyone's statement to be "magical,") but that their observable, measurable participation is merely in the service of the Liturgy, the great action of the Body of Christ, that is the Son's self-giving to the Father.
The singing is not any kind of end in itself, and approaching it as if it were is pointless.
Incidentally, I am always worried by people who assert there is nothing "magical" going on in the Mass, especially since I know of no one who claims there is.
But I begin to wonder if such people fail to understand that there IS something supernatural going on.
Ex opere operato, whether you believe or not, whether they sing or not, whether the world listens or not.
"There are just so many things wrong about this post, I have no idea where to begin."
Then don't. Thanks!
"The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy."
Really?
"The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy". Discuss. This statement would make a good essay title which might start by asking what it really means, if indeed it means anything at all. What one cannot, or rather should not do is simply accept it as being axiomatically true and erecting upon it a whole edifice of theory and practice. I also think Todd should explain exactly what he means by "Reform2", an expression he uses a lot on PTB, always with negative connotations. Using an umbrella term for those one disagrees with is tempting and makes for good polemic, but is intellectually dishonest.
When I saw that particular video before reading this post, I felt the same way. There is a post-Vatican II compulsion on the part of some who want to make people sing. It has taken many forms. I knew of priests in the 1980 who would stand at the back of the Church and watch who opened their hymnal and who didn't. Then they would give them a hymnal opened to the hymn being sung to those who didn't bother to open theirs. This is clericalism of course. Many musicians of this era and even today demand that people sing, have long rehearsals before Mass begins and the like. The problem is that most of these parishes throw new things at people frequently and there is no real repertoire either for the actual Mass or the added hymns and much that is contemporary is difficult to sing. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing singing congregations. Let's just be sure that our liturgies are worth singing about.
"I think you have more 'splainin' to do in order to back that assertion up."
Fair enough. It's something I can do in an essay, not in a combox. I'm just advising readers who are tempted to swallow JT's line that there is a trifold basis: theological, pastoral, and spiritual to suggest the emphasis the panel presents is sound, and the dissenting opinion isn't quite orthodox.
Todd
Oh darn. You began.
"The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy."
If we look to the Gospels to illuminate the better path to perfection in Christ, then I believe that Todd is correct. The Gospels show Jesus and his followers living God's word in the world. The times of worship, prayer and meditation are not generally temple driven but are sources of spiritual growth and strength enabling that outward push. I think Pope Francis touched on this when he spoke on the lure of clericalism within the laity. I have been guilty of this without realizing the insular web in which I was slowly being enveloped. Ultimately, I believe that we worship God in our daily interactions with the whole of creation and draw our strength from the liturgy and the divine spirit that surrounds us.
Maybe you should read the Catechism because you're not quite right here.
In my experience, both pre Vatican II and post-Vatican II is that Catholics, by and large were not and are not a singing congregation, especially at Mass. Prior to Vatican II the greatest numbers, (at least in my parish) sang at Benediction (Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris and Holy God We Praise Thy Name) and they sang Marian hymns that they didn't need books for. The singing was most pronounced by the congregation at devotions which allows for a freer expression of a more localized Catholicism outside of the formal liturgy.
I completely agree that the rapidity with which the music has been changing (both over the years and from week to week) and the 50 year plus experience of studio produced music has a deleterious effect on people singing. My own students (Kinder-8) complain that they don't sound good because they don't sound like the professionally produced and enhanced recordings they listen to. There is another aspect alluded to by Rita Ferrone that people don't even sing Happy Birthday, at least in public, but even when there are the more intimate family celebrations there is no care given or attention to intonation and usually it is sung very poorly almost as a group of individual monotones.
Another aspect of this phenomenon is that as a culture, we expect things to be done by "experts" and not by everybody. If something is not in our area of expertise, we rely on those who are. When liturgical musicians frequently change the repertoire and edit or rearrange hymns or songs it is difficult for people to keep up, even when they want to do so.
However, the elephant in the room is that most of the kind of music that is "performed" at Liturgy (and pushed by most of the NPM experience) is not designed for contemplation and union with God. It is designed to stimulate and heighten the emotions into a kind of "religious" or "spiritual" feeling, or engender a kind of pseudo-unity. This tends to drive sales and consumption of published and recorded music. This approach is going to be, by nature, quite subjective to the person listening or attempting to sing it, which runs counter to the ideal of universality of the Liturgy.
So much of this is about the exterior unity at the price of an interior and mystical unity, both with God and those who worship with us together at Mass.
Maybe the fact that the approach you outline has not worked and shows no signs of working suggests that a rethinking is in order?
What's the old adage? that insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
"The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy."
Could be true or false, depending on how it is meant (or rather, what is meant by "liturgy"). I find the distinction between "thick" and "thin" liturgy helpful – I can't remember if it is from David Fagerburg, or transmitted by him and originated by Aidan Kavanagh. Anyhow, "thick" liturgy is the eternal, heavenly liturgy, while "thin" liturgy is the physical rites in which we participate in the eternal liturgy. Thin liturgy changes over time; thick liturgy of course does not. You can say that "thin" liturgy was made for people, in the sense that the sacraments were instituted to include form and matter as well as grace – presumably for the benefit of human beings who are both body and soul. In this sense, I can be grateful that the sacraments were made for me.
On the other hand, it is also true that people were made for heaven. In this sense, people were absolutely made for the (thick, eternal, heavenly) liturgy.
Since the statement "The liturgy is made for people, not people for the liturgy." is both true and false, depending on definition of words, I find it pretty useless as a 'zinger' – much less a cogent argument.
Huh?
"…Gospels show Jesus and his followers living God's word in the world. The times of worship, prayer and meditation are not generally temple driven…"
It is de fide that "the liturgy" is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Please define "not Temple-driven" and why that is pertinent.
Beautiful, thanks.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
On the contrary, Sam, my approach has netted singing parishes for more than 30 years. I incorporate chant as part of a larger repertoire of sacred music. The eclectic approach gets a lot of criticism from purists of all stripes, yet people respond to a variety of sacred music within a predictable and stable repertoire.
Unless, of course, you've been stalking me across the country for those three decades and have contrary eyewitness accounts of my parishes.
Todd
chris, I would affirm your first three paragraphs.
I disagree on your elephant. Music conferences are, by design, aimed at a high standard of people who know and can read music. I don't think of conferences, or really even the Sunday liturgy as a contemplative experience. One of the disconnects after Vatican II, perhaps, is that the subset of Catholics who experienced the Mass as a contemplative experience were disappointed.
Personally, I prefer contemplative time away from the crowds: my personal devotion or my daily lectio divina. I think that if a parish cultivates these opportunities, then the burden is lifted from liturgy to be all things.
The grounding of the universality of liturgy is that it encompasses the public rites of the Church. First and foremost, it is a communal experience. It is not a collection of hundreds of individuals each contemplating in their own way.
Todd
The liturgy is much more than Good Friday, especially if you accept the notion that primally, it is the worship of the Father by the Son and that we, as believers, merely participate in that.
God seems to be edified by mercy, not sacrifice–his words, not mine. It seems logical that the divine act of mercy would include offering believers grace through their experience of liturgy, especially the encounter with the Son. In that sense, I think liturgy is designed to come to people, rather than a set-piece that we offer to people on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Todd
"liturgy is designed to come to people"
The Church gives us rituals, in which (not by which) we participate in the heavenly liturgy. We can speculate that Jesus instituted the Eucharistic liturgy and other sacraments in order to make the economy of salvation more tangible for human beings – a reasonable assumption. So, the fact that sacraments exist tells us something about the intention of "coming to people". As does the incarnation.
Ritual form and prescribed matter in the Eucharistic liturgy are, by their very existence, a "coming to the people."
But I suspect that you are not merely speculating about why Jesus instituted sacraments. The phrase "liturgy is designed" is interesting. The heavenly liturgy is an eternal reality (not designed by committees, unless one counts the Trinity). The earthly liturgy is a system of ritual matter and form that has developed in many different and valid ways over the centuries. Liturgy is not designed, it is inherited and developed by the Church. Liturgical rites are not something the Church invented to better reach out to people. They are from the first an inherited mandate – "do this in memory of me".
By "design," I mean the intention of Jesus Christ in how he chooses to present himself through the sacraments. Liturgy is designed by God, certainly, and it strikes me that God works through the agency of human inspiration to form rites and rituals. Does this only happen through Rome and its committees? In part, yes. But also through the preparations of musicians, homilists, and others (sometimes even by local committees in addition to Roman committees) as well as the intentions the people themselves bring. The human touch on liturgy is not only unavoidable, but is nothing about which to be concerned, given a prayerful and competent preparation.
Todd
Let's start with Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy, as summarized by Fr. B Harrison
"In recent decades we have seen a notable 'protestantizing' tendency promoted by those Catholic liturgists who unilaterally stress the 'Word' aspect of our worship (Scripture and preaching) at the expense of the central sacrificial character of the Mass. Ratzinger links this to the fact that, in much recent theology, "the exclusive model for the liturgy of the New Covenant has been thought to be the synagogue – in strict opposition to the Temple, which is regarded as an expression of the [old] law and therefore as an utterly obsolete 'stage' in religion." In synagogue worship, of course, there were (and are) no sacrifices – only prayers, psalms and preaching. Ratzinger severely rebukes this notion (p. 49):
"'The effects of this theory have been disastrous. Priesthood and sacrifice are no longer intelligible. The comprehensive "fulfillment" of pre-Christian salvation history and the inner unity of the two Testaments disappear from view. Deeper understanding of the matter is bound to recognize that the Temple, as well as the synagogue, entered into Christian liturgy.'"
"Ratzinger stresses that, even for the Jews themselves, the synagogue service was "ordered to the Temple and remained so, even after its destruction … in expectation of its restoration" (p. 48). For the synagogue recognized its own 'Word-centered' worship as partial, local and incomplete (in contrast to a 'non-sacrificial' religion such as Islam, for instance, where the 'liturgy of the Word' along with pilgrimage and fasting, "constitutes the whole of divine worship as decreed by the Koran"). As the one, central Temple and its sacrifices were for the Jews the expression of Israel's complete and universal worship, so the sacrifice of the one true Temple which is Christ's own Body – immolated on the Cross and made present throughout the world 'from the rising of the sun to its setting' in the Eucharistic sacrifice – constitutes the final and necessary replacement and perfection of those ancient rites. "
Clare's comment is thus disproved.
WIth all due respect, Todd, I have no interest in a discussion with you.
While I applaud your ability to research stuff that backs up your thinking, Fr Harrison's summary is even more tilted than Jeffrey's. You need to work harder to find competent theologians.
The first paragraph is full of undefined, yet typical terms and a solid dose of caricature. Honestly, if these are the people you folks read, then it's no wonder Jeffrey has such a poor approach: he's been ill-formed and needs real theologians to inform him.
The only reason Clare's comment is disproved (and not banned?) is because she agrees with me.
And of course you have no interest in a discussion. Fr Harrison has nothing to offer to get you started in a serious discussion.
This thread has started to tilt off the rails. I don't have any interest in discussing here either. I suggest we declare the point disputed, all the participants good Catholics, and wait for the next eruption of polyester and burlap from the volcano of "protestantism." Whatever that is. I'm sure it will be shaped like a flame … I mean a fish.
Todd
Sorry to be finicky, but there's a split infinitive in the title.
Not splitting the infinitive is one of those grammatical rules (like not ending a sentence with a preposition, or not starting one with a conjunction, or saying that a sentence must contain a verb) which aren't rules at all. Stylistically I would prefer "to talk endlessly" since it gives more emphasis to the adverb; however, "to boldly go", as in Star Trek is preferable to "boldly to go" or "to go boldly".
No, I haven't been stalking you, Todd. 🙂
I don't know your particular situation. And while I'm glad you have had singing parishes, what's more important than singing in and of itself is what is sung – which was the point of the post. The L-M-P model has, more often than not, resulted in repertoire meant to get "the people to sing" rather than singing music that is integral to the liturgy itself.