I’m reading the 1976 issue of Pastoral Music, then a brand-new magazine devoted to ushering in a new dawn for Catholic music, sweeping away the old and bringing in the new age of participation, fresh sounds, and excellence.
This first issue appeared not long after the old publishers of the preconciliar era went belly up, the old conductors and directors were toppled from their posts, the parish collections of the Liber Usualis were hurled into the dumpster, organs were mothballed, and dinosaurs who liked Palestrina and Gregorian chant were declared extinct.
Now and in the future, said the editor Pastoral Music on page one, “the musician will be concerned with increasing repertoire, improving technical skills, evaluating and upgrading the total music life of the parish.”
In the bad old days, wrote Edward Murray, Mass was “a static ritual observance. There were some blanks to be filled in, like the name of the deceased at a funeral or the name of the current pope or local ordinary. But, basically, Mass could be ‘said’ like some lines of a play at a side altar with no one there but the priest.” Now, “the music will be worked into and around the ideas of the group: their visuals, their dance, their prayers, processions and meditations. The task of the music minister is to be true to the faith meaning discerned by the group.”
Another writer in this issue, James M. Burns, bemoaned the old days when Church music “was locked into a theology that stressed the transcendence of God… Today, however, with existential theology and philosophy being the intellectual ground for many of the scholars in the Church, a tendency to reduce the transcendental aspect of worship to a more ‘realistic’ concept has appeared. The stress is on the human, the real, the ‘non-God-talk’ approach.”
This is fantastic, he wrote, because the old way “was a veritable dead-end street in terms of artistic development” whereas in the new way “new and inventive planning are manifold, and the truly inquisitive spirit of the church musician has a larger sweep today than ever before.”
Another writer, Stephen Rosolack, celebrated the dawning of the new age for musicians. “The great strength of a musician at the present time may be to recognize that he is involved in all of the styles, but still free to develop personal excellence within a community in the style that he loves the most. The quality of our work will convince our people that we care for them as well as ourselves.”
Lewis McAllister, music director at Mount Saint Mary’s, was just wild with excitement at what the changes swept in. “We are faced, then, with what must surely be the greatest offering of music in the history of the church, and most of it within easy listening access through performances on recordings! Such an opportunity!”
Another editorial said: “The quality of music in our assemblies is the great priority among the reforms. Many people are talking about it; and many are translating their talk into the work of searching, studying and sharing.” Still another imagined that the new dawn affords “the opportunity for enlightened courageous leadership to lay the groundwork for musical skill.”
So on it goes, on page after page, and this is just one issue. The spirit, the anticipation, the optimism, is pervasive, the sense that by wiping out the old and ushering in the new, we would experience a new renaissance of musical quality, competence, and enlightenment across the land. The themes are repeated in nearly every article.
Whatever problems exist in the music program at the parish are due to the atrophied ritual of the past, the stultifying air created by tradition and its supporters, while the guitar-strumming youth will bring a new passion and energy that will end in new heights of musical accomplishment and vigor.
(Not that the magazine didn’t draw attention to what it regarded as the most serious problem: “the present copyright laws are being flagrantly violated by many, many parishes in the United States is a scandal,” wrote the president of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians. This is “to the detriment of good liturgy and good music”)
I revisit this history here for some context to evaluate the present moment. No knowledgeable Catholic today can read the above without a sense of bemusement and incredulity. In the future, thanks to the revolution, there will be new quality, excellence, skill, accomplishment, and vigor? It didn’t quite pan out that way, did it?
I can recall the first time that I walked into a Catholic parish and looked at the music resources. Having an education in music history, I was aware of the patrimony: the greatest choral and organ works ever produced, plus 15 centuries of glorious chant. What I found instead was a floppy missallete on news print with a bunch of pop-like songs. There weren’t even scored parts for singing. It was all in unison. The group that led the singing had less musical ability than the average member of a high school marching band.
Sadly, as I later discovered, this was not an exception but the norm. In musical terms, the Catholic Church was a windswept house. The serious people had evidently given up, fleeing to other worship communities or just deciding that Church was just too much trouble.
When I finally decided to start a choir, I will never forget what a soprano I was trying to recruit said to me. It ran into her in the grocery store and asked her to join, assuring her that we were doing quality music. “I’ve been there and done that, she said. “As soon as you get something of quality going, your group will be pushed aside to make room for the Willy and the Poor Boys.” Ouch!
You don’t have to take my word for it. David Haas, a leading composer in the Catholic world today, a man who struggles to provide marketable music in today’s parish environment, has provided one of the most despairing commentaries on the state of Catholic music that I’ve ever read. He was commenting casually on the prospects for Simple English Propers project of Adam Bartlett, the CMAA, and the Chant Cafe. Even though they are formulas and plainchant, he judged them too difficult.
“I certainly am happy that the amateur choir at your parish is capable of this,” he wrote concerning Adam’s success with his own choir. “I am certain however, that much of its success has to do with your leadership, and your competence in this genre. I am thinking of the average choir director who comes to many workshops that I present, volunteer, not a great musical background, can sometimes barely stumble through “Holy, God We Praise Thy Name.” I see very little possibility of her, and many others in a similar situation being able to even read the chant notation that you provide, let alone present in a way that would be pleasing at all, let alone possible for this assembly to join in.”
So there we have it. The exuberance of 1976 has led us to 2010, a time when a man who is probably more knowledgeable about the nation’s parish choirs than any living musician, says that the average choir director can barely stumble through the most famous Catholic hymn in the English speaking world.
I cannot say whether his judgment is correct here. But I will say this. The right way to address the problem is not by continuing to “meet people where they are” but rather must begin by inspiring them to be more than they are. That is impossible without ideal musical models in mind. I don’t mean abstractions like “arouse the community into a new awareness” or something like that. I mean exactly what the Second Vatican Council said: the Mass itself should be sung with Gregorian chant having first place. It is this chant tradition that is our treasure, the most beautiful gift that Catholic musicians have been given to preserve and make ever more beautiful.
The musical experiment of the 1970s and following threw out the archetype of liturgical music, brutally drove out those who believed that and strove to reached those ideals. It was an experiment that has failed and miserably so, even by the standards that its champions laid out in the 1970s.
If I were to describe the music situation in the average parish today, I would use language very similar to how these writers from Pastoral Music described the preconciliar world: static, uninspired, lacking in competence. It is ritual observance: pick four songs from the Missallete, and, if in doubt, sing the Mass of Creation. That’s about it. Change will not happen by continuing to cater to this level. That only creates the race to the bottom that we’ve seen in operation now for decades.
A new era for Catholic music will require the cultivation of serious choirs that have an important role beyond merely leading the congregation. It will require attracting real talent and inspiring existing singers to upgrade their abilities and challenge themselves to be willing to change. It will require that excellence is newly valued. There will need to be a new dedication to training. There must be stability in the parish music program, guarded over by pastors who are dedicated to solemnity and excellence. And there must be new resources such at the Simple English Propers that make it possible for choirs to take their jobs seriously, contributing in a real sense to ennobling the Catholic liturgy.
I’m so grateful to be living now, especially with a chance for a new beginning in Advent of 2011, with the new Missal translation and a new generation that is not naive and not caught up in the goal of banishing transcendence but rather understands the sacred music ideal and is working toward going as far as possible toward realizing that ideal in our times.
Very well stated. One important fact that we must remind ourselves of constantly is that there are far less Catholics at Sunday Mass today than there were even in the 1970s. That "changey thing" didn't work out so well because it inspired nothing. People have voted with their feet. But we are recovering because people like Mr. Tucker are not concerned with "meeting people where they are” but rather starting anew by "inspiring them to be more than they are." Amen, Deo Gratias.
Great Mr. Tucker. I hope thousands of choir directors, cantors, pastors, parish liturgical committees and interested laity throughout the English speaking church take your comments to heart and consider them very carefully.
Good luck to you and Adam Bartlett in spreading appreciation and devotion to your propers project. I feel more optimistic about the future of the Church's liturgy than I have in 40 years. Despite the horrendous hatchet job done to the Roman missal (3rd edition), the destruction of much of the excellent work the English speaking bishops had approved in 2008.
Nice piece, Jeffery. I really think it all boils down to resources. So many parishes (the rich ones, especially) seem to put everything before paying for the ritual music. The Catholic parish in one of the richest communities in the U.S. made the choir pay for their own choral hymnals. That was when they had a choir. I just learned that they have dispensed with it. I guess someone was late for brunch, due to the singing…
Parishes simply must hire a music director and pay him/her a middle class salary at least. I am so ashamed of my Church in this regard.
I am quite disappointed with David Haas' comments on the Simple Propers Project. His comment reveals the fear he has of losing the copyright income he is currently collecting from the major hymn publishing mills.
As for his assessment of Mr. Bartlett's schola, he is far off the mark. We are singers with no particular distinction that would make us unusually better at chant than other singers. Yes, Adam is indeed an inspiration. However, to make him seem like a Sorcerer with us singers as his apprentices, is an opinion that also belies Haas' fear that his current fans may be lured away by the incomparable beauty of chant.
RedCat, I'm not so sure. Haas is an enormously talented musician, extremely knowledgeable about Catholic liturgy, a real servant of the faith, a very nice man, and a wonderfully honest commentator on Catholic music. He also has a great talent for reaching Catholic musicians, precisely because he is highly sympathetic to their plight. The same impulse that makes him think that Adam's stuff is too hard is the one that makes him such a compelling figure to many Catholic musicians: he works with people where they are. I just think that he underestimates the sacrifices people are willing to make. I think he would do just fine in the same parish with Adam actually. I can imagine standing next to him singing these pieces. For that matter, it would be great fun burning through the Graduale chants over drinks with him.
Also, I'm grateful to him for commenting at all on this project. Just saying what he said took a real sense of liberality and confidence.
Shortly before I was received into the Catholic Church, Fr. George Rutler said to me, "You realize it isn't like Chartres anymore, don't you?" I nodded my head and took the plunge anyway.
As this year ends and another begins, I believe our prospects for better liturgy are brighter than they have been for 40 years. We will refuse to despair; we will continue to work. And God willing, our rising tide will lift all boats.
Again to "RedCat" – I am not afraid that my "current fans may be lured away by the incomparable beauty of chant." It is obvious that you, and so many who want to come after me, have never attended workshops I have presented, because I am CONSTANTLY trying to get contemporary musicians to embrace their tradition, to implement even the most elemental chants and tunes of our tradition ("O Come, O Come Emmanuel," "Pange Lingua," and so many more) in their pastoral practice. I defend and hold chant high in my work.
Secondly, Jeffrey flatters me when we refers to me as a man "who is probably more knowledgeable about the nation’s parish choirs than any living musician" – I am far from that, believe me.
So, while it is certainly anyone's right here to do hold an opinion and state it as so, I guess, the references to "market," "financial gain, "royalties attained," and "fans" make me and others sick, and this is part of the reason that folks from this corner of the liturgical music conversation are often demonized by we so-called progressives. I try to keep in conversation with folks who have different views of things than I do. I had a lovely time with Jeffrey at a workshop this past August in Atlanta, and to sound a bit cliche' and bizarre, "some of my best friends are chant lovers." Many colleagues of mine are baffled why I want to even try to dialogue with folks who frequent Chant Cafe and CMMA. But I do, because, with the risk of sounding too noble, I want to learn and keep the dialogue going, and maybe find some common purpose in what we all do.
I applauded Adam's efforts in the Simple Propers project and its intentions. Why am I – or more importantly, many of us who represent a contemporary genre, attacked personally for our intentions and our motives?
I am sure many here will think and judge that I am a bit defensive here. You would be right. I am. It seems to me we can be critical and more constructive, without having to in overt and covert ways, ridicule people and their devotion to their ministry.
The first part of my post for some reason did not make it…
At the heart of my feelings here with Jeffrey and RedCat using comments referring to me in these ways:
"a man who struggles to provide marketable music in today’s parish environment.."
"a time when a man who is probably more knowledgeable about the nation’s parish choirs than any living musician, says that the average choir director can barely stumble through the most famous Catholic hymn in the English speaking world."
"His comment reveals the fear he has of losing the copyright income he is currently collecting from the major hymn publishing mills."
I have had enough of this.. no one here or anyone else has any right whatsoever to take cheap shots like this, to imply directly or indirectly that people like myself, do what we do, because we are concerned with "market," "financial gain," or "copyright income." If you despise my music and the stances that I make regarding liturgical music and liturgical ministry, fine, that is fair game – go for it. But DO NOT make any presumptions regarding intentions or motives in our ministerial vocation. The inference that I and others do this for the sake of marketable sales and copyright/financial gain makes me ill… enough of this!
This is risky business for me.. I should just step back and let the conversation and at times, fierce accusations fly. But these kinds of inferences go too far.
"organs were mothballed"
At best. The organ at Immaculate Conception in Cleveland (EF parish) was literally THROWN OUT. It was eventually replaced with a rather nice Casavant from a closed parish.
And David? I admire and respect your courage in coming here.
Some good food for fodder, Jeffrey. Many of those article quotes had my head shaking (the worst being the one about the 'non-God talk' approach — seems like a bad Alice in Wonderland joke).
While it is true that many before the Council didn't have the right attitudes and ideas regarding the Liturgy and became 'ecclesiastic mechanics' (to borrow a phrase from the "Keys to the Kingdom"), many of the quotes show that an equal or greater number after the Council also had very erroneous ideas about Liturgy and the Church in general.
"the guitar-strumming youth will bring a new passion and energy that will end in new heights of musical accomplishment and vigor"
There was a lot of encouragement for and production of passion and energy following the Council, and that is very good; but, it was given absolutely no direction or guidance, and that is very bad. Did they really think that the likes of Palestrina were not as passionate and energetic in their time – yet, they were given direction and at times reigned in.
"The right way to address the problem is not by continuing to “meet people where they are” but rather must begin by inspiring them to be more than they are"
We must always 'meet the people where they are'. The problem is that for too long we haven't merely met the people where they were, but actually moved in next to them. Christ himself comes to us as we are — not to wallow in the mud with us, but to lift us out of the mudhole altogether.
I have often heard the remark that 'oh, we can't have such-and-such music/devotion/ritual/etc. because these people just aren't at the same level as you may be at'. It's almost like they are saying, this is the Mass for beginners; and I want to scream out, fine!, please tell me when the Mass for intermediates is.
Today is December 31, which means tomorrow is New Years Day (also, the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God). It is a natural time for all men, whether religiously minded or not, to reflect on their life and the past year and to look forward to the future (which is why the month is named after Janus). I think it can be safely stated that no matter where you or I may or may not be in our spiritual, prayer, or liturgical lives, that if we are no better or more progressed than we were a year ago and if we have little to no intention of making great strives in the coming year then there is something terribly wrong with us.
As a point of interest, I am the present pastor at the parish pictured on the cover of the magazine. The last banjo is gone. The parish installed a new pipe organ a few years back. Masses include the musical propers, usually in English, some times in Latin. Sung Masses both in the ordinary and extra-ordinary form are regular occurences. We struggle to find volunteers willing to give the time to learn the necessary parts. I have come to understand how the Church, with the greatest musical tradition on the planet was tempted to toss it all for dross. It takes an extra-ordinary amount of commitment to keep aiming high. The mediocre becomes very tempting.
"The musical experiment of the 1970s and following threw out the archetype of liturgical music …"
Actually, Jeffrey, you've missed the boat by a few decades. The experiment was devotional hymn-singing at the Low Mass. By the 1970's, the best contemporary composers Ted Marier, John Foley, Alex Peloquin, Ralph Verdi, Howard Hughes, and others were focusing on psalmody, ritual music, and compositions in the patterns not of metrical hymns, but of antiphons and propers.
I find this post lacking in historical perspective, even as it cherry-picks favorite quotes from the past. And if you can't get the history right, and are unwilling to delve into liturgical law, how can we be sure you've got it correct on the propers?
By the way, real classy comments there, RedCat. How's that vibe working for you, these days?
Ya know, folks, it's New Year's Eve. And there's room enough for all kinds of excellent music without us taking pot shots at each other. I'm making a "no snarkiness" resolution right now.
Mr. Haas doth protest too much, methinks.
To David Haas,
My apologies if my comments seemed to you as attacking your work. My choirs, over the years that contemporary Catholic music was very much in vogue, delighted in tunes such as "You Are Mine", Blest Are They", We Will Rise Again".
The movement to return to the propers of the liturgy will eventually replace the composed spiritual songs that have been so popular. Hymnody that had stood the test of the passage of years will return. Songs that highlight the feelings and reactions of the people of God will be replaced by hymns in praise of God. The antiphons and psalms have praised and offered supplication to God over the centuries.
Your work has served the people of God well during the period following Vatican II. All I was saying is that learning chant is not too difficult fir the average choir. Some of your melodies, even in their beauty, were not easy for the choir or congregation to sing. "Now We Remain" has a leap of a sixth and some tricky text rhythms that most congregations find challenging. In my last parish, the congregation listened to the hymn being led by the cantor. Some of the chant in the Graduale Romanum is also quite challenging. This is where the Simple Propers Project comes to the rescue.
My apologies again if I have offended you. In the spirit of the New Year, peace to you and blessings in all your enfeebled.
Editing error: endeavors replaces enfeebled. My iPhone made the change before I could proof read.
RedCat – thanks for the apology.
The main issue that raised my angst was the inference that my copyright royalties would be in jeopardy… that was the low blow for me.
But enough. God bless you all!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Haas' mention of his efforts to introduce chant bring this to mind:
The American Guild of Organists magazine which represents people a majority of who support and prefer pipe organs, exists because of advertising and though members gripe about it a large part of the advertising income is from full page advertisements by digital church organ builders. This cooperation keeps the magazine afloat.
As Musica Sacra is a non-profit, public gifts to Musica Sacra by those who are in a position due to their work in the contemporary Catholic church music field – composers and publishers – might do a lot to create a bridge of understanding. Private gifts, of course, are always welcome, but if they were done publicly, it might do a lot to turn heads and generate interest in well-rounded music programs at Catholic parishes.
I've proposed for years now that parishes move to chant but continue to maintain an active contemporary music program as well. When the church made changes – throwing out statues and changing the language and music of the Mass – many people were alienated and left the church. This could happen again resulting in further decreases in attendance at Mass.
A bridge needs support on both ends. Tucker and Haas may be the people to lay the bricks.
Terry, that is great news! Your comments remind me of the elephant that still lurks in the room – the reliance on volunteers. Many of us who adore the treasury of the Church's music do need to remember that it was all composed for and by professional musicians. Gregorian chant is the notable exception, but I doubt seriously that cathedral canons sang difficult graduals or even offertories very well, if at all. So, what do we do? If we continue this reliance on volunteers with little-to-no training, our expectations must necessarily be restricted, but if we can re-professionalize the music ministries, or at least reinforce them with a sufficient professional presence, we can not only reclaim our treasury, but add to it in a meaningful way. I understand that parishes struggle, but when I see a very well endowed parish relying on free volunteers, I get very annoyed. It states very clearly that the musical prayers of the Mass are not important enough to fund.
I am delighted that David Haas has contributed to this discussion and hope to see his point of view here again. This can only be a good thing. His point about the need to quite demonizing the opposition (ie him) is very well taken. I certainly am no fan of his but my present position has made it abundently clear that much of his music can indeed be sung prayerfully and along side chant and polyphony can certainly enrich the churches liturgy.my problem has been with people who believe that catholic church music is exclusively contemporary with an ocassional traditional hymn done as a disengenuious nod towards balance. I also have a problem with arrangements of his and other music that is so sloppy that in order to perform the piece you simply have to re write it. (check out we are called in choral praise)I am only too happy to remind mr Hass about an e mail exchange wehad a number of years ago on this subject While I was impressed with mr. hass willingness to engage in dialogue , i found tremendious inconsistancies and in the end no real answer to my criticisms other than i should not judge a composers entire work based on some parallel 5ths and octaves
while i certainly hope (and would expect) that Mr. Haas be treated with the same courtesy and respect in this forum as anyone else working in sacred music in good faith, nontheless his importance in this area cannot be underestimated and must be open for comment and criticism.
When my late mother attended a Catholic teacher training college in the north of England on the eve of WWII students were obliged to study Gregorian Chant and were examined on it.I still have the certificate, issued by Solesmes. At junior school in the 1950s we were taught the basic chants for the Mass Ordinary and Benediction. "Plainsong for Schools" was cheaply produced and sold in great numbers. I wouldn't say Chant was brilliant in our parish; propers were psalm-toned and although the congregation could manage the Asperges the plainchant Vidi Aquam was beyond them. Polyphony was not attempted. But the basics of a shared liturgical and musical culture were there.
The rupture came with the vernacularization of the liturgy between 1964 and 1967. Choirs were told not to sing in Latin any more and less formal musical styles were deemed more suitable for a less formal liturgy. David Haas's typical choir director (why does he use the feminine pronoun?) will not have encountered even the basics of Gregorian notation or pointing, and so would find even the simple English propers perplexing.
ICEL have done good work in adapting the new texts to Gregorian formulas but perversely are using modern notation – a missed opportunity.
John – my use of a feminine pronoun was not conscious. I guess it was probably because over 90% of the music directors who attend workshops and other gatherings where I am involved, tend to be women. There was no specific other connotation intended.
Todd
Many of us who post here were Catholic musicians pre and post Council. We lived it, you did not. So I would be careful about correcting those of us who were in the trenches then. The analysis is pretty spot on. The dumpsters were full of Libers.
Mr Haas– What do you think the best way would be to get the propers sung in parishes? What are some things that you think would be helpful to the average choir director, so that we might hear the entirety of the Mass sung? You say that the Simple Propers Project is too hard: What would be required to make it more accessible?
I got my first copy of the Liber from one of a number of piles stacked outside St. Pancras Church, Lewes, somewhere towards the end of the 1970's. I wasn't a Catholic then, and was somewhat taken aback by what I saw.
Anonymous 2:38, while it is true that I wasn't a Catholic before the Council, I have been involved with many people, including friends, who were. If Jeffrey brought facts and testimony from before the Council (I know he wasn't there either) it would be one thing. I became Catholic in a parish where the old choir continued to exist as a few years' of musical seminarians developed cantors, and a decent folk group got going. My personal experience growing up was of people working together to improve parish music. If there was whining, it was largely behind the scenes.
So I'm afraid I will continue to correct Jeffrey when I think his characterizations are off-kilter. If you can't get the diagnosis with accuracy, how can you be sure you have the cure?
I have no reason to think you parish's dumpster wasn't full of Libers one day. The question I have: why did you allow it to happen? Many virtues rank higher than misplaced obedience to a new pastor.
"If you can't get the diagnosis with accuracy, how can you be sure you have the cure?"
The patient gets better. [Spend some time watching the next House marathon to confirm my diagnosis. But, I'm not a doctor and have not played on in TV]]
"I have no reason to think you (sic) parish's dumpster wasn't full of Libers (liber? liberi?) one day. The question I have: why did you allow it to happen? Many virtues rank higher than misplaced obedience to a new pastor."
Whoa. Strong words. I can see the headline, ONE MAN TAKES ON VATICAN II AND IS CRUSHED BY THE MACHINE!
You may not understand the structure of power and decision making and the inability of parishioners to do anything in light of pastor's decisions, no matter if they are good or bad. It's easy for people to say to you that this is because you were not born Catholic and you need to know that this is not an insult, but rather a common experience when dealing with people who move from one denomination to another, carrying with them notions of what is fair and what is not fair.
You might profit by some time studying subsidiarity in parishes, not merely in theory but also in practice. Take some time, do a thorough study and report back to us, we'd like to hear what you've discovered.
"Take some time, do a thorough study and report back to us, we'd like to hear what you've discovered."
Man, you have sort of a Matthew 2:8 echo here. I still think tenacious parishioners with a righteous cause can make a lot of friction. Sheep in revolt, and all that …
Read, When Sheep Attack by Dennis Maynard, take an aspirin and call us in the morning.
"Why did you allow it to happen? Many virtues rank higher than misplaced obedience to a new pastor."
The liturgical revolution of 1965-1970 was without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. Its nearest parallel in England is with the events of 1548-1553. Like that revolution it was imposed from above and there was nothing that bishops, priests or laity could have done to stop it, short of outright rebellion.
I'd prefer to counsel the sheep in nonviolent resistance. I think that's appropriate. I don't take aspirin, Dr Jones. I believe in good diet and exercise, thank you.
"… was imposed from above and there was nothing that bishops, priests or laity could have done to stop it …"
Above = the Holy Spirit
"Above = the Holy Spirit". Cranmer thought so, but the success of his revolution depended on a more temporal authority. Regarding the 1960s it was more Zeitgeist than Heilige Geist, I fear.
Todd still posting about something you really know nothing about and never experienced. I bet you're getting your "history" from liturgical "progressives" who were part of the destruction in the 1960s! By the way, have you implemented Sacrosanctum Concilium in your parish by having the congregation sing the parts of the Ordinary in Latin proper to them? Inquiring minds want to know.
This is a fascinating discussion to say the least. The problem that still presents itself to me is the issue of this so-called "bridge" or "compromise" between what are fundamentally two very different views of Catholic liturgy. If the purpose of such a "bridge" is to move FROM the contemporary song dominated liturgical praxis TO something drawn from the Church's liturgical tradition of Chant and Sacred Music (both ancient and modern)….then I'm all for it. If the purpose is to perpetuate and/or prolong the view of Catholic liturgy that advocated and facilitated the wholesale rejection of that tradition in the first place, then I see no benefit to such compromise.
I believe it was Einstein who said that you cannot simultaneously "seek peace and prepare for war". I am not sure either that one can truly advocate for tradition while continuing to support and promote a point of view and the corresponding liturgical expressions which have as their foundation the suppression and destruction of tradition. Where would there be a place for compromise? What would such a compromise look like as a permanent liturgical vision for the Church? Can that kind of tension really become the foundational structure for authentic liturgy? I have my doubts that the liturgical wars can effectively be ended with a compromise.
Chironimo
If Einstein did say that, he got it wrong. The Romans and the Cold War warriors got it right: Si vis pacem para bellum.
Todd have you implemented Sacrosanctum Concilium in your parish by having the people chant the parts of the Ordinary, in Latin, proper to them? IT's a pretty simple requirement and a pretty simple question. Why don't you respond?
John Nolan;
I have to admit that I don't entirely agree with Mr. Einstein from a political perspective! (He was, after all a pacifist and I am most certainly not…). My point was that you cannot hold two contradictory views… in this case one cannot claim to be an advocate of tradition AND a promoter of the very liturgical practices that have as their objective the deconstruction and suppression of tradition. It's like certain individuals who claim to be advocates of chant, while then saying that it is too difficult, obscure or irrelevant to use in liturgy. The contemporary liturgical genre has as it's objective the replacement of traditional liturgical music (Chant, polyphony…). There has, up to just a year or two ago, been no talk about "compromise" or "bridge building" from the contemporary genre advocates. Now as the wind begins blowing the other way, it suddenly becomes fashionable for advocates of the contemporary genre to talk about "building bridges" and seeking ways to incorporate both traditional and contemporary genre music into the liturgy. I am very much reminded of the congressional Democrat's new-found desire for bi-partisanship and compromise now that they have lost control of congress. It's very enlightening to see how losing the position of power can radically alter one's view of how the opposition should conduct itself….
If Einstein had remained in Germany he would have been shoved in an oven. So much for the benefits of "pacifism."
I a volunteer who helps very little now but started in 1964 as an eighth grader on the organ because my piano teacher was the organist, Sr. Mary. She was also director of the 8th grade girls choir of which I was a member. I remember two songs for choir: Sing to the Lord, Sing to the Lord, Sing to the Lord a new song, Sing to the Lord, Sing to the Lord a new song, And bless His Name, Bless His Name, Sing to the Lord a new song, and Ave Maris Stella. In high school I played for the Marian devotions and Benediction on Wednesday nights. In college, I would just not show up to play for Sunday 7:30am Mass due to the night before. Years later, I would rush into the sacristy and pick out four hymns and tell the lector the numbers to announce and then run up to the choir loft and get ready to play just in the nick of time. I quit after some years because I was very upset about something I learned later I was totally wrong about with Church teaching. Then I got a call from the new music ministry person and said I guessed I could help again. That was 16 years ago. I accept my responsibility in agreeing to go back-to play the piano. I asked to also sing and that led to some things unacceptable to me now that I know better.I helped with the choir off and on and that was the organ. I left the choir after Christmas 2010. What do I say now? I was way off at times. I went with the flow, but not the flow of orthodoxy. So, God allowed me to stumble and fall and has helped me learn better things with sacred music now. My music volunteering has been a mess off and on through the years. But I want to give back to God and my parents and others with this gift of music in some way to make up for the bad music and the mess I made. Oh praise and thanks to God! I just realized in writing that that I CAN make up for the bad music! Our orthodox parish choir has asked for more members and I have been praying to know if I should join. Thank you everyone and Holy Spirit for the Comments section where this good music/bad music was discussed and where I realized I can make reparation for bad music! Let's all make reparation for the bad music! Jesus makes everything new! And remember what my friend Victor pointed out one day to my friend who was practicing in the Adoration Chapel: he asked, what do singers think of when they sing in Church? My friend said, the words. Victor said, think of Jesus in the tabernacle!
5:02 anonymous,
A few suggestions:
If you wish to remain anonymous, and engage seriously in discussion, please consider getting a handle by which you can be addressed.
We should all be able to acknowledge that there were about 20,000 implementation stories in the US alone–about one for every parish. Some places implemented well, like my home parish of my youth. Others not so well. And some hardly at all. Many parishes were founded after Vatican II, and that's another adventure.
My parishes have sung the Kyrie and Agnus Dei in Latin. I'm skeptical about the Credo: the expression of faith is not a piece of music by definition, and it seems more important for faith to be expressed simply by the whole assembly.
My present parish does not sing the Gloria or Sanctus, nor do I think there is a need to. The liturgy documents that followed SC make clear the arc of the implementation of the vernacular in the 1960's. Please consult my blog's archives for a full analysis.
I'm come to be suspicious of the "anonymous inquirer" on the internet. I take some risks by commenting publicly with my full name. My wife worries from time to time about too much disclosure. Before we continue a discussion along these lines, I would like to ask your full intent by this line of questioning. Are your motives virtuous and respectful? Or is this an entrapment of some sort?
I am doing a risky thing here.. because most of the time when my name is used in negative context (which is quite often among groups like this and the CMMA), it is best to just detach and let the conversations go on. Because my name is recognizable, almost every time I post a comment on blogs (this is my first time here), regardless of the topic or context, I become the point, rather than the topic or opinion that I raise.
The topic of the beginning of PASTORAL MUSIC magazine is a valid one, and will illicit many views. That part I find interesting and actually a positive thing, regardless of whether one agrees with what is being proposed in such a post. I am used to being attacked, but I do not appreciate you Jeffrey, first using comments about me such as "a man who struggles to provide marketable music in today’s parish environment.." or "a time when a man who is probably more knowledgeable about the nation’s parish choirs than any living musician, says that the average choir director can barely stumble through the most famous Catholic hymn in the English speaking world" to make your point. Add to that "RedCat"s comment about my intentions and motives in my vocation as liturgical musician and composer: "His comment reveals the fear he has of losing the copyright income he is currently collecting from the major hymn publishing mills."
So here is my response: Jeffrey – I do NOT struggle to provide "marketable music." You have no business making judgments about my intentions or motives as to why I do what I do. The same goes for "RedCat." If you despise the music I and others whose work you dismiss, that is fair game. Certainly I would rather people think positively about my music, but we all have our leanings, and that is fair, and when compelled, we should be aggressive and fervent in our critique and even opposition.
But DO NOT go after people's motives or intentions, or have the audacity to question their vocation. In this I am not only speaking for myself, and the criticisms laid at me personally (which happens a lot here and on CMMA ), as I know I am a popular whipping boy for many. I am speaking for a huge number of composers who compose in a wide variety of musical genres, who do this NOT for financial gain, but for their love of the church, the liturgy, and their desire for people to find ways to deepen their sung prayer. How dare you?