Sacred Music Vs. Secular Music In The Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308087586' post='2253762']
How far is too far? I know all the quotes we all like to throw out there but I find people in general will take a mile when given an inch, so if we say that other forms of sacred music are suitable for liturgical use (obviously Gregorian chant has pride of place) and we don't give them any concrete indication of exactly what we mean by that, we end up with all sorts being sung. There's too much room for personal interpretation of what exactly is suitable for liturgical use.
[/quote]
The interpretations are stretched to ridiculous degrees. To actually read the documents, there are principles laid down that establish exactly what makes sacred music suitable for the liturgy. We need to follow these principles, with the first of all being the primacy of Gregorian chant.
I feel that it has to be emphasized that it's not so subjective a subject as people think. There are objective standards.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308087858' post='2253763']
Cardinal Arinze did not exclude the use of the guitar, though he did not seem to consider it the optimal choice of instrument for the liturgy, either. Not every Catholic church in the world has (or can have) a pipe organ. In some places...you take what you can get instrument-wise. So...sometimes that will be a guitar. Or a tamborine. Or a harmonica.

And, you know, sometimes a cappella is nice, too.....
[/quote]
A cappella is always nice. The human voice is the greatest of sacred instruments. The reason the organ is so well suited for the liturgy is that it is the instrument that most closely emulates the human voice.

[Noel's angel]

I thought the cello was closest to emulating the human voice?

[MithLuin]

Yes, though Sax and Violin can also be contenders for that honor. I was just pointing out that in the absence of any instrument at all, you can still have sacred music, since the key component is the SINGING.

From your other thread:

[quote]Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Lo­gos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the [i]sursum corda,[/i] the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that [i]logike latreia[/i] (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)… [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 151][/quote]

Anything formless or a result of sensuality or meant to intoxicate would [i]not[/i] be appropriate styles of music for the sacred liturgy. If it lifts up the heart and leads you to Jesus...you're on the right track.

Edited June 14, 2011 by MithLuin

[Noel's angel]

The thing is, the documents don't seem to state EXACTLY what makes a hymn suitable for liturgical use. They say Gregorian chant is the supreme form of liturgical music and that other forms may also be acceptable, provided they are 'animated by a spirit of devotion, and piety' (to use one example), but who decides which hymns fit the bill? Isn't that left largely up to personal interpretation. I know from debates with so-called liturgical music 'experts' that even those who have studied the documents can vary widely on what they believe they mean. One such person actually rejected Gregorian chant as the supreme model of liturgical music, and quoted (albeit poorly) a number of documents, that would have seemed to have backed up his point, to those hadn't read the documents for themselves.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308089779' post='2253778']
I thought the cello was closest to emulating the human voice?
[/quote]
Stringed bowed instruments, when played with dignity, come directly afterwards afaik.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308089934' post='2253779']
Yes, though Sax and Violin can also be contenders for that honor. I was just pointing out that in the absence of any instrument at all, you can still have sacred music, since the key component is the SINGING.

From your other thread:



Anything formless or a result of sensuality or meant to intoxicate would [i]not[/i] be appropriate styles of music for the sacred liturgy. If it lifts up the heart and leads you to Jesus...you're on the right track.
[/quote]

Again, I love that book and I've read it a few times, but the problem lies in your statement: 'if it lifts up the heart and leads you to Jesus...'. There may be the folk singer who likes taking his guitar to adoration and singing praise and worship songs because he feels they bring him to Jesus. Should we sing praise and worship hymns during Mass?

Documents are great and books on the Liturgy are great (my bookshelves are overflowing with them) but what about the actual reality? My comments have all been borne of recent experiences with Church musicians and singers. I've been through the debates where we all quote documents 'til we're blue in the face but it doesn't help with the reality of what is going on in churches everywhere.

Even when people aren't directly quoting from documents, I can see they're simply copying what they have read and passing it off as their own. It's hugely irritating.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Noel's angel

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308090660' post='2253783']
Even when people aren't directly quoting from documents, I can see they're simply copying what they have read and passing it off as their own. It's hugely irritating.
[/quote]
It's equally troubling when people read all the relevant documents, then promptly set about ignoring them because of 'pastoral considerations'. (What an annoying buzzword that is...)
...and no, I'm not accusing you of that.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Noel's angel]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly about using 'pastoral concerns' as an excuse. I'm personally trying to devise a charitable but effective way of encouraging people to understand the liturgy. There are so many people (especially in choirs) who say 'the Church says [insert error here]' and it frustrates me so much. I've tried the 'well actually THIS is actually what we're supposed to do' approach, alongside various quotations from documents and books, and most of the time I either get called unsavoury things or I'm shouted down.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308090660' post='2253783']
Again, I love that book and I've read it a few times, but the problem lies in your statement: 'if it lifts up the heart and leads you to Jesus...'. There may be the folk singer who likes taking his guitar to adoration and singing praise and worship songs because he feels they bring him to Jesus. Should we sing praise and worship hymns during Mass?

[/quote]

Sure, why not?



I guess my point is that [i]if[/i] said praise and worship hymn is appropriate to the liturgy (ie, the lyrics are from the psalms or some such) and it meets that basic criteria (of being uplifting and making people think of God), then it's really not such a terrible thing. Sure, Gregorian chant could be better. Other hymns could be better. But that particular song is not so bad...simply, not the best.

It's a starting point, basic criteria. There are more advanced criteria for how to go about selecting music for the liturgy, and if one is involved in that ministry...they should know what these criteria are, so they can do a better job!

We can always strive for a better liturgy. And certainly, if you have anything to do with the music at your own parish, go for it! But I don't feel the need to get bent out of shape if it's not a clear abuse of what liturgical music is meant to be. In other words, if someone thinks it would be 'cute' to use a popular secular song at mass (ie, something by the Beatles) , I would condemn that as clearly way out of line. But for the rest...well, I just show up in the pews, so I'm not really involved and I'm not going to complain, either.

You can do worse than this:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9hrEVVfA4[/media]

Psalm 122 (that might be the John Michael Talbott version, but I'm not sure)

There is a Praise and Worship version, too: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNkCrZXVCp0]Unto the House of the Lord[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGWDIeIToRk]Here[/url] is an example of the P&W song 'Shout to the Lord' being sung (in Italian) at a mass with a Cardinal just outside Rome, and the psalm I mentioned above was also used there: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8qMO4lZSOE]Here[/url]

It's certainly not the loveliest version of sacred music I've ever heard, no. But it's not pop songs, either.

Of course, you can always have this, too:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXZWvWsPzWw[/media]

To be honest, I'd be a bit weirded out if I went to my church on Sunday and heard that. It's lovely, but also rather...distracting. But then, I'm one of those weird people who doesn't like Handel's Messiah...AT ALL. I can handle this more sedate version: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DMZSbqGBmA]Monteverdi[/url]


Personally, I love to sing. So, whatever the hymn/style of music is, I'll go for it. Unless it's clearly a choir thing that they don't want any 'help' with. Unfortunately, I'm also tone deaf. So no matter how simple and easy to learn the song is, I'll sing it out of key and/or flat. Yes, I'm the person you really don't want to sit in front of at mass, and I could never join a religious order that chants the Hours for the simple reason that I would be some poor sister's purgatory on earth.

[Noel's angel]

Well, you'd have to get rid the piano in the first hymn. (Apart from that, it's a bit busy imo, but certainly nowhere near the worst thing I've heard). The violin player is a bit too excitable in their playing for my taste.

In 'Shout to the Lord' you'd also have to get rid of the drums.

The last video, although beautiful, is too much of a performance for my liking.

The thing is though, take out the piano in number 1 and the drums in number 2, and what's left can only be judged subjectively. Some will see it as appropriate, others won't.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308090300' post='2253780']
The thing is, the documents don't seem to state EXACTLY what makes a hymn suitable for liturgical use.
[/quote]


They dont have to. The person who makes the decision on weather a song is appropriate for Liturgical uses is ultimately the Priest who is celebrating the Mass. Those that wrote the "documents" trusted that said Priest would have the wisdom to descern whether certain songs(or instruments for that matter) are appropriate.

[Noel's angel]

I'm not sure how it is everywhere else, but over here it is rare that the priest is involved in deciding which hymns are sung each Sunday. Secondly, there are priests who allow people to sing all sorts (including secular music) at Mass, so I don't think that the 'eave it up to the priests' stance is good enough.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my experience, the priest doesn't have a ton of control over his choir after he's picked his director. Certainly he has the authority, but I've rarely if ever seen it exercised.
Jeffrey Tucker (at least I think it was him) explains this by recalling that choir directors and people in positions like them tend to be long-term members of the parish community, while on the other hand the priest may only be there for 2-5 years in most cases. A priest who publicly opposes the 'old guard' often finds a lot of very serious obstacles in his pastoral ministry. Maybe some nasty rumours... maybe a little cabal of parishioners who start to complain to the bishop about him on trumped-up reasons...
It happens. It shouldn't, but it does. It's part, I think, of the culture of entitlement that says that lay people have a 'right' to run our Church. Same reason people think that they're entitled to be Extraordinary Ministers and the like.

[MithLuin]

Yes, all of that is true. A friend of mine is the organist at a small Protestant parish in the Midwest. He loves traditional hymns, though he plays a wide variety of music for the different services - but his choices are not generally subjugated to the approval of his pastor. Which is a good thing! His relationship with his pastor is very trying, because he is doctrinally quite liberal (the pastor, not the organist) and that leads to all sorts of tension and disagreement. Certainly, I think my friend plans to outlive the pastor at this church. He likes the pope and is quite friendly to Catholic doctrine, so I have teasingly invited him to convert on several occasions. Maybe someday! (Especially now that the Anglicans can convert but retain something of their liturgy.)

The Vatican II documents make it clear that the education about sacred music is not first and foremost the job of the people in the pews (though they are to be educated enough to sing along and participate), but rather of the pastors and musical directors.

I do not understand why pianos were nixed? Are they considered a cheap imitation of the organ or something?