Music At Mass

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1308853734' post='2257745']
I wonder what kind of music was used before Gregorian chant was invented? Do you supposed people opposed chant at the time as being too "innovative?"
[/quote]



I have to agree with this. I feel similarly with regards to 'traditional' worship. I would [i]love [/i]a truely traditional celebration of the Lord's Supper - meeting together, sharing a meal, reading and discussing Scripture and finally ending with Communion. I always feel amused that such events are considered inappropriate and even 'modern' by many traditionalists!




And as for music for the liturgy, I like all sorts. I cannot think of one particular style that I would hold as my personal ideal as I have been to Masses with all sorts done well, and also done badly. If God is held at the centre the whole time, and music is chosen after sincere prayer asking His guidance, then sung with the sole aim of glorifying His name, it will be fine.

Edited June 23, 2011 by faithcecelia

[Cam42]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1308853734' post='2257745']
I wonder what kind of music was used before Gregorian chant was invented? Do you supposed people opposed chant at the time as being too "innovative?"
[/quote]

Read [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/385"]Musicae Sacrae Disciplina[/url] Pope Pius XII gives a great history of that.

[Noel's angel]

No, seriously, I agree with you on P&W. You'll just have to trust me on that. What I said was that other forms are acceptable as I believed your comment to be misleading. Those other forms do not include P+W imo. You'll see that from previous posts.
BTW Cam, I might need your help with something so if you wouldn't mind me picking your brains (so-to-speak), can you let me know how I could contact you?

[Cam42]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1308854047' post='2257748']
I have to agree with this. I feel similarly with regards to 'traditional' worship. I would [i]love [/i]a truely traditional celebration of the Lord's Supper - meeting together, sharing a meal, reading and discussing Scripture and finally ending with Communion. I always feel amused that such events are considered inappropriate and even 'modern' by many traditionalists!
[/quote]

No, that is the heresy of Archeologicalism or more commonly called Christian Primitivism by the Protestants (because they don't see it as a heresy). The Church has a developed understanding of the liturgy....the Last Supper was not a Mass, but the institution of the Eucharist as a Sacrament....we should not confuse the two things....

Edited June 23, 2011 by Cam42

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308854489' post='2257753']
No, that is the heresy of Archeologicalism or more commonly called Christian Primitivism by the Protestants (because they don't see it as a heresy). The Church has a developed understanding of the liturgy....the Last Supper was not a Mass, but the institution of the Eucharist as a Sacrament....we should not confuse the two things....
[/quote]



So if you say the liturgy is a natural progression and we need not worry about how the early Christians worshiped, I don't understand the desire to go back to the Extraordinary Form, the current Mass is as much part of that natural progression as anything before it.

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][b]Mass music: Prayer of praise, adoration

(This communication was sent directly to all priests and deacons in the Diocese of Madison, as well as to the local parish directors of worship and directors of music.)

Dear Friends,

The clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that the presence of Christ at Mass occurs in four different ways: the most sacramentally intense presence of Christ is His Real Presence under the signs of bread and wine; the second most sacramentally intense presence of Christ is in His proclaimed word; the third most sacramentally intense presence of Christ is through the priest, who is ordained to act in the person of Christ; and the fourth most sacramentally intense presence of Christ is in the assembly. These four "places" of the presence of Christ are all important but they are not all equal in sacramental intensity.

Misinterpretation of council teachings

In previous communications, I have written about what Pope Benedict has called the discontinuity hermeneutic, thatis the various misinterpretations of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which have occurred since the council and which now stand in need of correction.

After the council, an overemphasis was given to the presence of Christ in the assembly, so that the other ways Christ is even more sacramentally intensely present suffered a certain neglect.

Evidence of that is given through the occurrence, not unusual throughout the United States, of the practice of the taking of the consecrated Precious Blood of Christ, which remained after Mass, and pouring it down the sacrarium or even an ordinary sink. Evidence of this is also given in the need seen universally among the Bishops of the United States to issue a document affirming and clarifying our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species.

As I have said repeatedly, everything that we do or do not do at the Eucharistic liturgy teaches. Pope Benedict has called us recently to a reflection about the music that is sung during the liturgy, and in fact our national bishops' conference will be considering this matter further at our coming meeting in November.

Music during the Mass

The question arises, does some of the music routinely sung embody the incorrect overemphasis on the presence of Christ in the assembly, so that people are confused as to the importance of the sacramental intensity of His presence, especially under the signs of bread and wine.

Certain songs come to mind where the lyrics raise a real question for me. For example: "We are called, We are chosen, We are Christ for one another, We are a promise, We are sower, We are seed, We are question, We are creed." Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something, and I am afraid that it is something that I as Bishop do not want to teach them, but we certainly need to begin a dialogue about these matters.

Another example of this same problem would be the lyrics of the hymn Gather Us In, where a seemingly endless explanation is given to God about who We are, who are gathered in.

Pope Benedict has said that the music at Mass is not an extrinsic accompaniment to the liturgy, but is intrinsically part of our prayer of praise and adoration and thanksgiving to the Lord. The words of the songs we sing should be focused on giving praise and adoration to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, rather than explaining to God things about ourselves or even praising ourselves.

When we gather for the Eucharist, we gather as sinners as the beautiful Eucharistic Preface teaches: "You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank You is itself Your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to Your greatness, but makes us grow in your grace, through Jesus our Lord." That prayer of the Church contains the truth about the assembly. We are an assembly in whom Christ is indeed present, an assembly blessed with this wonderful gift even though we are sinners .The music we sing at Mass should teach nothing different than that.

Open discussion about music at Mass

I make these observations in order to open a discussion about the music we sing at Mass, in the context of my addressing my second focal point since coming to Madison (vocations has been the first focal point), of liturgy and catechesis. This is just the beginning of a discussion. I will in the near future be issuing additional guidelines for music at celebration of Confirmation only (which will take effect next Easter),and any further liturgical approaches that we take as a diocese will depend on the continuing wisdom which Pope Benedict offers us about liturgical music, on the wisdom we receive from our deliberations as a National Conference of Bishops, and upon the reflections I hear from our good priests and people in the days ahead.

But I write this present communication in the hope that pastors and brother priests, deacons, and various liturgical ministers in the parishes will begin to reflect on and discuss this particular important matter, so that the liturgical prayer of our people will be more integral with and more expressive of authentic spirituality and theology, and as a result our faithful people who pray that prayer will be even more holy than so many of you already are.

We must remember that as we pray before the "Holy, Holy, Holy," the angels and saints are present withus giving praise to the Trinity. The hymns we sing should be worthy of the participation of the angels and saints.

Thank you for reading this, God bless you and yours. Praises be Jesus Christ!

-- Bishop Robert C. Morlino - Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin



[/b][/size][/font]

Edited June 23, 2011 by Papist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1308854826' post='2257754']
So if you say the liturgy is a natural progression and we need not worry about how the early Christians worshiped, I don't understand the desire to go back to the Extraordinary Form, [b]the current Mass is as much part of that natural progression as anything before it[/b].
[/quote]
Not really. The Novus Ordo was developed by a committee in the late 60s. That's not natural progression so much as forceful addition. We can argue its merits, but it's hard to call the Novus Ordo an organic development of the older Mass.

[Cam42]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1308854826' post='2257754']
So if you say the liturgy is a natural progression and we need not worry about how the early Christians worshiped, I don't understand the desire to go back to the Extraordinary Form, the current Mass is as much part of that natural progression as anything before it.
[/quote]

I don't dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo. Never have. What I do have an issue with is the fact that what we know now as the EF was taken from us as a valid form of worship by certain leaders in the Church. So, it isn't that I'm going back, but rather that I am expressing what always was, with respect to the Holy Mass.

But, I also don't disagree that the Novus Ordo grew from a hermeneutic of rupture, rather than authentic growth...that bears itself out through historical fact. But that is not what is at question here.

[Nihil Obstat]

Eminently relevant:


[url="http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/06/music-is-here-forty-years-late.html"]The Music Is Here, Forty Years Late[/url]
Posted by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Sixteen years ago, I found myself vaguely in charge of providing music at one Mass (vigil on Saturday) at my local parish. I had very little notion of what precisely was wrong with the existing music - that something was wrong was very obvious - much less how I could go about fixing it. I only knew the broad outlines and had broad principles of how to get there. Chant was best, I knew because Vatican II said so, but not really viable.

I had a Liber Usualis but no real clue about how to sing from it much less apply it to the ordinary form of Mass. Like most musicians in those days, I worked with what the parish had and tried to improve it on the margin: four decent hymns and a Psalm that I had to write and voice each week because the existing resource struck me as essentially silly.

Where was the source material? What about a decent setting of the Mass ordinary? Is there nothing else besides hymns to sing at these various spots? Why must there be these periodic bursts of music during and after the consecration? What are the controlling documents for dealing with all these problems? Did anyone really know what was going on?

The year was 1995, and the world wide web was just getting off the ground. No one had a copy of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. There were no music downloads. Even getting a copy of the music books pertaining to the Roman Rite was exceedingly difficult in a town without a Catholic book store. As for mailing lists, I guess I wasn’t on the right ones.

My plight was the plight of most Catholic musicians in those days, and so it had been from the mid 1970s, when the last of the well-trained Catholic musicians had been run off from the parishes. Confusion reigned. We did the best we could but we had virtually no tools, musical or intellectual. I got together with some singers and we sang Ubi Caritas after communion and Adoro Te when possible. But apart from these little bits and pieces, there could be no real improvement at the core.

We knew nothing of Mass propers, nothing of the Gregorian Missal, nothing of alternative Psalm settings, nothing of any English or Latin chant dealing with the ordinary of the Mass. I had heard of a tiny movement that was singing chant here and there around the country, but I had no access to training or method or sheet music.

Just thinking about these days - they lasted for some 40 years! - it is mind boggling how far we’ve come. Today, there is no reason for barely competent composers to attempt to write their own Psalms. They are all free for the download. So too with the music. Even the chant books themselves are everything. The GIRM is online. Most importantly, there are vast tutorials, communities, and educational resources available to anyone who looks them up. There are national conferences that attract hundreds. Every few weeks, it seems, there is another training session in Gregorian chant taking place somewhere. You can download all the propers of the Mass in English or Latin, in myriad settings.

It’s been one long upward climb, day by day, week by week. Finding the truth about Catholic music been like discovery a great lost city. We’ve learned where it is we need to be and discovered ways to get from here to there. The forty years in the desert are coming to an end. The evidence might not have hit your local parish but there is not question that it will at some point. Hundreds are undergoing training. The resources are finally there. There is light at the end of this long tunnel.

Just in the last week, three major developments portend a beautiful future. First, the USCCB announced that it is at the discretion of local Bishops as to whether they would like to use the new texts for the Mass starting this fall rather than waiting for Advent. The wonderful thing: the music that is most accessible to parishes is from the forthcoming Missal itself. This music is chant. It is sung by people using the real texts of the Mass. It is unaccompanied. Every parish can use this music as the basis of a solemn and participatory liturgical structure.

The music is free for the download, thanks to the surprising foresight of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Many Bishops and pastors have already said that they will use the Missal chants as part of a national push for a standardized Mass setting that all the people can sing. One year ago, this seems like an implausible hope. Today it seems eminently possible.

At the very same time, the first book of chant Mass propers in English for the ordinary form of the Mass has come into print. The author/composer is Adam Bartlett. They are designed to take the place of what is usually the processional, offertory, and communion hymns. They are not some random text and song but rather the real text of the Mass together with appropriate songs. They are chanted in the same mode as the traditional Gregorian. They are accessible for every single parish in this country.

The Simple English Propers are available for free download sharing. Even so, the book is also in print, a 460-page hardback for $17.50. They were available at the Sacred Music Colloquium this year and completely sold out. They were put on sale at Amazon and the sales ranking shot up in 4,000 overnight - demonstrating high demand. There will surely be other Mass propers collections, but this is the first, and already the interest around the English-speaking world is extremely high. Many parishes already use them. At last, there is a book that covers the main parts of Mass and that can be sung by anyone!

A third resource has appeared at the same time. Choral settings of the Mass propers by Richard Rice have been published by the Church Music Association of America. They were on sale at the colloquium and they sold out within one hour. They too are available on Amazon. They are simple, dignified, and beautiful. They can be sung by any choir with four voices. Once again, when they are used, the choir is not only singing at Mass but singing the text of the Mass itself.

So there we have it all, forty years after the promulgation of the ordinary form of the Mass. We are getting a new Missal with chants to sing. We have the propers of the Mass in vernacular chant and in choral settings. And we have Psalms we can download and sing. The hope is that by October, we will also have simple chanted Responsorial Psalms also in print and ready for global distribution.

It makes me sad to think of all the years that have been wasted, but also makes me wild with excitement to know of what faces us in the future. There will be no more wallowing ignorance and musical poverty. We know know what to do, and we have the resources to do it. I’m deeply grateful for all the colleagues and friends I’ve been blessed to have during this long journey from darkness to light.

In the years ahead, I feel sure that people will look back in amazement at all the years in which we wandered in the desert, trying to find a way out. But for now, let’s just look ahead and praise God for what this generation has been given. It is now left to us to go out and make the difference.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308852301' post='2257741']
I am not going to comment any further on your personal view, because to be completely honest, it is yours and I really don't care, nor do I have a right to judge. What I can speak to though is what is going on with regard to the mind of the Church....so I will speak to that...

Authenticity is NEVER judged by the laity. Authenticity is a matter for the Church to decide and to catechize the faithful on. Outside of that, we must simply trust in the Church. But when her members obfuscate the meanings, then we must take issue.
[/quote]

So, we judge them then? If authenticity is the realm of the Church and the members confuse the authenticity it should be the Churches realm right?

[quote]
And when we get to intention, yes....but the intention is not ours, it is the Church's. We are to accept that and learn from that. The Mass does not belong to any one person, but to assume that the music should appeal to one in particular, then you cease to have participatio actuosa and simply have pariticipatio activa. That is never good.[b] There is no quandary, if you simply do what the Church asks, then you are clear in your intention.[/b]
[/quote]

The [b]bolded[/b] statement I find curious, because it sounds as if 'doing' the motions is more valid then the heart felt intention. Christ called us to have not only doing say works of mercy, but that requires a good-will intentioned embodied through love. If that's not what you meant I apologize for the misinterpretation.

[quote]
Praise and worship is not suited to the Mass. It never has been and it never will be. Look at the Church's intetntion in the post above and you'll see a whole lot written about Sacred music and nothing written about praise and worship. Properly speaking, Gregorian Chant raises one most perfectly in the Mass....so that is what should be sung.

While I do agree with this reasoning, I don't agree with it because it is my personal opinion or because I hate praise and worship. I agree because the Church says it is what we should be doing....I actually like praise and worship music as long as it fits with Catholic thinking. Heck, jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) is one of my favorite guitarists, but I will argue with him until the day that he dies (or me, whoever goes first) that it isn't apt for Mass.

But, to be subjected to something inferior for 40+ years now, while being told that it is the way things should be done....that is not authentic. The St. Louis Jesuits, Fr. J. Michael Joncas, Marty Haugen and David Haas, among others have misinterpreted the meaning of sacred music and hi-jacked our musical heritage. But, by and large, that is all we've been able to hear at Mass, so please don't tell me that it has been easy supporting this stuff....also, I essentially was blackballed from Campus Ministry in college for holding this line....this has NOT been easy for me....not one bit. I support it, because it is authentic. I oppose the other side, because it is innovative. There is no room for innovation in the Church.
[/quote]

Causing to much disruption or being divisive among fellow Catholics isn't good either. Sometimes unity overrides what 'we' (laity) should think done, because as long as it's not a sin nor heretical then the harm done is superficial at least from what I can see. Though I'm sure this isn't acceptable to you.

[quote]
Finally, when we internalize the externals, it is precisely that which lifts our minds and souls to God. For it is through the externals that we engage our senses while worshiping....We find function in form within the Church.....a bit of advice (and I mean this sincerely), learn what participatio activa v. pariticipatio actuosa really means...once you do that, you might change your tune on the last paragraph. No lie.
[/quote]

Alright.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308878475' post='2257913']
Causing to much disruption or being divisive among fellow Catholics isn't good either. Sometimes unity overrides what 'we' (laity) should think done, because as long as it's not a sin nor heretical then the harm done is superficial at least from what I can see. Though I'm sure this isn't acceptable to you.
[/quote]
I don't think that puerile music at Mass is doing only superficial damage. I think it's done significantly more damage than we realize, most especially when we consider the opportunity cost. I.e. the benefits we're missing out on by not having proper sacred music: Gregorian chant. In reality we have all but thrown out a major aspect of Latin Catholic identity. The cost of that remains to be seen, but I'll say right now that I don't for one second think it's trivial.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308878475' post='2257913']
So, we judge them then? If authenticity is the realm of the Church and the members confuse the authenticity it should be the Churches realm right?



The [b]bolded[/b] statement I find curious, because it sounds as if 'doing' the motions is more valid then the heart felt intention. Christ called us to have not only doing say works of mercy, but that requires a good-will intentioned embodied through love. If that's not what you meant I apologize for the misinterpretation.



Causing to much disruption or being divisive among fellow Catholics isn't good either. Sometimes unity overrides what 'we' (laity) should think done, because as long as it's not a sin nor heretical then the harm done is superficial at least from what I can see. Though I'm sure this isn't acceptable to you.



Alright.
[/quote]

Doing what the Church asks is participatio actuosa. So, no, there is no quandry when fulfilling that....

How is Gregorian Chant causing disruption? It is what is proper to the Mass. The disruption comes when the music is disjointed and doesn't fit, but is forced upon the Mass, like a square peg in a round hole. The only unity that matters is that we unite our minds and souls through participatio actuosa, to the Mass. I don't think that I find what you're saying acceptable at all....you're focusing too much on the participatio activa and not on the participatio actuosa.

I would have you look at the article [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/100/SubIndex/103/ArticleIndex/35"]Participation[/url]. Perhaps this will help you to understand the principle better. It seems that as of right now you don't. A couple of salient points:


[quote]But the participation of those present becomes fuller ([i]plenior[/i]) if to internal attention is joined [i]external[/i] participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation ([i]participatio actuosa[/i]), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.[/quote]

[quote] What are those actions that make for true active participation in the liturgy? These must be both internal and external in quality, since man is a rational creature with body and soul. The external actions must be intelligent and understood, sincere and pious internally. The Church proposes many bodily positions: kneeling, standing, walking, sitting, etc. It likewise proposes many human actions: singing, speaking, listening and above all else, the reception of the Holy Eucharist. They demand internal attention as well as external execution.[/quote]

[quote]Important too for any participation in the liturgy is the elevation of the spirit of the worshipper. Ultimately, liturgy is prayer, the supreme prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and reparation. Prayer is the raising of the heart and the mind to God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. The means to achieve such elevation of the spirit in prayer onvolve all the activities of the human person, both spirit and body. Such means produce true [i]actuosa participatio[/i].[/quote]

[quote] The Church has always promoted Gregorian chant. Especially during this past century, the popes have fostered the music of the renaissance polyphonists. Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Basilica with the Vienna orchestra and singers doing Mozart's [i]Coronation Mass[/i]. Anyone who was present on that memorable occasion in that great church experienced true participation.[/quote]

[Sylvanna Imbris]

I think we'd all agree that the main point of the Mass is not what music is used, what people are wearing or how well the priest (or deacon) gives his homily. The whole point is to join in the sacrifice of Christ through participation in the Eucharist. Everything else is of lesser importance (not of NO importance, just less important). Since these things are less important, they should be arranged so that they will be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of people.

So, as far as style of music is concerned, I think we need a balance of music at Mass.

Not everyone enjoys chant all the time. Not everyone can do chant the right way so that it is beautiful. But it is usually beautiful with words that have deep theological meaning. Tantum Ergo is one of the most beautiful chants I have ever heard and I would be sad to lose it. But I would also be sad to lose other hymns that are not chant, such as God With Hidden Majesty, Creator of the Stars of Night, At the Lamb's High Feast, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones (and so many others).
I don't think that just ANY music is appropriate for Mass; the hymns should be theologically sound and have depth. But I do think that the style of music should be varied because people have different musical tastes. What moves some people may not move others, so it would be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of Catholics if the music at Mass was varied.

[Maggyie]

The main issue for me is, can the music be done well? Traditional music is way better but... let's just say I have seen funerals where they try to be cool and have the congregation sing In Paradisum and it did not end well.

In that situation an easy round of "I am the Bread of Life" is preferable to a totally mutilated antiphon.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308888334' post='2257964']
I think we'd all agree that the main point of the Mass is not what music is used, what people are wearing or how well the priest (or deacon) gives his homily. The whole point is to join in the sacrifice of Christ through participation in the Eucharist. Everything else is of lesser importance (not of NO importance, just less important). Since these things are less important, they should be arranged so that they will be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of people.

So, as far as style of music is concerned, I think we need a balance of music at Mass.

Not everyone enjoys chant all the time. Not everyone can do chant the right way so that it is beautiful. But it is usually beautiful with words that have deep theological meaning. Tantum Ergo is one of the most beautiful chants I have ever heard and I would be sad to lose it. But I would also be sad to lose other hymns that are not chant, such as God With Hidden Majesty, Creator of the Stars of Night, At the Lamb's High Feast, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones (and so many others).
I don't think that just ANY music is appropriate for Mass; the hymns should be theologically sound and have depth. But I do think that the style of music should be varied because people have different musical tastes. What moves some people may not move others, so it would be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of Catholics if the music at Mass was varied.
[/quote]

No, it is about what music is used. Music is an important part of the liturgical action and insofar as that is the case, it is of utmost importance that we promote and expect what is proper to the Mass. Yes, participation in the Eucharist is key, but part of that participation is the music which is part of the prayer of the Mass which confects the Eucharist. So, I guess I disagree with the premise of your post.

As far as musical style is concerned, there is one that is acceptable...Gregorian Chant. It is to be the normative action and it is to be the type which is employed in the singing of the Mass. Musical taste is also pointless, because the sacrifice of the Mass is not about any one individual, but about the mind of the Church uniting at that moment and the faithful worshiping that action which is the unbloody sacrifice.

As far as "enjoying" chant, that is irrelevant. People don't come to Mass to be entertained. People come to Mass to worship. Chant is the most proper way to express the musical aspect of worship, therefore it should be used. When you speak of hymnody, they do have their place in the Church and I have supported that all the way through this thread and in other places on this site. I agree that it would be terrible to lose them, but the Mass is not the place for hymns...hymns are para-liturgical, not liturgical...

What authentically moves one to proper worship is not varied musical styles, but rather it is the consistency which the Church offers through Gregorian Chant. We are to unite our minds and souls to the redemptive action taking place on the altar...that doesn't come through hymnody being inserted into the Mass, but rather the Mass being sung and the music which is proper to the Mass being employed. Anything else detracts from the splendor that is the Roman Rite.