How All Catholic Churches Should Look!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331753596' post='2400725']
It's the same problem that we have in sacred music right now. Most musicians don't have a clue what they're doing. As a Church we're impoverished because of it. I'm not really sure what the solution is, besides pushing for a restoration of worship and identity.
[/quote]
I can tell you what the answer isn't: burying our heads in the sand and refusing to use any music written after 1700.
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331754286' post='2400736']
Look at what we've got though. What motivation does a priest have to shell out for a top quality schola, when the local music teacher is willing to plink on his 12 string acoustic with an out of tune choir better suited for karaoke, for a nominal fee? (That, in fact, is the exact situation at the parish I no longer attend.)
[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331756099' post='2400759']
Yep, and look at, for instance, the Missae Papae Marcelli. Perhaps the most important non-plainchant Mass setting ever composed. This is starting to remind me of the comment I made yesterday about the Renaissance being the pinnacle of art in western culture thus far. :D
[/quote]
I love the Pope Marcellus Mass, admire Palestrina, and am very well acquainted with the setting. However, it should not be the be-all-end-all of sacred music. Modern doesn't mean bad - listen to Duruflé's requiem: 100% modern (for his period) and at once completely faithful to the musical tradition of the Church. You can be modern without being modern with a Fender.
Also, it seems to be often overlooked that Palestrina was new once too...in fact, three times as much time had past between the founding of the Church and his life than from the end of his life to the present.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1331786366' post='2400979']
I can tell you what the answer isn't: burying our heads in the sand and refusing to use any music written after 1700.


I love the Pope Marcellus Mass, admire Palestrina, and am very well acquainted with the setting. However, it should not be the be-all-end-all of sacred music. Modern doesn't mean bad - listen to Duruflé's requiem: 100% modern (for his period) and at once completely faithful to the musical tradition of the Church. You can be modern without being modern with a Fender.
Also, it seems to be often overlooked that Palestrina was new once too...in fact, three times as much time had past between the founding of the Church and his life than from the end of his life to the present.
[/quote]


I don't think I've even implied that sacred music should stay exactly as it was x number of centuries ago. That's silly, and you're attributing that to me with zero reason. I don't appreciate it and I think you should probably stop with that.
Are you familiar with the new Simple English Propers? Since I'm such a great guy, here you go: [url="http://musicasacra.com/books/simple_english_propers.pdf"]http://musicasacra.com/books/simple_english_propers.pdf[/url] That's the entire book. It caused quite a bit of excitement in the world of chant when it was finally published. There have been some great recordings made of it being used in regular parishes since then.

The fact, of course, remains that Gregorian chant is the sacred music most proper to the Roman Liturgy, and the objective standard by which all sacred music in the Roman Rite is measured.
"Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church; it is to be found in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See. This music has been reverently, and faithfully fostered, and developed from most ancient, and venerable traditions; and [b]even in recent times new chants have been composed in the style of this tradition[/b]. This style of music has no need of organ or other instrumental accompaniment."

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331789149' post='2401002']
I don't think I've even implied that sacred music should stay exactly as it was x number of centuries ago. That's silly, and you're attributing that to me with zero reason. I don't appreciate it and I think you should probably stop with that.[/quote]
Never did I say that you did imply that. You asked what the answer was, and I helped narrow it down by saying what it wasn't. Don't play the victim, it isn't becoming.

[quote]

Are you familiar with the new Simple English Propers? Since I'm such a great guy, here you go: [url="http://musicasacra.com/books/simple_english_propers.pdf"]http://musicasacra.c...ish_propers.pdf[/url] That's the entire book. It caused quite a bit of excitement in the world of chant when it was finally published. There have been some great recordings made of it being used in regular parishes since then.

The fact, of course, remains that Gregorian chant is the sacred music most proper to the Roman Liturgy, and the objective standard by which all sacred music in the Roman Rite is measured.
"Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church; it is to be found in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See. This music has been reverently, and faithfully fostered, and developed from most ancient, and venerable traditions; and [b]even in recent times new chants have been composed in the style of this tradition[/b]. This style of music has no need of organ or other instrumental accompaniment."
[/quote]
I'm not interested in composing music in a 500 year old style. That's historicism. There's no need for jazz masses, but it's so - to be blunt - stupid to suggest that for the rest of time, people should write in exactly the same style as Palestrina. (Furthermore, a musical style developed in the Renaissance is hardly the [i]most ancient[/i] tradition.)

I will take your failure to respond to my point about Duruflé as ignorance of the work. If you ever get the opportunity to listen to it, take the opportunity. It's modern, reverent, and mindful of the musical tradition of the Church.


Also, if we're on [i]De Musica Sacra,[/i] let's talk about this. Don't I recall you saying in the past that you don't care to sing at mass?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323834696' post='2350944']
There is no obligation to sing along with the choir. That reveals a sketchy understanding of active participation.
[/quote]

"[color=#000000]a) First, the congregation can sing the liturgical responses. These are: [/color][i]Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi, Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias[/i][color=#000000]. Every effort must be made that the faithful of the entire world learn to sing these responses.[/color]
[color=#000000]b) Secondly, the congregation can sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: [/color][i]Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei[/i][color=#000000]. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing the easier ones: [/color][i]Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei[/i][color=#000000]; the choir, then, can sing the [/color][i]Gloria[/i][color=#000000], and [/color][i]Credo[/i][color=#000000]."[/color]


Anyway, that's tangential. Let's move on - here's something interesting from paragraph 35:
"[color=#000000]Thus all "choir" ceremonies should be performed with special dignity and solemnity, making use of both [b]chant and sacred music.[/b]"[/color]
Well that's curious...that phrasing would seem to suggest that there is in fact acceptable sacred music outside of chant...

Or, this:
"[color=#000000]50. Modern compositions of sacred music are only to be used during liturgical ceremonies if they conform to the spirit of the liturgy, and to the ideals of sacred music as laid down in the encyclical [/color][b][i][url="http://www.adoremus.org/musicaesacrae.html"]Musicæ sacræ disciplina[/url]"[/i][/b]

So you mean modern compositions can be sung? Well, certainly only if they sound just like Palestrina, right? Let's look at this other document:

[color=#000000]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"]"55. So it is that in the basilicas, cathedrals and churches of religious communities these magnificent works of the old masters and the polyphonic compositions of more recent musicians can be performed, contributing greatly to the beauty of the sacred rite. Likewise We know that simpler but genuinely artistic polyphonic compositions are often sung even in smaller churches.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"]56. The Church favors all these enterprises. As Our predecessor of immortal memory, Saint Pius X, says, the Church "[i][b]unceasingly encourages and favors the progress of the arts, admitting for religious use all the good and the beautiful that the mind of man has discovered[/b][/i] over the course of the centuries, [u][i]but always respecting the liturgical laws[/i][/u].""[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000]
Wow. So even Pope St. Pius X encourages the continual development of art. And, he, being a learned and modern man, would certainly know that that didn't mean just recycling the old style over and over again. [/color]
[color=#000000]
And on the bit about not needing the organ:[/color]
[color=#000000]
"58. These norms must be applied to the use of the organ or other musical instruments. Among the musical instruments that have a place in church the organ rightly holds the principal position, since it is especially fitted for the sacred chants and sacred rites. It adds a wonderful splendor and a special magnificence to the ceremonies of the Church. It moves the souls of the faithful by the grandeur and sweetness of its tones. It gives minds an almost heavenly joy and it lifts them up powerfully to God and to higher things."[/color]

[Nihil Obstat]

Flamebait. You obviously don't actually want a discussion.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331789149' post='2401002']
I don't think I've even implied that sacred music should stay exactly as it was x number of centuries ago. That's silly, and you're attributing that to me with zero reason. I don't appreciate it and I think you should probably stop with that.
Are you familiar with the new Simple English Propers? Since I'm such a great guy, here you go: [url="http://musicasacra.com/books/simple_english_propers.pdf"]http://musicasacra.c...ish_propers.pdf[/url] That's the entire book. It caused quite a bit of excitement in the world of chant when it was finally published. There have been some great recordings made of it being used in regular parishes since then.

The fact, of course, remains that Gregorian chant is the sacred music most proper to the Roman Liturgy, and the objective standard by which all sacred music in the Roman Rite is measured.
"Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church; it is to be found in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See. This music has been reverently, and faithfully fostered, and developed from most ancient, and venerable traditions; and [b]even in recent times new chants have been composed in the style of this tradition[/b]. This style of music has no need of organ or other instrumental accompaniment."
[/quote]
Whence did that quote come?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331821893' post='2401086']
Flamebait. You obviously don't actually want a discussion.
[/quote]
This is a joke, right?

----------------------
15. Since the Church always held this polyphonic chant in the highest esteem, it willingly admitted this type of music even in the Roman basilicas and in pontifical ceremonies in order to increase the glory of the sacred rites.[b] Its power and splendor were increased when the sounds of the organ and other musical instruments were joined with the voices of the singers.[/b]

16. Thus, with the favor and under the auspices of the Church the study of sacred music has gone a long way over the course of the centuries. In this journey, although sometimes slowly and laboriously, it has gradually progressed from the simple and ingenuous Gregorian modes to great and magnificent works of art. [b]To these works not only the human voice, but also the organ and other musical instruments, add dignity, majesty and a prodigious richness.[/b]

17. The progress of this musical art clearly shows how sincerely the Church has desired to render divine worship ever more splendid and more pleasing to the Christian people.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25121955_musicae-sacrae_en.html"]MUSICAE SACRAE -- ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON SACRED MUSIC[/url]

-------------------------------
113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the [b]active participation of the people[/b]. ...

114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, [b]whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs[/b], as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, [b]especially polyphony[/b], are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

118. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, [b]the voices of the faithful may ring out[/b] according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.

120. In the Latin Church[b] the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem[/b], for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things. ...

121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures. Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small choirs [b]and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the faithful[/b].
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html"]SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM[/url]

[arfink]

Those documents quoted are really nice and all, but it's a bit like reading legalese to me.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331825195' post='2401100']
Those documents quoted are really nice and all, but it's a bit like reading legalese to me.
[/quote]
Hahaha! Do you mean they're boring or difficult to understand?
I can do a Cliff Notes version if you want.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331821893' post='2401086']
Flamebait. You obviously don't actually want a discussion.
[/quote]
Too bad.
Edit: for the record, there was very little sarcasm in that post. Rereading it in the morning, I could see how calling Pope St. Pius X a learned and modern man could come off as snarky, but I meant it sincerely. Dummies don't rise to a position of such importance and he died in the 1920, which in Church-time is very recent.

Edited March 15, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[arfink]

I decided to throw something on my blog, just for lols, concerning this topic:

http://weaselsgonarf.blogspot.com/2012/03/problem-of-catholic-art.html

/shameless flogging for my blog

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1331825958' post='2401109']
Too bad.
Edit: for the record, there was very little sarcasm in that post. Rereading it in the morning, I could see how calling Pope St. Pius X a learned and modern man could come off as snarky, but I meant it sincerely. Dummies don't rise to a position of such importance and he died in the 1920, which in Church-time is very recent.
[/quote]

I perceived it as extremely baiting. If that was not how it was intended then I apologize.
Nothing in that post directly addresses anything I've said. I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's certainly nothing I've offered an opinion on.


With regards to congregational singing and active participation:
You quoted me out of context and implied that I see no value in congregational singing. That is not the case.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[missionseeker]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331827174' post='2401117']
I decided to throw something on my blog, just for lols, concerning this topic:

[url="http://weaselsgonarf.blogspot.com/2012/03/problem-of-catholic-art.html"]http://weaselsgonarf...tholic-art.html[/url]

/shameless flogging for my blog
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that there is no more great art. That's a little too hopeless for me. The problem is partly that there is no funding for great art, and partly (and almost more importantly) no real education on great art. The reigning ideas of our time is that art is an abstract expression of what we feel. Sacred art is not that at all. Sacred art (and any real, ordered art) is a representation of truths. When we think that art is subjective (along with everything else in life), that is where we get into trouble. I'm not saying that that there is absolutely no subjectivity in art, but all art was built upon true principles that don't change: music is based on manipulation of sound. We can manipulate sound BECAUSE it is based in physics. Knowing the physics behind music allows us to objectively evaluate it's goodness, it's truth, it's beauty, it's "greatness" I guess you say. The same is true for architecture and any of the other plastic arts.


But what artist are being taught is NOT that. Especially with things like atonality and other modern forms of music (I use music because I know music. I don't really know much about other art), there is clear split from the idea that music has any basis in physics, that no one tone is "more important" or "more crucial" to the sound you want to create. It would be like saying shading isn't important to reproducing the way light is perceived.

With the modern leaning toward teaching no truth and all subjectivity, it really is no wonder that art is in such a bad shape. However, there are PLENTY of modern artists who work very hard to reverse this.

[Slappo]

Two quick things and I'll butt my head back out:
Just because signing is encourage doesn't mean it is a required part of active participation. Active participation is the raising up of ones soul to the actions taking place at mass. For some, it might be beneficial for them to sing, for others they may need to stay perfectly silent as they meditate on the liturgical actions and the worship being given to God.

The documents reference chant and other forms of sacred music. FYI Polyphony is not considered chant, so it's a large stretch to go from chant as pride of place to David Haas as sacred music. I'm not commenting on if it is possible or not, merely that it is a large stretch, and that there are other forms of sacred music that are much closer to the design of chant then David Haas is.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331752427' post='2400703']


Here's an easy example:

A circular sanctuary would be inappropriate, objectively, while a 'traditionally' oriented nave and sanctuary is objectively best. The traditional orientation reflects the fact that the priest leads the people in prayer, and reflects his status as an alter Christus. The liturgy is then oriented in the proper direction, i.e. towards Jesus in the Eucharist, towards the altar, towards the crucifix towards the "orient", the liturgical east from whence Jesus will return and in the Mass indeed does return. A circular sanctuary and 'nave' destroys this symbolism, and therefore objectively is not appropriate.
[/quote]

Hey look, it's the first circular church in Rome!

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Celio_-_santo_Stefano_Rotondo_-_interno_in_restauro_01533-4.JPG[/img]


Hey look! It was built in the fifth century!
http://romanchurches.wikia.com/wiki/Santo_Stefano_Rotondo_al_Celio

Edited March 15, 2012 by Deus_te_Amat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331829166' post='2401150']
I perceived it as extremely baiting. If that was not how it was intended then I apologize.
Nothing in that post directly addresses anything I've said. I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's certainly nothing I've offered an opinion on.[/quote]

Okay, I'll quote directly:
You said:


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331789149' post='2401002']
The fact, of course, remains that Gregorian chant is the sacred music most proper to the Roman Liturgy, and the objective standard by which all sacred music in the Roman Rite is measured.
"Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church; it is to be found in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See. This music has been reverently, and faithfully fostered, and developed from most ancient, and venerable traditions; and [b]even in recent times new chants have been composed in the style of this tradition[/b]. This style of music has no need of organ or other instrumental accompaniment."
[/quote]


Musicæ Sacræ Disciplina said:
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"[color=#000000]55. So it is that in the basilicas, cathedrals and churches of religious communities these magnificent works of the old masters and the polyphonic compositions of more recent musicians can be performed, contributing greatly to the beauty of the sacred rite. Likewise We know that simpler but genuinely artistic polyphonic compositions are often sung even in smaller churches.[/color][/font][/size]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]56. The Church favors all these enterprises. As Our predecessor of immortal memory, Saint Pius X, says, the Church "[i][b]unceasingly encourages and favors the progress of the arts, admitting for religious use all the good and the beautiful that the mind of man has discovered[/b][/i] over the course of the centuries, [u][i]but always respecting the liturgical laws[/i][/u].""[/color][/font][/size]

Your statement, to me (especially with your emphasis), and taken in light of the other things you have posed in this thread (regarding scholas, how nothing better than the Pope Marcellus Mass has been composed, etc.), says that we should just continue to compose in the same manner Pope Gregory or Palestrina did, and if we can help it at all, that is all that should be sung in the Liturgy. I think it's pretty clear, as illustrated above by Pope St. Pius X, that that isn't the position of the Church.


As for the other part:
[quote]
With regards to congregational singing and active participation:
You quoted me out of context and implied that I see no value in congregational singing. That is not the case.
[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323835306' post='2350959']
The attitude that everyone needs to sing is the same attitude that says everyone needs to be 'doing something' to participate, for instance being an emhc. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Church has always taught about active participation.
[/quote]
The church, in the relevant part of the document quoted above, pretty clearly states that everybody should sing. I understand that that is tangential to this discussion, but in seeing that while looking for that Pius X quote reminded me of it. Just thought you'd be interested to see what the Church had said about that.

[Deus te Amat]

Oh, and even better. It was modeled after the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.