Liturgical Music

[Cam42]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1130265' date='Nov 28 2006, 08:25 PM']
You know, I found a Google link to that Tra Le Sollecitudini (aka TLS) that is constantly quoted, and I'm scratching my head. How did we manage to go from "Praise Him with sounding cymbals, praise Him with clanging cymbals" in Psalm 150 to cymbals being declared "noisy or frivolous" in TLS VI.19?

Also, how about we add these official liturgical documents to the Defense Directory or reference links so that we can all be on the same page in refering to them?
[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentSubCategories/Index/2/SubIndex/17"]Sacred Music[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentSubCategories/Index/2/SubIndex/16"]General Prinicples of the Liturgy[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentSubCategories/Index/2/SubIndex/11"]The Eucharist and Mass[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentSubCategories/Index/2/SubIndex/37"]Theology and Doctrine[/url]

There are most of the documents.

[Cam42]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1130167' date='Nov 28 2006, 06:16 PM']
P. 118 of SC encourages the song of the people. Not chant, which is an important distinction in the liturgical douments. Also, refer to p. 39-40 for info on cultural adaptation. Vatican II did not mean to imply rigid formalism (in terms of form, not degree of solemnity). If you accept the full authority of the Church, then SC is part of the package. It should convey the solemnity, dignity and joy and the Eucharistic celebration. But that has very different definitions for different cultures.

All things being equal, chant is best. Unfortunatelty, we live in an unequal world. What about Psalm 150? No organ there!

And BTW, polyphony was banned by John XXII. It was revived by Clement VI. All great truths begin as heresy.
[/quote]

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

Careful, that awful word "rubrics" makes it's way into the conversation with that paragraph. However, we should look to the context in which this paragraph is written:

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concililum #116'][b]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.[/b]

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, 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.[/quote]

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #117']The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.[/quote]

It would seem that looking at the two paragraphs preceding that Gregorian Chant is the preferred mode of music to be used by the congregation. While hymns are certainly able to be apt for use, the proper mode should be Gregorian Chant, all things being equal. And while I most certainly understand the need for certain expressions on a cultural level, the United States (in Church terms) is not a mission land and it has a Western European influence more than any other, so Gregorian Chant would most certainly apply. Which it did until the misunderstanding of Vatican Council II in the 1960s.

Incidentally, Pope John XXII didn't forbid sacred polyphony, but rather he reserved it for use during solemn feasts. This is stated in the document Docta Santctorum Patrum.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1131453' date='Nov 29 2006, 09:10 PM']
Careful, that awful word "rubrics" makes it's way into the conversation with that paragraph. However, we should look to the context in which this paragraph is written:
It would seem that looking at the two paragraphs preceding that Gregorian Chant is the preferred mode of music to be used by the congregation. While hymns are certainly able to be apt for use, the proper mode should be Gregorian Chant, all things being equal. And while I most certainly understand the need for certain expressions on a cultural level, the United States (in Church terms) is not a mission land and it has a Western European influence more than any other, so Gregorian Chant would most certainly apply. Which it did until the misunderstanding of Vatican Council II in the 1960s.

Incidentally, Pope John XXII didn't forbid sacred polyphony, but rather he reserved it for use during solemn feasts. This is stated in the document Docta Santctorum Patrum.
[/quote]

What "things" do the Church view as being equal? In modern Americna culture, with its inability to think and horrific aesthetic, chant can be off-putting and foreign. The documents make it clear GC is to be treasured and promoted, but it also says the Churhc never adopted one musicla style as her own. It speaks of both sides of the argument. Chant is fine, but so is Alan Hommerding. (No, Marty Haugen is not.)

[Matty_boy]

(You forgot David Haas.)

So what is a person to do about the situation? You and I know what the Church teaches, but there are so many parishes that have banished sacred music from the Mass. What can I do (if anything) to bring back the tradition in my parish? We don't even use ANY Greek or Latin in any of the prayers during the Mass.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Matty_boy' post='1132906' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:35 AM']
(You forgot David Haas.)

So what is a person to do about the situation? You and I know what the Church teaches, but there are so many parishes that have banished sacred music from the Mass. What can I do (if anything) to bring back the tradition in my parish? We don't even use ANY Greek or Latin in any of the prayers during the Mass.
[/quote]

First, let's not characterize Marty and David as secualr or un-sacred. Their music, while lyricaly insipid and not all that well constructed, is intended to lead people to a divine contact. For that we cannot fault them. However, the basic idea (although mired with difficultiy in praxis) is to lead people to a higer level of aesthetic appreciation. Encourage them to be text-sensitive. Frame chant as something universal and uplifting, instead of dead and ancient. Also, find some fresh settings of ritual texts. THere are many new and well-done settings of the actual texts of Mass (penitential rite, gloria, prayer of the fathful, psalms) that lead to greater participation but are still well crafted. We can't just impose chant. We need to figure our what our community can value in the artform and highlight it. When people love the liturgy, they will be open to chant as the genesis of our modern sacred music. Music didn't stop being sacred when we evolved past polyphony.

[Cam42]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1132642' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:58 PM']
What "things" do the Church view as being equal? In modern Americna culture, with its inability to think and horrific aesthetic, chant can be off-putting and foreign. The documents make it clear GC is to be treasured and promoted, but it also says the Churhc never adopted one musicla style as her own. It speaks of both sides of the argument. Chant is fine, but so is Alan Hommerding. (No, Marty Haugen is not.)
[/quote]

The "things" that you are questioning are musical styles. It is clearly written as such in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It says that 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. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium #116)

In American culture chant is not off-putting and foreign, but rather it is beautiful and classic, as well as being sacred. It is the utter lack of catechesis over the last 40+ years that has buried that idea.

There is no argument, the Church allows for other forms of music, but never at the expense of chant. It is clear in the documents that this is the case.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1133412' date='Dec 1 2006, 08:47 PM']
The "things" that you are questioning are musical styles. It is clearly written as such in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It says that 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. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium #116)

In American culture chant is not off-putting and foreign, but rather it is beautiful and classic, as well as being sacred. It is the utter lack of catechesis over the last 40+ years that has buried that idea.

There is no argument, the Church allows for other forms of music, but never at the expense of chant. It is clear in the documents that this is the case.
[/quote]

Both our views of chant in American culture are baised. There cna be no absolutes in that estimation.

When are other styles of music permissible? If using them is to the detriment of chant, then one must conclude they never be used. If the Church had specific guidlelines for the inclusion of ther musical styles, would it promulgate them for our use? Your position seems a bit muddled.

[Cam42]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1134379' date='Dec 3 2006, 10:22 PM']
Both our views of chant in American culture are baised. There cna be no absolutes in that estimation.

When are other styles of music permissible? If using them is to the detriment of chant, then one must conclude they never be used. If the Church had specific guidlelines for the inclusion of ther musical styles, would it promulgate them for our use? Your position seems a bit muddled.
[/quote]

Muddled? Hardly. If one were even nominally versed in the Catholic Liturgical action, then one would know and understand that chant is properly supported in the ordinaries of the Mass.

However, when they are used in conjunction with the other forms, such as polyphony or orchestral, then one would see that they are in no way in conflict.

Case in point.

Intriot: chant
Kyrie: polyphony/orchestra
Gloria: polyhony/orchestra
Gradual: chant
Credo: polyphony/orchestra
Sanctus/Benedictus: polyphony/orchestra
Pater Noster: chant
Qui Vivum: chant
Angus Dei: polyphony/orchestra
Communion antiphon: chant
Recessional: Anthem/organ solo

However, it is clear that when one does not understand the nuance then it would seem muddled. H-A-R-M-O-N-Y.......what a concept!!!!!

How is my view of the beauty of chant biased? Compare the trype of David "We are Called" Haas, Marty "I used to be Catholic, no wait Lutheran, no wait Catholic, no wait Lutheran" Haugan to classical Gregorian Chant and there is no contest....it is like comparing REM to Mozart. Sheesh. (BTW, I know both David and Marty, so I can throw stones, Marty and I are alums of the same choir; albeit he is much older than me.)

Sorry, VIIL, I don't buy into the American Catholic Church's view of "Eucharist." I do however buy into and fully support the Catholic Church in America and the approved form of the Mass. There is a subtle difference and being a "Roman Lackey" is a good thing, contrary to what your contemporaries might think. They are off kilter. I would suspect that you find Guardini to be passe and Dom Guaranger to be trite.

Three words: Monsignor Richard Schuler.

End of Story.

[michaelorapronobis]

[font="Verdana"] Most of the Catholic churches in my city have rather modern hymns. There is one guitar Mass, but even in the average parish church on Sunday the hymns aren't usually traditional. Gregorian Chant is only ever heard at the Traditional Latin Mass said once a month.

Use of modern hymns (among other things) was one of the reasons why I left the Roman Catholic Church for the Eastern Orthodox Church. At my usual Catholic parish, on Sunday we'd very rarely have any traditional hymns but usually more modern hymns. I left the parish closest to my home last year because the music was too modern (although there was still an organ most of the time) and I started attending a parish further away, which had more traditional music. But then a new priest came and we have been having modern music.

Here is the first verse of one of the hymns I had to put up with:

We are companions on the journey,
breaking bread and sharing life,
and the love we bear is the hope we share,
for we believe in the love of our God,
for we believe in the love of our God.

This hymn is about the people. God is only mentioned as His love - God Himself doesn't feature much in it. Other hymns refer to "sharing bread and wine" and do not mention the Real Presence. These are Protestant hymns, brimming with Protestant theology.

I am totally against modern, pop music in church. Guitars, drums and other instruments have no part in church music. This sort of music is worldy music, and not holy music. The Church doesn't conform to the world or embrace it, and likewise she should reject secular, profane music. As for those who say that young people can only be reached by modern music, will these young people accept Christ on His terms or theirs? Will they put terms on their submission to Christ? "Lord, I will follow Thee and become a Catholic as long as I can have modern music at Mass?" What happened to the "broken and contrite heart" that the Psalmist mentions?

The Orthodox Church has lovely music (to listen to some Orthodox music click [url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8749611331156790508&q=Bulgarian+Orthodox+liturgy&pr=goog-sl"]here[/url]) and we will never permit modern music to enter the Liturgy.[/font]

[Didymus]

I still don't understand the switching of rites. I was always taught we're not suppse to switch. What's the rule on that?

Anyways, I don't agree with the intent of using modern music just to bring youth into the Church, but I do like praying with some contemporary songs. There are alot of praise and worship that are respectful and bring the focus on God. I can't stand the ones that are horizontal, but that doesn't mean we throw them all out.

[michaelorapronobis]

While people can use contemporary music for prayer, I don't think that we should be subjected to it at Mass. Or there should be one or maybe two Masses that use it and announce that fact, so that people who don't like it can avoid it. And Gregorian Chant has all but vanished, even though Vatican II said that it should be retained.

It is permitted to switch rites in the Catholic Church, with Rome's permission. But the Church that I am part of is not part of the Catholic Church. We are the Church of Antioch, under Patriarch Ignatius IV. We do not recognise the Pope of Rome as the head of the Church.

[Aloysius]

Does the Church of Antioch still have a fundamental differnce with us Christologically? Am I thinking of the right Church?

I think many modern roman riters need to step back and look at the whole picture of the Church in all its Sui Juris Churches and rites; even looking accross the divide of the Great Schism to the great rights of those Churches to see how much of a MOCKERY we are making of our own rich heritage. We have denegrated our rite into inferiority to basically any other rite in and out of the Church (I do not speak here of the substantial missal of Paul VI but of its implementation right down to the Sacred Music being discussed here). What once was on par with the liturgies of the east in its beautiful expression of faith and unity through history to heaven and earth is now, for the sake of the whims of modernity, the laughing stock of the Christian Church.

I think all modern hymns should be banished to the parish hall where celebrations and worship gatherings can happen all they want in addition to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where only a unity with Tradition, History, Heaven, and Earth will be tolerated. Modern music does not have this unity, because it does not have a unity with history.

I think particularly of what the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople said in his Divine Liturgy with the Pope about how the Liturgy was a union of history and heaven and earth. If our liturgy is to connect to heaven as beautifully as the other rites of the Church it must be very intensely connected to our own history: for in heaven already are the great saints of history; and Christ Himself is of history; the scriptures are of history. The liturgy is the living movement of this history throughout time.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1134405' date='Dec 3 2006, 10:46 PM']
Muddled? Hardly. If one were even nominally versed in the Catholic Liturgical action, then one would know and understand that chant is properly supported in the ordinaries of the Mass.

However, when they are used in conjunction with the other forms, such as polyphony or orchestral, then one would see that they are in no way in conflict.

Case in point.

Intriot: chant
Kyrie: polyphony/orchestra
Gloria: polyhony/orchestra
Gradual: chant
Credo: polyphony/orchestra
Sanctus/Benedictus: polyphony/orchestra
Pater Noster: chant
Qui Vivum: chant
Angus Dei: polyphony/orchestra
Communion antiphon: chant
Recessional: Anthem/organ solo

However, it is clear that when one does not understand the nuance then it would seem muddled. H-A-R-M-O-N-Y.......what a concept!!!!!

How is my view of the beauty of chant biased? Compare the trype of David "We are Called" Haas, Marty "I used to be Catholic, no wait Lutheran, no wait Catholic, no wait Lutheran" Haugan to classical Gregorian Chant and there is no contest....it is like comparing REM to Mozart. Sheesh. (BTW, I know both David and Marty, so I can throw stones, Marty and I are alums of the same choir; albeit he is much older than me.)

Sorry, VIIL, I don't buy into the American Catholic Church's view of "Eucharist." I do however buy into and fully support the Catholic Church in America and the approved form of the Mass. There is a subtle difference and being a "Roman Lackey" is a good thing, contrary to what your contemporaries might think. They are off kilter. I would suspect that you find Guardini to be passe and Dom Guaranger to be trite.

Three words: Monsignor Richard Schuler.

End of Story.
[/quote]

So you deny that the Church permits the use of other songs than chant in the Mass? You did not address the issue of when that is permissible. What Church has a regualrly functioning orchestra? That is a pastoral un-reality.

I used a Byzantine chant this weekend that I adapted from original sources. I know about chant, my friend.

We are becoming miopic on Marty and David. THere is much good music being written today that I use.

I find neither liturgical scholar you mentioned to be passe. But I do not think our liturgical understanding stops changing.

Glad you're able to brag. I know a number of much better liturgical composers than David and Marty, who are publisehd by a number of different publishers. I also know a number of scholars who are internationally published and advise the Bishops' Subcommittee on Liturgy. I will be meeting Bishop Trautman early next year at a symposium on liturgical texts. Don't imply I don't know what I'm doing.

This website concerns me. You people aren't interested in discussion. You simply want to keep the Catholic Church stuck in time with its head in the sand, refusing to admit the world changes and along with it our liturgical and pastoral sensibilities. I hope you are happy that you are keeping Catholicism inaccessible to those outside it and increasingly disenchanting to those in it. The vine is dying and all we're doing is pouring more dirt on top of it.

If you want to worry about musical style and who washes the dishes after Mass, be my guest. I just don't have the time or energy to engage in this piddly discussion. I have prayer to plan.

[Aloysius]

for a thousand years the Church grew without giving in to the fads of the times but instead challenging them. you have a defeatism towards the inevitability of change that says the Church must change and conform with the times. This is completely foreign to the mind of the Church for Her entire history. Yes, adaptations must be made et cetera; but to claim that the Church becomes inaccessible (though it was being accessed long before we began including modern styles of music) without doing so is absolutely ludicrous. Foreign to the mind of the Church, and foreign to the mind of Christ.

we are indeed open to dialogue. that we do not automatically bow down to you and agree with you does not mean we are not dialoguing.

there is plenty of time in the world for all sorts of discussions on things ranging from the most miniscule to the most important.

it is only increasingly disenchanting to people who abandon their heritage and continuity with history... and such people are only being manipulated by markets to hate their past. we need to bring the gospel to those people: and the gospel includes a living tradition in connection with a past which should not be despised but cherished and connected with.

It is my experience that the modern liturgical movement keeps folks interested for a time, but they eventually get bored if it does not continue to change and stimulate them in new ways each time they go to mass. so many from my youth group give up on confession first, because it is the least stimulating (come on, the mass has rock drums... confesion is just quiet talking... how boring); and of course everything part of the Catholic Faith starts dropping like flies. because no one insisted that they discover something outside of themselves, transcendent of themselves. they just pandered to their tastes, and did not challenge them.

previous ages produced more consistent Christians. these times we live in produce the most fickle Christians ever found in history. we need to connect with the past, not innovate against it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1135643' date='Dec 5 2006, 01:20 PM']
So you deny that the Church permits the use of other songs than chant in the Mass? You did not address the issue of when that is permissible. What Church has a regualrly functioning orchestra? That is a pastoral un-reality.

I used a Byzantine chant this weekend that I adapted from original sources. I know about chant, my friend.

We are becoming miopic on Marty and David. THere is much good music being written today that I use.

I find neither liturgical scholar you mentioned to be passe. But I do not think our liturgical understanding stops changing.

Glad you're able to brag. I know a number of much better liturgical composers than David and Marty, who are publisehd by a number of different publishers. I also know a number of scholars who are internationally published and advise the Bishops' Subcommittee on Liturgy. I will be meeting Bishop Trautman early next year at a symposium on liturgical texts. Don't imply I don't know what I'm doing.

This website concerns me. You people aren't interested in discussion. You simply want to keep the Catholic Church stuck in time with its head in the sand, refusing to admit the world changes and along with it our liturgical and pastoral sensibilities. I hope you are happy that you are keeping Catholicism inaccessible to those outside it and increasingly disenchanting to those in it. The vine is dying and all we're doing is pouring more dirt on top of it.

If you want to worry about musical style and who washes the dishes after Mass, be my guest. I just don't have the time or energy to engage in this piddly discussion. I have prayer to plan.
[/quote]

First things first, it IS a functional reality. [url="http://www.stagnes.net/music.html"]St. Agnes[/url], my home parish (insofar as I actually lived in the rectory and consider it my home) has an orchestra 33 Sundays a year the rest is done by a schola. [url="http://www.stagnes.net/music-schedule.html"]Schedule.[/url]

I have never implied anything and Bishop Trautman is a nice man. Although I am not sure that he would be my first choice as the head of the Liturgical Subcommittee. I can think of one or two others who would be better suited.

I am not bragging, but rather offering credibility to the conversation, on my part since you and I have never had a discussion before. Please don't assume things before you know the whole story, it is not becoming and makes you look foolish by those statments.

I have done nothing but PROMOTE Vatican Council II and her AUTHENTIC interpretation. How is that causality for "wanting to keep the Catholic Church stuck in time with its head in the sand?"

That little "vent" is proof positive that the liturgists of the American Church are not interested in authentic interpretation, but rather the liturgists of the American Church are more interested in imposing their view and re-creating the Church in their own image.

It is extremely important that we "worry about musical style and who washes the dishes after Mass." If we don't adhere to Tradition then we are not being AUTHENTIC to the SPIRIT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II. The Mass is a discipline. When we relax the discipline, then we are not being true to the AUTHENTIC meaning of what the Mass is trying to convey.

So, with that being said, you worry about "planning prayer" and I will worry about praying well. I know which is more important and more AUTHENTIC.