Liturgical Music

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1126809' date='Nov 23 2006, 05:42 PM']In the Mass, I like Gregorian (as well as Ambrosian and Eastern) chant, as well as orchestral Masses, very much. I think hymns in Mass should be a mix of chant and classical (in Latin only of course), but for the precessional and recessional hymns, traditional (by traditional I mean written at least 100 years ago) Catholic (by Catholic I mean not adapted from something from a local pagan tradition or written by a non-Catholic) hymns from the local region are also nice.[/quote]

I know the 'Catholic Book of Worship' we have in many of our parishes in my area have a mix of dates such as 1500s, 1800s, and contemporary hymns written by Lutherans and other denominations (oy vey). I sing with a group of enthusiasts who sing at a Latin mass that happens once a month and we sing only Chant, polyphony and traditional hymns.

[quote name='Once Was Lost' post='1126872' date='Nov 23 2006, 09:03 PM']I think that it is more important to look at the pillars of our mass then to look at the music that we sing. As Catholics we have The Gospel, and the Eucharist.
While Protestants hold Praise and Woship and a sermon.[/quote]

Yar. That is what much contemporary music fails to understand; the music should be built for the mass. No questions.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1126881' date='Nov 23 2006, 09:18 PM']It is actually very important. All high Masses have music set to them, and high Mass is the best way to adore the Holy Trinity. Beautiful liturgical music beautifies the Mass and helps lifts the minds and hearts of those assisting a the Holy Sacrifice to God. It is important that the lyrics of the music are orthodox so as not to preach heresy or falsehood or confuse those hearing the Holy Sacrifice. It is important to have the music be in good taste so as not to distract those present.[/quote]

Amen.

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1126985' date='Nov 24 2006, 09:56 AM']I have a friend who is a Brother with the Dominicans in the Eastern Province, and he just finished writing a new polyphony Mass for three voices, so there is new chant being written, just few people know about it...[/quote]

This is pretty much why I voted #2 (but still side more on the #1 side of things).


[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1129202' date='Nov 27 2006, 08:38 PM'][size=1]HAS ANYONE EVER BEEN TO A POLKA MASS??

-dies-
[/size][/quote]

Hahaha you're funny! Seriously though, you're joking right?

[quote name='Michael' post='1134619' date='Dec 4 2006, 08:06 AM'][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][/quote]

I hear you. Young people can embrace the traditional music. It is a good parallel with receiving the tradition taught about Christ and Christ Himself. Should there be compromise in our Rite (note compromise is not the same as adapting)?

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Knight of the Holy Rosary' post='1205368' date='Feb 27 2007, 02:03 PM']VaticanIILiturgist,

Do you believe that Chant and Polyphany are superior to other forms of liturgical music?[/quote]

No, I don't. And neither does the Church. It says those styles are particularly suited: CSL 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, 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."

It never says superior. "Specially suited" gives a slightly different flavor. Should every parish know the standard chant repertoire? Of course. For example, I just concluded musical preparations for Triduum today and the parish is singing the Mode III Pange Lingua (not even the ST. THOMAS hymnody setting!), the Sacramentary formula of the Invitation to Veneration and the Exsultet, in addition to "O Sacred Head.." and "Hosanna Filio David" on Palm Sunday. But I also have a number of pieces that are written in the past 10 years with solid theology and more 20th century-oriented musical styles. The Church seeks to preserve the wealth of musical history She has produced, but has never said that development must stop. She seems to have wisely opted for both/and, not either/or.

Do I think a lot of music written in the past 40 years is trash? Yes...but there is trash chant and polyphony as well. Every composition can't be a masterwork. For example, I avoid David Haas Psalm settings like the plague because the text is so distorted from the Lectionary's arrangement and translation. But I also avoid certain hymnody (ABBOT'S LEIGH, for one) because the tune is so blessedly unsingable.

I guess my position is that we can't bludgeon people with the rhetoric "chant and polyphony are superior." Assemblies can't sing polyphony, so you are preventing obvious full, active, and conscious participation by your very selection of repertoire. The function of the choir has moved from making the responses for the assembly to making them WITH the assembly. If the assembly can't sing it (the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Psalmody) what good is it really doing? Is it elevating them to higher thoughts to stand and listen to "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth" or to sing "holy, holy, holy Lord God of Sabaoth" (I'm assuming the new translation will be rendered as such)? The prayer says "Cum quibus et nos et, per nostram vocem..." It intends for the preface acclamation to be made by all. Why should we limit the participation of the assembly in the heavenly liturgy taking place?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1206075' date='Feb 28 2007, 11:16 PM']No, I don't. And neither does the Church. It says those styles are particularly suited: CSL 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, 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."

It never says superior. "Specially suited" gives a slightly different flavor. Should every parish know the standard chant repertoire? Of course. For example, I just concluded musical preparations for Triduum today and the parish is singing the Mode III Pange Lingua (not even the ST. THOMAS hymnody setting!), the Sacramentary formula of the Invitation to Veneration and the Exsultet, in addition to "O Sacred Head.." and "Hosanna Filio David" on Palm Sunday. But I also have a number of pieces that are written in the past 10 years with solid theology and more 20th century-oriented musical styles. The Church seeks to preserve the wealth of musical history She has produced, but has never said that development must stop. She seems to have wisely opted for both/and, not either/or.

Do I think a lot of music written in the past 40 years is trash? Yes...but there is trash chant and polyphony as well. Every composition can't be a masterwork. For example, I avoid David Haas Psalm settings like the plague because the text is so distorted from the Lectionary's arrangement and translation. But I also avoid certain hymnody (ABBOT'S LEIGH, for one) because the tune is so blessedly unsingable.

I guess my position is that we can't bludgeon people with the rhetoric "chant and polyphony are superior." Assemblies can't sing polyphony, so you are preventing obvious full, active, and conscious participation by your very selection of repertoire. The function of the choir has moved from making the responses for the assembly to making them WITH the assembly. If the assembly can't sing it (the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Psalmody) what good is it really doing? Is it elevating them to higher thoughts to stand and listen to "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth" or to sing "holy, holy, holy Lord God of Sabaoth" (I'm assuming the new translation will be rendered as such)? The prayer says "Cum quibus et nos et, per nostram vocem..." It intends for the preface acclamation to be made by all. Why should we limit the participation of the assembly in the heavenly liturgy taking place?[/quote]

You make a lot of sense. However, I don't see how assemblies can't sing polyphony. It's not particularly practical, but I assume if the same music were used for every Mass the congregation would catch on. The choir does a little bit of polyphony for the Kyrie and the Gloria in my church at my university, and most people join in, taking the part that matches their own voice

I also don't think that when people "stand and listen" to the Sanctus it necessarily limits their participation in the liturgy. I understand that the ideal is that everyone signs it, but that doesn't mean not singing = not full participation. I'm not expressing myself very well here...

Edited March 1, 2007 by Maggie

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1206080' date='Feb 28 2007, 10:27 PM']You make a lot of sense. However, I don't see how assemblies can't sing polyphony. It's not particularly practical, but I assume if the same music were used for every Mass the congregation would catch on. The choir does a little bit of polyphony for the Kyrie and the Gloria in my church at my university, and most people join in, taking the part that matches their own voice

I also don't think that when people "stand and listen" to the Sanctus it necessarily limits their participation in the liturgy. I understand that the ideal is that everyone signs it, but that doesn't mean not singing = not full participation. I'm not expressing myself very well here... [/quote]

You are expressing yourself very well. Your point that not singing does not necessarily prohibit FAC participation is well founded, hotly debated and holds a great deal of truth. However, its been my experience that when, in a typical parish, you have the choir making all the responses, the people's minds do wander and are less connected to the salvific action taking place. They prayers imply action ("We proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise..."). Preface II of Christmas says "With all the angels in heaven, we SING our joyful hymn of praise." It doesn't say "We stand and spiritually unite ourselves to their ending hymn of praise..." The prefaces all seem to imply the action of singing.

Polyphony in a typical parish is quite tough...trust me, I've tried it. It may be well suited to some communities, like small 50-100 congregant daily Mass, but in my parish, getting our customary 1,000 people singing in 4 canonical parts would be quite the musical feat.

Just my observations....

Edited March 1, 2007 by VaticanIILiturgist

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

[quote]No, I don't. And neither does the Church. It says those styles are particularly suited: CSL 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.[/quote]

But....if Gregorian Chant is [i]specially suited[/i] for the liturgy and [i]everything else [/i] can be considered equal...doesn't that imply then that Chant would be superior?

Edited March 4, 2007 by Knight of the Holy Rosary

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Knight of the Holy Rosary' post='1207861' date='Mar 4 2007, 03:32 PM']But....if Gregorian Chant is [i]specially suited[/i] for the liturgy and [i]everything else [/i] can be considered equal...doesn't that imply then that Chant would be superior?[/quote]

I don't think the distinction is that black and white. [i]Specially suited[/i] gives a different flavor to the entire discussion. If all music was inferior to chant/polyphony, then why would the Church permit it's use? Would she consciously allow inferior forms of music to be used in Sacred Liturgy? That seems doubtful. By stating a preference for chant/polyphony, but permitting other musical genres, it seems to me that the Church is acknowledging the validity of other forms of music. If chant/polyphony is truly the only suitable music for Liturgy, CSL would not explicitly state that other forms are "by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations" (n. 116). Let us not confuse the [i]subjective [/i]with the [i]objective[/i].

[Maggyie]

[quote]I don't think the distinction is that black and white. Specially suited gives a different flavor to the entire discussion. If all music was inferior to chant/polyphony, then why would the Church permit it's use? Would she consciously allow inferior forms of music to be used in Sacred Liturgy? That seems doubtful. By stating a preference for chant/polyphony, but permitting other musical genres, it seems to me that the Church is acknowledging the validity of other forms of music. If chant/polyphony is truly the only suitable music for Liturgy, CSL would not explicitly state that other forms are "by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations" (n. 116). Let us not confuse the subjective with the objective.[/quote]

I don't think the idea that Gregorian chant etc. is the "superior" music form for the liturgy necessarily implies that the other forms are inferior. I think it's more of a "this (modern hymns) is good, but this (Chant) is best" statement. The church isn't allowing "inferior" music by permitting modern music, but I think it's clear that "specially suited" means "superior." Why would a preference for chant be expressed at all if it weren't considered "superior"?

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1207914' date='Mar 4 2007, 04:35 PM']I don't think the idea that Gregorian chant etc. is the "superior" music form for the liturgy necessarily implies that the other forms are inferior. I think it's more of a "this (modern hymns) is good, but this (Chant) is best" statement. The church isn't allowing "inferior" music by permitting modern music, but I think it's clear that "specially suited" means "superior." Why would a preference for chant be expressed at all if it weren't considered "superior"?[/quote]

If we use the word [i]superior[/i], that necessitates an [i]inferior[/i]. Why would the Church permit inferior music to be included in Liturgy? If chant is the only form of music that is supposed to be used, then paragraph 116 of CSL may as well not have been written. It really comes down to a pastoral judgment about what type(s) of music to use at a given liturgy. The documents simply don't permit a monolithic view of this. It does no good to go around saying "your music isn't good enough, because chant is given pride of place!" The Church, whether one agrees or not, permits various types of music in her Liturgy and that fact should be welcomed, not feared.

I refer you to paragraph 28 of "Music in Catholic Worship," as well as paragraphs 54-5 of "Liturgical Music Today" for some references to the Church's acceptance of other worthy forms of music. Heck, read the whole document if you have time. The USCCB certainly wouldn't waste time developing documents that legislate music it views as [i]inferior [/i]or [i]occasional[/i].

None of this is to say that if chant is the singular musical style that connects you to the Divine during Liturgy, then you are somehow disordered. It simply means that your preference may not be the preference of all your sisters and brothers at Mass and imposing a preference on others doesn't seem overly charitable.

Edited March 4, 2007 by VaticanIILiturgist

[jeffpugh]

I do not see why we should shy away from polyphony because the people cant sing along. The hymn books in the pews have notation so who really can sing along cause not everyone knows notation. I think people can participate in polyphony by being mindful of the verses and taking part in experiencing the beauty, order and representation of the music (polyphony was used because it represented the angels singing for eternity). I do not see the reason to shy away from tradition because of the modern people. Tradition should be used for mass because it is a reminder that this is not a new idea but a long standing miracle and people have poured their heart out into writing the music and performing it because they love Jesus.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1208171' date='Mar 4 2007, 09:22 PM']I do not see why we should shy away from polyphony because the people cant sing along. The hymn books in the pews have notation so who really can sing along cause not everyone knows notation. I think people can participate in polyphony by being mindful of the verses and taking part in experiencing the beauty, order and representation of the music (polyphony was used because it represented the angels singing for eternity). I do not see the reason to shy away from tradition because of the modern people. Tradition should be used for mass because it is a reminder that this is not a new idea but a long standing miracle and people have poured their heart out into writing the music and performing it because they love Jesus.[/quote]

Assemblies have rarely sung polyphony. It was composed because choirs made all the responses. Most people were involved in other devotional prayer during Mass. There were no hymnals (Gather [i]or [/i]Adoremus) for them to follow along with - in fact, many were illiterate. Most of the polyphonic Masses in the repertoire were composed for solemn High Mass when the assembly was not encouraged to sing along. Not to mention the orchestral Masses by Haydn, Mozart, Berlioz, Verdi, Schubert, etc... Polyphony certainly has its place in more solemn celebrations (Chrism Mass, ordinations, etc., here you have a more occasional assembly), but it seems impractical for the vast majority of assemblies, if you feel congregational singing is important. If a particular community does not want to sing particular responses, then by all means use a polyphonic Mass setting.

Let us also remember polyphonic music was not officially permitted in the Church until the 14th century because of its secular affiliations.

It is certainly important to encourage the preservation of chant as an accessible musical prayer, which is why I used ordinaries from the [i]Liber Usualis[/i] and [i]Graduale Romanum[/i] today (yes, I mix and match - in fact, I used a Kyrie designated for weekday use - horrors!), complete with cantors reading in nuemes. But I also used a piece by Bob Hurd, a psalm by Randall DeBruyn and a hymn with a text by Alan Hommerding.

[N/A Gone]

when I first converted I missed protestant music more and more, (as seen on trans board) but as I matured I understand mass in this Quote I kindly found on Ms. Phatcatholic's profile

[quote]When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.
– St. John Chrysostom[/quote]


So this is what I consider, that the music needs to promote this sense of fear and veneration. The emotions that come with drums and with contemporary music is not reflective in that sense. It is a different drug.

Sad enough, all the churches around me look like protestant ones. I fear the church I desire does not exist near me.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1208363' date='Mar 4 2007, 11:56 PM']when I first converted I missed protestant music more and more, (as seen on trans board) but as I matured I understand mass in this Quote I kindly found on Ms. Phatcatholic's profile
So this is what I consider, that the music needs to promote this sense of fear and veneration. The emotions that come with drums and with contemporary music is not reflective in that sense. It is a different drug.

Sad enough, all the churches around me look like protestant ones. I fear the church I desire does not exist near me.[/quote]

What should a Catholic church look like? Altar, ambo, crucifix, candles, baptismal font, right? What is elemental and what is incidental to each of these? Should things be ornate? Simple? I've seen many pre-VII Catholic churches that seem to bulldoze right over the principle of "noble simplicity." Does ornateness or intricateness in and of itself lift us to the Divine or is a conditioned response because that has been historically the response to ornate things in stone buildings? Just playing devil's advocate... Let's not look down our noses at churches that don't look "Catholic" until we can truly define what that means.

The Church you desire exists around you - it just doesn't look or sound the way you want it to. The Church is not musical styles and architectural renderings. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth working to bring about the Kingdom of God among us.

Edited March 5, 2007 by VaticanIILiturgist

[Apotheoun]

Here's what a Church should look like. :

[img]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/sf_russianchurch.jpg[/img]

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1208411' date='Mar 5 2007, 01:01 AM']Here's what a Church should look like. :

[img]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/sf_russianchurch.jpg[/img][/quote]

Can you cite a document that defines this, please?

I think a Church should look like this:

[img]http://www.med.umich.edu/gulfwarhealth/images/memory8.jpg[/img]

[Apotheoun]

How Roman of you, reducing the aesthetics of the liturgy to legal "documents" enacted by the Curia. Sadly, the West really has lost sight of Tradition.

By the way, Christ is the Church, and the members of His body are only "church" in so far as they have been assimilated to Him through the power of His uncreated energies.

God bless,
Todd