Chironomo's Podium

Theological Problems of Church Music

2010-04-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

"But at least this much is clear: the problem of church music is not merely a problem for music, but a vital question for the Church herself"

This central quote neatly sums up the complete argument put forth by Joseph Ratzinger in his 1977 essay "The Theological Problems of Church Music". Though from a time immediately after the Second Vatican Council....in the midst of the very worst experiments in liturgical music....this essay still holds great relevance today, not only because of the status of its author but due to the timelessness of its claims.

I would recommend a thorough reading of this essay as it is only 9pages in length, including footnotes. Every time I come back to this essay, as well as a later essay on the same subject Liturgy and Church Music, I find something new and find those parts that are familiar have become more relevant to the current situation of liturgical music in the Catholic Church today.

More on this tomorrow...

Florida Chant Conference

2010-02-15T10:38:00.001-08:00

The Florida Chapter of the Church Music Association of America is pleased to announce:
2nd Annual Musica Sacra Florida Gregorian Chant Conference
Sponsored by the Florida Chapter of the Church Music Association of America in conjunction with the Department of Music, Ave Maria University, Ave Maria, Florida.

Friday & Saturday, March 19-20, 2010

This two-day workshop will present both beginning and advanced musicians with lectures, breakout sessions, and rehearsals that will enrich their knowledge of Gregorian chant and its use in the Roman Catholic liturgy.

Led by a faculty of chant specialists from around the state, attendees will learn more about the history of Gregorian chant and its role in the liturgy as well as experience the chant in the context of both the Divine Office and the Mass. Beginning chanters will be introduced to the basics of notation and rhythm according to the classic Solesmes method. Experienced chanters will learn new repertoire and advance their understanding of rhythmic and interpretive nuance. Resources and practical methods for the cultivation of Gregorian chant in the life of the parish will also be discussed. A special breakout session will be devoted to helping priests and deacons with their liturgical chants.

This workshop is ideal for choir members, parish music directors, music students, teachers, parents, seminarians, deacons, priests, and anyone who is interested in learning about the heritage of sacred music within the Roman Catholic Church.

Registration fees are $40 or $15 for students (with I.D.) and include the price of instructional materials and instruction. Overnight accommodations will be available at AMU’s Xavier Conference Center. Participants can choose among various options for room and board. For prices and options, go to http://www.musicasacra.com/florida

Pre-registration is required. Deadline: Friday, March 5th, 2010
To register, visit: http://www.musicasacra.com/florida
Contact Information: Susan Treacy (239) 280-1668 or susan [dot] treacy [at] avemaria.edu

Faculty:
Keynote Speaker: Jeffrey Tucker – Managing Editor, Sacred Music
Mary Jane Ballou – Director of the Schola Cantorae, St Augustine, FL
Jennifer Donelson – Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Timothy McDonnell - Ave Maria University, Ave Maria, FL
Michael O’Connor – Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL
Susan Treacy – Ave Maria University, Ave Maria, FL
Jamie Younkin - Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL

Registration:
Registration fees are $40 and include the price of instructional materials and instruction. Students (with I.D.) are $15. Payment is accepted online or due upon arrival at the conference. Pre-registration is required. Deadline: Friday, March 5th, 2010. Registration is available at: www.musicasacra.com/florida

Room & Board Options:
Overnight accommodations will be available at AMU’s Xavier Conference Center.
Participants may choose from among the following options for room and board.
Xavier Conference Center — Single occupancy $45
Xavier Conference Center — Double occupancy ($30 per person) $60
Saturday Breakfast $5
Saturday Lunch $7

Location:
Ave Maria University, 5050 Ave Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, FL 34142
A campus map can be accessed at: http://www.avemaria.edu/uploads/pagesfiles/352.pdf
All events except the closing Mass are located in the Bob Thomas Student Union, labeled 05 on the campus map.

The Gregorian Institute on Gregorian Chant

2010-01-29T07:09:00.000-08:00

The website of GIA (The Gregorian Institute of America) has a page on Gregorian Chant resources for parish use. It is fascinating in many ways….first that a company named the “Gregorian Institute” would only devote two or three pages of a several hundred page website to...well…Gregorian music. But more fascinating, and a bit disappointing, is how they treat the whole subject of Gregorian chant.

The information given is really not of much use, but then again I suspect it is not supposed to be very useful. The goal seems to be to actually discourage the use of chant while showing that they are at least abiding by the letter of the law in their publications.

>>>>>
From the GIA website….
(My emphasis and comments)

Gregorian Chant for the Congregation
The Second Vatican Council stated that the faithful should be able to sing the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 54).(It actually says that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. This is important because it makes clear that the Latin language is the important issue, not the chant settings. What steps have been taken by GIA to achieve this?) Catholic congregations in most parts of the world sing at least a few chants in Latin.( “Look! It’s being done elsewhere so we don’t have to worry about it!) But in the U.S., for the most part we have a ways to go in fulfilling SC 54.(Perhaps the understatement of the century…) One need not look far to find resources for basic congregational Latin chant—every major Catholic hymnal or worship aid includes basic congregational Latin chants. (OK..so they’re really token inclusions, but so what?) The easiest places to start are with the Kyrie (which in fact is in Greek) and the Agnus Dei. Then one might advance to the Sanctus and perhaps the Pater Noster. (Take note of the language here…”one need not look far”…”one might advance”…rather than “you can find”…or “you can then advance”. In other words, “one could do this if one were so inclined, but not YOU.) The Gloria and Credo are more difficult because of their length. (so…don’t ever attempt to sing them in Latin? We should never try anything difficult?) In any event, slow progress and pastoral sensitivity are advised. (Good Lord!…why would slow progress be advised? I don’t see any descriptions of works in their choral anthem catalogues claiming “One might sing this for the Sunday after Easter, but only after careful pastoral consideration. If one’s choir is successful in introducing this work, one might then advance to the more difficult selections, but do so slowly.”)

There are several collections with more extensive congregational repertoire: Iubilate Deo, Liber Cantualis, and Kyriale Simplex. (But since we just told you that it should take a long, long, long time to introduce even the basic congregational chants included in our fine hymnals, why would you ever need a more extensive congregational repertoire?)

GIA publishes an edition of an earlier version of Iubilate Deo in modern notation: Jubilate Deo.
(We’re not going to tell you what this is or why it might be useful….just that we do publish it. Notice that we replaced the difficult Latin "Iubilate" with the much more accessible "Jubilate")

Easier Gregorian Chant for the Choir
Many choirs will be looking for easier chant than is found in the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Triplex(?), especially at first. (Well...if you were encouraging them to look for chant at all they might be doing this, but you just told them to make slow progress and be pastoral) A good place to start is with any of the major congregational hymnals. (But…don’t look in the Parish Book of Chant…stick with the major hymnals!) The Latin chants found there are intended for congregations, but it is likely that congregations are not (yet) able to sing them. (Way to be encouraging GIA, way to be encouraging! I especially like the parenthetical “yet”.) The choir might (why not say “can”?) sing easier Latin antiphons, Latin chant hymns, or chant hymns in English. Hymns are an easy place to start because the same melody is repeated for each stanza of text. Because the melody of a strophic hymn is formulaic and not intrinsically tied to the Latin text, hymns are the one part of the Latin chant repertoire that can be sung in any language. (Well…they wouldn’t really be Latin chant repertoire then, would they? If we sing “O Come All Ye Faithful” in English, we’re not singing a Latin chant hymn simply because it was originally in Latin, are we? This is essentially trying to say that singing vernacular hymnody is a great way to fulfill the call to sing Latin chant. What absolute nonsense.)

Other easier collections for choir are Graduale Simplex and Cantus Selecti.
(We’re not going to tell you what these are either, but they are easier)

Gregorian Chant for the Choir (but not the easier stuff like above)
Much of the Latin chant repertoire was written for a trained choir.(So...my choir isn't "trained"?) Being more difficult, it was sung primarily in monasteries (not like your parish), cathedrals (not like your parish either), colleges (not a parish, so not like you either), and parishes with more extensive resources (more extensive resources than your parish, that is!) In the right circumstances (not gonna tell you what these might be, but they aren't circumstances that apply to your parish) , parish choirs can still sing some of this chant.

Graduale Romanum, Gregorian Missal for Sundays, Graduale Triplex.
(We’re not even going to tell you why we have these books listed here…but they contain some of the chant that you might be able to sing in the right circumstances at a monastery, cathedral, college or extensively resourced parish.)

>>>>>>

So….that is, in a nutshell, what GIA wants to tell you about the music for which their company is named. If you were a truly inquiring Director of Music trying to live up to the Church’s call to sing the music of the Roman liturgy, would this encourage you to do so?

Some Thoughts About "Turning Back the Clock"

2010-01-13T08:01:00.001-08:00

I've done a lot of reading (mostly blog discussions) about liturgical reform lately. This is the big topic right now. I mean, it's always been something of a hot topic, but it is now in the forefront in a way that it hasn't been before. Beginning with Summorum Pontificum and continuing with changes to the Papal Liturgies including ad orientem celebrations, Gregorian chant, communion kneeling and on the tongue exclusively...now many Bishops following suit...and then the new translation of the Roman Missal coming to us soon, it has become apparent that the "reform of the reform" is no longer a hypothetical thing, but is now a reality.

Just last week, the Pontical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini addressed the Priests of the International Conference of Clergy in Rome. The topic was the "reform of the reform"... a well organized presentation on 5 points central to liturgical reform:

The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church

The orientation of liturgical prayer

Adoration and union with God

Active Participation

Sacred or liturgical music

However, the presentation was less an academic examination than an instruction, laying out an interpretation of the post-conciliar liturgy that is decidedly orthodox, drawing together many of the issues that have been addressed seperately up to now and creating a coherent foundation for liturgical development going forwards.

And that is what I see as the most important point: This is a forward looking vision for the liturgy, an interpretive foundation for the Missal of Paul VI which brings it out of the morass of inculturating adaptations, innovations and experiments and seeks instead to set it within the liturgical traditions of the Church. This has been the point of Pope Benedicts reforms up to this point...to set the Missal of Paul VI within the context of the Church's liturgical tradition.

And yet, the reactions to Msgr. Marini's address and to Pope Benedict's initiatives all too often appeal to the well-worn cliche: "Let's not turn back the clock".

This is usually followed by noting that things were far from perfect "back in the day" - and the criticism is most often that Priests rushed through Mass and that the people in the pews just sat and watched, oblivious to what was going on until it was time to receive communion, after which they left. And that may have been true in many instances "back in the day".

But I know a great many Catholics who consider themselves Traditionalists, and I attend Mass in the EF on Sundays (8:30AM Low Mass) and have yet to find a single person who wants to return to that way of celebrating the EF Mass. And I have yet to attend an EF Mass in which the Priest desires to rush through as quickly as possible. The Mass this past Sunday was a Low Mass and it took about 55 minutes, including an excellent homily. The faithful followed carefully in their Latin-English Missals (including the children who make up perhaps 1/4 of the assembly), very much engaged in the liturgy. This is the state of the Extraordinary Form in 2010. It has nothing to do with "turning back the clock" and everything to do with moving forwards. There are new churches, new religious orders, new Priests and new faithful, young and old celebrating in the Extraordinary Form.

And so, if the current celebration of the EF isn't "turning back the clock", then how could celebrating the Ordinary Form liturgy, even in the most orthodox of settings, be "turning back the clock"? I have seen Masses celebrated in the Ordinary Form where one gets the impression that the Priest is trying to "move things along", and the now ubiquitous use of an army of EMC's at most Masses can only be explained by a desire to finish communion as quickly as possible- despite all of the rhetoric that it is the "center of our faith journey". There is the frequent ommission of the Gloria and Creed, homilies without substance or relevance and arbitrary limitations on the number of verses in the hymns...all in order to "get out on time". If there is anything today that is similar to "turning back the clock", it would be this.

This is what Msgr. Marini and certainly Pope Benedict are urging us to move away from...that is, celebrations in the Ordinary Form ought to move forward towards a more reverent and orthodox norm as has been done in the Extraordinary Form celebrations. This is what Pope Benedict meant by mutual enrichment - taking those things from each liturgical form that lead towards a greater reverence and sanctification of the faithful and applying them to both forms.

Such progress could be described in a variety of ways, but I fail to see how it is "turning back the clock". May I suggest that it is actually a case of "winding up a clock" that was long ago allowed to run out, hurriedly replaced by a new improved LED timpepiece whose red-against-black square numbers are beginning to look rather dated themselves.

Warm Enough To Snow?

2010-01-09T05:20:00.000-08:00

Right now, according to the NWS, Florida is the only place in the country warm enough to snow.

Bizarre.....

A Connection?

2010-01-07T12:59:00.001-08:00

As I read the January 6th address of Msgr. Guido Marini to priets, I kept coming back to this posting by Andrea Tornielli last August:

The newspaper [Il Giornale] today published a paper devoted to "propositions" voted on last March by the plenary meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship, presented to Benedict XVI by Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera on April 4th. It contains a first outline of the "reform the reform" liturgy that Ratzinger would see implemented, underlining the importance of reverent worship, putting a stop to creativity and abuse, giving more presence to the Latin language in the new rite, publishing bilingual missals (with the Latin text opposite), reconsidering the matter of the "versus orientem" [ad orientem] orientation at least during the consecration [i.e. during the Eucharistic prayer], reiterating that the use of distributing Communion in the hand is an indult, an extraordinary fact, but that the [normative] custom of the law must remain to receive the host on the tongue.

All this, however, will be prepared and presented in the Ratzingerian style: not any short-term document, no sudden imposition destined to go unheeded. Rather, a long and patient work from the grass roots ["from below"], that involves the episcopate. The point of departure and arrival is the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

What kept getting to me were the main points supposedly in this "reform of the reform" document (Bold in red above), and how they echo the main points in Msgr. Marini's address:

The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church (reverent worship/ stopping creativity)

The orientation of liturgical prayer (ad orientem worship)

Adoration and union with God (communion on the tongue)

Active Participation

Sacred or liturgical music (greater presence of Latin language)

I wonder if this isn't the beginning of that "long and patient work from the grass roots"... the points that Tornielli claimed were in the "reform of the reform" document and the points that Msgr. Marini made in his address are identical. Note also that Tornielli said that the departure and return point is Sacrosanctum Concilium... while Msgr. Marini's address largely concerns an interpretation of the Vatican II reforms in continuity with tradition, quoting frequently from Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I can't help thinking that there is something here that has been carefully thought out.

Sacred or Liturgical Music: from Msgr. Marini's address to Priests

2010-01-07T07:32:00.000-08:00

On January 6th, 2010 at the International Clergy Conference in Rome, the Pontifical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, gave an extensive address to Priests…not just those in attendance at the conference, but to Priests throughout the world. The topic was the Liturgy, specifically an understanding of the foundations of liturgy from a perspective, a hermeneutic, of continuity with the Church’s liturgical tradition. This perspective has developed rapidly since 2003 when Pope Benedict first introduced the term hermeneutic of continuity to the Catholic world. Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (2007) it has become clear that any future development in the liturgy must occur within tradition, not outside of it.

In his address to Priests, Msgr. Marini discusses 5 distinct topics of current importance:

The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church

The orientation of liturgical prayer

Adoration and union with God

Active Participation

Sacred or liturgical music

It is significant that these very topics are also the same as those addressed in Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, a document referred to by Msgr. Marini’s a number of times.

This address will, no doubt, be examined and studied over the next several weeks…it is a significant text coming as it does from the primary liturgist for the Catholic Church (I apologize if that term if it implies any offense!). Of particular interest to me is the section on Sacred Music…the last topic he examines.

(My emphasis and comments)

Sacred or Liturgical Music. (From Introduction to the Spirit of the Liturgy)
Msgr. Guido Marini – Pontifical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies

There is no doubt that a discussion, in order to introduce itself authentically into the spirit of the liturgy, cannot pass over sacred or liturgical music and silence. (Pope Benedict has expressed similar sentiments in his essay Liturgy and Church Music – that Sacred Music, Gregorian Chant and Polyphony, are an integral part of the Roman Liturgy and therefore inseperable from it)

I will limit myself to a brief reflection in way of orienting the discussion.(This is a big topic…better to just give the main points and begin a meaningful discussion of this going forward!) One might wonder why the Church by means of its documents, more or less recent, insists in indicating a certain type of music and singing (Gregorian Chant/ Polyphony) as particularly consonant with the liturgical celebration. (The liturgical documents at times say “eminently suited”, at other times “integral”) Already at the time of the Council of Trent the Church intervened in the cultural conflict developing at that time, reestablishing the norm whereby music conforming to the sacred text was of primary importance, limiting the use of instruments and pointing to a clear distinction between profane and sacred music.(This was the not the first reaction to secular music in the liturgy, but was the most notable up to that time…the focus was vernacular hymnody and instrumental music) Sacred music, moreover, must never be understood as a purely subjective expression. It is anchored to the biblical or traditional texts which are to be sung during the course of the celebration. (Liturgical music is not about what WE want to say…it is about proclaiming sacred texts as part of the liturgical ritual. This is why the issue of the Propers has come to the forefront in these past few years) More recently, Pope Saint Pius X intervened in an analogous way (analogous to what was done at Trent, and more importantly, analogous to the situation today), seeking to remove operatic singing from the liturgy and selecting Gregorian chant and polyphony from the time of the Catholic reformation as the standard for liturgical music, to be distinguished from religious music in general. (This is an important distinction. There is a place for religious music in the life of the church…but that place is not at Mass) The Second Vatican Council did naught but reaffirm the same standard, so too the more recent magisterial documents. (A reality check: the documents of Vatican II re-affirm, rather strongly, that Chant and Sacred Polyphony have been and still are the primary music of the liturgy, and every document since has only further emphasized its importance…shamefully, most parishes are in conflict with this.)

Why does the Church insist on proposing certain forms as characteristic of sacred and liturgical music which make them distinct from all other forms of music? Why, also, do Gregorian chant and the classical sacred polyphony turn out to be the forms to be imitated, in light of which liturgical and even popular music should continue to be produced today? (The liturgical documents of Vatican II emphasize the development of contemporary liturgical music…and proscribe that it be modeled after Gregorian chant and Sacred Polyphony. There are excellent contemporary composers that do this very thing, and there are other not-so-excellent composers that have rejected this proscription and turn instead to popular and theater music for their models)

The answer to these questions lies precisely in what we have sought to assert with regard to the spirit of the liturgy. It is properly those forms of music, in their holiness, their goodness, and their universality, which translate in notes, melodies and singing the authentic liturgical spirit (As was said above – this music, Gregorian chant, expresses to us the very spirit of the liturgy by means of its integral form and interior holiness, as opposed to music in which we express to others our feelings or sentiments by means of exterior secular forms that have more to do with us than with the liturgy. This is the fundamental flaw of most contemporary religious music as used in the liturgy): by leading to adoration of the mystery celebrated, by favouring an authentic and integral participation (people will sing chant), by helping the listener to capture the sacred and thereby the essential primacy of God acting in Christ, and finally by permitting a musical development that is anchored in the life of the Church and the contemplation of its mystery. (Given the importance of this issue to liturgical development, I don’t think that it is out of the question that there will eventually be something like a second Tra le sollecitudini coming our way. Msgr. Marini’s foreshadow of Pius X making an “analogous” reform for the very same reasons as are needed today should cause one to think seriously about this possibility).

Allow me to quote the then Cardinal Ratzinger one last time: “Gandhi highlights three vital spaces in the cosmos, and demonstrates how each one of them communicates even its own mode of being. Fish live in the sea and are silent. Terrestrial animals cry out, but the birds, whose vital space is the heavens, sing. Silence is proper to the sea, crying out to the earth, and singing to the heavens. Man, however, participates in all three: he bares within him the depth of the sea, the weight of the earth, and the height of the heavens; this is why all three modes of being belong to him: silence, crying out, and song. Today...we see that, devoid of transcendence, all that is left to man is to cry out, because he wishes to be only earth and seeks to turn into earth even the heavens and the depth of the sea. The true liturgy, the liturgy of the communion of saints, restores to him the fullness of his being. It teaches him anew how to be silent and how to sing, opening to him the profundity of the sea and teaching him how to fly, the nature of an angel; elevating his heart, it makes that song resonate in him once again which had in a way fallen asleep. In fact, we can even say that the true liturgy is recognizable especially when it frees us from the common way of living, and restores to us depth and height, silence and song. The true liturgy is recognizable by the fact that it is cosmic, not custom made for a group. It sings with the angels. It remains silent with the profound depth of the universe in waiting. And in this way it redeems the world.” (This final quote recaps three of Pope Benedict's points about liturgy and reform: True liturgy is divinely formed, not manufactured for our purposes. We have now a liturgy which is more manufactured for our purposes. Only true liturgy can redeem the world. And so we can conclude what…?)

(END)

What strikes me the most about this address (this is only one of 5 sections....and the shortest section at that!) is the narrowness of the scope (liturgical practice at Mass) and the very specific issues presented. These are the cornerstone issues of liturgical reform...the main points at which the actual texts of the liturgical documents of Vatican II and liturgical practice since Vatican II have differed most notably. In other words, these are the most prominent aspects of the liturgy where we are not following the liturgical documents: Sacredness and Solemnity in the liturgy - Liturgical Orientation (ad orientem) - Active Participation - Sacred Music. These issues are now being presented to priests as "front-burner" issues. They are also those same issues as were addressed by Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritatis.

But far from being philosophical reflection on theological points, this address is more of an exposition of a policy position. It outlines the actual policies (Vatican II documents), their justifications (tradition/ magisterium/ continuity) and even some specific suggestions for action. My strong feeling is that this is both a re-emphasizing of Sacramentum Caritatis, and perhaps a preparation for some kind of document yet to come.

I can't help but recall the "rumor" last Summer that Pope Benedict had been presented with a document outlining the main points of the "reform of the reform". Perhaps we are seeing them now....

Fact Check....

2010-01-05T12:06:00.000-08:00

Every so often I take time to “review” articles from Today’s Liturgy, GIA Quarterly and AIM Resources. More often than not these are publications which promote a more progressive viewpoint – and more often than not I am in a position of disagreeing with their opinions. That’s fine…opinions have a place so long as they are not put forward as fact, and so long as the facts are acknowledged and one’s opposition or agreement with them is made clear. (You can read about my views on this).

And so I began reading an article in the latest edition of Today’s Liturgy with an eye to just such a review. And I may still do so when I have sufficient time. ..but first I have to address a specific part of this article that left me shaking my head. I hope that my comments may find legs and get back to the individual who wrote them: Rodica Stoicoiu. I haven’t read anything by this writer previously and so I can at least hope that some of the more glaring problems were just oversight.

The article begins:

Change is upon us. If not by the time you read this then certainly in the near future there will be numerous changes in the celebration of the liturgy. How we deal with these reforms in our role as pastoral musicians will directly affect our communities and how they receive the changes. We can be obstreperous or we can have a positive attitude. Change is always difficult, and these changes will not be easy; but the more we understand them, the better we can enact them to the benefit of our people.

First, I have to wonder if she ran this copy by Bp. Trautman… obstreperous??? And he though ineffable was obscure! Secondly, I have to wonder what she’s talking about here. What are these numerous changes that will be sweeping the liturgy by the time this article reaches the press? This is a total mystery… she just keeps talking about “these changes” and how sweeping they are and how we have to work to accept them. About ¾ of the way through the article, she brings up the new translation and cites elements from this issue as "just a few examples of possible changes that liturgical ministers will face”. So she clearly isn’t talking about the new translation specifically. By the end of the first page, the article begins to take on a sense of foreboding, as though something big and terrible is coming. But what??

Anybody who writes professionally (as it seems Ms. Stoicoiu does) knows that you present the “focal point” about 1/3 of the way into the text in a brief article (as I am doing right now!). And what does the author discuss at this point in her article? POPE BENEDICT ON THE REFORM. And so I assume that this is the point of her article…to inform the reader about Pope Benedict’s position on reform. The several paragraphs prior to this section concern criticism of the reforms of Vatican II, and she cites two prominent authors – Fr. John Baldovin and Reiner Kaczynski, to build her argument that there is a growing movement towards re-examing the reforms of that council. But as she begins her discussion of Pope Benedict’s position, she shows her hand:

One critique of the reform that has many nervous today comes from the pope himself. Some wonder if this does not presage a frontal attack on the reforms of Vatican II.

And a little further on…

Certainly the recent declarations he has made as Pope Benedict XVI regarding the use of the preconciliar liturgy (Summorum Pontificum, 2007) have led some to express deep concerns about the direction the Church is taking.

OK…now we can see what this article is about! As an aside, I find the anonymous “some” she keeps using to be disingenuous. Can’t she just say “I wonder if this does not presage a frontal attack on the reforms of Vatican II” or “…have led me to express deep concerns about the direction the Church is taking”? But I can get by that…as well as the constant barrage of progressive buzzwords. My criticism is with her presentation of Pope Benedict’s position on reform, both in general and as relates to the reforms of Vatican II in particular. It is well known that the Holy Father has expressed his views on the hermeneutic of continuity, and that he has on many occasions noted that the current interpretations of the reforms of Vatican II have tended towards a “hermeneutic of rupture” with tradition. I thought that this was fairly well known.

Similarly, in the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, and in numerous statements from Prefect of the CDW and even from the Pope himself since, it has been made clear that the Missal of 1962 is a gift to the Universal Church which he (the Pope) desires to gain wider use and which he intends to influence the Novus Ordo Mass. Nonetheless, Ms. Stoicoiu cites a quote from Sacramentum Caritatis:

"From the varied forms of the early centuries… up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church's history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety". (SC 3).

I’m always suspicious about quotes, particularly quotes that use the “….” to expunge text. In this case, the opening of this quote actually reads:

From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite.

For some reason, it was not in keeping with her point for Benedict to note that the liturgical forms of the early centuries are “still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East”. This would make it seem that he actually finds these ancient rites to be acceptable if not preferable. She also obscures the context of Sacramentum Caritatis 3 in that the quote she pulled would seem to be a glowing endorsement of liturgical change coming from the Pope, particularly the changes of the Second Vatican Council. But the actual message of SC#3 is that the changes intended by the Council have not yet been realized, stated more eloquently in the passage following the quote pulled by Ms. Stoicoiu:

“The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities. “ (SC 3)

And so, Pope Benedict is actually saying that we need to understand the reforms called for by the Council as a continuation of liturgical tradition without introducing “artificial discontinuities”. And what does Ms. Stoicoiu claim that Pope Benedict is saying here? Well, she concludes that the Pope has made a definitive response to traditionalists as she concludes this section of her article:

“The response to those who wish to bring back the past is clear. The cultural context that supported the pre-conciliar rite has changed. Some may return to it because it is comforting to them, some may go out of curiosity, but the world that gave rise to and supported that rite has passed.”

That she would claim that this is Pope Benedict’s view is irresponsible and perhaps even scandalous. Pope Benedict….saying that the 1962 Missal might be useful for those who are nostalgic or curious but that it’s time has passed? Really? Of course, her premise is flawed to begin with, introducing a straw-man of sorts in the form of “those who wish to bring back the past”. I don’t know that Pope Benedict has made any kind of response to "those who wish to bring back the past”. I think the Pope takes traditionalists more seriously than that. Certainly the Pope has acknowledged that a wholesale return to the pre-conciliar church is neither possible nor desirable. But Ms. Stoicoiu wants the reader to then jump to the conclusion that Pope Benedict endorses the "hermeneutic of rupture" for those who want it while proposing a "hermeneutic of continuity" to keep traditionalists quiet. This is a gross mischaracterization of the Holy Father’s view.

After this part of her article, she returns to the mysterious “changes that are coming”. At one point she seems to imply that there is a new Missale Romanum coming with “changes to the Order of Mass”. I had no idea… I thought it was just a new translation. It might be fun after all to take a look at this whole article, but for now I’ve said what I need to say.

A Happy New Year

2010-01-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

As the New year begins, a welcome re-arrangement of my schedule will now allow me to attend the 8:30AM Extraordinary Form Mass on Sundays at the Christ The King Chapel in Sarasota. We are fortunate in the Diocese of Venice to have 20 (yes, twenty!) Extraordinary Form Masses each week throughout the Diocese (to be fair, 17 of those are at either Ave Maria University Chapel or Christ the King, both of which have daily EF Masses), but up to now I have been unable to attend Sunday Mass due to my obligations at my own parish and at another parish in the evening where I play a 6:00 Mass.

I will now have a space of time from 8:00AM- 10:00AM on Sunday Morning free - and there just happens to be an 8:30AM Mass at CTK only a few blocks away. I'm hoping that my family will be able to join me there, even if only occasionally.

I would have really liked to be able to make the 10:30AM Sung Mass, but I have to make a living after all.....

The Vatican Liturgical Calendar

2009-12-30T08:40:00.000-08:00

An interesting find while browsing the Vatican website...the Liturgical Year Calendar.

Other than being easy to use and full of useful information, it has a rather striking feature...musical selections for each season! No Haas-Haugen here...this is an all Chant-Polyphony program, complete with MP3's for the selections from the Sistine Choir and Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music and, get this, recordings of the Formularies for each Sunday for use by Priests. Wow!

Give it a look...

Benedictine Arrangement Sighting.....

2009-12-30T05:50:00.000-08:00

Bishop Frank Dewane incenses the altar at the Cathedral of the Epihpany in Venice Florida...note the very prominent Benedictine Arrangement of the altar...

Truly beautiful....

And Now...A Word from the Prophets

2009-12-29T11:20:00.000-08:00

"At various times and in various different ways, God spoke through the prophets, saying I know the plans I have in mind for you: plans for peace, not disaster."

As we head into this new year, may all things tend towards peace!

Wondering...Wondering

2009-12-15T09:33:00.001-08:00

Looking at some new information about an issue of great interest to me. It is causing me to question everything I'm hearing from conventional sources on this issue. I'm excited because it (at least partially) re-affirms my views on this issue, but then I'm suspicious because even though this information is literally, "from the source", it is a bit contrary to what I've heard this same source say in the past on this very same issue.

Making phone calls, sending e-mails and asking questions right now trying to figure it out.

The issue is a proposed "catechetical program" for Pastoral Musicians and Priests that could be part of the implementation program for the new translation of the Missal. If you have any information...heard any rumors...or know anything about this program (or perhaps another program out there?) and would like to share what you know, please feel free to comment.

A Simple Solution

2009-12-11T13:09:00.000-08:00

This appeared today in the Catholic World News summary:

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales have warned members of Parliament that a pending “equality bill” could create a crisis for the Catholic Church, because the legislation appears to demand equal opportunity for women and homosexuals to become priests. The legislation would exempt the Church if priests could be shown to spend most of their time either leading acts of worship or teaching Catholic doctrine. Otherwise, priests would be considered “employees,” and covered by the terms of the act, which prohibits discrimination against women, homosexuals, and others. The bishops, in a briefing, said that the bill could make it “unlawful to require a Catholic priest to be male, unmarried, or not in a civil partnership.”

And so it says...The legislation would exempt the Church if priests could be shown to spend most of their time either leading acts of worship or teaching Catholic doctrine...so the solution would be what?

The Ultimate Parish Council

2009-12-08T05:22:00.001-08:00

This on Catholic World News...

In a newly published book, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels advances a proposal for a “papal council”—a group of senior prelates who would advise the Pope on key issues. This council would not hold any juridical power, the cardinal proposes, but would have “great moral authority.”

Cardinal Danneels—who has long a favorite of liberal Catholics—makes the proposal in a book based on a series of interviews, in which he recalls his 30 years as the leading Catholic figure in Belgium. Cardinal Danneels released the book as he prepares to leave his post. Now 76 years old, he has submitted his resignation, and told reporters that he expects to be replaced early next year.

The cardinal’s book, Confidences d’un cardinal, carries a preface by Herman Van Rompuy, the former Belgian prime minister who took office this week as the first president of the European Union.

OK... is there anybody who thinks this would be a good idea? Does the term "Council of Elders" come to mind? Would we have to re-name all Catholic Churches worldwide something like "St. Mary's Catho-Methodist Episcopal Church"?

Why Contemporary Liturgical Music will Prevail

2009-12-05T13:01:00.000-08:00

As we move forward as Church into the future, a future that will bring us a new translation of the Mass texts and all of the problems that will, no doubt be associated with having to accept new words to express our faith, a faith that has been eloquently expressed for the past 40 years in the cherished and beloved translation that has been used by an entire generation of Catholic faithful…as we move forward as Church into that future, no question is more important than what music will be used to express these new words of our faith, difficult and less eloquent though they be. Will there be a lurch back towards forcing the faithful to rehash the music of the past, in a language that they can’t understand without the accompaniments and instruments that they have come to expect and love? Or will there be a bold move to “sing a new Church into being” with a new music that expresses our aspirations as Church?

I am convinced that it will be the latter, and for strong and demonstrable reasons. Two reasons actually: superior texts and superior music. It’s as simple as that. Because the reason for considering this question at all is the upcoming translation that we will soon be made to accept into our worship, the question of musical texts should be considered as primary.

Although the music that had been used in Catholic worship for nearly 2000 years may seem to have at least some attachment to the liturgy (recall though, that this music was actually Contemporary music in the early Church!), there are some very obvious shortcomings that make it inappropriate for praising God today! Although the authors of many of these texts, even those drawn directly from scripture, are unknown to us, those texts for which there are attributions are most often known to have been composed by one of the so-called “Doctors of the Church” or other “Church Fathers”… men like Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi and Cyprian of Carthage… certainly great men in their own regard, but men with little experience in living the faith as we do. Their Latin words may have a deep meaning for those who were in the Church throughout history, but what about for those who are Church now? For such people as we are today, we need texts that speak to us from our own experiences.

The music of our time, on the other hand, brings a refreshed spirituality and new sense of meaning to our common prayer. As the Fathers of Vatican II removed the barrier of Latin completely from the liturgy* a wealth of new texts were composed and continue to be composed, not by some Church Fathers from long ago who spent their days isolated from real life in a Monastery, but by real people who live the faith daily within our own experience. Text-writers who, like you and I, work for large commercial publishing companies and who experience the aspirations of the faithful in their travels around the country as they host workshops and attend sales conventions which bring this music within our reach.

Many of these text-writers have the added experience of having been Priests or religious Brothers and Sisters at one time, but who have gained the additional experience of living the life of the lay faithful by renouncing their vocations and going on to live lives of humble example, some as owners of their own Catholic publishing companies, others expressing their diversity through collaboration with their life-partners on new texts and music that bring their experiences into our prayer life. The difference that the sum of these experiences makes in the worthiness of texts can be clearly seen by comparison of two texts for the Vigil of Christmas, one an old worship text, the other a new worship text:

Old Worship Text:

Today you will know
that the Lord is coming to save us;
and tomorrow you will see his glory.

O Shepherd of Israel, hear us;
you who lead Joseph like a flock,
and who are enthroned upon the Cherubim;
we beseech you to appear
before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh.

Tomorrow the sin of the land will be destroyed,
and the Savior of the world
will establish over us his kingdom.

O Princes! Lift up your gates;
be lifted high, O eternal gates,
and the King of Glory shall make his entry!

New Worship Text:

Who would think that what was needed
to transform and save the earth
might not be a plan or army,
proud in purpose, proved in worth?
Who would think, despite derision
that a child should lead the way?
God surprises earth with heaven,
coming here on Christmas day.

Centuries of skill and science
span the past from which we move,
yet experience questions whether,
with such progress we improve.
While the human lot we ponder
lest our hopes and humor fray
coming here on Christmas day.

Text: John L. Bell, b.1949
Tune: SCARLET RIBBONS, 8.7 8.7 English traditional arr. John H Bell b. 1949
©1987, Iona Community, GIA Publications Inc. sole agent

The relevance of the new worship text to elements of our lived experience – armies, derision, skill, science, self-doubt, surprise – these speak to us of the coming of Christ in ways that the older text cannot possibly hope to with its older, Latinate images. This is an excellent example of how a contemporary text can enrich our prayer lives and allow us to go forth from our community and “bring the word to all nations” as we are called to by the Spirit of Vatican II.**

But while texts are perhaps primary, it is the musical settings themselves which give voice to Word and make the texts our own. The bold proclamation of the Second Vatican Council to move past the musical constraints of Gregorian Chant have allowed the development of music particularly suited to the depth of contemporary texts.*** So unique and precious are these settings that an elaborate system of legal protections have been developed to avoid any detractions or modifications of them by less experienced but perhaps well meaning parish musicians, and to allow them to serve the additional purpose of recordings, concerts and other entertainment uses.

The old chant settings, of course, had no need for such protection as they were generally confined to Catholic worship and had no entertainment value. This duality of purpose highlights the greater suitability of contemporary music for worship.
A simple comparison of two examples, one of the old fashioned liturgical style and one of a more contemporarily relevant setting can easily demonstrate to the listener which sounds more like a meaningful clothing of God’s Word, or other words as is the case in the second more relevant example.

Old Fashioned Example:

Christe Redemptor

Contemporary Example:

Trading My Sorrows

It’s difficult to imagine how the contemporary ear would even be able to connect the first example to something sacred, let alone worship! The enthusiastic response of the audience that can be heard in the recording of the contemporary example also gives further credence to the argument that this is obviously the music more suited to prayer and reflection.

And so, as I asked at the beginning of this examination; which music is the more likely to remain with our faith into the future? As we approach with some hesitation, and perhaps some mild dread, the abrupt and unprecedented changing of our beloved worship texts, we can at least feel comforted that the musical style that will give voice to our aspirations, that will build our collective spirit as Church, will be contemporary. With demonstrably superior text-writing and clearly audible musical dominance, the contemporary “genre” will prevail…of that we can be sure!

*Many have made the claim that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.1 – “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” can be somehow interpreted to mean that the Latin language is to be preserved in our worship services. This can be easily shown to be false since no Latin is used in our worship, and as such it is wrong to claim that we celebrate a “Latin Rite”.

** Zeal for this particular mandate of the Council has been so great that many faithful, filled with the Spirit, now fight to get out to the parking lot first so that they may immediately begin living their faith, energized by the powerful message of contemporary texts such as that given in the above example.

***Again, many have made the claim that Sacrosanctum Concilium #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” as meaning that Chant should be given pride of place in the Mass. This is obviously a misleading directive since there is no chant in the Mass, and so it apparently applies to other liturgical services such as the Sung Divine Office like you might hear at a monastery or other non-church location.

Watch for it...

2009-11-23T07:09:00.000-08:00

The forces that want to stop the now-unstoppable forward motion of liturgical reform are in a panic. They have resorted to a hearsay "populism" (most people think...nobody wants...etc...etc..) to try and stop the movement now that the new translation is assuredly on its way and at least a tentative date has been given for the day when all parishes will begin using it.

The efforts have been targeted at the Bishops for the last several years. Now that has failed, and the final front in this lost war is with the Catholic faithful themselves...convincing them that they don't want a new translation which they know nothing about except what the opponents tell them. We will see polls about the lack of support for it. We will see polls about people's satisfaction with the current translation (who wouldn't be "satisfied" with a translation they've used for 40 years?). The effort will be made to appeal to the same principle as was demonstrated in Summorum Pontificum, where those who prefer the 1962 Missal are allowed to freely use the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The cry will go out to allow the use of the old translation for those who are "attached" to it. Mark my words.

Our love of democracy runs deep in the United States, and one of the conflicts increasingly presented to American Catholics is the necessary realization that democracy has no place in faith, at least not in this way. We cannot "vote" on what is right, and it is not our "right as Catholics" to have a voice in forming Church doctrine. The Bishop, or Pastor or Priest that continues to appeal to "what the people want", whether it's about the new translation or any other facet of reform for that matter, will eventually find themselves trapped in a hole from which there is no escape... a hole that leads them, and their faithful, further and further away.

And the Survey Says....

2009-11-20T09:26:00.000-08:00

This week saw the final passage of the last section of the new translation of the Missale Romanum by the USCCB at their Synod in Baltimore. There was some drama surrounding the final vote (see HERE), but in the end it was passed nearly unanimously and now proceeds to Rome for any final changes to be made by the Holy See, and for final recognitio. After that, it will be on its way to publishing houses and then on to Catholic parishes across the English speaking world. A “leaked” memo tells us also that the implementation date may have been moved up from November 2011 to April 2011.

In the words of Jerry Galipeau (WLP)…” So, folks, this is going to happen. No more ‘what ifs’ at this point.”.

But now begins the hard work – Implementation. Essentially, the drama we saw this week at the USCCB, Bp. Trautman vs. Cardinal George, will now be repeated in every parish across the country. The loud, whining voices of opposition will be raised to every Pastor and priest. “If we make these changes”…I can hear them already…”I’ll just have to LEAVE THE CHURCH!!”

I’m making light of this, but it’s really no laughing matter. This will happen. Once again, some people will think that they have a say in whether or not the Pastor implements the new translation, and they’ll use every tactic in the “Spirit of Vatican II” playbook to strong-arm the poor man into going against Church teaching and instead adopting a sort of tyranny of the whiny.

But just what is the Pastor thinking when he makes decisions based on complaints from what is, essentially, a very small but vocal minority of the faithful in a parish? There are many reasons, among them the desire to avoid confrontation and a sense of guilt over the rather authoritarian history of the Church that makes Pastors feel that they have to listen to what “the people” think on every issue, even if those thoughts are most often dissenting and rarely in support of church teachings. But whereas the “voice of the people” may have a legitimate role in some decisions at a parish…whether to take on a major capital campaign or perhaps to buy a new organ or not…there are other decisions for which “the people” have no legitimate claim to having a role. Among these are matters that have already been decided by the Church hierarchy, such as the implementation of the new translation. In such cases, even the Pastor’s decision is limited to how to implement these changes, not whether or not to implement them. The people out in the pews may have an opinion but they have no choice, and Pastors need to understand this distinction as we approach the day when they will have to face their parishioners and let them know this in no uncertain terms.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. During the past several years, we’ve seen a sort of “trial-run” of this with the movement towards re-introducing Latin and re-establishing chant and sacred music in the liturgy. Both of these are decisions that have already been made “higher up”, and which have been clearly and eloquently articulated in Sacramentum Caritatis at the very highest level, and in the USCCB document Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship at the local level. And yet most parishes have been slow to adopt these “recommendations” regardless of how strong they are because of a few very loud complaints – “Oh Father, PLEEEZE… I’ll just have to leave the Church if we go back to using Latin!!” or worse yet the completely unfounded claim …”If we sing chant, then the people won't be able to participate” even though every study yet made as well as an overwhelming compilation of anecdotal evidence strongly supports the fact that people participate MORE in the singing of chant at Mass than in the singing of songs and hymns (try chanting the Our Father at Mass and see what happens…). Perhaps the Pastors of such parishes would rather wait until it becomes a “no-choice” mandate, thereby taking it out of their hands, but if this trial-run is any indication, we are in for a very rough road ahead in a year or two.

The solution, of course, is to have just such a strong, forceful and unequivocal mandate from the top…a sort of “offer you can’t refuse” from the Godfather himself. No option to continue using the old translation… for whatever reason. Recall all old books. Mandate that all publications of worship resources by all publishers use the new translation as of the date of implementation. Leave no choice for the Pastor, and they can offer no choice to the parishioners. The same solution would work equally well for the Latin and chant issues. Take the decision away in its entirety and leave only the desired option as the single possibility. If the Sanctus is supposed to be chanted in Latin, then prohibit the composition of vernacular settings and prohibit their publication. There will, of course be the die-hard dissenters (such as those parishes that allow liturgical dance, female homilists and the such) but by and large, the church will follow where the head leads us, even if it is kicking and screaming.

Will some people actually leave the Church? You bet. There are those who just don’t like to be told what to do, particularly if it’s something they disagree with. But that’s the price to be paid for espousing the truth with authority…it can’t be determined by survey and there will always be those who won’t accept it. Those who remain and completely submit to that authority are, and always have been, part of its domain. Those who resist it and leave never were.

So as we enter into this time of transition, we need to keep an open mind…so open in fact that we can understand clearly that "ours is not to question, but to submit".

Jesus asked his disciples “will you also leave?” and they responded “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

The church doesn’t need our opinion. Get over it.

The Bishop, The Antiphons, and the New Translation

2009-11-19T13:45:00.001-08:00

This past week many Catholic bloggers and journalists have been following the drama of the USCCB Bishops Synod in Baltimore. Although there are a number of important and interesting issues being discussed and voted on, most of the attention has been on the final vote on the new translation of the Missal. This particular issue became even more dramatic with a last minute effort by Bp. Donald Trautman (Erie PA) to derail the final vote by bringing up an issue that had heretofore gone unnoticed. It seems that the Antiphons had been left out of the translation project, or rather, it had been removed and appropriated by the Holy See and the CDW.

Bp. Trautmann argued that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concillium) specifically delegated to the Bishops conferences the responsibility for translations of texts that are to be used in the liturgy, and as such the Antiphons would have to be translated, amended and overseen by the USCCB before they could be submitted to the Holy See for recognitio. Cardinal George, the Chair of the USCCB, informed Bp. Trautman that the translation of the Antiphons had been appropriated by the CDW, and that they would be included in the final version of the Missal even though the Bishops would not have the opportunity to vote on them. Cardinal George noted that this was a legitimate action and well within the rights of the Holy See as outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

In a bold and perhaps admirable move, Bp. Trautmann made a motion to have the translation of the Antiphons re-delegated to the Bishops conference, a move that would delay the implementation of the new translation for at least a year, possibly two. Many observers suggested that this was the actual motive, rather than any desire to be involved in the translation of the Antiphons… texts which are not currently used in most US parishes. The motion was defeated…roundly…193-20 against adoption. And so, the last stand to stop the implementation of the new translation apparently failed, and the final draft of the translation of the Propers for the Saints was voted on and passed, and the whole Missal project now goes to Rome to receive final changes and the recognitio by the Holy See. In a rather indicative moment, Cardinal George reminded all of the Bishops that this was the last opportunity for the Bishops Conference to have any input on the translation. And with that, the drama surrounding the new translation appeared to be concluded.

The media coverage of this particular issue focused on the efforts by Bp. Trautman to scuttle or at least stall the translation project, and most of the analysis looked forward to what would happen now and the timeline from here on in. But with the focus on Bp. Trautman’s attempts to stall the project, something important may have been overlooked. A very important piece of news (although it was not necessarily being kept secret) came to the forefront in a context that I hadn’t considered it in up to now. By Cardinal George’s own admission, the translation of the Antiphons had been appropriated by the CDW and the Holy See and would be included in the new translation of the Missale Romanum. Perhaps this was just a situation that Bp. Trautman was seeking to exploit as a way of stalling the project long enough to allow for more negative public commentary as he has been doing for a few years now. Or perhaps there is more to this news that could shed some light on what impact the new translation will have on liturgical music.

Turn back the clock to 2001 and the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam (LA), a document that is often cited in connection with the new translation, as well as a document that was strongly objected to by Bp. Trautman from the day it was issued. Although LA is a universally applicable document for the translation of liturgical texts, it is generally thought that it was specifically intended for the English translation, and even more specifically for the Church in the United States. There are a few passages in LA that seem out of place and give some credence to the suggestion that the document is even more specifically intended as parameters for this specific translation into English .

One such passage is LA 108:

108. Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity. [78] If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided. Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The bolded passage is significant. If LA is a general application document on translation, why is there a directive to complete this very specific task within 5 years from the publication of the instruction? That would be 2006. Such a mandate would be meaningless outside of the context of the proposed English translation. LA then further mandates that this repertoire of texts for liturgical singing shall be transmitted to the CDW for recognitio. Keep that in mind as we continue.

When LA was first promulgated, a few commentators asked a question that may have seemed obscure and maybe slightly laughable at the time. Why require the Bishops to compile a repertoire of texts for liturgical singing to be approved by Rome? Nobody then took seriously the idea that such a thing would even be possible given the stranglehold that commercial publishing has on the creation of ever new texts and tunes for church. And if such a repertoire of texts was a mere formality, then there was already a complete repertoire of such sung liturgical texts in existence. They are called the Antiphons.

But the Antiphons that were translated into English and included in the 1972 Missal were intended to be spoken, not sung…an omission that is thought to have contributed significantly to their sudden and thorough disappearance from the liturgy after Vatican II as they were quickly replaced with vernacular hymns or songs. What would have been needed then was a translation of the Antiphons from the Graduale Romanum set to either traditional melodies or perhaps Psalm-Tones so that they could be easily sung. Interestingly, that is exactly what was done with the Ordinary Texts that are now to be included in the new translation when published. Keep that in mind as well as we continue.

Move forward from 2001 to 2006…the deadline for submission of the repertoire of texts for liturgical singing. In November of 2006, the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (now the Committee on Divine Worship) voted on and submitted a document called the Directory for Music and the Liturgy (DML), supposedly in fulfillment of the requirements of LA #108. Even on the surface, it was obvious to most observers that this document, a set of guidelines for approval of individual songs to be included in hymnals and worship resources, was not even close to what was called for in LA #108. The Directory was submitted to the Holy See for recognitio, but was never approved or acted upon in any way. The Bishops Committee on the Liturgy did not seem to be the least bit concerned. It began to look as though the DML was a stalling tactic to put off the mandated creation of a list of approved texts that would effectively restrict much of the commercially published music currently used at Mass. Keep that in mind as we continue.

And who was the Chair of the Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy that proposed the Directory for Music and the Liturgy instead of an actual list of approved texts? That would be Bishop Donald Trautman. Definitely keep that in mind as we continue.

In early 2007, the USCCB rather unexpectedly undertook a complete re-write of Music in Catholic Worship at the behest of the CDW. Their stated reason for requesting this overhaul was to bring Music in Catholic Worship into conformity with the actual documents of Vatican II and their specific directives for liturgical music. From the beginning it was clear that MCW was so heavily flawed that a completely new document would be needed. The new document, Sing to the Lord-Music in Divine Worship (SttL) was far more comprehensive and detailed (110 pages vs. 10 pages) and contained some rather startling passages.

Among the more striking :

•Participation in the Sacred Liturgy must be “internal, in the sense that by it the
faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace.” Even when listening to the various prayers and readings of the Liturgy or to the singing of the choir, the assembly continues to participate actively as they “unite themselves interiorly to what the ministers or choir sing, so that by listening to them they may raise their minds to God.” (SttL 12)

•The importance of the priest’s participation in the Liturgy, especially by singing, cannot be overemphasized. (SttL 19)

•Programs of diaconal preparation should include major and compulsory courses in the chant and song of the Liturgy. (SttL 23)

•Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization.(SttL 27)

•The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin. In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. (SttL 74)

• Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all
ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered. (SttL 75)

And then, there were these three passages that raised more than a few eyebrows:

• “The assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Propers of the Mass as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.”When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended. Whenever a choir sings in Latin, it is helpful to provide the congregation with a vernacular translation so that they are able to “unite themselves interiorly” to what the choir sings. (SttL 76)

• The Entrance and Communion antiphons are found in their proper place in the Roman Missal. Composers seeking to create vernacular translations of the appointed antiphons and psalms may also draw from the Graduale Romanum, either in their entirety or in shortened refrains for the congregation or choir. (SttL 77)

• Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, “the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” (SttL 117)

For many Catholic musicians, this was the first time they had ever heard of the Sung Propers or of Antiphons in general. To suggest that the Propers be sung by the assembly would be unheard of. The reaction was most often one of puzzlement: How can the Propers (particularly the Entrance and Communion Antiphons) be sung in English when there is no English translation of the Antiphons from the Graduale Romanum, and there are no vernacular settings? SttL does give the option of singing the Latin chants from the Graduale, but it clearly envisions the assembly singing the Antiphons in English at some point in the future. And these are directives coming from the USCCB at the behest of the CDW. Keep this in mind as we continue on…

And so we can make a brief summary:

1. LA mandated the creation of a repertoire of texts for liturgical singing within 5 years. The inclusion of this mandate in a document guiding the translation of the Missal would lead to the conclusion that this repertoire of texts was to be included in the proposed new Missal translation.

2. In 2006, the BCL under the leadership of Bishop Donald Trautman proposes a document, the Directory for Music and the Liturgy, ostensibly to fulfill this mandate, but more likely as a tactic to delay the creation of a restrictive list of texts for use at Mass. The DML was submitted but never approved or responded to, leaving it to the Holy See to either request a new document or to appropriate to themselves the creation of such a document.

3. In 2007, the CDW requests the rewriting of the music guidelines for Diocese of the United States to include instructions to begin the organized introduction of Latin chant at Mass, as well as directions for the use of Sung Propers and Antiphons in English, neither of which exists yet.

And this brings us to November of 2009…this past week. We learned that the Holy See and the CDW had appropriated the translation of the Antiphons to themselves, to be included in the new Missal. But it was clear from the discussion that the Bishops had never seen the Antiphons as part of the project, meaning that the CDW and Holy See had most likely appropriated them from the beginning of the project.

Remember that LA mandates that a repertoire of texts for liturgical singing be included as part of the approved texts of the Missal. The Bishops Committee on the Liturgy was charged with submitting this repertoire but instead submitted mere guidelines which were rejected. About this same time, the Holy See and the CDW apparently began work on translating the Antiphons, and soon after ordered the rewriting of the music guidelines for the United States to include the singing of the Proper Antiphons as a priority going forwards.

And now that the final actions are being taken on the new translation, word comes out that the Holy See and CDW have been in charge of translating the Antiphons all along, and that they will be included as approved texts. Since the Antiphons have to be translated, we might well suppose that these are the Antiphons from the Graduale, or perhaps they are new translations of the Missal Antiphons intended to be sung.

But the big question is this: Will this collection of Antiphons being worked on by the Holy See and the CDW be the repertoire of texts for liturgical singing required by Liturgiam Authenticam? Perhaps the answer to this question can be discerned by considering just who reacted most strongly to the news that the Holy See and CDW had approprited them: the same Bishop Donald Trautman who had sidestepped work on an approved repertoire just three years earlier.

Of course, we will have to wait to find out the answer to that very important question. At stake is whether we will have the status quo of vernacular hymns and songs based on unapproved texts, or setting of the actual Antiphons sung in the future. There may be some clues at the upcoming meeting of Artists and Musicians with Pope Benedict on November 21st. At that time, he is expected to discuss the need for a greater continuity with the past traditions of the Church in liturgical art and music. I for one will be listening closely to what he has to say on this topic. Stay tuned…

Makes You Say "Hmmm..." - Part II

2009-11-05T08:51:00.000-08:00

The Pope has been speaking a lot lately about historical instances of theological discussion within the Church and their consequences. He seems to be emphasizing that, historically, such discussions arise when things are unclear, or when there is no definitive teaching from the Magisterium on the issues being discussed. In such cases the point of theological debate is always to strike a balance between Revelation and reason (Tradition handed down and interpretation). Most interesting in the following example is Benedicts assertion that when such a balance fails or falls into error “ it is then up to the Magisterium to exercise that necessary service to truth which is its task".

Now what exactly might he be talking about?

My emphasis and comments

VATICAN CITY, 4 NOV 2009 (VIS) - Benedict XVI dedicated his catechesis during this morning's general audience to the twelfth-century debate between St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard, proponents, respectively, of the monastic and scholastic approaches to theology. [faith vs. reason]

The Pope began by recalling that theology "is the search for a rational understanding (in as much as that is possible) of the mysteries of Christian revelation, which are believed by faith, the faith that seeks intelligibility". Yet, "while St. Bernard places the emphasis on faith Abelard insists on understanding by reason. [notice that Benedict is building an example that becomes relevant to reflection on the issue of continuity (faith/tradition) vs. rupture (reason/modernism) but resists making the analogy….yet)

"For Bernard", the Holy Father added, "faith itself is endowed with an intimate certainty, founded on the testimony of Scripture and on the teaching of the Fathers of the Church [the definition of Tradition as the foundation of Faith]. In cases of doubt or ambiguity [here comes the setup] faith is protected and illuminated by the exercise of ecclesial Magisterium". [So…Benedict is saying that in instances of doubt or ambiguity, it is the role of the Magisterium to step in and clarify Church teaching so as to protect the Faith from error] Thus, for the abbot of Clairvaux, "theology has a single goal, that of promoting the living and intimate experience of God".

"Abelard, who among other things introduced the term 'theology' as we understand it today, originally studied philosophy then applied the results achieved in this discipline to theology"[so Abelard applied philosophic principles…reason…to theology and this led to problems] He had a "religious spirit but a restless personality, and his life was rich in dramatic events: he challenged his teachers (dissent) and had a child by a cultured and intelligent woman, Eloise. ... He also suffered ecclesiastical condemnations, although he died in full communion with the Church to whose authority he submitted with a spirit of faith". [Abelard submitted…to the authority of the Church…and so achieved full communion, unity, with her]

"An excessive use of philosophy rendered Abelard's Trinitarian doctrine dangerously fragile", said the Pope. "Likewise, in the field of morals his teaching was not without ambiguity as he insisted on considering the intention of the subject as the only source for describing the goodness or malice of moral acts, ignoring the objective moral significance and value of actions.

[Benedict now makes the analogy that he resisted making at the beginning]

"This aspect", Benedict XVI went on, "is highly relevant for our own age, in which culture often seems marked by a growing tendency to ethical relativism. Nonetheless, we must not forget the great merits of Abelard, who made a decisive contribution to the development of scholastic theology. Nor must we undervalue some of his insights such as, for example, his affirmation that non-Christian religious traditions already contain some form of preparation to welcome Christ, the Divine Word. [Abelard sounds quite a bit like Vatican II….while Bernard seems to represent Tradition…Hmmm?]

"What can we learn from the confrontation between Bernard[Tradition?] and Abelard [Vatican II?] and, more generally, between the monastic and scholastic approaches to theology?" the Holy Father asked. "Firstly", he went on, "I believe it shows the usefulness and need for healthy theological discussion within the Church [like some discussions that began in October?], especially when the questions being debated have not been defined by the Magisterium [like many of the issues arising from interpretations of Vatican II], which, nonetheless, remains an ineluctable point of reference". [IOW, the Magisterium will be the final word if and when it is exercised]

"In the theological field there must be a balance between what we may call architectonic principles,[Tradition] which are given to us by the Revelation and which, hence, always maintain their priority and importance, and interpretative principles suggested by philosophy [can you say “Spirit of Vatican II?] (that is, by reason), which have an important function, but only an instrumental one. When this balance fails, theological reflection risks becoming marred by error and it is then up to the Magisterium to exercise that necessary service to truth which is its task". [Ba Da Bing…there it is!]

"The theological dispute between Bernard and Abelard concluded with a full reconciliation. ... What prevailed in both men was that which we must have to heart whenever a theological controversy arises: that is, defending the faith of the Church and ensuring the triumph of truth in charity".

>>>

WOW! I have frequently commented on Pope Benedicts narratives, and it is often his method to use historical events to teach about the issues of today. I usually add a caveat though, and note that he seems to be talking about this or that, and that a particular story seems to be related to an issue being discussed today.

I am making no such caveat today. This narrative is about the discussions between the Church and the SSPX which began in October. It is a clarification of what these talks are about, and it very clearly defines how these talks will conclude. But everything is not as it seems. The analogy is a perfect one, but not necessarily an obvious one, and it reveals something very striking about these discussions and how Pope Benedict sees them.

Firstly, we have to ask who is Bernard, and who is Abelard in this analogy? We might first want to make the obvious and simple distinction…Bernard is “The Church” and Abelard is the “Dissenter” who reconciles and comes into full communion through submission. If we accept that, then Bernard is the Holy See, and Abelard is the SSPX in the recently begun discussions, the goal being to have the SSPX eventually submit to the Church teachings and return to full communion. It would be a neat analogy, but one which I believe to be wrong. I say that because I’m not entirely sure that the Holy See and the SSPX are really on opposite sides of the issues being discussed. There may be some nuanced distinctions in their positions, but it seems to me that both are in opposition to what Benedict refers to as the “Hermeneutic of Rupture”. I think the analogy is this:

Bernard is the SSPX (the reference to Bp. Bernard Fellay is a bit eerie), the defender of Faith and Tradition. Abelard is not Vatican II, as we might want to immediately assume, but rather he is the so called Spirit of Vatican II… the result of philosophy and modernity being used as lenses of interpretation. Like the Spirit of Vatican II, his work has led to some good…. the development of scholastic theology and the affirmation that non-Christian religious traditions already contain some form of preparation to welcome Christ, the Divine Word, in other words ecumenism. But, the over application of reason left Abelard’s concept of the Trinity “dangerously fragile”, much like the “Spirit of Vatican II” has left core doctrines of the Church dangerously fragile.

So, Bernard (The SSPX) and Abelard (The Spirit of Vatican II) engage in discussions, the point of which is to defend the faith of the Church and ensure the triumph of truth. And where is the Holy See in this analogy? It is (both figuratively and literally) the Magisterium…ready to exercise that necessary service to truth which is its task. And that is what the outcome of these talks will be. The truth will be discerned through the lens of Tradition, the Magisterium will clarify this truth, and Abelard (The Spirit of Vatican II) will give up his errors and wayward behavior and come into full communion with the Church through submission to the Magisterium.

I know that this leaves up in the air the obvious loose end… namely that the SSPX is NOT in full communion with the Holy See, while the “Spirit of Vatican II” is. That is true, for now at least. But what happens once the Magisterium has clarified the issues of contention? Who will be in dissent then? Who will represent the actual faith of the Church, and who will be in opposition?

A Convergence of "Things"

2009-11-03T12:01:00.001-08:00

Liturgiam Authenticam,
Chirograph on Sacred Music,
The New Translation of the Missal,
Cardinal Arinze’s Letter to the USCCB Bishops,
The Reformation of ICEL,
The Rejection of the Inclusive Language Proposals,
Pope Benedict XVI,
A New Master of Ceremonies,
Sacramentum Caritatis,
The Hermeneutic of Continuity,
The Rejection of The Directory for Music in the Liturgy,
Sing To The Lord: Music in Divine Worship,
Summorum Pontificum,
The Resurgence of Chant,
Critical Appointments to the Curia,
The Benedictine Altar Arrangement,
Ad Orientem Celebrations by Pope Benedict,
Ad Orientem Celebrations by Bishops around the World,
The Lifting of Excommunications of SSPX Bishops,
The Anglican Provision,
Formal Talks with the SSPX….

And this is just some of what has happened in the last 8 years.

What others can you come up with?

Got the feeling that something is up?

Benedictine Altar Update!

2009-10-29T13:24:00.000-07:00

I have a picture of the Ordinations on October 24th at the Cathedral of the Epihpany, Venice Florida. In it, you can see the Benedictine Altar arrangement on full display!

This was a "first" for the Diocese at a major event such as this.

You can see the complete slideshow here.

If things can change here in Venice Florida, they can change ANYWHERE!

Makes You Say "Hmmm..."

2009-10-28T07:17:00.000-07:00

It has been the case with Pope Benedict so far in his pontificate that he puts ideas "out there" in the form of history lessons...showing how where we are and what we are doing now can be guided by where we have been and what we have done in the past. I can't help but draw some interesting conclusions from today's General Audience. Why is he saying this right now...makes you say "Hmmm..."

(My emphasis)

LATIN THEOLOGY FLOURISHED IN THE 12TH CENTURY

VATICAN CITY, 28 OCT 2009 (VIS) - During this Wednesday's General Audience celebrated in

St. Peter's Square the Pope spoke about a series of events that, during the twelfth century,created a renaissance in Latin theology.

"During this time," he explained, "a relative peace reigned in Western Europe, which ensured society's economic development, consolidated political structures, and favored vibrant cultural activity thanks also to contact with the East. The benefits of the vast movement known as the Gregorian Reform were felt in the Church, which led to "a greater evangelical purity in the Church, above all in the clergy" and an expansion of religious life. As fruits of this development,figures such as St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure would appear in the thirteen century.

Benedict XVI affirmed that in this context two different models of theology arose: that of "monastic theology" and that of "scholastic theology". Regarding the first, the monks "were devoted to the Sacred Scriptures and one of their main activities consisted in lectio divina, that is, a meditative reading of the Bible". It was precisely the 2008 Synod of Bishops on "the Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church" that recalled the importance of this aspect.

"As monastic theology is listening to the Word of God", he said, "it is necessary to purify one's heart to welcome it and, above all, one must be full of fervor to encounter the Lord. Theology therefore becomes meditation, prayer, a song of praise, and the impetus for sincere conversion".

The Holy Father emphasized that "it is important to reserve a certain time each day for meditation on the Bible so that the Word of God will be the lamp that illuminates our daily path on earth".

Continuously referring to the method of "scholastic theology", the Pope pointed out that "it is not easy for modern mentality to understand. The quaestio, which consisted of a theme for discussion," was essential to its process.

"The organization of the quaestiones led to the compilation of evermore extensive syntheses, the so-called summae that were vast dogmatic-theological treatises. Scholastic theology sought to present the unity and harmony of Christian Revelation with a method, called precisely scholastic', that grants faith in human reason".

Benedict XVI concluded by emphasizing that "faith and reason, in reciprocal dialogue, tremble with joy when they are both animated by the search for intimate union with God. ... Truth is sought with humility, welcomed with wonder and gratitude: in a word, knowledge only grows if one loves the truth".

So...in today's news: Continuing discussions with the Eastern Churches...The Year for Priests...The 2008 Synod for Bishops...serious questions and discussions concerning theology with the SSPX...

Why is he telling us this particular story right now...is he looking towards a second "Gregorian Reform"?

The Benedictine Arrangement Comes To Venice!

2009-10-24T14:37:00.000-07:00

Venice Florida, that is! The "Benedictine Arrangement" of the altar made it's first big debut here at the Ordination Mass on Saturday, October 24th at the Epiphany Cathedral in Venice. This date is also significant in that it is the 25th Anniversary of the Diocese of Venice. I will hopefully be able to post photos of the altar here as soon as they are available (I was in the choir, and so was unable to get any pictures).

Diocesan Music Committee

2009-10-21T08:05:00.000-07:00

Sitting at our Diocesan Music Committee meeting right now... reminded about how inefficient anything involving a committee can be.

Confusion reigns regarding the workshops for the upcoming new translation...nobody seems to know what's going on.

"Blended" Liturgy? An Excellent Image...

2009-10-20T11:46:00.001-07:00

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow member of our Diocesan music committee about so-called "blended" liturgies. This term is most often now used to describe a Mass in which a variety of musical styles are made use of, for instance a Contemporary Christian selection for the procession, followed by a Taize style Kyrie and perhaps the Gregorian Chant Gloria. This kind of trade off would ostensibly continue throughout the Mass in an attempt to please everyone.

In fact, I imagine that Masses of this sort (they DO exist) please nobody, and for the following reason. The Canadian talk-show host Mark Steyn offered an excellent image to illustrate why such an idea will necessarily fail to acheive it's goal. He was speaking of bi-partisan political compromise, but the image actually works better for blended liturgy:

"Let's say, for instance, you mix a pint of gourmet macademia nut ice cream with a pint of, well...doggy doo-doo. The resulting mixture will not taste halfway like macadmia nut and halfway like doggy doo-doo. It will, in fact taste completely like doggy doo-doo because that's what happens when you mix crap with something that isn't. The total result is crap."

How true that is for liturgy. Admit anything that is crap and it brings the whole thing down.

The History of the Folk Mass Movement

2009-10-08T11:31:00.001-07:00

Ken Canedo's latest book, Keep the Fire Burning: The Folk Mass Revolution, has made quite a hit at various altitudes in the liturgical blogosphere. For the Progressive, it is a tribute to the brave forebears and their wisdom and ingenuity at the dawn of the new liturgical age fostered by the Second Vatican Council. Ray Repp, The Dameans, Carey Landry... these are the Children of the Revolution who bravely fought off the efforts to establish vernacular chant as the new music and instead established a new paradigm founded on the revolutionary sounds of Folk-Pop stars like the Kingston Trio, Bob Dylan and Peter-Paul and Mary. To the Progressive, this book is a testament to their endurance and lasting influence...an indication of their permanence.

To the Traditionalist however, the same book is an important illustration of the price of dissent and the folly of what happens when ego-driven individuals set out to remake the liturgy in their own image. Canedo's account and examples put the puzzle together - what you make of the picture when he's done depends on where you stand on the issue.

Ken Canedo participated in a telephone interview for Catholic Radio 2.0 earlier this week and discussed the book and his views on the history of contemporary liturgical music. This is an interview worth listening to. Some of the musical examples will bring back memories for those of us who were there, while simultaneously making you cringe. I am the resurrection! (clap...clap) and the life! (clap...clap...clap...clap)..... hwooook! Almost didn't make it to the little room in time....

Seriously... listen to this interview and wonder at how this happened to the Catholic Church, and take heart in the fact that we are, as we speak, making our way back to where we were supposed to be going so many years ago.

Baby Steps

2009-10-04T05:34:00.000-07:00

This morning (well...last night at the anticipated Masses actually...) we began our parish's discovery of chant at Mass. Humble, to be sure, but a beginning. And we at least have a plan...first the Agnus Dei, then the Mass XVIII Kyrie and the Agnus Dei. Next, the Sanctus will be introduced either this coming Spring (Lent) or the Fall of 2010.

It seems like such a dragging out of something that should be so simple, but I have come to realize the wisdom of taking time. Within this time, we will also begin forming a Schola, learning a Mass setting and perhaps a few Chant Hymns at first, and then maybe moving on to Introits and Communion Antiphons. All of this...probably in a period of three years or so. Maybe by the time the new translation is introduced they could be singing at Mass.

Perhaps within this time there will be some kind of reforms made from "up above" as well....if so, that will move things along that much faster, but even if not, things will be moving along. Perhaps the most important aspect of all of this is the support from the Priests. I truly believe they want better and more reverent liturgy. They have been led in all directions by liturgists, musicians and well meaning but misguided advice. It is time to "take the reigns" and lead in another direction.

I was speaking with another parish musician the other day, who cautiously commented ..."I think the days of bad music are starting to come to a close...". I would at least partially disagree.... I think they have already come to an end, but there are still stragglers who haven't kept up with the pack and are now so far behind that they can't see where we are now. The church has been led in a new direction these past several years; we need to follow that lead.

You Tell 'Em Ennio!

2009-09-14T05:38:00.000-07:00

From The Catholic News Service

"Ennio Morricone, the Academy Award-winning composer who has written scores for more than 500 films, including The Mission and The Untouchables, has lauded Pope Benedict’s attempts to promote Gregorian chant in the sacred liturgy.

“Today the Church has made a big mistake, turning the clock back 500 years with guitars and popular songs,” says Morricone. “I don't like it at all. Gregorian chant is a vital and important tradition of the Church and to waste this by having kids mix religious words with profane, Western songs is hugely grave, hugely grave.”

Pope Benedict-- whom Morricone calls “a very high-minded Pope, a man of great culture and also great strength”-- “is doing well to correct it,” he adds. “He should correct it with much more firmness. Some churches have taken heed, but others haven’t.”

Two things...

First that it takes a FILM COMPOSER to point this out. Where is the head of the Pontifical Academy? Where are the Bishops? And I know that there have been some carefully worded statements, but where is Pope Benedict on this? Saying good things about using Gregorian Chant at Mass (which he has frequently done) is not the same as decrying and criticizing , and perhaps even forbidding the bad music that is still commonplace. Kudos to Ennio for putting into words what so many know to be true.

Secondly, I love the co-opting of the progressive's claim that the use of chant is "turning back the clock". Mr Morricone correctly points out the the infiltration of popular, secular and profane music, even so far as guitars and popular songs, was already done and gone 500 years ago. That is the real example of "turning back the clock". The difference is, one side wants to go back to something that actually works, while the other wants to go back to a short-lived and ultimately trivial experiment in melding popular and sacred music in the 1500's ...the only difference being perhaps that many of the Troubadors were supposedly incredibly skilled artists and still couldn't get the idea to work.

I think it is a very hopeful sign that this discussion has entered the realm of popular culture. This is something that people are beginning to talk about. Let the discussion continue...

An Interesting Quote....

2009-09-02T09:58:00.000-07:00

I came across this at the conclusion of Bishop Vigneron's address to the US Bishops on the new translation of the Missal. I had never heard this quote from Pope John Paul II, but I find it a beautiful image:

"The time has come to renew that spirit which inspired the Church at the moment when the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was prepared, discussed, voted upon and promulgated, and when the first steps were taken to apply it. The seed was sown; it has known the rigors of winter, but the seed has sprouted, and become a tree. It is a matter of the organic growth of a tree becoming ever stronger the deeper it sinks its roots into the soil of tradition."

Chant Session #I This Saturday

2009-09-02T09:32:00.000-07:00

This Saturday, September 5th at 10:30AM will be my first "Introduction Session" for all of our choirs and cantors to learn the Mass XVIII Chants. I've put together a brief introductory packet that presents relevant quotes from Paul VI, John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and the USCCB Document Sing To The Lord concerning the use of chant in the liturgy.

Part of me says "Mass XVIII is so simple that there's no way that this could be a problem".... and part of me says that the perception of chant as being "foreign" or "difficult" may be so ingrained during the past 40 years that there could be difficulty where there shouldn't be.

This is a separate issue from the ideological objections... those I expect.

The Music That Never Was

2009-09-01T12:46:00.000-07:00

The following has been prepared for a presentation to be given at our Diocesan Music Retreat in September. The presentation is on The ICEL Chant project and its development alongside the new Missal translation.

The Vision of Vatican II: The Music that never was…

As the new translation of the Roman Missal has come into being over the past several years, a related project has been underway that has not garnered as much attention but which is of considerable importance to church musicians. It is, in a sense, the fulfillment of the vision set forth in the documents of Vatican II for musical settings of the Mass texts, particularly the Dialogues and the Ordinary of Mass. To understand this new initiative, we have to look back more than 40 years to when this vision was articulated in Musicam Sacram:

54. In preparing popular versions of those parts which will be set to melodies, and especially of the Psalter, experts should take care that fidelity to the Latin text is suitably harmonized with applicability of the vernacular text to musical settings. The nature and laws of each language must be respected, and the features and special characteristics of each people must be taken into consideration: all this, together with the laws of sacred music, should be carefully considered by musicians in the preparation of the new melodies.

The competent territorial authority will therefore ensure that in the commission entrusted with the composition of versions for the people, there are experts in the subjects already mentioned as well as in Latin and the vernacular; from the outset of the work, they must combine their efforts.

55. It will be for the competent territorial authority to decide whether certain vernacular texts set to music which have been handed down from former times, can in fact be used, even though they may not conform in all details with the legitimately approved versions of the liturgical texts.

56. Among the melodies to be composed for the people's texts, those which belong to the priest and ministers are particularly important, whether they sing them alone, or whether they sing them together with the people, or whether they sing them in "dialogue" with the people. In composing these, musicians will consider whether the traditional melodies of the Latin Liturgy, which are used for this purpose, can inspire the melody to be used for the same texts in the vernacular.

57. New melodies to be used by the priests and ministers must be approved by the competent territorial authority.

58. Those Episcopal Conferences whom it may concern will ensure that for one and the same language, used in different regions, there will be a single translation. It is also desirable that as far as possible, there should be one or more common melodies for the parts which concern the priest and ministers, and for the responses and acclamations of the people, so that the common participation of those who use the same language may be encouraged.

Unfortunately, these directives were not given top priority following the initial translation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1972, and unapproved and oftentimes amateur vernacular settings filled in the void created by the lack of an approved body of settings of the Mass texts during these critical few years. By the time Pope Paul VI issued Jubilate Deo, the official “minimum repertoire” of Gregorian Chants for use in the new liturgy in 1974, the cat was out of the bag and popular-tune settings of the Ordinary had supplanted the traditional melodies that were envisioned as being the primary music of the liturgy only seven years earlier. It would be another 30 years before the vision set forth by the council would be revisited and a major effort to restore the traditional melodies of the Roman Rite would be initiated.

The ICEL Chants

With the new translation of the Roman Missal well underway, the Bishops saw the coming implementation as an opportunity to revisit the council’s vision for liturgical music, and in 2006 began an initiative to create vernacular settings of the texts of the Mass based on the traditional Gregorian melodies…something like an English Language version of the Jubilate Deo of Pope Paul VI. Officially known as Music for the English Language Roman Missal, this project has come to be called The ICEL Chants after the committee responsible for the new translation. This project has been an integrated part of the translation project since 2007, and in the Spring of 2009, the Introduction material was released to the public on the USCCB website.

What is known about the ICEL Chants at this time comes entirely from the Introduction and from several letters issued by the USCCB to publishers of liturgical music. The Introduction begins with a straight-forward description of what the project entails:

For the forthcoming English language Roman Missal (sometimes called the Sacramentary), the International Commission on English in the Liturgy will offer to the Conferences of Bishops of the English‐speaking world chants for everything that is set to music in the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia (2002):

•The dialogues between the celebrant (or in the case of the Dismissal, the deacon) and the assembly such as the Sign of the Cross (“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) and the Dismissal (“Go forth, the Mass is ended”);

• Tones for singing the presidential prayers (Collect, Prayer over the Offerings, Prayer after Communion) with all prayer texts pointed for singing;

• The chants before and after the readings such as “A reading from the book of…” and “The Gospel of the Lord”;

• Separate tones for singing the First Reading, Second Reading, and Gospel;

• The Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful;

• The Preface Dialogue and Prefaces, including a musical setting of every Preface;

• Full musical settings of Eucharistic Prayers I, II, III and IV, and the concluding Doxology;

• The Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Lord’s Prayer;

• Chants for particular days and feasts such as “Hosanna to the Son of David” on Palm Sunday, the Universal Prayer and “Behold the wood of the Cross” on Good Friday, the Exsultet (Paschal Proclamation) at the Easter Vigil, antiphons for the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord on February 2nd, and the Proclamation of Easter and Moveable Feasts for Epiphany.

• Some of the Latin chants will also be provided, including the Sanctus, Pater noster, Agnus Dei, and intonations for the Gloria and Credo. A chant setting of the Greek Kyrie from Mass XVI will also be provided.

This initial description of the ICEL Chant project is followed by a set of principles to be followed in their composition:

• To preserve and recover the tradition of unaccompanied singing in the Roman Rite, since the liturgy “is given a more noble form when . . . celebrated solemnly in song” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963 [hereafter SC] 113);

• To facilitate “full and active participation by all the people,” which is “the aim to be considered before all else” (SC 14);

• To take full account of the accentuation of the English language, since “the nature and laws of each language must be respected” in the adaptation of traditional melodies (Sacred Congregation for Rites, Instruction on Music in the Liturgy Musicam Sacram, 1967, 54);

• To retain vernacular chants now in use where possible, since “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (SC 23).

These principles are, in fact, the foundation of the vision of liturgical music articulated in Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram. This return to the original directives of the council in composing the musical settings for the new Missal is significant: It signals a new commitment by both ICEL and the USCCB to restore the traditional musical forms of the Roman Rite for at least the Dialogues and the Ordinary of the Mass.

Examples of the Chants

The Introduction also presents examples of the actual chants and some specifics of how the English texts are being adapted to the Gregorian melodies. A good example of this is the setting of the new “Gloria” text, using the Gregorian melody from Mass XV (Dominator Deus).

The decision was made to use the melody from Mediator Deus rather than the much more familiar Mass VIII (Missa de Angelus) so that the more familiar setting will remain a uniquely Latin setting and gain wider use as such.

In the original version of the Introduction, it was said that a setting of the Creed would likely be proposed based on the Credo I rather than the more familiar Credo III, because “while it is true that the melody of Credo III is better known, it seems preferable to leave that familiar melody for use with the Latin text in the hope that it will remain in use or come to be used more widely in Latin.” In the latest update to the Introduction on the USCCB website, the setting based on Credo I has been completed and a setting based on Credo III is still being considered as an additional setting to be included.

In the case of both the Gloria and the Creed, there is an expressed assumption that there will be a greater use of the Latin settings alongside the proposed English settings in the future.

A fragment from the new setting of the Sanctus is also given, based on the Mass XVIII setting:

As with the Gloria and the Creed, an interesting insight into the future of liturgical music is revealed in the reason given for adapting the English text to the Gregorian melody in a way that maintains the two-note figure on the second syllable of the word “holy”. In this instance however, the language used is much more definite:

This setting follows the Latin melody closely. There would have been good reasons, based on natural English accentuation, for placing a single note A on the second syllable of “Holy,” as in the current setting:

But it was decided to imitate the Latin with its displaced accent more closely here, in part because the Latin setting is likely to be sung with great frequency by congregations in the future, which argues for similarity between the Latin and English settings.

One has to wonder why, given that the Latin settings have been nearly completely disregarded for the last 40 years, the Bishops and those working on this project would now predict that “the Latin setting is likely to be sung with great frequency by congregations in the future”. Such statements give added weight and impetus to the place of the ICEL Chants in the future liturgical landscape.

A Letter from the USCCB to Catholic Music Publishers

In July of 2009, the newsletter for the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship (formerly the Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy) made known the following portion of a letter that was sent to publishers of Catholic music.

"With the exception of the popular setting of the Lord's Prayer by Robert J. Snow, the Committee is open to the inclusion of the new chants that have been approved by ICEL. It will also request that publishers make those chant settings in the Missal the first option provided in participation aids. Other settings could be used as well, but this approach is meant to encourage use of the chants."

An individual who is very familiar with this issue has said that this means the ICEL Chant settings will be published in all approved worship materials (hymnals, missalettes) as the Primary Setting for the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamations and Agnus Dei. It has also been indicated that these will be the settings presented in the catechetical sessions for clergy and musicians leading up to the implementation of the new translation.

Going Forward

At this time, this is all that is known about the ICEL Chants and their place in the implementation of the new translation. There is, of course, speculation surrounding other new settings of these texts and how they will be related to the proposed settings, but at this time there has been no definitive position from the USCCB, ICEL or the music publishers on other settings. What is known is that there is a strong desire that the ICEL Chants become the “Common setting for all English speaking Catholics” that has been sought since the Second Vatican Council, and that this common setting will “preserve and recover the tradition of unaccompanied singing in the Roman Rite”.

And a Time For Every Purpose Under Heaven

2009-08-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

For the last few days I’ve been pondering the issue of musical styles for the liturgy…. OK, not exactly a new subject for me, but one that I’ve had to really think about lately. At some point, I think it was while pacing back and forth in my front yard enjoying a very nice Havana Reserva, I was reminded of a quote that appears in various forms in Church documents regarding sacred music:

“The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that as a combination of sacred music and words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.”

What stuck out for me here was the phrase necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. What does it mean for music to be an integral part of the liturgy? This quote (from Sacrosanctum Concilium) seems to be saying, correctly I think, that the Church’s traditional music, Gregorian Chant, is pre-eminent because it integrates with the form and substance of the Roman liturgy as it is intended to be. It is a musical expression of the ideal liturgy that we should be striving for. You don’t “add” this music to such a liturgy… the music and the liturgy are one. They belong to each other. They are integral.

And so I kept thinking… if this is true, then what sort of liturgy would other styles of music be integral to? If they are to ever claim to be a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy, they have to be integral to some style of liturgy other than that which chant and traditional sacred music are integral to. In other words, if Chant, and perhaps polyphony are “one” with that ideal liturgy envisioned by the Church, and I don’t think it is going out on a limb to claim this (after all, the Church’s documents say as much), then these other styles of so-called liturgical music must be “one” with other styles of liturgy.

A number of years ago, I attended a Life Teen conference in Mesa, Arizona (I know… I will undoubtedly spend time in Purgatory for this, although I should get time served for several parishes I’ve worked at since then…). The music for the Mass was, well, Life Teen music. A Band (2 Electric Guitars, Bass, Keyboard, Drums and Lead Singer) cranked out the “Gathering Song” at a rock-concert appropriate volume while the Priest jogged up the aisle, stopping to shake hands and share “high-fives” with some of the assembly along the way… finally running up the steps and standing at the top as the band finished the opening number. “GOOD EVENING PEOPLE OF GOD!!” he yelled out to the audience. The audience broke out in applause and whistles. Perfect integration… Rock-Concert music for a Rock-Concert liturgy.

I also recall, though not as clearly, a Mass at my childhood parish of St. Anne’s in Prairie Village Kansas. It could have been 1971 or perhaps ’72…. they had begun offering a “Folk-Mass” in the parish hall and we, for whatever reason, went on this particular weekend (I’m sure it was most likely a Saturday evening). There was a single guitar player strumming chords softly as we came in. There were perhaps a dozen or so people there, already gathering in a circle around the card-table altar with their eyes closed, some holding hands. The priest came in, dressed in jeans and a T-shirt with a stole around his neck. I think we sang “Kumbaya” for the opening, although I also recall “Blowing in the Wind” somewhere during Mass. Again… perfect integration. This music belonged at that Mass.

Fast-forward 30 or so years to a Mass at a newly renovated Church in Brockton Massachusetts… the new “sanctuary” is a raised platform in the middle of a completely circular seating arrangement. It’s a bit awkward because no matter what direction the lectors or the Priest face, they can only face a small wedge of the assembly at any one time. And so the Priest and the readers engage in an ongoing dog-chasing-its-tail motion to be able to address the faithful. The Mass is reduced to a laborious conversation between the people in the middle of the circle and the people forming the circle, with God totally shut out in the confusion. We sing “Gather Us In” as we begin… a song with 30 iterations of “we” and “us” but not one mention of God. This music belongs at this Mass. Perfect integration.

Slick,loud,commercially produced music for a slick,loud,commercially produced Mass.

Shallow, improvised, and casual music for a shallow, improvised and casual Mass.

Self-glorifying, God excluding music for a self-glorifying, God excluding Mass.

Each style of music is integral to some style of liturgy. And so the question we have to ask isn’t whether these styles of music are appropriate for the liturgy, but do we really want the style of liturgy that they’re appropriate for?

Taking the Big Step

2009-08-18T13:56:00.001-07:00

It may surprise some of you to know that the music program at my parish is what would be considered "mainstream" by most standards. Sure, you won't find such standards as "Gather Us In", "All Are Welcome" or "Sing A New Church", and instead will find solid hymns and Psalms set to psalm-tones....even an occasional Antiphon from the Simple Choral Gradual. Things were quite different when I arrived here nearly three years ago, and they will be quite different still three years from now.

This week, after discussions with the Pastor and meeting with the two choir directors, the decision has been made to take the BIG step...we will begin using the Gregorian settings for the Ordinary at the principal Choir Mass in October, and extend that to all other Masses in November. This is a moment that I was unsure would ever happen here, and now that it has there is a lot of PR work to do.

I don't know of any other parishes in our Diocese that make regular use of Gregorian Ordinary settings, other than the token "Agnus Dei" during Lent or a chanted setting of the Kyrie from time to time. There may be another, but at the very least this is new territory around here.

I'm going to post from time to time on how this "project" progresses. We had the meeting yesterday to let everyone know the plan... it might be disingenuous to say everyone is as enthusiastic as I am, but I didn't expect that. The next step is to work with the two choirs well ahead of time to open up this "whole new world" of Catholic Sacred Music to them. I am planning two sessions for all parish musicians in September, and am even considering inviting any parishioners who would like to learn more to attend, as well as our parish Priests. The Pastor has also asked me to put together several brief articles for the bulletins in September to introduce the idea to the parishioners.

On one hand, it's shameful that it is such a major production to sing chant at the Mass... it really shouldn't be. On the other hand, that is the reality and I'm grateful that I at least have this opportunity that so many other parish musicians can still only hope for.

I was there once...have faith! And stay tuned....

Dom Jacques Hourlier's "Reflections"

2009-07-31T06:46:00.000-07:00

For those with relatively little time to catch up on reading but with a keen interest in Gregorian Chant, both its formal and spiritual aspects, there might be no better book to pick up than Dom Jacques Hourlier’s Reflections on the Spirituality of Gregorian Chant.It’s more of a “booklet” than a book…75 pages in a 7’x5’ format… a collection of 5 lectures given by the author during a Youth Seminar at Solesmes in the Summer of 1976. These were published as a collection in 1984 after his tragic death in an automobile accident.

Despite the diminutive size, this book covers a great deal of ground….melody, language, form, liturgical function, symbolism, aesthetics… and of course, as the title suggests, the Spirituality of Gregorian Chant. Although there is an assumption by the author that the reader has at least some knowledge about the Chant, the language is simple and accessible and the most recent edition has been edited and footnoted for a wider readership.

He speaks about the beauty of Gregorian Chant…

Beauty is without doubt the most commonly perceived quality of Gregorian Chant, even though some listeners, probably the majority, could not explain why they find it beautiful. Men and women from every walk of life, including the simplest, hear in the chant something which differs from what they call cheap music. As witness, recall the wide success of Gregorian Chant Masses, or of Gregorian chant records and cassettes, even though all of them do not achieve the same level of perfection. It is useless to try and explain away this success as some kind of passing fad or as the manifestation of a partisan spirit among Christians with conservative leanings. These factors have little or nothing to do with the matter. The simple truth is that when people are exposed to Gregorian chant, they react to a beauty which is capable of affecting even children.

Most amazing is that the words are as relevant today as they were in 1976…perhaps even more so. Any church musician today committed to the “cause” of Sacred Music restoration can take heart from Dom Hourlier’s words about the “authority” of the Chant:

The true authority of Gregorian chant rests not on rubrics or legislative decrees, but rather on the concensus populi (the common assent of the people of God) and the sensus ecclesiae(the supernatural sense of discernment of the church). Led by their Priests and Bishops, the faithful everywhere have always sung Gregorian chant. It draws its authority from a vast number of enthusiastic Catholic Christians. Throughout the ages, it has been the musical language in the Western Church. The authority of Gregorian chant is based on tradition.

Amen.

The book can be purchased online at a number of sites.

Mail-Order Misinformation- Liturgical Planning Guides

2009-07-25T05:33:00.001-07:00

They arrive in the mail several times a year. They are given as “extras” in every package you receive from Catholic publishing companies. They are given out in gift bags at conferences and are posted online at company websites….they are liturgical planning guides and they are an ubiquitous fixture in parish music ministry. They promise to make easier the weekly task of selecting music for the liturgy with bullet-pointed lists of appropriate and exciting musical selections. For the more ambitious choirs, some suggest appropriate choral anthems or separately available Octavo versions of the songs found in the disposable music books. For those who are overwhelmed by the never-ending cycle of the liturgical year and the sheer volume of music in the ever increasing body of resources created by commercial publishers, these planning guides are impossible to resist.

For me, it would be easy enough to disregard these publications if they didn’t have real consequences for the sacred and liturgical music which they methodically expunge from the liturgies in every Catholic parish which makes use of them. And since these guides arrive in the mailboxes of nearly every parish in the U.S, that has to be a considerable number of parishes!

To begin, let’s consider what these publications aren’t, and what they actually are. They aren’t objective guides for preparing and selecting the most appropriate music for the liturgy – that is done rather handily in a very concise book called the Graduale Romanum. Admittedly, the selections in the Graduale Romanum are not always accessible to every parish, but the Graduale does provide us with the most appropriate selections and the selections therein should at least point us in the right direction in terms of what texts are part of the Mass. If the planning guides were actually an objective guide, they might at least suggest the selections given as the first option in the liturgical documents. Consider the instruction in the GIRM regarding the Entrance:

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

However, a planning guide might present us with something like the following (this particular example is for the 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time from Today’s Liturgy, Summer/Fall 2009)

Table of Plenty (Schutte) BB/MI 310 CP2 475 GP2 530 H 467 J 744
J2 793 NTY 75 SS1 163 UC 527 VOZ 786 OCP 9846TL

I Am the Bread of Life/Yo Soy el Pan de Vida (Toolan) BB/MI 338
CM 104 CP2 478 H 482 R2 196 UC 561

Alleluia! Give the Glory (Canedo/Hurd) BB/MI 902 CP2 164 GP2 70
H 24 J 520 NTY 3 SS1 5 UC 104 VOZ 113 OCP 9788TL

Now As We Gather (Castillo) BB/MI 309 J 700 OCP 9547TL

Ven al Banquete/Come to the Feast (Hurd) BB/MI 307 CP2 477 H 465
J2 795 NTY 80 R2 204 SS1 164 UC 512 VOZ 779 OCP 10336TL

In This Place (Thomson/Thomson) BB/MI 308 J 999 NTY 18 R2 302
SS1 122

For the Beauty of the Earth DIX BB/MI 624 CM 162 CP2 383 GP2 704
H 382 J 464 J2 642 NTY 139 R 24 R2 293 UC 741 VOZ 602

Praise to the Lord LOBE DEN HERREN BB 203 CM 156 CP2 356 GP2 686
H 360 J 338 J2 597 R 25 R2 253 TM 27 UC 726 VOZ 588

Gather Your People (Hurd) BB/MI 315 CP2 474 GP2 529 H 470 J 681
J2 798 NTY 10 SS1 111 UC 518 VOZ 782 OCP 9699TL

No mention of the Antiphon from the Roman Missal, or of the Psalm from the Roman Gradual, or of the seasonal antiphon from the Simple Gradual, or even of a song from another collection of Psalms and Antiphons approved by the conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. What we get instead is a list of selections from the 4th and last category, the “other suitable liturgical song” option. And in addition, all of the selections they propose are, not coincidentally, from their own publications (that’s what all of those abbreviations and numbers are) without even a pretense of objectivity. So what these publications actually are is rather obvious. They are lists of songs by the corresponding publisher that can be substituted for the actual texts and music of the liturgy by exclusively exercising the 4th and last option given for the Antiphons and Gradual of the Mass in the Church’s liturgical books.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect that a publisher would recommend selections from another publisher’s product… that would be bad business! But the Graduale Romanum, not to mention the vast body of settings of the Antiphons in Latin and in the vernacular that are in the public domain, are not competition. If a publisher sees them as such, then there needs to be an honest evaluation of whether music resource publishing companies are really serving the Church. Publishing companies most often claim that they are committed to serving the liturgy and providing parishes with the very best resources, or some variation on that theme. And yet there is no mention in the above list of a setting of God is in His Holy Dwelling (the Antiphon from the Missal) or of a setting of Psalm 68 (the Psalm from the Roman Gradual). None of the selections suggested on the list are connected in any way to the actual texts for that Sunday, and this is pretty much the norm across the spectrum.

Instead, the list we are given seems to support the contention that the options which the Church considers to be the least desirable are, in fact, the most desirable to exercise in every instance possible. From there, it isn’t that much of a stretch to conclude that the publisher’s intention is to expunge the actual Mass texts and musical settings in favor of less appropriate selections drawn from their own products.

With the USCCB document on music, Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, the Bishops have urged a restoration of the actual Mass texts found in the Proper Antiphons for each Sunday:

Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, “the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”96 The Christian faithful are to be led to an ever deeper appreciation of the psalms as the voice of Christ and the voice of his Church at prayer.

And yet, more than two years after this document was promulgated, there has been no real effort to incorporate settings of the Proper Psalms into any of the major disposable missals, and no effort to even mention them as options for the Entrance, Offertory or Communion in the planning guides. Why not? Even the Bishops have come out and said “We need to be singing the Propers, not substituting other songs”, and yet the publishers have made no effort to respond to this call.

Of course, it’s easy enough to find settings for these Antiphons that can be sung by just about any choir. The Simple Choral Gradual is available online at no charge, and there are very good settings of the Antiphons in psalm-tone settings in the Anglican Use Gradual, also available online for free. Every day, there are more and more settings of these texts made available online, most all of them at no charge, and there are even some published sets appearing from major publishers (although these are not yet showing up in their worship aids). The question then is why are none of these suggested by any of the planning guides? Most of these settings are either copyright free or are published under creative commons and can be used and re-printed with nothing more than a request for permission and acknowledgment. Doing so would give at least some credibility to these guides insofar as they would at least appear to be making an effort to instruct the reader that there are actual designated selections for these parts of the liturgy.

As it is right now, those who would prefer to follow the instruction of the Church, whether that might come from Tra le Solecitudini, Musicae Sacrae Disciplinae, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram, The General Instruction of the Roman Missal or Sing To The Lord – are going to have to turn to the actual texts of those documents for guidance and keep a copy of the Graduale Romanum (or the Gregorian Missal if their Latin is a little rusty!) on their desk. Such ambitious persons will essentially have to make their own planning guides from resources that they have determined are appropriate for the liturgy. This isn’t really as difficult as it might first seem.

At times, it might be possible to use the actual Gregorian Propers given in these books, maybe in place of an Opening Hymn or Communion Song, or even in addition to these songs. If this might be a bit ambitious for your abilities, these books will at least give you the texts and psalm citations for each Sunday’s Mass. From there, settings can be found from among the options that are available for free or perhaps it might even be possible to find a setting in one of those disposable resources, although If that’s possible, I can assure you that it will not have been given as a suggestion in their planning guide!

It would be an understatement to say that Catholic liturgical music is in transition at this time. There are obvious changes taking place and current liturgical reforms such as the new translation of the Roman Missal and recent liturgical documents such as Sacramentum Caritatis and Summorum Pontificum, even if not exclusively addressing the issue of liturgical music are encouraging a new way of looking at the issue in light of the Church’s musical traditions. These changes are inevitable, and are obvious to everyone it seems except the publishers of these planning guides, where the same handful of popular selections appear over and over again in place of those which might express the actual texts from the liturgy.

It’s my understanding that the Pope’s latest encyclical encourages industry to take seriously the call for environmental sensitivity, conserving valuable resources and avoiding wasteful practices that use them foolishly. Among these resources, I would include paper. Might we propose an excellent initiative by Catholic publishing companies to discontinue the printing and distributing of these Planning Guides? Such an initiative would go a long way towards helping the environment… and Catholic liturgical music!

Where I'm Coming From

2009-07-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

I thought it might be a good idea given the often complicated issues discussed here and on other sites to take a few moments and lay out the “baseline” that I’m working from in any discussion/ argument/ article about music in the Catholic Church. There are some things that I simply accept as fact that are obviously not as widely accepted by some in terms of issues about Catholic music. So in short, this is where I’m coming from when I talk about Catholic music.

1. Official Documents of the Church are the primary source for what the Church says about Sacred and Liturgical music. The documents express the preferences and restrictions put upon music that is to be used in Catholic liturgy, often in simple language, but often in very concise legal wording. Some documents make references, often in footnotes and end-notes, to previous documents that may seem obscure or outdated. They are not… they are the foundation for the liturgical law of the Catholic Church. This is what Pope Benedict is speaking of when he speaks of the Hermeneutic of Continuity…interpreting in light of the past and of tradition. A strong familiarity with the major music documents of the 20th and 21st centuries is really critical when delving into a discussion on Catholic sacred and liturgical music.

2.Terminology

Be aware that there are specific meanings for some terms that are too often used as “generic” concepts. Among the most often misused in discussions about Catholic music are:

Sacred Music- Catholic liturgical documents define this term more narrowly than the common meaning of “music composed for use in worship”. Pius X articulated the modern definition in his 1903 Motu Proprio, and that definition has been referred to in all later documents up to the present:

“Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes.” (TLS II – par.3)

The need for a strict attention to the traditional meaning of this term was argued most recently in the 2003 Chirograph on Sacred Music of Pope John Paul II where he noted:

“Today, moreover, the meaning of the category "sacred music" has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself”. (Chirograph on Sacred Music- par.4)

The Church’s liturgical documents, even those from Vatican II, assume that all music used in Catholic liturgy is Sacred Music as defined above.

Liturgical Music- Sacred music which is composed on liturgical texts (texts from the Ordinary or Propers of the Mass) is specifically referred to as “liturgical music”. This would include the Entrance Antiphon, Kyrie, Gloria, Psalm or Gradual, Offertory Antiphon, Sanctus, Our Father, Agnus Dei and Communion Antiphon, as well as the sung settings of the dialogues and prayers of the Priest.

Some interpretations of Vatican II documents allow for the substitution of other selections for some of the above (the Entrance, Offertory and Communion Antiphons), however such selections must still be sacred music.

Hymn – Hymns are settings of metrical religious texts in strophic form (the same music used for all verses). There are some hymns (chant hymns) which are in the category of Sacred Music (Adoro te devote, Tantum Ergo, Veni Sancte Spiritus, Salve Regina), but not all hymns are sacred music, at least in the stricter definition.

Religious Music – Settings of metrical or prose religious texts in either song-form (verse/ refrain) ,through-composed or free-form. Such music is neither Sacred Music (by virtue of its form) nor is it liturgical music (by virtue of its texts). A considerable portion of the contemporary religious repertoire falls into this category. Musicae Sacrae Disciplinae clearly notes that this type of music is not to be used in the liturgy:

D. Religious music.

54. The type of music which inspires its hearers with religious sentiments, and even devotion, and yet, because of its special character (form) cannot be used in liturgical functions, is nevertheless worthy of high esteem, and ought to be cultivated in its proper time. This music justly merits, therefore, the title "religious music".

55. The proper places for the performance of such music are concert halls, theaters, or auditoriums, but not the church, which is consecrated to the worship of God. (MSD #54-55)

3. Fact vs. Opinion.
Discussions and arguments present a variety of facts and opinions. However, it’s critical to keep straight which statements are points of fact and which are matters of opinion. Heated arguments too often devolve into statements such as “well…that’s your opinion!”
Perhaps that’s true, and perhaps not. If the issue being discussed is a matter of opinion, such a statement could be perfectly valid. An example:

“Awesome God is an excellent song… I think it rocks!”

“Really? The melody sounds like something out of a Barry White ballad.”

“Well…that’s your opinion!”

OK… here we’re talking about something that really is a matter of opinion. People like some songs and don’t like others. That’s a matter of opinion. However this is very different from the following example.

“I like using a really lively song like Awesome God for the Responsorial to get people excited about the Liturgy of the Word.”

“Awesome God? That’s really not appropriate for the Responsorial you know.”

“Well…that’s your opinion! I think it works just fine.”

It might be opinion that Awesome God is a good song. But it is a point of fact that the Responsorial must be a setting of the Psalm from either the Graduale or the Lectionary, and that another song or hymn cannot be substituted. That isn’t a matter of opinion. In this example, the speaker is simply wrong regardless of how he (or she) feels about the suitability of the song.

We may not always like the facts, but don’t claim that they are merely opinions when they are actually facts. If you disagree with what the actual documents say, then just say so and there will be no argument… except that you are admittedly disregarding the laws set forth by the Church. It’s intellectually dishonest to categorize liturgical laws or Church teachings as mere opinion which can be disregarded according to our personal likes and dislikes, even if it is a law or teaching which a great many people routinely disregard. This leads to the next point…

4. The views of the popular majority are useful in discussions about political issues where majority opinion forms law. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the people in a city approves of and desires the construction of a Toll Road is a compelling fact when discussing the wisdom of building such a road. That’s what Democracy is all about! Liturgy, however, is not Democratic, and majority opinion has very little place in a discussion about liturgical issues. “We are the Church” is a great slogan, but attributing to it the force of law leads to the same kind of confusion as the idea that we are “all baptized into the common priesthood”. All baptized persons are not Priests, nor are we all members of the hierarchy which is rightfully given the power to determine laws and doctrine for the Church.

Therefore, although a great many people enjoy this or that type of music, that fact does not lend it legitimacy unless it is already given legitimacy by the actual law of the Church. If a great many people enjoy the Chanted Introit, be assured that it is perfectly legitimate to use it…. not because the people like it, but rather because it’s already acknowledged as the primary choice for that role. If a great many people would rather hear a CD of Andre Boccelli singing “The Prayer” with Celine Dion as the Introit, you can be assured that is not allowed regardless of how many people would like to hear it. Majority opinion cannot legitimize something which contradicts the Church’s law (and that would contradict a number of them). Consensus does not create law in the Catholic Church. The above example only serves to demonstrate that a great many people are either unaware or unconcerned about what the Church teaches, and it’s absurd to suggest that such a group should dictate liturgical norms!

There are so many more points that could be included here, but this has already become longer than I had hoped! Perhaps I will add more to it at a later time…

At The Colloquium: Vespers

2009-06-26T20:06:00.000-07:00

The Friday Evening Vespers featured a style of sacred music not often heard today: Falsobordoni. Although it is, structurally, a very simple form of music, these settings are anything but simple!

The recording of the Vespers can be heard or downloaded HERE.

From The Colloquium: Haydn's Orgelmesse

2009-06-26T15:44:00.001-07:00

The Mass this morning featured one of the Colloquium choirs singing the Haydn Orgelmesse... as well as the expected Chant and Polyphony!

The complete Mass can be heard or downloaded HERE.

At The Colloquium: Fr. Keyes Speaks Out

2009-06-26T12:47:00.000-07:00

The Thursday Night "Mystery Speaker" was none other than Fr. Keyes...and he delivered an address filled with hope and practical suggestions for the implementation of the Church's sacred music at the parish level.

The entire address can be heard HERE.

I spoke with Fr. Keyes later that evening about some of what he talked about in this address...it is his feeling that the involvement of the school and teaching sacred music to young Catholics needs to be a central focus. He has posted the list of "required music" for school children at NLM (it may not be there yet though!).

Papal Mass for the Imposition of the Pallium

2009-06-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

This Sunday, June 28th, Pope Benedict celebrates the Mass for the Imposition of the Pallium (there's probably a real name for this if someone could help me here). We have all watched the development of the Papal liturgies over the past several years. This is yet another step forward.

I'm not a big fan of worship aids, but you might find this one interesting.

Note particularly how the assembly participates, "despite" the use of chant throughout the Mass!

At The Colloquium: Extraordinary Form Mass

2009-06-25T10:36:00.000-07:00

The Mass on Thursday Morning was an Extraordinary Form Solemn High Mass with the Canons of St. John Cantius in Chicago. The Mass Ordinary was sung by the Choir of St. John Cantius under the Direction of Fr. Scott Haynes. The Propers were variously sung by the Men's Intermediate Schola (Introit),Men's Advanced Schola (Gradual and Alleluia), the Women's Advanced Schola (Offertorium) and the Women's Intermediate Schola (Communion).

The audio recording may be listened to or downloaded HERE.

At The Colloquium: Two Lectures in One Night!

2009-06-24T21:52:00.000-07:00

This evening's schedule was full with two lectures... back to back. The first was from William Mahrt on Sacred places....although the topic was a springboard for a much wider discussion about sacred music and the concept of "sacred"...

Dr. Mahrt's lecture can be heard HERE.

The second was from Fr. Phillips...from the Canons of St. John Cantius. His talk was much more pointed and critical of the status quo in Church music...ending with a very sten call to action for the restoration of truly sacred music.

Fr. Phillips' lecture can be heard HERE.

At The Colloquium: Rehearsal for Nos Autem Gloriosi

2009-06-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

A beautiful motet by Palestrina which we're singing at Mass on Friday. The biggest challenges have been negotiating the tuning in what is a rather harmonically adventurous piece... for Plestrina at least!

THIS is an audio clip of the rehearsal run through during today's choir rehearsal.

At the colloquium: Mass with Cardinal George

2009-06-24T10:29:00.000-07:00

Cardinal George celebrated the Ordinary Form Mas in Latin with the CMAA Colloquium this morning at 10:00AM in the Madonna Della Strada Chapel.

An audio recording of the Mass can be downloaded HERE.

The following selections were sung at today's Mass (the parenthesis indicate the point in the recording where you can hear the selection)

Ecce Sacerdos Magnus (7:10)

De Ventre (9:20)

Priusquam te Formarem (22:45)

Credo I (42:55)

Justus ut Palma -Chant (49:15)

Justus ut Palma- Motet (51:30)

Tu Puer (1:09:30)

Christi Fili Dei (1:18:00)

Ut Queant Laxis (1:24:40)

Organ Improvisation -Buchholz (1:27:30)

At The Colloquium: Chant Rehearsal (Advanced)

2009-06-23T22:36:00.000-07:00

This morning's class with Wilko Brouwers (Advanced Men's Schola) was an hour of instruction on vocal techniques as well as interpretation of chant. The advanced Men's Schola has been charged with singing the more difficult Graduales and Alleluia settings for the sung Masses this week.

Today we worked on the Iustus ut Palma Florebit and Priusquam te Formarem from the Mass for the Nativity of John The Baptist (June 24th). The video below is of our rehearsal of the Priusquam Te Formarem.

At The Colloquium: Mass (OF in English)

2009-06-23T10:01:00.000-07:00

One of the main components of the Sacred Music Colloquium is the Mass of the Day. These Masses are outstanding examples... the liturgy prepared in the way called for by the Second Vatican Council. Todays Mass was in the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo Missale)English... the Mass that is celebrated in most parishes.

The Antiphons (Entrance, Offertory and Communion) are sung in English using adapted Gregorian melodies. This is the model that has most recently advocated in the USCCB Document "Sing To The Lord", and which has been incorporated into the new translation of the Missale. Also featured in this liturgy are the sung dialogues between the Priest and the assembly. This is an interesting example in that it is very much the liturgical form set out in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and is very close to the liturgical form being proposed with the implementation of the new translation of the Missal.

You may listen to an audio recording of this Mass HERE.

At The Colloquium: Sung Morning Prayer

2009-06-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

No rest for the weary... the day begins with sung Morning Prayer at 7:00AM. This is a simple and beautiful liturgy that could be easily done at any parish....OK, maybe a sung Evening Prayer would be more practical!

You can listen to our sung Morning Prayer HERE.

Into the Fire....

2009-06-22T20:31:00.000-07:00

What with the traffic in Chicago and what I'm sure was a deliberate act of sabotage on the part of my Garmin, I'm finally in Chicago (via the scenic steel-works and shipyards of Gary IN). After arriving, it was immediately to dinner, and then to a brief opening address from Jeffrey Tucker and William Mahrt. Then on to rehearsals...

We divided into 5 polyphonic choirs...mine did an initial read-through of Palestrina's Iustus ut Palma Florebit. It's going to be a long week... right now, it's time to get some sleep. More on this tomorrow when I'm a little more awake...

On The Road- Somewhere in Indiana

2009-06-22T09:58:00.000-07:00

This is the first chance I've had to get online since I left yesterday... parked by a Fairfield Inn just south of Indianapolis so I can get online. I also have to get the actual address of Loyola to program my Garmin to get me there! I used my driving time to learn the Credo III and the Missa Orbis Factor...

Blogging from the CMAA Colloquium

2009-06-19T06:00:00.001-07:00

For the next week, I will be posting daily reports from the CMAA Colloquium. There will, no doubt, be a number of other sites doing so as well. Of particular interest to me, and hopefully to others as well, will be the insights on the new translation of the Missal and the accompanying "Music Project" that remains a bit of a mystery still at this time.

The Colloquium will also be a time to take stock of what has taken place in regards to the ROTR since this time last year. I know that there has been significant progress in liturgical practice and the progress on the liturgical music front has been far greater than anybody would have dreamed of only a few short years ago! But there is no better way to discover this than through the personal testimony of those "working in the vineyard" as it were.

My first task is to print out the Colloquium Packet...not a "sample" packet of music to be purchase, but actual full scores of the music we will be singing during the week...ours to bring back home and use without any further expense. That is just one of the beautiful aspects of Sacred Music...it is given as a gift to the Church by the Church.

Stay tuned...

Virgil Funk's "Commentary" on Sing To The Lord - Part IV

2009-03-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

This is Part IV of my look at Virgil Funk’s “Commentary” on the USCCB document Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship. Although it is Part IV of my series, it covers Part III of Virgil Funk’s “commentary” as it appears in the Ordinary Time I edition of OCP’s Today’s Liturgy.

As has become my regular practice, Fr. Funk’s commentary is in BLUE, my commentary is in BLACK and any official documents of the Church are indicated in RED.

Different Kinds of Music for the Liturgy (Paragraphs 67-85)

“In the introduction to this section, Sing to the Lord presents some new theory. To the careful reader, it makes a theoretical shift away from Music in Catholic Worship by reaching back to the notion of “holiness” in Musicam Sacram. Music in Catholic Worship 23-24 (which this section of Sing to the Lord replaces) emphasized a ministerial functional theology and the emotional impact of music. These were treated as the foundation for music’s role in the liturgy.”

Let’s stop there and take a look at what he just said, and didn’t say. To begin with, forgetting for a moment the use of such terms as “reaching back” and “notion of ‘holiness’”, is it not once again disingenuous to portray the positions put forward in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram and even Tra le sollecitudini as “new theory”. This new theory he is speaking of is the following:

“Sacred music is to be considered the more holy the more closely connected it is with the liturgical action, whether making prayer more pleasing, promoting unity of minds, or conferring greater solemnity upon the sacred rites.”65 This holiness involves ritual and spiritual dimensions, both of which must be considered within cultural context. (Sing to the Lord 67)

Why would he make a point of saying that this document presents “new theory” when it is in fact the stated aesthetic principle that has governed Sacred Music since at least Pius X? In fact, it is arguable that this has been, and still is the “theory” stated in the documents of Vatican II, regardless of what nonsense Music in Catholic Worship tried to suggest. Isn’t that the very reason why MCW was replaced, because of such glaring errors as this? We go on…

“Sing to the Lord (67-71) begins with a three-fold analysis of music’s “holiness” which involves a “ritual dimension”, a “spiritual dimension” and a “cultural context” as the foundation for music’s place in divine worship. “

To begin with, this is a slight misreading of what Sing to the Lord 67 says. Only the “ritual dimension” and “spiritual dimension” are applied to the discernment of music’s “holiness”. The “cultural context” is applied to the specifics of what constitutes a ritual or spiritual dimension, not to the music itself. Not a big deal, but it gives an indication of the depth at which Fr. Funk probes a subject.

Of greater importance in this statement though is a lack of historical perspective in the analysis, leading to the (incorrect) conclusion that the reason for discerning the “holiness” of music is for the purpose of determining it’s “place in divine worship” . But, to use Fr. Funk’s own words, the “careful reader” will recognize Sing to the Lord 67;

“Sacred music is to be considered the more holy the more closely connected it is with the liturgical action, whether making prayer more pleasing, promoting unity of minds, or conferring greater solemnity upon the sacred rites.”65 This holiness involves ritual and spiritual dimensions, both of which must be considered within cultural context.

It is taken nearly word for word from Sacrosanctum Concilium 112:

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. (SC 112)

...which itself builds upon Tra le Sollecitudini 2:

It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it. (TLS 2)

And so the “careful reader” would notice the continuity, not only of the language, but presumably of the context in which these parallel statements appear in the two previous documents. In both TLS and Sacrosanctum Concilium, the issue of music’s “holiness” appears in the context of a concrete criteria for discerning the suitability of an individual piece of music for use in the liturgy at all, not merely as a theoretic or theological “foundation” for music’s role in general. That Fr. Funk sees it in this way is made clear in the statement that immediately follows:

“This shift in theoretic perspective does not seem to have a significant impact on the guidelines regarding pastoral practices that follow. However, it will be interesting to follow the development of theories about music in ritual that grow from this threefold statement.”

Is Fr. Funk saying that music’s “holiness” is merely a theoretic consideration, useful only for spinning out “theories about music in ritual”. Both TLS and Sacrosanctum Concilium put it forward as an actual criteria that the musician is to use in determining the suitability of a specific selection for liturgical use, and having a well-founded suspicion as to the identity of the individual that penned this particular section of Sing to the Lord, I would have to conclude that was intended to be the purpose there as well. My guess is that Fr. Funk would like to not put too much emphasis on the issue of music’s “holiness” since it is closely intertwined in both TLS and Sacrosanctum Concilium with the Gregorian model for sacred music.

And speaking of Gregorian Chant, that is the next topic covered in Fr. Funk’s commentary:

“The treatment of Gregorian chant (72-80) provides a pastoral interpretation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy’s statement that “other things being equal”, chant should be given pride of place in Roman Liturgy (72-73). There are two pastoral concerns among these “other things”: (1) “that the congregation is able to participate …with song,” and (2) that Bishops, Pastors and liturgical musicians be “sensitive to the cultural and spiritual milieu of their communities”.

At this point, Fr. Funk steps into the issue of ceteris paribus, which I will address momentarily. His concern, as is the concern of most who oppose the re-introduction of chant into the liturgy, is that we address the “pastoral concerns” and be “sensitive to the cultural and spiritual milieu” when even THINKING about using chant. The assumption here is that it will be divisive and upsetting to the folks in the pews, so we need to be VERY careful when even attempting such a thing.

I’m curious as to why Fr. Funk left out the words “…in the Liturgy…” in his quote in (1) above. The quote, when left complete reads “that the congregation is able to participate in the Liturgy with song,” a statement that in no way precludes the use of chant sung, for instance, by the choir or even by the choir and whatever assembly members are able to do so at any specific point in the liturgy seeing as they will be participating in other singing within the liturgy. However, as Fr. Funk has framed it, it seems to say that the use of any chant would require that the congregation be able to sing it.

Similarly, in the quote in (2) above, Fr. Funk has left off the ending. The complete quote should read

“They should be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual milieu of their communities, in order to build up the Church in unity and peace.” (Sing to the Lord 73)

Again, a curious omission… unless of course one realizes that Latin is the Church’s traditional approach to unity, and a proven effective one at that! Fr. Funk apparently wants the Bishops, Pastors and musicians to be sensitive to those who resist the use of Latin and/ or chant, but not necessarily to those who advocate its use as a unifying element in the liturgy. Better to just avoid the issue of unity rather than propose a common language as the solution…

But he didn’t avoid getting into the ceteris paribus milieu. This is an important point, and one which I wish the Holy See might chime in on at some point since it has enormous impact on this most important statement in Sacrosanctum Concilium. The complete quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium is as follows:

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. (SC 116)

Those familiar with legal language (and this is from a legal document which was written as such in Latin) will recognize this as a classic “ceteris paribus” statement. In common language:

"Cēterīs paribus is a Latin phrase, literally translated as "with other things the same." It is commonly rendered in English as "all other things being equal." A prediction, or a statement about causal or logical connections between two states of affairs, is qualified by ceteris paribus in order to acknowledge, and to rule out, the possibility of other factors which could override the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent. (Wiki footnoted -Schlicht, E. 1985.)

Stay with me here…. The “causal statement” in Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 is the following:

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

Simple enough. SC 116 adds the modifier ceteris paribus to acknowledge and rule out those “other things” that might be thought to override the relationship between the antecedent (The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy) and the consequent (therefore it should be given pride of place in liturgical services). A "plain language" reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 might look something like this then:

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, regardless of what other things might occur that would seem to discourage its use or encourage the use of some other music, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services anyway. "

But Fr. Funk and many others claim the exact opposite! They continue to claim that these “other things” must always be acknowledged and given precedence. The law says that they are to be acknowledged and always ruled out. It amazes me that an expert of Fr. Funk’s status has not considered this position as being indefensible, at least legally.

And so you might ask – “But isn’t this also what Sing to the Lord claims also, in section 73? Isn’t Fr. Funk just commenting on what the document says?” Yes, that is true, and that is one of the many reasons why Sing To The Lord was not submitted to the Holy See for approval. Section 73 conflicts with the particular law in force in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and so it (Sing to the Lord) would have had to have been modified, and that was not something that was desired by Bp. Trautmann, the Chairman of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy.

But I digress…. Back to Fr. Funk’s commentary:

“Sing to the Lord encourages communities to introduce and use, as a first step, Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, Agnus Dei XVIII, and then the more difficult chants of Gloria VIII, the Credo, and Pater Noster. (It’s interesting that no chant setting of the memorial acclamation is suggested, though such settings have been composed from chant models). What is daring about this section is the controversial suggestion that chant melodies of the Graduale Romanum be fitted with vernacular texts by composers (77).”

This must have been a most painful paragraph for Fr. Funk to have included in his article. He says that it is interesting that no chant setting of the memorial acclamation was included. That's interesting? There are no approved settings to include, and so it was probably though better to leave this issue to further development. What I find interesting is that he makes absolutely no comment about this paragraph, considered by many to be the most striking paragraph in the entire document. He simply states what it says and moves on. And even while simply stating what the document says, Fr. Funk under-represents the tone of this part of Sing to the Lord. The actual wording in the document is as follows:

The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin.70 In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged. 75. Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered. (Sing to the Lord 74)

So to be clear, Sing to the Lord points out that Sacrosanctum Concilium says that the faithful should be able to sing the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin. Sing to the Lord then says that this WILL MEAN (not “might mean” or “could mean” but “will mean”) introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. Fr. Funk says that this introduction to chant “is encouraged”…. what is actually encouraged is the prudence and pastoral sensitivity and reasonable time, although it notes that “While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged.”

I understand the confusion. I'm still not sure exactly what that passgae might be saying.

Fr. Funk then makes what is perhaps the most curious comment in this entire series:

“What is daring about this section is the controversial suggestion that chant melodies of the Graduale Romanum be fitted with vernacular texts by composers. (77)”

Agreed.....that would be daring and controversial were it actually true. What does SttL 77 actually say?

The Entrance and Communion antiphons are found in their proper place in the Roman Missal. Composers seeking to create vernacular translations of the appointed antiphons and psalms may also draw from the Graduale Romanum, either in their entirety or in shortened refrains for the congregation or choir.

Whatever Fr. Funk may have been thinking, this passage very clearly says that composers seeking to create vernacular translations (of the antiphon texts) should base their translations on the Latin originals found in the Roman Missal. They may also make use of the texts in the Graduale Romanum (which are usually much longer) “either in their entirety or in shortened refrains for the congregation or choir”. The entire passage is about the texts, telling composers to base their translations on the texts from these sources. There is no way to construe this as saying that SttL calls for composers to fit English words to the Gregorian melodies. Did he even read this document? Really….

Moving on…

“The section on composers (81-85) seems to be written by composers for composers, for the Bishops guidelines are very heartening for composers and text-writers. New and diverse compositions based on the sacred liturgy are encouraged.”

And they always have been… the question raised by the guidelines is exactly what is meant by music that is part of the “treasure house of sacred musical art.” Sing to the Lord (84) seems to be inspired by a passage from John Paul II’s “Chirograph on Sacred Music” ….

“In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, "sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action". For this very reason, "not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold", my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent. And he explained that "if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious". Today, moreover, the meaning of the category "sacred music" has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself. (Chirograph on Sacred Music -4)

Sing to the Lord, while nowhere nearly as blatant, says much the same:

“In the years immediately following the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, especially because of the introduction of vernacular language, composers and publishers worked to provide a new repertoire of music for indigenous language(s). In subsequent decades, this effort has matured, and a body of worthy vernacular liturgical music continues to develop, even though much of the early music has fallen into disuse. Today, as they continue to serve the Church at prayer, composers are encouraged to concentrate on craftsmanship and artistic excellence in all musical genres. (SttL 84)

Is Fr. Funk’s analysis of this maybe a little rosy? The document seems to be saying that there needs to be an effort to concentrate on craftsmanship and artistic excellence. If it is a compliment, it is a back-handed one! And a little further on, Fr. Funk mentions a term used in the document without any explanation or definition.

“For melody, the composers must be ‘steeped in the sensus Ecclesia’ ” (83).

Perhaps he’s hoping that the average Today’s Liturgy reader will have no idea what that means. The actual document (SttL) says:

“The Church never ceases to find new ways to sing her love for God each new day. The Sacred Liturgy itself, in its actions and prayers, best makes known the forms in which compositions will continue to evolve. Composers find their inspiration in Sacred Scripture, and especially in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy, so that their works flow from the Liturgy itself.76 Moreover, “to be suitable for use in the Liturgy, a sung text must not only be doctrinally correct, but must in itself be an expression of the Catholic faith.” Therefore, “liturgical songs must never be permitted to make statements about faith which are untrue.”77 Only within this scriptural, liturgical, and creedal context is the composer who is aware of the Church’s long journey through human history and “who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae” properly equipped “to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.” (SttL 83)

So they must be “profoundly steeped” in the sensus Ecclesia. But what is this sensus Ecclesia? The quote-within-a-quote is from John Paul’s “Chirograph”, but it appears in that document as a quote from yet another earlier document, namely Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini. Perhaps a look at John Paul’s statement would give us some insight into what is meant by sensus Ecclesia in Sing to the Lord:

“With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and flavour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy” (John Paul II – Chirograph on Sacred Music 12)

So… Sing to the Lord is referring back to John Paul’s Chirograph which refers back to Pius X’s Tra le sollecitudini in saying that composers need to be “profoundly steeped” in the history and tradition of the Gregorian forms and their relationship to the liturgy when composing new liturgical works, aware that “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and flavour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. In light of such a standard, Fr. Funk’s claim that “For melody, the composers must be ‘steeped in the sensus Ecclesia’ ” seems a little shallow. This part of Sing to the Lord is not nearly so “very heartening for composers and text-writers” as he would like to think. The assumption in this document seems to be that an awareness of this sensus Ecclesia has been seriously lacking up to now. That was certainly the position of John Paul II in the Chirograph. Perhaps that was what Fr. Funk meant when he says:

“Sing to the Lord recognizes that some repertoire – both melody and text – should be abandoned. “

I would love to hear Fr. Funk’s opinion about what repertoire that may be…

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Virgil Funk's "Commentary" on Sing To The Lord - Part III

2009-01-30T05:40:00.002-08:00

In case you are just joining in on reading this series, I'm commenting on the review of the USCCB Document Sing To The Lord: Music in Divine Worship by former NPM President Fr. Virgil Funk that appears in OCP's Today's Liturgy, the Lent/ Triduum/ Easter 2009 edition. You can find the firt two parts of my comments HERE (Part I) and HERE (Part II).

Before I get too far in, I will interject my own opinion here as it will undoubtedly shape the following review. I believe strongly that to refer to Pastoral Musicians, Church Musicians, Liturgical Musicans as "Ministers" offers the possibility of confusing their role with the role of the ordained. As I have pointed out before HERE, the liturgical musician serves the liturgy, not the "Gathered Assembly" or any other group present at the liturgy. This understanding is crucial if we are to get away from the popular-music model for liturgical music.

Fr. Funk continues on with a review of Paragraphs 28-47, dealing with the various Ministers of Liturgical Music.

The choir is discussed in paragraphs 28-33 and is affirmed as it always has been in the official documents, but Sing to the Lord places special emphasis on the choir by having it first in order of discussion. The document identifies the proper role of the choir in relation to assembly participation when it says, "The choir must not minimize the participation of the faithful" since assembly participation is primary.

Concerning how the choir has been affirmed in other documents, it would be a bit deceptive to say that Sing To The Lord affirms in quite the same way. The following are some sections of relevant documents that affirm the role of the choir:

GIRM
Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical function, ensuring that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different types of chants, are properly carried out and fostering the active participation of the faithful through the singing.87 What is said about the choir also applies, in accordance with the relevant norms, to other musicians, especially the organist.

MUSICAM SACRAM
19. Because of the liturgical ministry it performs, the choir -- or the Capella musica, or schola cantorum -- deserves particular mention. Its role has become something of yet greater importance and weight by reason of the norms of the Council concerning the liturgical renewal. Its duty is, in effect, to ensure the proper performance of the parts which belong to it, according to the different kinds of music sung, and to encourage the active participation of the faithful in the singing. Therefore:

(a) There should be choirs, or Capellae, or scholae cantorum, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and religious houses of studies, and they should be carefully encouraged.

(b) It would also be desirable for similar choirs to be set up in smaller churches.

20. Large choirs (Capellae musicae) existing in basilicas, cathedrals, monasteries and other major churches, which have in the course of centuries earned for themselves high renown by preserving and developing a musical heritage of inestimable value, should be retained for sacred celebrations of a more elaborate kind, according to their own traditional norms, recognized and approved by the Ordinary.

However, the directors of these choirs and the rectors of the churches should take care that the people always associate themselves with the singing by performing at least the easier sections of those parts which belong to them.

22. The choir can consist, according to the customs of each country and other circumstances, of either men and boys, or men and boys only, or men and women, or even, where there is a genuine case for it, of women only.

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
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, 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, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.

These three documents comprise the triad of officilial documents that address music, and each of them, by virtue of it's status carries more weight, both juridicially and practically, than the USCCB document does. Choirs are indeed affirmed in all three documents, however, their primary role is to preserve the treasury of Sacred Music (Chant/ Polyphony), to "ensure the proper performance of those parts which belong to it", and lastly, to encourage the active participation of the faithful in singing as laid down in Art. 28 and 30, which reads:

28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

Nothing new here, at least for those familiar with these documents, but it is a bit of a stretch to say, as Fr. Funk then concludes, that "assembly participation is primary". To say that the passage from Sing To The Lord which states "The choir must not minimize the musical participation of the faithful" somehow definitively defines the relationship between the choir and assembly, and that relationship is one in which the assembly's participation is primary and the choirs role is secondary is wrong. The Church's official documents, cited above, make it clear that in terms of the liturgical music, the choir is the primary body which then encourages and supports the (secondary) role of the assembly.

Fr. Funk then concludes this paragraph with a rather shocking statement:

Choir members are to be drawn from the assembly as opposed to being paid musicians from outside the parish; they should attend rehearsals and possess requisite musical skills.

In the context that it appears in this article, it seems to the reader that Sing To The Lord actually says this! So what does SttL say?

Choirs and ensembles, on the other hand, comprise persons drawn from the community who possess the requisite musical skills and a commitment to the established schedule of rehearsals and Liturgies. Thus, they are able to enrich the celebration by adding musical elements beyond the capabilities of the congregation alone.

Choir members, like all liturgical ministers, should exercise their ministry with evident faith and should participate in the entire liturgical celebration, recognizing that they are servants of the Liturgy and members of the gathered assembly.

Perhaps it's me and my peculiar fascination with legislative documents and texts, but even I can tell the difference between a descriptive text and a proscriptive text. This passage is simply describing that since, in most instances, choirs are comprised of persons drawn from the assembly with specific skills, they are thus able to carry out a role that exceeds the abilities of the congregation alone. It then concludes by saying that choir members are "servants of the liturgy and members of the gathered assembly", emphasizing their dual role, not a mandated prerequisite!

To conclude that this passage somehow prohibits the use of paid musicians for choirs is absolute nonsense! By the same logic, the Director of Music would also have to be a volunteer from the assembly. This is clearly a statement of Fr. Funk's opinion and feelings that choirs should be volunteer subgroups of the "Gathered Assembly" rather than groups whose first priority is the service of the liturgy and the preservation of the treasury of Sacred Music. What he seems to be describing is less of a Schola Cantorum as in Musicam Sacram, and more of a "Folk Group" as was common in the 1970's and 80's (and in some places, even today!)

More To Come....

Virgil Funk's "Commentary" on Sing To The Lord - Part II

2009-01-30T05:40:00.001-08:00

Continuing on with a look at former NPM President Virgil Funk's analysis and commentary on Sing To The Lord in the Lent/ Easter/ Triduum Edition of Today's Liturgy...

THE GATHERED LITURGICAL ASSEMBLY:

This passage of Sing To The Lord is roughly eight sentences long, although you might envision it as much longer reading Funk's review. He begins this section with a summary of the main points:

Sing to the Lord identifies three concerns that have faced the assembly over the years but are presented as current and containing some new urgency: division in the assembly, the musical formation of the assembly, and introducing new music.

I would first argue that these are not concerns that have faced the assembly, as I doubt that very many members of the assembly even think about such things, but rather these are concerns that have faced those who prepare the music liturgy in a parish. He goes on....

Regarding division, Sing to the Lord poses interesting questions for those studying this document: What divisions exist in your parish community and which of them can be overcome by congregational song? How can the faithful shun any appearance of individualism or division?

So what does Sing to the Lord actually say? Let's see...

Because the gathered liturgical assembly forms one body, each of its members must shun “any appearance of individualism or division, keeping before their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.” (SttL 25)

That's all. I don't see where this poses any questions, let alone these particular questions. I will say there is a certain amount of vanity in the question he poses: "What divisions exist in your parish community and which of them can be overcome by congregational song?". What must someone think of themselves to consider that their music can "overcome divisions" in a parish community? Sheez...

The second question has an answer, and a rather obvious one though it is doubtful that Fr. Funk really wants to go there: "How can the faithful shun any appearance of individualism or division?" That's an easy one. We don't sing "Calypso inspired" music because there are folks from the carribean in the assembly, and we don't sing "Mariachi inspired" music because there are Hispanic folks in the assembly, and we don't sing "Negro Spiritual inspired" music because there are African-Americans in the assembly: We sing Catholic music because that's what we all (ostensibly) are! It's amazing, given the way that so much "contemporary liturgical music" partitions the people in the assembly by ethnicity, that Fr. Funk would have the nerve to even ask this question. The million dollar question is, what is Catholic Music? The obvious answer to that question is the reason that Fr. Funk doesn't want to go there.

His analysis continues...

When discussing musical formation, the document notes that " singing is one of the primary ways that the assembly of the faithful participates actively in the Liturgy...The musical formation of the assembly must be a continuing concern in order to foster full, conscious, and active participation"(26). Musicians, priests, deacons, and Bishops are invited to participate in the musical formation of the assembly. The study question at the parish level, of course, becomes how.

Before I comment, let's take a look at what SttL actually says about this:

26. Singing is one of the primary ways that the assembly of the faithful participates actively in the Liturgy. The people are encouraged “to take part by means of acclamations,responses, psalms, antiphons [and] hymns. . . .”40 The musical formation of the assembly must be a continuing concern in order to foster full, conscious, and active participation.

First, I find it interesting that Fr. Funk leaves out the second sentence which says "The people are encouraged “to take part by means of acclamations,responses, psalms, antiphons [and] hymns." Now why would he leave that out? Let me see...the most important thing the assembly sings is the acclamations, then the responses to the priest's invocations, then the response to the psalms, then the Antiphons (What's an Antiphon? Hmmm...maybe he doesn't want anybody to ask that question...)and hymns. What??? No "songs" ....no "Gathering music"? Sheez...

Again, I looked and looked and looked some more, and nowhere could I find that "Musicians, priests, deacons, and Bishops are invited to participate in the musical formation of the assembly." It's just not there. Not that it's a bad idea, it just seems to be inserting something that's not actually there. As such, it is not really a useful "study question" to figure out how to accomplish this... there are other more pressing matters that could use our attention.

For instance...let's see how Fr. Funk ends this insightful analysis:

Regarding the introduction of new music, the document suggests that "A pastoral judgment must be made in all cases." (27), particularly when deciding how often and when to introduce new music. Unfortunately, the document doesn't provide more specific guidelines on how to go about this, but it includes that pastoral judgment remains the responsibility and challenge of the parish musicians and clergy reading and studying Sing to the Lord.

OK... does it really say all that? Let's see...

27. So that the holy people may sing with one voice, the music must be within its members’ capability. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at ease when they sing. Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization. A pastoral judgment must be made in all cases.

Hmmm...alright... it does say that "a pastoral judgment must be made in all cases", but that is the last thing it says, and even then it is a qualification statement. The main point of this section is the argument for a limited and stabilized repertoire of music for Catholic Worship, the very thing that was called for in Liturgiam Authenticam and which the Bishops were supposed to produce in the Directory for Music and the Liturgy. Since the very concept of such musical regulation is anethema to the commercial liturgical music industry, it isn't surprising that Fr. Funk glossed over this particular issue. What a shame.

I also find it interesting that Fr. Funk laments that the document fails to provide specifics about what music to introduce, and how to introduce it. Perhaps he hadn't gotten to section 74 which says: (my highlights in bold)

74. The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin.70 In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged.

75. Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered. “The assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Proper of the Mass as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.”72

When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended. Whenever a choir sings in Latin, it is helpful to provide the congregation with a vernacular translation so that they are able to“unite themselves interiorly” to what the choir sings.73

Wow! It says what the church documents ask us to introduce to the assembly, how to introduce it, gives some VERY specific examples, and even some more advanced examples to introduce once those have become old hat! It then goes on at length to suggest alternatives that the choir may do on occasion, or if your choir is not up to the Propers in the Graduale Romanum, suggests that you might try those from the Graduale Simplex first! And... it even reminds you that when your choir sings the Adorate Deum on the Third Week of Ordinary Time, you need to provide a vernacular translation for the assembly so that they may "unite themselves interiorly".

Sheez... how specific is that?

Virgil Funk's "Commentary" on Sing To The Lord - Part I

2009-01-30T05:39:00.001-08:00

Back in July I made a post about a review of Sing To The Lordin OCP's Today's Liturgy Magazine. My point was that the "reviewer" was presenting a less-than-complete portrayal of this document, leaving out some very important points while adding personal interpretations that are not even in the document. This is particularly insidious because Today's Liturgy is a publication that is distributed widely to parish Music Directors, many of whom take such published articles as Gospel Truth without ever checking to see if what is being said is even factually correct.

The LENT-TRIDUUM-EASTER edition of Today's Liturgy puts forth yet another review, this time by former president Fr. Virgil Funk. The status of Fr. Funk at the NPM gives him a particular level of authority within that organization, and so it is all the more regrettable that he has seen fit to put his name to a "review" that is at best deceptive, and at worst is transparently undermining the intention of the Bishop's document by turning some of the document's words to support the very liturgical music agenda that the document is setting out to correct.

This particular article is Part II of a 4-Part series. Part I dealt with Section I - "Why Do We Sing?"... and interesting but largely expository essay on the nature of liturgical singing. Since that section presents a great deal of opinion on the subject, comments made about it are also matters of opinion, and the commenter (Fr. Funk) is totally free to give his opinion about the "normal consequences of liturgical celebration" or whether our liturgical singing is an historical continuation of Moses's song during the Exodus. Without being too dismissive, this first section of Sing To Ther Lorddoesn't really present too much in the way of substance, so I don't get too excited about what a reviewer says about it.

Section II is a different story though... this section presents some very strong and definitive statements about liturgical music and it's practical conduct. This might be a good time to point out a small but important point. At one place in his review, Fr. Funk says "for the first time in an official document..." and then goes on to continue his point. While this is a published document of the USCCB, I would question whether it is an official document in the way that Fr. Funk is trying to imply, as it lacks approval from the Holy See or the CDW. As such, even the strong statements made in this document have no juridicial force, and are little more than suggestions. Perhaps pointing this out would have been a better tactic for Fr. Funk to adopt, noting that while the document calls for some rather radical things, it has no real authority and as such we have to wait for an official document. Instead, he seems to vest considerable authority in the document... and then goes on to misrepresent it!

Where to start....in the introduction to the article

Because this is a pastoral document that provides guidelines for the United States, it begins with a discussion of the Bishop and his staff, and then the roles of the priest and deacon. While some may interpret this approach as hierarchical, such an evaluation would be offset by the fact that the document does not mention the international commission (ICEL), nor the pope or the Vatican commisssion (Congregation for Divine Worship) and its various committees (e.g, Vox Clara).

True... the document doesn't mention those entities, although I'm not sure why ICEL or the CDW would be discussed in a document on US guidelines for music. This fact does not mean that the approach is not hierarchical: it clearly is so. Some points that Fr. Funk left out here.

The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, namely, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop. (GIRM 91)

Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is directed by the Bishop, either in person or through priests who are his helpers. (GIRM 92)

A priest also, who possesses within the Church the power of Holy Orders to offer
sacrifice in the person of Christ,81 stands for this reason at the head of the faithful people gathered together here and now, presides over their prayer, proclaims the message of salvation to them, associates the people with himself in the offering of sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father, gives his brothers and sisters the Bread of eternal life, and partakes of it with them. (GIRM 93)

After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. (GIRM 94)

The acolyte is instituted to serve at the altar and to assist the priest and deacon. (GIRM 98)

OK... so the holy people are "ordered under the Bishop".... these include priests "who are his helpers"...the priest "stands at the head of the faithful people"...and "after the priest, the deacon... holds first place among those who minister..." who may include acolytes who "assist the priest and deacon". Can someone explain to me how this is NOT hierarchical? Lumen Gentium is pretty clear on the hierarchical authority within the church.

Since Sing To The Lord draws heavily on Musicam Sacram and Sacrosanctum Concilium, the foundations of those documents have to be considered, and one of those foundations is the authority of the Bishop. The only reason for disputing this would be as a rationale for ignoring those recomendations of the Bishops that you might disagree with. I wonder aloud if this might be the purpose of this particular point appearing at the beginning of the review.

Going on...Fr. Funk quotes Sing To The Lord concerning Diocesan liturgical commissions.

"The Bishop is assisted in his role by his staff in the Diocesan Office of Worship and/or the diocesan music or liturgical commission which provides valuable asssistance in promoting sacred music together with pastoral liturgical action in the diocese"

followed by

Sing To The Lord recognizes that, in the US, paid staff has often overshadowed volunteer commissions in practice.

I searched and read, and read and searched, and nowhere in Sing To The Lord could I find anything like the above statement. It certainly calls for just and adequate compensation for musicians, and as such strongly advocates paid staff. However, the way this is framed by Fr. Funk, it seems to be solely for the purpose of discrediting diocesan liturgical commissions. Not that I am a big fan, but there is a concerted effort in the first two paragraphs of this review to minimize the authority of the Bishop without coming out and saying so.

These points are academic though in light of what follows in this review. A Summary of his review section by section.

THE PRIEST

While noting that SttL restates already existing directives that the Priest and Deacon should sing those parts of the liturgy proper to them, he can't help bringing up those parts of Music In Catholic Worship which were much less stringent on this issue and contrasting them to the new directives. He goes on to enumerate some of the parts of the Mass that the Priest is supposed to sing, but leaves out some rather notable ones such as...

Seminaries and other programs of priestly formation should train priests to sing with
confidence and to chant those parts of the Mass assigned to them. (SttL 20)

Those priests who are capable should be trained in the practice of chanting the Gospel on more solemn occasions when a deacon may not be present. (SttL 20)

At the very least, all priests should be comfortable singing those parts of the Eucharistic Prayer that are assigned to them for which musical notation is provided in the Roman Missal. (SttL 20) (Fr. Funk only mentions the preface...)

THE DEACON

Fr. Funk points out that SttL encourages the Deacon to...

Sing the dialogue at the Gospel and dismissal

Sing the invitation "Let Us Pray" of the litanies, the Exsultet, the third form of the Penitential Rite, and the Prayers of the Faithful

but he leaves out...

If they are capable, deacons should be trained in the practice of chanting the Gospel on more solemn occasions.
Programs of diaconal preparation should include major and compulsory courses in the chant and song of the Liturgy.

Wouldn't these provisions seem to be of any importance? Maybe not since the Gospel would have to be chanted (as in plainchant) rather than be set to an inane OCP published melody. And a compulsory course on chant....? I think the combination of "compulsory" and "chant" in the same directiver may have been too much for Fr. Funk.

Stay tuned for Part II of my "review"...

Just Who Do We Serve?

2008-09-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

In the last few days I've spent some time considering the attitudes of various people towards music ministry, including those who are responsible for it. This came about largely because of a comment that I received on my choir blog that was critical of my "Three Year Plan" to gradually introduce liturgical music at the parish where I serve. The gist of the comment was this: "If you really want to bring people to Jesus with your music rather than have them leave the church, you would be nuts to do this!" I posted a rather rash response at first, but have since deleted it as I thought about it and have now come to this conclusion: We need to have a clear focus on just who we serve as liturgical musicians.

To begin with, the comment posed a false dilemma that we too often accept at face value. Our choice is not between presenting popular-style songs and catchy responses or having people leave the church. I'm not sure that this would even be the case if it were correct that people prefer pop-style liturgy music to authentic liturgical music. But what is wrong with the premise is that the purpose of music at Mass is to "bring people to Jesus", at least in the way that most people think.

What underlies this (false) premise is that the Mass, on it's own, is too distant and incomprehensible, and as such is insufficient to provide people spiritual nourishment. It is up to the music to bring the liturgy down to the level of "the people" and give them something familiar that they can go away humming when they leave. The Mass becomes an excuse for people to gather so that they can be "brought to Jesus" by the liturgical musicians who REALLY understand them in a way that the Priest doesn't. As liturgical musicians in this model, we are like evangelist-advocates for the faithful, interpreting scripture and presenting it to them in a way that they can understand so that Mass is attractive to them and has meaning. Whether consciously or sub-consciously, this is the attitude adopted by many, if not most liturgical musicians. I have come to believe that this attitude is not only misguided, it's destructive to the faith and we are finally realizing the damage that it has done.

Consider the resistance to replacing "lyrics" in pop-style liturgical songs with actual liturgical proper texts. The resistance comes only because the composers of these songs feel that it is their role to "interpret" for the faithful and present the concepts to them in a language that they can understand. They see themselves less as composers and more as preachers, speaking to the faithful and teaching them through their words. If they are required to use approved texts, how are they going to "speak to the people"? Surely their lyrics do this better than the actual texts of the Mass!

Or consider that as this attitude gained foothold, Catholic litugical musicians increasingly took on the title "Music Minister", a term borrowed from the Evangelical Protestant community, where musicians actually are a ministerial position in a church, often co-equal with the Pastor, and preach directly to the faithful through "their music". In many cases, the Pastor is a musician who sings to the faithful during services (picture televangelists). Although this model is completely alien to Catholic liturgy, I think many liturgical musicians actually see themselves in this role.

This perception is further strengthened by a presence at the front of the sanctuary facing the people. It's hard to feel that you're NOT supposed to be preaching to the people when you're up in front of them on a stage. When up in a loft in the back of the church with the Organ, the perception was that the Choir was part of the church itself, unseen and only heard echoing through the arches. But up in front of the people, facing them with microphones, there is a totally different perception and the "American Idol" within takes over and we play to the crowd.

So what can be done? First, we need to have that clear understanding of just who we serve as liturgical musicians. This is the point at which I will part ways with the vast majority of my peers... we serve the liturgy, not the people! We are supposed to be doing what the liturgy wants, not what the people want. We are supposed to present that liturgy to the best of our ability, and allow the liturgy to "bring people to Jesus". The problem is that we have lost faith in the ability of the liturgy to do that, and we feel that we need to step in and give the people what they need, lest they walk out. We need to regain that faith in our liturgy and stop trying to patch it up and fix it.

Secondly, we need to have a clear understanding of what the liturgy requires of us as musicians. This is the subject of myriad books, websites, blogs, workshops and colloquia and is too large of a subject to cover here. It isn't a matter of being "conservative" or "orthodox" or "progressive" or "liberal"... it's a matter of trusting in the liturgy as it is given to us and not interpreting it to acheive our own goals or support our own agenda.

Thirdly, we need to trust "the people" and stop pandering to them out of fear that they won't like us. Many musicians are, by nature, insecure and seek approval. When we see ourselves as presenting "our music", negative comments become an attack on us and we react by becoming defensive. We respond by performing what is popular and safe. Even though we may never have presented a chanted Entrance Antiphon or Latin sanctus, we fear doing so because we are afraid that people will criticize us for doing so, as though this is some decision of ours.

This is where it would be helpful to have some authoritative statement from the Holy See, CDW, Bishop or SOME kind of authority up the chain regarding music at Mass. We need to have some kind of defense for the criticism that may come our way, and we are afraid to take this on with little more than "Gregorian Chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy" to back us up. This is why I continue to say that such a statement is necessary if there is to be any progress on this issue. I am willing to do the work, but I'm not going to risk losing my job over it. Such a statement could be pointed to as a "job description" for liturgical musicians and would give us the needed authority to make changes. Those who don't want to make changes can ignore it, and that would be their choice. But don't deprive me of such an important tool just because some are going to ignore it. It would have been a shame if Paul VI had decided to not pen Humanae Vitae just because he feared that some would ignore it.

Understand that we serve the liturgy. Understand what the liturgy requires. Serve it fearlessly and with passion. You don't have to be a "Traditionalist" liturgical musician, just be a liturgical musician and not a "Music Minister".

I welcome your comments on this.

My Chant Group Meets Again Tonight!

2008-09-17T10:46:00.001-07:00

Tonight is the second meeting of the group that I have come to call my "Chant Project". It's really fascinating how this group has come to be, and even more interesting will be to see how it plays out. There is a lot of interest, and a lot of enthusiasm. If that is built upon, and given the opportunity to develop into a working schola, the results could be truly miraculous. What is really amazing is how everything came together.... I would like to hear from others who have started up schola groups or offered workshops in Chant and hear about how the process unfolded for them. I have to almost believe that the Holy Spirit is at work, given the obstacles that exist and which should stop any effort before it even gets started.

I am optimistic, both about my project and about Reform (with a big "R")! I have to wonder, what would happen if the reform agenda were supported by Bishops and Priests? There will, in the not-too-distant future, be more Bishops and Priests who are supportive. As momentum builds, what will happen then? If we consider that we are maybe 2 1/2 years into the "Reform", what might it look like 5 years from now? How about 10 years? When more than half of the Priests have been ordained in the "Post-Summorum" Catholic Church? There is great reason for hope and optimism as long as one realizes that there will not be sweeping change NOW, but gradual change over many years.

Our part is to be agents of change at the local level.
-Start a schola
-Organize a Chant workshop for TLM attendees
-Write grateful thank-you letters to Bishops who are supportive of Tradition
-Write polite letters to less-supportive Bishops offering your time to assist with any effort to offer the TLM in your Diocese.
-Seek out Catholics in your area who share your views on traditional liturgy and music and start talking. Even if only to share ideas, groups like this can take on a life of their own.

If anybody has other ideas for how to make things happen at the local level, feel free to post them in the comments.

What is the Pope Saying?

2008-09-15T05:42:00.000-07:00

From His Homily at the Mass at the Esplanade des Invalides:

(My emphasis added)

"This appeal to shun idols", he added, "is also pertinent today. ... The
word 'idol' comes from the Greek and means 'image', 'figure',
'representation', but also 'ghost', 'phantom', 'vain appearance'. An idol is
a delusion, for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in
the kingdom of mere appearances".

"Now", the Pope asked, "is this not a temptation in our own day - the only
one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolise a past that no
longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolise a
future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone,
man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth!" In the same way,
"have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for
knowledge, diverted man from his true destiny?"

Of course, context is everything in these kinds of statements, but in light of the statements made to the French Bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum there seems to be a call for a reality check, both for Traditionalists and for Progressives.

Also this concerning an address to representatives from the World of Culture:

Going on to consider the importance of song in monastic life, Benedict XVI noted how St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "describes the confusion resulting from a poorly executed chant as a falling into the 'zone of dissimilarity'". This
term was used by St. Augustine "to designate his condition prior to
conversion: man, who is created in God's likeness, falls in his
godforsakenness into the 'zone of dissimilarity', into a remoteness from
God, in which he no longer reflects Him, and so has become dissimilar not
only to God, but to himself, to what being human truly is".

For St. Bernard "the culture of singing is also the culture of being, and
the monks have to pray and sing in a manner commensurate with the grandeur
of the word handed down to them, with its claim on true beauty".

One of the hallmarks of Benedict's approach to reform is his strong conviction that reform relies heavily on the actions of the clergy. This is eveident in the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, and a similar concept seems to underlie this statement. If there is going to be an eventual acceptance of the use of chant, it will have to begin with the Priests and religious and brought to the faithful by their example. How appropriate for a Pope named Benedict!

Another remarkable feature of this address is how it ties Chant into the overall understanding of God's word.... and that very subject is the main topic of this October's Bishops Synod. Perhaps he will make the connection explicit at that time? We can at least hope so!

An Unexpected "Missa Breva"

2008-09-14T05:04:00.001-07:00

Arrived for the 7:00AM Mass today to find that the air conditioner unit was totally not working. We are in the process of updating and replacing the 25+ year old system here, but they promised we would at least have one unit working at all times. I guess they were wrong... Temperature in the Church was AT LEAST 88 degrees. It will probably climb into the 90's by the 11:00 Mass.

So we made Mass VERY short... Organ improv for the offertory, chanted psalm response, the Priest skipped the homily (I know... but it was really uncomfortable!)and finished up with an instrumental recessional. Total time: 27 minutes.

Chant Project: Our First Meeting

2008-09-12T08:01:00.000-07:00

With threats earlier last week that our first Chant Group meeting would be pre-empted by Hurricane Ike, a change in path allowed us to meet this past Wednesday evening. A few of the signed up participants were not able to be there, but they called me ahead of time to let me know that they will be there next week! They are certainly enthusiatic...

The level of the particpants varies... some have previous choir experience and can read music, others have sung in choirs but can't read music, while for others this is their first go at singing in a group. I decided to start at the most basic level, with a little terminology and explanation of the Staff, clef and the simple neumes and what they mean.

The first piece we are tackling is the Mass XVIII Kyrie... simple but a good example since it uses mostly punctum, podatus and clivis and is mostly linear. Also an added bonus was that many of them, even those with no choir experience, knew it well enough to sing along. This made for a good example. By the end of the evening, most of the participants felt that they understood the correlation between the notation and what they were singing. That seemed to be a big step!

I've promised myself to proceed slowly and allow everyone to understand what we're doing before moving on. For those who feel thay are a little more advanced, there is the opportunity to sing with the schola for the EF Mass at the parish that is hosting us.

I will try to keep posting updates to let everyone know how this thing is going. I'm overall rather happy!

Where did I put that Permission from the Ordinary...??

2008-08-21T06:03:00.000-07:00

While reading the recent music guidelines from the USCCB, a thought occured to me that applies to many other liturgical documents as well.

When a document specifies that "X" can be done with the permission of the local Ordinary, shouldn't that permission be explicit? Maybe a copy of such permission posted on the website of the Diocesan Liturgical Commission, or at least on file at the Chancery offices?

This thought occured to me because of the following scenario. In the past several years, and over the next few years, there will be a larger than average number of Bishops being replaced in Diocese' across the country. The "progressive" liturgical view generally holds that if a document says that "X" can be done with permission of the local Ordinary, then that permission would be extended implicitly, as though this were just some formality in the language. It is also readily observed that most of the liturgical actions modified by such permission tend to be of the more preogressive bent (extraordinary ministers, female altar servers, guitars and drums in church, outdoor Masses, etc...). Shouldn't the Ordinary's permission on these issues be a matter of public record? And shouldn't a new Ordinary be able to revoke such permission if they disagree with it?

The issue that brought this issue to the fore with me is the guitars and drums in the church. Musicam Sacram, which remains the definitive document on Sacred Music says the following, after the pronouncement of the Organ as the principal instrument for use in the liturgy, :

"The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."43

63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.44

This seems to be saying that in order to use instruments other than the Organ, the "competent territorial authority, presumably the Bishop, would need to give his consent. That consent can be given "provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful." The passage then goes on to give some parameters for giving this permission, most specifically noting that instruments that are commonly considered suitable for secular music only are to be "altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions." In order to give permission for such instruments to be used, the "competent authority" would have to make a pretty persuasive argument for how guitars and drums are not commonly considered instruments associated with secular music. I would like to see that argument....

The point I'm getting at is this: Is there anywhere in the United States where a Bishop has actually issued such permission, and if not, could such permission be requested by a Music Director who wants to have such permission in hand to do his job effectively? A lot of liturgical abuses occur because we assume there is permission to do them. Maybe we should start asking for some of this in writing.

My Chant Project: UPDATE

2008-08-14T10:04:00.000-07:00

After my first ad ran the second week in several parish bulletins around the Diocese, I am up to EIGHT respondents in one parish, four respondents in another parish, and three other respondents, one of whom is not even Catholic, but read the ad in a friend's bulletin.

EIGHT people in one parish... I am starting to find this interesting! None of them are choir members or involved in their parish's music ministry recently. They are ALL very enthusiastic and anxious to get started.

I have gotten in contact with a person I spoke with last month at our Diocesan Music Committee meeting. He was asked by the Pastor at an area church to coordinate the music for the TLM at their parish which is celebrated on alternating weeks. He was concerned about finding people that would want to be involved. This parish is rather close by the parish from which I have gotten the best response. I think we might be able to help each other out...

And so I will repeat the advice that was given by both Jeffrey Tucker and Scott Turkington at the Chant Intensive this past June.... go and get scholas started in your area. Work out the details once you get going, but JUST GET THEM GOING!

My Chant Project

2008-08-09T15:10:00.000-07:00

Following the CMAA Chant Intensive and the Colloquium this past June, a call went out to return home and start a chant schola. A number of the participants have started an e-mail group to share stories and ideas and keep everybody posted about the progress in our respective homelands. It seems that people are taking this seriously. I know I am. Here's my project as it stands right now.

I began by casting a wide net. I sent out e-mails to place the following ad in every parish bulletin in the Diocese.

Cantate Domino! Come join us in the Church’s sung prayer, Gregorian Chant! We are now forming a group to learn about and sing Gregorian Chant using the Solesmes Method. No prior knowledge or experience is necessary, just an interest in beautiful music and prayerful singing. Interested? Contact (my name) by phone at (my number)or by e-mail at (my e-mail).

OK... sorry I had to leave out my info there... the internet can be a scary place. No time and/or place was mentioned in the ad.... I wanted to see what the interest was, and where the interest (or resistance) was going to be. The results were interesting. Of the 18 parishes I sent the ad to, 3 parishes ran the ad "as is". Another three contacted me and asked for more specific info about time and place before they would run the ad. Fair enough.

I recieved 4 responses from one of the parishes (including a husband-wife response), 3 responses from another parish and one from the same parish who said he would be interested if the group were to meet at or near that parish. There were two responses from the third parish so far... the ad is running again this week at all three parishes. I am ecstatic! So it's not huge numbers... why am I ecstatic? NONE of the respondents are members of the choir at their parish or involved in the music program, although most of them have musical experience and some prior interest.

One is a former Benedictine with past experience in Chant and in Latin. Another was a Music Director at a Lutheran church for 20 years and is a recent convert to Catholicism. One is a 57 year old man who was an altar server as a young boy and who spoke about his devastation as a 13 year old when they stopped singing chant and using Latin at Mass. Another is a current RCIA candidate who is excited about learning more about her new faith. Only one of the respondents was aware that there is any kind of movement towards this in the church. The word needs to get out folks!

I have decided to make this (for now) a six-week "course" in basic chant skills, followed by the formation of a permanent schola by those who are interested. When I firm up a place and time for the first of these groups, I will send out a second bulletin ad to the 7 or so parishes within a reasonable distance (this is a huge Diocese... about 3 hours across North to South) with the hope of adding another few people to the initial group of respondents. with the addition of me and my wife, that would make about 8 or 9 persons. Not too bad to start.

I am thinking modestly... maybe taking on an easy Mass setting, a Gloria, the Pater Noster, Ave Maria and maybe an easier chant hymn or two (adoro te devote, Jesu dulcis memoria). After that, who knows.... I haven't planned that far ahead yet! But we're getting started, and I have become convinced that is the most important step.

One other thing. I did not run this ad in my home parish bulletin. For now, I'm keeping this project separate from my job. I think Jesus was wise in saying that no prophet is recognized in his home land. Maybe by round three or so....

Pope Benedict "Raises the Bar" Again

2008-07-21T05:10:00.000-07:00

Watching the Final Mass of WYD 2008 demonstrates just how far we have come in a short time. There will no doubt be discussion of this Mass, as there was of the Washington Nationals Stadium Mass, for a long time to come. However, there is one overarching observation that must serve as the starting point for any discussion of this Mass... we are moving quickly towards a liturgical vision guided by the documents of Vatican II rather than the spirit of Vatican II.

As large mega-event Masses go, this one was remarkable. That it was a Youth Mass was more remarkable still. If there is a message to be had from this point of view, it is that there is no need for a distinction between a "regular Mass" and a "Youth Mass"... There was nothing in this liturgy that demonstrated a need to pander to so-called "teen interests"... no rock music, no scantily clad singer-performers, no dance numbers (OK... the Gospel Procession was a little over the top...) and no simplified rites or dumbed-down messages.

On the contrary, this was excellent liturgy offered to God on behalf of the Youth, whom Benedict obviously respects and values. We heard beautiful music presented by an orchestra and Organist with Choir. We heard a well-trained schola chant the Introit, the Veni sancte Spiritus during Confirmation and the Communion Antiphon in Latin. The Mass Ordinary was sung in beautiful (if not a little theatrical?) settings using Latin and vernacular texts combined. The entire assembly chanted the Pater Noster in Latin. There didn't seem to be any problem understanding what was going on...

The few moments of questionable taste stood out starkly and seemed out of place. The Aboriginal Gospel Procession, the easy-listening karaoke style "Taste and See" at communion.... these now seem nostalgic and sentimental, leftovers of a passing era. Requiem in Pace.

The absence of Extraordinary Ministers, the all-male altar servers, the Pope distributing Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Expect these to be permanent fixtures at events like this in the future, and expect them to eventually make their way back into parish settings. Eventually... it will take time, as this took time. We are a large flock of sheep, and there is only one shepherd. But he is determined.

He has raised the bar. Will we make the effort to rise up to it, or will we opt to "limbo" our way under it?

We are Known by the Company We Keep

2008-07-16T06:46:00.000-07:00

I had to answer a query from a choir member about why we don't use the "Mass of Remembrance" (we remember how you loved us to your death...) and while looking up the problematic texts to the acclamations, my travels led me to the Sheet Music Plus website.

I was on the page for Mass of Remembrance, and like all sites of this type, they cross-promote music... you know the old "If you liked Mass of Remembrance, you might also like..."

And so what might I like if I actually liked Mass of Remembrance?

If you liked Mass of Remembrance, you may also like music by:

I have to hand it to them.... they nailed it right on the head!

The TLM Leads Youth To Idolatry?

2008-07-14T09:03:00.000-07:00

Such is the claim in an incredible article that appeared in the latest issue of Today’s Liturgy titled “Avoiding the Golden Calf”. Reading this article I had to wonder what the author, Robert Feduccia, was trying to accomplish. Like the review of Sing To The Lord that also appeared in this issue of Today’s Liturgy, it seems to be an agenda driven editorial more than anything else, but let’s take a look.

The author begins with a touching story about his visit to the Tomb of the Unknowns in Washington D.C. The focus here is the complex ceremony performed by the Old Guard at the tomb. The precise attention to detail and the expertly performed actions, while impressive, cause the author to begin worrying about whether they are actually honoring the Unkowns in the tomb, or are they more concerned with the ceremony itself.

"…my thoughts go to the next question: What do they love? Do they love the unknowns or do they love the ceremony? I hope they love the ceremony. It is noble, worthy of preservation and demonstrates the honor the fallen deserve. But more than the ceremony, I hope they love the soldiers to whom the honor of the ceremony is directed. "

"I think this can serve as a good analogy for worship and can also help frame the question for those seeking to make an offering in spirit and truth. "

OK… aside from insulting the Old Guard at the Tomb of the Unkowns, the author hurls a few insults at Catholics who worship in the Extraordinary Form, although he hasn’t yet made that connection, so you don’t know you’re being insulted until later. It is comforting to me that the author believes that the Extraordinary Form liturgy is worthy of preservation.

To begin, I question whether this is really the “good analogy” that the author claims. Comparing a military ceremony, contrived by men to honor men, with worship inspired by the Holy Spirit to Honor Almighty God may lead to some false comparisons. In the case of the Old Guard, the unknowns are honored through the commitment and dedication of the men who spend many hours learning this complex and precise ceremony. The point of learning the ceremony is to perform it perfectly. By performing it perfectly, the men have accomplished that goal for which they have sacrificed. This is how they honor the dead.

The author seems to want us to apply this same paradigm to the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form, as he mentions it in the very next few sentences:

"I see today’s committed young adult Catholics drawn toward worship. I find there are those who are attracted by the Traditional Roman eucharistic liturgy. The grace of sacred art, the nobility of chant, and the sense of mystery and transcendence that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII or the Novus Ordo can provide all have great resonance with a large group of younger Catholics. Another form of worship that seems to truly appeal to younger Catholics is one where Praise and Worship songs, those written and published by both Catholics and the larger community of Christian believers, are frequently used. "

A few comments are due at this point. This article pretends to be a criticism of the concept of “worshipping the liturgy”, and the author would like you to believe that he is criticizing both Traditional liturgy and Praise and Worship style liturgy at this point. However, the analogy of the Old Guard at the Tomb of the Unkowns and its precise ceremony really don’t apply to P&W style worship, so it is obvious that the criticism is being leveled at the Traditional Mass. Note that “there are those who are attracted by the Traditional Roman Eucharistic liturgy”, but P&W worship “truly appeals” to younger Catholics.

This simple comparison reveals a serious bias on the part of the author. Consider if the author would have said “I find that the Traditional Roman Liturgy truly appeals to younger Catholics”. Such a statement would require that the author then criticize the liturgy itself and demonstrate some actual flaw to make his point that these young Catholics are being misled. Instead, by making their preference for the Extraordinary Form into an emotional response (attraction), it leaves open the argument that their attraction is actually to the external elements of the liturgy, and not directed towards the worship of God. The author is clearly implying that there is an intrinsic flaw in the structure of the Traditional Mass and its distinctive rubrics that opens it up to the type of “worship of the liturgy” that he is critical of.

Compare this to the P&W style worship which “truly appeals” to younger Catholics. The implication here is that this style of liturgy is authentic, and the individual’s attraction to it is justified because of it’s worth. The author’s eventual criticism is not of the liturgy or its form but of how some individuals lack the depth to experience liturgy beyond mere externals, and end up being attracted by this or that song. This is not a criticism of the worship style, but of those who worship. From this point on, the article is dealing in apples and oranges.

Another odd moment in the passage above is in need of comment:

"The grace of sacred art, the nobility of chant, and the sense of mystery and transcendence that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII or the Novus Ordo can provide all have great resonance with a large group of younger Catholics. "

Is this a blunder, or is the author saying that if the Novus Ordo is implemented with a sense of mystery, using sacred art and noble chant it will also have great resonance with a large group of younger Catholics? If this was his intention, then his criticism is also expanded to the Latin Novus Ordo as well, and his actual agenda becomes clearer.

The author goes on:

“I hold dearly the truth that we are destined for an eternity of worship. Our Catholic understanding of salvation is that all creation will be summed up in Christ, will be fused with him. In that union with him, we will enjoy the same blissful, ecstatic and eternal relationship with the Father that the Son enjoys."

“Anything that draws the young Church into this relationship is a friend to me, and I am its ally. That said, there are concerns that I have, not in these forms, but in our humanity that is so given to efforts that miss the mark.”

What are these “efforts that miss the mark” that he is speaking of? Is he saying that we aspire to worship perfectly but never are able to? Is he trying to imply that we construct methods of worship (like the Extraordinary Form) that may lead us to false worship? Is he talking about the Extraordinary form at all, or is he possibly claiming that P&W style worship is an effort that misses the mark? The very next paragraph makes clear what he is referring to here.

"The Missal of Blessed John XXIII is beautiful; it is transcendent. If we understand art as a human effort to express the reality of God, the Missal is itself a work of art."

So.. the Missal of Blessed John XXIII is a work of art. Art is a human effort. Our humanity is so given to efforts that miss the mark. Get it now? He goes on…

“It is noble, rooted in timelessness, artful and divine. It is obvious why people can feel so passionate about its use. Nonetheless, I find that there are dangers in making the Latin Mass, as it is commonly called, an idol. “

And so here we are at the point of the article. Latin Mass = Danger. Latin Mass=Idolatry. Lest you think I’m reading too much into this... the article continues:

“Relating back to the question about the sentinels, what is being loved? Is it the form or is it the one whom the form makes present? In other words, is the Father being worshipped by our communion with His son, or is the liturgy being worshipped? We should want to give our best for the Lord. The attention to precision and detail that draws many young Catholics to this Missal can become the focus of the worship. It is a danger that demands great spiritual attention. The form of worship should not be idolized.”

The italics on the word “form” belong to the author… his criticism is of the form of the worship, specifically of the Extraordinary Form of worship. The comparison to the ceremony performed by the Old Guard forces the reader to accept his view that the Extraordinary Form developed as a method of honoring God through the completion of a complex series of precise actions, dressed up in beauty and reverence performed for the purpose of attracting the faithful. If this was all there was to it, the author would indeed be correct in warning unwary souls of the danger of worshipping form over substance. The problem here is a matter of the author’s misunderstanding of the purpose of worship. The next passage sums this up…

"The Missal of Blessed John XXIII is a noble and precise offering to the Father. Praise and Worship are meant to capture the heart of the individual. I have been to gatherings where I felt that my chest could not contain my heart. Those times, where the love that I felt for the Lord was so overwhelming are among the greatest moments of spiritual consolation I have ever encountered."

Apparently, for the author, worship is about how we feel, and the purpose of worship is to elicit feelings in us, to arouse our emotions and “draw us into” the experience of loving the Lord. The Missal of Blessed John XXIII is a “precise offering to the Father”. Praise and Worship “captures the heart of the individual”. The Missal of John XXIII is about form. Praise and Worship is about feelings.

Notice that the author talks at length about his meaningful experience at Praise and Worship, but never mentions how he feels while worshipping in the Extraordinary Form. The clichés and tired platitudes about the EF being “noble” and “beautiful” and “transcendent” are empty praise at best, sort of like the person who claims they aren’t racist because they have “black friends”. I doubt that the author has much experience worshipping in the Extraordinary Form, but I am certain that he doesn’t want that experience to be available to young Catholics.

The author then goes in what seems like a new direction, taking up the issue of musical selection in Praise and Worship style liturgy.

“I have found that many people attach themselves to certain songs. When that song isn’t used during a service, they claim the worship experience wasn’t good. ‘I just didn’t feel it’ they say. People have commented to me about feelings of resentment and anger toward the person leading music when he or she doesn’t play a certain song or doesn’t play it properly. The worshipper felt disconnected as the others sang the song poorly or in a different way from how he or she learned it.”

What a positive and resounding endorsement of P&W liturgy this is! The author apparently doesn’t see this as a problem with the form of the liturgy though, but as an issue with the individual and how they feel. The result is a dilemma, elegantly expressed by the author as he concludes his argument:

“This kind of emotional attachment to songs has even made its way into the liturgy. Songs to be used during a specific liturgy are chosen because people like them, not because they draw attention to the present liturgical action. These songs get an emotional response, but not necessarily the type of emotional response we should be aiming for. Is greater immersion into the liturgical action desired, or is the emotional response of familiarity on the part of the congregation desired?"

That is the question! Too bad he doesn’t answer it. The truth is, it can’t be answered without repudiating the purpose of Praise and Worship liturgy, which is to elicit emotional responses and feelings from the participant. A greater immersion into the liturgical action would make worshipping God the object of the liturgy. The author is torn by the realization that P&W liturgy is about US! He wants it to be about worshipping God, but understands that ultimately it is about how we FEEL. He knows that if he answers that we need greater immersion in the liturgical action, he admits to a flaw in the form of the worship itself and would have to propose selecting music that is liturgically centered, abandoning the popular-music based liturgy model. If he answers that the emotional response of familiarity is desired, he admits that the current model disregards the liturgy itself. And so he doesn’t answer.

Besides, this article isn’t about criticizing P&W style worship. Notice that he had no problem definitively answering his questions regarding the Extraordinary Form Mass:

“…is the Father being worshipped by our communion with His son, or is the liturgy being worshipped? We should want to give our best for the Lord. The attention to precision and detail that draws many young Catholics to this Missal can become the focus of the worship. It is a danger that demands great spiritual attention. The form of worship should not be idolized.”

So, in the spirit of the author’s article, I’ll leave it up to you to decide: Is the author actually concerned about the souls of young Catholics being led astray, or is he just expressing a personal prejudice against Traditional liturgy? You decide.

And one more thing; why is he so concerned about young Catholics attending Mass in the Extraordinary Form anyway? Everyone knows that it only appeals to a few breakaway ultra-orthodox groups and there is no interest in it anywhere else… right?

In What I Have Done, And In What I Have Failed To Do….

2008-07-10T14:25:00.000-07:00

Omission can be a serious matter. In reporting news, it can be used to shape the story to fit a particular agenda. It can be used to manipulate public opinion by leaving out things that disagree with a particular agenda being forwarded. We even have sins of omission. Our Confiteor contains a reference to omission when it says “I have sinned….in what I have done and in what I have failed to do”. So it might be said that omission becomes something more than just “editing” when it concerns reporting on matters relating to the liturgy. It becomes the obvious promotion of an agenda, perhaps even an attempt to deceive the intended audience.

Not that I would expect any less from our friends at OCP, particularly when it comes to reporting on recent developments in sacred music in the Catholic Church. Much of what is happening does not bode particularly well for them. It’s with this in mind that I just have to comment on the recent reviews of “New Documents” in the August-November edition of Today’s Liturgy. The subject of the review is the two most recent documents from the USCCB relating to music, the Directory for Music and the Liturgy and Sing To The Lord: Music in Divine Worship. I have been waiting for nearly two years for an OCP response to the first of these documents, and some 6 months now for them to write about the latter.

Mostly, I was anxious to see how they would approach some of the less convenient parts of these documents. The first document, with the suggestion that the number of songs, “if they are to be used widely by the faithful, should be relatively fixed”, would pose particular problems for the publishing industry. Let’s see how they spin this…

“It might be helpful to look at what Liturgiam Authenticam actually states: “If they (liturgical songs) are to be used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the faithful may be avoided”(108). Due to the rich blessing of a large number of talented and prolific composers and the tremendous number of songs available and used throughout the country, it would be difficult, if not completely impossible, to identify any one group of songs used as widely as the document presumes. Our national diversity makes the selection of a common repertoire a practical impossibility.”

Sense the terror and fear in this response? The words used to respond make the agenda clear: rich blessing, large number, prolific, tremendous number, throughout the country…. followed by difficult, completely impossible, as the document presumes, practical impossibility. The message is clear; what Liturgiam Authenticam is asking can’t be done. There are too many songs already being used by too many people in too many places to narrow it down to a stable repertoire. Further, all of these songs are necessary to accommodate the diversity present in the Church, making compliance with LA a “practical impossibility.

OK, never mind that creating such a stable repertoire would all but put OCP out of business, we are supposed to believe that they are acting in the best interest of the Church. But the particulars of the Directory frighten them… it could easily go either way and they have no control over it. They go out of their way on three different places in the review to note that this document requires approval from the Holy See, and as of yet it has not been approved. It is also noted that the document “is likely to undergo changes made by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments”, though it fails to mention that such changes would likely be adverse in their view, and could well include demands for an actual “list” of approved songs as is required by Liturgiam Authenticam. Guess they just left that one out…

The review of Sing To The Lord, however, breaks new ground in the tactical omission of particular items that disagree with your agenda. To read this review, you would think that SttL is just a re-wording of Music in Catholic Worship. I understand that SttL was not the document that it was supposed to be, nor was it all that many had hoped for, but… there is plenty in it to rejoice over, and all in all it sets the ground for the dismantling of the progressive music agenda if it were to be implemented. The reviewer must have missed most of that…

Some highlights of the review: My emphasis and comments

“In Section II (The Church at Prayer) attention is focused on those who have significant roles in the celebration of the liturgy. After mentioning ordained ministers (for 3 pages !) the document stresses (for 1 page) the role of the Gathered Liturgical Assembly, the entire people present at a celebration. Only then does it address ( for 5 ½ pages!) ministers of liturgical music as such, highlighting the various individual ministerial responsibilities. Perhaps this may not seem of great significance, but I do not agree. Sing to The Lord clearly emphasizes that music ministers are servants of the assembly, a concept that is not always understood or appreciated.”

WHAAT!! You have to stretch like Mary Lou Retton to get that out of Section II of this document. To begin with, since when is something mentioned for 3 pages, addressed for 5 ½ pages, but stressed for 1 page? Wouldn’t we ordinarily say that those topics to which more space is given are being stressed? I guess it just wouldn’t do to say that the “role of the Gathered Liturgical Assembly, the entire people present at a celebration” is mentioned, since we all know that that’s what the Mass is all about, right?

And then there is the matter of the music ministers being servants of the assembly.

(Relevant quotes from SttL, please)

Choir members, like all liturgical ministers, should exercise their ministry with evident faith and should participate in the entire liturgical celebration, recognizing that they are servants of the Liturgy and members of the gathered assembly.

The director of music ministries fosters the active participation of the liturgical assembly in singing; coordinates the preparation of music to be sung at various liturgical celebrations; and promotes the ministries of choirs, psalmists, cantors, organists, and all who serve the Liturgy.

Directors are collaborators with bishops, priests, and deacons, who exercise a pastoral ministry based on the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which configures them to Christ the Head and consecrates them for a role that is unique and necessary for the communion of the Church.
----

So…Sing To The Lord does clearly emphasize what the role of the music minister is, and it isn’t to be a servant of the assembly. It is to be a collaborator with the clergy and a servant of the liturgy. I would have to say there is a big difference between the two, and I have a hard time believing that the author simply overlooked this point since he went out of his way to discuss it. This was deliberate. On the topic of omissions, most of what is said in the section concerning the Choir emphasizes the unique role of the Choir separate from the assembly. This section makes note of places where the Choir exercise their unique role such as:

Choirs and ensembles, on the other hand, comprise persons drawn from the community who possess the requisite musical skills and a commitment to the established schedule of rehearsals and Liturgies. Thus, they are able to enrich the celebration by adding musical elements beyond the capabilities of the congregation alone.(SttL 28)

At times, the choir performs its ministry by singing alone. The choir may draw on the treasury of sacred music, singing compositions by composers of various periods and in various musical styles, as well as music that expresses the faith of the various cultures that enrich the Church. Appropriate times where the choir might commonly sing alone include a prelude before Mass, the Entrance chant, the Preparation of the Gifts, during the Communion procession or after the reception of Communion, and the recessional. (SttL 30)

So… what this particular passage is saying is that the Choir can sing any part of the Mass by itself! The assembly does not have to sing everything… it can sit back and listen at times. This is what is meant by Interior Participation… but we’ll get to that in a moment.

The reviewer then turns to Section III of Sing To The Lord (The Music of Catholic Worship). In doing so, he moves unseen over one particular part of Section II, inconveniently titled “Latin in The Liturgy”. This section contains such gems as:

Pastors should ensure “that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin
those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”60 They should be able to sing
these parts of the Mass proper to them, at least according to the simpler melodies

At international and multicultural gatherings of different language groups, it is most
appropriate to celebrate the Liturgy in Latin, “with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful.”61 In addition, “selections of Gregorian chant should be sung” at such gatherings, whenever possible

To facilitate the singing of texts in Latin, the singers should be trained in its correct
pronunciation and understand its meaning. To the greatest extent possible and applicable, singers and choir directors are encouraged to deepen their familiarity with the Latin language.

Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all
ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered.71

When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended.

Geez… for the life of me I can’t figure how he overlooked all of this. Oh well… on to the section on instruments. The reviewer writes:

I find it very insightful that under the second heading, “Instruments”, the first one listed, and by implication the most important, is the human voice.

Yes, it is the first instrument listed. It is discussed for a total of 2 sentences in this context. The next instrument listed is the organ, discussed for slightly more than a full page. No mention of that in the review though….

But it is his statement “and by implication the most important” that I find fascinating. He seems to be saying that since the document lists the Human Voice first under instruments, it is thereby the most important instrument. Hmm… I find it very insightful that under the first heading, “Different Kinds of Music for the Liturgy”, the first one listed is Gregorian Chant, followed by The Composers and Music of Our Day. Did he miss the implications of that section? Or maybe the section on Participation, where the first type of participation listed is Internal Participation…

Even when listening to the various prayers and readings of the Liturgy or to the singing of the
choir, the assembly continues to participate actively as they “unite themselves interiorly to what the ministers or choir sing, so that by listening to them they may raise their minds to God.”

Did the reviewer miss the implication that by being listed first under the heading of participation, that this is perhaps the most important kind of participation? I don’t think he missed it at all. I think he omitted it.

The end of the review draws attention to two other sections that survived from Music in Catholic Worship, the explanation of Progressive Solemnity and the Three-Fold Judgment. These are extolled as “sections that combine to set the context for music that will enable a particular community to express its faith in song in a fitting and meaningful way.” He explains that

“In simple terms, this document reminds us that what is sung and how it is sung makes a very effective and practical means of highlighting the more important liturgical days from those of less solemnity.”

Yes, that would be very simple terms… it also reminds us that the most important music sung during the Mass is the Priest’s Chants and his dialogues with the assembly, followed by the Sanctus, memorial and Amen. After that, the Antiphons and Psalms, refrains and responses such as the Kyrie and Agnus Dei, and lastly, the least important music in the liturgy are the hymns sung by the assembly. Maybe that couldn’t be explained in simple terms. Or maybe he just left it out because it doesn’t fit the idea that the assembly is the most important part of the Mass. That got omitted too.

All in all, this review is transparent. But what would we expect from OCP? Can we honestly expect them to look out for the good of the liturgy? Would they gladly put themselves out of business for the sake of the liturgy? Remember, the reviewer says that the music ministers are servant to the assembly. Incredible. One would think that a review of such an important document would point out all of those things that differ from the current norms. Instead, it talks about those things that are the status quo, and that’s it. All of the rest is omitted.

And one more thing. The reviewer…. The Most Reverend Ronald P. Herzog, Bishop of Alexandria Louisiana. He voted on this document back in November, so don’t even try to say that he doesn’t know what’s in there.

Beating that Horse a Little More...

2008-07-09T10:07:00.000-07:00

I had to remove the original posting here... seems the author of the article (or a friend of the author it seems) is using the "copyright" bit to stop commentary. Oh well...

However, their comment on my combox is NOT copyrighted, so let's see what they had to say:

My emphasis and comments

-----
I fail to understand why music in the Catholic Church must have such a narrow definition (such as...?). Our own God is infinite and yet you are saying there is no room for other forms of expression beyond chant and scholas (I did not say that, nor do I believe that). If you attend liturgies in other places such as South America or Africa, you would find a completely different form of expression (true... however they may well be in error as well. Liturgical abuses are not restricted to the U.S.A). Nowhere does it say that artists must be so constricted in their creativity to worship a God that is far bigger than anyone can imagine.(Umm..Tra le Solicitudini, Musicae Sacrae, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musica Sacra, Liturgiam Authenticam, Sacramentum Caritatis.. as well as numerous writing by our current Holy Father.)

I personally love chant. I've been a member of choirs over the years. I know that the Vatican prefers chant most especially for the liturgy. But we aren't at liturgy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are out in the world most of the time and it's hard sometimes to stay connected to our God with all the distractions the world provides (precisely... so placing our faith within the context of such distraction is the answer?). Popular forms of music are a wonderful way to stay connected to our faith and even feed it and share it with others (I would strongly disagree). It's something you can take with you in your car, your mp3 player, or it can just play in your head. I could go on and on how much my faith life has been fed by contemporary music with lyrics about the Catholic faith. (and it has shaped your faith into a particular form)

I have to say that I personally know the writer of the article you printed on your blog. He works tirelessly and donates so much time to this effort of promoting Catholic (pop) music. He has a very large family and a responsible job at a university and yet finds the time to work with Critical Mass, and work with people such as those involved with the Eucharistic Congress. Critical Mass is an excellent band and has inspired many young people to worship our Lord (but it has inspired them to worship HOW... ?). It is too bad that the committee could not work a little harder to find a place to them to play at the Congress.

You mention why Critical Mass didn't suggest themselves directly as band to perform. If you are offering to help someone promote an event, don't you think it's a little crass to promote your own band in the process? (not at all... most of the bands there would have done so in an instant) It was obvious that Critical Mass was a viable choice and the committee was well aware of their work. I think the committee could have done better by them.

Also, please note that this story was reprinted on your blog without our permission (and has been removed... my apologies). There is a copyright at the bottom of this and all stories that requires that you email the editor for permission to post a story before doing so:

© Copyright 2008 GrapeVine. Permission to copy or reprint this story must be obtained by writing to susan@gvonline.net. Used by permission.

Since the story was already here, I figured I might as well comment on it. (thanks).

----

So there we have it. Yes, of course I understand that this was not intended to be in the context of Mass, although certainly MC Marini's role in organizing the Eucharistic Congress certainly wouldn't rule that OUT! The point I was making, that was sorta sidestepped in this comment, was that there is a disjunct between the message of Catholicism and the medium of Rock Music. I wish I had said it first, but Pope Benedict XVI beat me to the punch in "Liturgy and Church Music". His analysis of why the medium of Rock Music is incompatible not only with Catholic worship, but with the entire message of the Catholic faith should be read by any and all "Catholic Rockers" who truly believe that what they are doing is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The conclusion is that, well, not all spirits that inspire are holy.

If you, the commentor, are reading this, I would urge you to click on the above link and read what he has to say about what you are doing. The problem is, obedience is perhaps the most trying of virtues.

From the Horse's Mouth...

2008-07-09T04:47:00.000-07:00

Sometimes one just has to get information "from the source" as they say...

This from an interview with Dan Schutte at the "Grapevine" blog... I wonder if they actually listened to what he was saying at this point...

My songwriting process can be different for different pieces. Sometimes it begins with a melody. Often it will begin with a single line of text that I use to begin to create a melody. As the music will often run beyond the snippet of text that I have, I then have to fill in the rest of the lyrics. As a piece comes together I will play and sing it many times over looking for places that don’t feel quite right. This is where, I suspect, the creative intuition enters the process in discerning when something is just right or not. I will often have to work at certain places in the music or lyrics until I discover what feels right.

Of course there is nothing unusual about this process of song-writing... it's how all pop music is written! Melody first, lyrics invented to fit the melody. Reminds me of Sir Paul McCartney's tale about how he wrote the ballad "Yesterday"... beginning with the lyrics "scrambled eggs", creating a melody from that, then scrapped those words and put in the word "yesterday", and from that "filled in" the rest of the words. An excellent creative process. For pop music.

However, this is the antithesis of sacred music in which the text has primacy, and the music comes from the text. That is the model provided by Gregorian Chant and Polyphony. That is the model that even contemporary sacred music is to follow. Not that it is a "revelation"... but here we have Mr. Schutte admitting that he does just the opposite.

With this process duplicated over and over again by such "composers" (I prefer songwriter), is it any wonder that texts eventually emerge that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Faith? The point for them is not the words.... it's the melody. A tune. A pretty tune. A singable tune. The words are an afterthought, something to go along with that tune. Who cares what they say, as long as they sound nice.

Thank you Mr. Schutte, et al....

The Pope Speaks (again) about The Organ

2008-07-07T11:51:00.000-07:00

While at Castlegandolfo, The Holy Father addressed a group from Regensburg who had come to visit him. The following comes from the Vatican News Service:

VATICAN CITY, 5 JUL 2008 (VIS) - This morning in Castelgandolfo, the HolyFather received a group of pilgrims from Regensburg, Germany. In brief remarks to them, the Pope recalled the "marvellous day" inSeptember 2006 when he blessed the new organ - the "Benedikt-Orgel" - in the"Alte Kapelle" of Regensburg, of which his brother, Msgr. Georg Ratzinger,was once director.
"I have an indelible memory", said the Holy Father, "of how - in the harmony of that wonderful organ, of the choir conducted by Mr Kohlhaufel, and the luminous beauty of the church - we experienced the joy that comes from God. Not just the 'spark of the Gods' of which Schiller speaks, but truly the flame of the Holy Spirit which brought us to feel in our innermost being what we also know from the Gospel of St. John: that He Himself is joy.And this joy was communicated to us".

Benedict XVI spoke of his contentment "that this organ continues to play and so helps people to perceive something of the splendour of our faith; a splendour ignited by the Holy Spirit Himself. Thus the organ has an evangelising role, in its own way it announces the Gospel".

It always picques my curiosity when the Holy Father makes off-the-cuff comments like this. This reminds me of his comments to the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music last November, when he touched on very much the same thing, the evangelizing power of sacred music. At that time, the suggestion was made by Msgr. Miserachs that a curial office for Sacred Music may be a good idea. Then all went quiet on the topic. Now it re-emerges during Benedict's time away.

Just seems curious.

Wars and Rumors of Wars

2008-07-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

Signs of the endtimes? So we're told, and if that's the case, we may be heading that way. If there is any truth to the rumors that began circulating a few days ago, we're in for the Mother of All Liturgy Wars (MOALW), as it was "leaked" in the Italian Press by a "source close to the Vatican" that there may be an effort originating from the Holy See and the CDWDS to mandate that the consecration formula as well as other sacramental formulae for Baptisms, Confirmation and confession be said in Latin. During Mass. Everywhere in the World. Including the US.

Call me a sceptic, but I think this might not be too well received in some circles. There have also been numerous comments across the blogs that this seems to far "out there" to be anything but a wild rumor. While I agree that it is a bold move, I for one think that this may well be coming our way. Why? Because this is an issue that Benedict has spoken about often in his writings and statements, and it is a move which he has good reason to make at this time.

Consider the convergence of several disparate events: The issue of discussions with the SSPX regarding a return to full communion, the recent re-introduction of communion kneeling received on the tongue at Papal Masses and the One Year anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. Each of these events, decidedly important, would have been considered highly unlikely only a short while ago. They are all tied closely to the issue of a return to tradition. And, they are all connected to issues that arose from the "hermeneutic of rupture" that Benedict has spoken about in relation to the post Vatican II liturgy.

So too for the issue of the Latin language at Mass. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict spoke at length about the importance of the Latin language, not only as a traditional element of liturgy, but as a way of assuring the proper transmission of the faith. And at no point in the Mass is this so important as in the consecration formula. If there were to be a place in the Mass where the use of Latin for this purpose would be of greatest importance, that would be it. And this consideration, the proper transmission of the faith, is strengthened further by the recent squabbling over the translation of "pro multis" in the Eucharistic Prayer. As the ultimate arbiter of things liturgical, perhaps it is time for the Pope to step in and resolve this issue. That may be what is coming. That and the MOALW.

And The Survey Says....

2008-06-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

I was a bit disturbed by this report on the most recent Pew survey, that is until I got to the end....

US Catholics tilt left, Pew survey finds

Washington, Jun. 30, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A newly released study from the Pew Forum shows that many self-described American Catholics ignore Church teachings on both theological and social issues.

In March the Pew Forum released the first findings of an ambitious"religious landscape" survey, showing an important demographic shift within American Catholicism, with with younger Catholics less likely to remain active in the Church, while Hispanic immigrants replace many of the "cradle Catholics" who no longer practice the faith. The Pew survey found widespread dissent from Church teaching and a massive exodus from the Catholic Church, concluding that "roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics."

In its follow-up report, comparing the beliefs and practices of America's major religious groups, the Pew Forum found that 48% of Catholics respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases), while only 18% agree that abortion should always be illegal. A substantial majority of the Catholics polled-- 58%-- said that society should accept homosexuality.

On theological issues, only 16% of American Catholics believe that the Church is the one true means of salvation, the Pew Forum found. (By comparison, 36% of the Evangelical respondents chose that answer.) An overwhelming 79% of the Catholics said that many different faiths could lead to eternal life.

I will interject for a moment here...and so I wondered... how could this be? Are faithful Catholics really this far gone?? Then came the punchline...

The Pew Forum survey did not make a distinction between active and lapsed Catholics. In fact, 48% of the respondents who identified themselves as Catholics said that they attended Mass "a few times a year" or even less frequently.

The Pew survey demonstrated an apparent liberal tilt in the political views of American Catholics. Although 36% of those surveyed described themselves as conservatives, and only 18% as liberals, a slim majority (51%) favored more government programs and 60% supported stronger environment laws. About one-third (33%) of the respondents said that they favored the Republican party, while nearly half (48%) favored the Democrats.

And so.. when the pew survey wants to find out what Catholics think and believe they ask... former Catholics? Were the members of other faiths interviewed "former members" of those groups? I doubt it.

This opens up the age old argument about what IS a Catholic anyway. Can someone who supports abortion, finds no moral objection to homosexuality, does not believe that the Church is the means of salvation and only attends Mass a few times a year (Christmas and Easter I'm guessing) really claim to be Catholic? I doubt that too.

My Three Predictions about Sacred Music: UPDATE

2008-06-30T06:38:00.000-07:00

Last November, before the Bishops composed and voted on the new guidelines, I wrote an article containing three predictions for what would be happening with Sacred Music at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months in the future. At that time I said that I would check back and see how things are turning out....

The prediction for 6 months:

There is going to be a transformation of the discussion/ debate concerning music at Mass within 6 months.
Further still, there is going to be a radical transformation of this issue and how it is discussed. The transformation will become apparent this next week with the Bishop’s vote on Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, although I will qualify that by saying it is not the document itself that will bring about the transformation. Rather, this document is going to serve as a kind of epitaph for the last 40 years of liturgical music, putting a good face on it and speaking lovingly while affirming that it has passed on, paving the way for what will follow. The key feature of this document is that it will affirm that the directives of the Second Vatican Council concerning music need to be clarified, and that future development of music needs to be guided by the principles set forth in the council documents themselves.

Ok... this was certainly the most vague of my three predictions, but remember that it was made before the new music document was made public. Has there been a "transformation"of the discussion about Sacred Music? Consider the following:

November 9th 2007: Msgr. Miserachs hints that there may be a curial office for Sacred Music in the works and that "a pontifical office with authority over sacred music would correct the abuses that have occurred in this area"
December 6th 2007: The USCCB announces the new music document Sing To The Lord: Music in Divine Worship. Although this document is not everything that some would have liked, it is HUGE in terms of political impact on the status quo. With MCW, as vague as it was, there was a sense of "official approval" for the continued movement away from the Church's traditional music in favor of a "people's music" approach. The new guidelines make it difficult to infer such an approval in the future, with prominent statements on the use of Latin language in the liturgy, a statement regarding a minimum repertoire of Gregorian Chant ordinary settings that EVERY assembly should know, extended discussion of Antiphons at Mass and how they should be used, a strong statement about the importance of the presider's chants and the "sung Mass" model being preferred over the current "spoken Mass with hymns". All of these points and others made in SttL refute the general direction of progressive liturgists and in a sense put them in opposition to the official position of the USCCB. The new vision laid out in SttL is, in a sense, a considerable change in direction for liturgical music, albeit one that may take several years to have real impact.
The Masses at D.C Nationals Stadium and St. Patrick's Cathedral. The Pope's visit to the United States in April created an atmosphere in which the usually rarified and esoteric discussions about liturgical music suddely were thrust onto the pages of the New York Times and mainstream news services. Two of the "mega-liturgies", D.C Nationals Stadium and St. Patrick's created an easy comparison, so obvious that even those not normally concerned with liturgical music made note of the differences. The verdict.... Il Papa was not pleased with the music at DC, while he was obviously overjoyed with the Mass at St. Patrick's. Later, the Mass at Yankee Stadium prominently featured beautiful hymnody, Gregorian Chant selections, appropriate psalmody and the unusual occurance of 30, 000 faithful singing the Credo III in Latin together. I doubt such a public Mass would have been possible even two years ago...

So is there a transformation of the discussion about Sacred Music taking place? I think there is, although it is a difficult thing to put a finger on at this point. Consider that the Winter-Spring edition of the OCP Journal Today's Liturgy bore the foreboding title Music in a Time of Change.

...and of course, when OCP says there is change happening we can be assured that it's for real!

The Threefold Judgment Revisited

2008-06-21T12:33:00.000-07:00

During a discussion this past week on the merits and shortcomings of the new music document, Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, the issue of the retained “Three-Fold Judgment” of music for use in the liturgy came up. It is generally considered to be a problematic, if not actually destructive element of the new document. This facet of STTL was held over from Music in Catholic Worship, where it had the effect within the document of permitting virtually ANY style of music which was, at a minimum, at least music. As such, it’s inclusion in STTL might seem to be a sort of “deal breaker” for those who were hoping for a set of guidelines with some direction to them. However, in light of the context in which this document exists, it does not have to be seen in this way, but can instead be seen as an argument in favor of the Church’s traditional music.

The problem with the Three-Fold Judgment as was outlined in MCW was the criteria to be used. In the context of MCW, where active participation was the criteria for all liturgical judgments, one was left evaluating music based on its suitability for group singing, with all other considerations being secondary. This had the effect, maybe unintended, maybe not, of effectively eliminating that very music that was proclaimed as a “great treasure” of the Church, Gregorian Chant. In its place, more simplistic songs modeled on popular songs were judged more suitable because of their supposed suitability for being sung by the assembly. Of course, the reality was that much of this music was more difficult than most of the Gregorian music intended to be sung by the assembly, with the result being that Gregorian Chant was replaced by music that was less suitable liturgically and musically.

Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship maintains the Three-Fold Judgment, but within a new context. In the new document there are significant differences in the criteria laid out for evaluating both the textual content and the musical aspects of liturgical music. At the outset of SttL, the concept of active participation is discussed at length, with greater importance being given to “interior participation” and only secondary consideration given to participation through singing. This is no small difference. The emphasis on interior participation, drawing people into prayer, would tend to favor music of greater depth, and would mitigate against the kind of simplicity and banality too often found in music modeled on popular song models. The “lowest denominator” criteria that was proposed in MCW has been replaced by a description of active participation more in line with that written about in Benedict XVI’s writings, and more in line with that described in Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram. Although the “Three-Fold Judgment” remains, the criteria for judging has changed.

Of course, this assumes a very thorough reading of SttL, as well as some familiarity with Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musicam Sacram and the relevant writings of Pope Benedict XVI. It also assumes a willingness on the part of Pastors and musicians to begin looking at liturgy with a “hermeneutic of continuity” as has been said so often in the writings of Benedict XVI. Happily however, there is a renewed energy towards reform, perhaps enough to encourage and support some serious thought about sacred music.

Some Thoughts on Mutual Enrichment

2008-06-19T08:54:00.000-07:00

The recent statement by His Emminence Cardinal Castillon Hoyos to the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales has caused considerable comment these past few days. On the one hand, his statements bode very well for the traditionalists… that Pope Benedict desires that the Extraordinary Form Mass be offered in every parish is in itself an incredible revelation to be made public by a highly placed official in the Vatican. This alone has given energy and hope to the many who would like to see the Church move towards this type of reform.

What has caused some consternation, on the other hand, is the continued position expressed that there should be mutual enrichment of the two forms of the liturgy. What does this mean exactly? The Cardinal’s exact words in regard to this issue:

This brings me to my third point. You are rightly convinced that the usus antiquior is not a museum piece, but a living expression of Catholic worship. If it is living, we must also expect it to develop. Our Holy Father is also of this conviction. As you know, he chose motu proprio – that is on his own initiative – to alter the text of the prayer pro Iudæis in the Good Friday liturgy. The intention of the prayer was in no way weakened, but a formulation was provided which respected sensitivities.

Likewise, as you also know, Summorum Pontificum has also provided for the Liturgy of the Word to be proclaimed in the vernacular without being first read by the celebrant in Latin. Today’s Pontifical Mass, of course, will have the readings solemnly chanted in Latin, but for less solemn celebrations the Liturgy of the Word may be proclaimed directly in the language of the people. This is already a concrete instance of what our Holy Father wrote in his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

Naturally we will be happy for your input in this important matter. I simply ask you not to be opposed in principle to the necessary adaptation which our Holy Father has called for.

This brings me to another important point. I am aware that the response of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with regard to the observance of Holy Days of obligation has caused a certain amount of disturbance in some circles. It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation and that the Mass of the Ascension should also be celebrated on the following Sunday. This is a sacrifice which I ask you to make with joy as a sign of your unity with the Catholic Church in your country.

Ok…. If we agree that there will need to be some compromise and mutual enrichment for the two forms of the Roman Rite to co-exist in a living worship environment, and that should be agreed upon, then there isn’t much to argue about in the Cardinal’s statement. But where is the mutual in this mutual enrichment?

A popular radio personality has repeatedly noted that in the political arena, when we talk about “reaching across the aisle”, such reaching almost always goes one-way, and that to liberals, compromise consists of the conservative position caving in to the demands of the liberal position. So far, the same can be observed in our situation (N.B- I am not suggesting here that the OF is a “liberal” liturgy and the EF is a “conservative” liturgy, only that the same principle applies as regards compromise).

For instance, in the above passage from the Cardinal’s address he outlines a number of ways in which the Extraordinary Form will need to adopt the practices of the Ordinary Form liturgy, including proclaiming the Liturgy of the Word in the vernacular, accepting the changes to the prayer pro Iudæis in the Good Friday Liturgy, and transferring the Holy Day obligations to the following Sunday when this is the applicable law in the diocese. So far, it’s all going one-way…

What about bringing some aspects of the Extraordinary Form into the Ordinary Form? There are some very obvious and meaningful ways that would not even require any actual changes in the law regarding the Novus Ordo. The issue of ad orientem would be the most logical starting point, followed by perhaps the reception of communion on the tongue. These are both issues that have been in the forefront lately, and it seems that Pope Benedict supports both of these practices becoming the norm in the Novus Ordo. Requiring both of these practices in the OF would be a sign of actual compromise, and meaningful mutual enrichment.

The problem I see is that, while it is mandated that the EF must use the new Good Friday Prayer, and it is mandated that the Holy Day obligation has to be transferred to the following Sunday, it is only suggested (and not even in writing) that ad orientem is permitted in the Novus Ordo, and it is encouraged, but only by example, that communion may be given on the tongue. Why not take the same position with these issues as with the Holy Day obligation issue and just mandate that Mass will be said ad orientem in the Ordinary Form, and mandate that communion will be distributed on the tongue? This would go a long way towards bringing the two forms closer, and would eliminate the confusion about the status of these practices in both forms. If these are only going to be suggested in the Ordinary Form, then it should be only suggested that the new Good Friday Prayer be used, and only encouraged that the Holy Day Obligation be moved to the following Sunday in the Extraordinary Form.

If there are truly going to be two forms of the same rite, then these forms need to be treated equally. Until real mutual enrichment begins to take place, and I do believe that we will begin to see some required changes in the NO, then there will continue to be suspicion among traditionalists that they are being asked to give- give- give, while the NO is allowed to continue unchanged. If allowed to build, such suspicion will only further divide us into separate camps, and discourage any further willingness to “reach across the aisle”…

Greetings to the CMAA Colloquium...

2008-06-16T06:22:00.000-07:00

I just returned to my home in Florida two days ago from the Chant Intensive, and was not able to stay the extra week for the colloquium. My wife and I are already planning to attend next year though. To all of those who are taking part in the colloquium this week, greetings! I am anxiously awaiting to hear some first hand reports on the week's activities from those who are there.

Statement from Cardinal Hoyos

2008-06-16T05:45:00.000-07:00

This from an article in the Telegraph (UK) via WDTPRS:

"Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: “Not many parishes – all parishes. The Holy Father is offering this not only for the few groups who demand it, but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist.”

And from this statement, and others he has made in the past few months, a theory has arisen that there is some sort of TLM "mandate" on the way.

I don't know.... such a thing certainly could be possible, but if so, it isn't being indicated in this statement at least. In this case, Cardinal Hoyos seems to be expressing his view that the TLM will eventually be present in all parishes in the future. How far in the future? It doesn't say. Perhaps he is thinking 20 years.... 50 years... 100 years?

The article in the Telegraph also makes another rather bold statement:

In addition, all seminaries will be required to teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so that they can celebrate it in all parishes. Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite.

Did Cardinal Hoyos say this, or is this some leap of logic being put forward by Damien Thompson who is known for his zeal for the TLM? We will have to wait and see.

Let's assume for a moment that Cardinal Hoyos DID say something to this effect. He has made such statements before, indicating that seminaries will be required to teach the TLM. This DOESN'T mean that every seminarian will have to learn it, but just that the seminary will HAVE to offer it. Still an option. The issue of Catholic congregations receiving instruction is more interesting however. I will try to find the actual article from November of 2006 (I remember it well though) about a committee which would be developing a DVD based instructional program to be distributed to all parishes with the release of the new Missal translation.

Is this the same thing... no, but such a program IS being developed for the Missal translation, and it wouldn't be out of the question to distribute such a "mandatory" catechetical program in parishes for the TLM. It is done quite frequently these days. The Bishops Faith Appeal. Protecting God's Children. If as much effort was put into teaching the faithful about the TLM as is spent educating them on the importance of giving to the Faith Appeal or the need to be vigilant about pedophile janitors, CCD Teachers, choir members and volunteer ushers (oddly, Priests were never mentioned in the program I had to attend), then we would all be wise to buy stock in the company that makes chapel veils.

Again, it's a case of "wait and see".... maybe there is something brewing. We are still waiting for the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum. Maybe it was decided to go in a different direction given the attitude of some Bishops. Maybe the Holy See truly desires that the TLM be present in every parish, gave Bishops the chance to move on it and is now taking the next step. Maybe there is something going on that we don't know about out here in the blogosphere. There are so many possibilities that even an educated guess is one in a million.

What we can do is be thankful for the developments that HAVE taken place, and continue to pray for the Church. Nothing will happen overnight. Then again, we could wake up tomorrow to.... who knows? These are strange times.

An interesting snippett...

2008-06-11T20:59:00.001-07:00

While researching a source for another article, I came across this little bit from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

"Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense."

Depraved forms? Mediocrity? Pretense? Repugnant to faith? Offend true religious sense? Who would create such things to use in the church? Let's all be thankful that our ever vigilant Bishops have removed all such art from the house of God!

Now excuse me while I go find the music for "Table of Plenty" for Mass this weekend....

Can Catholic laity save Sacred Music?

2008-06-11T20:00:00.000-07:00

A few more thoughts that have arisen during the Chant Intensive this week. It has been an inspiring, if not exhausting week so far, and a lot has been accomplished in a short time. However.... something very strange happened on the way to the Chant Intensive.... and whatever it was must have swallowed up ALL of the Priests and Deacons that should be attending this week. Given the importance of Gregorian Music to the liturgy, and the interest in liturgy that has been generated by the events of the past two years, one would think that more Priests and Deacons would be interested in investigating this thing called "Chant" that was skipped over in Seminary.

No such luck though... it looks like the laity are on their own in this struggle, at least for now. Which leads to my question of the day... Can Catholic laity save sacred music? Sacred music has needed saving before. The monestaries were the repository of tradition for centuries, and preserved and developed the chant tradition in it's proper environment... The Divine Office. The liturgical movement of the early 20th century brought chant back into prominence in the Church's liturgy outside the monestary, with help from the top in the form of a certain Motu Proprio from Pius X. The Vatican even went so far as to set up the Pontifical Academy for the study and promotion of Sacred Music, and approved and distributed books and materials, and followed up with additional legislation to support the implementation of this restoration.

Today we have no less daunting a task than did the monestaries of the middle ages, or the liturgical movement of the early 20th century. However, the current task is made all the more daunting by the lack of assistance from the Church. It's almost like the benevolent stranger who tries to help some poor soul who neither appreciates nor wants their help. Not only do you not get thanks, but you actually have to fight them to help them. It seems like something of an uphill battle to restore Sacred Music to a Church that won't get behind the effort. And with the Church silent on this issue, the effort all falls on the laity who are working from a position of weakness.

Can the laity save sacred music? The answer may be "yes", but then the question becomes "how long will we be willing to keep trying". Even the most fanatical advocates will draw the line at some point if their efforts aren't acknowledged and rewarded.

Being Careful Not To Compare

2008-06-09T06:04:00.000-07:00

I awoke this morning in time to get to morning Mass at John Cantius (it's about 20 minutes from Loyola where the chant workshop is going on), not too difficult since my body is still on "Eastern" time, but my clock is on "Central", so everything seems an hour later to me! I caught about the last 10 minutes of the Canons Regular (about 20 of them) saying morning prayer together with antiphonal psalmody. Nice!

It was difficult to not keep thinking of whether it would be possible to get a liturgical program like this going in parishes across the country, and if so, then how? While driving back to campus, I came up with a few thoughts on the subject that, while not the most optimistic, at least lays out the areas that I think need the most work.

To begin with, despite the elaborate and magnificent structure that is St. John Cantius, that's not what's responsible. There are magnificent Churches across the country, many of which do not present the liturgy well. And it is not necessarily that they have made the decision to make use of both Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the liturgy. That too is a part, but again, there are parishes across the country, and increasingly so, that make use of both forms.

No, it was while sitting in the church watching the Canons Regular recite Morning Prayer together that the real reason was made obvious. It begins with a decision by the Priests. Not a decision to try and do what the parishioners want, but to do what the Church requires. Not to try and shape the liturgy according to peoples lives and schedules, but to shape the peoples lives and schedules according to the liturgy.

From this, everything else comes... the beautiful art and architecture (what the Liturgy requires), the beautiful music (what the liturgy requires), the attention to daily prayer and devotions (what the liturgy requires)... it all begins with that decision to SUBMIT to the Church rather than trying to shape it to our convenience, to be like children and do as we are told.

This decision will be a long time coming in many parishes, and until it is made, those who try to bring beautiful art and architecture, beautiful music and adherence to tradions will be fighting the administration every step of the way. It's not really possible to compare one parish with another, or to criticize a parish for not having "gotten on the bandwagon" or "with the program"... in some places it really is not yet possible. That decision hasn't been made.

Pray for Our Priests...

Mass at St. John Cantius

2008-06-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

Being in Chicago on a Sunday morning has it's advantages... Mass at St. John Cantius. I don't really know what to say except to thank God for such a place, and to pray that there shall be more and more places like it.

After Mass (The 12:30PM Tridentine Mass), the thought ocurred to me that the best way to dispel the many, many misconceptions, protestations and criticisms of the "Old Mass" (Priest turning his back, not being able to understand what's going on, no participation from the assembly) is to simply go to Mass. Particularly go to a beautiful and so carefully prepared and executed Mass such as one finds at John Cantius. You would be hard pressed to say you don't understand what's going on... that is entirely clear! The direction that the Priest faces seems not only natural, but is demanded by the action of the Mass. And given the faces of the people in the pews, riveted, yes riveted, to what was taking place before them, and responding when called to, I would dare anyone to say that they were not participating in this sacrifice.

The logic of the liturgy is laid bare before us in the "Old Mass"... tghe role of beauty, the role of silence, the role of the Priest and the role of the faithful are all so obvious, that for a moment, I very uncharitably thought "What were they thinking, God, what were they thinking to change this?" And the reason suddenly became clear why Pope Benedict has taken the path that he has with the liturgy... for the first time in a long time, I felt Catholic, I felt that this is what we are supposed to be. These things we call "tradition" aren't old worn out relics. They are what we are supposed to be.

St. Mary's Kalamazoo Workshop

2008-06-08T06:23:00.000-07:00

What a day! In a small converted gymnasium in Kalamazoo MI, you could find Fr. Rob Johansen ("Thrown Back" blog), Jeffrey Tucker (NLM) and Fr. Z (WDTPRS) and, well, me too (Chironomo's Podium, Authentic Update).... all there for the cause of CHANT! It was truly incredible and encouraging to see so many people, directors, cantors and choir members coming together to learn about Sacred Music. We are moving forward, I am assured of that now. How long it will take depends on us, and on the grace of God.

Just for the record, I am at a Dunkin' Donuts (I am NOT a "Starbuck's fan) across the street from my hotel in downtown Chicago. It looks like I'll be able to go to the 12:30PM Mass at John Cantius, which I am really looking forward to. After all the bad weather here last night (Tornadoes, etc...) the weather is beautiful. It seems to always be the most beautiful after a storm. Maybe that's a sign....

I think I'm about 3/4 of the way there....

2008-06-06T16:14:00.000-07:00

I'm SOMEWHERE in Indiana... right over the river from Louisville KY.... I've been driving for 12 hours, so I'm stopping at the Cracker Barrel for some coffee and dinner... I'm still amazed at how easy it is to find a wireless connection anywhere!

Makin' JaJa...

2008-06-06T07:56:00.001-07:00

Actually, I guess it's spelled Macon, Georgia.... taking a short break and getting a coffee on my 14+ hour trip today to get to Kalamazoo for tomorrow's workshop. At least there's no shortage of good internet connections while driving on the highway now! I've been listening to my chant CD (actually a CD I made of several chant ordinaries I got on the internet... ) and have several whole sets memorized already. It's surprising what you can do when you have a lot of time in a car!!

Off To Kalamazoo

2008-06-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

I'm leaving tomorrow for my 8 day long "Chant Vacation". My first stop will be the Saturday Seminar with Fr.Z and Jeffrey Tucker - At The Lamb's High Feast in Kalamazoo MI. This was an add-on "bonus" seminar for my trip to the Chant Intensive at Loyola University from June 8-13. I'm hoping that both of these events will help me along the way towards a greater use of chant and authentic Sacred Music at Masses in my parish..... eventually!! I have to admit, it's going to take some work, and some time. Please say a prayer for me as I have to drive about 19 hours from home for these events, leaving my wife and family for more than a week.

Benedict makes the point... again!

2008-05-16T07:38:00.000-07:00

It has been revealed that the Vatican is releasing a 4 CD set of Pope Benedict reciting the Rosary... IN LATIN!! From the ZENIT article on this....

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi said requests from the faithful motivated Vatican Radio to release a four-CD set with all 20 mysteries of the rosary led by Benedict XVI in Latin.
Father Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, explained on the radio station that faithful accustomed to praying the rosary with CDs featuring John Paul II wanted the same thing with the German Pontiff.

“During his last years, Pope John Paul II was not able to pray the rosary live, but since there were various recordings, the listeners, the faithful, could use their cassettes of the rosary led by the Pope, thus facilitating their prayer and devotion," Father Lombardi said. "With the new pontificate, there was renewed interest in praying the rosary with the Holy Father.

"Father Lombardi said Benedict XVI decided to record the CDs in Latin because “we have received requests not only from Italy but from places such as Germany and other countries. So we have used this language for the rosary which everyone understands easily and because it is the universal language of the Church.”

What an AMAZING way to introduce the faithful worldwide to the use of Latin in prayer...!! Of particular importance in this release is Benedict's decision to use Latin... because it is the universal language of the Church. Rather than release the CD's in Italian, English, German, etc... (which Benedict could have easily done)... Benedict decided to use Latin because it is universal and easily understood by everyone.

The Holy Father is ending us a message here.... It's time to stop building the Tower of Babel.

Another Thread Unravels

2008-05-16T05:58:00.000-07:00

An interesting article came to light these past few days. An interview with the aging Papal Master of Ceremonies Virgilio Cardinal Noe.... the MC of Paul VI and Pope John Paul II in the Italian paper Petrus. The upshot of the interview was Cardinal Noe's claim that Pope Paul VI's reference to "The Smoke of Satan" so oft quoted was, in fact, referring to the increasing experimentation and innovation taking place in he liturgy.

Noe goes on to explain that such innovation was never envisioned by the Holy Father, and that the "blame" has been wrongly laid on him for the development of the liturgy in that direction:
///
Noe: He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.

Petrus: It is thought that Paul VI was the real culprit as the cause of all the ills of post-Conciliar liturgy. But based on what you have revealed, Eminence, Montini compared the liturgical chaos, even if in a veiled way, actually to something hellish.

Noe: He condemned craving to be in the limelight and the delirium of almighty power that they were following the Council at the liturgical level. Mass is a sacred ceremony, he often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied adequately, respecting the canons, no one is "dominus" [lord] of the Mass. Sadly, in many after Vatican II not many understood him and Paul VI suffered this, considering the phenomenon to be an attack of the Devil.
///

OK... there has been a lot of discussion about this claim, most specifically why he is coming forward with this now. Cardinal Noe, now 86 years old, has nothing to gain from coming forward with this (at least nothing we know about... a future book maybe?) and he makes the point to th interviewer that this is a "scoop" for Petrus. This is something that the Cardinal wants to get out into the news.

Towards the end of the interview, the Cardinal makes another point that may give some clue as to why this statement and why now:
///
Noe: Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous with scorn and sloppiness. Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted. Now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are an example of correctness and dignity.
///

There is a lot packed into this brief statement that can give one pause. The first is the connection of this issue to Pope Benedict and his efforts concerning the liturgy. True, this is an interview with a Cardinal, and it the interview focuses on liturgical issues, but the reference to Pope Benedict is something of a non sequitur in the context. Also strange is the insistence of the Cardinal that something must be done, and in a hurry. This brings us back to the question of why this statement, and why now?

Consider the impact of the Cardinal's statement on the debate (war?) of the past 40 years between what has come to be known as the "Hermeneutic of Rupture" and the "Hermeneutic of Continuity". The "Rupture" camp has, to a great extent, built their argument on the claim that the reforms of the 1970 Missal of Paul VI came about as a result of Pope Paul VI's desire to reform the liturgy in the "Spirit of Vatican II", and they further claim that the reforms that developed in the coming years were, if not specifically promoted by the Holy Father, were at least supported by him. In other words, the reforms that resulted had the approval of the Pope. As such, the argument with the "Continuity" camp has always been one of "Our Pope" versus "Your Pope"... a no-win situation.

Cardinal Noe's statements would indicate that this is not the case at all. Rather, they present a scenario in which the Holy Father Paul VI not only opposed the innovations and experimentation, but saw them as inspired by evil forces. Consider how that affects the argument of the "Rupture" camp.... "Their Pope" believed that the liturgical innovations were the work of Satan. Hmm...so there is a continuity of the Holy See condemning the development of the liturgy since 1970? And the "Father of the Reform" himself saw it as inspired by evil forces? That would mean that the liturgy war of the past 40 years is not a "civil war" between opposing camps within the Church, but is a war between the Church and Satan.

Perhaps this is why Cardinal Noe is somewat insistent that ...now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Clearly Cardinal Noe understands the nature of the conflict, and has made it clear that there are not two legitimate Catholic positons on this issue, but that there is a Catholic position and the position of Satan.

Something for the "Rupture" camp to consider.....

Changing Catholic Music Reqires A Correct Understanding of the Mass

2008-05-12T06:09:00.000-07:00

While enduring this Sunday's "Pageant Mass" (Pentecost/ Mother's Day) and the various activities that took place within the Mass, my thoughts turned briefly to how it would be possible to incorporate actual Sacred Music into such a fiasco. This began me thinking seriously about the relationship between various aspects of the liturgy and how they come together to form a complete entity. My attention was caught by one particular snippet of this week's scripture -

"As a body is one though it has many parts,
and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body,
so also Christ."

How true this is for the Mass... all of the parts; Presider, Lectors, Music, Assembly, Vestments, Decoration... all of these have to come together to form a coherent whole. I've always felt that there is a serious problem when one or more of these parts conflict in style.

Consider a Mass in which the Priest wears beautiful and appropriate vestments, perhaps goes the extra mile and makes use of incense and chants his dialogues with the assembly. Does it really "work" to use Though the Mountains May Fall complete with strummers and drummers as the Processional? How jarring is it to have the chanted "Through Him, with Him and in Him..." followed by the "Amen" from the Mass of Glory? There is a strong sense that something is wrong, particularly when the music conflicts with he attitude and "style" of the Priest.

A good example of this is the "Teen Mass", complete with Evangelical praise songs, song leaders walking throughout the assembly with hand-held microphones and perhaps even the ubiquitous "song projector" screen behind the altar. Although I cringe at the thought, if the Priest processes in clapping his hands to the music, stopping to greet the teens in the pews during the procession, and completes the entrance with a resounding shout of "How's everybody doing tonight... are we ready to meet Jesus?"
then the Presider and the music are on the same page, stylistically speaking. The breakdown occurs when an elderly retired priest has to cover for the "hip" priest at this Mass. I'm sure you can imagine the stylistic train wreck. I don't have to imagine...I've actually seen this happen on more than one occasion, and it isn't pretty.

To make my point here, think of it this way. As long as the Priest presents the Mass as a social event in which we come together to seek and recieve mutual support for a comon cause, whether that cause is social justice, community action, world peace or whatever, the music at Mass will be more like the music at a 1960's Peace Rally than anything else, because that style of music is appropriate to that setting. A Mass in which the attention is focused on what WE are doing has no place for music or prayers directed to God. Music in this setting has to be about us and our cause.

Truly beautiful Sacred Music will only return when the Mass is understood to be about God, not about us. When the Priest leads us in the worship and praise of God through the sacrifice of the Mass, Sacred Music becomes necessary because the music in this setting must be about God and our worship and praise of Him. There is no place for music about US when the Mass is understood to be about God.

The Mass at D.C Nationals Stadium

2008-04-17T12:43:00.000-07:00

By now, the Mass is 4 hours past, and I can't recall any event, save possibly for the release of Summorum Pontificum, that has generated so much comment on the litrgi-blogs. The consensus seems to be that the music was appalling (and that is a serious understatement in my opinion). Besides just being in poor taste, the greater problem is that it contradicts everything that Benedict has written about and proclaimed in terms of liturgical music. As such, this music's appearance at a Papal Mass becomes a sort of political statement about obedience and respect for the Holy Father. Of that, we should be ashamed.

Word is that the USCCB Weblog for the Papal Visit is a sham... the moderators are deleting all negative comments, the result being that there are no comments at this time. That sorta says something, doesn't it? Why would they be unwilling to post the negative comments? I can understand that some of them were no doubt unprintable on a Church-related website, but many were posting the comments they posted on other blogs such as WDTPRS and NLM, and many of the comments were eloquently worded and very respectful, although most certainly critical. It is my hope that this wave of criticism will eventually get back to the Holy See, and more specifically to Msgr. Marini whose office oversees these events.

Frankly, I think we will hear something about this Mass from the Holy Father, either directly or indirectly, in the months to come. I don't think it's possible that he doesn't have a negative opinion about the day's events, and he has a history of making his feelings known in the form of positive action rather than criticism.

One aspect of this that has not been widely looked into is the similarity between the issue of music at mass, and the issue of the Latin Mass. Both are the cause of considerable divisions in the church, and serve to emphasize rather than reduce the divisions between the orthodox and progressives in the church. Benedict chose to resolve the conflict created by the Latin Mass situation by doing what was right...and appealing to our history and tradition to demonstrate why it was the right course of action. I believe it is a strong possibility that he will take a similar course of action regarding liturgical music. Especially after today....

Another Brick In The Wall

2008-02-29T12:41:00.000-08:00

In a bold move today, the Vatican effectively denounced the whole of Feminist Theology within the Catholic Church:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," is not a valid Christian sacrament.

The invalid formula, the Vatican statement points out, arises from feminist ideology, and an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic.

If either formula -- recently initiated in North America to avoid referring to the Trinity with masculine names -- was used, the person is not yet formally a Christian and any subsequent sacraments the person received also are invalid" said Cardinal Urbano Navarrete in a commentary commissioned by the doctrinal congregation. (VIS News release)

Well... there you have it! The "inclusive language" phenomenon has now resulted in the invalid baptism of countless persons. Mind you... these are not merely "non-licit"... they are INVALID, meaning that the persons baptized using this formula or any similar inclusive language or irregular formula must be baptized again, regardless of how long ago or whether they were aware of the invalidity or not.

This is a big deal... these persons, and the numbers could be bewildering, would also have received a)INVALID Eucharist b)INVALID Confirmation c)INVALID Matrimony as all of these Sacraments depend on valid Baptism to be valid Sacraments. The CDF was very specific in the remedy:

"Persons who were baptized or will be baptized in the future with the formulas in question in reality are not baptized," the cardinal wrote. If they are now adults and want to be baptized, they must receive the instruction prescribed for all preparing for baptism and they should receive baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist during the same Mass," he said.

In other words, they must go through the RCIA or RCIC process, depending on age, and recieve all initiation Sacraments together. And all because some people felt that it was demeaning to refer to God as "Father". I guess Jesus was misinformed when he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Let's hear it for Feminism!

Going to the Chant Intensive

2008-02-27T05:38:00.000-08:00

I took the opportunity a few weeks back to register for one of the 17 remaining openings for the Chant Intensive with Scott Turkington this coming June. It looks like quite a rigorous schedule with events from morning until into the night. I've sat on the fence for a while about taking part in one of these training sessions, but finally I have come to realize something. If we are going to undergo an "authentic update" of liturgical music in the Catholic Church, it is people like me who are going to have to lead the way.

While it certainly is important to have supporting legislation and documents from the Holy See, and we continue to pray that such will be the case not too far in the future, the fact is that the music will have to change at the parish level. The recent USCCB document, while rather impotent as far as its actual force of law, takes a new view of liturgical music, renewing interest in the actual Church documents from the Second vatican Council. While it doesn't open the door for the Church's treasures of Sacred Music to come back into the liturgy, it at least unlocks the door. The next move is up to those of us who are in charge of the music in parishes around the country.

Could we use some help? It would be a HUGE help to have some kind of statement, preferably from Rome, about the central role of music in the liturgy. Parish Music Directors need to have a seat at the table, not just an office in the choir room. Also, some kind of descriptive treatise, perhaps in the tradition of Tra le solicitudini, that would lay out some definite parameters for what music is appropriate for use in the liturgy would go a long way towards fighting the use of secular or secularized music at Mass. It may be hoping for too much to see a "ban" on things like guitars and drums at Mass (although it's not out of the question...) given their prominence in the current organization. However, they could well be marginalized if the liturgical style develops in the direction of "chant-based" liturgical music, particularly if unaccompanied singing becomes more prominent.

And so... I'm going to the Chant Intensive in June to brush up on my skills and perhaps get some new ideas to bring to my work. My graduate degree work was heavy on the study of polyphony and conducting, and an appreciable amount of study of chant, although it focused on the historical and musicological aspects. It was more than enough to get me through my AGO exams, but after that I have had little practical use for most of that knowledge. I guess I'm feeling at least hopeful that I might be able to dust off these skills (after more than 20 years...) and actually use them. There is something exciting in that hope.

When Can We Expect The new Missal Translation?

2008-01-24T06:03:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity recently to talk at length with one of the members of the committee that has been given the task of drawing up the Catechetical Program that will proceed the implementation of the new Missal translation. Although I had heard several times before from different sources that such a program was being prepared, this was the first time that I have spoken someone who is actually working on this project. In the course of our discussions , I learned several things about this whole project that were news to me.

To begin with, the Catechetical Program is being planned as an "active" rather than passive program, meaning that it will be in the form of seminars or training sessions, both for Bishops and for Priests, much like the "Protecting God's Children" sessions, or the "Safe Environment" training that was mandated several years back. This program would proceed the implementation date of the new translation by as much as a year.

The committee has asked that the draft and outline for this program be completed by October of 2009 for review. The program is tentatively scheduled to be completed and ready-to-go by October of 2010 to begin Advent of 2010.

If this is correct, and it seems to be a reasonable timeline for the scale of program they're considering, then it would seem that the new Missal translation is foreseen as being implemented Advent of 2011. While that seems like a long time from now, the other news concerning this project (at this point, it is more like rumor... well informed but still rumor) would make it seem as though we might need more time!

There is talk that this Catechetical Program could address liturgical issues in addition to the new translation, such as music at Mass (remember that the new music document stresses the role of the Priest and the central importance of the Priests texts being sung), the homily (recall the scathing criticism in Sacramentum Caritatis and the call for improving the quality of homilies), and the incorporation of Latin in the liturgy (yet another issue from Sacramentum Caritatis). Addressing these issues in such a program would require input from a number of different sources, particularly if music is going to be addressed. Such issues could also be affected considerably by developments between now and 2011.

Also in the course of this discussion, I learned that there is growing anxiety about the status of the "Directory for Music and the Liturgy".... that almost forgotten document that was mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam and sent to Rome for recognitio in November of 2006. That document is something of a cornerstone for Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, the guidelines for liturgical music approved by the Bishops in November of 2007 that replaced Music In Catholic Worship. There has been a lot of talk coming from Rome about liturgical music, and none of it bodes well for the proposals in the Directory for Music and the Liturgy. If that document should be eventually rejected by Rome, it would be back to square one for the guidelines in SttL, which now appears to have been a last-ditch effort to head off more restrictive regulation of music from Rome.

Can Catholics Sing... depends on who you ask!

2008-01-17T12:05:00.000-08:00

This from the latest NPM "survey" about singing in US parishes...

CAN CATHOLICS SING?
Depends on Where You’re Sitting
NPM Newsletter, January 2008

Can Catholics sing? In a recent online survey by the National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NPM), both musicians and non-musicians thought that congregational singing was better in their own community than it is in most U.S. parishes. (this alone should signal that something is amiss... how would the average musician or non-musician know this?)

Directors, organists, cantors, choir members, instrumentalists, and other music ministers, however, rated assembly singing much more positively than did the people in the pews. (leaving open the question... who is right?) Almost three-quarters of the survey respondents were involved in some form of music ministry. (This gives the survey something of a bias, don't you think? But after all, why would a non-musician be reading the NPM Journal...)

A large majority of music ministers – 72 percent – characterized the singing of their congregations as "very strong" or "somewhat strong." Non-musicians had a rather different perception, however. Only 39 percent of this group thought that the singing of the assembly was strong in their parish.

Both groups had negative opinions of the general state of congregational singing in the United States, which received a positive rating from just 39 percent of musicians and 27 percent of non-musicians.

Why do music ministers perceive congregational singing as stronger than do the people in the pews? (Hmm... I wonder??? See comment below...) One explanation could be that in most churches music ministers are a bit removed from the assembly and can more easily hear the corporate sound of the singing assembly while non-musicians are often painfully aware of those immediately around them who are not singing. (this assumes an extremely self-conscious assembly, and a rather un-christian approach to worship)

Another factor could be the poor acoustics in many churches that results from the overuse of sound-absorbing materials. Instead of blending the assembly’s voices, many church buildings actually deaden sound and prevent people in the congregation from sensing the strength of singing.

(But the most likely factor is that Directors and musicians have a vested interest in the continuation of the myth of strong assembly participation at Mass, and so if the people are not singing well, they would have to view themselves as failures in their jobs )

Whatever the reason for the striking difference of opinion or perception, the NPM survey provides food for thought for pastors, musicians, and other pastoral leaders.

_____________

These "surveys" get more ridiculous every year, and each year they come to the same conclusion, that Music Directors will generally represent the singing in their parish much more positively than it actually is.

Here's an idea: If the NPM is truly interested in getting an accurate picture of the current state of liturgical music, which I don't think they are, then do an actual STUDY. Enlist a group of COMPETENT persons who know about liturgical music (Hmm... that shouldn't be too hard to find in the hallways of the NPM main offices, should it?) to be Evaluators and select perhaps 500 parishes of various sizes and locations throughout the country as a "sample". Have the Evaluators attend Sunday Masses at these parishes and rate the singing on a scale of 0-10 based on how many people out of 10 in the assembly are actually attempting to sing. This would be simple enough to do just by counting a random sample of people during the time the singing is going on.

In addition to the location of the parish, data should include the part of the liturgy being sung (Entrance, Gloria, Psalm, Offertory Song, Eucharistic Prayer Responses, Communion Song, Recessional Song) as well as title of song and whether the assembly was using a hardbound hymnal, Missalette or printed "worship aid". Since each one of the 50 Evaluators would be responsible for 10 parishes, It would take about 10 weeks for each to complete a fairly thorough evaluation of the music at their assigned parishes... 20 weeks if each parish was attended on two different Sundays, which would give a more accurate picture still. If the Evaluators were trained properly for this study, they might actually be able to put together some usable information concerning how people sing, and what they will sing better and what they won't sing at all.

The result of this study, if carried out properly, might give us some insight on how contemporary liturgical music holds up versus traditional hymns or how various types of instrumental ensembles fare versus Organ or unaccompanied singing... which is precisely why this study will never be done!

Back After The Holidays

2007-12-11T06:19:00.000-08:00

I'm hoping that there will be some news to report on after the Christmas Holidays. It seems that the next big things coming will be either the clarifications on Summorum Pontificum from Ecclesia Dei, or perhaps some kind of action on Sacred Music, either the acceptance or rejection of the Directory, or perhaps the establishment of the curia office for Sacred Music. Although it always seems as though things are "stalled" from our point of view, I'm sure that there is a lot going on that we'll just have to wait to see.

With Christmas/ Holy Family/Mary Mother of God all taking place within a week of each other, and our annual "Epiphany Concert" on January 6th, it will be a little busy for me at the parish, so I'm not planning on posting anything until after January 6th. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to my 4 or 5 readers out there!