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

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

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

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

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?

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!

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?

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!