"Musicians in Catholic Worship (III): Bells and Whistles, Guitars and Tambourines"
The final installment of a three-part series by Lucy E. Carroll.
While some liturgists may try to tell us that music becomes sacred by being used for worship, the notion that function (or use) creates form (or meaning) is hardly self-evident. Most musicians, musicologists and music therapists would strongly disagree—not to mention Cardinal Ratzinger, the popes, and Vatican directives! The nature of the thing will determine its use, not vice versa.
So what does this mean?
If it sounds like a Broadway ballad, it belongs on Broadway, not the altar. If it sounds like a “golden oldie”, sing it at home. If it stirs feelings of a non-sacred nature, it does not belong in a sacred place. If sounds like a rock group or a mariachi band, then it may be fine for entertainment at the parish picnic or in the gym, but not at Mass, and not in the temple wherein the Sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented.
If the instruments used to accompany congregational singing do not lead the faithful into fuller participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass, or a deeper sense of the sacred; if instead they entertain us, or bring our hearts and minds into the world—the mundane, secular, and sensual—then how can they be suitable (or “made apt”) for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
58 Responses to “"Musicians in Catholic Worship (III): Bells and Whistles, Guitars and Tambourines"”
Comments (Leave a Comment)
Leave a Comment
Follow CantemusDomino
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
A couple of problems with this piece.
To say that the U.S. isn’t a mission land is almost contradictory to the intent of the writing–it’s as if she says that countries which have no electricity or plumbing should rely upon their own musical traditions because this plays a great part in their religious and social life. For one thing, WHAT ABOUT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE ELECTRICITY WAS DISCOVERED?! Secondly, there is a logical disconnect–it’s an apples and oranges argument. How one society’s musical heritage (important to every society that has music), is not an indicator of how technologically advanced that society is.
Is the U.S. a mission land? To say it’s not because it has plumbing and electricity is tantamount to saying that the spread of the Catholic Gospel is equivalent to technological progress. Which is a lie.
You can BET the U.S. is a mission land. I’ll add to this–within our own mission land comes many different mission groups–separated by race, wealth, and age. Music that appeals to boomers and older are marketedly different from the music appealing to X’ers, which is marketedly different from music appealing to teenagers today. Where is the Gospel incentive to be all things to all people? Not in this piece.
She states that acoustic guitar is not appropriate for congregational singing. I play acoustic guitar–and there are times I cannot hear my own playing because the congregational singing is so loud and boisterous. Just last week I filled in for an organist who couldn’t be there. It was the first time since my attendance there that the parish had heard a guitarist at that time-slot. And the singing was so loud that people could hear it walking in.
Those who doubt the singability of using an acoustic guitar need only attend an interdenominational church service… or listen to a Pete Seeger concert… or sing “Silent Night”–written for guitar. People who equate classical guitar playing (which I too appreciate, but only for entertainment–not for worship) as the only acceptable style simply does not share the wider experience.
I fully believe in music that is “true, beautiful, and good”–the author uses this as a dagger against strumming guitars, equating bad folk guitarists with all rhythm acoustic guitarists. This is a shame, because the argument does not stand against logic. Certainly the cultural music used in countries without plumbing and electricity are indeed true, beautiful and good–pleasing to the ear of the Almighty.
Lastly, I think the point has been stated over and again, but largely goes over the head of folks like Ms. Carroll: bad songs are bad songs–get rid of them. Bad playing of musical instruments–regardless of the instrument–should be eradicated by removing the offending instrument or getting the musician to be better in his artistry. You can have a great song, even a great religious song from the classical era, and not have it appropriate for liturgy, and conversely you can have great liturgical songs from the unlikeliest sources.
P.S. Hey Aris– how’s the “Worship Evangelism” book comin’ along?
Sorry, but anyone who thinks song that is “boisterous” is appropriate to accompany the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, doesn’t know enough about liturgical music to even have a discussion on the topic.
I don’t think that. It’s easy to take one sentence (in this case, one word) out of context and try to discredit someone. Easy and lazy.
If I may explain myself (do I have to?), “boisterous” is not the end all of mass–mass is a prayer, and certainly during Communion you strive for solemnity and reverence.
I like rousing hymns to begin and end the liturgy. That people can sing boisterously during rousing hymns is common knowledge. That you think that what happens at one part of the liturgy is common for the entire liturgy is not only an error on your part, but absolute laziness in terms of engagement of subject matter. No wonder you mask your name with a pseudonym.
Nick
Nick,
I’m about a third of the way through the book. So far, I’ve found passages that I – and my own musical bias – agree wholeheartedly with. I also find a lot of statements that seem very “cult of man”, though I admit I’m perhaps reading in too much.
Mostly, however, it’s a saddening piece in that Christ-centered worship is talked about frequently, and yet the “manifest presence” of God mentioned and yearned for is manifestly present in the Eucharist at Catholic and Orthodox churches. (Not to say that this is absent when the Church prays and sings – Sacrosanctum Concilium 7 acknowledges this and other modes of the Lord’s presence at Holy Mass.)
Subjectivity in the form of personal experience is mentioned in the book. But what happens when one’s subjective experience is found lacking? If one believes in the Real Presence, one walks by faith and not by sight, as the objective reality of Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament serves as the focal point. Otherwise, one parish shops or apostasizes.
Maybe I’m reading the book differently than you. I’ll have a fuller report when I complete it. I’m compelled to write in its margins, with your permission.
Indeed. One of the things that’s interesting about reading the book as a Catholic is trying to determine if certain subjects are worth applying to the liturgy. You nailed it when you talk of the fact that Jesus is so manifestly present in the Eucharist, whereas in many interdenominational churches that pray for God to “Send Your Power” “Let it Rain” “Spirit of the Living God Fall Afresh on Me” and so forth.
And yet… in so many Catholic parishes there is not so much as a barely audible lip-service to even acknowledge God being there. It’s found in the words of much of modern Catholic hymnody where the songs become self-centered and the homilies mention that the utmost important thing is to “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” (ignoring the greatest commandment).
It’s as if we have a brand new car that can go 185 mph, with all the bells and whistles, and we choose to go into the slow lane. The Protestant Interdenominational church has just a used 1968 Volkswagon Beatle, but it’s doing everything in its power to go fast, and by golly it’s passing us. I think we can learn from the Protestants, and they, us.
And zeal, which fuels these Protestant movements of the manifold presence of God, goes a long, long way. Zeal isn’t everything, and zeal without a sturdy foundation is terribly dangerous. But Zeal combined with Authoritative Truth? That’s lighting a match in a gas-filled room. That’s the Kingdom of God.
Nick
One little point:
The purpose of the Mass is not, never has been, can’t be, evangelization. This can be a side-product, and will be if the Mass is prayed well, but if we start thinking first about how to get people in the pews, then we’re turned around. All the company of saints and the heavenly host is at every Mass; the beauty of the Mass is intended to express God’s glory, not primarily to please the ears of the congregation. Thus, one very sensible way of approaching the question of liturgical music is to ask: what best expresses the theology of the Mass? Then, use that music. It might just be that God’s better at filling those pews than even a good “outreach program”, so maybe we should work on pleasing Him first.
Mark…
Your comments, while well taken, reflect the dual nature of the rad trad arguments. On the one hand, there’s a massive outcry against the banal insipid songs that have been forced upon congregations since the 70s, and a return to the “beauty” of the Gregorian chant and traditional hymns. On the other hand, we’re reminded that it’s not about entertaining the audience but picking the music that is most conducive to prayer.
Once it becomes accepted that the enjoyment one has of sacred chant and ancient polyphonies is analagous to one’s enjoyment from being … gasp… _entertained_, then we can see the contradiction.
Of course there’s a whirlwind of difference between being entertained by lyrics that are trite and lyrics… that nobody understands, but let’s not go there.
Now that I have your attention, it is best to state that it is never in my top interest to pick songs solely to evangelize folks. But I recognize that many, many, MANY Catholic mass-attending folks simply are uneducated and undercatechized, and do not have a desire to be saints outside of Sunday morning, 11 am. I’m not trying to be snobbish here–less than 30% even understand the Catholic concept of transubstantiation. Converts notice this.
It’s highly likely that Sunday mass is the only opportunity to evangelize these folks–they’re not going to go to other meetings in mid-week and upset their schedule. So the challenge is how to worship God in the manner that is appropriate for liturgy, but at the same time engage the congregation into what’s going on? I believe it’s possible–and you’re right–true worship of God will have evangelization as a by-product. But it must engage the congregation–something which I found the Tridentine liturgies sorely lacking, for all its old-world splendour. Music should be chosen to best engage the congregation, to best relate to the congregation, and the lyrics must be without reproach–being Biblically and doctrinally sound and challenging.
The book I lent Aris–Worship Evangelism–goes into great detail about this, albeit from a Protestant perspective. No dumbing down here.
Nick
I myself am no fan of “cutting edge” hymns, either with piano or guitar, and I will be the first to argue that the only time at least for me that guitar sounded at place during the mass is when a classical guitar was used. I have had enough of the OCP dreck, and importing concepts from interdenominational services will be no better than importing folk music 30+ years ago.
I will be the first to agree that not everything should use a pipe organ, and in fact, many traditional style hymns can be written usung the synth, even using a sequencer, as long as it is musiclaly faithful to the reverent style that the church demands. Somthing along the lines of chant using Gregorian tones comes to mind. But that said, the music needs to be reverent, faithful and full of substance, not happy face, not fluff, not full of gimmicks.
Another thing about those who advocate “cutting edge” for music, and the need to appeal to the young, is what ever happened to the church being the rock in both theology and liturgy, being a beacon of stabilty in a unstable world? What ever happened to having the youth and other people come to appreciate the great heritage of the rich liturgical tradition of the church, and what ever happened to new composers trying to be faithful to the rich tradition of the church?
A saying I heard a while back is “nothing dulls faster than the cutting edge” and we can see that in the various parishes that were built in the ’70s and ’80s that look far more out of date then the pre-WWII parishes, and we can see that in liturgical music as well. We can see that in other areas of life, as the baseball stadiums that were cutting edge in the ’70s such as Vet Stadium in Philly look out of date, while Wrigley is timeless. As funny as this comparison may be, it may be a time liturgical music takes a hint from baseball has done with its newer ballparks that use dthe template of tradition, yet used the best new technology had to offer. Liturgical musicians and composers should use the great template that composers used in the past, yet attempt to use the best new elements of technology. That is the way to create new classics.
Hi John…
Well, we’re gonna hafta agree to disagree. I think an acoustic guitar, strummed right, with the right songs, goes a lonnnnnng way in being able to reach folks in the pews who would otherwise turn their minds off if they experience something they don’t want to process. I’m all for introducing the past to today’s congregation, and anybody who knows my writing on this board knows that I can’t stand a lot of the me-based lyrical content in “Glory & Praise” and other OCP materials… but the fact remains that what the interdenoms have got right is (1) a strict adherence to the Biblical text (2) in a style that gives justice to the text and (3) in an approach that is engaging to the casual listener. No longer is the person struggling with archaic language and dirgy organ tones–thus automatically closing his head, but is experiencing the true joy of the text at hand, in a way that he can relate and participate, and thus get more out of the liturgy.
And besides, there was a time when people ridiculed the art of “motion pictures” saying it was a fad, comparing it to the artistry of painting. Great art is great art, regardless of the approach. If a baseball stadium looks dated because of a modern look, it was a bad modern look to begin with. I can find no greater example than the moving images of Jesus in Mel Gibson’s upcoming “Passion” movie.
Nick
I will say that Latin to some may be archaic, but it also unites the church, not just globally, but it unites it to the past. That said, I am advocate of Anglican chant as well as Gregorian chant, reverence, as high church Anglicans can prove, is not only said in the Latin language. As for dingy organ tunes, I would say that the tunes in a more classic based hymnal such as Collegeville is hardly dingry. My opinion is that its far easier to write reverent hymns using minor key.
I will say that I do not know what your hymns sound like, they may be indeed quite reverent, but most the of the CCM I have heard, and I have been to a couple of non denomination services before I reverted back to the church, sound sappy.
Again, as for my idea of updating the hymns, yet connecting to tradition, and this is also a very Roman thing to do is again use the traditional template but add new things. If I had the talent, as I mentioned on the previous post, I would love to write hymns usuing the classic vocal style of Gregorian and Anglican chant, and use a synth and sequencer for the music.
You’re getting warmer.
I’ve never advocated throwing out the old hymnody. By all means, the folks were singing really loud to my strumming to “Crown Him with Many Crowns”–sacrilege? By no means. It was reverent, respectful, and joyous. And that is not the only hymn that works on guitar.
I find most hymns in a minor key to be dirgy. Ye Sons and Daughters? The worst Easter hymn ever written. (Jesus is risen!! Has conquered death!! …And the song is sung as if you’re a five-year old avoiding medicine or vegetables because it’s “good” for you. Yuck!)
I have no problem with chant either. But here’s the thing: I find that Praise and Worship songs (and not just any Praise and Worship songs, but the right ones) are absolutely perfect for Communion. How will we know? Those songs which are based on the Communion Antiphon text, based on the Roman Graduale, which is a verse from Sacred Scripture, usually one verse long. They are easy to be sung, from the pew, to the line, to the kneeler, focused entirely upon Jesus (truly present before us), yet tied to the unity of the entire Church.
So there’s a time and a place for everything in the liturgy. (well, not everything… no place for gangsta rap). If done right, it flows, and past and present are intermingled to guide the church to the future. The congregation is not forced to a style that causes them to shut out completely, and they are learning to see the mass is not just for the priests and seminarians who remember their Latin, but for everybody. This is engagement. This is evangelization. This is worship.
Nick
In defense of Mark:
Nick, you said, “Once it becomes accepted that the enjoyment one has of sacred chant and ancient polyphonies is analagous to one’s enjoyment from being … gasp… _entertained_, then we can see the contradiction.”
I disagree. I do not see my own reaction (or the reaction of many people I know) to Gregorian (or Byzantine) chant as being “enjoyment.” When I hear chant, I am not enjoying it in the same sense in which I enjoy music for entertainment. Rather, I am inspired. My thoughts turn toward God. It is music which my mind automatically associates with Mass, and the aural reminder triggers the memory of my other senses. When I hear chant, I think of the smell of incense, the softer lighting of the chapel where I go to Mass, even the taste of the Host on my tongue. Maybe this is because I sing Gregorian chant and medieval and Renaissance polyphony, I am immersed in this music.
The OCP music I sang for the first 17 years of my life doesn’t make me think of the presence of Christ–it makes me think of the music itself and often of secular music that it reminds me of. Even, I am forced to admit, traditional (and traditionally Protestant) hymnody often leaves me cold. (That’s probably because I’ve spent too much time dissecting hymn tunes and harmonies in music theory classes.)
The feelings produced by chant and “ancient” polyphony are decidedly not analogous to entertainment. They are beautiful, yes, but beautiful as an icon is beautiful, not as a photograph is beautiful, if you understand me.
Incidentally, Nick, not all beautiful Renaissance motets are in Latin. Thomas Tallis, for instance, wrote some lovely pieces in very clear English.
Hi Jane!
I agree with you, that if I hear a beautiful choral piece, I’m more than entertained, I’m inspired. But I get the same reaction when I listen to Phil Keaggy (who’s in CCM if you don’t know) jam on his electric guitar to “Shouts of Joy”. And it’s here that the lines get blurred.
Also, I do not defend OCP–please understand me here. What we have in the last thirty years is a number of factors–music becoming more contemporary, words becoming more narcissistic, homilies becoming less on doctrine and more on socio-political-feel-goodie-flim-flam. And while it is very easy to combine all these factors as all having the same root cause and thus the demise of the true intentions of Vatican II, I will not do that. It’s not that modern songs, or even songs accepted by OCP as being the root cause, but all songs that fit that narcissistic theme–OCP’s most popular songs may fit that, but that’s not the fault of OCP (or GIA or WLP or whomever…) but that if the individual choir masters who choose such songs. There are songs (not many, but there are some) that do praise God in reverence and in easy melodies, some of which that transcend me to another place. I find even more of these songs in Protestant circles… but they’ve been encouraged to go in this direction for a while. “Our God Reigns” does that for me, (and apparently Pope John Paul II, if John Michael Talbot is to believed) and that was written by a cradle Catholic.
Nick
Nick, I’ve sung “Our God Reigns.” I’ve heard really good electric guitarists playing religious songs. Maybe I’m the exception, but they don’t inspire me to prayer. And, as much as I love the Holy Father, the fact that he may find a particular song inspiring has little to do with whether it belongs at Mass.
This is where we agree to disagree. A lot of the praise and worship vibe, and some of the CCM stuff, do inspire me to prayer. And (don’t hate me for this) some of the choral-based ancient music that’s sung at a diocesan-approved Tridentine mass doesn’t. A BIG reason for that is that the former invites me to sing, to join along, whereas the latter is for the trained choir only, and I feel subconsciously that it’s the same as entertainment. It’s the musical version of clericalism.
In terms of music congregation sings together, whatever works is great–each congregation is different. I’m an itinerant musician, so I’ve run across many different types of folks, and frankly in many cases I’ve had to drop certain hymns because they were just too complicated for the congregation (I got TONS of weird looks when I went into “The God of Abraham Praise” one time).
Remember about “Our God Reigns”–it’s not so much that it moves me when I sing it, and that even the Pope finds it inspirational–but it is Biblically-based and the lyrics are therefore not shallow. The music complements the sentiment of the lyrics, rousing up with the right doses. If chosen at the right spot in the liturgy, in the right week where that passage in Isaiah is highlighted, it can be truly powerful.
Nick
Actually in Italian and German communities before Vatican II, many parishes had congregational singing, as for the couple of times I have been to a mass that did have a CCM band playing, I didn’t find much participation except for clapping of hands and such, to me that looked quite shallow. The CC of today for the most part, and I know you will disagree, is going to head the way of the folk liturgical music of the ’70s.
As for a communion hymn, all I can say is that is best when a choir sings it in a soft volume, not the congregation. Let the congregation kneel after communion and have some quiet, reflective, prayerful time, rather do what progressive bishops want, and make them stand and sing.
In the end it is NOT about entertainment, and sorry, but the all too often, non denominational/inter-denominational gatherings are about entertainment, and the church has never been about that and will never be about that. If the Catholic church is going to try to compete in the entertainment factor, it will lose, because sorry to say, those looking to be entertained will be looking for more style over substance.
I myself go out of my way to avoid masses that use the OCP and GIA hymnals, and also do not go to masses that use CCM bands, because I do not want to either hear songs that are stuck in ’72 or Hot AC style music that overpowers everything else and denies me the opportunity to pray in reflective silence.
If the only question is, what do *I* think is preayerful, or appropriate to the liturgy, then it’s clear that there will never be an answer, or rather, one person’s answer will be another person’s nightmare. If instead, the question is, is there any indication of what the Church wants us to do with music in the liturgy, then perhaps we can get somewhere. If you think that this question is non-sensical, or that the Church has left this wide open, or that maybe it hasn’t but I’m-not-interested-because-it’s-chant-and Western-European-art-music-and (I’m) (I just know that my parish is not) (non-Europeans are) not interested in that, then all we can do is agree to disagree, and the liturgical music situation will continue to be a free-for-all.
Not that what I like at the liturgy isn’t important, but to think that the Church has nothing to say about what music is to be done for the mass seems strange. After all, it’s the celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit” of the Christian life. Though I am classically trained and my preferences lean that way, I’ve enjoyed the praise style music I’ve been exposed to, but I have to wonder, is it really appropriate for mass? Is the fact that I (and many others) might find it uplifting etc., and it has biblically based lyrics a sufficient criterion for singing it during mass?
Sam is right. The question isn’t, “What do I like?” it’s, “What does the Church say is appropriate?”
The Church says that Gregorian chant is the music best suited to the Latin Rite (we are still Latin Rite, even though it may not actually be in Latin), and the next in order of preference is sacred polyphony (not necessarily ancient, as our Schola did a piece composed in January of 2003 which is definitely sacred polyphony). After those come everything else, including hymnody (hymns are traditionally a feature of the Office rather than the Mass), praise and worship, etc. This isn’t just the music I prefer. This is the music that Holy Mother Church prefers.
“The purpose of the Mass is not, never has been, can’t be, evangelization. This can be a side-product, and will be if the Mass is prayed well, but if we start thinking first about how to get people in the pews, then we’re turned around. All the company of saints and the heavenly host is at every Mass; the beauty of the Mass is intended to express God’s glory”
Well put, excellent.
All else is secondary. desirable, perhaps, but secondary, expendable. LESS IMPORTANT.
And still sorry, Nick (and also apologizing for my pseudonym,
call me “portia” if you need a name,) but there is NO place in Mass where “boisterous” music is appropriate.
NO place.
And priests or musicians who encourage “boisterousness” are failing in their duty.
Maybe it’s a problem with definition –Rough and stormy; violent;
loud, noisy, and lacking in restraint or discipline;
exhibiting tumultuous violence and fury; acting with noisy turbulence; violent; rough; stormy.
Is any of that appropriate at Liturgy?
I think we need to be careful with words, they mean something.
Perhaps you meant something else by it?
I just read a piece in a Catholic newspaper where a pirest criticized those who “think sobriety and solemnity” are virtues at Mass.
HUH!??!!!!!?
D**m straight I think they are.
Hello all
This is a real long post. Sorry. I was away for a few days and now I have a lot of defending to do. Aris, you may want to consider putting this as an article or something. I want to set the record straight. I want to answer every argument leveled against my own.
Please forgive me for the long post. I just didnt have time to write a short one.
In my discussions here, not once have I raised my ire against traditional chant or sacred polyphony. This is indeed the heritage of the mass, and it is important that it be restored. If you live in the United States, good luck. We cannot even apply the metric system.
Im not trying to be facetious as I say that, just honest. If the pope comes down and officially excommunicates every single congregant that prefers Here I Am, Lord to Bachs Mass in B Minor, then there will be a rupture so strong that it will rival of all Protestant denominations put together. (And if I must be clear, I dont even like Here I Am , Lord).
Vatican II has been strong with its wording about Chant and polyphony, but it is equally strong about bringing about a full and active participation in the laity. That means full congregational singing, including Communion. These are not my wordsthis is that of Vatican II. I am at work now, so I am unable to provide the references, but I will happily dig them out for you if you wish.
If a parish can successfully integrate Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony to their music program and still bring about a full and active participation, then by all means, pay no attention to my words. They will sound totally nonsensical to you. And pray for the congregations I serve (as I am an itinerant music minister).
In the United States, that is just not the case. And on the basis of this, the U.S. has become a mission country.
I suppose it angers a lot of people who remembered the liturgies pre-Vatican II to hear this, because they will insist that it wasnt always like this. Chant and Polyphony used to be involved with every single parish. And they will begin to find culprits. Its Vatican IIthe folk massthe lousy architecture of the sixtiesrockthe hippie movementthe suburbanization of Americaheavy metalthe charismatic renewalEminemand Harry Potter. Oh, if only [fill in the grievance] didnt happen, we wouldnt have all this problems in the church today!!
And yet, I go to a Tridentine liturgy, one with a beautifully trained choir that overpowers the congregation, and I cannot externally participate in any matter except for standing, sitting, kneeling, listening to the homily, and receiving Communion. Internally, Im participating as fully as I can muster, but my devotions are so strong they just cant stay inside of me, and theyre frustrated.
It wasnt just me that was unable to participate in singing whatsoever, but nobody else was. Further, when I talk to the I-love-the-folk-mass folk they share how this level of non-participation was very common. No wonder folks would bring out their rosaries and pray them throughout the liturgythey felt itching to want to do something, and couldnt do it.
Now, hear me out. This is in no way a slam on Gregorian Chant or Sacred Polyphony. I think Chant can be integrated in liturgies, by way of the Responsorial Psalm and in the mass parts. I think Polyphony can be integrated in liturgies, as one of the non-participatory songs that VII has deemed acceptable for that time. But you still have to bring about songs that the congregation can fully join in on. To have a liturgy entirely devoid of appropriate-but-participatory songs is against the teachings of Vatican II (as before, references forthcoming). Not all participatory songs are appropriate, agreed. Not all chant/sacred polyphony songs are non-participatory, agreed. But do you ever try?
Now some of you will come out and say that you can fully participate in the liturgy without singing a single noteits all internal. And I would say that I know many, MANY people who have left the Catholic Church because they were stuck in parishes that did just that, and did not make any attempt to engage them, or to explain to them why things were a certain way. And for every educated U.S. Catholic who can perhaps understand the fullness and solemnity of the liturgy and allow for an internal participation, there are at least three or four other clueless ones who will just sit there, wondering why theyre there, feeling the full effects of clericalism (only 30% believe in Transubstantiation). The only saving grace would be the beauty of the ceremony itself, the beauty of the choir (if the parish is fortunate enough to have one), and the Catholic guilt complex that they had to be at mass, but did not know why.
Engagement. Thats the word I use. Engagement does not mean Entertainment. It means looking at your community, finding out their needs, their likes, their issues, and what they do know. And then addressing how to best convey the fullness of your message (in this case, the fullness of the Catholic Gospel) to the congregation at hand.
If you do not know how to engage the congregation, they will leave. Simple as that. Or they will attend, but not know why, and have their mind on something entirely different. Which will then be counter-productive to the mass anyway, because they will not be able to participate with the liturgy with all their hearts, their minds, their souls and their strengths.
If I cannot emphasize this enoughif your parish is doing just fine with integrating chant and sacred polyphonieswonderful, great, pray for us. Many of these parishes are filled by people who are frustrated at the OCP/GIA mass and are thus already in solidarity with the Pope and therefore content with traveling great distances to find such a mass. To you, evangelization means bringing somebody unfamiliar with this context and dunking them full immersion into such a liturgy. And for those who get hooked, praise Godbut some do not.
And perhaps you can search deep within your hearts and know fully that God has called you to such a place, even if it means going a great distance. Wonderful. Please pray for me as I feel called to engage the average Catholic community.
Which brings us back to the initial passage in the VII statement about mission countries and local music. If you have any doubt that the US is a mission country, you are terribly misled.
(This is where it gets interesting). Most of you who find the guitar mass heinous and a CCM mass atrocious and equally participatory need only to list your grievances, and ask yourself, is this a problem with the nature of VII, the priest, of the community at large, the lyrical integrity, and/or the talents of the musician(s)? But you cannot make a blanket one-size-fits-all statementthat makes you guilty of the logical fallacy Guilty by Association.
I will be the first to admit that I have attended guitar masses and have come out less than inspired. Im a convertbut I had much better music in my high church Episcopal upbringing than I do now. And I had far better participation in the Charismatic/Vineyard churches I once attended. The only thing that sustains me sometimes is the very fact that the Catholic Gospel is entirely true, and packs a wild resonance for me even if others around me dont get it.
And then I study the hymns of Catholic songs before Vatican II, and I notice that there is something very different about them and the words of many (but not all) Catholic songs of today. Most of the songs were totally God-centric. All Hail the Power of Jesus Name. Crown Him With Many Crowns. All Creatures of Our God And King. Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee. Christ Jesus Victor! Christ Jesus Ruler!
Were all Catholic songs of yonder past God-centric? No. Excepting the Marian or Saint-specific songswhich I support and just do not address herethere were certainly a few Corporate narcissistic songs in there (The Churchs One Foundation) or even a God-as-congregation song or two (I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say).
Were all great Catholic hymns good? No. My complaints with Ye Sons and Daughters has gone unchallengedeither you all secretly agree with me or you have no idea why I challenge itsuffice it to say, the lyrics are wonderful, but the melody isnt merely solemn its fully depressing. It may be the way Im raised, but I refuse to sing a song of Christs victory on the cross and for all mankind, and sing it as if Hes still in the grave. (For a humorous-but-very-harsh analogy, its like taking the words of your favorite Christian hymn in 10 10 D meter, and singing it to John Carpenters Halloween theme song.)
Conversely, are all songs in OCP/GIA (deep breath) or Glory and Praise badly written? No. (I can feel a major artery rupture out there somewhere). Law of averages. There are a LOT of songs out there, and yet it seems like in most U.S. parishes, the same dozen get beaten to death, hastening their dislike. Conversely, if I was in a traditional mass and they beat the same dozen chants/polyphonies/traditional hymns to death, I too, would be waiting for the day of deliverance).
Suffice it to say, from my knowledge of liturgy and my personal experience, I have built up on my opinions as to which songs would best fit the liturgy. Because they are my opinions a lot of you may immediately ignore this, but your opinions, even if you subjugate such to the entirety of a literal understanding of specific verses of Vatican II (to the dismay against other verses). I accept the official statements that you throw at me, but I complement them with more
statements therein.
I was probably the excpeption here, but in the many charismatic prayer groups before I converted to Catholicism, these groups would sing hymns and praise and worship songs with relative ease together. There was no one-sided push for a song approach over another. (For those who do not believe that such an expression is a legitimate Catholic expression need only to read the document sharing how this was the normative Catholic expression in the first eight centuries). I have to reconcile the vibrance and boisterous singing (for portias benefit, boisterous=energetic, lively, active, and animated according the Microsoft Words thesaurus featurestormy and noisy not one of the optionsnow can we lay this dead horse to rest?) for a Holy Spirit who really did fully affect an entire congregation, vs. the beauty and solemnity (and to an uneducated and unengagedboring) liturgy. And I am altogether convinced that the God-centric verses that were so prevalent in years before VII and so prominent in todays P&W climate is the answer as a way to get the average parishioner excited first about Godto allow them to realize the true majesty of whats occurring right then and there, and to then use that as a bridge to the treasures of the past. That others have written about just this sort of thing corroborates my viewpoint.
That many CCM groups and folk masses have yet to grasp this does not surprise me. So is it possible for a folk/CCM group to do this right? Yep. Throw out the narcissism, throw out the theological flim-flam, the God-as-congregation songs (Here I Am, Lord), and bring in the praise, make sure there are appropriate time-honored Catholic hymns in your repertoire that do just this. Can CCM/folk group do such ancient hymns justice? I believe soits a different temperament than an organ, but whereas an organ can come across as both distant (bad) and majestic (good), it is equally possible that an acoustic guitar can come across as both simplistic (bad) and engaging (good). Do both, diminish the weaknesses, build on each others strengths. Is it possible for a CCM group to convey solemnity? Absolutelythey would have to soften their percussion, unplug the electric guitar, and choose songs which convey the all-encompassing awesomeness of our God, and our complete humility before Him, in lyrics that are culled from Scripture and united with the texts of the Roman Graduale, in melodies that are carefully metered and memorable. Is it possible for all this to be done and not be (gasp) entertaining? Yes, absolutely, but it takes workand Id say the same for established organists and traditional sacred polyphony choirs who can be guilty of the very same thing.
Ive seen it done, folks.
For simplicity, I bring up Our God Reigns (OGR) again. Those of you who keep saying that its not appropriate for liturgy_please speak up and answer why_. Just as you (mistakenly) think that its simply because I like the song as the sole reason to include it as a bad reason, so it is that just because you dont think it is appropriate is an equally bad reason to not include it. I happen to like many songs, but my liking a song or not does not mean it is appropriate for liturgy. My reasons why this song is appropriate, for Communion, on the very week where the passage of Isaiah is referenced in the Communion Antiphon is based on logic. Please note: 1) It is in line with the Roman Gradualethus uniting with the Church. 2) It is Christ-centric (not God-as-congregation, not congregational narcissism). 3) It is easy to singit is certainly easier to sing than some medium to less obscure hymns. 4) the melody encapsulizes the thoughts of the lyricsif I was to hum the melody for somebody who didnt know the lyrics they can figure out what the sentiment of the song is (5) it was written by a Catholic (6) it has not dated and is standing the test of time (7) it can be sung from the pew, to the aisle, to the kneeler, all of which does not distract from the true miracle taking place right then and there (8) It can be sung loud or soft best to sing it soft (9) There are six verses in one version I own, and another book has an additional four verses, so it is not merely a repetitious praise song (10) Vatican II states that the Communion hymn should be sung by all congregantsso best to pick a song where a congregant can enter into the mystery of Communion and not distract from the devotion at that moment. That the Pope thinks its the best new contemporary hymn in English is a bona fide plus.
If you can engage the congregation, you can lead them to the fullness of the Eucharistic Mystery and they will be with you every step of the way. And THEN you can introduce Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony with increasing frequency, until it becomes normalized. That it has not been done this way up to this point is disappointing, but considering that the Catholic Church is under immense attack we should not be surprised. That many prefer to throw it all away is understandable, but ultimately illogical, for it follows the faulty guilty by association argument.
Nick
Nick-
Thanks for your post – you make some excellent points. It is important, as you say, to keep in mind the pastoral aspect of choosing music for the liturgy. Changing suddenly to an all chant and polyphony mass in the typical parish doesn’t make sense and I hope you didn’t take my comments to be endorsing that. However, if we’re both looking forward to the day when chant and polyphony will be “normalized” then – hey – I’m with you. But I don’t think that were anywhere near that and upwards of 90% of what you see is working against this – that’s what I’m griping about. The near-stranglehold of G&P and Haugen-Haas-Joncas is starving us of other worthy music, more in line with the true nature of the liturgy and what the Church wants us to do. It’s keeping us in perpetual adolescence. It’s time to move on.
As for P&W songs, I am not going to excommunicate anyone who thinks they’re okay for mass. And I’ve seen it too, everyone singing and – dare I say it – praying. I just think that there’s better stuff out there, and the the connotations and associations of the music of these songs (apart from their lyrics taken in isolation) are not particularly suited to the mass in that it is too much like the stuff you hear on the radio (kind of like so much Haugen and Haas sounding like a third-rate “Lion King” – not that there’s anything wrong with the Lion King – but you get my point). Again, it’s a matter of thinking – is this the best we can do? – and if not, try, prudently and incrementally, to go where we want to go. I consider it the “best of the worst” or the “worst of the best” – it was the “least unsuccessful stuff” I used to do at a parish I used to work at.
As for “Ye Sons and Daughters” – maybe you’ve only heard it done with long faces and out-of-tune, I don’t know. But to think that every Easter song has to be UPBEAT!, LOUDLY TRIUMPHANT!! and WOW!!! is, in my opinion, a pretty limited sensibility, with all due respect. If you listen to the Easter Gregorian chant introit, for example, it is in a “minor” mode, but it is definitely not dirge; it speaks of a serene joy that is deeper than Fourth of July-style celebration music. We’re never singing of Christ as still being in the tomb, but retelling the story from the Gospel – the first verse says that Christ “from death to life has been restored” and never talks about Christ being dead and gone in the grave. It is a overwhelmingly joyful story (are we reading the same lyrics here?) All victory and trumpets all the time during Easter can be pretty exhausting, I think. One Easter mass I remember we did a big loud piece by John Rutter, three big loud hymns, a big loud piece from Handel’s Messiah and finished off with a big loud “Hallelujah Chorus.” Too much of a big loud thing, in my opinion. As they say, you can’t put on the second coming each and every week.
But I’ve also seen it work with more traditional music. I sang in a parish where we did chant and polyphony, and this where the music director did not have a music degree, where the choir was all volunteeer, and the music budget practically non-existent. But we kept our sights on doing only the best we could find and slowly brought the pastor around to actually making a complimentary remark from time to time. We did not exclude the congregation (carefully chosen opening and closing hymns, simple Gloria, Holy, Acclamations and Agnus Dei incorporating both choir and people) with anthems and motets at Offertory and Communion. I never heard anyone complain that they did not get their quota of participation from that mass (though when we first started we probably did too much chant and heard about from the pastor). At any rate, it’s an alternative that most people don’t even consider.
In the final analysis, the mass is bigger than our participation, bigger than our own parish, our own praying, and so, finally, our music should reflect this. It should not be limited to what we consider good, acceptable or prayerful. The liturgy is not our own, but a gift that is meant to form us – not we it. That’s the sensibility that I see sorely lacking among most liturgists and church musicians (and priests – ever notice the disconnect between the prayers of the liturgy and many homilies, e.g. at the funeral masses? Same disconnect with music and liturgy). I don’t know all the answers on how to translate this into music (the suggestions at the end of “Why Catholkics Can’t Sing” is a good start), but surely we can agree on what not to do.
Thanks for reading such a long and rambling post.
Sam…
“Thanks for reading such a long and rambling post.” LOL! Yours is a TV guide movie synopsis compared to mine. I’m notorious for long posts, and then, I feel I’m coming from a position that’s so easily misunderstood that I feel I have to start over.
There is one thing I need elaborate on… it’s been something that I touched upon in the last post I gave, and didn’t feel I had the opportunity. You touched upon it briefly so I have an open door.
You commented about what you perceived to be the banality in a lot of praise and worship music–despite the fact that the songs do offer praise to God and are Scripturally sound. Forgive me if I’m off the mark, I assume “something that you hear on the radio” applies to this (even tho I’ve yet to hear a hip hop or gangsta rap or boy band P&W song).
Allow me to give a little background. Vatican II says something that I’ve had to wrestle with: firstly, it recommends that the Communion hymn be sung by the entire congregation. As Pope JPII has stated in his Novo Millenio Inuente, Communion is primarily a worship event for the entire congregation, but it is also a way that the community becomes one, thru The One.
So far, so good.
But in another part of VII it heartily recommends what types of songs to be sung during Communion. The most heartily recommended? The Motets from the Roman Graduale–chants in Latin, based on a Scripture verse, which when translated is the Communion Antiphon. Then two other options (which I confess I do not remember), and then the fourth, least-recommended “last resort” song… A church-approved typical Communion hymn.
What do I hear the most of? That “last resort” song, but no guarantee that it was even an approved Communion song anyhow. What have I yet to hear? Any chant from the Roman Graduale (unless it was done at the Tridentine liturgy I had attended, there’s no way I would know). What do I fear if I were to use it? That it would be a solo because it is a chant in Latin–two strikes against it. Further, it is a new chant, based on a different Scripture, every week. That’s over fifty different Latin chants, not including Holy Days of Obligation.
Is there a way for the Roman Graduale to be sung by the average congregant? Perhaps… and this is a long shot, that these chants would be nationwide hits on the pop charts, and that radio would play them endlessly.
But even then there’s no guarantee that the individual would be praying that verse much less understanding it, just singing for the sake of singing it–and getting that cool ancient church Latin vibe (without realizing that Latin was the language everybody understood if they could read, for most of the centuries).
And so am I to assume that the drafters of Vatican II did not communicate or something, or are part of a culture so different that chanting from the Roman Graduale and allowing the congregation to provide full and active participation are not contradictory statements?
I began thinking about the folks who said to me that they got more out of a music-less mass than not. Them folks translated the VII directives at Communion to sing congregational-narcissistic songs, and them folks at a music-less mass were reciting the Communion Antiphon Scripture verse (which in many instances is a praise verse), that unites the congregation to the Church universal.
So… think about it… I’ll give you ten seconds… what type of song out there is generally (1) Scripturally-based, (2) reverent towards Jesus, (3) So simple that a thirty-year old can learn it upon a first listen, (4) engaging enough that they want to sing it?
Why not make the Communion Song a Praise and Worship song based upon the Roman Graduale verse for that day?
And, as for complaints about banality–not an issue. The song is sung, then put away for another year. Next week, another song. All that’s needed is (1) the song be faithful to the verse provided, (2) the song’s tone match the sentiment of that of the verse itself. If the song is easy to sing, and yet not so elaborate that it draws attention to itself but facilitates worship to Jesus, it has fulfilled its mission.
This may be a terrifying concept for those of you who never considered P&W music in a liturgy. For me, this fits the directives of VII–to sing with the universal Church, to facilitate full and active congregational participation amongst the laity, to choose a song that folks can pray along with that does not draw attention to itself, and to bring reverence back to the liturgies. And when you combine all these elements together, and complement them with the chants, the polyphonies, and the established hymns, it’s incredible.
Nick
Quick quick quick…
Point taken about not having every Easter hymn UPBEAT. My originial point is that I prefer that an Easter hymn not be dour and depressing musically, complementing the upbeat and hopeful words. There are many, many, simple and intimate Easter-focussed praise songs that fulfill the task of changing the tone ever so slightly, so one is not PRAISED into submission.
Nick
About the Communion song issue: at our chant Mass, a soloist sings the Communion chant while the Schola receives Communion, and then the whole Schola sings either a polyphonic motet or a chant hymn in English translation. The congregation is encouraged to sing when we do hymns, and they do indeed sing joyfully unto the Lord, even hymns that they have never seen before.
Nick, I take exception to your assertion that P&W is so simple that people can learn it on the first hearing. As someone who does not listen to modern popular music, I find it vastly easier to sing along with a chant hymn than P&W. I just can’t get the rhythms right, and often the melodic movement doesn’t make sense to me. And yes, I have actually had experience with said music. It’s quite popular among my charismatic Catholic friends.
>not once have I raised my ire against traditional chant or sacred polyphony.
>This is indeed the heritage of the mass,
>If you live in the United States, good luck.
>If the pope comes down and officially excommunicates every single congregant that prefers Here I Am, Lord to Bachs Mass in B Minor, then there will be a rupture
Just to be sure, you do know that Bach was Lutheran, don’t you, Nick?
And that it dates from the late baroque era?
Two quickies…
Jane, I recognize there are some P&W songs more complicated than others. I would focus solely on those songs that are the easiest, but not trite. BTW, am I to assume that the chant and/or polyphony is joined in by the congregation at any point during Communion?
Benny, yep. I also know that the Mass in B Minor was commissioned by the Catholic Church. In discussing this in the past with rad trads, this was a choral work that was listed very high.
Nick
” is equally strong about bringing about a full and active participation in the laity. That means full congregational singing, including Communion. These are not my wordsthis is that of Vatican II.”
I would like the reference to which paragraph in which document of the Second Vatican Council says the full congregation is to sing the Communion antiphon form the Roman Graduale (which remains the FIRST option specified by the rubrics for music during Communion.)
There are many documents that came out of the council, when you speak about it as if the council itself were a statement, do you really mean Sacrosanctum Concilium?
I know greater actual participation is called for in the documents, I just was not familiar with the requirement of the assembly singing the Communion antiphon.
Also, are you differentiating between attiva and actuosa?
“If a parish can successfully integrate Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony to their music program and still bring about a full and active participation, then by all means, pay no attention to my words. They will sound totally nonsensical to you. And pray for the congregations I serve (as I am an itinerant music minister).”
I don’t think it is the PARISH that “can [or cannot] successfully integrate chant” I think it is the director of music who is capable or incapable of doing what the Church herself calls for as the MOST suitable music for its liturgies.
The illiterate can sing chant.
Children can sing chant.
People with no vocal range can sing chant.
Anyone who “can’t” hasn’t tried.
It is the director’s job to get the parish singing it, and it is the pastor’s job to get a director that can do the job.
These are the rules for singing during Holy Communion according to the new General Instruction:
87. In the dioceses of the United States of America . . .the Communion chant . . .is sung either BY THE CHOIR ALONE or by the choir or cantor with the people.
Hi…
I do not have the new GIRM on me, but the words are actually the same from both groups.
But here is what it says beforehand… and note the confusion:
56 (i): Singing at Communion. While the priest and people are receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Antiphon is sung. Its purpose is to express the spiritual union of the communicants by the union of their voices, to show forth their joy, and to make it clear that the Communion Procession is a fraternal occasion. …
For the singing at Communion there are several possibilities; the antiphon given in the _Graduale Romanum_ may be used, with or without a psalm; or else the antiphon with a psalm, taken from the Simple Gradual; or any suitable hymn which has the approval of the Bishops’ Confreence. The choir may sing alone (as in a Motet), or the people may sing and be asisted by choir or cantor.
=========================
Now I did not write my mini-thesis to downplay those of you who choose to use the choir alone; but understand the apparent confusion–on the one hand, the purpose of singing at communion is th express the spiritual union of the communicants, but on the other hand, there is an option for the choir to sing only, i.e., the communicants are obligated to not sing and show forth their joy and leave that joy-union of the voices-part to the trained professionals.
Being that I’ve witnessed lively singing firsthand at other denoms before entering into the Catholic faith, I cannot express enough the importance of VII in the importance of singing. In Musicam Sacram, this is reiterated in this statement:
16. One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song. Therefore the active participation of the whole people, which is shown in singin, is to be carefully promoted…
(My negative exprience with the Tridentine liturgy is even addressed here…)
(c) … Some of the people’s song… can be handed over to the choir alone, provided that the people are not excluded from those parts that concern them. But the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing … to the complete exclusion of the people’s participation in the singing, is to be deprecated.
BTW, if this means chant, then great. I find it ironic that Mary shares how anybody can learn chant. I wrote a very long post earlier today that addressed this, and she might have missed it (because it was so darn long). Folks can certainly learn chant, but many do not want to, and thus will not. Latin Chant, in particular, is almost impossible, at least in the circles I’m in. Kids can learn chant, but they (1) are in a mindset and a framework that makes it okay for them to want to learn, (2) while the average middle-aged parishioner does not have such a luxury. And I repeat, I’m all for bringing back chant–but sometimes I feel a well-written praise chorus captures the emotion and the power and an ease of singing and an appropriateness of tone of the very same verse in the Roman Graduale in a manner that chant cannot touch. (In all fairness, the reverse is also true).
The key is to be open to all musical forms, but accept those which bring out the best in the church. I’d like to think of heaven as Gregorian chant, classical music, bluegrass, hip-hop, rap, contemporary rock, ragtime, disco, baroque period, Broadway, reggae, Celtic, and anything else, all sung in unison before God, and all of it blending together seamlessly in perfect harmony. We probably will never witness that here on earth, but in heaven it will most definitely happen. Eye has not seen, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him.
Nick
You “feel a well-written praise chorus captures the emotion and the power and an ease of singing and an appropriateness of tone of the very same verse in the Roman Graduale in a manner that chant cannot touch.” (And yes, I note your acknowledgment that the reverse can also be true.) I’m sorry, Nick. The Church doesn’t agree with you. “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.”–Sacrosanctum Concilium
A well-written praise chorus cannot replace chant as the music proper to the Roman liturgy, and you can’t say that it is better than the chants of the Roman Gradual. (Incidentally, the correct term for this book in English is “Roman Gradual” with no “e” on the end. In Latin, it is “Graduale Romanum.” Please choose one or the other.)
In response to your question about our Schola, the congregation does not sing the Communion chant or join in on the polyphony. They sing chant hymns when we use hymns. The congregation quite competently sings all of the Ordinary chants (the ones that don’t change), including the Credo and Gloria, in Latin. The Schola sings the Propers (Introit, Gradual, etc.), though sometimes the congregation sings the Alleluia.
Hi Jane…
I seem to have this obsessive-compulsive nature to want to answer every question before me. It’s a problem, I know. It’s as bad as my spelling.
You can help me. You can read everything I’ve wrote on this subject, again, and note where I actually addressed this. That way I do not repeat myself on this forum. If you wish to address my logic afterwards, flawed as it is, feel free to do so.
In the meantime, I will check myself in the spelling and grammar clinic for 30 days. I hope to come out a new man.
Peace,
Nick
“Vatican II has been strong with its wording about Chant and polyphony, but it is equally strong about bringing about a full and active participation in the laity. That means full congregational singing, including Communion. These are not my wordsthis is that of Vatican II.”
This is simply not accurate, as far as I know.
There is nothing anywhere authoratative that I have ever read that says there must be singing by the full congregation during communion, either in the documents of VCII or in the current rubrics.
Can you point out something that does?
I would be gald to read it.
There is a lot of current litrugical OPINION that agrees with yours, but that is all it is, personal opinion.
G…
I quoted GIRM 56i above. Please note the first paragraph. Please note how illogical it is if it only refers to the choir and not to the full congregation. Please compare this with Musicum Sacram 16 which I also quoted.
Peace,
Nick
Nick-
Welcome to the obsessive-compulsive club! To address your last issue first, the GIRM at 56i which you quoted is simply confusing. It says that the piece at communion should fulfil the purpose of expressing “the spiritual union of the communicants by the union of their voices, to show forth their joy, and to make it clear that the Communion Procession is a fraternal occasion. … ” and then later says that the piece at communion (presumably the one just referred to)may be sung by the choir alone.
Perhaps the best “solution” to this is to have a simple refrain-type psalm or song during the communion procession itself and then have a piece sung by the choir. The only problem is – I’ve always noticed that at masses where the people sing their hearts out for all the other parts of the mass (e.g. in the Crypt chuech of the National Shrine here in DC), the song at communion, even though it’s singable and familiar to the regulars at least, is a solo with the cantor and organ. Even I like the psalms that they do at this time, but I find it off-putting to sing while wlaking up to communion.
I must have misunderstood the nature of your P&W song at sommunion – didn’t realize it was based so directly on the text on the Roman Gradual. At the Shrine they sing a different one each week, using a chant style with English words. It’s beautiful.
Also, I’m not as convinced as you are that Latin is such a gigantic barrier to people if they’re open to it. I used to go to an all-Spanish mass once a week and very quickly got accustomed to the responses – and I’m no language wiz. Granted that these were texts that were the same each week. But I could sometimes catch on to other texts as well – and after a couple of years of this? Phrases like “Ego sum panis vivus”, “Tu es Petrus” and “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi” used to be second nature to Catholics and could be so again. Another practice I’ve seen is singing the chant in Latin and then singing an English version, as in alternating verses of hymns, or printing it in the worship leaflet. You can see this in today’s Spanish hymns – has anyone you know ever been confused by what “Pan de vida” means?
As for “full and active participation,” be aware that the Latin is not “active” – active as in busy, moving, but “actuoso” – actual, engaged, “present.” So any exterior participation (including singing) has to be ordered to an interior act of worship by those present. Even
among members of the audience at a concert of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, or example, there can be one who is thinking about his stock return or yesterday’s dinner, and another who is listening intently and engaged with the entire experience. Granted, this is too passive a model for participation in the liturgy, but the participation desired by the church is fundamentally and primarily interior – there’s no getting away from that.
So if the music is being done for the sake of getting in as much exterior participation in at the the expense of interior, there’s got to be a re-evaluation. Expecting the people to sing *everything* that is sung, or at least, to take part in every song, is not necessary here. It’s too much, and it’s too busy. Not everyone reads the readings or the gospel, and for good reason. I don’t hear anyone claiming that participation suddenly stops at these points – becasue it doesn’t; it just goes into a different gear.
End of treatise!!
Hiya Sam…
If we are not on the same wavelength, we are very close. I think it’s a wonderful idea to use Latin responses for mass parts–in fact, I have written a bilingual Latin/English “Sanctus” that is just itching to be tried and used. If I had a single parish to push this on week after week, I’m convinced it would take.
But note that I don’t think the Latin responses of the Roman Gradual are going to be sung by the general congregation, ever. They are always changing, and they may be beautiful, but the congregation would not know what the chant means, so they could not apply a full interior contemplation of the text into prayer. However, being that the Shrine sings it in English, I envy you–I wish I could experience that firsthand.
BTW, if such a reverent praise&worship song does not exist based upon the antiphon text, I would write one. Get fifty of these, and you’ve got a whole songbook, that can complement any hymnal/missallette/overhead system that you got. Call it a side project that any other writer can feel obligated to help with.
Lastly, I agree that the interior is just as important as the exterior. I believe that singing the exterior can be a help to the interior–but it truly depends upon the attitude of the individual, the familiarity of the song, and the saturation of the song. For example, if a song is played the first of three times, the congregant is striving to learn the song, or listen to determine if he/she actually likes it or not. The next dozen or so times the person is actually singing it, and within that time he/she may actually grow to interiorly mean the words (esp true if it’s directed to God). But if the song becomes oversaturated, then it is easy to sing the song and have the mind wander. That is why the biggest, most heinous sin amongst Catholic musicians today is their refusal to rotate songs accordingly and thus beating a congregation to death with the same songs, most of which have lost their luster some fifteen years ago. Many priests and music ministers, convinced that an exterior participation is more important than interior participation, forget this.
As a musician, the best I can do to help facilitate an interior participation by interiorly participating myself, and pray that it comes out in my singing, and it rubs off in the congregation. That, and choosing the right songs, in the right rotation.
Good comments!
Nick
If Musican Sacram, paragraph 16 is the only basis you can provide for your assertion that Vatican II asked for full congregational singing during communion, then it seems you are simply misinformed.
Those are not, as you claimed, the words of Vatican II.
They are merely yours words.
The paragraph that you say backs you up is quoted below in its entirety.
Musical settings for several voices can be used, and they may be sung by the schola, which may always sing those parts proper to it, as long as the entire Ordinary or Proper is not given over to them.
“16. One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song. Therefore the active participation of the whole people, which is shown in singing, is to be carefully promoted as follows:
(a) It should first of all include acclamations, responses to the greetings of the priest and ministers and to the prayers of litany form, and also antiphons and psalms, refrains or repeated responses, hymns and canticles.[16]
(b) Through suitable instruction and practices, the people should be gradually led to a fuller — indeed, to a complete — participation in those parts of the singing which pertain to them.
(c) Some of the people’s song, however, especially if the faithful have not yet been sufficiently instructed, or if musical settings for several voices are used, can be handed over to the choir alone, provided that the people are not excluded from those parts that concern them. But the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people’s participation in the singing, is to be deprecated.”
I find much of the discussion on both sides of this issue disingenuous. (IRL, not necessarily on this blog.)
Why should the Council’s off-hand suggestion that the congregation “participate actively” be given any more weight than an apparantly similarly panglossian idea that Gregorian chant be given “pride of place.”
You can’t think its all-important to obey their wishes on one but acceptable to ignore the other, just because one meets with your personal approval and the other doesn’t.
Either you take all of what they said seriously and strive to comply, or you have to stop pretending you’re doing anything more than to trying to put your own personal preferences into practice.
That goes for both sides.
Nick-
Thanks for your comments, I’m always happy to hear when someone isn’t far from “THE TRUTH” (aka my understanding of the liturgy). But seriously, I appreciate the thoughtful comments.
Chuck -
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is clear on the importance of “active participation.” In the document it is highlighted in these terms: “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.” So the emphasis on “active participation” was not an afterthought by any means. But it must be correctly understood, and I think that’s where the problem comes in, not with the notion itself.
I would agree with you that passages such as the above have been misunderstood, or at best, poorly understood, and that this has been pushed to the exclusion of other considerations. Just because active participation is the primary consideration in the revision of the liturgy, doesn’t mean that it is the most important and all-encompassing value that the liturgy is meant to embody (which is what seems to be implied much of the time) – the same document says earlier that the purpose of the liturgy is the glory of God and the edification of the faithful. That means that active participation is a means to an end, not the end in itself. In the meantime points such as the one you bring up about chant have been “conveniently forgotten” when they haven’t been tossed out the window altogether.
We’ll be on out way to a solution here, IMHO, if we read and try to understand the entire document in question; too often the sides you mention go back and forth with
“proof-texts” from V2, neither one offering a holistic and though-out explanation of what the Church really desires. (And BTW please don’t doubt that I love the chant dearly and want it back whole hog in the liturgy. I sang in a schola for two years and loved and profited from every minute.)
Cheers,
Chuck…
Sam encapsulated a lot here which I support. I almost would have left the comments entirely to his care, but I want to address your legitimate complaint with the “two sides” of the debate, in real life.
AFAIK, I do not inhabit either side, but both. The narcissistic we-are-church types think my focus on Biblically-based worshipful lyrics, regardless of the form, as too limited. The rad trads think my inclusion of P&W songs as too modern/banal and analagous to the OCP stranglehold today. I literally represent no voice but my own, and yet I dearly want to see the directives of Vatican II pushed in its entirity.
My comments have focused more on a strategic implementation of such, one of which does more than attract the rad trads from miles around and drives the uneducated Catholic to another parish.
Nick
Nick:
A couple of comments.
1) Please stop dissing Tridentine Masses because of your one experience. Enlarging your one experience of that Rite to a general judgment of the Mass that sustained all of the Church for centuries is less than I would expect from you. Until you have seen more, cease and desist, please!
2) You always seem to stir up lots of controversy, and I think I have an idea of why. I’ve said this before, but I think your problem is with an improper, Evangelical idea of Worship and music. You want people to feel at home at the Mass by making the Mass a “baptized” version of what they already know, lest they abandon the Church. The Church, however, wants people to be at home at the Mass because they have repudiated the World. Followed to their logical end, your motivating idea of a kinder, gentler, more world-friendly Mass is exactly the same idea behind the total lack of teaching from the pulpits: people won’t come if we talk about Hell! People won’t come if we talk about … whatever. The Church’s concept is different. The Mass should make the unconverted uncomfortable. The Faith should make the World uncomfortable, and any attempts to shade or shadow this reality is to betray the Faith, good though your intent may be. Thus, Chant, unworldy, difficult, unpopular to the uninitiated, daunting, whatever. Who cares? Change Chant to, say, ascetism and you get the same list of adjectives. Yet if we are to become one with Christ, we must change: I must change, you must change, the girl wearing the t-shirt to Mass must change, the old man who loves guitar music and soft-as-silk sermons that don’t upset him must change. It’s scandalous, but that’s Christ for you. The goal of the Church isn’t to carve out our little niche, but to conquer the world — to radically alter our culture to the point where Chant is, as it was in, say, the fourteenth century, the common inheritence of every Catholic, a world where Britney Spears would be a nun. We may, in prudence, aim for lesser goals in the interim, but let’s not forget the power of Christ to do wild and unexpected things.
Mark…
Your criticism of me “dissing Tridentine masses” because of one experience is valid. Tell me, how many experiences must I have before I am allowed to criticize them, assuming I will still do so?
Remember–my one concern is that that single directive in GIRM, quoted above, about having common folk sing/chant/polyphonize the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual, along with the choir or choir leader. If there is a Tridentine liturgy that actually encourages an outward as well as inward participation of reverence towards Communion, please help me find one, and I can see how it is done, as well as participate in it fully.
This is not “dissing” the Tridentine liturgy, btw. I accept that Vatican II, directly after encouraging Communion “actuoso” singing, allowed a choir-only option to take place. Note the word “option.” I’m curious to see if the other options are implemented. My points on this post are about finding and applying that other option, as directed by Vatican II. (If it is not applicable, then Communion congregational singing is not an option at all, and Vatican II is self-contradictory… and for the record, I do not believe such).
Secondly, I do not encourage any dilution of the Gospel message whatsoever. There can be no engagement if the person with the message completely cops out. I’m with you here. The integration of such as a bona fide tactic is actually in a subset category in Evangelical circles, led by trailblazer “Willow Creek Community Church.” They allow their Sunday meetings to have tons of entertainment, and homilies which are secularized “how-to” frame-work on a whole series of practical daily-living issues, with no mention of the essential Gospel message (leaving that to the middle of the week). Rest assured, I do not agree with their methodology, and neither does the book “Worship Evangelism”–which criticizes this very movement as being shallow.
You may want to read that real long post I wrote above… the one that starts off by apologizing it’s a real long post. Tell me, where in that essay do I discourage Gregorian Chant?
A little something about myself–for three years I’ve trained with the Catholic Evidence Guild in NYC. I’ve been there in Washington Square Park as passerbys, mostly NYU college students, look upon the CEG team, who struggle week after week in presenting an undiluted Catholic message. However, and I say this with love, I’ve noticed that the issues that the CEG group trained about, mostly from Frank Sheed’s outlines, and the issues that the NYU kids deal with, were two entirely separate entities. With the exception of a very few original talks (like how “The Matrix” compares with Catholic theology), the kids were simply not listening, writing off the CEG group, despite their most earnest intentions.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Even the tough issues, such as contraception and “no salvation outside the Church”, can be spoken of in a manner that is engaging, thought-provoking, and relatable. And funny. And all this, without any dilution of the message.
Jesus did it. Paul did it. You know, apply the general framework of first-century Palestinian and Greek lifestyles and apply it to the Message. They did it without any dilution, altho at times Jesus refrained from sharing the fullness of everything because “they could not bear it now” only to reveal to them later. Tell me, why not follow their examples?
Nick
(who believes he stirs up controversies because he’s right and everybody else is wrong).
Nick:
1) When can you feel authorized to criticise the Tridentine Mass? When you understand it from the inside out — when you can honestly say you understand (which you’re obviously clever enough to) how that Mass, pre-Vatican II (when the Church also did thrive, you know), sustained and inspired and fulfilled the spiritual lives of millions for centuries. It cannot be a bad Mass, and even if it’s not as clearly “actuosa” participatory as the new Rite of the Mass, any Mass that can conquer continents can’t exactly be claimed to have been a failure. In fact, if I could, I’d have you attend naught but the Tridentine Mass for ~2-3 months, so you could settle down and get used to, and maybe appreciate its decidedly different pace and construction.
2) As for making the Gospel message “engaging, thought-provoking, and relatable. And funny.” Yes, by all means. BUT!
THE MASS IS NOT PRIMARILY FOR EVANGELIZATION!!!
The Mass is the “source and summit” of Christian life, for a long, long time open only to the Baptized and orthodox faithful. It is NOT, NOT, NOT the place for relating to outsiders and unbelievers. If they see that it’s different from the World, and beautiful, and strange to them, that’s enough. Outside of the Mass, do whatever you can, by all means. I try to do my best. But that is irrelevant to the appropriate celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!!!!!
3) I never said you “discourage” chant. I know your approach quite well, and don’t think at all that you want to water things down or discourage chant. If I thought you wanted these things, then suggesting that they were the outcome of your approach would be fatuous, since you’d just say, “yeah, that’s right, that’s what I want.” No! I’m trying to convince you that selling out the Mass, even a little, to the vicissitudes of this world is always, ultimately, a mistake, because it leads down the slippery road to what we now have, a banal and vulgar liturgy sans challenging teachings or beauty, most places. And I’m suggesting this because I know that you, as with us all, don’t want that. And I’m trying to convince you that giving up on P&W in the Mass is a part of achieving that goal. That is all for now.
Hi Mark…
First things first. I know that the Mass is not primarily for evangelization. It would give me no greater pleasure than to be at a liturgy where everybody there, including the congregation, the choir, the priests, the altar servers–every single one of us, with the church entire, in awe over the worship before Jesus Himself, transubstantiated, and willingly entering into our own bodies.
That folks cannot get to this place without first being evangelized, you must make best with the moment on hand. Evangelization is like purgatory–it is not the final stage, but a means to that final stage.
You may not like this, and I’m with you, but these post-modern-times make the our society a funny place. Unevangelized Catholics will not likely go to anywhere else to learn about God except to mass, which is the one place, you declare, it is not proper to learn. No wonder there’s so much division in this country!
Also, your convincing on giving up P&W is not taking, mostly because your problems with the dismal liturgies you’ve experienced is not because of P&W, but you’re convinced it is. The dismal liturgies are narcissistic-based. At heart, it goes against the self-sacrficial nature of the meaning of the mass. Nor do I wish to have an entirely focused P&W liturgy–just at Communion, and just those P&W songs that are the verbatim texts of the Roman or Simple Gradual. If you want to convince me, you have to address it at this level. Otherwise, your logic follows a “slipperly slope”–which is faulty by nature.
Can I understand how the pre-Vatican II liturgies sustained common folk for centuries? I believe I can. For centuries, you could not say you learned to read, unless you read and understood Latin. This was assisted, no doubt, by the European languages that were similar enough to Latin that it wasn’t a big stretch. Modern English is very different from the Italian, Spanish, and French languages that often shared roots with that of Latin.
Even so, there were many, many who were ill-educated and did not understand. The readings of the Gospel (annunciated without muffled microphone amplification) and the great artistry in stained-glass windows helped tell the Gospel narrative. Of course, 21st century society has much, much more information available at their fingertips, so much that I am literally foaming at the mouth in waiting for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” movie to be released. The issues that the Church had to tackle during in its first centuries, to the Dark Ages, to the Rennaissance, to Post-Reformation, particularly due to the average peasant’s lack of education have changed substantially, (and yet the average Catholic, including yours truly, feels the need to get out a Latin dictionary most of the time).
There is one last way the Pre-Vatican II mass uplifted millions of souls–Jesus promised that He would never leave His church, and so there you go. It’s His promise. He has been there through thick and thin, raising up great saints in times of great corruption. It’s no different than today.
I’m sure a lot of you will pinpoint something I did not raise–the feeling of awesome holiness you get from listening to a choir, as if it could have been a choir from the twelth century, and you get this feeling that the whole mystery is, well, _timeless_. I appreciate Fr. Fessio’s research in saying that chanting is praying how Jesus would’ve prayed, as Gregorian chant was in itself a revival of the Jewish chanting that existed in Jesus’ time. I accept this, and honor them. If I insist upon going further, integrating modern with the ancient, (but not modern Haas/Haugen/OCP narcissism, but modern-Biblical-engagement) it’s because Jesus Christ is King yesterday, today, and forever. He is not the King of yesterday, period. He is not the King of today, period. He is all encompassing, and all ages must be present at the Banquet Feast.
Even so, I’m still a-hungering to sing praises to my Lord, in communio with my parish and the Church entire, during Communion. Vatican II says it’s possible. And yet nobody has really come forward and said how, feeling content to let the choir do all the singing then. Either you don’t believe those quoted passages in Vatican II, or you do, but you have yet to tell me how it’s done. Speak, thy servant is listening.
Nick
Nick, I already told you–our Schola often sings chant hymns, in English, which the congregation joins in. This is also in compliance with the directive of Vatican II that chant is the music of the liturgy. There you go. Sing to your Lord at Communion, and sing lovely syllabic chant in good English translation.
Hi Jane…
You wrote before: “the congregation does not sing the Communion chant or join in on the polyphony. They sing chant hymns when we use hymns.” That is not what I am asking. I am very aware that there are chant hymns that are very easy for the congregation.
When you say “Sing to your Lord at Communion” do you mean externally or internally? Do you mean with the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual, or do you mean a Communion-based hymn? If you mean internally, how do you reconcile that with the GIRM text ” the Communion Antiphon is sung. Its purpose is to express the spiritual union of the communicants by the union of their voices, to show forth their joy, and to make it clear that the Communion Procession is a fraternal occasion” when it is not their voices that are doing the singing?
Sorry to be so darn stubborn. This has never been answered to my satisfaction.
Nick
No, Nick, that is NOT what he declared, that Mass is the one place it is “not proper for them to learn” — don’t read into things what is not there.
He said only that that is no the primary PURPOSE of Mass, if it happens, great, but it is of secondary importance.
As to the GIRM’s statement that the unity of the communicants’ is to be demonstrated by the unity of their voices, that no more indicates EVERYONE who is receiving MUST sing than it means those who do not receive may NOT sing.
It means it is to be a choral, not a solo sound.
It may be deputized to the schola.
You may not like this, and I’m with you, but these post-modern-times make the our society a funny place. Unevangelized Catholics will not likely go to anywhere else to learn about God except to mass, which is the one place, you declare, it is not proper to learn. No wonder there’s so much division in this country!
Right. So, let me ask some questions:
1) Do you think that the alteration in the liturgy over the last 40 years played any role in the widespread loss of faith among Catholics? I mean the alteration as it really happened, not any question of the legitamacy of the council or anything like that. If so, what aspects of the altered Liturgy would you cite as those destructive to the Faith of the people?
2) You acknowledge that the main role of the Mass shouldn’t be evangelization, but that so long as we must re-evangelize a post-modern world that only knows to try coming to a Mass, then we have to use our one tool — the Mass — for evangelization primarily, even though it’s not supposed to be for evangelization. Is this correct? So:
a) When can we stop using the Mass for this purpose for which it is not, as you have admitted, primarily intended?
b) Does the role of the Church as evangelist supercede its role as sanctifier?
c) Do the changes in the Mass necessary to make it more evangelical also make it less successful in its aim of sanctification of the already-existent believers?
d) Do you have any evidence that a more “seeker-friendly” (to use an Evangelical buzz-word) Mass has brought significantly more people into the Church than any other Mass?
e) If, in the contemporary milieu, the Mass must serve an evangelical goal, should all Masses serve this purpose, or is it adequate for only some to be aimed at the less-converted, with the intention being that these people come into the Church thus, to be “promoted”, if you will, to the more devout / less accessable Mass later? Would it be troubling for old Catholics, long faithful, to avoid the more “demanding” Mass in favor of the more outreach-oriented ones, or do you think this an acceptable realm for personal preference? Ultimately, do you think that the Liturgy should be substantially uniform, or pluriform?
f) You say that the Mass is the only place potential Catholics are likely to come “to learn about God.” You then also claim that, to learn about God, the Mass must be made to be more accomodating of their unformed tastes and preferences. The Faith, however, is not built to be accomodating of the tastes of unconverted men. Now, natuarally, people must be introduced carefully to the Gospel, and it has many positive things to say. Yet is it truth in advertising for the Mass to be easy for the unconverted, when the Faith will be hard for them? Is this really learning about God, or it simply marketing? After all, to enter the Church truly is to hate the World, and if these people only learn about God in the Mass, shouldn’t it then be even more complex and mystical, rather than simplified and directed towards the unconverted, lest they get a totally false impression?
Finally, 3) It seems clear that you believe that a Biblically-based, P&W song for Communion is superior to Chant for the purpose you take the text of the GIRM to state, ie, to encourage singing (since it’s easier), while being equally Biblical. Would you then advocate that all parishes use this approach? That is to say, do you think that people who wish not to sing, and / or not to attend music-based liturgies, should allowed to continue doing so, or does the Church’s clear preference for sung Liturgy preclude this as a viable option? Ultimately, where do the tastes of the people — long faithful people — come into your vision of the liturgy? Should the Mass and its music be set by the Church (who sez: Chant is preferable), by the people (many of whom, born to a unsinging culture in the US say, let us have a short Mass with no music!), or by Nick Kleszczewski, who has found what seems to be a good, non-chant way of getting people to sing biblical verses?
“Praise and Worship” songs, or
Praise and worship” music — is this a term with a precise meaning, or is it just slang of shorthand for any pop-flavored Christian music?
Are, say, “Awesome God” and Amy Grant and the St Louis Used-To-Be-Jesuits all equally in this “Praise and Worship” category?
I don’t think the St. Louis Jesuits would be in that category, but “Awesome God” is. I don’t know anything about Amy Grant.
What do YOU take the term “Praise and Worship music” to mean?
Thanks for any information
I’m sorry, I don’t know that I can give a description, but I can try. It certainly is pop-flavored Christian music, but I think that it’s quite a bit more pop-flavored than the St. Louis Jesuits. Rock-style chords (as opposed to simpler folk-type chords), a steady beat (not necessarily fast), and a melody that probably doesn’t conform to conventional melodic meter.
That’s the best I can do without involving either more technical vocabulary or my personal prejudices.
Thanks, I wouldn’t mind hearing your personal prejudices (if you don’t mind posting them.)
I can’t get anyone who champions “Praise and Worship” music to define it for me, and so far, all I’ve heard of it makes me define it in ways that would be sins against charity.
(Pop-flavored Christian music sounds nicer than lame, pop-flavored crap.)
I’m sure there is good stuff in the genre, but I can’t really explore it since no one who uses the term with any approbation seems to be able to give more than a “I know it when i hear it” definition.
I think I mostly went through my personal prejudices in my first few posts. I think the Mass should be dignified and solemn. You can be joyful and still be dignified and solemn, because being joyful and being happy and “exuberant” are not the same thing. In my admittedly few experiences with it, praise and worship, while fostering participation, didn’t foster reverence. They fostered dancing (please note, dancing inside the church building is prohibited).
Well, since Nick judged his one experience with a Tridentine Mass, I suppose I can share this tidbit:
I guess one of my main personal hang-ups is that, while proponents of praise and worship music claim to be much more welcoming than we who have more traditional tastes in liturgical music, I have not found this to be the case. My classmates and I were chided by a guitar-playing priest at a high-school retreat for not singing “Awesome God” (complete with hand gestures) with sufficient enthusiasm. He said we “weren’t on fire to sing the Lord’s praises.” This was a rather ridiculous statement, considering that we all went to daily Mass willingly on a regular basis, and would have been singing loud and clear (and in harmony) if the song had been “Immaculate Mary” instead. Besides that, most of us had never heard “Awesome God” before. We didn’t like it, and this was our first hearing of it.
I’d heard p+w before that, and I’ve heard it since. All my college friends who really find it helpful for prayer also agree with me that it doesn’t belong at Mass. They all go to a p+w prayer session every Thursday night, which I think is totally the appropriate setting.
I realize I’m quite a bit tardy coming to the “dance” with this series of articles from the Adoremus Bulletin. But I would like to offer my two cents worth in deconstructing some of the author’s contentions for closer examination. I am, of course, referring to Musicians in Catholic Worship – Part I
Banish the Soloists Let the People Sing
by Lucy Carroll.
“While we often don’t find organists, we always find a cantor (in many places now re-labeled “song leader” as if it were a campfire event), usually a loud, untrained soloist. Congregations sit quietly while they are sung at. As a priest friend lamented, “when the cantors came in, the congregation went mute…As with so much that is out of sync in today’s Church, the position of soloist was not advocated by the Second Vatican Council. The word cantor does not even appear in Chapter VI of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document on the liturgy. The choir was re-affirmed as being an integral part of the liturgical team of priest, deacon and reader.
The Council mandated that the choir be an integral part of the liturgy team: “Choirs must be diligently promoted.”
OBSERVATION:The faulty premise is that there was a universal dictum that supposed the people or congregation regular sang at all masses, not just Missa lectas, missa Cantus or Missa Solemnis. This was never the case.
“Like many things in the wake of the Council, the choirs, instead of proliferating, virtually disappeared.”
OBSERVATION:Again the presupposition that choirs were omnipresent in all parishes. The author is not relating an imaginary scenario, she infers that fully functioning choirs existed universally and performed to certain degrees of success.
“Too many of today’s pop-style hymns are now appearing in their true format: solo songs with back-up group accompaniment.”
OBSERVATION: This requires a definition of pop-style, again the presupposition. I would claim that there are many different styles of modern hymns, songs and psalmody.
“accompaniment that has nothing to do with the melody. The part fits in nicely with strummed guitar, drums, etc. The part, however, can not lead a congregation; it is a back-up part for a soloist, the style in pop or commercial music. ”
OBSERVATION:I beg to differ from direct, life-long experience in a number of parishes in different dioceses with different varieties of peoples.
“Here we discover the true nature of the musical accompaniment: it is suited for back-up groups behind crooning solo singers in supper clubs and lounges, and not for congregations at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This further allows the soloist up front to, well, to be a soloist. Slurring and scooping, ornamenting and excessive stylings are common.”
OBSERVATION:This is intellectually dishonest- in my experience there are many parishes and cathedrals wherein both choir, soloists, organists, pianists/keyboardists and guitarists are technically trained and musically intuitive and render different styles with equal measure of good technique and artistry.
“Too often in the responsorial Psalm the cantor, as soloist, sings a complex, song-like extravaganza. This piece may become the centerpiece of the day’s music, a tour-de-force for the soloist; however, the words of the Psalm may not be clearly understood by the congregation.”
OBSERVATION:This is not supported by the predominant forms that most parishes use- the default setting by the publishers chosen composer(s) such as the oft-maligned settings by Owen Alstott (Oregon Catholic Press), or the oft-praised psalteries of Michel Guimont (Gregorian Institute of America.) Many parishes have maintained a constant practice of using the so-called Gelineau graduals, or other psalm tones. And there are a growing number of parishes using the tones set in English in the exemplary BY FLOWING WATERS graduale of Dr. Paul Ford. Again, the author does not cite these obvious practices most likely as they dont support her underlying agenda of dismissing objectional musics and thereby the singers performing them.
“At that aforementioned funeral Mass, the music of the responsorial Psalm (to a paraphrased text) sounded like a waltz from a romantic movie. I felt like getting up and dancing around to the strong 3/4 meter. ”
OBSERVATION: I would suggest that this, though there likely is much substance in this account that rings true, is nonetheless an account tailored by taste and probably bias.
“Visit a Protestant congregation that holds a traditional service, and you will search in vain for a cantor. The organist and choir lead the singing, and most of these congregations can put our own to shame when it comes to congregational singing! Many Protestant churches have multiple choirs: children’s choirs, teen choirs, traditional choirs, bell choirs, but always a choir.”
OBSERVATION: The author really needs to get out more if she truly believes this is the predominant modality of contemporary Protestant musical worship. In reality, the reformed and evangelical denominations have junked the above traditions in favor of something infinitely more insidious than the Catholic cantor, that is the Praise Team modality. There are more swing bands, rock bands, alternative bands and such at these churches, megachurches or storefronts than there are choirs with organs and bells.
“If the goal of music at Mass were to have a soloist or an entertainment group, we have succeeded rather well.”
OBSERVATION:This is a derogatory, inflammatory, unnecessary and ultimately not universally true judgment.
“Part of the problem stems from the fact that music in Catholic parishes is seldom in the hands of well-trained liturgical musicians. ”
OBSERVATION: Part of the problem? It is the single largest factor of the problem. And ironically, it is the same problem that has plagued the Church before the second council and after. Blame the amateurs, blame the egotists, blame the local priests, blame the illiterate committees, but dont blame the bishops for their failure to lead, mandate and support liturgical and musical formation.
“I know of several places where the sacristan turns down the volume of the cantor’s microphone once the hymn or Psalm has begun (another possibility when the cantor seems to have delusions of solo stardom!) Or the organist can simply introduce the piece, thus allowing the congregation to sing and the liturgy to proceed gracefully, uninterrupted.
So, let us have soloists only for appropriate occasions when soloists are true soloists — not during the parts of the sung liturgy that belong to the people and the choir.”
OBSERVATION:Couldnt the author have more effectively paraphrased the GIA button she quoted above to get her point across? Where there is no choir and less-than confident accompaniment, singer: step away from the microphone! A great deal of the authors contentions and historical accounts are valid and worthy of mass distribution. But there is disingenuous bias attached to much of the article content.
“It has a familiar ring”
What has a “familiar ring” that isn’t astonishing is that folks like yourself always resort to personal affronts and pre-conceived, pre-packaged “I don’t wanna read that or hear that, la la la la lahhh” responses rather than engage in the dialogue; and then to hide behind your pathetic nom-de-plume. Hey, my link is there, my name is Charles, so who are you?
I’m glad you at least got the premise: the fact that everyone’s perspective differs; and in that we can find value.
It’s just that some folks are extremely intolerant of that fact, and don’t want to deal with it. Go ahead, “familiar ring,” enter the dialogue.
P.S. Just a brief look back at my post “size-wise” indicates that my observations were more concise than the excerpts of Dr. Carroll’s chosen for comment. But diarrhea’s diarrhea to another whose effluence doesn’t stink, right?
I regret expressing frustration at the “voice” characterizing my initial posting. Here are my two “agendas” when talking music for worship:
1. Exercize “genuine tolerance” (according to George Weigel) which means “exploring and engaging differences….within a bond of profound respect-a respect for all those whose very humanity compels themto search for answers to the deepest questions….”
2. Don’t just criticize: offer workshops, mentor young musicians in “your ways,” don’t hole up in front of either your organ keyboard or your PC/ laptop keyboard- go into your parochial schools, contact people in your Relgious Ed. programs. Give them, in charity, the benefit of your knowledge, your opinions, our traditions as you see fit.
Again, I regret expressing intolerance myself.