"Follow-up: 1967′s ‘Musicam Sacram’"
Father Peter Schineller, S.J. comments on Zenit’s earlier piece on “Musicam Sacram” (scroll halfway down to view his comments).
- We are primarily not to sing at or during the Mass, but SING THE MASS—that is, sing the important parts of the Mass in response to the priest. This means that the priority in singing should be the four Acclamations (Alleluia; Holy, Holy, Holy; Acclamation of Faith; and the Great Amen). If there is any singing, these are the first and most important before [the] entrance hymn or Communion hymns (cf. Nos. 7,16,29).
- A main focus of the choir is to lead and stir up the voices of all in the congregation. It is not to replace the congregation, not to perform. The choir should be evaluated, not by how well the choir sings, but by how well, how actively, the entire congregation sings (cf. No. 19).
- For both of these wishes of the document to be implemented, the burden lies on the priest to lead and to instruct his choir and parishioners. If the priest does not chant the important parts, the people will not sing them (cf. Nos. 13,14,26).” (emphasis added here)
Fr. Edward McNamara adds:
The priest is the first who has to lose his fear of singing, including his fear of appearing ridiculous. Once begun he will find that singing the prayers and greetings not only adds a touch of solemnity but also frees him from the temptation of having to act or stress the prayers in order to put feeling or meaning into them.
To steer the conversation of the last post: why not forget about raising money for an organ or piano fund, and donate singing lessons to the priests? Or have those priests who can sing try to coach their less accomplished brethren? If what is above is true, and based on the documents and common sense it seems so, shouldn’t that be where the efforts go?
[Via Rex Olandi Rex Cledendi.]
6 Responses to “"Follow-up: 1967′s ‘Musicam Sacram’"”
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}
“The choir should be evaluated, not by how well the choir sings, but by how well, how actively, the entire congregation sings.”
This claim doesn’t reflect the content of text in the citation, which says nothing about judging choirs based on whether, to what extent, and with what level of expertise, people choose to sing along with the choir. By this standard, tradition cannot compete with the Top 40. This standard would turn every liturgy into a kind of Gong Show in which the most prayerful in the congregation would be inadvertantly responsible for tossing out the most inspiring and beautiful choirs.
I liked the good Jesuit’s comments.
I’ll highlight one problem he identified that I have too often encountered with choir’s (including the otherwise excellent choirs at St. Paul’s in Cambridge, MA):
“Provision should be made for the people to have a copy and translation of the texts being sung so as to heighten the spiritual efficacy of the musical interpretation.”
Too, too often, this is not done. It is really quite inexcusable.
From my musicology student days, I remember that in a number of non-Western traditions, chant is not classified as “music” but “prayer”. In our culture, we have the idea that singing = performing, and that whether Father X is a “good singer” has any bearing on the efficacy of his prayer.
For an imperfect analogue, some brilliant college professors are terrible teachers. Does that make their ideas an sich any less fascinating or compelling?
I think that the Sacrifice of the Mass is compelling at whatever “level” it is sung.
Hugh makes a good point. The importance is not in the quality of singing, but in the act of singing itself. I knew of one priest, who was among the worst singers I ever heard – he scarcely had any ear at all for pitch – but he never gave up, because he knew it was his duty. On the other hand, he was also one of the holiest priests I ever knew, and the intensity of his prayer more than made up for his evident deficiency.
“The choir should be evaluated, not by how well the choir sings, but by how well, how actively, the entire congregation sings.”
Utter nonsense.
If you want to judge the choir on how well the assembly does anything, it should be on how well the congregation PRAYS.
“The choir should be evaluated, not by how well the choir sings, but by how well, how actively, the entire congregation sings.”
Imagine if it were “the priest should be evaluated, not by the skill of his preaching, but by how well, how actively, the entire congregation practices the Catholic faith.”