The Recovering Choir Director

What is “the index of prohibited works”?

I mean, I understand the meaning of the words, but is the claim that there was/is some official list of forbidden music the way there was an official list of forbidden books?
And if so, where can I find an authoritative reference to this?
Thank you very much in advance.

>In the United States, the Society of St.
>Gregory had a “white list” of approved
>music and a “black list” of forbidden music.

But had that any official standing?

Did the Church herself, or any official organ of the Church promulgate said list?

Or was it more like Fr. Keyes trying to put his foot down about Hail Mary Gentle Woman, or my priest “forbidding” They’ll Know We Ar Christians By Our Love By our Love,, or our last priest’s saying “No Latin, EVER!”?

“But had that any official standing?”

Only to the extent that it put Pius X’s “Motu proprio” in concrete terms. One couldn’t say that it was absolutely official but it carried a lot of weight.

I guess that was why I was questioning the original statement.
“[The Catholic Church] proscribed the musicians, including Mozart, whose religious music it put on the index of prohibited works”

I bridel a bit when I hear about people who left the Church because “the Church treated me badly” when what they mean is a particular nun or priest treated them badly, or ” I can’t agree with the Church because it teaches….” when the teaching was really that of some individual who unauthoratatively interpreted what HE understood Church teaching to be.

A friend sent me the series.

It is full of inaccuracies and frankly is quite unfriendly to the Church.

For example, the author quotes Peter Wagner to show that the Solesmes editions of Chant were ’simply [opinion] of [Solesmes.] Maybe—Wagner’s objection was principally to the ‘rhythm’ markings of Solesmes, rather than to the melodic reconstrucion (which is why the Vatican edition of Chant does NOT have such markings.)

Further, he completely misunderstands the theo-philosophical underpinnings of Ratzinger’s writings on musica sacra–and his misunderstanding betrays a lack of familiarity with the New Testament.

Finally, his allusions to the Inquisition demonstrate that he’s working from the Protestant script, not from genuine historical research.

All in all, the series has a few interesting little gems but should be read VERY cautiously.

Oh, “hostility” came to mind. Read betweeen my lines when I stated that the author was “unfamiliar with the New Testament.”

Another thing: only a blithering IDIOT would proclaim Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis” as the finest of all Masses [composed for use during Mass.]

I’ve sung that monster. Yes, it’s wonderful art, great music, great text illumination. But sing it during Mass? Get serious.

In short, the author has an axe to grind with Benedict XVI. He doesn’t WANT the Church to get friendly with the Jewish people–for whatever reason.

I would like to thank you, AAE, for introducing me to the writings of Spengler. Obviously, the writer is using a pseudonym, and just as obviously, he is modeling his subject matter, if not his writing style, after Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West.

Spengler’s writing is beautiful in style, with a mastery of the epigram comparable to Montaigne, the late Eric Hoffer, or his eponym, Oswald Spengler.

While I may disagree with a number of Spengler’s conclusions, the way that he gets to them is marvellous to behold. He is by no means conclusory, which is more than I can say as regards most of those critical to him who are writing here.

One final point, raised by “Dad29″, deserves comment (unlike the name calling, which is better ignored): I too have taken part in singing Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis (in a production where it appeared in rehearal, alas, that I was the only singer among the one hundred and twenty or so there who knew what the latin texts meant). While I also would disagree with Spengler that the MS is the finest Mass setting ever written (my personal favorites are Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli and Vaughan Williams’ Mass in G Minor), I would have to agree with him that it is the finest orchestral mass ever written.

And while I agree that the Missa Solemnis would probably not be suitable for Sunday Mass at St. Alfonzo’s just before their pancake breakfast (a cigar for the first person who can spot the musical reference here), in the unlikely event that Europe would ever make a constitution which is worthy of a United Europe (including recognition of its Christian origins), and in the even more unlikely event that the Vatican would celebrate its signing with a thanksgiving Mass, then the Missa Solemnis would be the perfect setting for so solemn an event.

“Dad29″ appears to be mistaken about a number of particulars:

1. Mr Brandt does not like my use of the term “idiot” as applied to “Spengler.

My likes or dislikes on the matter of the terms that “Dad29″ uses are irrelevant here, as are “Dad29″’s conjecture as to my likes and dislikes. In point of fact, I thought that the use of the word “idiot” by “Dad29″ was inappropriate and unfortunate, for two reasons:

A. The use of such invective by “Dad29″ would appear to be contrary to the wishes of AAE, as indicated above in his comment: Read this carefully before you post, and heed it when you do post. One would think that courtesy to the web administrator, if not to one’s opponents, would demand respect of the administrator’s wishes.

B. The use of the term, “idiot”, seems to be against the wishes of our Lord, as He said in Matthew 5:22.

2. One who calls for the use of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis for a celebration of the Mass is demonstrating that they do NOT understand Roman Catholic liturgical principles.” The Church does not hold concerts with the Mass as ‘obiter dicta,’

Perhaps the best answer to this rather conclusory statement was given by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in putting the slap down to another erring liturgist:

With all due respect to the renowned liturgist, that quotation shows that even great experts can err egregiously. First of all, mistrust is always in order when the greater part of living history must be tossed out into the dustbin of old misunderstandings now happily clarified. That is all the more true of the Christian liturgy, which lives out of the continuity and the inner unity of prayer based on faith. for the source, see http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html

Since orchestral masses and liturgical services have been in existence since at least 1611 (e.g., Monteverdi’s Vespers), it would appear that nearly five centuries of RC liturgical practice has included their use. My understanding of RC (and more particularly Vatican) liturgical documents indicates that while the preference of modern practice is towards a cappella rather than instrumental accompaniment, gregorian chant, and congregational participation in singing, the praxis of the last five centuries does not exclude the use of orchestral music in the liturgy. Or is “Dad29″ saying that His late Holiness, John Paul the Great, did not understand Roman Catholic liturgical principles when he had Herbert von Karajan, and the Berlin Philharmonic, perform Mozart’s Coronation Mass at the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, so many years ago now?

3. No amount of brilliant epigrams, nor other stylistic finesse, can cover up the animosity “Spengler” has demonstrated in his series.

I have read “Spengler”’s series, and I find personally that what “Spengler” has demonstrated as regards the Roman Catholic church is not so much animosity, as disappointment.

4. Finally, A few facts here and there, strung together without contextual loci, does not constitute persuasive writing.

Actually, this is the one statement of “Dad29″s with which I agree. However, I find it applies far more effectively to “Dad29″s comment than to “Spengler”’s series.

More comments from “Dad29″ deserve comment. I shall address them:

1. The Missa Solemnis takes about 90 minutes to perform. The Coronation Mass takes about 45. Even simple people understand this difference

I fear that we may have differing values. I come from a tradition (Russian Catholic) where the average Divine Liturgy is from 90 minutes to two hours, and a full Pontifical Liturgy (that is, with a Bishop serving), can take three to four hours. But then, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Divine Liturgy is the manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, that it is therefore the most important thing on earth (other than our life of love with one another), and that it is what we will be doing (along with our fellowship in the Lord and with one another) for all eternity in that Kingdom. We also come to the Feast of the Lord as a joy, and not a duty. Finally, we think that as this is the most important thing on earth, it is something that is worth taking time to do, and do well. While we don’t much care for instruments used in worship, as we take our cue from the early Church Fathers, we tend to find more in common with someone who favors the Missa Solemnis than with someone who likes, say, The Mass of Creation.

I’m sorry that you seem to think or feel otherwise, simple or no.

2. Your reference to me as a “liturgist” constitutes defamation. Please read the posting rules. Your apology is expected.. On reading this, several thoughts come to mind:

A. To put it as charitably as I can, I find it inconsistent of you to defame “Spengler” (and by implication, me) as a “blithering IDIOT!”, with neither compunction nor apology, and yet you expect me to apologize for calling you a “liturgist”. The temptation exists to quote from that classic film The Princess Bride, and say, “Get used to disappointment.” I will attempt to resist that temptation.

B. Nonetheless, while some readers may disagree, I tend to agree with you that the very name “liturgist” has become a byword and a hissing in the land, as a result of the infamies and inanities that many of them have perpetrated. While I believe there are some good ones in existence (Fr. Aidan Kavanagh, Dom Gregory Dix, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann being just some of them), it is true that use of the word could be considered an insult. I would be happy to apologize for any impression that I was calling you a name, mistaken though that impression may be.

C. When I hear statements about liturgy that are authoritative, pompous, and wrongheaded (e.g. “One who calls for the use of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis for a celebration of the Mass is demonstrating that they do NOT understand Roman Catholic liturgical principles”), I tend to mistake the speaker for a liturgist. Do keep in mind that if you swim, fly, walk, and quack wise like a duck, you can expect to get a few potshots at duck hunting season. To put it another way, if you do not wish to be mistaken for a liturgist, it might be wise not to write or act like one.

And finally,

4) Others on this thread understand “Spengler”’s remarks exactly the way I do. They show far more than “disappointment,” although one can read that, too. The question is “Disappointed in WHAT?” The answer: mostly, disappointed in Ratzinger–the current Pope.

Two thoughts come to mind upon reading the above:

A. Simply because you are supposedly seeing the same thing as other people does not necessary mean that what you (or they) are seeing is in fact there. This is merely argumentum ab populum, or yet another form of fallacious reasoning. I suggest that you instead find quotes from Spengler which support your (to my mind, mistaken) point of view.

B. The statements that Spengler has made about Benedict XVI to me indicate rather the opposite of disappointment. For example:

“Benedict is one of the most cultivated men alive, with a mind that no surviving school could have trained.”

And

“For Ratzinger, music is the exemplar of such beauty. He added:

“”I cannot forget the Bach concert that Leonard Bernstein conducted in Munich after the early death of Karl Richter. I sat next to the evangelical Bishop Hanselmann. As the final tones of one of the great cantatas of the Cantor of St Thomas died away triumphally, we looked at each other spontaneously and, just as spontaneously, said to each other: anyone who has heard that knows that faith is true.”

“Amen to that.”

My reading of Spengler is that he has been disappointed in the RC Church for its many liturgical and other inanities, that he respects Pope Benedict as one who is attempting to correct them, but believes that Pope Benedict’s efforts are “too little, too late.”

A lesson which I believe that Dad29, and perhaps others, need to learn is that disagreement with catholicism does not equal anti-catholicism. Not all those who disagree with you are against you. You might find some of your best allies among those who disagree with you.