« A bit of a model | Main | To the Curia? »
October 29, 2006
Morlino, Rocking
A recent missive from the Bishop of Madison, Wisconsin:
The question arises, does some of the music routinely sung embody the incorrect overemphasis on the presence of Christ in the assembly, so that people are confused as to the importance of the sacramental intensity of His presence, especially under the signs of bread and wine.
Certain songs come to mind where the lyrics raise a real question for me. For example: "We are called, We are chosen, We are Christ for one another, We are a promise, We are sower, We are seed, We are question, We are creed." Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something, and I am afraid that it is something that I as Bishop do not want to teach them, but we certainly need to begin a dialogue about these matters.
Another example of this same problem would be the lyrics of the hymn Gather Us In, where a seemingly endless explanation is given to God about who We are, who are gathered in.
snip
But I write this present communication in the hope that pastors and brother priests, deacons, and various liturgical ministers in the parishes will begin to reflect on and discuss this particular important matter, so that the liturgical prayer of our people will be more integral with and more expressive of authentic spirituality and theology, and as a result our faithful people who pray that prayer will be even more holy than so many of you already are.
We must remember that as we pray before the "Holy, Holy, Holy," the angels and saints are present with us giving praise to the Trinity. The hymns we sing should be worthy of the participation of the angels and saints.
Good, good, good...and can we keep reaching, keep stretching this conversation until we can finally confront that whole "4-hymn sandwich" model, period?
A Mass without hymns - St. Mark's in Venice.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
"We are called, We are chosen, We are Christ for one another, We are a promise, We are sower, We are seed, We are question, We are creed." Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something, and I am afraid that it is something that I as Bishop do not want to teach them
Shame on this bishop for not wanting to teach the real presence of Christ in the faithfull.
Of course we need to teach this because its what the Church teaches and what Christ taught.
It doesn't need to be an either/or but really is a both/and.
Christ is really present both in sacrament and in the faithful.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 29, 2006 1:26:49 PM
"Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something, and I am afraid that it is something that I as Bishop do not want to teach them...we certainly need to begin a dialogue.. "
Right on, Bishop!
Posted by: Lynn at Oct 29, 2006 1:32:02 PM
The bishop's letter is awesome. Thank God that some bishops realize that music at Mass does affect what people believe. Too often there's a tendency to portray controversy over liturigal music as merely differences in taste or simply not that important - i.e., "relax, it's just a song!" But those little things do become influential over time. Lex orandi . . .
Sounds like St Mark's has a wonderful musical program. I wish I could have witnessed it when I was in Venice 5 years ago. I went to Mass at St Mark's on the Sunday after All Saints. The congregation was full, and nearly all tourists. Confession was offered before Mass and many took advantage of it, including my traveling companion who hadn't been in over 10 years.
But during Mass there was no live music. There was no congregational singing - just recorded music played for the psalm, offertory, sanctus, recessional, etc. It was good music - chant and polyphony. But the sound system was poor and the fact that it was recorded and piped in and not being sung by real people in the choir loft just seemed so wrong. It suddenly was so clear to me why recorded music at Mass is considered illicit. Even when it's chant and polyphony, it feels so weird, almost disorienting.
Perhaps the choir had the day off or had sung another Mass earlier in the morning?
Posted by: AJP at Oct 29, 2006 1:34:45 PM
Of course it should be both, Chris. I think the Bishop is saying that the other has been overemphasized.
Posted by: Lynn at Oct 29, 2006 1:37:43 PM
I took a job in downtown Washington DC some time ago. and attended the noon mass during my lunch hour. And it was a “quiet” mass and I loved it. It gave the congregants a chance for reflection and contemplation as the mass was celebrated. You could feel the spiritual intensity of the collective community during the service. And I’m sure that was enabled by the quiet serenity that the environment provided. The parish also had quiet masses on the Saturday vigil and Sunday evening masses and also the first mass on Sunday morning. But then the music came. The intrusive, mundane music. First the evening masses. So I started going to the morning mass. Then the morning mass. The aural intrusion. The theatrics. There was no escaping it. I appreciate and applaud those involved in the music ministry, but why must it be imposed on everyone? There is more than one way to connect spiritually during the mass. What is wrong with reasonable accommodation? Finally I gave up and ended up in another parish. But I’m sorry I had to do so.
SteveM
Posted by: SteveM at Oct 29, 2006 1:52:14 PM
I think the conversation is starting, Amy. At the same time, I think it's going to a difficult one. Choirs and congregations can dig their heels in - and if proposed modifications to music (e.g., giving up "Gather Us In" and "Sing a New Church" or moving from the "four-hymn sandwich") aren't delivered in a comprehensive catechesis on the meaning of the Mass, the pastors' lives will be miserable. Not to mention, choir defections and complaining.
At the same time, I have no doubt that it can and will be done. Of course, one of my colleagues says that I have the temperament of a character in a 1950s musical who's always looking on the bright side.
Posted by: Mary Jane at Oct 29, 2006 2:20:12 PM
SteveM:
In your advocacy for a "quiet Mass" without "theatrics," does that apply to the following:
1. Singing the antiphon at the beginning;
2. Chanting the kyrie;
3. The priest singing the opening prayer, prayer over gifts and prayer after communion;
4. Singing the Alleluia;
5. Singing the Preface dialogue ("the Lord be with you" etc.), the priest praying the preface, and the Holy, Holy;
6. Singing the Agnus Dei;
7. a closing hymn?
I confess, we do most or all these things at our daily Masses and the early Sunday Mass.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Oct 29, 2006 2:20:43 PM
SteveM, I've had exactly the same experience. Weekday ("ferial") Mass can be an exceptionally intense experience, particularly in a cathedral. I was never much of a weekday Mass-goer, but I am now. I try to go every Friday, and when I miss it, ... I really miss it.
Posted by: Pes at Oct 29, 2006 2:22:17 PM
If/when the "pro multis" "For All - For Many" change will be mandated by the Pope himself, as it was rumored to be yesterday, this question as to whether Christ is in all congregants will be debated in every congregation in the land.
The Latin for the words of the Consecration of the Precious Blood is: "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur"; translated as "it will be said for you and for many. . . ."
The English translation in the Mass since 1973 has been: "It will be shed for you and for all. . . ."
The "inclusivity" people will not be happy.
This will particularly be the case in those parishes where private Confession has virtually been abandoned.
Posted by: Ray from MN at Oct 29, 2006 2:45:44 PM
Fr. Fox,
No, we prayed and the priest gave a thoughtful and moving homily. And that was it. And that was all that was necessary...
Regards,
SteveM
Posted by: SteveM at Oct 29, 2006 3:02:40 PM
I like music and think music artfully and reverently done can be a catalyst for spirital growth.I never could understand why people would flee music (not just bad music) until I celebrated the mass I always avoided -the early Sunday Mass with no music.I truly enjoyed the simplicity and almost quiet (the NO has somebody at some time always talking ,talking,talking.The mass is too didactic.)Well I felt what many people do at early mass-you dont want a lot of fuss and you want to be left alone.I have always made it my policy to have music and lots of music (we sing every verse of the hymn) but I have insisted that one mass be without music for those who wish to contemplate in a different manner. Bishop Morlino has started the ball rolling.His call to dialogue is a warning that eventually these hymns will be set aside. It is heretical to claim that Jesus is present in the assembly as He is in the Sacrament.I genuflect to the tabernacle not to the person next to me.
Posted by: franklyn at Oct 29, 2006 3:25:48 PM
"Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something,"
Yeah, to confuse themselves with God and that everyone is wonderful just as they are. No messy business about sin, repentance, reparation and amendment.
Bravo Bishop! You articulate precisely what a lot of non-singing people in the pews have felt for a very long time.
Posted by: Donald R.McClarey at Oct 29, 2006 3:56:10 PM
Good point, Franklyn.
It should be an interesting dialogue.
Posted by: Lynn at Oct 29, 2006 3:56:22 PM
Yeah, to confuse themselves with God
Is there really a huge problem in the U.S. Chrurch with the faithfull confusing themselves with God ?
I know some Americans have huge egos but I didn't know that any actually confuse themselves with God !
The point is that God is immanent in all of his creation, and in a special way in the baptised faithfull.
Ray from MN,
It's well established that "for the many" means "for all". Christ died for everyone, not just a numerical majority.
Given the comments I've seen here, I'd say that the Church needs to keep emphasising the real presence of Christ in the faithfull because the message hasn't sunk in yet.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 29, 2006 4:37:17 PM
I do not undertand why people want to abandon several centuries' worth of good hymns, Protestant and Catholic, in favor of a standardized chanted Mass. If chant replaces hymns at Mass, hymns will disappear altogether, because there is no other chance to sing them except at Mass. And much of the sense of congregational participation, weak as it already is in Catholic churches, will disappear along with the hymns.
Posted by: Kathie at Oct 29, 2006 4:38:14 PM
A long time ago I attended a parish where the assistant pastor had a genuine musical talent. Even with the four hymn model and an average choir we had a very effective music program. His comment repeated many times – some music is sung by the choir and some by the congration. Music that is challenging to the choir is beyond the ability of congregation to sing well and music the congregation can handle with ease is sheer boredom to the choir. Either the choir sings things it likes and forces the congregation into inactive nonparticipation or they split the difference and choir is bored and the congregation is still left out.
In the essay on St. Marks one of the things that makes the thing effective is the choir and congregation singing is clearly planned and reserved to thieir respective roles. The congregation has music they are comfortable with and can sing well. The choir has music that it finds challenging and fun.
Even in places with out the resources of St Marks and where it may not be possible or desirable to introduce a full program of traditional Catholic music, just a little bit of common sense would solve or at least reduce many of the problems with Church music.
Posted by: Hank at Oct 29, 2006 4:38:54 PM
Amy,
I don't get the hostility towards the so-called "four hymn" model. From my observation over the years, it works just fine in the Eucharist provided the hymns are good, and that is true even when the ordinary of the mass is merely recited (though I am admittedly always displeased when the Gloria is merely recited on Sundays). Get rid of the awful hymns, chuck the pathetic electric burp-box organs where they exist, bring back the pipe organs, or use a piano if you don't have one, and the results will be significantly improved.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Oct 29, 2006 4:38:55 PM
Katie,
Why should we have to choose between standardized chants and hymns? Having both simulataneously has been my usual Sunday experience. Anyone who says that one must choose between one or the other is positing a false dilemma, in my view.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Oct 29, 2006 4:45:38 PM
1) Patrick: it's simply this:
I think the best way to break new ground in this conversation, the present stage of which has been going on for 40 years, is to at least acknowledge that the 4-hymn model is not the most "traditional" or ideal expression of the Catholic Mass.
As long as we keep talking only about what "songs" or "hymns" are most "appropriate" in certain spots, in the current climate, it is *always* going to come back to taste. Always. And people will walk away from the conversation with no deeper understanding of what Catholic Mass *is* and the role of music within that liturgy, and therefore within our spiritual lives as Church.
When we break away from that - for just a moment, and say - Hey, listen to this: The ideal form of the CAtholic Mass involves chanting the Propers - all of which are based on really ancient texts - really ancient texts, instead of singing hymns picked out of a song book according to the "Theme" of the day...all of a sudden you have people saying..
Really?
I had no idea.
So...what are these "propers?" What are they about? Why are they there? What function do they serve? Why is it "better" to use them instead of hymns?
Then when it's explained...you've opened up a whole other vista, really. It's no longer about what style of music you or I dig, it's about what the Mass has been for two thousand years or so, in its ideal. (spoken Low Mass/High Mass differences noted and assumed, varied cultural differences etc).
And then we can say...ah. Okay. Well, that's the ideal, that's what Mass is all about, that's the reference point, and no, we can't do that all the time or everywhere. And yes, there is a lot of diversity within traditional Catholic music, there are a lot of different types of "chant" rooted in various cultures - wow, there's just a lot we could do. Interesting.
But now...if we've shaken off the assumption that the starting point for thinking about music at Mass is Opening, Offertory, Communion and Closing, and what fits the theme and what style of music is going to alienate the least number of parishioners...we can have a much more interesting and, I believe, fruitful conversation.
Back to carving pumpkins...
Posted by: amywelborn at Oct 29, 2006 4:54:49 PM
The essay on St Marks had an interesting minor point.
“the four” continue to act as placeholders for the texts prescribed in the Roman missal for particular feasts, that is, for the Proper texts of ancient tradition: the Introit or entrance antiphon, the Offertory antiphon, and the Communion antiphon. (They are all “antiphons” because it is thought that in ancient times these were not sung by themselves but in response to the verses of entire Psalms.)
The Hours are often celebrated by singing the Psalms in a simple chant. The difference in quality and participation of the congregations singing compared to the usual hymns sung in masses is tremendous. I think it would be a major improvement to have the “four hymn” replaced with four psalms sung with the proper antiphon. There is no antiphon for the recessional, but repeating the Introit at that point would provide a unity to the mass.
Posted by: Hank at Oct 29, 2006 4:57:45 PM
Patrick
The hostility is to the idea of hymns as the musical anchor of the Mass, with any other pits being filler. That idea is not a Catholic one. Hymns are filler, not the main musical course. That's the idea trying to be conveyed.
The more refined point is to revive the singing of the propers in some form, a key goal of the Liturgical Movement. Right now, the whole notion of the propers has been buried under the sandwich. It's not necessarily either/or, since one could regularly use both over time. But right now, one would be hard pressed to find many places where the propers are oppressing strophic metrical hymns into the margins.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 29, 2006 5:16:27 PM
``If chant replaces hymns at Mass, hymns will disappear altogether, because there is no other chance to sing them except at Mass.''
You say that like it's a bad thing ;)
Posted by: Annalucia at Oct 29, 2006 5:18:38 PM
Btw, one intermediate step to reviving the propers would be to program hymns that are metrical paraphrases (close rather than distant in substance) of the psalm/antiphon prescribed for the entrance, offertory and/or communion propers. Considering the propers when programming hymns would be a significant change in typical parish practice in the US, and should be strongly encouraged.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 29, 2006 5:20:25 PM
Is there really a huge problem in the U.S. Chrurch with the faithful confusing themselves with God ?
I know some Americans have huge egos but I didn't know that any actually confuse themselves with God !
Saying that people in the US Church are confusing themselves with God is an effort to be charitable. We are charitably trying to assume that these folks have not, as all the data seems to suggest, completely lost track of God altogether.
Certain songs come to mind where the lyrics raise a real question for me. For example: "We are called, We are chosen, We are Christ for one another, We are a promise, We are sower, We are seed, We are question, We are creed." Singing that song repeatedly teaches people something, and I am afraid that it is something that I as Bishop do not want to teach them, but we certainly need to begin a dialogue about these matters.
Another example of this same problem would be the lyrics of the hymn Gather Us In, where a seemingly endless explanation is given to God about who We are, who are gathered in.
I read this and I want to weep. Where is this guy bishop? Wisconsin? How soon can I move there?
Posted by: Adam at Oct 29, 2006 5:26:05 PM
Is it just me or what? Isn't the purpose of liturgical music to deepen the spiritual experience of the participants? If for whatever reason it does not do that, then why do it at all?
I have a cousin who is very devout and when I complain to him about liturgical music, he tells to "offer it up." I'm sorry, I'll offer up cancer or a traffic jam because they are real and God is challenging me somehow. But bad, intrusive music is an artifact. Totally contrived by whomever. Like the inedible fruit cakes that are bought every Christmas. "It's tradition. It's the way we've always done it." Is (relatively recent) musical tradition that hidebound and sacred? Does God really want to poke me in the eye with his celestial thumb every Sunday as an act of psychological mortification? I've been to too many Sunday masses with duel dysfunction, way over the top theatrics militated by rambling homilies that meander all over the theological map leaving me confused and cranky. It wouldn't surprise me if the quality of the Sunday experience does more to "lapse" Catholics than more serious issues of dogma.
SteveM
Posted by: SteveM at Oct 29, 2006 5:32:23 PM
