The comments in my music post below are all excellent, well-informed and interesting. I'm just going to pull one, though, because it's particularly helpful in understanding why we are where we are. The comment is from Fr. Augustine Thompson ,O.P., who is on the faculty of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, and is the author of the really fascinating and important book Cities of God: The Religion of the Italian Communes 1125-1325. (And non-historians...if that subject sounds narrow - it's not. Reading Fr. Thompson's book will open your eyes to the richness and diversity of our Christian liturgical and spiritual heritage as well as effectively dispose of the ill-informed canard that The Laity Didn't Know What's What Until 1965 Or So. Stripping of the Altars, Italain Style.)
Amy knows, since she was kind enough to review my book _Cities of God: The Religion of the Italian Communes_, "said Mass" (i.e. not sung) did not exist in the Catholic middle ages. It first appeared in the late renaissance (1450s) and because of its ease erased the Catholic tradition of sung worship (still preserved in the eastern Churches). By the time of the Council of Trent (later 1500s), Mass spoken quietly by the priest was the norm. This remains the case till this day. Dare I say this is aberation? "Pre-Vatican II" priests understood low Mass to be the norm--the original four-hymn Low Mass originated a German Catholic attempt to introduce music in the said low Mass during the 1930s to 50s. That's the real origin of that model in the 1960s U.S. Those Germans were so "up to date" with there vernacular hymns.
The model of a recited liturgy so much controled the post-Vatican II reforms that the liturgical books we have now were (no matter what the "rubrics" about the importance of music say) NOT intended to be sung. The Office as we have it is entirely constructed to be a private priestly prayer. At each our three (or fewer if they are long) number of psalms "embellished" with newly invented antiphons (thus NO Gregorian music!) and long readings (intended to be read, not sung) with newly invented "responses" for which there was never any music. What was once the great choral tradition of the Church was reduced to "prayer time, study time" for the clergy. A private prayer totally unsuited to sung worship. Shameful.
The revised Mass of the liturgists was wholly conceived as a "said" service. The liturgists introduced long (mostly) priestly prayers (Penitential rite, Prayers over the Gifts, spoken canon) that were absent in the traditional rite, where all "public" prayers, excepting a handful of collects, were, at least in theory, sung by the people or a schola.
The result is a liturgy in which a "sung" liturgy would have the priest celebrant chanting long, often didactic, texts to minimalistic tones for probably 70% of the liturgy. Yes, the congregation might sing the "ordinary" (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus--forget the Creed!--and a couple of amens and "with your spirits") but these appear as intrusions into the priest's monologue.
Much as I love the propers of the Gregorian music, these were never "congregational" music. They were, from their origin, music sung by a trained schola. So today, what can people sing (a laudable thing!)? Some hymns to replace the Propers. Maybe some dumbed down English Ordinary, but even this is often lacking. The "liturgy" is reduced to an often redundant (notice how the prayers of the faithful are repeated in the intercessions of the now out-loud canon!) recitation of priestly prayers, none of which is sung except in the most unusual of cases.
And even priests who favor a musically rich liturgy often simply recite their prayers. (I cannot sing; its early in the morning; I didn't learn the tune; etc.) I have been at many Masses where a well-trained choir sings the entire Ordinary, leads the congregation is hymns, AND adds in some of the Gregorian propers, and the celebrant simply recites every word of his "part." And there is nothing to say that this is "wrong." The problem here is that (in spite of occasional documents) priests of the Latin rite are trained to believe that all they need do is recite their prayers for the Mass to be "valid." (Which is, of course, true.) Perhaps it is nice to sing a couple of the collects or even a preface (on Christmas and Easter) but Mass is "valid" if they are rattled off without song (reverently, of course).
There is a culture of worship in the Latin rite, and (as one who served in a Byzantine commuity) creeping into the Eastern Rites, and Orthodox, I might add, in which simple recitation of prayers seems more "pious" than singing. In both Eastern Rites and Orthodox services, I notice two clear indications of this. First, the move to recite (without singing) the previously silent parts of the anaphora ("so that people can hear them") and the almost universal move to a congregational recitation of the prayer "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God" (previously a quiet prayer of the priest and ministers) by the whole congregation.
The sense that the liturgy is a joining of voices in song to the praise of the Lord has been lost or is degraded. Forget the words of St. Augustine "Qui cantat bis orat."
Only a cultural change on the part of the *laity* can change this. Why, because it is their children who will be the priests of the future.
Comments