I have been planning to do a well-thought out, sourced post on this topic, but, let's just go the slapdash and probably garbled route instead, a decision inspired by reading this post at Mary Jane Ballou's blog. No, no, no - it's not that Mary Jane was slapdash. It's that she said exactly what had been churning about in my head, and since she's a Real Musician, she actually knows what she's talking about and has some credibility.
Here's the thing:
One of the favorite topics of discussion in the Catholic blogosphere is liturgical music. Post on it and you're guaranteed scores of comments within hours. People feel so strongly about liturgical music, and most of the people who seem to be reading and posting on Catholic blogs feel strongly negative about most of the music they hear in Catholic Masses.
(And I am careful not to generalize to the broader Catholic population here. There are plenty of folks out there who love the music that many of the commentors and bloggers despise. I am always reminded of this when I'm unfortunate enough to be present when Let There Be Peace on Earth is used - usually as a final hymn, correct? And the congregation usually blasts it - unlike any other piece in the repertoire. That part that makes me want to pour lye in my ears ...to taaaaake each moment and liiiiiiive each moment in peeeeeace eternaleeeee-eeeeee! ...usually raises the roof. So go figure, and don't generalize, is the lesson of the day.)
But a couple of years ago, something hit me, and I've blogged on this before, in passing. It has struck me more and more, in my untutored opinion, that the issue is broader than individual hymns or styles. the issue is the hymn-model itself. Especially the hymn-model incorporated into a largely spoken-word liturgy. So in those cases, what do you have?
1. Opening Hymn
2. Opening rite - spoken, with a sung Kyrie and sung Gloria, invariable from different settings.
3. Spoken readings. Sung responsorial, which has nothing in common with anything else sung so far. Sung Alleluia - ditto.
4. More talking - homily, creed, prayers. Offertory hymn, unrelated to anything sung so far in the liturgy.
5. Liturgy of the Eucharist - talking, singing, talking, singing, talking, singing...and none of the music - except perhaps the Memorial Acclamation and Amen - are related.
And we go on. And we note, further, than the hymns are probably of wildly different styles as well, as we sing an adaptation of an American spiritual, an adapatation of an old Shaker hymn, One Bread One Body, and America the Beautiful 'cause it's July 4th.
What a mess.
I think the understanding of this mess began to creep into my consciousness as I attended the few Eastern Rite and Orthodox liturgies I've been to, and, of course, monastic liturgies. What occurred to me, as I came back to the normal parish rite and experience, talking, singing, talking, and singing another "song" of a different style was a sense of...I don't think this is the way it's supposed to be. I'm thinking that "picking a song that fits the 'theme' from the worship aid provided by the publisher" is not exactly an apt culmination of 2000 years of liturgical tradition that wasn't about "picking songs"...at all. " Something about the whole scene began jostling my sensibilities and I started wondering what was wrong.
Then I started reading The New Liturgical Movement and to read a little more deeply into liturgical history and I began to understand a little bit more. I wanted to understand even more before I attempted this post, but Mary Jane jostled me, along with one other current event - next Monday (10/9) - the Bishop's Committee on Liturgy is holding a consultation in Chicago on possible revisions to various documents related to liturgical music. There have been noises here and there that perhaps one of the things that is going to happen is that the BCL is going to try to do a list of "Approved Hymns" for Catholic worship, which to me would be the worst thing in the world. It would undoubtedly stick us with some horrible stuff forever and ever, with the Bishops' stamp of approval no less. Much better would be a negative route - to make a list of "heretical hymns" per a recent Weigel column - which doesn't touch the issue of musical suitability, but at least it's a start.
Update: As Liam reminds us, this list of approved hymns is required by Liturgiam Authenticam:
"Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments."
Actually, the best thing for the BCL to do would be to go back and start over. You may not know it, but the Hymns Model is the least preferred way to do the Roman Rite Liturgy. Did you know that? I didn't until a little while ago. Or perhaps I did, and never really thought about it. But no - the first choice is to use, not hymns, but the prayers the Church provides for those various spots in the liturgy. Propers, Graduals, etc. The experts can correct me. I am frankly fuzzy on whether or not these prayers have been set to chant as they are written in Latin, but I do know of efforts to set the English versions to music, as well.
Here is a post from NLM to get you started on understanding this.
It is not uncommon to see an article from time to time which laments the contemporary songs used at Mass in most places. "What happened to all the great hymns of yesterday?" is often a question asked in anguish in such publications.
Little ink seems to be spilled, however, over the treasure that the widespread use of hymns has seemingly buried--the Proper chants of the Mass (Introit, Offertory, and Communion; the Gradual and Alleluia are a bit different and will be discussed below). It is quite probable that most Catholics are unaware of the Propers and that they would be surprised to find out that the only hymns integral to the Mass itself are the Gloria and the several Sequences that occur throughout the year. Even many Catholics who consider themselves to be traditional are perfectly content with using hymns at the Mass in place of the Propers.
It should be said that the use of a hymn (the Church calls it "another suitable song") instead of a Proper is permissible, but I wonder how many people might question this practice, particularly in light of liturgical tradition, if they pondered the subject at length. The Propers, after all, have been around for centuries, indeed the great majority of the history of the Church. Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604) is said to have given each one its particular place in the liturgical year. It seems then that they ought to be fostered with the greatest of care. Before they can be implemented, however, there must be an understanding as to why they ought to occupy so prominent a place in our liturgical life.
Moving on from the Propers, we get to the whole issue of chant, period. What I discern (and people - please read the comments on this because I am sure the experts will weigh in with thoughts far more reliable than mine) - is that the ideal Mass of the Roman Rite is not sing-stop-talk-sing-talk - but chant-chant-chant-chant...., and if that is not possible, at the very least it is not "singing songs" when you're not speaking, but intoning the propers, etc.
From Fr. Vidrine in the comments:
Simply stated, the Church calls us to SING THE HOLY MASS, not sing AT Mass. This is done by singing the various chants that the Sacred Liturgy of the day gives us- especially the Entrance Antiphon, the Offeratory Antiphon, and the Holy Communion Antiphon. This is normally done by chanting the antiphon as a refrain, with psalm texts used as verses. This is the way the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex lay it out.
Here are my points and questions before I go back to the work of the day:
1) How did the least preferable option come to be the norm in the US? (and in other countries as far as I know?)
2) There are all sorts of technicalities here, oft discussed on the liturgical blogs, and ill-understood by me, about the distinctions between Low and High Mass in the preV2 Missal, and how those distinctions have been collapsed - and that makes a difference in regard to the place of chant.
3) This is not totally new, of course. Hymns were sung in pre-Vatican II liturgies - bad ones, no less. The reality of those liturgies did not approach the ideal, either. Clarification of the real situation on the ground in the ordinary parish liturgy (as opposed to the monastic liturgy) would be helpful and interesting.
Update: Look to Todd in the comments for elaboration on this point - the 4-hymn structure is not, of course, new. So, is it correct in concluding that the appeal of SC - to sing the Mass in this sense - was the culmination of the liturgical movement in a sense, and, outside of monastic and cathedral settings had never really been expanded to the broader experience of the Mass? And then...we abandoned the effort before it was even seriously attempted?
4) I'm always interested in the money angle. In this case, what intrigues me is the role of liturgical music publishers in maintaining the status quo. I've heard that some conventions for liturgical music ministers end up being nothing more than publishers' showcases, from beginning to end.
5) Why have bishops, as a rule, taken such a hands-off approach to liturgical music and allowed a "tradition" to flourish in this country (and elsewhere) that is so clearly unhinged from the deeper, broader tradition of the Roman liturgy?
So NOW, finally we get to Mary Jane's post, and with that I will leave you:
You know it's out there - the vision of a liturgy with the introit restored, with the communion verse as the processional chant. An integrated celebration that uses all of the texts and leaves the weasel clause "or other hymn as appropriate and/or approved" in the dust. Mind you, I'm not talking about Gregorian chant here or Latin. Good old vernacular here - but antiphon and psalm-based. We get together as church musicians at meetings or on the Internet and natter about this. And there are a few parishes where it's happened. But very few.
Anyone who works in the church music world knows that after almost every Mass, someone comes up and tells you that she loves the music because it's strong/tender/enlivening/comforting/"real Catholic music"/up-to-date, etc. That individual is followed by someone who hates it. It's too loud/sosft/fast/slow/traditional/modern/hard-to-sing/hard-to-understand, etc.
Well, talk about eliminating the hymns and see what happens. What!!! No more "One Bread, One Body"? No more "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name"? In other words, everyone will be outraged - and the pastor's voicemail will fill up. So revise your mental image of the Volga Boatmen. I have a vision of the congregation, the choir, and many of the clergy jumping into the boat and probably paddling in the opposite direction. And it won't matter if they're liberal or conservative - everyone will get on board for this.
Of course, no one is so crazy as to think they could do this in a week or a month. What I see is a long walk with lots of catechesis for all parties, starting with a real understanding of the meaning and purpose of the liturgy. And it's many of us in the music business (and I don't exclude myself) that will need to do a lot of learning and thinking about how to communicate what we've learned to the troops in the choir and congregation.
Comments