I appreciate the effort to get more than one opinion on this topic, and especially speaking with Adam Bartlett was a good choice. I do have to quibble with one of the quotes, though:
"Leanos said he believes Gregorian chant should be recognized for its 'historical significance and solemnity,' but should not be viewed as the only – or even primary – type of music that 'aligns with worship, contributing to the reverence and dignity of the liturgical celebration.”'
Except that it's in contradiction to what the documents on the liturgy actually say: “the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 116).
I agree that should not be viewed as the only type of music allowed, but to claim that it is anything but primary is to contradict every official liturgical document on music either before or since Vatican II.
Are you the same Andrew Motyka who wrote all of those Communion antiphon settings? I've sung them in a number of places including Masses I've programmed myself, they're lovely. Thanks for your great work!
--> Excellent article, Michelle. It really covers all the ground, and gives enough rooms for a diversity of views on the topic.
--> Here's a quote that really hit home to me: People need to shift their mindsets “from singing AT Mass to singing THE Mass”.
--> I've been to Masses where a large congregation is there simply as spectators (auditors?) for the choir. The Mass was like going to a concert, and people (like in the embedded video) had cellphones out to film the way Swifties might. The music was the attraction, not the Mass.
--> "Music that excites the passions is a distraction from this contemplative spirit and should be avoided at Mass, Wheeler said." Hear, hear.
I know what isn’t sacred music when I hear it, and that is the ghastly official hymn of the year of prayer, called Pilgrims of Hope. It has no scriptural, poetic or aesthetic music, its melody is feeble, its harmony amateurish, it is complete crap. Yet it is the kind of thing the church bureaucrats love.
Never get a committee to design or commission anything. You end up with a ‘monument’ that everyone mistakes for a toilet block, like Australia’s bicentennial monument.
Sing to the Lord is a decent document, but it was never approved by Rome and contradicts some official liturgical documents in a few places. There are plenty of other documents that lay it out even better.
This topic is a painful pet peeve of mine and I'm glad you covered it.
"He pointed to the example in a popular hymn with the lyrics: “Shepherd me, oh God, beyond my wants, beyond my fears.”" What a great boundary this quote presents: The biblical words were changed to suit the music. This song has pleasing chord changes, but it's always unnerved me. Now I know why.
That said, I can see that "Running with the Devil" is inappropriate church music, but can we really deny that "Eruption" deserves a special place?
> The biblical words were changed to suit the music.
This reminds me that we also had a "gendered pronouns are bad" phase in which existing songs (already slightly altered from the biblical text for musical reasons) drifted a little farther, which particularly irked me for the one that came straight from John 6:44 ("unless the Father beckon" is not the same as "unless the Father draw him". Like, if I drop a pin on the floor while sewing, and use a magnet to find and pick it up, the magnet did not beckon. cf. https://youtu.be/cUusX1Js6R0 )
I just sing that particular song the way I learned it, masculine pronouns and all. Read Origen. The spiritually masculine are those of either sex strong in the faith because men are strong.
Unironically--there are parts of Eruption that would be perfectly at home in a bunch of organ pieces. And overall it's very operatic and bombastic, as a big organ piece should be.
"The bishop asks that Catholics sing the antiphons - the scriptural texts given by the Church to be used at the Mass’ entrance, offertory and communion. "
This. Nothing says that you think the music is more important than the Mass, then literally removing parts of the Mass to make more room for the music.
Welllll, except that the Missal leaves out the offertory, and the Gradual and the Missal generally disagree on the texts for the introit and communion... Hardly the best way for the Vatican to emphasize the importance of any of those things....
There is a reason for both the difference in the texts and the omission of the Missal antiphon, but it's far too long for a comment box. Suffice it to say that the GIRM is clear that it is fine to sing the antiphons from either the Missal or the Gradual.
I would love to hear it, since the only conclusion I've been able to draw from the available evidence is that the team in charge of producing the Missal just doesn't care about elaborate Gregorian chant. "It's fine" is a very different message from "you should".
Even in the Tridentine Rite, there are some minor differences between the sung chants and the written ones. I might speculate that this has something to do with the change in who says/sings it, and I might be wrong, but I doubt that is an indication that they are unimportant.
At the end of the day, the Novus Ordo is a different ritual. Too much tradition removed to call it the same thing, even if it had an offertory in the missal. But if people leave out even what it's supposed to have, they can hardly claim to be pro-Novus Ordo.
I can't say I'm confident that the Vatican has been trying, over the last 80 years, to emphasize the importance of worshiping according to the rubrics and texts. Not when the original English translation, approved by the Vatican, didn't even manage to translate the creed properly, with one particular error that a first *week* Latin student could have caught. If your only reason for doing the right thing is your leadership clearly and repeatedly emphasizing that it's important in word and deed, then you can expect to be as lost as the worst of the leadership.
This is a wonderful, thorough, and almost dialogical article. It felt like the different sides of the issue were in the same room having a conversation.
That aside, I think another issue, which Bishop Kemme brought up, is whether people “like” sacred music. I have repeatedly encountered people whose primary metric for determining the beauty and value of ANYTHING in the Mass is the vague sense of “liking it.” It’s a deeper problem of modern man’s incapacity (or at least unwillingness) to believe that what is good, true, or beautiful might also confront our fragile psyches with a bit of pain and discomfort. Or as my favorite Pope never said: “The world offers you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.”
I think though, handled with charity and a good sense of humor, that is a prime opportunity to actually help people develop a sensibility for music. 90% of the 4 chord pop crap that passes as ‘music’ today is little more than a drone that is the annoying backing track to modernity. Those people also know the difference between pop crap and Bach and ‘like’ both. That’s an opportunity to help people like Bach more.
I’m a big advocate for chant because it requires little musical gift to pull off. If my 6 year old with speech difficulties can use chant to speak with perfect clarity, anyone can do it. And the fact it requires no instrumentation is a blessing in its own right. A choir can cover a multitude of sins of individual singers . A choir can’t cover a badly played organ or band. It’s actually immensely practical for under resourced parishes.
As one with a) first-hand experience of Bishop Kemme’s plan for sacred music and b) first-hand experience of its local detractors, I can say a few things with certainty: what is happening is very, very good, but it requires continued education of parish musicians, the faithful, and clerics (and clerics-to-be) in order to succeed.
Most people who understand sacred music in the wider context of the historical practice of the Church cannot help but hunger for chant and polyphony (balanced by solid, orthodox hymnody where it is called for). But lacking that historical perspective, such endeavors will inevitably fail, for otherwise, the antiphons seem to be nothing more than a boring, unfamiliar, and hard-to-sing dirge.
In considering the proper education to be undertaken, a few things are necessary. First, it is absolutely crucial that our future generations of clerics have a broad historical understanding of the Church’s music. If our priests are harboring resentment toward these sorts of changes, the changes never become firmly rooted in diocesan culture. Secondly, we must take special care to not leave our musicians in the dark: both technical and historical education is necessary. Source and Summit’s antiphons are relatively easy for those able to sight-read, but to the parish cantor who is used to singing hymn tunes from memory, they can seem nigh-impossible. Furthermore, to those who have sung the same pieces for decades, such a dramatic shift can seem like a regression to the “pre-Vatican-II days.” That, of course, is not the case. We ought to make it clear why. All of this applies in the case of the faithful, as well, though it is impossible to accomplish to as great a degree. Yet education is still essential.
I want liturgical renewal to happen, and I truly think it begins in the seminaries. When our priests have an intuitive sense of high liturgy, that sense will spread naturally in all the ways it needs to. That’s my two cents, at least.
Agree. To add, I would also stress that the parish's musical director is not an optional job. I know each pastor must manage a budget and I can appreciate that an enthusiastic amateur musician is tempting. Also, a pastor without a strong ear might not be able to tell the difference. Please hire a professional, though.
It's certainly workable temporarily to hire an enthusiastic amateur musician who is willing to continue a music program that is already good until a professional can be found.
And that can take a while. Being professional isn't the only issue. I expect there are plenty of professional church musicians out there who don't know the first thing about liturgical music, what the actual rubrics require, or how to chant, much less teach, the Gregorian chant that are supposed to have pride of place. We've been doing liturgical music badly for so long that there is a shortage of those who know how to do it well.
so few parishes in many dioceses could even imagine being able to hire a full time person in this role... that may be possible in wealthy suburbs and big cities... but in rural areas, volunteers is what's possible in many many small parishes. I don't disagree that competent people should be hired... just remember that's an unreachable luxury for most parishes in the US.
Source and Summit's response for adoration was something other than having all sweetness within it, which is the only response I've heard or sung since I came back to the Church in 1980. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
At the very least, what the words of the song actually say should be considered before it is used at Mass (or anywhere else for that matter.). For example, really think about some of the words to “Gather Us In”
“We have been sung throughout all of history”
What is that supposed to mean? I’m fairly confident that it was included simply because the writer couldn’t think of any other word to rhyme with “mystery.” Then again, referring to “young people’s lives as a mystery” seems really trite..
At the end it says, “Not in the dark of buildings confining”…..aren’t we singing in a building?
“Not in some heaven light years away”…is it arguing against the existence of heaven or the perceived measure of of physical distance?
Elsewhere, it says “here we will take the wine and the water….here we will take the bread of new birth.” This sounds like it could just as easily be sung by a Protestant with no understanding of the Real Presence.
In fact, a large number of Communion hymns never actually refer to the Real Presence…and then we wonder why people don’t believe or understand it….
The choir director at my parents’ church also likes to perform “Mary, did you know” as a second Communion hymn during the Christmas season. But if you really listen to it, the words contradict the teaching of the Immaculate Conception unless you interpret them in a very specific (i.e. nonstandard for normal English) way.
And don’t even get me started on the arrogance of the publishers who think we are all too stupid to understand “thee” and “thou” and that think that there is a problem with referring to God with male pronouns…
And it's the only way to get the distinction between the singular and plural "you" in English that exists in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew... unless you go full Southern. And frankly, "y'all" does not belong in a Bible translation.
There's always the Irish use of "ye" as a second-person plural. It's not uniquely theirs, but they're the only ones I can think of who have retained it like that in everyday use.
Yes, in general I don't like "updating" lyrics. I am not a music scholar but even I can tell that it's usually a really awkward fit. "Thee" and "thou" were common English usage for a really long time. We can understand it.
Our parish has made a significant effort with sacred music over the past few years and it's been lovely. There have been some complaints, I guess, that some hymns are never sung anymore. I would not want to field those complaints myself. Admittedly, there are a couple really not great hymns I have a strong nostalgic connection to because I heard them a lot at the parish where I converted. But I don't miss hearing them at Mass.
This is off the topic of Sacred Music, but .... I wish we'd bring back thee, thou, thine/thy into regular usage. I teach French, and there is a distinction between the singular/informal "you" - "tu"; and the plural/formal "you" - "vous". That's what thee, etc. used to provide in English.
Here in the South (or South Louisiana, at least; see H Mohn's reply below), we are smart enough to keep the English distinction, but we say "y'all" when it's plural.
In English, 'ye' was the original nominative plural second person, while 'you' (originally 'eow') was the accusative and dative form. 'Thou' is second person singular that developed class distinctions similar to those also seen in French, German, Spanish, etc. Somewhere I once read that sometime (early, I think) during the Long Parliament, a commoner took offense at being thou/thee-ed by a fellow parliamentarian of minor noble rank and killed him in a duel over the offense, leading to a more-rapid decline in the use of 'thou' and its kin (thee, thy/thine). However, I've never been able to find that source again.
I do use thou/thee/thy/thine in speaking to (mostly friendly) people sometimes, and I've found it's an effective way to get a "are you from Mars" look from younger people.
I'm not aware of a time when they did rhyme. Interestingly, perhaps, the original OE of thou, þu (thu in modern spelling), would have been a decent rhyme of the modern you. (Though it may have been closer to the modern French 'tu'.) As I said, the modern word you derives from the objective form of ye and was most conventionally spelled eow, pronounced something like eh-ohw, with the 'o' closing to the 'w'. (Or, at least that's how I understand it; I mostly only play a linguist in comments sections.) Then the vowel pronunciations of English began shifting in ways I don't entirely understand, but I don't think they ever intersected.
Lots of words, lots of people quoted. One's left with the feeling that the writer wants the reader to accept that there's no good music and bad music, just different music. With respect, Michelle, nah.
As a sort-of church musician (singing chant and polyphony for twenty+ years, albeit on a volunteer basis) I really appreciated this piece!
I have a couple nits to pick, of course. I mean, I'm into church music. :)
First, can I protest about this remark? "Music that excites the passions is a distraction from this contemplative spirit and should be avoided at Mass, Wheeler said." I appreciate (and even agree with) a lot of what Wheeler says as quoted in this article, but I think we need to distinguish between exciting the passions the way oh, I dunno, a good Pentatonix or Scythian ballad excites the passions, or the way "On Eagles Wings" or "Gentle Mother" does, versus exciting the passions the way a whole congregation chanting the Missa de Angelis Gloria excites the passions--or Hassler's four-voice polyphonic Mass--or most of the really excellent hymnody by the Wesleys and Father Faber. There are passions and there are passions. Aquinas has some things to say about this although one would need a really good philosopher trained in both Thomism and aesthetics to actually connect the dots (I am not that!).
This leads me to another point. I see a lot of people saying "Not so many hymns." Yeah, I get it--if they are pushing out chant to little or nothing, hymns need to be cut back. But can we in the church have a serious conversation about the difference between sappy/sentimental passion hymns and hymns that are, I dunno, maybe a little more rousing (in a good way)?
Here am I Lord (chorus):
Here I am, Lord
Is it I, Lord?
I have heard You calling in the night
I will go, Lord
If You lead me
I will hold Your people in my heart
Alleluia, Sing to Jesus (first verse)
Alleluia! Sing to Jesus;
His the scepter, His the throne.
Alleluia! His the triumph,
His the victory alone.
Hark! The songs of peaceful Zion
thunder like a mighty flood:
"Jesus out of every nation
has redeemed us by His blood."
Now, I do get that the former changes biblical language just a tad (like "Shepherd Me O God") whereas "In Gregorian chant ... the text is not altered to meet the musical demands," whereas the latter is not quoting biblical texts at all. But the latter hymn is inculcating a different sense of what religion is like, what the Mass is about--look! Blood! Sacrifice! Redemption! Jesus ruling! (Check out many of the hymns in the Adoremus hymnal if you want more of this.) This is also the sort of thing young men (and women) aren't embarrassed to sing. Try telling me that your fifteen-year-old son loves "Shepherd Me O God." I mean, I am sure there *are* very artistic guys who do love it. But even they probably don't love singing it in church in front of their peers ... Anyway, short version of the long pitch: in defending Gregorian chant, I don't want to throw out the baby of good hymnody with the bathwater of Marty Hagen--and I'm leery of arguments that seem to take that approach.
Final peeve--touched on in the article and some comments--the priest/music director MUST pick easy chant (Missa de Angelis? cum Jubilo? that sort of stuff) and TEACH it to the congregation. Have a weekend summer camp for adults. Have them practice it ten minutes before Sunday Mass, one section at a time, from the lectern. Have worship aids. Use the organ (at least as first) to support it. I've seen all these things help get a congregation singing. What doesn't work: picking something that the music director finds interesting and then just doing it over and over.
Also, on the same note, no one in the congregation can hear the propers and appreciate their scriptural beauty if you don't include them somehow in the info communicated to the people in the pews. Almost no singers enunciate well enough for people to know what the heck is being sung in a proper. Worship aids? Number on the board pointing to the hymnal/missalette/missal?. If you really want the congregation understanding this stuff, you need to give them the tools to do so.
Exactly. There are a few gems in the post-Vatican II folk craze that are worth keeping.
Here I am Lord is one of them. We were blessed to have a booming tenor sing the verses and then the soaring chorus of the choir and congregation answering ‘God’s’ call. It’s a recessional hymn that I will never forget. Mind you, the hymn is now ruined by the invariable amateur hours.
My sense is that we should time capsule all the hymn books published between 1960 and 1990 and leave it there for a hundred years. Then a future generation can rediscover them and with far less emotional attachment, take what is good and leave the rest. Especially the drinking songs. Good lord, especially the drinking hymns…
The clip of music from St. Camillus parish has a major problem. You cannot hear the voices of the people over the music and clapping. The word drives the music, not the other way around.
“[I]t is crucial to understand the unique identity of our parish.” — Leanos
One could question whether Leanos and the parishioners are even interested in the word as much as in expressing themselves.
Identity worship would seem to be just as divisive as identity politics. When a Catholic parish has such a unique identity that Catholic non-parishioners do not recognize the Mass, let alone feel comfortable participating, how is that Catholic?
“Identity worship” -- brilliant. It shreds a parish (ethic Masses, teen Masses, etc). People find their niche and rarely cross lines. If the common good is served by strengthening bonds, then such fragmentation is to be avoided. The authority of the Church insists that “the democracy of the dead” weighs in on the matter, and that tradition takes precedence. That way, we share the same faith not only parish-wide but across the ages. If people resist tradition and the ancient ways of doing things, odds are that they also reject core beliefs (just saying...)
I think it’s so weird when the psalm has changed words from the actual Bible. I understand the opening / closing hymn being based on scripture, but for the actual Psalm!?!
There's also the issue that companies like GIA, OCP, etc al. have a business model that doesn't work well with the more orthodox approach. They depend on constantly rolling out new material, and they also have a lot of composers who depend on turning out new stuff as their livelihood. They also tend toward a least common denominator approach to theology so they can sell their products to the widest range of parishes they can. And to top it all off, they offer educational resources that help form music ministers, which seems great at first glance, until you realize that it forms them in a way that is counter to the actual Vatican II documents. That sort of thing helps perpetuate the "Gather Us In" approach to sacred music.
I appreciate the effort to get more than one opinion on this topic, and especially speaking with Adam Bartlett was a good choice. I do have to quibble with one of the quotes, though:
"Leanos said he believes Gregorian chant should be recognized for its 'historical significance and solemnity,' but should not be viewed as the only – or even primary – type of music that 'aligns with worship, contributing to the reverence and dignity of the liturgical celebration.”'
Except that it's in contradiction to what the documents on the liturgy actually say: “the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 116).
I agree that should not be viewed as the only type of music allowed, but to claim that it is anything but primary is to contradict every official liturgical document on music either before or since Vatican II.
Are you the same Andrew Motyka who wrote all of those Communion antiphon settings? I've sung them in a number of places including Masses I've programmed myself, they're lovely. Thanks for your great work!
The same. Thank you! I'm glad people get use out of them.
--> Excellent article, Michelle. It really covers all the ground, and gives enough rooms for a diversity of views on the topic.
--> Here's a quote that really hit home to me: People need to shift their mindsets “from singing AT Mass to singing THE Mass”.
--> I've been to Masses where a large congregation is there simply as spectators (auditors?) for the choir. The Mass was like going to a concert, and people (like in the embedded video) had cellphones out to film the way Swifties might. The music was the attraction, not the Mass.
--> "Music that excites the passions is a distraction from this contemplative spirit and should be avoided at Mass, Wheeler said." Hear, hear.
I know what isn’t sacred music when I hear it, and that is the ghastly official hymn of the year of prayer, called Pilgrims of Hope. It has no scriptural, poetic or aesthetic music, its melody is feeble, its harmony amateurish, it is complete crap. Yet it is the kind of thing the church bureaucrats love.
To get good words for hymns, get a theologian and mystic to write it.
It worked for the Feast of Corpus Christi.
Gosh, it *is* awful!
Never get a committee to design or commission anything. You end up with a ‘monument’ that everyone mistakes for a toilet block, like Australia’s bicentennial monument.
I have it on good authority that the best music for Mass is the music that old people tell us the young people want to hear.
It’s a bit surprising to me that no mention was made of the USCCB’s 2007 document *Sing to the Lord* (https://ascensionpress.com/products/sing-to-the-lord-music-in-divine-worship). It answers a lot of questions here and was not just from one or two bishops.
Sing to the Lord is a decent document, but it was never approved by Rome and contradicts some official liturgical documents in a few places. There are plenty of other documents that lay it out even better.
Any examples of other easy reading documents to provide guidance to cantors and musicians?
Honestly? The General Instruction on the Roman Missal is good, and I don't mean that Sing to the Lord is bad, only that it has its limitations.
This topic is a painful pet peeve of mine and I'm glad you covered it.
"He pointed to the example in a popular hymn with the lyrics: “Shepherd me, oh God, beyond my wants, beyond my fears.”" What a great boundary this quote presents: The biblical words were changed to suit the music. This song has pleasing chord changes, but it's always unnerved me. Now I know why.
That said, I can see that "Running with the Devil" is inappropriate church music, but can we really deny that "Eruption" deserves a special place?
Kidding.
> The biblical words were changed to suit the music.
This reminds me that we also had a "gendered pronouns are bad" phase in which existing songs (already slightly altered from the biblical text for musical reasons) drifted a little farther, which particularly irked me for the one that came straight from John 6:44 ("unless the Father beckon" is not the same as "unless the Father draw him". Like, if I drop a pin on the floor while sewing, and use a magnet to find and pick it up, the magnet did not beckon. cf. https://youtu.be/cUusX1Js6R0 )
I just sing that particular song the way I learned it, masculine pronouns and all. Read Origen. The spiritually masculine are those of either sex strong in the faith because men are strong.
If you think that is bad you should hear the Peruvian Gloria. Heard it at a mass that also sang credo V. It was a very confusing mass.
Sounds not only confusion but highly distracting. One would be pondering the choices as well as leaping from one style to another.
Unironically--there are parts of Eruption that would be perfectly at home in a bunch of organ pieces. And overall it's very operatic and bombastic, as a big organ piece should be.
"The bishop asks that Catholics sing the antiphons - the scriptural texts given by the Church to be used at the Mass’ entrance, offertory and communion. "
This. Nothing says that you think the music is more important than the Mass, then literally removing parts of the Mass to make more room for the music.
Welllll, except that the Missal leaves out the offertory, and the Gradual and the Missal generally disagree on the texts for the introit and communion... Hardly the best way for the Vatican to emphasize the importance of any of those things....
There is a reason for both the difference in the texts and the omission of the Missal antiphon, but it's far too long for a comment box. Suffice it to say that the GIRM is clear that it is fine to sing the antiphons from either the Missal or the Gradual.
I would love to hear it, since the only conclusion I've been able to draw from the available evidence is that the team in charge of producing the Missal just doesn't care about elaborate Gregorian chant. "It's fine" is a very different message from "you should".
Even in the Tridentine Rite, there are some minor differences between the sung chants and the written ones. I might speculate that this has something to do with the change in who says/sings it, and I might be wrong, but I doubt that is an indication that they are unimportant.
At the end of the day, the Novus Ordo is a different ritual. Too much tradition removed to call it the same thing, even if it had an offertory in the missal. But if people leave out even what it's supposed to have, they can hardly claim to be pro-Novus Ordo.
I can't say I'm confident that the Vatican has been trying, over the last 80 years, to emphasize the importance of worshiping according to the rubrics and texts. Not when the original English translation, approved by the Vatican, didn't even manage to translate the creed properly, with one particular error that a first *week* Latin student could have caught. If your only reason for doing the right thing is your leadership clearly and repeatedly emphasizing that it's important in word and deed, then you can expect to be as lost as the worst of the leadership.
This is a wonderful, thorough, and almost dialogical article. It felt like the different sides of the issue were in the same room having a conversation.
That aside, I think another issue, which Bishop Kemme brought up, is whether people “like” sacred music. I have repeatedly encountered people whose primary metric for determining the beauty and value of ANYTHING in the Mass is the vague sense of “liking it.” It’s a deeper problem of modern man’s incapacity (or at least unwillingness) to believe that what is good, true, or beautiful might also confront our fragile psyches with a bit of pain and discomfort. Or as my favorite Pope never said: “The world offers you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.”
I think though, handled with charity and a good sense of humor, that is a prime opportunity to actually help people develop a sensibility for music. 90% of the 4 chord pop crap that passes as ‘music’ today is little more than a drone that is the annoying backing track to modernity. Those people also know the difference between pop crap and Bach and ‘like’ both. That’s an opportunity to help people like Bach more.
I’m a big advocate for chant because it requires little musical gift to pull off. If my 6 year old with speech difficulties can use chant to speak with perfect clarity, anyone can do it. And the fact it requires no instrumentation is a blessing in its own right. A choir can cover a multitude of sins of individual singers . A choir can’t cover a badly played organ or band. It’s actually immensely practical for under resourced parishes.
As one with a) first-hand experience of Bishop Kemme’s plan for sacred music and b) first-hand experience of its local detractors, I can say a few things with certainty: what is happening is very, very good, but it requires continued education of parish musicians, the faithful, and clerics (and clerics-to-be) in order to succeed.
Most people who understand sacred music in the wider context of the historical practice of the Church cannot help but hunger for chant and polyphony (balanced by solid, orthodox hymnody where it is called for). But lacking that historical perspective, such endeavors will inevitably fail, for otherwise, the antiphons seem to be nothing more than a boring, unfamiliar, and hard-to-sing dirge.
In considering the proper education to be undertaken, a few things are necessary. First, it is absolutely crucial that our future generations of clerics have a broad historical understanding of the Church’s music. If our priests are harboring resentment toward these sorts of changes, the changes never become firmly rooted in diocesan culture. Secondly, we must take special care to not leave our musicians in the dark: both technical and historical education is necessary. Source and Summit’s antiphons are relatively easy for those able to sight-read, but to the parish cantor who is used to singing hymn tunes from memory, they can seem nigh-impossible. Furthermore, to those who have sung the same pieces for decades, such a dramatic shift can seem like a regression to the “pre-Vatican-II days.” That, of course, is not the case. We ought to make it clear why. All of this applies in the case of the faithful, as well, though it is impossible to accomplish to as great a degree. Yet education is still essential.
I want liturgical renewal to happen, and I truly think it begins in the seminaries. When our priests have an intuitive sense of high liturgy, that sense will spread naturally in all the ways it needs to. That’s my two cents, at least.
Also, when can we bring back the sung Credo?
Agree. To add, I would also stress that the parish's musical director is not an optional job. I know each pastor must manage a budget and I can appreciate that an enthusiastic amateur musician is tempting. Also, a pastor without a strong ear might not be able to tell the difference. Please hire a professional, though.
It's certainly workable temporarily to hire an enthusiastic amateur musician who is willing to continue a music program that is already good until a professional can be found.
And that can take a while. Being professional isn't the only issue. I expect there are plenty of professional church musicians out there who don't know the first thing about liturgical music, what the actual rubrics require, or how to chant, much less teach, the Gregorian chant that are supposed to have pride of place. We've been doing liturgical music badly for so long that there is a shortage of those who know how to do it well.
so few parishes in many dioceses could even imagine being able to hire a full time person in this role... that may be possible in wealthy suburbs and big cities... but in rural areas, volunteers is what's possible in many many small parishes. I don't disagree that competent people should be hired... just remember that's an unreachable luxury for most parishes in the US.
Source and Summit's response for adoration was something other than having all sweetness within it, which is the only response I've heard or sung since I came back to the Church in 1980. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
At the very least, what the words of the song actually say should be considered before it is used at Mass (or anywhere else for that matter.). For example, really think about some of the words to “Gather Us In”
“We have been sung throughout all of history”
What is that supposed to mean? I’m fairly confident that it was included simply because the writer couldn’t think of any other word to rhyme with “mystery.” Then again, referring to “young people’s lives as a mystery” seems really trite..
At the end it says, “Not in the dark of buildings confining”…..aren’t we singing in a building?
“Not in some heaven light years away”…is it arguing against the existence of heaven or the perceived measure of of physical distance?
Elsewhere, it says “here we will take the wine and the water….here we will take the bread of new birth.” This sounds like it could just as easily be sung by a Protestant with no understanding of the Real Presence.
In fact, a large number of Communion hymns never actually refer to the Real Presence…and then we wonder why people don’t believe or understand it….
The choir director at my parents’ church also likes to perform “Mary, did you know” as a second Communion hymn during the Christmas season. But if you really listen to it, the words contradict the teaching of the Immaculate Conception unless you interpret them in a very specific (i.e. nonstandard for normal English) way.
And don’t even get me started on the arrogance of the publishers who think we are all too stupid to understand “thee” and “thou” and that think that there is a problem with referring to God with male pronouns…
You had me until "thee" and "thou" -- all influences of the KJV should be banished.
Actually, those words come from the Douai-Rheims, the Catholic Bible in English from which the KJV borrowed.
And it's the only way to get the distinction between the singular and plural "you" in English that exists in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew... unless you go full Southern. And frankly, "y'all" does not belong in a Bible translation.
There's always the Irish use of "ye" as a second-person plural. It's not uniquely theirs, but they're the only ones I can think of who have retained it like that in everyday use.
Yes, in general I don't like "updating" lyrics. I am not a music scholar but even I can tell that it's usually a really awkward fit. "Thee" and "thou" were common English usage for a really long time. We can understand it.
Our parish has made a significant effort with sacred music over the past few years and it's been lovely. There have been some complaints, I guess, that some hymns are never sung anymore. I would not want to field those complaints myself. Admittedly, there are a couple really not great hymns I have a strong nostalgic connection to because I heard them a lot at the parish where I converted. But I don't miss hearing them at Mass.
This is off the topic of Sacred Music, but .... I wish we'd bring back thee, thou, thine/thy into regular usage. I teach French, and there is a distinction between the singular/informal "you" - "tu"; and the plural/formal "you" - "vous". That's what thee, etc. used to provide in English.
Here in the South (or South Louisiana, at least; see H Mohn's reply below), we are smart enough to keep the English distinction, but we say "y'all" when it's plural.
In Texas, “y’all” is singular; “all y’all” is plural.
Let's all tutoyer, y'all!
In English, 'ye' was the original nominative plural second person, while 'you' (originally 'eow') was the accusative and dative form. 'Thou' is second person singular that developed class distinctions similar to those also seen in French, German, Spanish, etc. Somewhere I once read that sometime (early, I think) during the Long Parliament, a commoner took offense at being thou/thee-ed by a fellow parliamentarian of minor noble rank and killed him in a duel over the offense, leading to a more-rapid decline in the use of 'thou' and its kin (thee, thy/thine). However, I've never been able to find that source again.
I do use thou/thee/thy/thine in speaking to (mostly friendly) people sometimes, and I've found it's an effective way to get a "are you from Mars" look from younger people.
It's weird that "thou" and "you" don't rhyme (anymore?).
I'm not aware of a time when they did rhyme. Interestingly, perhaps, the original OE of thou, þu (thu in modern spelling), would have been a decent rhyme of the modern you. (Though it may have been closer to the modern French 'tu'.) As I said, the modern word you derives from the objective form of ye and was most conventionally spelled eow, pronounced something like eh-ohw, with the 'o' closing to the 'w'. (Or, at least that's how I understand it; I mostly only play a linguist in comments sections.) Then the vowel pronunciations of English began shifting in ways I don't entirely understand, but I don't think they ever intersected.
Lots of words, lots of people quoted. One's left with the feeling that the writer wants the reader to accept that there's no good music and bad music, just different music. With respect, Michelle, nah.
As a sort-of church musician (singing chant and polyphony for twenty+ years, albeit on a volunteer basis) I really appreciated this piece!
I have a couple nits to pick, of course. I mean, I'm into church music. :)
First, can I protest about this remark? "Music that excites the passions is a distraction from this contemplative spirit and should be avoided at Mass, Wheeler said." I appreciate (and even agree with) a lot of what Wheeler says as quoted in this article, but I think we need to distinguish between exciting the passions the way oh, I dunno, a good Pentatonix or Scythian ballad excites the passions, or the way "On Eagles Wings" or "Gentle Mother" does, versus exciting the passions the way a whole congregation chanting the Missa de Angelis Gloria excites the passions--or Hassler's four-voice polyphonic Mass--or most of the really excellent hymnody by the Wesleys and Father Faber. There are passions and there are passions. Aquinas has some things to say about this although one would need a really good philosopher trained in both Thomism and aesthetics to actually connect the dots (I am not that!).
This leads me to another point. I see a lot of people saying "Not so many hymns." Yeah, I get it--if they are pushing out chant to little or nothing, hymns need to be cut back. But can we in the church have a serious conversation about the difference between sappy/sentimental passion hymns and hymns that are, I dunno, maybe a little more rousing (in a good way)?
Here am I Lord (chorus):
Here I am, Lord
Is it I, Lord?
I have heard You calling in the night
I will go, Lord
If You lead me
I will hold Your people in my heart
Alleluia, Sing to Jesus (first verse)
Alleluia! Sing to Jesus;
His the scepter, His the throne.
Alleluia! His the triumph,
His the victory alone.
Hark! The songs of peaceful Zion
thunder like a mighty flood:
"Jesus out of every nation
has redeemed us by His blood."
Now, I do get that the former changes biblical language just a tad (like "Shepherd Me O God") whereas "In Gregorian chant ... the text is not altered to meet the musical demands," whereas the latter is not quoting biblical texts at all. But the latter hymn is inculcating a different sense of what religion is like, what the Mass is about--look! Blood! Sacrifice! Redemption! Jesus ruling! (Check out many of the hymns in the Adoremus hymnal if you want more of this.) This is also the sort of thing young men (and women) aren't embarrassed to sing. Try telling me that your fifteen-year-old son loves "Shepherd Me O God." I mean, I am sure there *are* very artistic guys who do love it. But even they probably don't love singing it in church in front of their peers ... Anyway, short version of the long pitch: in defending Gregorian chant, I don't want to throw out the baby of good hymnody with the bathwater of Marty Hagen--and I'm leery of arguments that seem to take that approach.
Final peeve--touched on in the article and some comments--the priest/music director MUST pick easy chant (Missa de Angelis? cum Jubilo? that sort of stuff) and TEACH it to the congregation. Have a weekend summer camp for adults. Have them practice it ten minutes before Sunday Mass, one section at a time, from the lectern. Have worship aids. Use the organ (at least as first) to support it. I've seen all these things help get a congregation singing. What doesn't work: picking something that the music director finds interesting and then just doing it over and over.
Also, on the same note, no one in the congregation can hear the propers and appreciate their scriptural beauty if you don't include them somehow in the info communicated to the people in the pews. Almost no singers enunciate well enough for people to know what the heck is being sung in a proper. Worship aids? Number on the board pointing to the hymnal/missalette/missal?. If you really want the congregation understanding this stuff, you need to give them the tools to do so.
#participation
//rantover
Exactly. There are a few gems in the post-Vatican II folk craze that are worth keeping.
Here I am Lord is one of them. We were blessed to have a booming tenor sing the verses and then the soaring chorus of the choir and congregation answering ‘God’s’ call. It’s a recessional hymn that I will never forget. Mind you, the hymn is now ruined by the invariable amateur hours.
My sense is that we should time capsule all the hymn books published between 1960 and 1990 and leave it there for a hundred years. Then a future generation can rediscover them and with far less emotional attachment, take what is good and leave the rest. Especially the drinking songs. Good lord, especially the drinking hymns…
Lol, I agree about the time capsule. I'm not so much a fan of "Here I am, Lord," I'm afraid.
At least it’s not a
Drinking song. Everytime we hear Christ Be Our Light, my husband starts swaying with an invisible stein.
He's not wrong ...
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/gospel-music-brings-black-witness-catholic-liturgy
The clip of music from St. Camillus parish has a major problem. You cannot hear the voices of the people over the music and clapping. The word drives the music, not the other way around.
“[I]t is crucial to understand the unique identity of our parish.” — Leanos
One could question whether Leanos and the parishioners are even interested in the word as much as in expressing themselves.
Identity worship would seem to be just as divisive as identity politics. When a Catholic parish has such a unique identity that Catholic non-parishioners do not recognize the Mass, let alone feel comfortable participating, how is that Catholic?
“Identity worship” -- brilliant. It shreds a parish (ethic Masses, teen Masses, etc). People find their niche and rarely cross lines. If the common good is served by strengthening bonds, then such fragmentation is to be avoided. The authority of the Church insists that “the democracy of the dead” weighs in on the matter, and that tradition takes precedence. That way, we share the same faith not only parish-wide but across the ages. If people resist tradition and the ancient ways of doing things, odds are that they also reject core beliefs (just saying...)
A common problem with instrumentalists is that (many) think it's the other way around.
I think it’s so weird when the psalm has changed words from the actual Bible. I understand the opening / closing hymn being based on scripture, but for the actual Psalm!?!
There are two translations of the psalms that are approved for liturgical use in the US.
There's also the issue that companies like GIA, OCP, etc al. have a business model that doesn't work well with the more orthodox approach. They depend on constantly rolling out new material, and they also have a lot of composers who depend on turning out new stuff as their livelihood. They also tend toward a least common denominator approach to theology so they can sell their products to the widest range of parishes they can. And to top it all off, they offer educational resources that help form music ministers, which seems great at first glance, until you realize that it forms them in a way that is counter to the actual Vatican II documents. That sort of thing helps perpetuate the "Gather Us In" approach to sacred music.