(The problem with the question of music in the liturgy is that people want an easy answer. They want one Church document that entirely bans or allows guitars. They want one logical sentence that will make them feel good about their own opinions. Now there is an answer, but it isn’t easy. Don’t read this if you were planning to skim through it. Don’t read this if you’re not in the mood to think. Don’t read this if you’re in the habit of reading the titles of posts and articles and putting your own opinion in the combox.)
What music belongs in the liturgy of the Mass? The lines are drawn, the trenches dug, and the opposing camps face each other with far too much enthusiasm. The “whatever-music-praises-God-is-good-for-the-Mass” crew takes on the “no-guitars-at-the-Mass-only-ancient-forms-please-thanks-a-bunch” gang, guaranteeing a long, bloody comment thread spilling out of any post that addresses the topic.
The first idea that needs destroying is that I’m agreeing with you. If I am, great. But don’t assume I am and project your own opinions onto the post and miss the point.
The second idea that needs to be demolished from the brains of anyone taking on the issue is that there is any inherent value in the age of a song. I can’t tell you how many people paint themselves into a corner by saying “only ancient music” and finding themselves unable to answer the question, “What if Gregorian chant had been developed in the eighties? Would it be inherently unfit for the Mass?” Granted, the age of a song or form of music certainly speaks a lot about it: it says it has been good enough to survive the test of time. Thus age is an indicator of worth; it says nothing about the inherent worth of a song. People wrote crap then, people write crap now.
The third chuckable idea is that you matter. (OK, you do matter, God loves you and you are an incredible, unique creation of infinite worth.) But your own feelings, reactions or thoughts about certain songs do not matter. We spoke on this earlier, that such an attitude denies the fact that beauty is objective. We know otherwise, because God is the source of all beauty, and it therefore cannot be defined by us. It’s very important because, again, people paint themselves into corners by saying, “But God used this song to speak to me, therefore of course it’s appropriate for the Mass!” God used an ass to speak to people, that does not mean it deserves a place in the liturgy.
Now let’s be as clear as we can: Protestants can’t answer this question. I love them, I truly do, and so I pity the absence of authority, the vacuum of ‘things-not-in-the-Bible’ that invites real, damaging conflict. The best solution they could find would be to make a new church for each difference in musical taste…oh wait. But Catholics have the collected wisdom and authority of a 2000 year old institution founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. So let’s understand the Church’s teaching on this. It is not an outright rejection of ‘modern music’ in the liturgy, but it does set very important guidelines. “If music – instrumental and vocal – does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes entry into the Sphere of the Sacred and the religious.” (Pope Paul VI). That papal statement knocks out a lot of modern music. It knocks an even harder hole into the ship of ‘contemporary’ music written in the seventies, a large amount of which is utterly devoid of dignity, the” state of being worthy of respect”. It also give us three clear prerequisites for including a song in the Holy Mass – prayer, dignity, and beauty – three prerequisites that I believe are more succinctly summed up by Plato.
Are you ready? If not, go have your mind blown and come back.
You see, Plato set out to define exactly what gave something aesthetic value, that is to say, what – on a sensory level – man is objectively drawn to. What is the soul inclined to love? What – objectively – is the difference between a puddle and a Botticelli? Notice I mutilate my sentences with the word ‘objective’ – I need to make the point. Plato’s answer was not that “nice paintings make me feel good”, or “bright colors are better”, or that “music should be written in Greek”. The prerequisites Plato gave for something being of aesthetic value are: Goodness, Truth and Beauty. Objective.
All three put a demand on man. Good is that which should to be chosen, Truth is that which should be believed and Beauty is that which should be admired. As Judeo-Christianity philosophy rolled around these found new meaning in the Trinity: all three are perfectly realized in Him. All three must be present for something to be aesthetically perfect, and thus appropriate for the Holy Mass, which deserves nothing less than ‘that which our souls are naturally inclined towards’.
Why? Why not less than the Good, True and Beautiful? Because if God made us to appreciate the Good the True and the Beautiful, then our Sacred music must obey the command he has written on our hearts. If we are to sing and play in the True Presence of God we should not lie. And, quite simply, if these three are what our soul responds to, then music containing Goodness, Truth and Beauty will naturally elevate us, will naturally work to bring our hearts and minds closer to God, which is the point of music at Mass. Lady Gaga has none of them. Paul Simon often has one or two. But we’re talking about Christian music.
Most Christian music played at Mass is Good in the classical sense, that is to say, it is not something man shouldn’t choose for moral or ethical reasons. And most church music – from contemporary to ancient – is true. Few hymns are allowed that blatantly put heresy to melody. With a few exceptions we can shake hands and say, your music is good and true, dear sir across no man’s land, playing that ridiculous guitar/uninspired organ. May the Lord bless you and keep you.
No, the issue it comes down to is Beauty. That’s what we’re fighting over. Beauty. What is beautiful? Again, the temptation is to give up, to float off happily into the clouds of subjectivity and personal opinion. “Gregorian chant is so nice, so soft and meditative and beautiful, it’s like God is scratching my back”, or “Song of Hope is so beautiful, it makes me feel so happy. It’s like being sat on by Heaven.” No. We are Catholic. We killed subjectivity. Relativism is for suckers.
So what is the objective definition of beauty?
Here we turn to our Big Fat Theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa, he said Beauty is made up of three parts. (Is it coincidence that beauty and aesthetics are divided into trinities? I think not.) For a work of art to be beautiful it must have integritas – integrity or perfection, consonantia – due proportion or harmony, and claritas – brightness or clarity.
If you’re still with me, I applaud you. (To sum up where we are: For music to be aesthetically perfect, to be what our souls naturally respond to, it must be Good, True and Beautiful. We realize most Christian music is Good and True. All it needs is Beauty and it can be considered appropriate for the Mass. We have just defined beauty. We’re getting there!)
Integrity or perfection. There’s a lot of words that can be used to translate what our boy Tommy was getting at; wholeness, completeness, coherence. But in terms of music, what it comes down to is this: All the parts of a song must serve the purpose of the whole. Lyrically, this is easily picked out. If your song’s message is incoherent, you’re missing a crucial element of beauty. If each line is just some spewed-up truth about Jesus with no relation to the next line, and the verses have no context within the refrain, and vice versa, then the song is not fit for the Holy Mass. For instance: Open the Eyes Of My Heart. No lyric in this song is bad, no line heretical, but there is no completion, no wholeness. The request to have our eyes opened to the reality of God is not fulfilled by another request to “pour out your power and love”, and the chant of “holy, holy, holy” – while beautiful – likewise does not answer the request, simply moves us to praise with no idea of how we got there. The words do not serve the purpose of the whole. (I understand I may be missing some deep connection; feel free to enlighten me. The point remains.)
Musically, this gets trickier. But a good way to think about it is by way of guitar solos. If the song is for the purpose of conveying the grandeur of God, does it serve the purpose of the whole to be grandly displaying the grandeur of your pentatonic scales and ability to shred? Does the part serve the whole? Or as far as drums go: it might be serving the purpose of the whole to be building, crescendoing to a climax along with the other musicians, but does it serve the whole to be pumping out a disco-beat when you get there? This also makes sense in terms of minor, major keys, in ‘moods’ of the song. Hillsong do a great job of having the sound of their songs adding to the whole purpose. Songs must have integrity or perfection of form and content to be beautiful, and thus to get into the Mass.
(Side Note: If a song has any one of the three parts of Beauty, then we might very well ‘like’ that song. Don’t think I’m saying that any song whose lyrics don’t serve the purpose of the whole song sucks – I would never listen to the Chili Peppers if that were the case. I’m saying that the Mass deserves Beauty, not just likeability.)
Due proportion or harmony. ‘Due’ is a key word, because it means that a painting of an ugly thing can be a beautiful painting. If you are conveying despair in music, the proportion due to it is different than that to a song conveying hope. Make sense? Not that songs about despair should be in the Mass, but you get my point.
Music at the Mass conveys what’s happening at the Mass; it comes from and points towards the events of the liturgy. Music in the Mass must be in harmony with what is being said in the Mass. Overtly happy-go-lucky songs are not in harmony with the gut-wrenching sacrifice of the altar. Thus, Oh, Happiness! by the David Crowder Band, for all it’s glory, does not belong in the Mass. Part of this is simply the choice of when to play a certain song; Communion songs for Holy Communion, songs of Thanksgiving for the recessional, etc. This is a mistake often made by the traditional music bunch; just because something is traditional does not mean it is automatically in due harmony with the events of the liturgy. Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow is off-putting as a Communion hymn. But the Mass as a whole also needs be considered.
The general scream that drums don’t belong in the liturgy doesn’t make much sense. Drums, all throughout human culture, are perhaps the greatest instruments to express drama within a musical group, and the liturgy is overflowing with divine drama. It is The Divine Drama. That’s why Requiem Masses and Easter Vigils use massive bass drums, cymbals and timpani for their Mass parts. Drums are a part of Sacred Music. The scream that beats don’t belong in the liturgy comes closer to the truth. The Mass itself has highs and lows, times of meditation and times of praise, anticipation and release: it is not in due harmony with the mass to be playing a four-on-the-floor groove through all your songs. But clearly, there is no sense in saying “Yes you can have bass drums and cymbals and snare drums, but don’t put them all together, God doesn’t like that.” So what are we left with?
Drummers must drum intentionally and in due harmony with the Mass. If the song is about sorrow leading to joy, the drums need to be building throughout, from murkiness – but never messiness – to clarity. Less beat and more power. If the song is anticipation for God, let the drums never rest in a groove, but rather rest in that tension of never quite settling into some beat. If the drummer isn’t being challenged more than anyone else in the band to be in due harmony with the Mass, then he is not doing it right. It is not in harmony with the Mass to simply hit the snare on 2 and 4. And I find when many traditional-music-only are saying, “no drums!” like “no capes!” in The Incredibles, they’re really saying no beats, no grooves. Which, from St. Thomas Aquinas, makes sense. Grooving is not in due proportion with the Mass. Drums often are.
(Another side note: Obviously a lot of this depends on how a song is performed. That’s another post though.)
Clarity. Clarity of message. Does the song convey? It might be complete, it might be in due proportion, but is it meaningful? Does it accurately convey the intended message? This is why the “You died for me!” pumped-up, happy songs are out of place. The music does not convey the solemnity of the message. The music has to be purposeful. The music should sing with the choirs in heaven: is that clearly conveyed? This is also referred to as radiance and I think this part of beauty, when applied to music in the liturgy, is really the question; are you playing or praying? If the song is truly a prayer, than it’s purpose is clear, it reveals heaven. If the song is a performance, it is immediately muddled. It sings about God and reveals the worship leader or organist. That contradiction sends the faithful running for the exit. There is utterly no claritas in such incongruity.
Phew. If you’re still here, I’m proud of you. Take a break.
So can music played with modern instruments have Goodness, Truth and Beauty in all its fullness? Yes, but it’s very difficult. And this seems to be the attitude of the Church. If you are going to play modern instruments “they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered” (Sacred Congragation Of Rites 1958). The Church is not saying that there is anything wrong with modern instruments. That much is explicit. She’s saying that if you are going to do it, you better make damn sure you’re doing it well. She realizes that the easiest thing to do is crank out a beat, throw four power chords on top of it, and sing Casting Crowns. She’s saying don’t. Take the hard, narrow road of of making a song Good, True and Beautiful.
The Church clearly sets aside Gregorian chant as the ‘best’ . Why? Because it has lasted. Blessed John Paul II quotes Pius X saying, “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple” Because it has been tested for Goodness, Truth and Beauty and has not been found lacking. Don’t get offended here, but it’s easy. I mean this in the strictest sense; that because it has been developed by and for the Church over thousands of years, one needs worry less as to whether he is fulfilling the requirements of Beauty. Liturgical music played with modern instruments should seek to follow, not the path of Chris Tomlin and the rest, but the path of Goodness, Truth and Beauty, as Gregorian chant has done.
To be clear, I believe 95% of ‘youth Masses’ or ‘contemporary Masses’ or ‘whatever-you-want-to-call-them Masses’ get this wrong. But it can be done. So instead of taking subjective potshots at each other, let us truly consider whether a song is Good, whether it is True, and whether it is Beautiful, and of that Beauty, whether it is complete, in harmony with its message, and clear in its purpose, and argue on those objective grounds.
This post has to end sometime, I realize that there is an infinite amount more that can be said. So my roommate and I – who I owe much of this post to – are starting a blog called Sacred Sounds. We’ll be taking on the problems with Christian music, and showcasing the artists that represent the solution. I sincerely hope this helped people by giving them a foundation from which to have this discussion.
24 thoughts on “Music In The Liturgy”
Marc,
I read it all, and it only took me 2 Red Bulls and a case of Pixt Stix. I want to add something, and don’t know how to do it… without throwing a bit of a molotov cocktail so I will try and be gentle. This is less of a critique of you personally and more of a critique at how we look at the Mass & Music in general.
In light of such articles as: & I think that you need to preface your post as to what you mean by Music.
If the Roman Liturgy is intended to be a SUNG liturgy, then the music you speak of is Extra-liturgical, and while it is all very true what you wrote, it is a secondary point, and moot if you accept and adhere to the theology of a sung liturgy. Now you could dismiss this and say, “Silly trad, sung propers are for the minority” I would throw out the rebuttal that the entire reason we have the problem we have isn’t that we have abrogated the primacy of place of Gregorian Chant, but instead we have lost touch with the theological reason of music or SONG in our liturgy altogether.
Again, your understanding and explanation of Platonic and Thomist understanding of trinite forms of objectivity when it comes to things like Beauty are SUPERB. Yet, it might beg the question a bit. I think that we as a Catholic faith, especially in light of the new Missal translation need to review our Cathechesis on how we implement song and music into our liturgy. Not just the WHAT (Hillsong United or “Panis Angelicus”) but the WHY (Sung Propers or spoken propers with interspersed HYMNS).
I will acknowledge that there are various valid forms (read: styles) of the Mass, there needs to be a better understanding that what we see ordinarily on a Sunday isn’t the only form, or even the intended form. (This isn’t about OF vs EF either).
Ultimately I agree with most of what you say, my point is that the premise might need a twinge of work. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that we need to start explaining and understanding that music in the Mass doesnt ONLY mean: HYMNS (as in Entrance, Preparation of Gifts, Communion, and Recessional) and then the Mass “Setting” itself. That is only one way of doing it, and when we assume or talk about the Mass in such a way that we think of Music at Mass in this way we easily fall into the problem that you state at the beginning of your piece. I think your post combined with an understanding of why we sing at Mass, what music is supposed to be used at Mass, and what the options are… well then we might be on the road to BEAUTIFUL Masses. The Mass is an amazing Miracle, a little piece of Heaven on Earth, the least we can do is our part in trying to attain majestic beauty.
Marc, you are brilliant. Thank you for taking the time to write this, it is much needed
The Church in her infinite wisdom outlines clearly the texts which are proper to the Mass and these are called (surprise) the Propers of the Mass. These are usually verses of scripture (a great many from the Psalms) which are thematic for the liturgy of the day. These propers have been set to the Gregorian modes most fully in the Liber Usualis and also the Graduale Romanum. I think with the new translation of the Roman Missal there is the opportunity to take these proper texts and make wonderful musical settings for them. Does that mean that there can never be hymns sung at Mass? Absolutely not. However, what has happened is that the propers have been completely discarded in favor of often syrupy hymns and love songs to Jesus. I am of the firm belief that the propers must be restored in some fashion to the Mass. Once the proper has been sung a hymn can be sung if there is time, but the proper should always be sung.
You have done a great job in describing the guidelines for how music befits a sacred text. I think what is most important is the adaptability of the music to the human voice. The human voice is the primary instrument in the worship of God in the liturgy and therefore the musical accompaniment should serve largely to support and complement the human voice. Musical instruments should never overpower the voice nor draw attention away from the sacred texts to the sound they are producing.
Future of Forestry was absolutely beautiful. I was held up.
Your piece was great and I agree with you. I was brought up singing the Latin in the choir and then left the church for many years and when I came back it was to the guitar and folk music. I go to Mass not for the music but for what is on the altar. The music and singing should glorify what is going on. It is not a performance that I seek.
God bless you.
I wrote a long comment, but I think it got spam blocked. Essentially I agree with what you say, but I think before we even get to this discussion we have to discuss hymns, propers, and the idea that the Roman Liturgy is meant to be sung.
I will try and duplicate my post if someone doesn’t save it from Spam Purgatory when I am not typing from my Droid.
The two posts that make me think that we need to discuss how Music & Song should be utilized in the Mass, before we even get to the WHAT KIND o fMusic question are these:
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/09/brilliance-of-laszlo-dobszay.html
&
http://richleonardi.blogspot.com/2011/05/roman-liturgy-is-intended-to-be-sung.html
So while I agree with most of what you say Marc, I think that the discussion that needs to take place more often, and first, is why are we forgoing SUNG Masses, for Mass with music and Extra-Liturgical hymns, that based on your EXCELLENT analysis arent even suitable for the Mass?
I don’t think this diminishes your analysis or critique, but actually shows how the fact that these songs are in the Mass completely ignores the function and purpose of the Mass and music within it.
Few hymns are allowed that blatantly put heresy to melody.
I’m going to have to disagree with you there. There are quite a few “hymns,” particularly of the post-1965 period of Inherently Unworthy Music Products, that are screamingly heretical. For example, Fr. Eric Richsteig of “The Orthometer” has done song-by-song takedown of the repulsive “Gather” so-called “hymnal,” and many of the products there are:
I have heard some for guitar music at mass. The guitar sounded beautiful and played well.
Thank you so much for this insightful post–and for this impressive new blog. The tin ear that so many Catholics have for truly appropriate sacred music can only be overcome by exposure, from a very young age, to better stuff. As Plato would have said.
As it happens, I am also discussing the three features of beauty that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, over at my blog, High Concepts, devoted to issues in the arts, the entertainment industry, and culture: danielmcinerny.blogpsot.com.
Simple English Propers by Adam Bartlett.
So this is probably one of the best posts I’ve seen on the subject, at least one of the clearest (and wittiest). This has been a subject I’ve philosophized about quite deeply for some time. Aesthetics is a hard but extremely interesting subject.
Alright, so I second the comments in here about the use of the Graduale Romanum, whose existence I don’t think many people are even aware of (go figure). Let’s sing the Psalms!! Yes, the Propers have been almost universally neglected. I think something important to keep in mind with the music is that it has to give primacy to the words being said (which are sacred). Which is another reason why chant has served the Church so well for all this time, and why it remains the standard: it has a free rhythm, allowing it to be shaped around the words of the Psalms or canticles or the words of the Mass. In this way, the music is even in a sense ‘obedient’ to the words of the Sacred Scripture and of the Mass!
So here is where I would like further clarification. Most of the examples you used to demonstrate when something does not have full integrity, due proportion, harmony, clarity etc. you mostly highlighted the lyrics, not the music itself. What is in the music itself that has integrity? The words could be fine – particularly if it’s parts of the Mass (ex. the Gloria). What makes one song objectively better than another (better meaning possessing more “goodness”)? Can this even be said?
So, very good post, but I’m glad you’re starting another blog. This wasn’t conclusive enough.
@ Joseph K. – well said! Actually, the parts of the Mass that are most meant to be sung are those parts that are the dialogue between the people and the priest (The Lord be with you, and also with you, lift up you hearts, we lift them up to the Lord, etc.). I have a theory why this is so. The Mass is very much a “dialogue”. It is the dialogue between God and Man, the Father and the Son (the priest in persona Christi) such as in the Agony in the Garden. It is also the dialogue between the Bride and the Bridegroom, Christ and His Church. Which is seen in the Song of Songs! It’s a love song!
Thanks for the article and the great comments!(applause!!)
I’ve recently(like last night, aamof!)been reading Church documents regarding music at Mass. One disturbing thing that I’ve noticed is the omission of the word “sacred” from both the title of this article and the title of the USCCB document “Sing to the Lord”. This may seem nit-picky, but I believe it to be a willingness to compromise or settle for less than what God deserves from us which is everything. OK, maybe I’m off base. Afterall, what’s in a Word? Oh, wait……
Lots to think about. Since you bring it up as an analogy I’ll ask you consider the inherent difference between the percussion used in say the Verdi Requiem and the typical Sunday morning drum set playing. The one enters in very sporadically ,as you say dramatically. It’s purpose is not to “keep time” or make us tap our feet. There might be one cymbal crash in a 5 minute Gloria. The drum set on the other hand, if used in a song plays from beginning to end. It brings for most of us the sound of top 40s pop music into the room. That is not in keeping with any of the various expressions of what is and is not appropriate for mass. Put simply: the drum set in a garage band and the percussion section in a symphony orchestra are not analogous, at all. The drum set in church is not ever a good idea because. It is the one sound sets entertainment music apart from art music or apart from good worship music.
Ditto what about half the commenters have said re: Mass Propers. This post is an excellent starting point in a discussion of sacred music in general, but to really get into it, I think you need at least a couple more distinctions.
First, liturgical music is a subset of sacred music. There’s plenty of music that’s wonderful for all kinds of religious events or just for personal inspiration, but would not be quite right for the liturgy.
Second, even within the narrower field of liturgical music, there’s a distinction between music for the Office/Liturgy-of-the-Hours, and music for the Eucharist.
This distinction is immediately apparent in traditional Gregorian chant. For a really immediate impression of this you can listen to the Benedictine monks at Norcia chant Vespers of a particular day, and then listen to them sing the Introit of the mass of the same day. In both cases they’re singing Gregorian chant, but the musical difference is remarkable.
Finally, speaking of tradition and Chant — it seems to me that any discussion of liturgical matters has to undertake a serious treatment of the concept of “tradition”. It’s not just the fact that Gregorian chant is old and therefore time-tested that make it especially suitable for the Roman Rite, although these qualities are important. What’s more important is that Gregorian chant is the traditional music of the Roman Rite. As wonderful as it is, Gregorian chant would be totally out of place at an eastern Divine Liturgy, and your article above doesn’t even begin to touch on the reasons for that — but I think those are the most important reasons of all.
Looking forward to more on the blog, thanks so much for this!
This is the best article I’ve read on this topic in forever! Thanks for making it so clear and concise and using St. Thomas Aquinas!
I’ve been playing/singing music at Mass since I was 10 so I’m heavily opinionated about it. The problem begins in educations as most Catholics don’t have any concept of what we’re talking about here, and second the resources are so incredibly limited that its impossible not to fall into the mind-numbingly awful music that predominates in modern parishes. But the most people know hopefully the more demand for good music it’ll create!
Christy, if you aren’t familiar with it yet, check out musicasacra.com and start clicking through the tabs. You may find that good sacred-music resources aren’t quite so limited as one might think.
“We no longer dare to believe in beauty and we make of it a mere appearance in order the more easily to dispose of it. Our situation today shows that beauty demands for itself at least as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness, and she will not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance. We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past – whether he admits it or not – can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love” (von Balthasar in The Glory of the Lord)
This was EPIC!
I am not sure a post should take me almost 5 hours to read, but everytime you had a link I ended up finding other music along the way.
Are you really on 18? You must be the Amadeus of music critics.
Thanks for great morning introducing me to music I haven’t heard before. Much enjoyed!
Marc – are you a liturgical musician? I’m curious if all these viewpoints stem from an individual who had experienced mass from ‘both sides of the alter,’ so to speak.
I can say with some degree of certainty that I have never heard someone say this before.
Furthermore, while there’s nothing (of which I am aware) wrong with chanting the dialogue, that can’t be the part “most meant to be sung,” because the dialogue between the priest and the congregation as a whole is not a continuous part of the Church’s liturgical tradition. The tradition of the Church is for the Propers and the Ordinary to be sung. Certainly the parts “most meant to be sung” are those that the Church has insisted on having sung when possible for going on two thousand years. The dialogue permitted by modern amplification equipment may be nice and beneficial, but it has a tough row to how to live up to the importance ascribed it by the commenter above.
@Titus, that concept reminds me of the document “Musicam Sacram” from 1967. See paragraphs 28-31: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html
I think you perhaps overstate the case for Ordinary and Propers when you refer to them as “those [parts] that the Church has insisted on having sung when possible for going on two thousand years.” But in general I agree with you that those are the parts that continuous, developing liturgical tradition has handed on to our era as the most “singable”. I’d be interested to know what the authors of Musicam Sacram — which obviously didn’t take hold, at least in America — were drawing from when they formulated their concept of three degrees of singing.
@Ben Dunlap I’ve heard it, if not often, at least more than once. And even worse than bad hymns are bad Mass settings that a choir insists on using, even when the priest is chanting. It clashes musically, I don’t know how else to describe it. But it’s jarring, and mashing them together like that wrecks the inherent beauty of both the chant and the setting.
I don’t understand choirs that insist on their musical selections over anything else. And if they say they don’t know the chanted response, I don’t believe them. The whole congregation knows the simple chanted responses! It would be remarkable indeed that the choir consisted only of those in the parish that could not learn a simple response by ear.
This is an excellent blogpost. You cut right to the heart. @JosephK, I also appreciate the comment and think these are all really healthy perspectives. I’m sincerely prayerful that the revisions in the New Roman Missal will bring about a deeper reverence in Mass. I also just heard about this potentially very helpful book called “Simple English Propers”…maybe by making it easy for liturgists to use we might recover some of the Goodness, Truth, and Beauty of the Mass. Check it out: http://www.amazon.com/Simple-English-Propers-Adam-Bartlett/dp/1607437260