MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[opus101]

Originally Posted by countertenor

I've had many discussions like with people, that were along the lines of what Bishop Olmsted, posits. Personally I've always felt there is liturgical sacred music, non liturgical sacred music and religious music. Liturgical sacred music being the actual liturgical texts, set to music, whether ordinaries or propers, and non liturgical sacred music, being music that may not be actual texts of the liturgy, but are still specifically texts taken from the bible, or perhaps other other sacred writings, or being very directly tied to these types of things. Religious music being any music that in some way expresses religious thought our one religious expression, or experience. I think it could be difficult to necessarily differentiate sometimes between non liturgical sacred music and purely religious music though.

In some ways it seems like it could be looked at as "religious music" being able to encompass, all of them, while, liturgical and non liturgical sacred music would be specific types of religious music.

Just my passing thoughts.

These are interesting thoughts. You only addressed issues of text, though. "Religious" music most often is composed primarily within a secular music style, so apart from the words, it would be hard to distinguish it from secular (or "profane") music.

[countertenor]

Originally Posted by opus101

These are interesting thoughts. You only addressed issues of text, though. "Religious" music most often is composed primarily within a secular music style, so apart from the words, it would be hard to distinguish it from secular (or "profane") music.

Looking back over western music history, text was often the only difference, between sacred and profane music. Much of the music we today call sacred was composed in a style that at the time, was being used for profane music as well. That is one reason I addressed the texts. I did forget to make it clear, that I do think there are aspects other than text that could help define the differences between these types of music, but I haven't specifically sat down and thought them out.

I do feel that sacred music should help draw our attention toward a spiritual experience rather than just an emotional one. I personally find that much of the "religious" (using the good bishops term) music that people have become accustomed to, if very good at inciting emotionality rather than spirituality. It's these strong emotional feelings that people confuse for the sublime encounter with God during the liturgy.

So I suppose taking the words of the mass ordinary but setting it to music that doesn't facilitate much more than emotionality and acts more as entertainment and diversion, rather than spiritual growth and movement toward God, would really be considered "religious" music and not "sacred" music.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by opus101

You said that profane music has been condemned. If this is so, then most of what we hear at Mass on Sunday has to be discarded. It is largely secular (profane) music with religious sentiments (religious music written in a profane style). I didn't know it had been condemned.

No, it doesn't, and this shows the point I am trying to make. No layperson, even with degrees in music, has the authority to define the music as profane that the priest and the bishop (or the Church) does not define as such. It is a question of authority, not education. When you say tht most of the music you hear at Mass is profane and should be discarded, it still begs the question. Most objection to music at this forum is nothing but begging the question I have noticed. I have never heard one song from Mass played on the radio, or at a concert (except Ave Maria, if you want to discard that one. I will keep it.)

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by opus101

P, first of all, "sacred music" IS "liturgical music". And the reason the article doesn't differentiate between religious music that is suitable for inside Mass and that which is suitable for outside the Mass is because "religious" music isn't to be used inside of the Mass!!! That's one of the main points of the article! Sacred music is for the Mass. Religious music is for outside of the Mass.

This is exactly why I say the definition is circular. Religious music is defined as that which is suitable for outside of Mass, then that it is said that religious music is only to be used outside of Mass.

Now is all sacred music liturgical music? The first article said,

"for example, the Order of Mass (dialogues between ministers and people, the unchanging framework of the Mass), the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, The Creed, Sanctus and Agnus Dei), and the Proper of the Mass (the priest’s sung prayers, the Responsorial Psalm, Alleluia and Verses, the antiphons and psalms prescribed for the processions). "

Note that there is not one hymn mentioned, not one chant, except the Mass parts. Either Bishop Olmstead meant to exclude all of this, or none of this, in this particular definition.

The Catholic Church allows for other suitable hymns. Bishop Olmstead is trying to clarify his criteria as to what is suitable. On the other hand we have Archbishop Vlanzy in Portland that has as a registered apostlolate, Oregon Catholic Press. Do these two need to agree, or can we at least acknowledge that there is a great leeway of opinion, and in my opinion, musical taste, to define what is suitable.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by countertenor

I do feel that sacred music should help draw our attention toward a spiritual experience rather than just an emotional one. I personally find that much of the "religious" (using the good bishops term) music that people have become accustomed to, if very good at inciting emotionality rather than spirituality.

That's an interesting point and one I have often thought about. On one hand, as you point out, emotional content can confuse the spiritual reality. On the other hand, we have Sacramental theology. God choose to become incarnate. He choose to give us his literal body and blood. He did not deal with just spiritually. He met us, and still meets us physically. Now if God wishes to meet us both on the level of the spirit and the material, why do we exclude the emotions, which is as much a part of us as our spirit and physical body. God knows it is easier for us to "take and eat" than just sit and spiritually receive him. I've been there and know. There is a yearning for that physical contact when one can not receive. How much easier is it to meet God when we also have the emotional affection for him. It is this lack that makes the "dark night of the soul" so dark. I believe God meets us where we are and in all we are.

It is because I appreciate that meeting Jesus in spirit is easier when we also love him affectionately that I have tried to increase the amount of Latin and chant in my parish. It is why I believe that dioceses need to provide more opportunity for the Latin Mass in both forms. If emotion did not matter than the type of Mass would not be relevant. Any Mass would still contain Jesus in the flesh and Jesus in the Spirit. But if the Latin helps one emotionally, then it is of value to that person. More to the point, if the modern music is an irritation rather than uplifting in the form hymns that have been passed down through the centuries, then the Catholic must ger beyond the emotions rather than lifted by them.

I know some cringe when they hear the word pastoral, yet I think it is good to remember that our priests are only following the model of the Savior who is the Good Shepherd, leaving the 99 to seek the one lost sheep.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

I have never read a document that has condemned religious music. Profane music has been condemned, but not defined in specifics, and never defined in such a narrow way as Bishop Olmstead has. It is an interesting idea, but it still begs the question. Someone earlier thought that this even meant getting rid of hymnals now in use. I have never seen that in the Church documents.

I did find one interesting irony in the Bishops's article, concerning polyphonic chant. He mentioned that liturgical music is so we may sing with one voice and he mentions Gregorian chant and polyphonic chant. It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that's the "poly" part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

I think this is just another term problem.

Above the line is music that the Church accepts in Her life but in different areas, and below the line is music that the Church does not accept in Her life.

Liturgical music is sacred music. They are synonymous. Liturgical or sacred music is music that is specifically suited for the liturgy, and is limited to Gregorian chant (usually but not exclusively unaccompanied) and sacred polyphony (of any era, mind you, that is, sacred polyphony is still being composed). I know that might rub some people the wrong way, but I think it is quite clear that this is so from Pius's Tra le sollecitudini and JPII's Chirograph. The Ordinary of Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, etc., aka chant/sacred polyphonic mass settings) and the Propers fit into this category.

Religious music is profane music. Religious music is music that has Christian/Catholic lyrics but is not specifically suited to the liturgy because of its theatricality or pop-ishness. The word profane in the secular world usually means bad. That is not how Pius X and John Paul II are using the word, however. They mean it as a song where the lyrics may be Christian/Catholic (although in no way a judgement of quality; that is, the lyrics could be high or low quality), but the accompanying music is secular or folksy or pop-ish. Hymns and extremely theatrical/showy/opera-esque polyphony, even with great lyrics, fall into this category.
________________________________________ _________

Secular music is music that in no way contains Christian/Catholic lyrics, regardless of its accompaniment.

Blasphemous music is music that outright mocks Christianity/Catholicism. It is sinful to listen to this type of music for entertainment purposes.
*******
It is clear that Pius and John Paul have no problem with religious music. However, it is *crystal* clear that they find it totally inappropriate for liturgical use. That is, if Father X wants to have "Sing to Jesus" at the parish picnic or Friday fish fry, fine, great, and they encourage it. But the Popes do not condone religious/profane music (hymns) in any liturgical setting, that is, Mass, Vespers, Benediction, etc. Nay, they specifically condemn such music in a liturgical setting.

Now, "sing with one voice," I think, does not refer to the style of music. That is not how the bishop is using the term. He means it in the more figurative sense, not literal.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

This is exactly why I say the definition is circular. Religious music is defined as that which is suitable for outside of Mass, then that it is said that religious music is only to be used outside of Mass.

Now is all sacred music liturgical music?

Yes! Liturgical music and sacred music are synonymous. This is the music that is specifically appropriate for Mass.

Religious music is not the same as liturgical or sacred music. Religious music is not appropriate for Mass, but is appropriate for parish picnics, other parish events, popular devotions, evangelization, etc.

[Sarabande]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

But the Church has used the word "profane" in reference to religious music. Take Pius X's landmark Tra le sollecitudini of 1903, for example:



Clearly, in the realm of music, the documents of the Church use the word as meaning pop-type or theatrical religious music, not outright sacrilegious or blasphemous music. And at the same time, the documents condemn profane religious music at Mass, while maintaining that it is okay to use it at other, non-liturgical Church functions.

Yes. One of the reasons why "Tra le sollecitudini" was written was because the music written for liturgy at the time was becoming too "secular" or "profane" in sound. It wasn't about a lack of quality either, as many incredible composers were writing for the Church. For example, you had Verdi composing his Requiem mass in the late 19th century, which is a spectacular composition for singers to perform and often considered his "greatest opera" even though it was actually meant for liturgy. It was supposed to be "sacred" music. But the way it is composed, it has to be sung in a very operatic way, which is much larger and "theatrical" than how music would be sung at mass. You really can't "refine" it to sound less theatrical.

Originally Posted by pnewton

It is precisely because polyphonic chant is not with one voice (that's the "poly" part) that it was once condemned and not allowed at Mass. Funny how things change with time.

Actually, it was more because of the way it was originally performed and how it was composed that it was condemned and not really because it wasn't monophonic. Simple organum was used at mass prior and during and considered an early version of polyphony. There wasn't a problem with that form. The secular way of performing more complicated polyphony and how earlier composers wrote the music so that you couldn't clearly understand the words, as well as the usage of certain dissonances in chords that sounded ugly and/or devilish (think la diabola in musica... the tritone) also contributed to the banning of polyphony for mass. Once the composers were able to refine the way they wrote polyphony for liturgy so that it was less "secular" in sound, it was "ok" to use.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

That's an interesting point and one I have often thought about. On one hand, as you point out, emotional content can confuse the spiritual reality. On the other hand, we have Sacramental theology. God choose to become incarnate. He choose to give us his literal body and blood. He did not deal with just spiritually. He met us, and still meets us physically. Now if God wishes to meet us both on the level of the spirit and the material, why do we exclude the emotions, which is as much a part of us as our spirit and physical body. God knows it is easier for us to "take and eat" than just sit and spiritually receive him. I've been there and know. There is a yearning for that physical contact when one can not receive. How much easier is it to meet God when we also have the emotional affection for him. It is this lack that makes the "dark night of the soul" so dark. I believe God meets us where we are and in all we are.

It is because I appreciate that meeting Jesus in spirit is easier when we also love him affectionately that I have tried to increase the amount of Latin and chant in my parish. It is why I believe that dioceses need to provide more opportunity for the Latin Mass in both forms. If emotion did not matter than the type of Mass would not be relevant. Any Mass would still contain Jesus in the flesh and Jesus in the Spirit. But if the Latin helps one emotionally, then it is of value to that person. More to the point, if the modern music is an irritation rather than uplifting in the form hymns that have been passed down through the centuries, then the Catholic must ger beyond the emotions rather than lifted by them.

I know some cringe when they hear the word pastoral, yet I think it is good to remember that our priests are only following the model of the Savior who is the Good Shepherd, leaving the 99 to seek the one lost sheep.

Good sir, this is why we have religious/profane music. For evangelization, for popular devotions, for parish picnics, for parish dinners, for teen meetings, for parish events. Not for the liturgy. For the most part, religious music is emotional. That is what it plays on. And the Church in no way condemns it, but She does differentiate (via Pius X and JPII's documents) between that and sacred/liturgical music. Both types of music have their own place. The former is for non-liturgical Church events, and the latter is for liturgical Church events.

In their documents, the Popes clearly have no problem with religious/profane music, but they do have a problem with it in the liturgy.

[superamazingman]

Originally Posted by pnewton

The Catholic Church allows for other suitable hymns. Bishop Olmstead is trying to clarify his criteria as to what is suitable. On the other hand we have Archbishop Vlanzy in Portland that has as a registered apostlolate, Oregon Catholic Press. Do these two need to agree, or can we at least acknowledge that there is a great leeway of opinion, and in my opinion, musical taste, to define what is suitable.

Now that's taking it a step too far. Everything OCP sells is most certainly not acceptable, by anyone's standards (anyone who thinks with the mind of the church). Many of their songs are riddled with theological errors (how the H*** do we "create ourselves anew"?!?!? According to "Ashes," that's what we do), and some of them (can you say "Lean on Me?" It's in there) don't even qualify as religious music. Not to mention whole books of their responsorial psalms THAT THEY RECOMMEND FOR LITURGICAL USAGE AREN'T EVEN LICIT TO USE IN THE MASS. Ask them. They'll quietly admit it (more info). They flout that their hymnal has USCCB approval, but quietly sneak through on a loophole that allows them to do this since it isn't approved by the bishop.

I can't get in the mind of Archbishop Vlanzy, but I honestly wonder what's going on up there. Makes me sick to see these things coming out of a catholic publishing house, under the supposed oversight of a bishop who seems he couldn't care less.

Makes. Me. Want. To. Puke.

[Sarabande]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Yes! Liturgical music and sacred music are synonymous. This is the music that is specifically appropriate for Mass.

Religious music is not the same as liturgical or sacred music. Religious music is not appropriate for Mass, but is appropriate for parish picnics, other parish events, popular devotions, evangelization, etc.

That said, there are many masses specifically composed for liturgy throughout the centuries which could fall more into the category of "religious" music rather than "sacred" music if we look at it strictly in that sense, just because of how it has to be rendered and the style in which it was composed. You really can't perform something like Mozart's "Great Mass in C" at a parish picnic or other parish event, although it was originally composed for mass and it's first "performance" was done during mass. It contains only the liturgical text for mass. The same with masses composed during the Baroque and Romantic periods. Is it "sacred" because the text is correct or is it only considered "religious" because of how it is composed or performed? It appears, at least with history, both has to be considered. I mean, it was the reason why early attempts with sacred polyphony had to be refined. With those musicians and priests (who were also classical musicians) who have mentored me, you have to work at making those works sound less secular either by toning down the instrumentation (such as using only an organ transcription of the orchestration or using an organ with a few instruments) or by toning down the voice to sound less theatrically operatic. As a classically-trained singer, there is definitely a difference performing an opera and singing classical sacred music for mass. It's much, much less theatrical.

What I have always found interesting was the fact that there has ALWAYS been controversy and debate about appropriateness of certain music for mass. For instance, when Mozart was living in Italy with his father and was commissioned to write masses and other music considered "sacred", like motets and such (think his sacred motet for solo voice, "Exsultate Jubilate" composed for an Italian castrato during his stay in Italy), his father warned him to not pick up the Italians' tastes and style of liturgical composition for writing once they left Italy. He considered the style too secular and not solemn enough for mass.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by Sarabande

That said, there are many masses specifically composed for liturgy throughout the centuries which could fall more into the category of "religious" music rather than "sacred" music if we look at it strictly in that since, just because of how it has to be rendered and the style in which it was composed. I mean, you really can't perform something like Mozart's "Great Mass in C" at a parish picnic or other parish event, although it was originally composed for mass and it's first "performance" was done during mass. It contains only the liturgical text for mass. The same with masses composed during the Baroque and Romantic periods. Is it "sacred" because the text is correct or is it only considered "religious" because of how it is composed or performed? It appears, at least with history, both has to be considered. I mean, it was the reason why early attempts with sacred polyphony had to be refined. With those musicians and priests (who were also classical musicians) who have mentored me, you have to work at making those works sound less secular either by toning down the instrumentation (such as using only a organ transcription of the orchestration or using an organ with a few instruments) or by toning down the voice to sound less theatrically operatic. As a classically-trained singer, there is definitely a difference performing an opera and singing classical sacred music for mass. It's much, much less theatrical.

What I have always found interesting was the fact that there has ALWAYS been controversy and debate about appropriateness of certain music for mass. For instance, when Mozart was living in Italy with his father and was commissioned to write masses and other music considered "sacred", like motets and such (think his sacred motet for solo voice, "Exsultate Jubilate" composed for an Italian castrato during his stay in Italy), his father warned him to not pick up the Italians' tastes and style of liturgical composition for writing once they left Italy. He considered the style too secular and not solemn enough for mass.

Well, correct. Verdi's Requiem, like you mentioned, would probably not fit the sacred music definition. The lyrics are thoroughly correct and the music is beautiful, but it is showy and theatrical, regardless of the composer's intentions of it being performed at mass. Therefore, no, great lyrics (Ordinary of Mass) set to polyphony does not automatically fit "sacred polyphony," because of that extra word, "sacred." It's just polyphony, but not sacred polyphony, because it is too theatrical, and is therefore not suited to the liturgy.

Sacred polyphony must have: 1) correct lyrics and, 2) beautiful but not theatrical accompaniment.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

I think this is just another term problem.

Above the line is music that the Church accepts in Her life but in different areas, and below the line is music that the Church does not accept in Her life.

Liturgical music is sacred music. They are synonymous. Liturgical or sacred music is music that is specifically suited for the liturgy, and is limited to Gregorian chant (usually but not exclusively unaccompanied) and sacred polyphony (of any era, mind you, that is, sacred polyphony is still being composed). I know that might rub some people the wrong way, but I think it is quite clear that this is so from Pius's Tra le sollecitudini and JPII's Chirograph.

It doesn't rub me the wrong way. We all have our opinions. I just do not agree with this, but we should be respectful of differences. To me, what you said doesn't fit the data. Namely, two points.

One, music other that chant is used extensively in most parishes throughout the world, indicating a strong probability that most priests and bishops do not hold to your opinion. Two, and perhaps most conslusive, many hymns, including those with Protestant roots, are found in the Liturgy of the Hours, coming as close to as possible an official endorsement of hymns outside chant being used in the Liturgy. For me, it is conclusive evidence.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Good sir, this is why we have religious/profane music. For evangelization, for popular devotions, for parish picnics, for parish dinners, for teen meetings, for parish events. Not for the liturgy.

I have a question based on your own experience. If this music that you think not suitable for liturgy is to be used in evangalization, what percentage of music do you thing the non-Catholic hears inside Mass and how much outside Mass at other functions?

My experience is that few non-Catholics attend extra functions while much more visit Mass at some point. I would say in my experience that 99% of the music a person outside the Church hears of Catholic music is inside some Mass as a visitor. Personally, I put a high priority on evangelization as it is the Great Commission.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by superamazingman

I can't get in the mind of Archbishop Vlanzy, but I honestly wonder what's going on up there. Makes me sick to see these things coming out of a catholic publishing house, under the supposed oversight of a bishop who seems he couldn't care less.

Makes. Me. Want. To. Puke.

Thank you for pointing this out. Now let us apply the Golden Rule to this. If you say this about Archbishop Vlanzy, is it not at least as plausible that another Catholic could say the same thing about Bishop Olmstead's opinion. That is why I look more to Sing to the Lord, despite it not being binding. At least it is a plurality of opinion, and as I just posted, one that fits the data better.