MERGED: Singing the Mass by Bishop Olmsted

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Sarabande

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.

I think there always will be controversy here. First, we all have our opinions. Second, we all know what we like and as human beings it can't help but intrude on subjective opinions. That is why I prefer that others recognize this diversity and not be so pushy with their own likes and dislikes. I have 1200 families whose opinions matter to me and one priest who sets the rules. That is quite sufficient for me to deal with. I read all the current Church documents, as well as the older ones, but those only for principles, not rules. Then I try to help the most people have a satisfying, (even emotionally satisfying) Mass. At the very least, I try not to set stumbling blocks which is why I am somewhat conservative and avoid extremes.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

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.

This is not an opinion, though. I took my information straight from the Papal documents. I am not endorsing this as a "for me..." statement.

I did not limit, and nor do the Popes limit, liturgical/sacred music as only chant. Sacred polyphony is most definitely included.

I cannot, on an intellectual level, understand how hymns are appropriate for Mass. It has nothing to do with what I like. I like plenty of hymns. I am taking things straight from Church documents to support what I say, but no one else with a differing view can do the same. At least, I haven't seen it yet.

I do fully believe that parishes that use random hymns are getting it wrong. I really do. I cannot find a single factual justification for random hymns at Mass, within the strictly liturgical action. The relevant GIRM passage allows "another suitable chant" to replace the Propers, but the problem is, they must be approved by the diocesan bishop. My diocesan bishop has approved exactly ZERO hymnals. So for all intents and purposes, my parish, I do believe, is flat incorrect. I don't blame that on anyone in particular.

Pius required Mass music to be excellent, sober and grave. These criteria clearly remain the same even now, as JPII specifically quoted Pius in 2003.

Please don't take me as being arrogant or whatever. I am not writing any of these responses from that point of view. I simply write them using the information I garner from the GIRM, Pius's Tra le sollecitudini, JPII's Chirograph in response to Pius's document, etc. Taking all of this information together, I cannot convince myself of anything otherwise on a factual level.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by superamazingman

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), .

Romans 12:1,2

I do not know this song. I am just answering the question. It is a good passage for Lent.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

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.

And that is the problem! We WILL NOT evangelize the world just with the Mass. We will evangelize the world with a collective of community (parish) events. We have grown complacent. We MUST have, in addition to formal liturgy, other parish events! And lots of them! That is one thing the Protestants do very, very well. However, we MUST, and Popes have written as much, differentiate between music appropriate for Mass and music appropriate for other events. There is a stark difference.

I know! that most people, in first world countries especially, have maybe 1-2 hours of contact with the Church each week, and that is mostly limited to the Mass. However, we must not be satisfied with that. We must do better, but we must not allow liturgical and non-liturgical events overlap and contaminate each other. They each serve their own purpose and have their own place.

This musical conundrum will be solved by: 1) support from all levels (Papal, Congregational, diocesan and parish), 2) EDUCATION, and 3) a more balanced and varied parish life.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

This is not an opinion, though. I took my information straight from the Papal documents. I am not endorsing this as a "for me..." statement.

I

I do not take anyone for being arrogant. I truly believe your statements to be opinions. Pope Pius X authority over the liturgy ended with his death, as to all Popes. That is why I look to something much more recent. Music is changing. In the last century, not only music, but all knowledge and development has accelerated at a drastic rate.

The reason I think you are exercising an opinion, and not fact, is because you go beyond the Church guidelines which do not specifiy a playlist. Furthermore, you can not account for the proliferation of music we have other than to say almost all the priests and bishops in the world are wrong and you are right. You also can not account for non-chant (almost no chant) being found in the Liturgy of the Hours.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

And that is the problem! We WILL NOT evangelize the world just with the Mass. We will evangelize the world with a collective of community (parish) events. We have grown complacent. We MUST have, in addition to formal liturgy, other parish events! And lots of them! That is one thing the Protestants do very, very well.

On that note, I agree 100%. A festival once a year to raise money doesn't cut it. I remember back in the day of Billy Graham crusades, those with Catholic roots that came forward were referred back to their parish for their spiritual growth. I think those days are long past.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

I do not take anyone for being arrogant. I truly believe your statements to be opinions. Pope Pius X authority over the liturgy ended with his death, as to all Popes. That is why I look to something much more recent. Music is changing. In the last century, not only music, but all knowledge and development has accelerated at a drastic rate.

And I gave something much more recent. John Paul II's Chirograph which is practically universally in agreement with Pius's document.

[superamazingman]

Originally Posted by pnewton

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.

I don't see at all how this could be applied to Bishop Olmstead. Please explain more. I don't see Bishop Olmstead allowing "catholic" institutions in his diocese that teach things contrary to the faith.

[countertenor]

Originally Posted by superamazingman

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.

I know several people who work or have worked for OCP, and sadly, even many of the editors, think much of the music they publish is bad, and inappropriate, however, it is a business, and the music sells. They make huge amounts of money publishing this music and pushing it. Not to mention the fact that the way they do their licensing ensures a steady continuous revenue, that you don't see among other publishers.

[countertenor]

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.

I'm not saying emotion, is bad. I'm saying that when we miss the spiritual experience, and the emotions that flow from a spiritual experience, because we are wrapped up in other types of emotions or emotional experiences, that we have a problem. The spiritual encounter with the divine, leads to us experiencing many different emotions, however emotional experiences in and of themselves, don't create spiritual experiences.

You point out that no mater what music is being used, Jesus is present at that mass. I think this is a point that concerns many people. The concern is, are we offering up worship to Christ that is worthy to be offered up to God? Are we more concerned with what suits us and our emotional needs, than offering true liturgical worship.

I think another issue, is that people forget, that the liturgy is meant to be sung. The development of spoken masses occurred much latter in history. The mass isn't something that we can just throw music at. I think this is the other concern people have when music that isn't the actual liturgy is thrown into the mass. It's one thing to have an extra communion hymn or song, But in current practice, most places don't have an extra hymn or song, they have a replacement hymn or song, and the the actual proper communion text and it's accompanying melodies are left out.

Uh oh..I have to get my son to school. I'll be back later. Cheers everyone.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by superamazingman

I don't see at all how this could be applied to Bishop Olmstead. Please explain more. I don't see Bishop Olmstead allowing "catholic" institutions in his diocese that teach things contrary to the faith.

I never said he did. I am only saying that the two bishops can have different opinions as to what is a suitable hymn. I do not see this to be a matter of doctrine at all.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by pnewton

I never said he did. I am only saying that the two bishops can have different opinions as to what is a suitable hymn. I do not see this to be a matter of doctrine at all.

Of course it's not a matter of doctrine. No one is saying that. But then again, clerical celibacy in the Latin Church isn't doctrine, but with tiny exceptions, we do it and we see immense value in it. Building beautiful churches isn't doctrine, but with some wacky modern exceptions, we do it because we see immense value in it. Praying the Breviary/LOTH isn't a matter of doctrine, but our clerics must do it because we see an immense value in it.

These things, including the music, aren't matters of doctrine, but they are the way they are because we see immense value in them.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

And I gave something much more recent. John Paul II's Chirograph which is practically universally in agreement with Pius's document.

Okay, let us look at this:

Since the Church has always recognized and fostered progress in the arts, it should not come as a surprise that in addition to Gregorian chant and polyphony she admits into celebrations even the most modern music, as long as it respects both the liturgical spirit and the true values of this art form.

The last century, with the renewal introduced by the Second Vatican Council, witnessed a special development in popular religious song, about which Sacrosanctum Concilium says: "Religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may be heard..."[30]. This singing is particularly suited to the participation of the faithful, not only for devotional practices "in conformity with the norms and requirements of the rubrics"[31], but also with the Liturgy itself.

It would seem that the great John Paul believed religious music suitable for liturgy. It also seems he expanded beyond chant to allow for modern music.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-sacra_en.html

This is why I am dubious of claims that an opinion on this matter is "truth", and why I have my current signature.

With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "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

Blessed John Paul did not see a black and white distinction of liturgical music.

It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.

I do not see anytime ever that we will abandon our hymnals and return to the chants of the late Middle Ages. I do see a need (again opinion) to recapture the great tradition of music in the Catholic Church that has been displaced by modern music, for the sake of those traditionally-minded Catholics that are enhanced in worship by it, for the sake of preserving our ancient tradition and as a unifying factor through the world-wide Church.

[liturgyluver]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

This is not an opinion, though. I took my information straight from the Papal documents. I am not endorsing this as a "for me..." statement.

I cannot, on an intellectual level, understand how hymns are appropriate for Mass. It has nothing to do with what I like. I like plenty of hymns. I am taking things straight from Church documents to support what I say, but no one else with a differing view can do the same. At least, I haven't seen it yet.

I do fully believe that parishes that use random hymns are getting it wrong. I really do. I cannot find a single factual justification for random hymns at Mass, within the strictly liturgical action. The relevant GIRM passage allows "another suitable chant" to replace the Propers, but the problem is, they must be approved by the diocesan bishop. My diocesan bishop has approved exactly ZERO hymnals. So for all intents and purposes, my parish, I do believe, is flat incorrect. I don't blame that on anyone in particular.

Pius required Mass music to be excellent, sober and grave. These criteria clearly remain the same even now, as JPII specifically quoted Pius in 2003.

Please don't take me as being arrogant or whatever. I am not writing any of these responses from that point of view. I simply write them using the information I garner from the GIRM, Pius's Tra le sollecitudini, JPII's Chirograph in response to Pius's document, etc. Taking all of this information together, I cannot convince myself of anything otherwise on a factual level.

There are other church documents that do allow the singing of hymns at mass. Prior to Vatican II, hymns were only allowed at low mass - hence the hymnals like the Westminster Hymnal that date back to 1903 and were also used for singing the Office .

Sacred Music and Liturgy (1958) even though it predated Vatican II set out formally how vernacular hymns could be used at Low mass. Musicum Sacram (1967) gave the green light for hymns to be used at mass - and refers specifically to the songs at entrance, offertory and communion; Music in Catholic Worship (1972) refers to Entrance, Offertory, Communion and Recessional songs, and Sing to the Lord:Music in Divine Worship (2007) refers to Hymns and Canticles (those used to replace the chant propers) and affirms this as normative action.

When I attend a Solemn Latin mass I don't expect to hear hymns apart - perhaps - at the recessional when the Mass is over. But at an Ordinary Form Vernacular there really is no reason not to sing the hymns.

[opus101]

Originally Posted by countertenor

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.