As a member of the Catholic church all my life, I have had a great variety of exposure to many styles of music in worship. Some good, some not-so-good. But "good" is not an objective word, is it? (Well, "good" is not objective when it comes to music, I should say!)
What is "good" music? And what is "good" music, liturgically speaking?
(I am only beginning a better study of the subject, so this is more of an introductory editorial than a well-researched thought. Hopefully I will get to that point! And this is of course, an excuse for any of my facts that are off - I am still working on it!!! )
I was a child of the Catholic Charismatic movement. This movement is steeped in the rich tradition of the Holy Spirit. A great deal of music was produced during the start of this movement, in the 1960's, '70's, and early '80's. Think of it as a precursor to modern-day praise-and-worship.
At the same time, I have been in parish life since birth, and thus exposed to the more traditional elements of the Catholic faith.
In other words, I can jam with Mercy Me, Tim Hughes, and Newsboys as well as chant "Tantum Ergo" (in both English and Latin)!
Music is emotional, there is no denying that. We love music because of the connections we feel, the emotions it evokes, the way it transports us out of ourselves. That is the attraction to praise and worship style music. It can help us establish that feeling of awe and wonder, that feeling of being in front of something so much bigger than ourselves. It is a private worship at the same time it is communal.
Chant, usually associated with Gregorian chant, is a very old style of music, named after Pope Gregory the Great. It is often monophonic, or without harmony, but can be polyphonic. It is beautiful in its simplicity. It is very powerful, for it connects the singer directly with the text without fancy musical frills. There is a beautiful austerity to chant.
In the wake of great sweeping reforms after Vatican Council II (1962-1965), many worthy things were (mistakenly) thrown out. As the liturgy experienced many changes, Latin chant was dropped just as Latin was dropped from the order of the Mass. Many of these changes were good and timely, but in an effort to undertake so many changes that were not better understood until much later, you often had the case of "the baby being thrown out with the bathwater".
The result today is that many people (not all, but many) who lived in the Church before Vatican Council II are nervous to approach anything smacking of the pre-Vatican II era. It seems (to them) to be a return to the "bad ol' days" of secrecy, firmness without charity, and the divisive wall that seemed to fence the lay faithful out of the holy of holies, the inner sanctum of the heart of the church.
But to those of us who are adults now, born in the 1970's, 1980's, and so on, we feel a loss. We grew up so near to Vatican II, but too near, usually. Our parents and grandparents often moved forward without a backward glance, and so Vatican II became a word we knew, but an idea we were unfamiliar with. We knew there were changes, we knew mass was in the local language and not Latin, but that was about it.
Only as a college and grad student did I actually learn about Vatican II and more about the changes it made and the huge amount of information that was only beginning to be processed, some 30 years later. The Church is still trying to get to the heart of it, after all this time.
So, as this is getting a bit wordy, I think I will end it here and pick it up again later!
For now, think about music, church, and worship. What are good and bad songs? What is good liturgical music? Bad liturgical music? What songs make you cringe? What makes it feel like a great Mass?
13 comments:
Have you read Living the Catholic Faith by Archbishop Chaput? One of the best descriptions of how music at the mass should be is in there. The music is not meant to entertain us, it is meant to lead us in prayer. I have entertainment thrown at me 24/7, when I go to mass I want to focus, I want the music to lift me and bring me closer to perfect prayer. I want it to make me remember where I am and who I am standing (or kneeling)before. That has never happened with contemporery music. It IS enjoyable, and I DO find myself clapping along or toe tapping or what have you, but what I don't find is more important. It does not move me to tears, it does not take my breath away with its beauty or send my heart spinning until it is directly linked to the tabernacle. You are so very right when you say that our generation (born in the 70's myself) feels the void left by the well intentioned after Vatican II.
I agree with Dorothy. Sadly, the interpretation of Vatican II ushered in a watered-down version of the faith. We lost at least one generation of believers, a generation of nuns and priests, and the Blessed Sacrament was pushed, sometimes, out of sight...away from the sanctuary. Isn't there a new "guideline" book printed or ready to be printed on the proper use of liturgical music? I remember hearing about it at least four years ago. The truth can certainly be found in our generation. Look how many of us feel we are "missing" or "lacking" and wanting the tradition back. Keep praying for strong leadership in our Pope, and that the Holy Spirit continues to guide us back to our roots. We can certainly see the Holy Spirit working through great men like Archbishop Chaput.
I love our choirs, but not the music they sing. It's really a shame, for the choirs do work hard and can only do so much with the music that is provided for them.
Patty, not sure about a new guideline, but Musicam Sacram still holds.
http://www.adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html
It's the document that says that Gregorian chant should be given "pride of place" (50a). Hmmm ... that's a rather radical idea.
I like the oldies, Immaculate Mary, Holy God, We Praise Thy Name, the songs that reflect our Catholic identity and seem like a prayer being sung. The ones I really don't like are the ones that seem adapted or are from Protestant Churches. I think many of them are fine songs, but appreciate those that really reflect the unique aspects of our faith, especially at the Mass. I also don't prefer the ones that seem to use the pronoun I for God...just a preference.
I am always in favor of a song the congregation sounds good singing.
The chant is beautiful and pieces of it should be reclaimed, but the Spirit didn't didn't stop inspiring at some point pre- (or post-) V2, either. There is value in every era & style of music, and where one person may be moved to tears by chant, another is so moved by P&W. Neither of those is wrong, and we as catholics (little c) must be as universal as our name. There's nothing as powerful as Pange Lingua sung a cappella on Holy Thursday--unless it is "Sanctuary" sung by 850 schoolkids in harmony.
Kate (the former full-time liturgy woman)
The chant is beautiful and pieces of it should be reclaimed, but the Spirit didn't didn't stop inspiring at some point pre- (or post-) V2, either. There is value in every era & style of music, and where one person may be moved to tears by chant, another is so moved by P&W. Neither of those is wrong, and we as catholics (little c) must be as universal as our name. There's nothing as powerful as Pange Lingua sung a cappella on Holy Thursday--unless it is "Sanctuary" sung by 850 schoolkids in harmony.
Kate (the former full-time liturgy woman)
I have a strong background in liturgical music and can say that the Church has a number of official publications regarding what sacred music ought to be. Sacred. Not the radio and street stuff. Not bongos and kettledrums in the sanctuary. Adoremus Bulletin has a lot of very good information on the subject for anyone who is interested.
I prefer Latin or traditional choral music & hymns during Mass as well, like Mozart's Ave Verum, Adoro Te Devote, and Hail Holy Queen Enthroned Above. I find that this kind of music brings me closer to God in prayer. I don't care too much for contemporary church music. Though having grown up in the church in the '70s, some songs from my childhood like "Yahweh, I know You are Near," still help me in prayer. But overall, I prefer the beauty of traditional, solemn liturgical music. I agree with one of the commenters above that we have enough entertainment as it is in our culture.
I'm in the middle in the liturgical wars in a lot of ways. First of all, I was born pre-VII, but really don't remember those times. My first memories of church music are all in English and include Holy God We Praise Thy Name and Praise to the Lord, the Almighty the King of Creation... as well as Here We Are and Sons of God (if you are too young to remember the last two, you didn't miss anything) My college years were my introduction to the Glory and Praise hymnal, and now the teen mass in my parish uses praise and worship music, which probably does more to lift my heart to the Lord than most of what the more traditional choir's music (an eclectic selection accompanied by the organ) does.
I don't doubt that a lot of baby got thrown out with the bathwater after VII but I also wonder how much of what we now think of as pre-VII is only a small slice of it--or a reconstruction of form, but not reality. What I mean by that is that today's young people who long for pre-VII-type liturgies often are seeking reverence and a more spiritual experience. While there is no doubt that today's liturgy can be celebrated in a manner that is irreverant, was the reverence they are seeking a normal part of the masses said daily/weekly by common priests? I've heard many people tell of going to mass to read their prayer book or say the rosary--not really attending to what what was happening until the bells rang for the consecration. In some ways it is understandable--an un-miked priest standing with his back to you speaking a foreign language couldn't have been heard much further back than the first few rows, if that. My dad once told me the latest mass on Sunday morning was called the drunkards mass. The lowest priest on the totem pole got stuck with it because he couldn't heat until after mass, and the folks who came were those who were out rather late Sat. nite, and few went to communion.
I guess what I'm saying is that I understand what people think is missing in the mass as it is often celebrated today, but that all was not perfect in the old days either.
I'm in the middle in the liturgical wars in a lot of ways. First of all, I was born pre-VII, but really don't remember those times. My first memories of church music are all in English and include Holy God We Praise Thy Name and Praise to the Lord, the Almighty the King of Creation... as well as Here We Are and Sons of God (if you are too young to remember the last two, you didn't miss anything) My college years were my introduction to the Glory and Praise hymnal, and now the teen mass in my parish uses praise and worship music, which probably does more to lift my heart to the Lord than most of what the more traditional choir's music (an eclectic selection accompanied by the organ) does.
Continued:
I don't doubt that a lot of baby got thrown out with the bathwater after VII but I also wonder how much of what we now think of as pre-VII is only a small slice of it--or a reconstruction of form, but not reality. What I mean by that is that today's young people who long for pre-VII-type liturgies often are seeking reverence and a more spiritual experience. While there is no doubt that today's liturgy can be celebrated in a manner that is irreverant, was the reverence they are seeking a normal part of the masses said daily/weekly by common priests? I've heard many people tell of going to mass to read their prayer book or say the rosary--not really attending to what what was happening until the bells rang for the consecration. In some ways it is understandable--an un-miked priest standing with his back to you speaking a foreign language couldn't have been heard much further back than the first few rows, if that. My dad once told me the latest mass on Sunday morning was called the drunkards mass. The lowest priest on the totem pole got stuck with it because he couldn't heat until after mass, and the folks who came were those who were out rather late Sat. nite, and few went to communion.
I guess what I'm saying is that I understand what people think is missing in the mass as it is often celebrated today, but that all was not perfect in the old days either.
I think you've made a great point, RAnn -- reverence is sought, and it can be found, or not, in pre-Vat2 or post-Vat2 liturgies.
Perhaps there's no disputing taste, but much of the contemporary (actually 70s & 80s) P&W music used in Mass just doesn't strike me as reverent. While I guess you could consider P&W to be sacred pop, it is at the bottom of the totem pole for the music to used at Mass. That's not a taste guideline; it's a Vatican guideline, Musicam Sacram.
"60. The new melodies for the vernacular texts certainly need to undergo a period of experimentation in order that they may attain a sufficient maturity and perfection. However, anything done in churches, even if only for experimental purposes, which is unbecoming to the holiness of the place, the dignity of the liturgy and the devotion of the faithful, must be avoided."
I'm sure there's some room for interpertation in that (like how "Credo" can be translated as "We believe" and not "I believe"), but it'd be an interesting experiment to place Tantum Ergo alongside Gather Us In and let an outsider to the church pick which one sounds reverent and which one sounds unbecoming to the holiness of the Church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html
Post a Comment