No, really!
They’ve just released a new album and will be performing live in four different U.S. cities as part of a reunion tour!
Even though John and George are dead!
Oh, wait.
No, it’s not the Beatles that have just done that. It’s the St. Louis Jesuits.
The who?
No, not The Who. The St. Louis Jesuits–a group of "musicians" who in the mind of some people apparently have the same status in liturgical music that the Beatles do in actual music.
The Catholic News Service writes:
The St. Louis Jesuits, liturgical music icons from the 1970s, are back together and have released their first album in more than 20 years.
"Morning Light" is the seventh recording for the St. Louis Jesuits — Dan Schutte and Jesuit Fathers Bob Dufford, John Foley and Roc O’Connor — who were known for such songs as "Blest Be the Lord," "Lift Up Your Hearts" and "Sing a New Song."
In the mid 1980s, various assignments moved the men to different parts of the country, and Schutte left the Society of Jesus.
Since that time, all four have released successful solo CDs.
The four met up in 2001 at the 25th anniversary celebration of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians in Washington, where they sang Schutte’s "City of God." It was the first time in 17 years that they had performed together live.
Tim Manion, one of the original St. Louis Jesuits, joined with the four to sing for some of the recordings. Father Dufford and Schutte hadn’t seen him in 21 years and Father O’Connor hadn’t seen him in eight.
Fans of the St. Louis Jesuits’ music will find comfort in the songs on "Morning Light" as its sound is much the same as their earlier sound.
In the spring, Fathers O’Connor, Foley and Dufford and Schutte will do four live performances in Washington, St. Louis, Chicago and Anaheim, Calif. The group hasn’t done any public performances together in nearly 20 years.
"It’s our little reunion tour," Schutte said.
Setting aside the (intentional?) religious/secular pun of calling these individuals "liturgical music icons," the whole "rock star" paradigm that governs this article and how these malefactors are perceived speaks volumes about the current rot that passes for liturgical music.
Hey bud, how ’bout not posting something like this ’til after lunch. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!
I admit that after decades of playing and singing for Masses, I have finally seen the light and dislike most of the SLJ/Haugen-Haas/Landry, etc. oeuvre. (I am holding out on Haugen’s “Evening Prayer” which is actually quite lovely and liturgically sound, but most people have never heard it.)
ANYWAY, I have some questions — EVERYONE wants the music of Palestrina and Gregorian chant back, but no one mentions other appropriate music. Surely there must be other composers whose works are worthy, and are there no modern composers who are appropriately inspired? What music was played at Mass before Gregorian chant? Can people really sing Palestrina? I’d like to be pointed to examples of good CONGREGATIONAL hymns.
These are serious questions — everyone says how much they hate this music, but few are offering what I consider to be a suitable alternative (silence is NOT suitable).
‘thann
Ruthann,
You may already know of http://www.adoremus.org/
they have a hymnal.
The music was selected on the basis of beauty, holiness, Catholic tradition, theological integrity, familiarity and simplicity. All the music is within the capabilities of every Catholic parish.
And a side note some silence is not only suitable but expected.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
It would be interesting to scan the crowds at these “reunion concerts” (which in itself suggests the performance emphasis of this so-called liturgical music). I am willing to bet it will be graying liberals parking their VW buses with “De Colores” stickers in the parking lot.
Thanks, Inocencio — I am aware of the Adoremus hymnal. Unfortunately my parish got new hymnals a couple years back — Glory and Praise. We won’t be getting any new hymnals any time soon. Meanwhile, when I sub for the music director I always select the few traditional songs that are in there.
My comment about silence was that Sunday Masses should have music — that is, the solution to getting rid of the recent drivel isn’t to remove music altogether.
My other questions remain unanswered: Are there no divinely inspired composers of good, theologically sound sacred congregational music today? If so, where in heck are they?
‘thann
Ruthann, you need to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. I think you’ll be surprised at what the Council Fathers thought was appropriate music for the mass. You can find it online at adoremus.org in the Documents section, along with other information about liturgy and liturgical music.
If you are seriously interested in exploring the musical heritage of the Western Church, I recommend the CD Learning about Gregorian Chant, put out by the Benedictines of Solesmes. It is a nice introduction. Among other things it points out that Chant is intended for singers of _all_ levels of ability. Typically, there are parts for the congregation, the Schola (roughly equivalent to the choir) and for gifted soloists.
Most of Palestrina’s music is intended for multi-part singing (that’s why it’s called polyphony) and this is true also of the other great composers of his era. However, he did write pieces suitable for congregational singing, such as the Easter anthem “The Strife is O’er.”
The problem is not a lack of alternative, singable music. The problem is a (deliberately, I think) skewed interpretation of the Vatican II documents, which has given cover for the liturgical depredations of the last forty years.
“My other questions remain unanswered: Are there no divinely inspired composers of good, theologically sound sacred congregational music today? If so, where in heck are they?”
The key task is not so much reinventing the wheel (although improvements are possible and welcome), but maintaining access to it in an increasingly culturally illiterate society:
http://www.adoremus.org/1205MusicalOffering.html
PVO
I’ll go further out on a limb and note that anyone who thinks they can improve on the psalms for liturgical music demonstrates breathtaking hubris.
The need for other liturgical music will be difficult to demonstrate until everyone has the first 150 liturgical songs of the Church memorised.
PVO
Our parish education directors adopted the LifeTeen program several years ago, and at the time it seemed refreshingly different. There was that automatic burst of enthusiasm that generally comes with new things.
The LifeTeen band was huge, probably 15 to 20 people, including brass and, of course, guitars, drums, etc…
“Praise choruses” were relatively new to the parish, and participation was loud and enthusiastic, with raucous applause for the band after the Mass ended.
What some failed to consider was the innate human capacity for boredom. Sure there was some interest at first, but people will grow tired of anything after a while. People grew bored with the old hymns, not because there was anything wrong with the hymns, but because fallen human nature will always get bored with everything.
The band has shrunk to perhaps 5 regular members. Participation from the pews is little more than a whisper. New songs are introduced occasionally, but it is the same sort of soporific Haugen/Haas drek that everyone has grown tired of. Stuff that makes John Denver sound edgy. There is a smattering of polite applause.
It doesn’t help that we have a huge, new sanctuary that is the architectural equivalent of vanilla pudding. Altogether, it gives the Mass all the charm and reverence of a trip to the mall.
I like music. I like all kinds. But I don’t listen to hymns while I’m knocking back beers with friends. I don’t crank up the classic southern rock when I’m riding around with the wife and kids, and I don’t want folk rock intruding on the Mass. By gum, when I go to church, I want to hear church music.
Some things were meant to go together, and some were not. I’m sorry, but I have come to the unshakeable conviction that there should never be a saxophone at Mass unless someone has brought it to be blessed by a priest.
Sorry this grew to be so long.
Rant over.
PVO,
You might as well say no one should teach catechism until they have the Scriptures memorized. Nonsense.
Breier
I would agree unless there happened to be a book of the Bible titled “Catechesis.” I would then think it the height of arrogance to do anything else.
PVO
The need for liturgical music other than the psalms is manifest. For one, the psalms were written for Jewish temple worship hundreds of years before Christ. One would think that the Redemption of the world and the descent of the Holy Spirit would justify some new songs unto the Lord.
Further, that the psalms are held to be an inexhaustible treasure does not mean that they are the best form of worship for everyone. For one, shorn of their Hebrew and original music, they are simply lyrics, not music.
PVO,
For the context of Jewish ritual temple worship, I quite agree, the psalms are superbly well fitted.
But we’re not Jews practicing the Mosaic law, are we?
One might as well deny the New Law because God gave a Law on Sinai.
Discussions of liturgical music will be twofold
1) Lyrics:
The neglect of the Psalms, like the neglect of chant, is a scandal of the modern American church, and talking about the suitability of other lyrics while the Psalms languish in their current neglect is astonishing. Denying the prophetic nature of the Psalms in relation to the resurrection, for instance, verges on the blasphemous. Not all of the St. Louis Jesuit songbook’s lyrics are indefensible, though: “Sing a new song” is straight from the Psalms, at least, although the musical arrangement is a complete travesty. Which brings us to
2) Musical arrangement: the form of chant is the preferred style of the Roman rite, and much can be said about and concluded from the straight-faced denials from the Schutte/Haugen school that their style in any way profanes the Mass, but my primary criticism in view of the primacy of the Psalms was lyric, not so much musicological. The Schutte/Haugen school would deny that such a thing as a profane instrument or style exists, notwithstanding the clear reference to such things in the controlling liturgical documents.
PVO
PVO,
St. Paul advised us to sing with psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles. He did not say, just psalms. Further, it’s clear that what’s great music and poetry 2500 years ago isn’t necessarily going to be best suited to reaching the masses of our time. For one, psalms don’t come with music or translation. And translation are not inspired. Further, the textual transmission of the Psalms is not perfect, and inaccuracies in song have greater effect than elsewhere. You would have to claim that we need to all memorize Hebrew psalms, shorn of music which they don’t possess, before we could sing the O Salutaris Hostia. Which is absurd. Q.E.D.
I’d like to challenge the notion that familiarity with the inspired texts is absurd. What you mean to say is that it seems impractical, but in fact the alternative proposition would seem to be to bury the inspired text entirely and move on to the St. Louis Jesuit’s songbook as more “relevant” and, presumably, groovy.
I don’t know if I can maintain a dialogue with someone arguing that any songs exist more relevant to the human condition than the Psalms. I’ll make exception for Luke’s Gospel Canticles and Paul’s Epistolary canticles, but arguing that we have better material in anything produced since the closure of the Canon seems perilously close to vandalism of the sacred deposit of Scripture.
If we find the Psalms irrelevant, then I humbly suggest that the problem is with us, not with Scripture.
PVO
PVO,
Noone is saying to neglect the psalms, any more than one should neglect holy scripture.
But you’re remarks end up saying that we shouldn’t talk about catechism because scripture is being neglected. After all, isn’t it hubris trying to improve upon the words of Scripture?
This is an old charge, and it was answered long ago. It is unnecessary to revisit it here.
That the psalms are an inspired form of prayer does not necessitiate that they be the only form of prayer, or even for the little ones who can’t take strong meat yet, that it be their primary form of prayer. It is not necessary to always talk about the highest things when discussing a lesser.
Similarly, a song which has the spirit and contents of Scripture, or the psalms, can be quite good and efficacious. And since the psalms have the holy obscurity of Scripture, that means they require interpretation by tradition and the magisterium. That means that a more doctrinally explicit song has great worth.
You simply provide no evidence that the only content one should focus on putting to music are the Psalms. It’s certainly great to set them to music, that’s what all the liturgical greats have done, but they haven’t stopped there. Nor have they assumed, unlike some Protestants, that simply tossing people a Bible, or a Psalms, will teach them how to pray, or to be a good Christian. Other songs, less inspired perhaps but more efficacious for the receiver, are good and just.
PVO,
Who says that only the songs most relevant to the human condition should be sung? Most relevant to whom?
If you’re teaching a child about God’s grace, you don’t just give him the Book of Romans to read. It may well be preferable to give an uninspired explanation in the catechists words, or those of the Magisterium. This doesn’t denigrate the Book of Romans at all.
Similarly, if I’m going to teach uncatechized people some songs to sing, I’m not going to simply set the Psalms to music, although in time it would be great for them to learn the Psalms. One has to take small steps, you can’t start at the top of the mountain.
Furthermore, I will boldly say to you that there is more spiritual benefit in uninspired orthodox Catholic hymns than inspired scripture set to awful music.
That ought to be an indication that saying that the psalms are “God’s songs,” is not good enough. Context is everything.
PVO,
Consider this. If everyone relevant to the human condition is in Scripture, with no omissions, then all we should read are the Holy Scriptures. That the first books a child should read are the Holy Scriptures, unabridged. You have no justification for reading anything else.
What, is that absurd? Then admit the possibility that non-inspired works, and songs, have intrinsic value.
I should think it it a terribly stunted world, where one could only read Scripture, and only sing psalm-texts.
Why is this? Well in part non-inspired works have an interpretative and referential value to inspired Scripture. So in singing “Faith of Our Fathers,” or “Stabat Mater” or “Tantum ergo,” one is getting substantially the content of Scripture and tradition, if not so explicitly as the source text.
Maybe you think all the great authors of the world are worthless, and to think that one can learn something from Shakespeare is blasphemy; after all they ought just to go the Scriptures for all that.
While you’re at it, why not chuck all non-inspired spiritual writings out the window. What hubis to think you’ll learn something from “Story of the Soul” that you can’t learn reading the Psalms, a true story of a soul.
Virginity is better than marriage, but not for everyone. Similarly, although the psalms are universally for us, a psalm is not always the best prayer for someone.
Or are you willing to accuse prayerbooks of inestimably hubris?
It seems to me to take a certain audacity to make such a claim.
The Rosary used to be 150 Psalms. Now it’s Our Fathers and Hail Marys, and mysteries. The horror, the horror!
I have not argued that liturgical music must be entirely Scriptural, but it has not been demonstrated to the contrary that non-Scriptural music is pastorally superiour. This would indeed be an amazing proof to examine.
The control of liturgical music rests ultimately with the bishop of each diocese, who will be responsible for the spiritual consequences of this very important decision.
I simply repeat the question: what musical work are we willing to elevate to spiritual equality with the songs directly from Scripture. The Roman Canon identifies entrance and communion antiphons for every mass of the year. The number of non-scriptural hymns in the Canon can be counted on one hand. The GIRM says regarding the entrance antiphon:
48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.55
Why is option 4 the only one I have EVER seen chosen in the United States? It is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that if the responsorial Psalm were in the slightest optional, it, too, would be jettisoned by modernists, as the evidence of many reported abusive substitutions over the past 30 years suggests.
The presumption of tradition and of the GIRM is in favour of Scriptural lyrics and music. Why do we never see them?
PVO
“The Rosary used to be 150 Psalms. Now it’s Our Fathers and Hail Marys, and mysteries. The horror, the horror!”
This is not true. The Rosary was originally the prayer of the illiterate neighbours of monasteries offered at the same time as the psalms of the Divine Office were offered by monks.
All monks were bound to learn the Divine Office, and it was not uncommon for memorisation of the entire book of Psalms to be a prerequisite to entering full brotherhood in a monastery.
It has, in fact, been a goal of the Church over the last 100 years to broaden participation in the Divine Office. The Rosary is in fact an lesser form of the devotion, and if one were to find oneself in a case where one had to choose (although such cases are rare in fact) one would be correct in preferring the Divine Office to any private devotion, even the Rosary.
PVO
I don’t think Ruthann’s question has been answered. And it must be answered. If nobody recommends a current musician/songwriter/composer then the general assumption that there should be no more hymns and spiritual songs written; the canon is closed. It assumes that God is the same yesterday, but not today, and not forever–because He cannot create a songwriter for today that can create music that is appropos for liturgy. Utter. Nonsense.
To be fair to Adoremus society, Lucy Carroll wrote an article on her favorite contemporary hymns (most of which is published by World Library Publications).
That said, I am aware of many, many Catholic songwriters who wish to write for liturgy; in fact, I moderate such a group. When I do write for liturgy, what I aspire is to take sacred Scriptural texts and bring them to life.
And, personally, I am truly in love with those modern praise choruses that do exactly this. Not all of these were written by Catholics, but the Catholic musicians I do admire, who accomplish this on some of their songs, include: Robert Filoramo Jr. (esp his “Hope in the Lord”), Mike Harrison (everything off of “Spirit of Fire”), Sal Solo, Canadian Catholic College Ministry/Roadside Cry, Emmaus, and Jim Cowan.
Please, Google these names, and support Catholic contemporary artists who do this right.
P.S.–A technicality, but being that the links that J.Akin were to the moratorium of Haugen/Haas, note that the St. Louis Jesuits will not be affected by such a campaign, due to the specifity of the former site.
PVO,
Demonstration.
O Salutaris Hostia is pastorally superior to the more scriptural “One Bread, One Body.
Moreover, setting Scripture to inane toons devalues Scripture, in my book. I’m sick of reading Holy Writ and having Glory and Praise songs fill the head.
Ruthann,
Have you ever heard Martin Lawrensen’s “O Magnum Mysterium”? That’s a very modern composition, from the nineties, freqently performed in the choral repetoire, and quite beautiful.
There are lots of good composers out there, but they compose for choral groups, because Catholic liturgical music has become, for professionals, a sick joke.
My Jewish choir directory was always lamenting that our choir was singing more Catholic liturgical music that the prolific “hum and strumm” parishes.
PVO,
Have you ever sung a Christmas carol? Then you’ve admitted that, at that time, that song was superior to a psalm.
Have you sung O Salutaris Hostia at benediction? Does it bother you that this is not from the psalms? If so, why? If not, then why begrudge songs to celebrate other Christian mysteries?
Psalms are great. But they are a means to an end. Psalms are not the best pastoral prayer for everyone. The text of the Holy Mass, for instance, though full of scripture, is itself not simply a compilation of psalms.
Further, you have no evidence as to why singing more abstract songs that have profound, often obscure, meanings, is always pastorally superior to having more doctrinally explicit, and more contemporarily poetic, songs.
If you don’t object to the Creed, which is not a psalm, and which is sung, I can hardly see why you object to other mini-creeds which are sung.
To ever sing something other than a psalm is to make a conscious judgment, at the time, to sing that song in preference to a psalm. This is often the case. To claim that the psalms are the summa from to which all things must be referred is an intolerable ipse dixit. It is incumbant on the person making the claim to show how everything of possible human value is to be found in the psalms, to the extent that it is in vain to seek wisdom elsewhere. Claiming that the negative has not been demonstrated is fallacious.
Let’s compare “One Bread, One Body” to its alleged inspiration:
I Cor 14-24
“Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry.
I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?
The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?
So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything?
No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons.
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.
Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?
“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up.
No one should seek his own advantage, but that of his neighbor.”
“One Bread, One Body”
Refrain: One bread, one body, one Lord of all, one cup of blessing which we bless. And we, though many, throughout the earth. We are one body in this one Lord.
1. Gentile or Jew, servant or free, woman or man, no more.
2. Many the gifts, many the works, one in the Lord of all.
3. Grain for the fields, scattered and grown, gathered to one, for all.
Foley’s text eviscerates the actual meaning of the passage. Text without context is pretext.
PVO
PVO,
You’ll have no argument from me that most post-conciliar music is wretched pretext. My point is that I see nothing wrong with people replacing those lame hymns with something like the Adoremus hymnal.
Now I know there are purists who think that the whole idea of hymns dates from the Reformation or is unliturgical. Maybe so, but I don’t see any harm in it.
I do see harm in just taking scripture and putting it to music, without making things more explicit. That is exactly what we have today. And I do not think things would be appreciably better if the lyrics were simply the scriptural texts with the same bad music, or even good music. Lex orandi, lex credundi. What’s good music for theologically erudite monks isn’t necessarily best for layfolk, at least initially. That’s why we have catechism, and not just bible reading.
I agree very much that everyone should learn the psalms, and that the Church encourages this. But I do not agree with the kind of “sola psalma” position you seem to be advocating. What music is best depends on the purpose for the music. Hymns seem to me to have a more didactic purpose which justifies more liberty in their construction.
Further, you haven’t addressed a primary concern. Music is mainly, that, music, not lyrics. All you have for the psalms are lyrics. Many of those lyrics are great poetry for people of that culture, just as the Song of Songs may be a great love poem for a shephard, but that doesn’t mean all our analogies in prayer have to be 2500 year old analogies. The Spirit is still with the Church.
I agree that the psalms transcend their cultural limitations, but precisely because of those limitations, I believe it reasonable to have contemporary songs and hymns, just as St. Paul recommended, as just as the Church has done. My contemporary I do not mean the St. Louis Jesuits.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/MUSIC%20FDLCnew.ppt
This is a powerpoint presentation. Hopefully something good will come out of this.
I sing all sorts of songs, but at Mass, I cringe when banal campfire lyrics are put forth when I know full well what lies buried in the Psaltery.
“O Salutaris Hostia” was composed as a liturgical prayer from the days when the entire liturgy was sung. I do not begrudge it its place in the Canon, but, once again, I don’t see how the handful of exceptions, most authored by one canonised saint, inserted into the order of the Mass by the Pope himself clears the way for the general gutting of the Psaltery which we have seen.
Of course the bishops have the right to approve novel hymns, but the hymns they have approved in the U.S. over the last half century have demonstrated an abuse of that power when the music drawn directly from the Canon remains available to us, although rejected by those who claim to divine superiour pastoral value in the banalities of the last half century.
The Mass itself is meant to be sung. Grabbing at the Creed as part of the modernist argument against the Psalms in their presumed place is simply unworthy of this discussion.
The GIRM presumes the Psalms at three points in the Mass and mandates them at one. The routine seizing of the 4th option permitting other options to eliminate the Psalms from the other two positions strongly suggests the presence of a general sentiment that the Psalms themselves are unsuited for current general consumption except where it must be presented. This is an astonishing proposition which should have been openly proposed and defended, not simply assumed into practice.
The case for generally obliterating the psalm antiphons from the American mass was never convincingly made to the American laity, it was done by fiat based on an offensively elitist notion of that to which the average American Catholic could relate.
The assumed norm of antiphons never received a fair chance at implementation, so claiming that Americans would now be confused is simply an irresponsible dodge.
PVO
PVO
PVO
Two questions at the end of the day:
1) How is the text of the proposed new hymn superiour to its scriptural or traditional basis (that, is, does it say anything useful better than something already in the Divine Office)?
2) How does the musical accompaniment lend itself to the sacredness of the Mass. One criterion well established is that the musical accompaniment MUST be at the service of the text, not vice versa. This is why plainsong is arrhythmic, and why every document from the Vatican on the Mass has always pointed to plainsong as the form most suitable to it. Any strongly rhythmic musical form is almost disqualified before it starts, because the rhythmic component is going to impose such a straightjacket on the text that almost any text will be pounded down to nursery-rhyme complexity–which is what we see with the St. Louis Jesuits. Modern secular western musical styles therefore have an incredible difficulty meeting these standards, because nearly all moderns secular musical styles are for dancing, not worship. The liturgical value of western dance is just above zero, so attempts to sneak dance music into the Mass under cover of David’s non-liturgical dance are similarly subject to an almost insurmountable degree of presumption against them.
I’m not proposing that non-scriptural texts or non-plainsong music has no place in the Mass, but that the standards are structured in such ways as to make the presumptions against them almost insurmountable, and the exceptions will be so few as to be examinable on almost a case-by-case basis by the ordinary.
PVO
There is plenty of room for all sorts of good contemporary music at Mass. The fact that we often are given bad or mediocre music to sing does not prove this wrong, any more than the existence of bad pictures and stained glass prove that we can’t have any good ones.
I personally could write a better tune and lyric than most OCP publications with both hands behind my back and a torturer working on me. But then, so could most songwriters I know.
Music composition is not rocket science. It’s a craft like any other, and it’s pretty common to have a talent for writing acceptably good songs and hymns. Every diocese in this country probably has more than enough talented Catholics to replace OCP. The bishops just don’t feel like going to the trouble of vetting hymnals for theology, that’s all.
That said, it’s a shame more parishes don’t get to do more olden days stuff. (The choir I’m in does do olden days stuff along with the contemporary.) Chant is nifty and in everybody’s range. There’s probably zillions of settings in all kinds of musical styles for all those antiphons, without even getting into doing contemporary settings. We have a wealth of hymns that almost never get used that go back to ancient days.
We just don’t do anything about it, that’s all.
Im a “young catholic” um can someone explain to me whats wrong with these “songs”
“Im a “young catholic” um can someone explain to me whats wrong with these “songs”
anon:
I’m a young Catholic as well. If you look at the lyrics of some of the contemporary songs, sometimes the theology behind the words is vague. Some songs use the ‘feminist inclusive’ language. For example, some people don’t want to say ‘In the Name of the Father, etc.’, they want to say something like ‘In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Great Sanctifier’, something like that. Now some modern church hymns or songs, do this. For example: they don’t say God the Father, they just say God the Lord or Creator. It takes away from God’s gender.
And then there are other issues: like saying ‘when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we have eternal life’. That’s only half-true. It IS the Body and Blood of Christ that brings eternal life. If you look at the lyrics objectively, you’ll see that certain songs’ theology are somewhat skewed.
What does a good Catholic do about it? Answer: Don’t sing them, or correct the lyrics to reflect what the Catholic Church teaches. It seems like a trivial issue, but this is the WORD OF GOD we are talking about here.
A hymn doesn’t have to be “superior.” A sermon is not superior to its subject-matter, but that doesn’t dispense with sermons. The preaching of the Word is not superior to the Word, it is in its service, and has a rightful place, which is why St. Paul exhorts us to sing with not just the psalms alone, but also with songs and spiritual canticles.
Clearly then, in some sense, that is for the hearers, a hymn can be superior to its subject matter, at least more helpful.
Anon-
The only way to truly understand what is wrong with these songs would be to experience some truly great and beautiful music, and then be able to make the comparison.
In high school I sang in the all-region choir, which included madrigal music from the middle ages.
I have been spoiled to most modern music ever since.
And at the time I had a 6-foot poster of KISS on my bedroom wall!
“Clearly then, in some sense, that is for the hearers, a hymn can be superior to its subject matter, at least more helpful.”
That was in fact one of my two criteria above. The question remaining, though, is: has this question ever been asked of any of the hymns actually sung by the modern Church in America.
The core of Church music is the Scriptural chants of the Psalms and Canticles. Hymnody is a later development which has only recently been merged into the Divine Office. To build the musical basis of the Mass around hymnody instead of the traditional bases of psalmody and the canticles is to stand the musical tradition of the Church on its head.
I’ll go so far as to say that good hymns only come out of immersion in the traditional musical forms of the Church–psalmody and the canticles–and cannot survive cut off from those roots.
Many Church reformers are enthralled with the primitive Church in all things–except music, because there is NO liturgical hymnody which survives from the early Church which is not scriptural except the Canon itself. The basis of Church music is the psalms and canticles of Scripture, and each step the modern Church takes away from those is a step away from the musical taproot of the Church.
Hymnody has a place as the third in precedence in liturgical music, not the first.
PVO
“Hymnody is a later development which has only recently been merged into the Divine Office.”
I should have said “English hymnody…”
PVO
ohhhhh gotcha, thanks for clearing it up for me
Thank you to Jimmy for bringing up this topic, which has generated a great discussion!
I’m a classically trained vocalist and guitarist and have been a liturgical musician (in one way or another) for 42 years. I got lost along the way when the SLJ brought their own brand of folk music into the Church. (My brother was a Jesuit priest who knew these guys, and I had mimeographed copies of their original hand-scored music before it was ever published.)
For decades I strayed to the Dark Side, playing at “contemporary Masses.” In recent years I realized I wasn’t being fed, and now I long for good liturgical music. I do my bit when I sub for my music director, although I play classical guitar and not the organ when I provide music. (Still, it’s a far cry from the “Catholic strum”!)
I am aware that there is a small number of composers who are composing theolgically sound, singable music (Jim Cowan out of Steubenville is one). I wish there were more. Maybe it’s coming down the road and we just have to be patient and “offer it up to God.”
‘thann
Well, this has been an enlightening discussion for me, a Protestant who (for awhile) did grad work at a Catholic university, and wondered why the music at the masses I attended with Catholic friends was SO BAD.
I’ve been playing music since fourth grade, and studied music up through my college years, participating in campus ensembles. I was raised Baptist in an African-American church, and the got my undergrad degree at a Southern Baptist institution. In neither place would the churches have allowed music that was unsingable by the majority of the congregation, week in and week out. (And my relatives at the black church I grew up in would have been on your case and in your face if you, as a choir director, had allowed such travesty!)
I thought the bad music was just at that campus church. Your comments tell me this is nationwide. I’ll be praying that God will raise up musicians in your churches that know how to compose and play good, contemporary music, as well as resurrect the classics of your church.
And please, don’t let your encounters with “modern instruments” (guitar, sax, horns, drums, etc.) burn you out on their use in your worship services. Just because the people who tried to play them in your church were amatuers that played badly doesn’t mean that the instruments should be banned—just keep the bad musicians from playing (easier said than done, I know).
Hey—If the first Gregorian chant music I ever heard was done by amatuers who sang flat and/or lost their place during the performance, I would have been musician enough to realize that the problem was not that chant is bad and should banned—I would have known that the ensemble needed more practice or more trained musicians in their ranks to do the piece properly. In the same way, don’t kick guitar or other modern music out of your church just because the only people playing in your church are those whose only previous performance venue was around the campfire at the last beach party.
I refuse to believe that God has allowed no real musicians to be raised up in liturgical churches. I don’t think God stopped inspiring musicians two or three generations back! As to whether or not said musicians quit listening to Him for inspiration is a matter I will leave for another time….
Maybe some of your parishes should consider “growing your own” musicians—Southern Baptists have been doing this for decades via workshops and music conventions for decades, since the late 1960s. Yeah, some of the music they came up with was forgetable, but some of it is beautiful, and is still sung in churches and in Baptist college choirs (believe me, Baptist college choir directors are an extremely discriminating lot!) The piece I am thinking of now is called “Majesty and Glory (of Your Name)”—every Southern Baptist choir knows it, and it never fails to stir my heart!
Again, this discussion was quite enlightening. Thanks to everyone for sharing.
“Majesty and Glory”
This sort of archaic (“Majesty? Who uses that word anymore?”) elitism would never survive its first contact with the liturgical committee at 95% of American parishes.
Besides, majesty implies rulership and authority, and we’re all enlightened democratic Americans now.
It is to weep…
PVO
having Glory and Praise songs fill the head.
I will be just to Glory and Praise: the first place I ever ran across “Creator of the Stars of Night” was in it.
Being in that hymnal is not intrinsic proof of badness.
One problem I’ve noticed is organists who can’t keep time. We had one who would speed up, slow down, skip beats, add beats. Sort of like “anti-rap” (melody with no rhythm, just as rap is rhythm with no melody).I had no idea where she was going. For the last few months, we’ve had a new organist. He’s worse. (I know: Offer it up.)
jean:
I’d have to say that the Catholic Church has high regards toward the pipe organ and Gregorian chant. If you read one of the few encylcicals on music for Mass (I believe St. Pius X wrote it), he has a different take. He said only chant and organ would be allowed, and then he basically banned the piano because then it was considered a crass and crude instrument.
“I refuse to believe that God has allowed no real musicians to be raised up in liturgical churches.” You are correct. But if I went to my parish choir and demanded chant, some would have fits about the church going back into the Dark Ages. Musicians who want and promote chant are usually ostrasized for being elitist and snobby.
What the Church teaches about music is that it should give the laity a Sense of the Sacred. The Divine. Chant is meant and DOES sound timeless, and there are those in the Church today that totally oppose it. Whether that is by ignorance, or an agenda is another issue. I’m sure there is some modern music that uplifts the spirit, but unfortunately most of it sounds like a bad Broadway musical. One of the greatest fruits of Protestantism is their hymnody and music. I’m glad you recgonize the need for Sacred Music in your Church.
bill912 – Of course, we SHOULD offer it up, and be thankful that we are still able to worship in public without fear of being arrested, like in other parts of the world.
Jean, I appreciate your comments.
One of the things I don’t care for are the Christian (mainly Protestant) radio hits being sung as hymns at Mass. These are fine on our local Christian radio station, but are really not a good fit for the Mass. Some are just too subjectively personal to be meaningful when sung in groups, and others I find lack the appropriate sense of mystery or reverence.
I also find that a lot of modern Christian radio music is so strongly influenced by pop culture that it would be difficult to tell the difference if not for the lyrics. The message should be reflected in the lyrics AND in the music.
We need modern Catholic composers to continue to develop the tradition of an authentically Catholic idiom, rather than adapting or watering down secular music.
We need modern Catholic composers to continue to develop the tradition of an authentically Catholic idiom, rather than adapting or watering down secular music.
Bingo. Omer Westendorf (d. 1997) comes to mind, although at the moment I can only come up with “Where Charity and Love Prevail.”
Has anyone else here been to an Eastern Orthodox parish where the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in English. The EO (and Eastern Catholics too sometimes) have done a great job of not only translating the liturgical texts into the local language (whatever that happens to be), but also of adapting the chants-tones themsleves to the new translations. What I mean is that great effort has been made such that the Divine Liturgy pretty much sounds (and looks and smells) the same whether it is celebrated in English or Greek or whatever.
I think it would be a great and holy work if some young, uninhibited, and creative musical artists within the English-speaking Catholic Church would attempt to adapt the chants from the Graduale Romanum, Graduale Simplex, Liber Hymnarius, and Liber Usualis to the English translation of the Roman Rite (the current one, i.e. the “Pualine Rite”); though it might be wise to wait for the new English translation.
Such an effort would help the English-speaking Catholic Church to rediscover and reclaim its Gregorian “voice” — and the same could be done in other languages as well.
What do you think?
By the way, examples of that type of effort can be experienced first-hand when one attends a sung High Mass in a “high church” Anglican parish. The Anglican Use Catholic parishes in the USA also implement this beautiful music — beautiful, solemn English chants!
Examples: http://www.trinityaurora.ca/musicarch/musicarchives.htm
Do a search on Google for
“anglican chant” mp3
to find some great examples of Anglican chant which you can freely listen to right away on your computer.
http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymnology/Sound.Files/psalm101.mp3
http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymnology/Sound.Files/psalm119.mp3
Hi. I’d like to invite you over to my site, Hymnographic Explorations. http://www.hymnographyunbound.blogspot.com/
Hey, it’s me again. I wanted to get y’all a copy of the lyrics to “The Majesty and Glory of Your Name” because I do not trust my memory. (I have Sometimers Disease: sometimes I remember and sometimes…..) All I could remember well was the first line, “When I gaze into the night sky…”
I decided to to a web search, and found a 60 second clip of the song, fully orchestrated with a choir. The website is:
http://www.oldchristianmusic.com
When you get there, use the page’s search engine and type in The Majesty and Glory of Your Name. It will show a CD/album, and the list of songs on the album are actually the links to the MP3 of each song listed.
The orchestration did not come until years later; it was originally published with choral parts and piano accompaniment, which is the way I first heard it in college. The orchestration is good, however. I played the tympani part in my church’s orchestra—now you know why I don’t have predjudice against percussion in church, just percussion badly played! ( I was originally a percussion major in college, until I switched to English)
Warning: the website is run by a VERY Protestant Fundamentalist, the kind that thinks Billy Graham is WAY too liberal, and he ain’t sure about Jerry Falwell, either!
I hestitated to send the link because the music is so massive that 60 seconds really does not do it justice. But it will give you taste of why a choral piece originally written in 1979 still give me tears of inspiration and leaves me in awe of God.
The lyrics you will hear on the exerpt come near to the end of the piece (hence the repetition of Alleluia) , and are based on Psalm 8:
The majesty and glory of Your Name
Transcend the earth and fill the heavens.
Oh, Lord, our God, little children praise You perfectly,
And so would we, and so would we.
Alleluia, alleluia,
The Majesty & Glory of Your Name.
Alleluia, alleluia,
The Majesty and Glory of Your Name
Alleluia, Alleluia….
If you ever go to a sacred music concert, and this compostion is on the program, you should consider yourself blessed for the day.
Jean
“I will be just to Glory and Praise: the first place I ever ran across “Creator of the Stars of Night” was in it.
Being in that hymnal is not intrinsic proof of badness.”
The trouble is, just like many others, OCP has changed the lyrics to make them “inclusive” and thus has stripped them of their meaning.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. I can now put my finger on what has bothered me about the music we have been playing recently at my parish and stop putting my fingers to bass guitar strings at Mass. At least our priest has put “City Of God” on the banned list (and I have played this with the St. Louis Jesuits at Seattle U.) but two Sundays ago “Anthem” slipped in.
Those interested in “platinum standard” examples of liturgical music should set aside some time to immerse themselves in the following recording:
http://kparker.org/MP3/Chant/Russian%20Vespers.mp3
The approx. 45 minute recording is of a choir of Russian monks chanting Great Vespers in the Old Church Slavonic language. It was originally recorded circa 1940’s, and is now in the public domain. The first 2 min. 30 sec. are not much more than noise: a banging noise and some bells, which are being used to call the monks to the liturgy. Aftewards, the singing begins — and it is surely some of the most beautiful “church music” you will ever hear.
I would strongly recommend that those looking for traditional music for today’s liturgy visit CanticaNOVA Publications website (www.canticanova.com). I can’t say that this is an unbiased endorsement (I co-founded the company), but we get a lot of positive feedback on pretty much a daily basis from those who are “in the trenches” of this liturgical music “battle”. Our articles discuss many of the issues raised here so far, as well as others. For those wondering what alternatives are available to the poorly written tripe of the past 40 years, our free liturgical planning pages provide solid suggestions for each Sunday of the year as well as for major Solemnities (including music sold by many different publishers – not just our own). And if you’re so inclined, we sell some outstanding music, as well as CDs, books and more.
Hi, Christopher.
Folks, not to take away from what’s going on here, but I’m seriously asking for discussion of these matters on my blog. I think I may have found out exactly what is wrong with On Eagle’s Wings–not just *that* it’s inadequate but *why.* I would really appreciate your input to help further my thinking.
Ruthann, I’ll second Breier’s recommendation (Jan 23, 6:31), of Morten Lauridsen’s “O Magnum Mysterium.” Just sublime.
From this link, scroll down to “Listen to Samples” and pick #5.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004WFLW/102-9452621-1143330?v=glance
For my own part, I’m thankful to belong to an Oratorian-run parish where we use the Adoremus book others have mentioned.
Alan
I read these comments with dismay. Sorry you are anti-Haughen & Haas. And Farrell. Can only say that our small choir sings these and the St L Jesuits and Paul Inwood and Stephen Dean and Chris Walker. And some of the older stuff. Choir is the brightest thing about our otherwise DREARY DREARY Sunday Mass. The PP is a liturgical disaster . A “good” man an’ all that but can’t pastor, can’t preach, can’t live. Without choir I’d languish, suffer and die. I would NEVER go through all that plainchant again. Frankly I hate it. I’m surprisd your comments are all of one mind. I thought the follow-up links were vindictive and nasty. Not charitable. Regrettable. Mary
Mary: –
“Without choir I’d languish, suffer and die. I would NEVER go through all that plainchant again. Frankly I hate it. I’m surprisd your comments are all of one mind. I thought the follow-up links were vindictive and nasty. Not charitable. Regrettable.”
You know, the problem with this music is that it is NOT theologically sound. That is a sin. Period. Another problem has been for some in the Church to totally ignore Her musical heritage with regards to Gregorian Chant. If modern music had good lyrics and is theologically sound, and does not skew what the Church teaches then I guess during Mass it would be okay. But this music does no service to anyone.
“A “good” man an’ all that but can’t pastor, can’t preach, can’t live.”
And you call the music critics uncharitable? Physician, heal thyself.
PVO
I wrote the comment above (ListedJan 29 1.06 pm) as I was scrambling out to choir prac before Sung Mass.
mulopwepaul – Yes, I plead Guilty. Alas, it doesn’t alter facts.
I surmise most readers live in USA where, in my limited experience, many (most?) churches have sizeable congregations, with strong liturgy teams and a seriously committed approach to liturgy as good as you can make it. But do many of them really go for plainchant which demands considerable musical discipline and practice? How many congregations are able to participate in such music? Here in England plainchant is a “speciality” feature for some monasteries, and is also favoured by pro- Tridentine groups. Very few schools teach Latin, and I do not know any priest ordained during the past 30 years in this diocese who could say a Mass in Latin. (There was one, but he left and joined the Anglicans – don’t know why)
Liturgy is the worship of the people, and surely God wants to be worshipped in Spirit and in truth. Our truth means our hearts must chime with our words. When the choir sings in church, we are entrusted with leading the congregation’s worship. That will inevitably involve singing and playing material that we individually and personally find provokes YUK. (More judgment mulopwepaul, – what does PVO stand for?) But ON ANGELS’ WINGS is a good example.
I remember going to a music workshop led by a well-known Catholic composer (not H or H!). He cited this song as an example of a hymn/song he had always discouraged as far as poss. But, he had once been approached after Mass by a near-tears woman who thanked him; this song had meant so much to her that when her husband died suddenly, she had the phrase put on his tombstone. What can you say? She needs that remembrance, and given the level of Scriptural instruction/knowledge in this country at least, she wouldn’t have met the phrase elsewhere. Our parish choir sings all sorts, and there is something that sanctifies the much-loved trad “stuff”. Very often it’s a personal connection, a funeral. SOUL OF MY SAVIOUR and THE OLD RUGGED CROSS relentlessly appear on our memorial booklets. (TANTUM ERGO is sung on Maundy Thursday).
Been to St Peter’sRome recently? I went to a so-called sung Mass on a Sunday 5 years ago; the choir, and even more the choir conductor were looking and sounding totally dispirited when they sludged through the Missa de Angelis. How many in the congregation sang, even when the conductor turned to involve us? Very few. Certainly not the ‘good sisters” alongside us. And why oh why when plainchant is attempted do choirs confine themselves to Credo 1 ?
I have found several people who like Haughen + Haas et al and find their words and music very helpful. Also some among them who would personally prefer plainchant. There has been no request from the congregation for chant. Nor from the Parish priest! So, if the USA wants it and can do it and it FILLS A NEED, hats off to you. But don’t rubbish the rest of us who make up some part of the Body of Christ.
Mary
Hi, Mary.
I’m really interested in moving towards a reform of music that will include mostly Gregorian chant.
My problem with your post is that you seem to think that the only way we can make decisions about liturgical music is as a matter of taste.
I think that we’re capable of thinking about the REASONS some music is better than others. It’s not limited to “I like this” or “many people find this helpful.” Finding the right criteria is not very easy to sort out, and I would agree with you that name calling is not too helpful. But I’m counting on the hope that finding the right criteria is possible.
I just wish every choir would be asked to read Musicam Sacram so they would at least have an idea of the type of music expected and their role in the liturgy.
http://www.adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Some people respond powerfully to the sentimental, but that doesn’t mean that the object of the Mass is the extraction of such sentimentality. In order to be all things to all people we should be willing to bear a certain amount of saccharine musical sentimentality in the hymnal, but the problem that currently exists is not too little sentimentality, but the complete obliteration of the moral depth of scripture for the crayons-and-pastels sentimentality of the Haugen/Haas school.
Leaving aside the musical styling, imagine how much more powerful the woman’s reaction might have been if any of the psalm snippets excerpted in “Eagle’s Wings” might have been presented to her in its entirety musically, allowing her to unfold the entirety of any one of the Psalmist’s message of consolation.
I cannot speak to your condemnation of the Vatican choir, but I might suggest that people who “frankly hate” plainsong are prone to projecting their distaste onto anyone else performing it. Oftentimes, I find people raised in modern media and musical tastes can no longer tell the difference between a choir sounding “dispirited” or sounding solemn.
PVO
(Just my initials, nothing Latinate beyond the “Paul”)
i really ant m yk fjrkojv okgnojnn nnfgdn nfbrn