Mark Noll on hymnody
Mark Noll is as good as they get in church history, and much else–and he is a Wheaton evangelical at Catholic Notre Dame! (Someone ought to report an identity theft. I’m just not sure whose…) More to the point of several recent posts here, he has an essay on hymnody in the latest Books & Culture. I found it typically gold-standard Noll. Here’s a taste:
“The new Christian music of Andean, Thai, Tanzanian, or Mongolian congregations can be jarring to most believers from the West, even as Western hymnody can be as alien to those congregations as Western individualism, Western economics, or Western clothing (culture vs. culture). Likewise the contemporary praise of Hillsong can sound like an unintelligible musical tongue to believers whose roots are deep in Charles Wesley or John Newton, and vice versa (subculture vs. subculture). In these and many other occasions of musical disharmony, we see again the countervailing realities that have long marked Christian song: music is an exceedingly powerful medium for securing Christianity in a community; different forms of music are one of the most obvious manifestations keeping worshiping communities apart. Explaining why both realities exist requires attention to several theological truths.”
Reactions & enlightenment welcome.
Noll’s definition of culture–frameworks of understanding under which people carry out their lives–seems to me to point to at least the potential for a shared music that is not defined narrowly by one’s culture of origin. Given a shared Scripture and a shared understanding, “one in mind and heart,” it seems that there could be a shared religious musical idiom that approaches the universal.
Yet Noll makes the opposite point. He believes that all human cultures, qua human cultures, can lend their own musical roots to the great symphony of liturgy.
Before looking too far abroad at cultures I don’t know much about (though I can sing The Prayer of Saint Francis in Vietnamese) I wonder if it would be helpful to note how many excesses have been curbed in the past, by Vatican official documents, within European cultural musical forms. Opera has been notably and repeatedly suppressed, for example. Nothing is more pleasingly dramatic, yet this idiom seems to be singled out as unsuitable for liturgical expression.
Kathy — you say, “it seems that there could be a shared religious musical idiom that approaches the universal.”
I wonder if this is possible at this time, given the great diversity of music in the hundreds of cultures of today. For one thing, the scales differ enormously from culture to clture, as do the complexities of rhythms. Perhaps there might be some simple melodies that could be appreciated by people of all or most cultures. But could the *lyrics*of a hymn be translated from one language into anothe still fit into that universal melody?
As an example, let’s say that the Church decided to turn the Olympics’ fanfare (quite a simple melody and by now known world-wide) into the melody of a hymn. Now suppose that a fine Western poet wrote some original lyrics for it. Now suppose that that those lyrics were translated into hundreds of languages. Would all of those translations of the original fit comfortably into that fanfare? I doubt it.
I think that Rome keeps seeking universality (uniformity) in various domains because it has real problems with diversity as such. But one look at nature tells us that God doesn’t :-)
While not wanting go give aid and comfort in any way to those who want to turn back the clock to pre-Vatican II days, as someone who grew up in those days, I would have to say that being exposed to “appropriate” liturgical music when very young, and learning it beginning in the early grades of school, was simply part of growing up Catholic. I was in grade school in the 1950s, and we sang Gregorian Chant all the time. I could even have told you the meaning of “punctum” or “podatus.”
The problem now seems to be that there has been a major break in continuity. People around my age are kind of at the dividing line, with younger people being largely unfamiliar with “Catholic music.”
It doesn’t seem to me particularly wrongheaded to think that there might be some worldwide uniformity for Catholic liturgical music. When I was growing up, it was not necessary to find appropriate music within my culture to use at Mass, because my education had made Gregorian Chant a PART of my culture.
All of this probably goes without saying, I guess. But if there really is a Vatican plan to bring some kind of uniformity to liturgical music, it seems to me that’s not in and of itself a terrible idea. But how in the world can a transition be made in such a way as to prevent millions of people from feeling they are having music they don’t like forced upon them.
I am not necessarily opposed to using operatic music (or lieder) in liturgy, so I was kind of shocked to see it on the “Black List.” But my personal rule would be that something like Schubert’s or Mascagne’s Ave Maria should not be sung in Church by anyone who can’t sing it as well as the people in the recordings I am familiar with (for example, Janet Baker, Kathleen Battle, and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf). And that, in effect, amounts to a ban.
Ann,
I guess I’m thinking in more of a “from above” direction.
In the Gospels, particularly in Mark, I get a sense that the earth is being more or less invaded by Jesus. He restores an order and health, but doesn’t leave things as they were, with the same quotidian motivations. He brings a radical spirituality.
Similarly, in the Mass, our music is supposed to be something that can be sung “with all the angels.”
Lastly, as Henri de Lubac speculated (based on Scriptural and patristic evidence) that there is a distinction that can be made between the soul and the spirit. While I agree with you that there is tremendous and wonderful diversity on the level of the soul, I imagine that there is more of a universality among humanity on the level of the spirit. Could be wrong, this is very speculative theologically.
But if I’m right, maybe there is a kind of music that we’re supposed to be tuned into, and learning, instead of developing out of our own resources.
Kinda hard to say, but could be!!
Do you really think that angels sing? How can an entitiy without a body sing?
-As John Allen recently noted,the approach from Rome will continue to be Eurocentric with less concern about other cultures. That needs to be clear in understanding and evaluating the issue.
I also think it does no good to harken back to the days of the 50s(which I also recall) when there were far more catholic schools (still declining in number) staffed by far more religious dragging youth to a latin Mass.
That hardly strikes me as a “discontinuity” with today, but the natural change that has hapened both in liturgy and in lay growth.
“Do you really think that angels sing? How can an entitiy without a body sing?”
Joseph,
I thought this was the kind of question that occurred only to me.
I am currently reading Oliver Sacks’s book Musicophilia, and there’s no getting away from the physicality of sound itself and the perception of sound, the latter requiring both the ear and the brain. It is fascinating to learn that, neurologically speaking, perceiving music as music requires a whole group of discrete abilities all working in harmony (so to speak). If one of those abilities is absent, strange things can result For example, there is the story of a woman who hears a string quartet as four separate and distinct voices all playing independently, with no merging into a single, harmonic whole.
It has also occurred to me that Jesus and Mary are the only two physical beings in heaven. How can that be?
David
Heaven is a state rather than a place with a location. The body of Jesus, according to Paul, is a spiritual body rather than a “natural” body. I assume that Mary’s body is also. I don’t think we can say in our present state precise what that would be. I recommend the second half of Raymond Brown’s book The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
Music seems to me like language. It should be possible in principle to have a liturgy in any human language, though not every way of doing it in any particular language will be an equally appropriate use of that language for liturgical purposes. I suspect that in any culture it should also be possible in principle to find music for liturgical purposes, and of course not every way of using music native to that culture will be appropriate to liturgy. But as to determining the details I would consult the missionaries and native converts rather than Vatican bureaucrats steeped in Verdi or whatever. For hundreds of years the Bishops of Rome satisfied their yen for high notes by listening to castrati. Finally, toward the end of his reign Leo XIII forbade the employment of castrati in the Vatican. Most other European cultures had long since given up on that particular taste, althought it had been a veritable craze in the 18th century. It is a strange world.
The question, how do angels sing, is exactly the question that I believe should haunt liturgical music composers.
Joseph,
Thanks for the reference to Raymond Brown’s book. Since this is not the place to debate this, I will limit myself to saying that it’s my understanding that the Assumption is one of the two rock-solid infallible pronouncements from a pope, and Pius XII said, “We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Elsewhere we have “bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary” and “the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven.” That’s very concrete language, and once you try to make it less concrete, it begins to have less and less meaning. It certainly SOUNDS like Pius XII was saying a physical body was taken into a place. And a physical body can’t go someplace that isn’t also physical. Also, he was writing in 1950, so he presumably shared our modern ideas about the earth, the solar system, and so on. If the encyclical had been written a few hundred years ago or more, there would be better reasons for not taking it so literally.
The question is not how but whether angels sing,
David
I don’t know what was in the mind of Pius XII. I do not thnk Mary’s body can be different in kind from the body of Jesus. The term “spiritual body” is Paul’s not mine. A spiritual body is still a real body. Take a look at comment on1 Cor. 15:44 and thereabouts.
Joseph,
But the risen Jesus says, “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.” And then he asks for something to eat, and “He took it and ate it in front of them.” (Luke 24: 39-43)
I don’t know what “spiritual body” could possibly mean. It sounds like an oxymoron to me. (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary tells us the ideas of Philo are involved here, but I do not pretend to understand the explanation.) In any case, the whole point of the passage from Luke seems to be that Jesus is not a spirit (“ghost”), but a real, flesh-and-blood man. He tells them to touch him, and he’s clearly eating to prove to them he is a real, physical being.
I did a search of an online version of the King James Bible and couldn’t find any references to angels singing. (There are limitations on doing a search like that, however.)
There is a little essay of sorts on the topic of angels singing at this link: http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-sing.html
A few passages from the Bible are quoted in which angels sing, but it is pointed out that the Hebrew or Greek in the original could be translated as either “singing” or “saying.”
I don’t think it makes sense to say that angels sing.
Joe, David, I’m pretty sure the question is “how.” Aristotle, to my disappointment, does not know everything De Anima.
Scripture doesn’t just give us evidence that the angels sing, but hints about how to join their chorus. And yet I have found that there are a lot of details to be worked out in that regard!
‘In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. ‘ (Is 6: 1-4)
‘ Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” ‘ (Luke 2: 13-14)
Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped. ‘ (Rev. 5: 11-14)
Kathy
These pasages are symbolic and cannot be taken literally. YHWH does not have a body and cannot possibly sit on a throne. You are confusing images, which have their uses for minds such as ours, with the reality, which surpasses out understanding.
Kathy,
There appears to be singing in only the third passage (which I am guessing comes from the NIV), and both the RSV and NAB do not have the angels singing, although the NRSV does.
It would appear that both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament have words that are ambigous and can be translated as either “speaking” or “singing.” Are there any Hebrew and Greek scholars out there?
So I don’t think you have presented nearly enough evidence to answer the vital question: Do angels sing?
One also has to be careful to distinguish between accounts of angels as angels, and angels either taking on human form or appearing to humans. There is no doubt in my mind that an angel taking on human form has all the physical capabilities of a human being. However, should an angel in human form sing (sounding, in my experience, a lot like Della Reese), I would not accept that as evidence that angels sing. Similarly, angels appearing to humans, in whatever form, might communicate with the humans by causing the humans to hear singing. However, I would not accept that as evidence that angels sing.
The real question is whether angels in heaven sing. Aquinas assures us that angels are incorporial, and since singing is a physical activity, I remain convinced that angels do not sing.
Joseph,
Something occurred to me this morning out of the blue that I found and still find disturbing. The risen Jesus obviously still has the wounds from the crucifixion. (See John 20:27)
David
Here is Brown VC&BRJ pp. 127-8. “I would judge that Christians can and indeed should continue to speak of a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Our earliest ancestors in the faith proclaimed a bodily resurrection in the sense that they did not think that Jesus’ body had corrupted in the tomb. However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time. It is best to follow Paul’s description of risen bodies as spiritual, not natural or physical. He can even imply that these bodies are no longer flesh and blood (15:50). Small wonder that he speaks of a mystery!…Christian truth is best served when equal justice is done the the element of continuity implied in bodily resurrection and to the element of eschatological transformation.”
I would just add that by “flesh and blood” Paul means humanity in its natural state, i.e., subject to death.
David
You are right about Kathy’s citations. The verbs do not mean “sing”. The Hebrew verb means “call” and the Greek one means “say”. However I would go on to say that angels do not speak either. They do not have bodies, so a fortiori, they do not have mouths, tonges, lips etc.
Interesting deconstruction! But notice at Mass that the preface ends with the exhortation to praise the Lord with the angels, just before we sing their song (from Isaiah 6, with additional material from Psalm 118:26).
Just a final thought from the Christmas Liturgy of the Hours (Magnificat Antiphon II) :
Hodie Christus natus est:
Hodie Salvator apparuit:
Hodie in terra canunt Angeli,
laetantur Archangeli
Hodie exsultant justi, dicentes:
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Alleluia.
Kathy
I have never consciously deconstructed anything. I studiously avoid the word and the concept.
As for your citations, the singing of the angels must be metaphorical in my view for reasons I have already given.
Incidentally the hymn in Isaiah goes: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” I wonder how it got to its present state: “Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might; heaven and earth are full of your glory”. Frankly I much prefer Isaiah neat, but then I am a bit of a purist.