Sing to the Lord
The Bishops of the United States have issued a new document on music in the liturgy: “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship.”
A first quick reading finds a number of helpful reminders/recommendations, such as:
116. At daily Mass, the above priorities should be followed as much as possible, in this order: dialogues and acclamations (Gospel Acclamation, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Amen); litanies (Kyrie, Agnus Dei); Responsorial Psalm, perhaps in a simple chanted setting; and finally, a hymn or even two on more important days. Even when musical accompaniment is not possible, every attempt should be made to sing the acclamations and dialogues.
117. Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, “the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” The Christian faithful are to be led to an ever deeper appreciation of the psalms as the voice of Christ and the voice of his Church at prayer.
118. Music arises out of silence and returns to silence. God is revealed both in the beauty of song and in the power of silence. The Sacred Liturgy has its rhythm of texts, actions, songs, and silence. Silence in the Liturgy allows the community to reflect on what it has heard and experienced, and to open its heart to the mystery celebrated.
With regard the Latin Rite’s heritage of Gregorian chant the document recommends:
75. Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered.
I don’t see how this can be implemented without some instruction for the laity. Any chance of offering music lessons for the faithful, either 15 minutes before Mass or
(I thought not. Sigh.)
This document is the legislative equivalent of a can of Cheez Wiz.
Badly written, too.
Kathy,
I appreciate the colorful language to brighten the day after B.C.’s loss to Virginia Tech; but it would be more instructive to know what you would have found helpful in a document of this sort.
Fr. Imbelli,
While I understand the desire to say only nice things, that is not what is called for in this particular situation. The document is a major disappointment.
However, I ought to explain my remarks above.
A little history might be helpful here. Liturgiam Authenticam 108 required bishops conferences to publish a repetoire of acceptable liturgical music:
“108. Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity.
If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided. Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.”
A subcommittee was formed, made up of true experts in the field: Robert Batastini, Leo Nestor, Fr. Anthony Ruff, Fr. John Foley, and Michael McMahon.
They published an admirable document (recently removed from the USCCB website) which included not only guidelines but useful PRINCIPLES by which to critique music. In other words, they developed a practical guide for the bishops in making judgments.
Again, the judgment was to belong to the conference as a whole. But largely due to a masterfully conducted q and a session at the November session last year, the Chair of the Committee managed to arrange for the question of repertoire to be returned to the local bishop instead of the Conference.
(While I’d love to think that improving liturgical music is high on every bishop’s list of priorities, alas, I’ve come to face facts. Which means, the question of repertoire remains on the back burner, I would think, in many dioceses. Maybe I’m wrong.)
The question re-arose this year as the Committee prepared to publish a document that was to have the force of particular law in the US Latin Rite dioceses. However, at the beginning of the meeting, the document was downgraded from a legislative document to its current status as “guidelines.” An enormous number of amendments were suggested by bishops, so enormous, in fact, that the bishops were unable to see the document that they would vote on. They voted, and it passed.
Another brilliantly played meeting.
The result is a document which downplays all theological questions regarding liturgical music in favor of one overriding concern: Can the people sing along? This is inadequate to address the many important theological problems that arise when one looks through the average American hymnal and finds vagueness at best, outright heresy at worst.
Should the music sung at Mass continue to mislead the people? The bishops would not say yes, I am sure, but this document allows this to happen.
I think it’s great that the bishops acknowledged the importance of using the proper antiphons and psalms for entrance and communion. It would be great if there were good vernacular settings of them…
From the point of view of the average Mass goer:
Yawnnnnnnnnnn.
Kathy,
Of course I do not expect only “nice things” to be said — this is the blogosphere for heaven’s sake.
And I am grateful for the further details of your discontent.
I think that the background of the document and its process of composition are important pieces of information.
But I was focusing on the actual content/recommendations, and as a priest resident in a parish, I find them both helpful and challenging.
I think that our music program here is a rather good one, with an excellent music minister, organist, and choir. In my view the music chosen is liturgically appropriate and conducive to worship.
But I purposely quoted the numbers above in the post, because I think we could take them more to heart and thus improve both theologically and aesthetically our celebrations.
So I would be interested whether others find the recommendations positive and potentially enhancing of their liturgical celebrations.
Fr. Imbelli,
Sorry. Lead on. And my condolences about the game.
I will just mention that at the parish where I am Music Director, we are using the Advent Introits by Richard Rice for “the quiet Mass.” I’m hoping that “the quiet Mass” may be the place to begin introducing small amounts of chant. We’ll see how it goes.
We also use the Latin chants for the Mass seasonally, in Advent and Lent, which I feel is both positive (keeps them in the repertoire) and negative (gives the impression that chant is penitential).
Meanwhile, the way I am evaluating this document, which is pitifully thin, is by comparing it to the rich critique provided by the Subcommittee.
Kathy,
Thank you.
Don’t mean to give you excessive trouble on the Lord’s Day, but
where can the Subcommittee’s critique be found?
And for my benefit, as well as that of others, I’m sure, who is Richard Rice and does he have a book of the Introit settings?
Any other recommendations from you or others? Rita Farone gave a couple on another thread.
Blessed Advent to all!
Although I have much sympathy for the cause, these new guidelines strike me as pious velleities. Desirable, yes, but not feasible. How about something feasible, like promoting the NAB translation of the Lord’s Prayer to replace the archaisms, oddities and inaccuracies of the tradtional text? Anyone in favor?
I think it helps the discussion move forward keeping in mind that caricature plays little constructive role. On that, I’m grateful the Cheez Wiz comment was challenged. Articulate musicians abound and should be able to lay out a good case without resorting to snappy comments.
I think the Church’s documentation on liturgical singing by the assembly goes a bit deeper than “singing along.”
The underlying principle is in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and recognizes that liturgy isn’t only about the worship of God, but also the sanctification of the faithful. To that end, faith must be practiced, whether it be expressed in the marketplace, the home, the school, or in church.
Personally, I have low expectations of the bishops, and I also have the Roman documents on liturgy, most especially the rubrics of the Mass and the other sacramental rites.
Internet Catholics, especially conservatives, have already weighed in that if they didn’t like the document, they were going to feel free to ignore it no matter what weight of law it had. The cafeteria option is alive and well.
In-the-trenches music directors who scrape together decent to great music ministries in parishes probably wouldn’t find much new in SttL.
Improving Catholic sacred music won’t happen with initiatives from Rome or from the USCCB. Individual bishops (or their local proxies) will need to implement the untouched suggestions offered at Vatican II to train musicians on the local level.
It’s sort of like the falling tree in an empty forest story: if a document can’t or won’t be implemented, does it have any standing at all?
There is something odd about the rhapsodic tone of the document, isn’t there? Or maybe I am just feeling left out, as I can’t carry a tune. . . .
I like chant, but it poses more challenges than just learning the tunes and words. It’s supposed to be sung such that you get into a “state,” and whenever I’ve heard Catholics try to do it, I get into a “state,” but not the one intended.
So, you’ll have to train the laity, and anybody who thinks people are going to show up in droves on Wednesday nights to learn how to chant is strikes me as highly improbably, given that half the Catholics in my parish head for the door as soon as they’ve received. (For which the priest scolds the rest of us who are left.)
I found Kathy’s comment about music continuing to mislead people interesting.
One of our supply priests tod us we shouldn’t be singing “Amazing Grace” except around a campfire because it says we’re wretches and that’s not the Catholic notion of humanity.
I found this very sad, since it is a favorite among us converts, was played at both my grandmother’s funerals, one with pipes, and it is the one hymn that my Unitarian parents and Baptist in-laws can agree on and that they’ll gladly sing together.
Here is the (powerpoint) working document by the Subcommittee.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/MUSIC%20FDLCnew.ppt
Kathy,
I’m a little unclear on the narrative you’ve arranged. Was the original intent of LA to create particular law for every bishops conference in the world? I imagine that would give many canon lawyers hives. Is that what is meant by ordering the bishops conferences to submit song lists to the Congregation for Divine Worship? If so, no one should be surprised that bishops would bristle at this rather bald weakneing of their authority–supported by the argument that without “relatively” stable lists the faithful will be, wait for it, confused.
To follow up on Grant’s statement, I think it’s important to remember that L.A. is one of the most unpopular and (for good reason) resisted statements from the Vatican since the Council, not only here but worldwide. Had it inspired more positive response generally, one could hope for the details to be attended to with some enthusiasm, but as it is…
I, for one, am not a bit surprised that the U.S. bishops are not pushing hard for anything (good or bad) on the liturgical music front right now. How could they? Their leadership credibility is at an all-time low because of the abuse scandals. The last thing they need right now is to get Mrs. Murphy mad at them by telling her she may no longer sing her favorite hymns in church. The bishops may not always have exhibited the greatest courage, foresight, or leadership, but at least they have enough common sense to avoid needlessly antagonizing a lot of people at the grass roots level whose support they need every day.
It’s going to be bad enough when they force the people in the pews to relearn a whole raft of new spoken responses in the Mass — which they will have to, when they implement the new translation of the Sacramentary (L.A. again). If they are smart, they’ll avoid rocking the boat now and save up every bit of goodwill they can get, in order to make the translation project fly.
LA left it up to the conferences how to handle the matter within certain parameters.
Several options were possible. Not just a “bad” list (much as one might be inclined to glee at the though), but why not a “good” list, or what might be best, an “exemplary” list–with reasons given for selections, such as, “this hymn’s doxology names the Persons of the Trinity and, while respecting the Tradition in praising them individually, does so in a new way that offers the People of God a fresh opportunity to praise God’s mercies. For example, the phrase [blah blah blah]…” Or, “This tune develops a new way of chanting the Psalms, comparable in innovation to the Gelineau psalter, yet more distinctively recalling the flexibility of expression and Word-orientation of Gregorian chant.”
What was minimally called for (by LA and by the Subcommittee) was a “basic” list of repertoire that would be included in every hymnal. This repertoire would mutely, subtly, act as an “exemplary” list.
Why is this necessary? Flip through, say, The Green Hymnal. Compare the ecclesiological theology in the hymnal to that of Lumen Gentium. Compare the liturgical theology to Sacrosanctum Concilium. Compare the Eucharistic theology to Mysterium Fidei.
Hymns are sung theology. They matter. Look at every one of the Reformers and every single Christian revival: all were distinguished by, one might almost say they were led by, their hymns.
What I believe happened in the last three years, culminating in the November meeting’s vote, is no less than this: one theological school won the battle for direction over American liturgical music for the next 30 years. The direction will be characterized by an even greater vagueness in Trinitarian theology, more of a synchretistic approach to religious mystery, less Scriptural content, less admission of the unique salvific role of Jesus Christ, and definitely more of a congregational approach to music selection.
In plain English, Kathy, does that mean that we will get to sing more of those hymns that sound like they were written for a show that closed before it got to Broadway?
Yes. Sorry, Joseph. More of the same, coming up.
Whereas what could have been possible is the development of a new musical idiom (not from me, I do words) deeply influenced by Gregorian chant but entirely new and capable of bringing about a new artistic Renaissance for the Church. Maybe even for the larger culture. That possibility has just been removed for all practical publishing purposes, by what I believe to be a failure of hope.
Some people constantly say, “We do not need a reform of the reform!” But why not? Why would anyone say that this one particular reform in the entire history of the Church was perfectly conceived and executed, and perpetual?
The problem, Kathy, is distinguishing a reformation of the reform from a deformation of the reform. By their fruits ye shall know them.