Sing to the Lord
Fr. Robert Imbelli has posted some observations below on the new USCCB document on liturgical music entitled Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (MDW hereafter). He has noted the increased emphasis on the use of Latin in liturgical music. I spent part of the weekend comparing this new document to two older USCCB documents on music and wanted to offer some observations as well. I’m also hoping that our blogging liturgist friend Todd Flowerday will give us the benefit of his wisdom.
The two earlier documents are Music in Catholic Worship (MCW) and Liturgical Music Today (LMT). Originally issued in 1972, MCW was revised in 1982. LMT was issued the same year. Part of the latter document’s purpose was to add material about music for the sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours, an issue that was not treated at length in MCW.
So the first thing that a reader observes is that the MDW combines material from both MCW and LMT. Part V of the document is a reasonably extensive treatment of music for all the major liturgical celebrations of the Church, including the Order of Christian funerals and Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest.
MDW is not merely a merger of the two previous documents, however. It reworks much of the material from MCW and organizes it in different ways. For example, whereas there was relatively little discussion in MCW about the various actors in the liturgy, Part II of MDW—entitled “The Church at Prayer”— treats each actor in the liturgy and proceeds in the following order: bishop, priest, deacon, assembly, music ministers (choir, psalmist, cantor, musicians, music director).
MDW also reorders the well-known threefold judgment of music that those preparing liturgies must make. MCW organized this as follows: the musical judgment (i.e. is the music technically and aesthetically of high quality); the liturgical judgment (i.e. is the music capable of meeting the structural and textual requirements set forth by the liturgical books; and the pastoral judgment (i.e. does this music enable a specific congregation to “express their faith, in this place, in this age, in this culture?”
The new document makes two significant changes here. First, it reorders the propositions, placing the liturgical judgment ahead of the musical judgment. Since the three criteria are meant to be part of a single evaluation and are not ranked hierarchically, it is hard to know what to make of this change. But it is certainly not an accident.
Secondly, there is a significant shift in tone with respect to the pastoral judgment. As you can see above, the emphasis in MCW is whether the music allows the congregation to express its faith. The new document adds language that changes the emphasis from expression to reception:
The pastoral judgment takes into consideration the actual community gathered to celebrate in a particular place at a particular time. Does a musical composition promote the sanctification of the members of the liturgical assembly by drawing them closer to the holy mysteries being celebrated? Does it strengthen their formation in faith by opening their hearts to the mystery being celebrated on this occasion or in this season? Is it capable of expressing the faith that God has planted in their hearts and summoned them to celebrate?
This change in emphasis from the liturgy as communal expression to liturgy as reception of divine action is not an isolated change. In fact one of the most dramatic differences between the two documents is in their opening paragraphs. Considering the opening three paragraphs from the 1982 Music in Catholic Worship:
1. We are Christians because through the Christian community we have met Jesus Christ, heard his word in invitation, and responded to him in faith. We gather at Mass that we may hear and express our faith again in this assembly and, by expressing it, renew and deepen it.
2. We do not come to meet Christ as if he were absent from the rest of our lives. We come together to deepen our awareness of, and commitment to, the action of his Spirit in the whole of our lives at every moment. We come together to acknowledge the love of God poured out among us in the work of the Spirit, to stand in awe and praise.
3. We are cerebrating when we involve ourselves meaningfully in the thoughts, words, songs, and gestures of the worshiping community—when everything we do is wholehearted and authentic for us—when we mean the words and want to do what is done.
The word “we,” which begins the document, occurs 11 times in the opening three paragraphs. God is mentioned once, Jesus Christ twice, and the Holy Spirit twice. What one might call the “anthropological emphasis” is almost overwhelming, especially when one compares it to the new document as follows:
1. God has bestowed upon his people the gift of song. God dwells within each human person, in the place where music takes its source. Indeed, God, the giver of song, is present whenever his people sing his praises.
2. A cry from deep within our being, music is a way for God to lead us to the realm of higher things. As
St. Augustine says, “Singing is for the one who loves.” Music is therefore a sign of God’s love for us and of our love for him. In this sense, it is very personal. But unless music sounds, it is not music, and whenever it sounds, it is accessible to others. By its very nature song has both an individual and a communal dimension. Thus, it is no wonder that singing together in church expresses so well the sacramental presence of God to his people.
3. Our ancestors reveled in this gift, sometimes with God’s urging. “Write out this song, then, for yourselves,” God said to Moses. “Teach it to the Israelites and have them recite it, so that this song may be a witness for me.” The Chosen People, after they passed through the
Red Sea, sang as one to the Lord. Deborah, a judge of Israel, sang to the Lord with Barak after God gave them victory. David and the Israelites “made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.”
The new document begins with the word “God,” which occurs nine times in the first three paragraphs. The language strongly emphasizes the priority of God’s action. God is the giver of the gift of song. The document also moves quickly into the scriptural witness. By contrast, there are no references to scripture in the first nine articles of MCW.
While the changes in specific norms between MCW and MDW are no doubt important, I would suggest that this change in theological emphasis is the most striking part of the new document and one worthy of some serious reflection.
Like so many of these Vatican documents, the practical application at the parish level will most likely be nil. “JPII” priests love change qua change and most likely wait with breathless anticipation as to what to do and when. Neanderthals like Bruskewitz, Burke, etc. will give good and loyal lip service to the changes, most like putting into motion diocesan liturgical task forces to study and determine how to implement MDW.
I suspect, however, that the average parish priest has much more to worry about than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Peter,
Thank you for a very suggestive analysis of the “change in theological emphasis.”
I am reminded of a conversation with two Jesuit friends back in the late 1980s: one a prominent liturgical scholar, the other a prominent patristics scholar. Both concurred in characterizing much of the then current hymnody as “we, we, we, all the way home.”
I call attention again to the address that Cardinal Daneels gave at Boston College (about which I blogged some months back). While firmly committed to the liturgical reforms inaugurated by the Council, he also spoke at length of “the dark side of reform,” what, in light of your point, might be termed an “anthropological reduction.”
But what are those of us who can’t sing supposed to do?
And don’t try to tell me everyone can sing.
It’s a lie.
If I’m singing to them, babies go to sleep in my arms –in self-defense.
It’s true. Not everyone can sing. And for some it is best not to try. Or are we going to be subjected to musical therapeutics for the noncantorial? Fortunately liturgical dance is not on the front burner at the moment. But it seem to have been prominent among the Israelites.
Does anyone remember Thomas Day’s book, Why Catholics Can’t Sing? It reminds me that Catholics DON’T Sing! Protestants do. Jews do. Buddhists–well, they chant.
The bishops can issue documents on liturgical music until they’re blue in the face–but until the underlying problem or inhibition or inability is addressed and resolved there seems little point in their babbling on. Though thank you, Peter, for your comparing and contrasting–Catholics are good at that!
So we don’t sing.
So why don’t’ we hire a nice choir to sing for us? Or even three people with good voices (as opposed to three people who think they have good voices, which is what we usually get)?
I like listening to people who can sing.
However, given a good music program and patience on the part of the music director, Catholics DO sing, sing well and joyfully.
http://www.mhr.org
If you come to San Francisco, check us out at the 10 AM Sunday liturgy and prepare to be amazed. If you don’t like to sing you will either be very uncomfortable, adapt, or go elsewhere.
But Jimmy, I LIKE to listen to people who CAN sing, I just can’t sing myself–I think there’s a special prohibition in the Geneva Conventions.
There is a story Oliver Sacks tells in his new book, Musicophilia, about a friend of his who, Sacks attests, can’t sing (in the sense that Cathy is saying she can’t sing–and, I might add, in the way I also can’t sing). The friend spends some time with a South American or African tribe (I don’t have the book with me) and they grow to trust him enough to invite him to join them in one of their ceremonies, which involves singing. The man tells them, “I can’t sing,” and they are astounded that anybody would say such a thing. They say, “You can talk, can’t you?”
Interestingly, Sacks tells us that in this tribe’s language (and in many other languages) the word for “sing” is also the word for “dance.”
The book tells us many amazing things about the power of music. There are people who can’t speak, but they can’t sing. There are people with movement disorders (such as Parkinsons) who can scarcely move but who can dance (as long as the music keeps playing). There are people whose memories are so limited they can only remember things for about a minute, but they can sing, And there is a remarkable story about a woman in an institution who was formerly a professional singer but who has an extremely limited memory who finds out there is going to be a talent show. She is determined to perform in it, and she practices her performance, forgetting almost immediately that she has practiced, but nevertheless improving with each session. She gives an fine performance, and a few minutes later has no recollection of it.
What is perhaps relevant to this discussion is that for some people described in the book the power of music involves them performing, and for others, it involves them listening. I don’t see why everyone should be expected to sing in religious ceremonies unless, of course, they are like the tribal ceremony Sacks describes in which singing isn’t something done by skilled performers (as in our culture–and I think there’s no getting away from that), but rather is something everybody does all the time without being self-conscious, like talking.
Jimmy, note that my husband, Joe Gannon, in his post above, attests to the existence of people who REALLY can’t sing. (And he has reason to know. Joe himself has a lovely voice, but he has heard me on rare occasions attempting “Happy Birthday” or some such item and alarming passersby. Believe me, it is a kindness to all around me that I remain an appreciative “listener” in church.
If ever I am in San Francisco, though, I’d love to stop in at your awesome parish. And I bet that nobody would notice I wasn’t singing. I have perfected the art of silent lip synch since my schooldays. I even passed a required course in college in Gregorian chant using this method!
The beauty of being in a congregation that sings well and with gusto is that, even if your voice isn’t Met quality, it adds to the overall wonderful sound.
We have one lady in the choir who is the worst soprano that I have ever heard, but somehow it all works and no one has lost her/his faith because of an off-key soprano.
Okay, Jimmy–You’ve convinced me. The next time I’m in San Francisco, I’ll give it a try!
Peter, I hope you will continue your comparing and contrasting. Your remarks are quite helpful.
I am the editor/adapter/composer of By Flowing Waters: Chant for the Liturgy (660 chants for Mass in English), which was discussed on a different thread. I am also the convening composer of the Collegeville Composers Group, which just produced Psallite, 300 new, essentially vocal entrance, responsorial, and communion antiphons and psalms inspired by the Roman Gradual and the Simple Gradual.
Both projects are designed to restore to the assembly their own voices and the prayer language of the psalms and canticles of the Old and New Testaments.
I’d be interested if any people on this thread have any opinions about either project.
[...] Compare Best Singing Wii Games For KidsCompare Best Singing Wii Games For KidsBest Singing Lesson Storieshttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkAj67Oexn0I1sIKDevVMghttp://www.mp3lyrics.org/http://valdosta.backpage.com/MusicInstruction/woodland-hills-singing-lessons-vocal-coach-with-monica-margolis/8871053http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1454http://bestsinginglessonstories.com/sing-like-scott-weiland-review/http://bestsinginglessonstories.com/cheap-sing-like-rob-halford-online/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLVfR3e5IMGlen CampbellVocal pedagogyOnline Coursesmusic teacherHuman InterestChristina Aguilera [...]
[...] unless you are someone who has forced to sing is such a natural gift as part of a band you really want to tell you what is contain only the internet to [...]