Papal Masses as "Liturgical Paradigms"

[contrabordun]

How sad, and how far from our liturgical tradition, and the wishes of the Council Fathers.

Well, lots of things are sad. You haven't contradicted jq: does that mean you agree that his statement is correct?
If not, why not?
Is so, what conclusions do we draw?

[NorthernTenor]

How sad, and how far from our liturgical tradition, and the wishes of the Council Fathers.

Well, lots of things are sad. You haven't contradicted jq: does that mean you agree that his statement is correct?
If not, why not?
Is so, what conclusions do we draw?

It is sad that a comment board for Catholic musicians still sees comments like this that are at variance with the Church's liturgical-musical traditions, as confirmed by the Council Fathers and subsequently by Popes, who have reiterated the 'pride of place' that should be given to plainsong and polyphony, and the continuing role of Latin and Greek alongside the vernacular.

It is also sad to see such sweeping statements about the difficulty of singing plainsong, which do not reference the different kinds of chant - dialogues, Ordinary, Propers, solemn, festal, ad libitum - which have differing degrees of ease and difficulty, according to who might sing them, where and when.

Finally, it is desperately sad to see a Catholic musician dismiss out of hand the beauty of his living liturgical-musical heritage. It brings the sound of breaking icons to my ear, and the sight of bare, ruined quires to my mind's eye.

[mcb]

how far from our liturgical tradition, and the wishes of the Council Fathers.

It's easy to bandy these phrases about without having been there to know (i) what it was like in the 'good' old days and (ii) what the wishes of the Council Fathers were. James D. Crichton wrote knowledgeably about how things were in the supposedly halcyon days of our tradition, and Dom Christopher Butler was at the Council, and wrote candidly about what was in the mind of the Council Fathers. I recommend them both.

[SOP]

NT, your post made me laugh so thanks for that. Could always do with a laugh after a hard day at work.

[moderated]

Have you ever wondered why our Father's house has many rooms? Could it possibly be to accomodate each and every one of us and for us to to have space to be the unique individuals created by the father? Very little written in Latin means a thing to me but there have been times in my life when to hear some of the 'modern' pieces have been a God send - they have eased my distress and given me the message I am never alone. Who are you to say I am wrong for taking comfort and strength from those pieces?

I enjoy singing Vittoria and Palestrina, I grew up singing them so I know where they are going. Don't understand the words unless they are Kyrie, Sanctus, etc and I find arguments about the translations mind boggling boring but that is me. I also enjoy singing Farrell, Inwood, Haugen, Dean, Barry and other modern pieces. I also dislike some of the modern things - such is life.

[contrabordun]

It is sad that ... ruined quires to my mind's eye.

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but you haven't answered my question. Specifically, there is no contradiction between the following statements, which I all believe to be true:

1 - Palestrina is nonsense (in the specific sense that the words are not meaningful to most people)
2 - The Council Fathers did not envisage the wholesale abolition of the use of Palestrina at parish level.
3 - It is sad that there is not wider user of that repertoire in the church today.

What I want to know, is what do you think should be done about it? (And by whom?)

[Southern Comfort]

I'd like to suggest that everyone acquire a copy of, and read, John Baldovin's Reforming the Liturgy ─ A Response to the Critics. A very important book by one of our foremost liturgical scholars who takes seriously, analyses and answers the criticisms that some (including Josef Ratzinger himself) have made over the years. One rather dense early chapter, but worth making the effort to read and persist with the remainder of the book.

Baldovin patiently dissects the arguments of the opponents and both exposes the major flaws and points to the positive values in what they say. (I'd have been much more brutal, myself!) I think this book is particularly helpful in familiarising oneself with the arguments of those who claim that the reform was uncalled-for, or badly implemented (some of us might agree), or needs reforming itself. Also very useful in looking at what our foundational liturgical principles ought to be (which naturally includes papal liturgies, keeping us on topic), and where future work and efforts could lie.

Incidentally, Baldovin is giving the first Kevin Donovan memorial lecture at Heythrop on Saturday September 26 (5.30pm, preceded by Mass at 4.00 and followed by refreshments). I'd have thought all thinking members of this board ought to make the effort to be there.

[musicus]

For many people, Palestrina is indeed nonsense - in the sense that (whatever the aesthetic qualities) it does not make sense. Living Lord does make sense, and has an appealing tune. Much plainchant is unsingable, meandering, and plain bloody boring.

This really is lowest-common-denominator thinking, and I believe we can and should aim much higher than this. In contrast to the (glorious) polyphonic complexities of many of his predecessors, Palestrina's textures are lucid, straightforward, and easily understood. Surely, few open-minded people could fail to grasp the wondrous simplicity with which he opens Tu es Petrus (a Latin phrase whose meaning will be familiar to any reader of Dan Brown). As for "unsingable, meandering, and plain bloody boring", I can only disagree. It is eminently singable (for all sorts of technical reasons which I cannot be bothered to set out here after a very long day at work); so what if it meanders? That's why rivers are usually more beautiful than motorways; and boredom usually says more about the listener than the music.

Wilfred Mellers used to say "the best things in life are difficult". Some things are worth working at.

[Peter]

Pontifical Masses (i.e. Masses celebrated by the bishop) on the other hand, were indeed the source and model for the parish Sunday Mass celebrated by a presbyter.

The Mass I went to last Sunday was celebrated by the local Bishop in his cathedral, where the music comprised: Be Still for the Presence, Salazar Gloria (paraphrased text with Spanish refrain), Celtic Alleluia (no verse), The Servant King, Gathering Mass Sanctus (but spoken Memorial Acclamations and Great Amen), Lamb of God (can't remember which setting), Living Lord and Lord of the Dance. Presumably we are now to take this as the norm for all our Sunday Masses and forget all that plainchant and Palestrina nonsense?

I think that it is time to move on from the Salazar Gloria, and we will be getting different versions of the Sanctus/Memorial soon. However, the above music is stuff wot people sing - and 'Be still' is Scripture (Cf 'Burning bush'). People relate to this.

For many people, Palestrina is indeed nonsense - in the sense that (whatever the aesthetic qualities) it does not make sense. Living Lord does make sense, and has an appealing tune. Much plainchant is unsingable, meandering, and plain bloody boring.

It's unfortunate that there was no "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon available for me to use last night but I agree with jq39 and in her more general way SOP. Another thing I left out of the post above is that the Mass concerned was the 1200 "Family Mass", so the repertoire is indeed the "stuff wot [that type of congregation likes to] sing" and, while the musical merits may be questionable, the texts were appropriate to the Gospel of the day, so I would defend that choice of hymns for that congregation. I do not know what Sanctus etc were sung at the other Masses that day but the hymns included Christ is Made the Sure Foundation, Before the Heaven and Earth, We Have a Gospel to Proclaim and Will You Come and Follow Me? - with one exception traditional hymn tunes. For all I know there could even have been some Palestrina at the Mass where a choir sings as well!

The point is that the choices were made not to satisfy any "paradigms" from on high but to help the people regularly attending those Masses to participate in the way that suits them best, deepen their understanding of the Gospel message and thereby draw closer to God. For those congregations where plainchant and Palestrina have the same effect it would of course be desirable to provide them. The problem is that we have not enough priests and hence not enough Masses for everyone to have the style they like and so compromises have to be made. Our challenge is to strike the balance appropriate to the people we are serving in a way that best enriches their faith.

It is sad that ....

To me sadder still is the "moratorium" mentioned on another thread:

... some members of 'The new liturgical movement' are unsympathetic to the music of Bernadette Farrell, Marty Haugen, Michael Joncas and The St Louis Jesuits.

I assume that you will be pleased to see the that there is now a moratorium on the moratorium on the music of Haugen. See http://web.archive.org/web/20080207034230/http://www.mgilleland.com/music/moratorium.htm.

where some members of a supposedly loving Christian church are attacking two others specifically, if not personally then by trying to ban all their works (and one wonders if they mentally added "and all their empty promises"!). What makes this especially sad is that the composers mentioned are among the more thoughtful and intelligent writers of today whose works can enhance the worship of a great many people. The proposers of the "moratorium" may feel that their works are being heard too much but that is not an excuse for totally banning them*. Other congregations may wish to "ban" plainchant. Surely it is better to accept there is no one "right" way. Different styles have their place and the way to get rid of dross (of which there is a lot around) is not to ban it but to provide better alternatives that people will accept and enjoy. It may be Haydn, it may be Haugen. Papal Masses may indeed set examples of excellence but that does not mean that they need to be imitated exactly in all cases.

* Of course, one other possibility has occurred to me: were the proposers of the "moratorium" also suffering from the lack of a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon?

[Nick Baty]

I rather like your post, Peter. And I think it encapsulates the approach of many on here and in the SSG and other groups.

Palestrina was something of a rebel in his day: Polyphony was about to be banned by Trent but GdaP proved that it could be as beautiful as the Chant. We don't sing unaccompanied polyphony in our parish – not because we dislike it or don't value it but because, at the moment, we don't have the resources – one day this might change and our repertoire will expand and our liturgical experience be all the richer for it.

I like your point that:

the choices were made not to satisfy any "paradigms" from on high but to help the people regularly attending those Masses to participate.

I suspect that's what many of us try to do. And I'm sure we all have a list of items we've tried but have discarded because, somehow they didn't work.

I am in a parish where, as you put it, there are "not enough Masses for everyone to have the style they like and so compromises have to be made". I'd like to think we don't compromise but select the best we can manage of the most suitable music to illuminate that particular liturgy. (Sorry, convoluted sentence but I hope you know what I mean.) I'm sure that sensitive musicians can provide quite an array of styles, genres and periods within one liturgy without a jarring clash.

But I'm wittering as usual: Just wanted to say I like your post.

[Peter]

I'd like to think we don't compromise but select the best we can manage of the most suitable music to illuminate that particular liturgy.

Point taken, Nick. Indeed, I had thought of replacing "compromise" with "strike a balance", but then used that in the following sentence instead. I agree we select the best available for the liturgy - but we also have to take into account the people we're doing it for and the resources available. This may in effect require compromises to be made but on the whole I agree with your more positive wording.

Let's play nice, please.

(Is that "playing nice" enough, Mr Bear?)

[Nick Baty]

I wasn't for a second criticising your use of the word "compromise".
As I said, good post!

[NorthernTenor]

It is sad that ... ruined quires to my mind's eye.

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but you haven't answered my question. Specifically, there is no contradiction between the following statements, which I all believe to be true:

1 - Palestrina is nonsense (in the specific sense that the words are not meaningful to most people)
2 - The Council Fathers did not envisage the wholesale abolition of the use of Palestrina at parish level.
3 - It is sad that there is not wider user of that repertoire in the church today.

What I want to know, is what do you think should be done about it? (And by whom?)

1. The translations can be printed (where the setting is of an Ordinary text this will already be available).

2. We should begin from the position that Latin and such music are part of our liturgical tradition, and work forwards from there to deal with any issues arising, e.g. by ensuring translations are available when Latin is employed.

3. A starting position that ignores the tradition and the wishes of the Council Fathers represents a break in continuity with Holy Tradition - the basis of Catholicism - and as such is a matter for sadness. So, too, is the philistine rejection of the church's artistic-liturgical heritage. One part of the solution in England and Wales is for priests and musicians to do their best to re-connect with their cultural roots, rather than to continue to protest them, fifty years after the decade of protest. A good starting point would be a serious attempt to give chant pride of place in liturgical music, together with polyphony where resources permit, as requested by the Council Fathers, Paul VI, John-Paul II and Benedcit XVI.

[NorthernTenor]

Palestrina was something of a rebel in his day.

.

If we must impose our present-day notions on the past, we could suggest that Palestrina - whose work realised the nature of polyphony's roots in chant and rejected a fashionable opposition to beauty and complexity in worship - was a conservative rebel.

We don't sing unaccompanied polyphony in our parish – not because we dislike it or don't value it but because, at the moment, we don't have the resources – one day this might change and our repertoire will expand and our liturgical experience be all the richer for it.

This is a reasonable approach. No polyphony is better than polyphony done poorly for the musicians' enjoyment, but it can be something to work towards. A similar approach can be taken to chant. The simple dialogues are well within the capabilities of any parish whose priest is willing and not tone-deaf. Well-chosen Ordinaries are a good next step for involving the people in the Mass in a way that connects with tradition and beauty. The Graduale or Simplex Propers, or a good English substitute like Fr. Webber's, are something that Music Director and Choir can work towards. None of this is to suggest we shouldn't sing other appropriate songs - but those alternatives should not extinguish the Church's own particular music.

[NorthernTenor]

I'd like to suggest that everyone acquire a copy of, and read, John Baldovin's Reforming the Liturgy ─ A Response to the Critics. A very important book by one of our foremost liturgical scholars who takes seriously, analyses and answers the criticisms that some (including Josef Ratzinger himself) have made over the years. One rather dense early chapter, but worth making the effort to read and persist with the remainder of the book.

Baldovin patiently dissects the arguments of the opponents and both exposes the major flaws and points to the positive values in what they say. (I'd have been much more brutal, myself!) I think this book is particularly helpful in familiarising oneself with the arguments of those who claim that the reform was uncalled-for, or badly implemented (some of us might agree), or needs reforming itself. Also very useful in looking at what our foundational liturgical principles ought to be (which naturally includes papal liturgies, keeping us on topic), and where future work and efforts could lie.

Perhaps you'd like to summarise Baldovin's key points for us, SC, particularly those that disagree with the good Cardinal/Holy Father, either here or on another thread?

[NorthernTenor]

how far from our liturgical tradition, and the wishes of the Council Fathers.

It's easy to bandy these phrases about without having been there to know (i) what it was like in the 'good' old days and (ii) what the wishes of the Council Fathers were. James D. Crichton wrote knowledgeably about how things were in the supposedly halcyon days of our tradition, and Dom Christopher Butler was at the Council, and wrote candidly about what was in the mind of the Council Fathers. I recommend them both.

It's not difficult to understand the wishes of the Council Fathers when they're there in plain text, and they're consonant with subsequent statements by Holy Fathers. I find this preferable to interpretations of the "Spirit of the Council" that reflect the agenda of the interpreters rather than the texts and subsequent Papal reiteration.

I have not indicated that I look at the pre-reform church through rose-tinted spectacles. My understanding of anecdotal and written evidence is that liturgical practice was mixed, as we might expect. For every parish priest who was wont to gabble low mass, there seems to have been another whose actions reflected the influence of the Liturgical Movement. My own post-reform memory is of South East London Catholics belting out the Ordinary when given half the chance.