Theology of Music
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
I wish Joseph Gelineau's chef d'oeuvre, 'Chant et musique dans le culte chrétien', published in 1962, was still available. The English translation, 'Voices and instruments in Christian worship', was published by Burns Oates in 1964 but has long been out of print. Here is a work on the theology of music - and of music in the liturgy in particular - that is a masterpiece. Though it was published just before Vatican II, its insights are profound - and still relevant and applicable 45 years later. I frequently revisit its pages for inspiration.
Monteverdi is said to have opined "l'orazione sia padrona dell'armonia e non serva", lit."may prayer be the mistress of harmony and not its servant". The primary role of music in the liturgy is to serve and enrich the liturgical texts and thus facilitate their role as means of prayer and worship.
Going back to the beginning of this thread, Pope Benedict is well aware of the polarisation illustrated there (see his 'Feast of Faith', pp.98-99). He goes on: "It seems that relations between theology and church music have always been somewhat cool" (id, p.100)!
Despite his evident preference for Gregorian chant, of which the press has made a shibboleth, he has a broad view of the role of liturgical music. While deprecating music that fails to respect the meaning of the liturgy, he says: "As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything - texts, music, execution - ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons." (Pope Benedict XVI's recent 'Sacramentum caritatis', para. 42)
Monteverdi is said to have opined "l'orazione sia padrona dell'armonia e non serva", lit."may prayer be the mistress of harmony and not its servant". The primary role of music in the liturgy is to serve and enrich the liturgical texts and thus facilitate their role as means of prayer and worship.
Going back to the beginning of this thread, Pope Benedict is well aware of the polarisation illustrated there (see his 'Feast of Faith', pp.98-99). He goes on: "It seems that relations between theology and church music have always been somewhat cool" (id, p.100)!
Despite his evident preference for Gregorian chant, of which the press has made a shibboleth, he has a broad view of the role of liturgical music. While deprecating music that fails to respect the meaning of the liturgy, he says: "As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything - texts, music, execution - ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons." (Pope Benedict XVI's recent 'Sacramentum caritatis', para. 42)
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
Ian wrote:Broad in what sense?
1) Pope Benedict sees beauty as an essential element of the liturgical action and therefore art at the service of the liturgy as important (see Sacramentum Caritatis, art.35 & 41). "This is no mere aestheticism, but the concrete way in which the truth of God's love in Christ encounters us, attracts us and delights us, enabling us to emerge from ourselves and drawing us to our true vocation, which is love." (35)
2) "In the 'ars celebrandi', liturgical song has a pre-eminent place... The People of God assembled for liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost." (42) So you have on the one hand the inalienable right and indeed duty of the assembled faithful to "sing the praises of God", on the other a patrimony that is mainly for trained choirs. Note too the "...still creates..." The paragraph goes on to quote the bit about the need for texts, music and execution corresponding to the meaning of the liturgy that I quoted earlier.
3) Liturgical music has an inter- and trans-cultural function: see the positive encouragement given to inculturation in art.54.
4) "Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy." (42) I get the impression from this that his vision of the possibilities for liturgical music is considerably broader than that of "the Synod Fathers".
May I suggest that music in the liturgy is an 'art fonctionnel', as Gelineau puts it. Not art for its own sake, nor art reduced to soulless functionality, but, like architecture, art which serves and expresses the purpose for which it is deployed - in this case, the liturgy.
John,
Thanks for the clarification. I asked for it because, while agreeing with you that Benedict has a broad view of the role of liturgical music, I felt that the given quote from 'Sacramentum Caritatis' didn't sufficiently illustrate it. Definition of terms always helps, especially when they have a broad range of potential meanings!
I'm pleased you've raised the matter, because Benedict's often quite subtle views are an opportunity to move discussion of liturgical music on from where it's been stuck for so long, like a damaged recording of 'Kumbaya'. In practical terms, they confirm that plainsong, and where possible polyphony, should have a significant role in the celebration of the Roman Rite; they reiterate the church's understanding of sacred music; and they deepen our understanding of interior, communal and representative activity. We can now plan, train and practice accordingly, if we weren't doing so already. But in addition to this, they confirm that sacred music is a developing art, and they open up an interesting discussion on its place within our wider consideration of culture and liturgy.
Thanks for the clarification. I asked for it because, while agreeing with you that Benedict has a broad view of the role of liturgical music, I felt that the given quote from 'Sacramentum Caritatis' didn't sufficiently illustrate it. Definition of terms always helps, especially when they have a broad range of potential meanings!
I'm pleased you've raised the matter, because Benedict's often quite subtle views are an opportunity to move discussion of liturgical music on from where it's been stuck for so long, like a damaged recording of 'Kumbaya'. In practical terms, they confirm that plainsong, and where possible polyphony, should have a significant role in the celebration of the Roman Rite; they reiterate the church's understanding of sacred music; and they deepen our understanding of interior, communal and representative activity. We can now plan, train and practice accordingly, if we weren't doing so already. But in addition to this, they confirm that sacred music is a developing art, and they open up an interesting discussion on its place within our wider consideration of culture and liturgy.
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
John,
'Picky' is good! It encourages consideration and clarification.
My suggestion that Benedict's views on liturgy and music 'deepen our understanding of interior, communal and representative activity' was a reference to his analysis of the relationship of individual, corporate and delegated activity within the liturgy, as described in his remarkable essay '"In the Presence of the Angels I Will Sing Your Praise", The Regensburg Tradition and the Reform of the Liturgy'. The essay was originally a sermon on the occasion of the retirement of his brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, as choirmaster of the Regensburg cathedral. An English translation was published in the Spring 1995 issue of 'Sacred Music', a publication of the Church Music Association of America, and it's available on-line at http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html .
The essay rejects the view of a radical opposition between pre-and-post conciliar approaches to to liturgy, in which 'the priest alone "did" the liturgy before the Council, while now, after the Synod, the assembled community "does" liturgy" '. Rather, it emphasises a process of reform and development, within which the essential continuities are preserved. Amongst these continuities is a high understanding of the value of music, including that sung by the choir alone, in support of a liturgy whose purpose is to bring the people of God together 'into that greater and grander [heavenly] liturgy which is already being celebrated'.
Benedict sees no contradiction between this and the Council's words on liturgy as corporate activity. Rather, he sees the musicians as representative of the wider congregation, employing their skills in the service of the whole. He quotes Harnoncourt with approval: '"the choir is itself part of the congregation and sings for it as legitimate delegate"', and goes on to explain that 'the concept of "delegation" is one of the basic categories of all Christian faith, and it applies to all levels of faith-filled reality, and precisely for this reason is also essential in the liturgical assembly.' This representative activity enables 'a more profound interior participation in the singing, than would be possible in many places through one's own crying and singing.'
It's a densely packed essay, so please take this as a prosaic and inadequate summary of but a part. Much better to read the whole!
'Picky' is good! It encourages consideration and clarification.
My suggestion that Benedict's views on liturgy and music 'deepen our understanding of interior, communal and representative activity' was a reference to his analysis of the relationship of individual, corporate and delegated activity within the liturgy, as described in his remarkable essay '"In the Presence of the Angels I Will Sing Your Praise", The Regensburg Tradition and the Reform of the Liturgy'. The essay was originally a sermon on the occasion of the retirement of his brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, as choirmaster of the Regensburg cathedral. An English translation was published in the Spring 1995 issue of 'Sacred Music', a publication of the Church Music Association of America, and it's available on-line at http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html .
The essay rejects the view of a radical opposition between pre-and-post conciliar approaches to to liturgy, in which 'the priest alone "did" the liturgy before the Council, while now, after the Synod, the assembled community "does" liturgy" '. Rather, it emphasises a process of reform and development, within which the essential continuities are preserved. Amongst these continuities is a high understanding of the value of music, including that sung by the choir alone, in support of a liturgy whose purpose is to bring the people of God together 'into that greater and grander [heavenly] liturgy which is already being celebrated'.
Benedict sees no contradiction between this and the Council's words on liturgy as corporate activity. Rather, he sees the musicians as representative of the wider congregation, employing their skills in the service of the whole. He quotes Harnoncourt with approval: '"the choir is itself part of the congregation and sings for it as legitimate delegate"', and goes on to explain that 'the concept of "delegation" is one of the basic categories of all Christian faith, and it applies to all levels of faith-filled reality, and precisely for this reason is also essential in the liturgical assembly.' This representative activity enables 'a more profound interior participation in the singing, than would be possible in many places through one's own crying and singing.'
It's a densely packed essay, so please take this as a prosaic and inadequate summary of but a part. Much better to read the whole!
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
Ian,
That article 'In the Presence of the Angels' is also included in the symposium of essays printed as A New Song for the Lord, published by Crossroad. As you noted, it was an address for a particular occasion. For a more comprehensive treatment, see his The Spirit of the Liturgy and Feast of Faith, especially (in the latter book) the chapter 'On the Theological Basis of Church Music'.
I would also venture to suggest that his views on the future of liturgical reform and renewal in the Church may have developed somewhat since he became Pope and since the Synod of Bishops, whose proposals he has had to 'take on board' and which he has carefully incorporated into 'Sacramentum Caritatis'. Here I find his "appreciation" of the "validity of the liturgical renewal" quite a change from his earlier apparent reservations.
That article 'In the Presence of the Angels' is also included in the symposium of essays printed as A New Song for the Lord, published by Crossroad. As you noted, it was an address for a particular occasion. For a more comprehensive treatment, see his The Spirit of the Liturgy and Feast of Faith, especially (in the latter book) the chapter 'On the Theological Basis of Church Music'.
I would also venture to suggest that his views on the future of liturgical reform and renewal in the Church may have developed somewhat since he became Pope and since the Synod of Bishops, whose proposals he has had to 'take on board' and which he has carefully incorporated into 'Sacramentum Caritatis'. Here I find his "appreciation" of the "validity of the liturgical renewal" quite a change from his earlier apparent reservations.
John,
As Benedict has observed, we need to break out of the spurious opposition of old and new that mars discussion of the liturgy and its music. The endless, unresolved round of statement and counter-statement puts me in mind of the film 'Groundhog Day'!. Picking over the minutiae of Sacramentum Caritatis for clues that Benedict has mellowed since his election, or that he's about to roll back the frontiers of liturgical development to some glorious, pre-conciliar past, are both good examples of the fruitlessness of such activity. The net's full of it, and it entirely misses the point.
The liturgical arts should be rooted in a tradition that holds fast to its 2000 year heritage and continues to engage with cultural change and diversity. It's not a matter of either/or; we're called to recognise both, because they are part of the same continuum. The sections of Sacramentum Caritatis that describe this aren't at all surprising, because Benedict's views have been remarkably consistent. They're also consonant with the tradition of the Church, as expressed by his predecessors and the Councils. Unfortunately, the narrow slits in the protagonists' bunkers limit their vision of the document. I hesitate to say it, but my position as a convert who has some musical training, and some experience of liturgy and music, may afford me a broader perspective. I don't have have the emotional baggage that seems to go with cradle Catholicism. Nor am I the kind of convert who wishes to be more Roman than thou.
Sacramentum Caritatis is both specific and broad in its discussion of the nature and role of sacred music. It tells us there is a "profound connection between beauty and the liturgy", and that "Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty" [41]. It goes on to say that of the arts employed in the service of the liturgy, "song has a pre-eminent place", and asserts the need to preserve and develop the church's musical heritage, within which Gregorian chant should be be "suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy" [42]. It is expected that the laity will be sufficiently familiar with a small number of chants to enable them to be sung at international gatherings. [62]
Of course, it could be suggested that, as much of this musical heritage is of necessity sung by cantors or choirs, preservation and development is limited by the Second Vatican Council's emphasis on the participation of the entire People of God in the Liturgy. However, the Exhortation calls for this "to be understood within the overall unity of the development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities." [3] It goes on to say that "some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of this participation. It should be made clear that the word 'participation' does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration." [52] There are distinct roles within the exercise of the liturgy, from that of the ordained ministers to "properly trained laity". [53]
Finally, the Exhortation also recognises that liturgy is not only developed over time, but "in a variety of cultural situations" [54], and encourages its continuing adaptation to meet local needs.
That's pretty clear, then:
(i) The laity should sing a limited range of Gregorian chant often enough for it to be familiar.
(ii) Church musicians should be encouraged to learn and perform from the church's heritage of great liturgical music.
(iii) Composers should be encouraged to develop the heritage. Some of the the new work will undoubtedly be congregational, some of it for musicians, and some for both.
(iv) Developments in sacred music should reflect the cultural situations that result in adaptations of the liturgy itself.
None of that's onerous, or likely to have us joining the Society of St. Pius. The devil will be in the detail, but it's a good starting point for parishes, educational institutions, liturgy offices and liturgical societies. I look forward to appropriate programmes of activity.
As Benedict has observed, we need to break out of the spurious opposition of old and new that mars discussion of the liturgy and its music. The endless, unresolved round of statement and counter-statement puts me in mind of the film 'Groundhog Day'!. Picking over the minutiae of Sacramentum Caritatis for clues that Benedict has mellowed since his election, or that he's about to roll back the frontiers of liturgical development to some glorious, pre-conciliar past, are both good examples of the fruitlessness of such activity. The net's full of it, and it entirely misses the point.
The liturgical arts should be rooted in a tradition that holds fast to its 2000 year heritage and continues to engage with cultural change and diversity. It's not a matter of either/or; we're called to recognise both, because they are part of the same continuum. The sections of Sacramentum Caritatis that describe this aren't at all surprising, because Benedict's views have been remarkably consistent. They're also consonant with the tradition of the Church, as expressed by his predecessors and the Councils. Unfortunately, the narrow slits in the protagonists' bunkers limit their vision of the document. I hesitate to say it, but my position as a convert who has some musical training, and some experience of liturgy and music, may afford me a broader perspective. I don't have have the emotional baggage that seems to go with cradle Catholicism. Nor am I the kind of convert who wishes to be more Roman than thou.
Sacramentum Caritatis is both specific and broad in its discussion of the nature and role of sacred music. It tells us there is a "profound connection between beauty and the liturgy", and that "Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty" [41]. It goes on to say that of the arts employed in the service of the liturgy, "song has a pre-eminent place", and asserts the need to preserve and develop the church's musical heritage, within which Gregorian chant should be be "suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy" [42]. It is expected that the laity will be sufficiently familiar with a small number of chants to enable them to be sung at international gatherings. [62]
Of course, it could be suggested that, as much of this musical heritage is of necessity sung by cantors or choirs, preservation and development is limited by the Second Vatican Council's emphasis on the participation of the entire People of God in the Liturgy. However, the Exhortation calls for this "to be understood within the overall unity of the development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities." [3] It goes on to say that "some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of this participation. It should be made clear that the word 'participation' does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration." [52] There are distinct roles within the exercise of the liturgy, from that of the ordained ministers to "properly trained laity". [53]
Finally, the Exhortation also recognises that liturgy is not only developed over time, but "in a variety of cultural situations" [54], and encourages its continuing adaptation to meet local needs.
That's pretty clear, then:
(i) The laity should sing a limited range of Gregorian chant often enough for it to be familiar.
(ii) Church musicians should be encouraged to learn and perform from the church's heritage of great liturgical music.
(iii) Composers should be encouraged to develop the heritage. Some of the the new work will undoubtedly be congregational, some of it for musicians, and some for both.
(iv) Developments in sacred music should reflect the cultural situations that result in adaptations of the liturgy itself.
None of that's onerous, or likely to have us joining the Society of St. Pius. The devil will be in the detail, but it's a good starting point for parishes, educational institutions, liturgy offices and liturgical societies. I look forward to appropriate programmes of activity.
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
Well said, Ian. I get four problems in the liturgy committee.
(1) Only people with strong agendas come. My own strong agenda is to follow what the popes say, and Benedict hasn't substantially changed the position on music, nor would I have expected him to.
(2) Some people object to Latin on the basis that "we got rid of it forty years ago when the council chucked it out" and no amount of pushing documents across the table will convince them otherwise.
(3) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I can see music can be accepted in two ways. It can be fashionable, which gives it a life of a few weeks, or it can be good, in which case it lasts indefinitely. The trouble is that people seem to remain attached to what was fashionable in their late teens for the rest of their lives. A big chunk of the parish now in their sixties and seventies like their hymns based on sixties pop.
(4) Some "catholics" reject the detailed authority of the pope. They justify this with reasoning along the lines of "He's a long way away in Rome. What does he know about the problems of the west of England?"
The one thing that is certain is that progress will be slow.
(1) Only people with strong agendas come. My own strong agenda is to follow what the popes say, and Benedict hasn't substantially changed the position on music, nor would I have expected him to.
(2) Some people object to Latin on the basis that "we got rid of it forty years ago when the council chucked it out" and no amount of pushing documents across the table will convince them otherwise.
(3) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I can see music can be accepted in two ways. It can be fashionable, which gives it a life of a few weeks, or it can be good, in which case it lasts indefinitely. The trouble is that people seem to remain attached to what was fashionable in their late teens for the rest of their lives. A big chunk of the parish now in their sixties and seventies like their hymns based on sixties pop.
(4) Some "catholics" reject the detailed authority of the pope. They justify this with reasoning along the lines of "He's a long way away in Rome. What does he know about the problems of the west of England?"
The one thing that is certain is that progress will be slow.
nazard wrote:[Music] can be fashionable, which gives it a life of a few weeks, or it can be good, in which case it lasts indefinitely. The trouble is that people seem to remain attached to what was fashionable in their late teens for the rest of their lives.
The second sentence, which is true, contradicts the first sentence, which ought to be true. As you say, people remain passionately committed to the music with which they were brought up - whether that be 60's pop or whatever. As an educator, I believe that good music has the power to convince; all we can hope to do is to help create the conditions for it to work its magic. (Non clamor sed amor...)
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
presbyter
- Posts: 1651
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
- Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
- Location: elsewhere
Ian wrote:(iii) Composers should be encouraged to develop the heritage. Some of the the new work will undoubtedly be congregational, some of it for musicians, and some for both.
Yes! Personally I should like to see (hear) composers of the calibre of MacMillan and Panufnik writing more for the liturgy as a whole and not just setting "a Mass" (Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus). Why is it that the just about the only Mass that ever seems to be set in full is the Requiem? Let's have some entrance, offertory, communion processional pieces; psalm settings, Gospel acclamations etc. Let's have a Eucharistic Prayer set as a whole. Let's have high-art music which is integral to rite and which engages the people in what God is doing for us in that rite.
Presbyter wrote:
An excellent vision! Who can encourage this, and in what ways? I ask this in the knowledge that the membership of the SSOG and this discussion board includes those with parish, diocesan and national influence and responsibilities.
Yes! Personally I should like to see (hear) composers of the calibre of MacMillan and Panufnik writing more for the liturgy as a whole and not just setting "a Mass" (Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus). Why is it that the just about the only Mass that ever seems to be set in full is the Requiem? Let's have some entrance, offertory, communion processional pieces; psalm settings, Gospel acclamations etc. Let's have a Eucharistic Prayer set as a whole. Let's have high-art music which is integral to rite and which engages the people in what God is doing for us in that rite.
An excellent vision! Who can encourage this, and in what ways? I ask this in the knowledge that the membership of the SSOG and this discussion board includes those with parish, diocesan and national influence and responsibilities.
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
Thank you, Ian. Thank you, Presbyter. Vision - and challenge - noted.
In Scotland there is an official national committee for church music, part of the Commission for Liturgy of the Bishops' Conference. In Ireland there is a National Centre for Liturgy at Maynooth, which runs a diploma in church music; there are similar structures in many other European countries.
In England there has been no official permanent secretariat or commission specifically for the promotion of church music at national level since the 1970s...
In Scotland there is an official national committee for church music, part of the Commission for Liturgy of the Bishops' Conference. In Ireland there is a National Centre for Liturgy at Maynooth, which runs a diploma in church music; there are similar structures in many other European countries.
In England there has been no official permanent secretariat or commission specifically for the promotion of church music at national level since the 1970s...