Change in the parishes?

[Ian]

I read an interesting article today by Damian Thompson (editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald), in which he suggests that "after a quiet and cautious start" to Benedict's papacy, "major reforms are on their way", especially in relation to the liturgy. The article can be found on-line at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ope114.xml

Thompson concentrates on two things: Benedict's wish to improve liturgical practice, and his likely intention to liberalise the rules that govern the celebration of the old rite. I guess the former has the greater potential for impact on users of this forum.

Thompson believes "it has become clear that Benedict's agenda remains essentially the same as it was when he was Cardinal Ratzinger", and that his target is "not so much people as bad habits - rambling sermons; smug, self-centred celebrations of the Mass; ugly music and architecture that, in his opinion, insults God." This seems to me to be a valid observation: Benedict's carefully argued words in Sacramentum Carititatis reflect Ratzinger's published views.

As Thompson points out, the document "contained explicit instructions about the greater use of Latin and plain chant". It is therefore reasonable to expect to sing and hear more Gregorian in English parishes in the future. This was one of the main reasons for the founding of the Society, and the users of this discussion board would necessarily be involved in the process. It would therefore be interesting to hear people's views on how this can best be achieved, and the practical things the Society and the Liturgy Office might do to encourage it.

Thompson believes it might be an uphill struggle in England, observing in passing that the Exhortation has been "ignored by the English bishops." That may be true, up to a point. The summary of the document published on the Liturgy Office's website mentions music once, almost in passing. The words 'latin', 'gregorian' and 'chant' don't appear at all. To be fair, there may be nothing deliberate in this; it may just reflect the background and priorities of those involved. As John Ainslie has observed elsewhere on this board:

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...

However, I find an uphill walk easier with the wind behind me, and in this case we know the way it's blowing. So, suggestions please ...

[contrabordun]

Hmm, disappointing but perhaps not suprising to see a person in his position casually equating "Tridentine" with "Latin" mass.

[presbyter]

As Thompson points out, the document "contained explicit instructions about the greater use of Latin and plain chant".

IMHO, Thompson is in error. He adverts to paragraph 42

...... that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

IMHO, whoever translated the Latin has himself put his own "spin" into the translation. Here's the Latin text:

...... ut aptum detur cantui Gregoriano pondus,(130) veluti cantui liturgiae Romanae proprio.(131)

The Latin text is a restatement of what has always been in the liturgy documents of the Second Vatican Council (SC116). There's nothing new.
I can just about cope (but not completely) with "esteemed" for "pondus" (weight) but there's no "and employed" evident. Parishes are not being told that they must sing Gregorian chant. (And pastorally - the "fitting weight" or "due consideration" or "suitable esteem" given to Gregorian chant at the local level might be none at all.)

Thompson believes it might be an uphill struggle in England, observing in passing that the Exhortation has been "ignored by the English bishops.

I wonder upon what evidence Mr Thompson bases that (IMHO - very silly) statement.

The Liturgy Office pamphlet states:

"This introductory leaflet gives only a brief overview. It does not even attempt to offer a summary of so rich a document." All I can say is that for a brief overview, it's very good!

[Alan]

It is therefore reasonable to expect to sing and hear more Gregorian in English parishes in the future. This was one of the main reasons for the founding of the Society, and the users of this discussion board would necessarily be involved in the process.

Readers might be interested to see the original Four Aims of 1929:

1. To maintain the dignity of the Sacred Liturgy as the supreme instrument of congregational worship.
2. To carry out the wishes of the Church with regard to church music; that is, to put into practice the instructions given by Pope Pius X in his 'Motu Proprio' on church music of 22 November 1903 and confirmed by Pope Pius XI in his Apostolic Constitution of 28 December 1928 on the same subject.
3. To provide each year a course of instruction in plainsong and polyphony for Catholic choirmasters, teachers and others practically interested.
4. To attempt, by mutual help, to find a solution to the practical problems of members.

The Four Aims have been adapted over the years, and the present formulation (as printed in the journal and derived from the current constitution) is as follows:

The SSG is the national society for liturgy and music in the Catholic Church in the British Isles. Founded in 1929, it exists:
• to further the study and understanding of the liturgy by the people of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to promoting active participation in accordance with the teaching of the Church;
• to promote facilities for the study of liturgy and church music;
• to organise meetings, schools and conferences at which instruction in the liturgy and music is given;
• to reproduce, print, publish and sell books and pamphlets likely to be required by persons concerned with the liturgy and sacred music.

As a former Chair of the Society, I know that the Trustees (who are also the Society's Executive Committee) are always keen to hear the views of any member regarding their implementation of these aims. Their contact details are printed in every issue of Music & Liturgy.

[John Ainslie]

The SSG is the national society for liturgy and music in the Catholic Church in the British Isles. Founded in 1929, it exists:
• to further the study and understanding of the liturgy by the people of the Roman Catholic Church...

As current chairman of the Society, I have just noticed the need for a small correction (a misprint in Music and Liturgy): our first aim should read:
• to further the study and understanding by the people of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to promoting active participation in accordance with the teaching of the Church;

'The people' to whom we proclaim our message of Christian faith as expressed in the Catholic liturgy are not just 'the people of the RC Church', but anyone who is interested in what we have to say.

[Ian]

Fascinating. Do continue.

[Ian]

How disappointing.

The Council fathers reminded the Church that Gregorian chant "is specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

This general rule has been confirmed by Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and now by Benedict XVI, who tells us that Gregorian is the "chant proper to the Roman liturgy". They needn't have bothered as far as large swathes of the Church in this country are concerned. That's unfortunate in a number of ways. It diminishes the sense of the sacred in the liturgy. It cuts the Church off from its past. It damages the authority of the Church. And it plays into the hands of those who equate the new mass with all these things.

Benedict's elucidation of the principals on which this rule is based is broad, measured, sensitive and acute. It reflects his background as theologian, philosopher and musician, together with the pastoral sensitivity that he has displayed since elevation. He places Gregorian in a wider spiritual, liturgical and cultural context. He does not say it is the only kind of music to be sung in church. But he does insist that it it should have a special place in the celebration of the Roman Rite, and he expects the faithful to be sufficiently familiar with a small number of chants for them to be used at international gatherings.

It is in this context that I am disappointed by the response to my question. It is not unreasonable to consider it the duty of individuals and groups with responsibility for these matters to consider how best to implement the Church's teaching. However, there has been little response, and what there has either avoided the issue or worse.

Carry on like this and the Society will become a irrelevant as that of Pius X.

[mcb]

It is in this context that I am disappointed by the response to my question.

I don't know that you need to be, Ian. If you look back over what's been written in this forum over the last few years you'll find plenty of intelligent and informed discussion - informed particularly in the light of practical pastoral experience - of the role of chant in parish musical life, the ways in which it can be used and the pitfalls in attempting to persuade ordinary people that it can be an effective vehicle for their sung prayer. Many contributors here are parish music leaders, and many of them, I think it's fair to say, find regular and creative roles for chant in parish musical life.

So what is it you want to hear that you're not hearing in this forum? Not every parish does things in the same way, and we'd be very much the poorer for it if we did. Some places will skillfully and beautifully mine the treasures of the Liber Usualis, others will once in a blue moon rise to the challenge of the Easter Alleluia; others still will grind unedifyingly over and over through the Missa de Angelis, as if that were the only chant ever composed. It takes all sorts.

Damian Thompson's article, to be unwarrantedly polite about it, has little to do with what Pope Benedict actually wrote, and lots to do with Mr Thompson's own agenda. The papal document makes hardly any reference to the things Mr Thompson claims it's about. The word 'chant' only comes up in two places in the English version, for instance (i - reiterating the church's position that the chant is proper to the Roman Rite; ii - pointing out the suitability of chant for international gatherings, and the need therefore for priests and people to have a passing familiarity with it), so it seems to me pretty absurd to take the English and Welsh bishops to task for not making a huge song and dance about it.

Interesting too how the translation seems to have got mangled in connection with the place of chant. The Latin says ut aptum detur cantui Gregoriano pondus - 'that suitable weight should be given to Gregorian chant', whereas the translator into English has put words into the Pope's mouth: that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed.

Overall the most inspiring passage in the document, for me, is this:

The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored.

This is no scolding repudiation of liturgical abuses, no matter how hard Damian Thompson tries to read that into the document. It's a striking and cheering affirmation that in the last forty years we've found something to add to what we had in the past. Pope Benedict's hope, set out in the document, is that we don't lose sight of the connection to where we were before.

M.

[musicus]

So may I now the golden question? Are you a member of the SSG? If you are you will know from Music & Liturgy, from the summer schools and other workshops, from the diocesan representatives and all those members working in parishes all over the country just how relevant the society is. You will be are of how much training it has given to cantors, organists, composers and choristers as well as its work with celebrants, readers and catechists. You will know if its work promoting all types of music from Gregorian chant to Taizé. You will know of the hours of unpaid work put in by committee members and others in work for the society, the dioceses and many, many parishes. You may even have heard of those hardy souls who give up their holidays, pay their own travel and accommodation to take part in radio broadcasts or even to help out fellow members by singing at special events in parish churches. You may occasionally hear the "thank yous" from the pew which show that this society is extremely relevant indeed.

Precisely, Nick: hard work in the service of others. This is how the SSG lives out its aims (and what I had in mind when I quoted them; very far from avoiding the issue, still less worse). The chant is there - our Founder, Dom Laurence, and Abbot Alan Rees saw to that - alongside so very much more. What a rich and ever-growing tradition we have!

[MaryR]

The Society of Saint Gregory introduced me to Gregorian Chant so I, for one, don't think it's been dodging what Ian thinks is its responsibility.

Save for Vidi Aquam, which our MD used to practically force us to sing, midst groans (and some guffaws when our three young clarinettists once had a fit of the giggles and so our accompanying drone fizzled out ignominiously), I knew no plainchant. After much persuasion, I attended a chant workshop at my second SSG summer school (2003), led by one of the monks from Downside. It was a wonderful experience and I was pretty much hooked after that.

In 2004, the late Alan Rees OSB led another chant workshop. The 2005 and 2006 summer schools did not include chant but, as with every summer school, they provided workshops and seminars offering the chance for those engaged in ministry or lay ministry in their parish to develop practical skills, as well as providing sessions for spiritual nourishment.

For our 2007 Summer School at Sneaton Castle, Whitby, we've invited Peter Allan CR, Prior of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, to come and lead a workshop on chant in English. Fr. Peter's involvement came about after I attended a Chant Day at Southwark Cathedral at which he led a compelling session on chant in English.

As a bonus, if you come to Summer School this year, there'll be a Chant Big Sing - that's when all 80 or so delegates and leaders will come together, under Fr. Peter's direction, to sing plainchant together, both in Latin and English.

I'd say that the SSG is doing its bit for chant, whilst not neglecting other, equally valid musical styles, nor all the other elements that are necessary for good liturgy.

[presbyter]

The Council fathers reminded the Church that Gregorian chant "is specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

Ian - bless you - you're trying to construct an argument on half of one paragraph of the Constitution (SC116).

It would make for better debate if you put your case from the document as a whole, and also from Lumen Gentium.

Nobody here is saying that the chant has no place in the liturgical life of the Church any more, of course it has (and I happen to be listening to a CD of the monks of Fontgombault singing Mass IX at the moment). Yet do take account of the "other things being equal". Perhaps paragraphs 1 to 13 and 114 of the Constitution are a good place to start.

[presbyter]

Pope Benedict's hope, set out in the document, is that we don't lose sight of the connection to where we were before.

Or even, I suggest, where we were before we were. Scholars such as E Werner (The Sacred Bridge - also in the first edition of the Oxford History of Music) suggest that the roots of some plainsong melodies are grounded in the liturgy of the People of Israel.

[docmattc]

I'm not at all clear why Ian is disappointed. I think we all agree here that there is certainly a place for chant in the liturgy, along with other forms of music. The proportion of chant to everything else will, of necessity, vary from parish to parish, and liturgy to liturgy. This board, and the Society as a whole reflect that.

I think we all also agree too that chant isn't a panacea. Chant done well gives a great sense of the sacred, chant done badly certainly does not. When I speak to people old enough to remember when chant was essentially the only option, they tell me that it was often fairly mediocre then.

In those parishes where "ugly music" (to quote the Telegraph) is done badly, the likelihood is that chant will be done to the same standard because "ugly music" implies a lack of sensitivity to the Liturgy and the problem is deeper than simply a musical genre. Here the Society can help but only if those providing the music ministry recognize their responsibility for formation.


What several contributors to this thread have said is that the original Telegraph article was not a fair reflection of Sacramentum Caritatis, or its reception in this country. This is an opinion with which I fully agree. The article seizes on a couple of minor points and leaves the reader with the impression that the biggest concern in the Catholic church today is not spreading the Gospel, not care for the poor and marginalised, but in what language and style we worship.

[presbyter]

Chant done well gives a great sense of the sacred

Oh doc - bless you now! - what do you mean? Do you mean it's somehow a holy noise? Does it excite in you a feeling of the mysterium tremendum and fascinosum ?

I could translate my Tesco shopping list into Latin and set it to a modal chant - would that have the same emotional effect?

Perhaps one or two members of the forum were present some years ago when, at a conference, I played a track from a CD of renaissance polyphony - a beautiful choral piece. Some listeners assumed a bodily attitude of prayer - this sounds like a sacred motet - so we'll lift up our minds and hearts to God.

What they were listening to was not a motet but an erotic madrigal.

Sense of "the sacred" - or sense of peace, calm, beauty ..... etc in the hearer are, IMHO, very poor reasons to choose to sing chant at Mass.

But if the chant is indeed an appropriate musical form for an assembly's sung prayer - fulfilling the pastoral conditions of paragraphs 11, 14 and 112 of the Constitution, that's fine. Let's use it. (Of course, it is indeed thus used in monasteries throughout the world - the melodies enhancing the prayer of that most important element - the TEXT.)

I wonder whatever happened to the implied possibility of the composition of new chants for parish use? (SC 117)

[docmattc]

I was eluding to Ian's comment

It diminishes the sense of the sacred in the liturgy... And it plays into the hands of those who equate the new mass with all these things.

Now how do we define "Sense of the sacred"? I guess in the context of what Ian is talking about, ie those who criticise the new Mass it is (to quote from novusordowatch) "mysterious, glorious, reverent, awe-inspiring, and holy. It is otherworldly"
Chant done well can give that sense, whether that is a reason to do chant is, I agree, an entirely different matter. I didn't give an opinion one way or the other on that, nor did I specify Latin. It may or may not "add delight to prayer, foster unity of minds, or confer greater solemnity upon the sacred rites." depending on the piece, and the pastoral situation.


But the point I was making was that the school of thought "throw out ugly music and bring back chant" which the editor of the Herald seems to imply is the future of the church, is flawed, because it may well replace ugly modern music with ugly chant.