CCTLS 14: Musical Instruments

Pope John Paul II is certainly aware that the primary musical instrument of the liturgy is the human voice. That said, other musical instruments are used to accompany singers or to stand on their own as part of an effort of spiritual edification.

The pipe organ (not the electronic organ or the synthesizer) is mentioned first:

14. Again at the practical level, the Motu Proprio whose centenary it is also deals with the question of the musical instruments to be used in the Latin Liturgy. Among these, it recognizes without hesitation the prevalence of the pipe organ and establishes appropriate norms for its use[TlS 15-18]. The Second Vatican Council fully accepted my holy Predecessor’s approach, decreeing: “The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up people’s minds to God and to higher things”[SC120].

There is a pragmatic side to this favor. Organs really have no single parallel in terms of one instrument being able to lead a singing congregation. As for the reasoning in SC 120, there’s nothing to suggest that the individual wind instruments imitated by the organ cannot provide “splendor” or “power” or the uplifting of minds.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that contemporary compositions often use a diversity of musical forms that have a certain dignity of their own. To the extent that they are helpful to the prayer of the Church they can prove a precious enrichment. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that instruments are suitable for sacred use, that they are fitting for the dignity of the Church and can accompany the singing of the faithful and serve to edify them.

In fact, I’ll say that ensembles might even demonstrate a higher example: as a symbol of the Church that utilizes communities of people and their varied gifts to spread the Gospel.

 

CCTLS 13: Commissions and Other Groups

Pope John Paul II advises support for the bishops to make good discernments in the efforts of promoting sacred music:

13. Lastly, I would like to recall what St Pius X disposed at the practical level so as to encourage the effective application of the instructions set out in his Motu Proprio. Addressing the Bishops, he prescribed that they institute in their Dioceses “a special Commission of qualified persons competent in sacred music”[TlS 24]. Wherever the papal disposition was put into practice, it has yielded abundant fruit. At the present time there are numerous national, diocesan and interdiocesan commissions which make a precious contribution to preparing local repertoires, seeking to practise a discernment that takes into account the quality of the texts and music. I hope that the Bishops will continue to support the commitment of these commissions and encourage their effectiveness in the pastoral context[Vicesimus Quintus Annus  20].

Not every diocese has an active committee, but many that do find the ministry quite fruitful. I don’t know that repertoire is always on the top of the list of tasks. There is much formation to be done. I’m a believer that personnel is worth more investment than the particulars. Neither excludes the other, of course. But forming good parishmusicians lays the groundwork for a finer repertoire.

Note the importance given to liturgical texts, presumably originals or adapted, not propers.

The CDWDS is given a mandate:

In the light of the experience gained in recent years, the better to assure the fulfilment of the important task of regulating and promoting the sacred Liturgy, I ask the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to increase its attention, in accordance with its institutional aims[Pastor Bonus 65], in the sector of sacred liturgical music, availing itself of the competencies of the various commissions and institutions specialized in this field as well as of the contribution of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music. Indeed, it is important that the musical compositions used for liturgical celebrations correspond to the criteria appropriately set down by St Pius X and wisely developed by both the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Magisterium of the Church. In this perspective, I am confident that the Bishops’ Conferences will carefully examine texts destined for liturgical chant[Dies Domini  50, Liturgiam Authenticam 108] and will devote special attention to evaluating and encouraging melodies that are truly suited to sacred use[GIRM 393].

This task has been something of a lost cause, hasn’t it?

Thoughts?

 

CCTLS 12: Composing Liturgical Music

People still compose music for liturgy. Maybe as much as they did one or two generations ago. Let’s see what John Paul II said about it.

12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”[TlS 3]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[SC 112]. In this perspective, in my Letter to Artists I wrote: “How many sacred works have been composed through the centuries by people deeply imbued with the sense of mystery! The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God”[LtA 49].

Renewed and deeper thought about the principles that must be the basis of the formation and dissemination of a high-quality repertoire is therefore required. Only in this way will musical expression be granted to serve appropriately its ultimate aim, which is “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful”[SC 112].

I know well that also today there are numerous composers who are capable of making their indispensable contribution in this spirit, increasing with their competent collaboration the patrimony of music at the service of a Liturgy lived ever more intensely. To them I express my confidence, together with the most cordial exhortation to put their every effort into increasing the repertoire of compositions worthy of the exalted nature of the mysteries celebrated and, at the same time, suited to contemporary sensibilities.

Commentary:

John Paul II sets the bar high, but in this third paragraph, he is confident about contemporary composers. Is that confidence justified? More so today than say, one or two generations ago?

Rolling back to the first paragraph, I can’t say I see anything distinctive about Gregorian melodies that suggest a deeper connection with the liturgy. What makes chant Gregorian? A melody at the service of the liturgical or biblical text. A degree of ornamentation in a style musicians recognize as “Gregorian” and not “Mozarabic” or “Ambrosian” or Eastern. For Rome, Roman chant makes sense as a cultural marker. Does that hold true outside of central and southern Italy? Is the Roman Rite truly so dependent on one particular style that it cannot bear a universal weight of many styles?

Not sure I can get on board with what strikes me as a bit of cultural pelagianism, that a composition’s sacrality is based, even in part, on its adherence to a human musical genre. Sacredness is determined by God’s grace, and by our cooperation with grace. Not by what worked in the past, however well it might have worked. We’re still talking about God’s agency today.

 

CCTLS 11: Popular Religious Song

I had to go back to see what Sacrosanctum concilium said about “popular religious song” to get to the bottom of what John Paul II was trying to tell us, referring to this term. I confess I still don’t get it. Here’s section 11:

11. The last century, with the renewal introduced by the Second Vatican Council, witnessed a special development in popular religious song, about which Sacrosanctum Concilium says: “Religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may be heard…”[SC 118]. This singing is particularly suited to the participation of the faithful, not only for devotional practices “in conformity with the norms and requirements of the rubrics”[SC 118], but also with the Liturgy itself. Popular singing, in fact, constitutes “a bond of unity and a joyful expression of the community at prayer, fosters the proclamation of the one faith and imparts to large liturgical assemblies an incomparable and recollected solemnity”[John Paul II, Address to the International Congress on Sacred Music (27 January 2001), n. 4].

And here’s the very brief section from SC:

118. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.

When I hear the term “popular religious song,” I’m not sure I equate that with liturgical singing. “Popular” might mean well-liked, as in the cool kids at school. “Popular” might also express a quality of music that is not classical, “serious,” of jazz, or folk, or other genres that are out of favor with the corporate elites and the fans of their figurehead pop stars.

It strikes me that SC was driving less at “popular” by either of these two definitions, and more a quality of liturgical singing that is “by the people.” In that, I’d say that John Paul’s observations:

• bond of unity
• joyful prayer
• proclamation of faith
• incomparable solemnity

are all spot on for what good liturgical music, sung by the people, accomplishes.

 

CCTLS 10: New Compositions

If you are new to the discussion of this document, don’t be shy: chime in. Feel free to comment on previous posts, too.

Today let’s have a look at John Paul II’s brief thoughts on contemporary compositions:

10. Since the Church has always recognized and fostered progress in the arts, it should not come as a surprise that in addition to Gregorian chant and polyphony she admits into celebrations even the most modern music, as long as it respects both the liturgical spirit and the true values of this art form. In compositions written for divine worship, therefore, the particular Churches in the various nations are permitted to make the most of “those special forms which may be said to constitute the special character of [their] native music”[TlS 2]. On the lines of my holy Predecessor and of what has been decreed more recently by the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium[SC 119], I have also intended in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia to make room for new musical contributions, mentioning in addition to the inspired Gregorian melodies, “the many, often great composers who sought to do justice to the liturgical texts of the Mass”[EE 49].

Commentary:

Let’s tease out this first comment about “progress” in the arts. I suspect that the Holy Father was talking less about one era improving on another in terms of better music, more progress, and such. I would agree. However, I think individual composers can and should improve on their craft. Publishers can improve their product. Parishes and other faith communities search out better repertoire for congregational singing. Progress is good, possible, desirable.

It’s inevitable that the skill or charism of composing music nets us a pyramid. Many people try it. Fewer are good at it. A select few are universally acknowledged as “great composers.” It comes with the territory of human endeavor. Preachers exhibit this: most are poor to mediocre. Some are good. Few are excellent.

 

CCTLS 9: Musical Formation

Good musicians don’t grow on trees. John Paul II knew that, as did his predecessors. Vatican II endorsed the musical formation of the clergy:

9. In this area, therefore, the urgent need to encourage the sound formation of both pastors and the lay faithful also comes to the fore. St Pius X insisted in particular on the musical training of clerics. The Second Vatican Council also recalled in this regard: “Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiate houses of studies of Religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools”[SC 115]. This instruction has yet to be fully implemented. I therefore consider it appropriate to recall it, so that future pastors may acquire sufficient sensitivity also in this field.

In the task of training, a special role is played by schools of sacred music, which St Pius X urged people to support and encourage[TlS 28] and which the Second Vatican Council recommended be set up wherever possible[SC 115]. A concrete result of the reform of St Pius X was the establishment in Rome in 1911, eight years after the Motu Proprio, of the “Pontificia Scuola Superiore di Musica Sacra” (Pontifical School for Advanced Studies in Sacred Music), which later became the “Pontificio Istituto di Musica Sacra” (Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music). As well as this academic institution, which has now existed for almost a century and has rendered a high-quality service to the Church, the particular Churches have established many other schools that deserve to be supported and reinforced by an ever better knowledge and performance of good liturgical music.

A hundred years ago, or even forty, the setting up of a music school would be assumed to be a resident/bricks-and-mortar thing. I doubt this is possible or truly necessary. Conferences, seminars, and even colloquia serve this role nicely on a few levels for different people. Charles and others: thoughts?

 

CCTLS 8: Choirs

CCTLS section eight treats not only choirs, but touches on other music ministers, too. Let’s start with the choir:

8. The importance of preserving and increasing the centuries-old patrimony of the Church spurs us to take into particular consideration a specific exhortation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Choirs must be assiduously developed, especially in cathedral churches”[SC 114]. In turn, the Instruction Musicam Sacram explains the ministerial task of the choir: “Because of the liturgical ministry it exercises, the choir (cappella musicale or schola cantorum) should be mentioned here explicitly. The conciliar norms regarding the reform of the Liturgy have given the choir’s function greater prominence and importance. The choir is responsible for the correct performance of its part, according to the differing types of song, to help the faithful to take an active part in the singing. Therefore,… choirs are to be developed with great care, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and in religious houses of study”[Musicam Sacram 19]. The schola cantorum’s task has not disappeared: indeed, it plays a role of guidance and support in the assembly and, at certain moments in the Liturgy, has a specific role of its own.

The documentation of the decade of the 1960′s with regard to choirs is clear: they view a greater importance to be aligned with the virtue of enabling worshipers to sing. This primary task of service (some might say of sacrifice) is intended to be fostered as a good example in places of formation: from larger churches to places where clergy and religious are formed in their vocation.

That is not to say that the choir’s traditional role as “correct performer” is abrogated. Part of that performance is to perform as a servant to others.

From the smooth coordination of all – the priest celebrant and the deacon, the acolytes, the altar servers, the readers, the psalmist, the schola cantorum, the musicians, the cantor and the assembly – flows the proper spiritual atmosphere which makes the liturgical moment truly intense, shared in and fruitful. The musical aspect of liturgical celebrations cannot, therefore, be left to improvisation or to the arbitration of individuals but must be well conducted and rehearsed in accordance with the norms and competencies resulting from a satisfactory liturgical formation.

John Paul II widens his gaze in the interests of good liturgy. Not only does the choir serve the singing of the people, but it has a place in a larger order of worship. We are looking for a “spiritual” atmosphere, which is accomplished by more than “correct” musical performance. This atmosphere would seem to require grounding in a certain formation in worship. I would expect this formation to be appropriate to the person’s responsibilities. Every choir member should have a basic training. Every music leader (conductor, director, accompanist, psalmist, cantor, songleader, librarian, etc.) should have more. And if there is a professional music director, I don’t see how a sound liturgical formation should be escaped. That doesn’t mean a graduate degree, necessarily. But it might. More likely, a musically trained individual would have liturgy as an area of personal study.

 

CCTLS 7: Gregorian Chant and Other Kinds of Music

The past two days we’ve covered John Paul II’s take on the three judgments in his chirograph, issued one century after Pope Pius X released his motu proprio on sacred music, Tra Le Sollecitudini.

Today, from Pope John Paul II’s chirograph, a look at Gregorian chant:

7. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[SC 116] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[Musicam Sacram 50]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[TlS 3]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

Like St Pius X, the Second Vatican Council also recognized that “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations”[SC 116]. It is therefore necessary to pay special attention to the new musical expressions to ascertain whether they too can express the inexhaustible riches of the Mystery proposed in the Liturgy and thereby encourage the active participation of the faithful in celebrations[SC 30].

Commentary:

Some people wonder about the loss of that “special place” for Gregorian chant. How did it happen? Who’s to blame? How can we fix it?

My speculation is that it happened when music became more a domain for a semi-priestly class, part of the western movement toward music as a specialty item that was more important to do correctly than it was to place it in the mouths of worshipers. Singing and music-making was still a vital part of people’s lives all through the Tridentine era. It was a sad coincidence that just as music-listening was taking off through hi-fi-stereo, vinyl records, and eventually the Walkman, people were being asked to disengage from listening to church music in order to sing it.

Blame is of little interest to me, but part of it surely must lie with the poor quality of chant performance in many parishes.

By the Church’s own admission, Gregorian chant is an identifying mark of the Roman liturgy. That’s important, but not quite as important as the value of “express(ing) the inexhaustible riches of the Mystery proposed in the Liturgy and thereby encourage the active participation of the faithful.” Did John Paul II encourage chant because he was expected to do so? In this section of the chirograph, he concedes that expressing the Mystery–any form of participation–is of value to the liturgy. And which is more important to our faith? One more expression of union with Rome, or the praise of Christ?

 

CCTLS 6: Music in the Liturgical Reform

John Paul II offers a look at the intersection of liturgical music and conciliar reform in section 6 of this document. When he writes “music and song,” what does he mean, do you suppose? Accompaniment and melody? Music and text?

6. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform – it is right to stress this point – must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.

Note the “necessary involvement of the entire assembly.” I’ve seen one or two reform2 mumblings objecting to that term. If they didn’t know this was from the late Holy Father’s pen, I’m sure that “necessary involvement” would be suspect, too. For that matter, what do you make of “elitist”? And the indulgence in “incomprehensional” language? I wonder what he would say about MR3.

In this regard St Pius X pointed out – using the term universal – a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[TlS 2]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.

Original compositions should have something of a universal quality. This is an interesting insight from a globe-trotting pope, who certainly experienced more than any human being ever, the widest range of those “special forms.” That careful review sounds very much like the three judgments. CCTLS covered the musical and liturgical. Today’s section strongly implies the pastoral judgment: what will edify and be fruitful in the ears and on the lips of particular worshipers.

 

CCTLS 5: Musical and Liturgical Judgments

What’s CCTLS? Just John Paul II’s Chirograph on the Centenary of Tra Le Sollecitudini, issued one century after Pope Pius X released his motu proprio on sacred music.

Today, let’s look at a few qualities of sacred music. You may indeed recognize these as two of the famous three judgments. First the musical:

5. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[TlS 2].

Yet this quality alone does not suffice. Indeed, liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite. The various moments in the Liturgy require a musical expression of their own. From time to time this must fittingly bring out the nature proper to a specific rite, now proclaiming God’s marvels, now expressing praise, supplication or even sorrow for the experience of human suffering which, however, faith opens to the prospect of Christian hope.

Commentary:

I once read a Michael Joncas commentary on Godspell, especially this song, which he felt didn’t quite match the nature of Psalm 137, either from a Scriptural or liturgical perspective. Great pop musical song, but not quite a match for the liturgy.

All CCTLS suggests in this section is that music must be of the highest quality. I would add not only in composition, but also in the actual execution of the music. 5b is a familiar principle to the pastoral musician: music always serves the liturgy. Great music doesn’t always serve worship, and that’s okay. That makes the music suitable for the concert hall. And for personal enjoyment. Those are not low ideals–not at all. But concertizing and enjoyment are not the primary aims of liturgy.

 

CCTLS 4: Holiness as a Reference Point

Two weeks of John Paul II’s chirograph gets into a meaty, substantive matter with the necessity of having holiness as a reference point. Let’s explore what this means after reviewing the text of section 4:

4. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[SC 112]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent [Address to the Participants in the General Assembly of the Italian Association Santa Cecilia (18 September 1968):  Insegnamenti VI (1968), 479]. And he explained that “if music – instrumental and vocal – does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[Ibid.]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[EdE 50]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

Commentary:

I would not disagree with a threefold sensibility of prayer, dignity, and beauty. Yet these elements are often within the experience of individuals and communities. People pray in all sorts of contexts and with all sorts of aids. Beauty has a fairly wide range of acceptance within the Church as well. Some individuals have more broad ranges in which they accept beauty, and some more narrow.

Dignity: this quality is where things often turn in today’s church music. Dignity if often interpreted as something of the physical body: and even, stately, even proud bearing. But music, by lingo and in practice, is very much play. And play is not accepted as dignified in m any quarters.

I was struck by this thread at PrayTell where I mused that children are expected to be mini-adults. Paul Inwood in turn commented that, “We forget that Jesus asked us to become like little children, not to make little children become like us.”

So sure: let’s keep dignity on the table. But let’s make sure we are talking about the dignity of the Lord Jesus, who welcomed children, and who, on the night before he died, set aside outer cloak and offended the dignity of Peter who protested that some things just do not belong.

John Paul II recognizes in 4a that liturgical music is a subset of sacred music. We should be mindful of that.

In 4b, he sets out a more helpful standard: that art should be able to stand with the Church’s faith and assist in communicating it. What would other sacred art accomplish? The glory of its performers. The awe of its composer. Such things can also be play, according to the thinking of a child. But that undergirding of bearing the weight of mystery: this is needful.

Your thoughts?

 

CCTLS 3: John Paul II’s Support for Sacred Music

We continue a look at Pope John Paul II’s chirograph. Today, yet another endorsement for active participation. And more, “intense” participation.

3. On various occasions I too have recalled the precious role and great importance of music and song for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations[9]. I have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.

In this perspective, in the light of the Magisterium of St Pius X and my other Predecessors and taking into account in particular the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, I would like to re-propose several fundamental principles for this important sector of the life of the Church, with the intention of ensuring that liturgical music corresponds ever more closely to its specific function.

[9] Cf. e.g., Address to the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music for its 90th Anniversary (19 January 2001), 1: L’Osservatore Romano English Edition [ORE], 7 February 2001, p. 7.

[10] General Audience, 26 February 2003, n. 3:  [ORE], 5 March 2003, p. 11.

In the next several posts, we’ll look at these “fundamental principles.” These will not necessarily be new to the Church; John Paul II is mostly taking older aspects of music and liturgy and applying them to his view of the Church in 2003. These principles are not only aimed at the music itself, but of necessity, look to the “specific function” spoken of earlier: the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful. Any effort in liturgical music is aimed there first.

Comments?

 

CCTLS 2: Vatican II and Sacred Music

Liam suggested we take a peek at this document, issued one century after Pope Pius X released his motu proprio on sacred music, Tra Le Sollecitudini.

Today, from Pope John Paul II’s chirograph, a look at the heritage of Vatican II:

2. The Second Vatican Council followed up this approach in chapter VI of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy, in which the ecclesial role of sacred music is clearly defined: “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred melody united to words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn Liturgy”[SC 112]. The Council also recalls that “Sacred Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song. So have the Fathers of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs who in more recent times, led by St Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function exercised by sacred music in the service of the Lord”[SC 112].

In fact, by continuing the ancient biblical tradition to which the Lord himself and the Apostles abided (cf. Mt 26: 30; Eph 5: 19; Col 3: 16), the Church has encouraged song at liturgical celebrations throughout her history, providing wonderful examples of melodic comment to the sacred texts in accordance with the creativity of every culture, in the rites of both West and East.

The attention my Predecessors thus paid to this delicate sector was constant. They recalled the fundamental principles that must enliven the composition of sacred music, especially when it is destined for the Liturgy. Besides Pope St Pius X, other Popes who deserve mention are Benedict XIV with his Encyclical Annus Qui (19 February 1749), Pius XII with his Encyclicals Mediator Dei (20 November 1947) and Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (25 December 1955), and lastly Paul VI, with the luminous statements that punctuated many of his Speeches.

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not fail to reassert these principles with a view to their application in the changed conditions of the times. They did so specifically in chapter six of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI then saw that those principles were translated into concrete norms, in particular with the Instruction Musicam Sacram, promulgated on 5 March 1967 with his approval by the Congregation then known as the Sacred Congregation for Rites. In this same context, it is necessary to refer to those principles of conciliar inspiration to encourage a development in conformity with the requirements of liturgical reform and which will measure up to the liturgical and musical tradition of the Church. The text of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium in which it is declared that the Church “approves of all forms of true art which have the requisite qualities[SC 112], and admits them into divine worship”, finds satisfactory criteria for application in nn. 50-53 of the above-mentioned Instruction Musicam Sacram.

Where preconciliar practice remained deficient was the lack of attention to music as formative by those who sing it. In retrospect this was quite lamentable, as the Western world had a fine tradition of the amateur performance of music at all levels: home, school, pub, community gatherings, and festivals. Until about the middle of the twentieth century people who enjoyed music had to provide it for themselves and their loved ones and friends and community.

Music at liturgy was largely an extension of the priestly function: it was performed for God on behalf of an assembly at prayer. This might have ensured, on one level, a sort of quality control. But those Scriptural citations in paragraph two above presume a community singing an active repertoire of sacred song, not the preservation of a tradition of music exclusively by a “professional” class.

For an in-depth examination of that 1967 Instruction, Musicam Sacram, I refer readers to the sidebar. It was with this document and the introductions and rubrics of the reformed rites that we saw the post-conciliar emphasis on the laity reclaiming their proper role in the musical heritage of worship.

 

Chirograph for the Centenary of Tra Le Sollecitudini 1

Liam suggested we take a peek at this document, issued one century after Pope Pius X released his motu proprio on sacred music, Tra Le Sollecitudini.

I hesitated for a bit on this. I’m not sure I want to get into the side battles in the liturgy wars that are still relived a century later: women and pianos aren’t permitted, and such. But I think reading Pope John Paul II on liturgical music will give us some important insights into the contemporary situation. I’d really like to tackle Dies Domini, his 1998 pastoral letter on the Lord’s Day. That holds a little more interest for me. Maybe another month.

Meanwhile, let’s delve into the first of fifteen numbered sections of what we’ll reference by the acronym, CCTLS:

1. Motivated by a strong desire “to maintain and promote the decorum of the House of God”, my Predecessor St Pius X promulgated the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini 100 years ago. Its purpose was to renew sacred music during liturgical services. With it he intended to offer the Church practical guidelines in that vital sector of the Liturgy, presenting them, as it were, as a “juridical code of sacred music”[Pii X Pontificis Maximi Acta, Vol. I, p. 77]. This act was also part of the programme of his Pontificate which he summed up in the motto: “Instaurare omnia in Cristo“.

The centenary of the Document gives me the opportunity to recall the important role of sacred music, which St Pius X presented both as a means of lifting up the spirit to God and as a precious aid for the faithful in their “active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church”[Pii X Pontificis Maximi Acta, Vol. I, p. 77].

The holy Pontiff recalls that the special attention which sacred music rightly deserves stems from the fact that, “being an integral part of the solemn Liturgy, [it] participates in the general purpose of the Liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful”[Pii X Pontificis Maximi Acta, Vol. I, p. 78]. Since it interprets and expresses the deep meaning of the sacred text to which it is intimately linked, it must be able “to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be… better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries”[Pii X Pontificis Maximi Acta, Vol. I, p. 77].

Commentary:

If sacred music was judged in need of renewal a century ago, it’s not likely the preconciliar era was as golden as some seem to think.

John Paul II seemed to take less stock in providing a new “juridical code” and more a focus on the end of sacred music, namely the “lifting up” of the spiritual lives of the laity.

“Active participation” seems to have been the intent of Pope Pius X. Early and frequent communion. Engagement in the public rites of the Church through singing. Participation in sacred music aims the worshiping assembly at cooperation with God’s grace: giving glory to God in public prayer, and the sanctification of the Body.

Other thoughts from you readers?

 

Fruits

To some Catholics, the fruits of Vatican II are in doubt. More Catholics receiving Communion, reading the Bible, RCIA, deacons, lay ministers–probably good fruits. Fewer priests and sisters, more uncertainty about who believes what, and liturgies with the Easter Bunny and clowns–probably bad fruits.

What about Pope Benedict’s vision of the mutual enrichment of the best of the new and old?

(T)he fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.  This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded.

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity.

When I think of the situation at St Mary’s in Plattesville, I have to wonder about the fruits of mixing and hoping for an enrichment. Fr Anthony Ruff at PrayTell wonders too.

In one model of the Church, forty percent of the flock is lost over a period of two years. In another, the loss is spread out over a few decades. Do you suppose there’s another way, one in which pews fill to overflowing?

I don’t have the answer to this. Clearly one can do great damage to the spiritual health of a community, and be totally within the bounds of civil and canon law. Those who suffer are seemingly without recourse.