SttL on Silence

Silence: the absence of sound? Or something more? The USCCB document Sing to the Lord has a lot to say about silence. In my workshop on the theology of choir and assembly at the recent Loras College Liturgical Music Conference, I focused on these aspects:

• Silence is part of interior participation (SttL 12)

• Silence looks back on the past, allows reflection on the experience (SttL 118)

• Silence looks ahead, allows the heart to open to what is to come (SttL 118)

• “The importance of silence in the Liturgy cannot be overemphasized.” (SttL 118)

The bishops quote Pope John Paul II (1998) in SttL 12:

 

In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

It’s a good quote. It’s also quite true, but it only analyzes half the problem of participation in Western culture. Our culture not only disfavors meditation, but it also works strongly against the participation ethic in many ways. Note the performance sensibility in the rendering of the national anthem at American sporting events. Baseball fans have no problems with, say, the 7th inning stretch song, “Take Me Out …” but remain mostly silent when a patriotic effort marks the start of game festivities.

Silence, if we trust the bishops here, is far from a passive activity. It implies more than just a rest period for the assembly. Silence must link what has come before with what is to come in the liturgy. Otherwise, we’re worshipping in a stop-and-start style more reminiscent of rush-hour traffic than a unified whole.

I find silence to be more of a struggle for some pastors than for most assemblies. Letting go of a busy liturgy and allowing silence to take root requires a high degree of trust in people–and many ministers, clergy and musicians, are unprepared for this. Those who are have managed to reject the pragmatic approach to liturgy. This embrace of silence I’ve seen among both progressive and traditionalist folks. And when it’s allowed to work, it is deeply fruitful.

 

SttL on the Formation of Music Ministers

The US Bishops’ document Sing to the Lord writes of the need to form music ministers. It should go without saying that music directors and liturgists should have a thorough grounding in music and liturgy. Or at the very least, pastors are committed to providing for the continuing education of those who are discerned to have a lack in one or both areas.

Sections 48-53 are read under the title, “Leadership and Formation.” The implication is that these two are parts of a single reality, namely that leaders possess a competence, an expertise, in matters they attempt to guide the faithful.

A reinforcement of the notion of ministry in SttL 49:

Liturgical musicians are first of all disciples, and only then are they ministers. Joined to Christ through the Sacraments of Initiation, musicians belong to the assembly of the baptized faithful; they are worshipers above all else. Like other baptized members of the assembly, pastoral musicians need to hear the Gospel, experience conversion, profess faith in Christ, and so proclaim the praise of God. Thus, musicians who serve the Church at prayer are not merely employees or volunteers. They are ministers who share the faith, serve the community, and express the love of God and neighbor through music.

 As human beings, we are flawed. We suffer mixed motivations, distractions, and other qualities that get in the way of authentic ministry. That said, over the long-term, it is essential that music ministers have the grounding in faith, the sacramental life of the Church, and core Christian experiences such as conversion, sharing faith, an ability to hear and receive the Word, and so on. Perhaps individuals who aren’t formed in faith can serve a worshipping community, and perhaps such persons serve touched by the context of the music and leadership they offer. But can we call it genuine ministry?

In SttL 51, the bishop take a page from their document on lay ministry, Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord, to lay out four aspects of formation:

• Human qualities critical to form wholesome relationships and necessary to be apt instruments of God’s love and compassion

• A spirituality and practice of prayer that root them in God’s Trinitarian life, grounding and animating all they do in ministry

• Adequate knowledge in theological and pastoral studies, along with the intellectual skill to use it among the people and cultures of our country

• The practical pastoral abilities called for in their particular ministry

Pastors and bishops are entrusted with the responsibility of encouragement for liturgical musicians to be formed as ministers, especially given that they oversee many universities & colleges, seminaries, and ministry formation programs–not to mention the budgets for these operations. I have no real criticism of this section of SttL. Initial and ongoing formation is essential for good ministers. Do you have any other observations or comments on this?

 

SttL on Lay Ministry

Can and do lay people exercise authentic ministry in the Catholic Church? Years ago, the answer to this seemed to be a no-brainer. In some quarters, and in recent years, a certain retrenchment has attempted to swing the Church back to an understanding that ordained clergy properly minister, and lay people volunteer, assist, or support clerical ministry. While there are some aspects of lay ministry that should be examined carefully, you will rightly assume I think total retrenchment is pretty much a crock, to use a theological term.

Ministry is service, as elucidated by the Lord in John 13. The bishops have elsewhere defined ministry rooted in the initiation sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) and as service “within the Communion of the Church (that) serves the mission of Christ in the Spirit.” We have a multivalent definition that alludes to the sacraments, the Trinity, and the salvific mission of Christ. That pretty much covers liturgy.

I think there are some clergy who perform acts without the sacrifice and posture of service Jesus mandated. I also think many lay people exercise genuine ministry beyond the structure and duties of Holy Orders. The USCCB document Sing to the Lord would seem to concur. The bishops aren’t timid about referring to lay people as ministers in context of the proclamation of the Word, the distribution of Communion, and especially in chapter II, part E in the numbered sections 28 through 47. These sections describe in more detail the ministries of choir, psalmist, cantor, instrumentalists, and music director.

My talk last month at the Loras College Liturgical Music Conference focused on the role of the choir, so I’ll offer my challenges and affirmations to the ministry of the choir (SttL 28-33). Consider it a checklist of sorts to see if your choir is performing music, or is engaged in an authentic ministry. On the surface, sometimes these things look the same, and also there are some choirs in which side by side, people are engaging in two entirely different activities, some ministry and others something else.

1. Does the choir minimize the musical participation of the faithful? (SttL 28)

2. Does the choir commit to rehearsals and to an established schedule of liturgies? (SttL 28)

3. Is the choir capable of singing in dialogue with the assembly? (SttL 29)

4. When the choir sings alone, do they express the faith of the assembly, the faith of the culture and period from which they draw their music, and afaith in harmony with the  other liturgical texts of the liturgy? (SttL 30)

5. When not exercising its role, does the choir participate as part of the liturgical assembly, expressive of the faith of a worshipping group? (SttL 31-32)

The ultimate benchmark of ministry is not only service, as the bishops describe in SttL 32, but also sacrifice as Christ’s example shows. Among the choirs I’ve known, sung with, directed, or worked with over the years:

1. One group sang five funerals in four days. Three times in five years I directed them.

2. A handful of choir members, after singing Christmas Midnight or Easter Vigil, returned to bolster another group the following morning. That’s happened in more than one parish.

3. I’ve known people who lacked talent of other groups but their commitment to prayer and rehearsal was evident to the assembly who knew “something” was missing when a more skilled, but less spiritual group provided music.

4. I’ve had many groups who have a long practice of kneeling and sitting when they are “attending” parts of the liturgy as the assembly.

5. At rehearsals , some groups pray the texts of anthems, new pieces, and even congregational songs they know well.

If I were to assess whether a choir served as a ministry in a faith community I would offer these observations, questions, and challenges. Ministry is not determined by one’s ordained state, but by the degree one absorbs the example of Christ and his mission. Perhaps readers have other standards to offer?

2.

 

Progressive Solemnity II: Music Within Liturgy

In section 115, the USCCB document Sing to the Lord lays down the case for progressive solemnity within the celebration of any liturgy. Lest there be any doubt about the applicability of the principle, know that it is derived from the General Instruction Roman Missal (or GIRM).

Singing by the gathered assembly and ministers is important at all celebrations. Not every part that can be sung should necessarily be sung at every celebration; rather “preference should be given to those [parts] that are of greater importance.” (GIRM 40)

SttL gives a hierarchy of importance. First, dialogues and acclamations. Second, psalms and their antiphons. Third, refrains and litanies. Last, hymns.

The notion that the assembly sings the liturgy rather than just sings at the liturgy–this is the essence of progressive solemnity. The parts of the liturgy itself are of a higher priority than any musical extras tacked on. And parts of the liturgy associated with the Gospel and Eucharistic Prayer are most important of all.

While I know the GIRM and SttL give high importance to priest-and-assembly dialogues, I would differ on one point. Here’s what SttL 115a says:

The dialogues of the Liturgy are fundamental because they “are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.”(GIRM 34)

I still would put the direct address of God in worship, singing of God in the second person, You, is of deeper importance than “communion between priest and people,” something which can be developed in unison singing, and in the acclamations.

However, this statement is something with which I can agree:

By their nature, they are short and uncomplicated and easily invite active participation by the entire assembly. Every effort should therefore be made to introduce or strengthen as a normative practice the singing of the dialogues between the priest, deacon, or lector and the people. Even the priest with very limited singing ability is capable of chanting The Lord be with you on a single pitch.

Bottom line: the dialogues are easy to achieve. They really can and should be sung at every Mass.

Regarding the other part of 115a, the acclamations of the Gospel and the Eucharistic Prayer:

They are appropriately sung at any Mass, including daily Mass and any Mass with a smaller congregation. Ideally, the people should know the acclamations by heart and should be able to sing them readily, even without accompaniment.

Liam has mentioned this before about good liturgical music having a requirement of being able to carry itself without accompaniment. In my mind a Mass setting that doesn’t work a cappella is a low to non-priority.

Psalms are absolutely essential to just about any Catholic liturgy … or they should be. SttL channels GIRM 102:

The psalms are poems of praise that are meant, whenever possible, to be sung.

… and Tertullian, when describing the Eucharist:

(T)he Scriptures are read, the psalms are sung, sermons are preached.

 

Keep in mind the three psalms of the Eucharist, not only the psalm that follows the first reading, but also the psalms employed for the Entrance and Communion processions.

Participation in song on the part of the assembly is commended during both of these important processions, as the People of God gather at the beginning of Mass and as the faithful approach the holy altar to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Third in priority are the “refrains and repeated responses,” or the litanies: the Kyrie, Agnus Dei, and the general intercessions.

Last come the hymns.

How does this apply in a parish? Building out from the basics, one would presume the first aspect considered for singing are the dialogues and the acclamations. A very strong case is made from both Rome and the US bishops for singing at every celebration of Mass, and this is where a parish should start. Everything else builds up from that first priority.

 

Progressive Solemnity I

As promised, I’ll begin a series of posts on some liturgical principles outlined in the US Bishop’s document, Sing to the Lord (SttL). Most of these principles aren’t original to the current crop of bishops and this particular liturgy legislation. Indeed, some of them predate Vatican II. Let’s tackle one of the big ones first, progressive solemnity. The bishops let the principle lead off section IV, Preparing Music for Catholic Worship, part A, ”What Parts Do We Sing?”

Progressive solemnity applies, of course, not only to music, but to other aspects of liturgy and to certainchoices made in the context of worship. Simply put, the principle suggests that since it is humanly impossible to celebrate the worship of God “all-out” every time believers are gathered, that special enhancements are saved for special occasions. These occasions are not determined by the whim of the clergy or musicians, but by the liturgical context.

SttL devotes three sections (112-114) to the principle. I think the basic material covered here is adequate, but the bishops have left a few gaps in the text I’d like to point out in my commentary:

112. Musical selections and the use of additional instruments reflect the season of the liturgical year or feast that is being celebrated.

113. Solemnities and feasts invite more solemnity. Certain musical selections are more capable of expressing this solemnity, adding an extraordinary richness to these special celebrations. Such solemnity should never be allowed to devolve to an empty display of ceremony, however. (“It should be borne in mind that the true solemnity of liturgical worship depends less on a more ornate form of singing and a more magnificent ceremonial than on its worthy and religious celebration, which takes into account the integrity of the liturgical celebration itself, and the performance of each of its parts according to their own particular nature” (MS, no. 11).) The most solemn musical expressions retain their primary responsibility of engaging human hearts in the mystery of Christ that is being celebrated on a particular occasion by the Church.

Perhaps the bishops are assuming an ordinary Sunday baseline for this statement. It is a common practice to add instrumentation appropriate to Christmas and Easter in many parishes–that goes back decades in American practice, if not centuries. Let’s keep in mind that certain feasts (Holy Thursday, Pentecost and Epiphany come to mind) also stand out well above the usual Sunday fare. If your average Sunday Mass is on a setting of about six, and Christmas and Easter rate a nine, some feasts will be more “eightish” than just six-plus.

Liturgical seasons, too, will rate more attention. The Easter and Christmas seasons, certainly, but I would also advocate for a certain attention to be paid to Advent and Lent, too. In the latter case, not so much for the notion of adding instrumentation, but for choosing selections carefully, and ensuring the music has no less care that the festive seasons. How so?

- Practice Advent and Lent music with the same diligence that Christmas and Easter Sunday merit.

- Program only the very best selections for congregational singing and choir presentation. The sieve for Advent and Lent should be as tight as anytime in the liturgical year.

I’m aware that during these seasons, SttL 114 calls for a “certain musical restraint. In Advent, for example, musical instruments should be used with moderation and should not anticipate the full joy of the Nativity of the Lord. In Lent, musical instruments should be used only to support the singing of the gathered assembly.” I read SttL 113 as giving the vital principle, the “… responsibility of engaging human hearts in the mystery of Christ that is being celebrated on a particular occasion by the Church.”

In other words, Lent is not a time for slacking off a bit so we can devote more rehearsal to Easter.

I think that’s enough for today. In the next few posts, I’ll look at SttL 115-117 in which progressive solemnity is applied within a celebration of liturgy–which parts are more important and less important to sing. I also want to touch on the application of progressive solemnity within the Catholic sacramental system. We know the Eucharist is important, but how do and how should the other six sacraments shake out in applying what liturgies get our liturgical music attention and which don’t.