Catholic Sensibility

Interpreting Vatican II's call for sacred music This is like an essay question on those college tests I used to so dread. (Then I had them as orals for my MA comps.) Paul Rex at Rex Olandi Rex Cledendi lobbed this my way: Addressing the central issue of "sacred" music, as well the twentieth century liturgical documents on music in a general way, would you be able to provide a condensed overview of how a thoughtful progressive would approach liturgical music in light of those documents? I would keep an eye on the big picture first. The council documents call for full, active, and conscious participation. They concede sacred music was in need of reform, both in content and execution. They set the stage for a sung liturgy, rather than singing tacked on at low moments in the liturgical celebration (i.e., the four-hymn sandwich). Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 calls for Gregorian chant to be given pride of place in Roman liturgy with a qualifier, "other things being equal." The most advanced liturgical communities are places that pray the Hours and Mass daily -- usually the monasteries and most religious communities. Those I've visited achieve the traditionalist ideal of SC116, namely, plainsong (mostly vernacular) as the core repertoire of a daily sung liturgy. Hymnody (Catholic and ecumenical) of the past five centuries occupies the next circle. If guitar and other instruments are used, they are usually in the classical sphere. Conception Abbey, with which I'm more familiar, uses modern plainsong compositions in the vernacular to the same degree the average suburban parish uses contemporary music. The fit with traditional chants seems seamless to me. Personally, I find this style of liturgy extremely conducive to my own prayer. If I were a liturgist in a monastery, my progressive side would surface in encouraging various instruments to supplement the organ, and the use of original compositions in the style of the main body of the repertoire. Traditionalists would probably find little evidence of things being amiss from SC 116 and their sensibilities, unless they were adamant about no guitars, dulcimers, flutes, violins, etc.. The average parish is nowhere near the advanced sensibility one finds in monasteries. My own parish, founded in 1964, never knew the pre-1962 Tridentine Rites, and the transition period (except for twenty years of worshipping in a school cafeteria) is a dim memory. We are by no means equal to our mother parishes, the cathedral, or a monastery with hundreds of years (or at least decades) of tradition. Our mother parishes were much like those in other cities: mixed good and bad in liturgical music, a common experience of Low Mass with tacked-on hymns. Introducing chant today is like introducing a new style of music here. Unlike the jazz and pop stylings of Spirit and Song, plainsong makes no connections with the heard experience. So it has much to overcome. I would tend to doubt that it will ever have an adequate foothold so as to gain a satisfactory "pride of place" in the minds of traditionalists. And our parish's traditionalists would view "traditional" sacred music as the hymns they sang in the 60's and before, hymns for Marian events, Benediction, and the core dozen "golden oldies." So that leaves me in a substantial quandry if I were inclined to adhere to an optimistic and literal approach to SC 116. Paul suggested that "when it comes to liturgical music, alternative views seem to have left us at an impasse, since there seems to be disagreement firstly on whether liturgical music needs to be "sacred" at all (i.e. some believe "celebratory" music is adequate); and even when agreed, there is disagreement on what constitutes music that should be called "sacred" (i.e. holy, set apart, not profane)." "Impasse" might be a pessimistic view. It could be that we're still in a fertile period of creativity, struggle, testing, sorting, and settling in, and that it will take quite a bit longer to see more of a sense of monastic "stability" take root in ordinary parishes. Paul stated that "... given that traditionalists seem to have come to a consensus that those documents demand a return to the books of Solesmes, the Graduale Simplex, or at the very minimum, some form of vernacular chant, how does a progressive interpret those requirements that a typical traditionalist would see as obvious?" I interpret the mainstream parish's music ministry as a work in progress. I would not agree with the consensus stated here, though if I worked for a traditionalist parish, I would see no need to move them to popular forms, only an improved execution of music at Mass and other sacramental celebrations. Most parishes would not tolerate a thoroughly plainsong liturgy. The onus is them placed on the clergy and musicians to best determine nudging them to a greater openness to a mindful and prayerful liturgy. Would such a liturgy exclude pop and jazz-influenced music by Booth, Angrisano, or Mattingly? Not necessarily. Could it live without this style if it preferred others? Certainly. A side note ... I would divide music into four categories: liturgical, sacred, inspirational, and secular. The first category includes musical settings of liturgical texts: the psalms, antiphons, litanies, acclamations, and canticles. I'm assuming that a well-composed piece of liturgical music is sacred by definition. Widening out would be music that is sacred, but not liturgical: Ave Maria or Panis Angelicus settings, plus hymnody and various songs. Inspirational music would be "religious" or "religious-leaning" music that might not be liturgical in some, most, or all settings. Popular crossovers such as "Wind Beneath My Wings" or "Stand By Me" strike me as the most well-known examples of these. People who dislike contemporary music might quibble over the placement of such favorites as "Gather Us In" or "Ashes" in the category of "sacred" or "inspirational." But we can agree that none of these songs are "secular" or "profane," and at least some segment of the Catholic population has accepted them as religious song, if not as sacred or even liturgical. Paul, I hope this helps answer your question.