Music for Catholic Mass

Some excerpts from Wm. Mahrt's intervention at the Bishops' committee meeting re: music for Catholic Mass in the USA. His remarks specifically refer to Music in Catholic Worship, written by the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, at the time chaired by none other than Rembert Weakland, OSB.

The purposes of music should be stated clearly; I would say that there are two overriding purposes: to make the liturgy more beautiful and to emphasize its sacred character. ...Only music that is truly beautiful should have a place in the liturgy.

Music can establish unambiguously the sacred character of the action. Here the statements about style need a radical revision. All styles are not equal. The tradition of Roman documents establishes a clear hierarchy. Gregorian chant has pride of place; classical polyphony has a privileged role. It is because styles carry with them associations and even evoke a place—the style of a Broadway show tune evokes the theater; the style of cocktail music evokes the cocktail bar, yet we hear these styles in church. The priority of sacred styles needs re-emphasis.

[Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! The "all styles are equal" promulgated by 'Bugsy' Bugnini and his coterie of termites has been "factoid without foundation" for far too long...]

The analysis of the purposes of the parts of the Mass needs reformulation. The distinction between proper and ordinary is a very useful one—propers accompany other actions, ordinary are the liturgical actions themselves.

The theology of music in the document is only anthropocentric; but it should also be theocentric. The document speaks only of the action of the congregation; but this has no meaning unless it is in the service of the action of Christ in the Mass. To say that music has the purpose of the glorification of God (theocentric) does not contradict that it cultivates the faith of the people (anthropocentric); these two purposes reinforce each other.

[This anthropocentrism is perfectly consistent with the versus populum theologoumenon, another extraordinarily poor symbol promulgated by the Usual Suspects--at great spiritual and financial cost, we should add...]

...Music does not have connotations, rather its meanings accrue by association. Take two examples: We have had classes in the dancing of Baroque dances, for example, the minuet, which gets its name from the tiny steps used in dancing it: one dances in a small pattern and does not get anywhere. We had a classical guitarist engaged to play during one of the Masses, and at the communion time, he played a Bach minuet. I thought to myself, how am I ever going to get to communion with these tiny steps? I once heard a Beethoven piano sonata played during Mass. I was astonished to realize just how vividly it recalled a place, and the place was the home. The music is domestic—house music. I would not have anticipated how incongruous it seemed to hear it in church.

Others of the meanings of music derive from intrinsic qualities of the music. Cocktail music has a quality of relaxed familiarity that reinforces the inhibition-releasing qualities of the cocktail itself and encourages social interaction. This is probably not very suitable for a sacred action. In fact, the very notion of “sacred,” being set apart for special usage, suggests that music that is free from such associations is better suited to sacred purposes. The inherent qualities of Gregorian chant are particularly in its rhythm. The more strongly metric music is, the more closely it is tied to the passage of time. The non-metric qualities of Gregorian chant leave it free from being tied down to the temporal and allow it to evoke the eternal. This evocation of the eternal accounts for the fact that Gregorian chant is rarely used for anything else; it is not even very successfully employed in concerts, despite its high artistic status. Rather, whenever it is heard, its character is unmistakable—it is sacred music, set aside for a most high purpose.

[But some 'character' is also associated with metrical music--e.g., the strong 1 & 3 of the 4-beat march is unmistakable, as is the 'lullaby' quality of 6-beat, or waltz of 3-beat/4-measures...]

I propose several areas where clear statements could improve Music in Catholic Worship (MCW).

1. Reconciliation with Vatican documents. Perhaps the most important issue is the relation of MCW to Sacrosanctum concilium (SSC) and the Second Instruction for its implementation, Musicam Sacram (MS). These documents reflect the fact that in general the regulation of the liturgy belongs to the Apostolic See.

2. The place of Gregorian chant, polyphony, and the organ. I take Bob Hurd’s point that there is a place for diversity, and that polarization should be avoided; still, I would suggest a third way of viewing the choices he proposes: within a rather wide range of traditions, styles, and instruments, the document should present some priorities. Gregorian chant should have “pride of place,” and classical polyphony should receive special cultivation; this does not rule out the use of chorale melodies or popular religious songs, but it does present a priority.

3. The theology of music. The description of the purposes of music in MCW focuses almost entirely upon the subjective aspect of the congregation and not at all on the intrinsic significance of the rites or their overall meaning theologically, particularly the action of Christ in the liturgy. These are not mutually contradictory: the traditional purposes—the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful— are not in conflict with the expression of faith on the part of the congregation

4. The sacredness of music. There is a further qualification about diversity. “Not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations” (Pope John Paul II, Chirograph for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio, 2003, Par. 4). Within the diversity of available musical styles, judgments should be made about which styles are suitable for incorporation into the sacred liturgy. In order for them to be truly sacred, there must be something which distinguishes them from the merely secular

5. The beauty and sacredness of the liturgy. Over and above the aforementioned purposes of music, I think that there are even more general purposes, and if they were taken seriously, they could transform the music of our liturgies. They are obvious to some, but somehow forgotten by others: music should make the liturgy more beautiful, and music should emphasize the sacredness of the liturgy. If music were really selected to fulfill these purposes, our liturgies would amply fulfill all the other purposes mentioned above

6. The quality of the music. The statement about making the aesthetic judgment in MCW is crucial. Its priority should not be compromised in the revision. In fact, it should be emphasized: too much music published today is simply mediocre...The criterion should be whether the music is truly beautiful, nothing less.

[I am always taken aback by those who say that 'the parishioners don't "get" beauty.' Yes they do--perhaps they can't articulate it in the terms of musicology, or perhaps they don't think they should tell the musician--but they "get" it very well.]

7. The ordinary and the proper. MCW seems to downplay the distinction between ordinary and proper and to deemphasize the ordinary, often dismissing it as “secondary.” But there are important distinctions between the ordinary and the proper. The proper parts of the Mass accompany other actions, mainly processions; even in the case of the gradual and alleluia, their function is to complement and respond to the lessons. On the other hand, the ordinary parts are in and of themselves liturgical actions; this is the ground for attributing them normally to the singing of the whole congregation.

"Proper" was simply tossed into a memory hole. There is no other explanation. One of the best church musicians in our Archdiocese doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the Proper of the Mass. It's not because he's a rebel--it's because he has been educated by rebels and iconoclasts, since 1970.

8. The ordering of the sung parts. MCW denies the significance of the distinction between sung and recited Masses, asserting that “almost unlimited combinations of sung and recited parts may be chosen.” (Par. 51) This is in direct contradiction with MS, which retains the distinction between the low and the high Mass, and yet proposes various degrees of incorporation of singing into the Mass

Another of the Americanist Abominations. The idea was (of course) to 'democratize' the Mass, as though "democracy" is some sort of objective good in worship. Think that's a bit over the edge? Then why are the perpetrators of this "democratization" ALSO proponents of Wimmin's Ordination?

9. The singing of the celebrant. A key feature of the scheme of incorporation of singing in MS is the priority of the singing of the celebrant. The revision of MCW should exhort, as strongly as possible, celebrants to learn to sing their parts in the Mass; seminaries should instruct their students in the singing of the priest’s parts. The reason is that when the celebrant sings his part, the rite itself is clearly sung, and this unifies it; the other musical parts then play a natural role in the scheme of music.

It may cause a bit of consternation, but it's doable--and Mahrt's rationale is absolutely correct.

The balance of Mahrt's intervention/essay are available at the link above. Let us pray, fervently, that Cdl. George & Co. pay close attention to his recommendations over against those from music publishers.