The Red Book or the Blue Book?
In our parish we have two hymnals. One is full mainly of Protestant hymnody –the Red Book– and the other is primarily loaded with what is nowadays distressingly referred to by the younger generations as “traditional” Catholic music –the Blue Book. These are songs that were written mostly in the 1980s by some guitar players from St. Louis. Both books come from “Catholic” music publishers.
At times my distaste for the music in one of the books will become manifest and the response of my interlocutor often goes something like this: “you mean you like the Red Book?” It is a great shame that these comprise the extent of the liturgical music options for most parishes in the US today. It’s either the red book or the blue book. Neither of them proffer the excellence that is to be found in the great liturgical music patrimony of the Catholic Church. Ironically, nor do they comport with the wishes of the Second Vatican Council Fathers which are often cited as justification for the seriously wanting liturgical music that we have today.
An article I read recently from Catholic World Report discusses the issue from the perspective of the democratizing tendencies of Western culture and it shows how good music is antithetical to this notion. I think that the author makes some good points. While it was not the purpose of the article to analyze this, I think though, that the problem is two-fold.
First, the majority of the current “old guard” liturgical musicologists reject the Church’s teaching on the meaning of the liturgy. They do not see the liturgy as the making present of an eternal reality and effecting (i.e. making present in time) the grace poured out in time 2000 years ago by an eternal Person when He died on the Cross and rose again 3 days later. They do not recognize it as a real participation in a heavenly wedding feast whereby heaven touches earth. They do not recognize in it, the manifestation and recapitulation in time of the Trinitarian cosmic liturgy (see About This Blog under the header for more on this). Rather, it is usually seen as an opportunity for emoting and for psychological satisfaction. Thus, music is for them more a matter of taste than anything else.
Second, they do not recognize that music has an ontology that comports with the created order and has universal potency to effect experiences of the transcendent, the mundane, or the profane. Thus, there is not much of a possibility for a theology of music or of dialogue about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain musical forms for the liturgy (even if one could come to an agreement about the meaning of the liturgy).
Now some who are favorable to both an authentic liturgical and musical theology, will point out that music is simply an accident and for the sake of Church “harmony” (a bad pun) it should not be made to be a big issue (St. Augustine is oft cited here). It is true that it is an accident (thankfully). However, one might respond that while green is a perfectly good color, as a hair color it doesn’t work. Rather it works to deny the authentic nature of the substance in which it inheres. The same thing can and does happen with music in the liturgy.
There is a nature to the liturgy. The liturgy, as I intimated above, reflects the economic manifestation of Trinitarian Communion. This includes the divine condescension, human divinization, and nuptial return of The Bride with Her Bridegroom to the Father and Her filial participation in Trinitarian Communion in the Son. Liturgical music must reflect this liturgical movement. Most of current day music rather, reflects the sense that we are stuck in the condescension (if it even reflects the condescension at all). The music may be technically good or bad, simple or sophisticated. However, if it is “green” it does belong in the liturgy. There are of course varying degrees of inappropriateness as there are varying degrees of accord of music with the nature of the liturgy. I am not prepared (or qualified) to make anything but general observations. However, a few of us will be discussing this issue in more detail over the summer months so you can be sure that as we proceed I will share with you the insights of our discussions. My hope is that these discussions will help in being able to draw some more concrete conclusions.
.jpg)
I think you’ve gone badly astray by the “first” and “second” points you attempt to make in the middle of your essay. What we’re reading is your interpretation of what you think the “old guard” is saying. I’ve been schooled and mentored by the same “old guard,” and I’ve met and spoken with many of the authors and composers in both your red book and blue book. I don’t recognize the philosophy you purport to place upon these people.
For the discussion on good, better, best liturgical music to go anywhere beyond personal taste, yours, mine, or theirs, I suggest:
We stick to the good points we’re trying to make.
We avoid the worst and especially the imagined of what others might be trying to say.
We give people credit for their faith (avoiding quotation marks and other similar distracting commentary) their professional experience and knowledge, and even their personal tastes.
We focus on striving for the very best, and set aside the hermenrutic of obstruction.
What do you think?
-
Comment by Todd — May 25, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Umnnnhhhh..VatII states clearly that ‘music is an integral part of the Liturgy, which seems to require a more informed reading of the Augustinian comment you reference.
In other words, it cannot be an “accident,” except in the sense that poor, or non-existent music will not impede the effect of an (otherwise valid and licit) Mass.
As to your interlocutor, Todd, he would have it that there is no ‘malice’ among music directors (or their Liturgeist cohorts.) That is likely the case.
Rather, most of them are ignorant. Shockingly ignorant–of both music AND the theology of Musica Sacra (and its related genre, hymnody.)
And of course, it’s not necessary to debate “taste.” The Council’s own prescription is clear: use the Treasury (written before 1963, obviously) plus those post-1963 works which comport with the principles of Pius X, which merely recapitulate the principles enounced by prior Popes (and which were re-enounced by documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Cdl. Ratzinger) later.
With that as a sure foundation, little more needs be debated, Todd.
Comment by dad29 — May 25, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Todd -
If you mean by your statement that I have “gone badly astray” by my two point, the majority of the old guard do indeed believe in the ontological reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass and that they do believe that music does have an ontology which can universally effect experiences, beyond cultural or other influences, then I do hope that you are correct. I am open to the possibility that I may be guilty of overgeneralizing my limited exposure to the writings of that portion of the musical academy and my personal exposure to those employing this music at the parish level. However, there are those such as Fr. Ed Foley, Cap. who is a leading authority among this group who, for example, try to make the case that the classical ontological view of music was overturned by Sacrosanctum concilium and later magisterial documents, and replaced with a functional understanding of music.
If you mean as well that I err in identifying these two issues as the primary issues that need to be addressed in any discussion of the possibility of developing concrete criteria as to what is most appropriate and inappropriate music for the liturgy (a theology and phenomenology of music if you will), then I must disagree. I think that these are the two central issues.
As to your suggested criteria for discussion: while I can agree with what I believe to be your intention (i.e. not assuming the worst of others, not accusing others, etc.) I do not think that fruitful dialogue is possible with your approach. Discussion must engage the issues of disagreement and this can only be achieved by everyone presenting their understanding of the issues and a move toward clarification. There can, in fact, be disagreement (serious disagreement) without animosity. I think that this distinction is critical because without it, the only alternative is to gloss over essential areas of investigation. I think that more than anything, “avoiding the worst” would itself lead to the obstructionism that you mention. The concern I suppose would be with manner of presentation/discussion rather than actual content discussed.
WRT your concern over my use of quotations marks, I am somewhat at a loss. I am not sure how you interpret their use but perhaps our interpretation of their meaning is somewhat colored by your presuppositions about my personal character?
Dad29 -
I meant “accident” in the Thomist philosophical sense. If music belongs to the substance of the liturgy then, as you intuit, any Mass without music (the right music) would be at least illicit and perhaps invalid. There are definitions of “integral” that can comport with the music as an accidental aspect of the liturgy.
Comment by David — May 26, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Yes, David, and you raise an interesting point.
The “Low Mass” of the Old Rite is, in fact, an aberration, licit by custom but not really legislated; legitimate liturgists will advise that the sung Mass is the norm (of course, with appropriate music.)
However, the “sung Mass” norm does not include the “four-hymn sandwich;” rather, it includes a sung Ordinary and dialogues (The Lord be With You/And With Your Spirit, etc.) The Propers, or a non-Chant setting thereof, along with the Ordinary, were and are to be sung, if possible.
Hymnody is, strictly speaking, “voluntary,” as were the motets such as “Ave Verum” and the various “Ave Marias” used often in the Old Rite, and sometimes in the Pauline Rite. Some hymnody, using the vernacular, was NOT used for Mass; rather, it was “devotional,” used at pious exercises.
It is unfortunate that some of these old pietistic hymns are now used at Mass. However, it is at least consistent; the drippy emotionalism they expressed has emerged again in the cocktail-music written after 1965. (Some things never change…)
I understood your use of the term “accidental,” but wanted to make certain that it was not mis-understood.
Comment by dad29 — May 26, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Thanks for engaging the conversation, David. On your first paragraph, I’d say that practical liturgical implementation in the parish is indeed largely functional, and it probably always has been. Some church musicians might be theologically aware, but by and large, most aren’t. This majority is more concerned with the pragmatic side of repertoire (to pick one example). Is it wrong to consider if the congregation will sing this hymn, the choir be up to performing this anthem, or programming things people like to sing? I’m not aware of Foley’s views as you’ve referred here, but I’d be interested in a link or reference. I’ve been known to be very critical of some liturgists on the Left, so I can assure you I’m fair in my critical approach in such things.
This statement struck me as curious. Would you clarify:
“I do not think that fruitful dialogue is possible with your approach.”
My approach would be to suggest you actually discuss these issues with a flesh-and-blood liturgist/musician, rather than make inaccurate generalizations. I’ve suggested many times to a number of conservative or traditionalist commentators that an ongoing discussion on some point of liturgical theology might be very enlightening. It would certainly keep the conversation disciplined and focused.
If you feel up to it, just e-mail me and offer some terms, and we can discuss them.
” … perhaps our interpretation of their meaning is somewhat colored by your presuppositions about my personal character?”
Not at all. I don’t see the point in your phrase, “‘Catholic’ music publishers.” It seems a distraction on your point to call into question your adversary’s “Catholicity” with the quotation marks. Granted, a publishing company may lack a certain status within the structure of the Church, but we all realize they publish music by Catholic composers, for Catholic parishes, for use in Catholic liturgy. If that’s a problem from the viewpoint of quality, then why not make your point with “music publishers” and stay away from the insult? I don’t think such commentary is particularly indicative of your character.
Comment by Todd — May 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Todd -
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was out of town over the weekend and did not have much access to the internet and had a crazy week when I got back. Any way, some thoughts as you probably have come to expect:
I agree with you on this point but I would add that a large problem is that I think that most do not realize their lack of theological formation or rather ill formation, getting what they understand from the popular liturgical/musical publications. A good number of these publications do in fact regularly betray exactly the pschologized view of the liturgy and Sacraments that I mentioned as do a fair percentage of the liturgical theologians who publish in journals. While I am still willing to be shown that I am wrong here, I am more comfortable with my assertion about this segment of liturgical players. I suppose my point is that I have less of a broad exposure to the theological views of the liturgical music composers and so how broadly my observation applies to them is something I am more cautious about asserting. I would be pleasantly surprised to hear that any significant portion of them believe in the real efficacy of the liturgy in making present the Sacrifice of the Cross and applying its grace (i.e. the partaking in the divine nature) to the Church in time.
Sure. As I understood one of your criteria for a fruitful discussion (i.e. avoiding the worst), you seemed to me to be saying that even if one understands his dialogue partner to be saying something at odds with Church teaching or with sound theology, one should not bring it up for discussion but rather simply assume that one is in error about such a judgment. This would be avoiding discussion rather than working together to find the truth.
As you probably know, I reject all such characterizations as they tend to obfuscate rather than clarify. In order to clarify, I would be interested in understanding how you define these terms and how you see them applying here.
Actually, I have engaged in quite a few both in and out of the classroom. However, I am interested in your educational background and experience background. While e-mail is a somewhat cumbersome way for me to communicate perhaps a telecon or two with Cantate and I might be fruitful?
I missed that one in looking back and I can see how you interpreted it. My meaning was rather in the lines of what Msgr. Sokolowski calls the “disquotational theory of truth.” In other words, when one hears a claim but has reason to withhold judgment one puts the claim in quotations until having judged the claim. In other words, I am saying that these houses call themselves Catholic but it is their assertion not mine. If I had made a judgment that I think that they reject the Catholic faith then I would certainly make that explicit. What leads to my hesitancy in affirming their authentic Catholicity? Just things like hosting a commentary column that extols Martin Luther and his work of the “great sixteenth-century Reformation” while eschewing the horrible Popes of years past such as Pius V for his “being vocal in condemning the leaders of the split church of the reformation,” for “his sectarian condemnations,” and for his “scary warning” (i.e. requiring the reformed Roman Missal to be implemented in order to remain in communion with the Church).
Comment by David — May 30, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
No problem on the delay. Busy week here, too. If you want to drop me an e-mail (I can’t seem to locate yours on this site) I’ll reply by the end of the weekend or Monday on a few of the things I’d rather not divulge publicly in your comboxes.
At the risk of diverting the thread, let me just say that I don’t find a psychological approach to the sacraments a bad thing. Obviously, a person fixated on that to the exclusion of all else would be imbalanced. But the council bishops had a very favorable view of applying the human sciences to the sacred sciences. I don’t really have a problem with a liturgist choosing to specialize in the psychology/liturgy interface.
“I would be pleasantly surprised to hear that any significant portion of them believe in the real efficacy of the liturgy in making present the Sacrifice of the Cross and applying its grace (i.e. the partaking in the divine nature) to the Church in time.”
I’d agree with you, but I think your language here is unnecessarily deep and specialized. Is it satisfactory to believe in the efficacy of liturgy as a means of opening oneself to the grace God offers? Sacrifice is certainly an indispensible portion of the liturgy, but it is not the only source of grace. I suspect that many liturgists would agree in principle, but use different language, or perhaps emphasize an alternate pastoral approach.
“As I understood one of your criteria for a fruitful discussion (i.e. avoiding the worst), you seemed to me to be saying …”
I see where you’re heading with this. My misunderstanding. I thought you were making more of a personal judgment about me. My approach might include (for example) zeroing in on the theological problems with the Tridentine indult, something that gets me banned on some web pages, without much of a theological response. I think a discussion is best narrowed to what a person is actually saying or writing, leaving aside the more personal judgments on whether or not the person is being stubborn, sinful, etc., something only God watching the inner life would be able to make a call on.
Defining “conservative” and “traditional?” Well, some people define themselves as such, and if I tag somebody like Rod Dreher with the former label, I’m assuming it’s okay because that’s how they present themselves. Shawn Tribe would be a self-identified “traditionalist.” He would be one example of a person I suggested engaging in a blog debate. But he wasn’t interested.
Taking care with labels is important, sure. But I think if reasonable people have an understanding that a real person lurks underneath the moniker and we treat them with charity, I don’t see the problem with a careful vocabulary on that front.
Comment by Todd — June 1, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Todd -
My e-mail address can now be found on our About this Blog page (not sure what happened with the link). I look forward to your e-mail.
>> I’d agree with you, but I think your language here is unnecessarily deep and specialized.
While the language is necessarily concise, it is deep but I would not agree that it is “unnecessarily” deep. I would not say that it is specialized. It is deep because it reflects the immense mystery of God and the way His love has manifested itself in creation. It is concise because it is trying to encompass the unity of the entire faith in a short few sentences. However, it is not specialized. Rather, it uses the common language of the Church to draw all of Her truths together. I have been employing this language in a catechetical model of a couple of years now in various venues from RCIA, to adult education, to conferences, to undergraduate classrooms, etc. and am finding that it bears much fruit in helping even the uncatechized to understand how the various aspects of the faith comprise an awesome, unified whole.
>>Is it satisfactory to believe in the efficacy of liturgy as a means of opening oneself to the grace God offers?
I believe no. The reason that I say this is that the liturgy is much more than a means to an end. Rather it is a proleptic participation in the End Himself. The efficacy of the liturgy is that it effects/makes present the entire work of salvation, in time. It itself applies this grace. It is the consummation of the Bride with Her Bridegroom. To mistake the liturgy for, as I read your statement, as something more of a sacramental which prepares us to receive grace, is to reduce it to nothing more than making the sign of the Cross or to blessing oneself with Holy Water. One cannot actively participate in the one act of salvation, which is the Mass, if he does not recognize that this is what is happening and the part to which he is called to play. So the Mass has to be recognized as more than just a means, it is also an end.
>>I don’t really have a problem with a liturgist choosing to specialize in the psychology/liturgy interface.
While this is a valid aspect to be investigated, it is too often made to be the entirety of the faith. We agree that this is problematic I think. What it appears that we disagree about still, is that making psychological affect an emphasis could ever be pastorally justified. The reason that I say this is manifold. However, one of the greatest problems is that in our emotivist (and cognitively fragmented) culture, this would undoubtedly mislead and confuse. Especially in our day and age, I would argue that we need to be ever vigilant that how we present the faith be done is such as way as to avoid any suggestion that pleasurable affectivity is a prerequisite to sanctifying efficacy.
>> But I think if reasonable people have an understanding that a real person lurks underneath the moniker and we treat them with charity,
While self-identification removes the likelihood of offense being taken by the use of a term, it leaves intact the problem of clarity. The terms are still opaque and are more likely to hinder than help. In fact, many people use the terms to justify their dismissing of Church teaching, their facile dismissal of magisterial prudential judgment, or just as problematic, to advocate a rereading of Church teaching to support their political presuppositions. In fact, I would suggest that a good percentage of people who do use these terms to self-identify do (mostly unreflectively) take a political world view as their point of departure for understanding the Church rather than starting from a Magisterially taught Gospel world view.
>> I think a discussion is best narrowed to what a person is actually saying or writing, leaving aside the more personal judgments on whether or not the person is being stubborn, sinful, etc., something only God watching the inner life would be able to make a call on.
In general, I agree with this especially in a public blog venue. However, I do not agree that this protocol ought to be universally held. With prudence, all are called, out of charity, to help our bretheren to see the errors of their ways. In fact, that is what charity is all about. It is not just desiring others feeling good about themselves. Rather, and more, it is desiring the authentic good of the other for their own sakes.
Of course, prudence must reign here but at times even immediate negative relational consequences must be risked if one discerns that he must alert the other of interior disposition that is inhibiting one’s authentic fulfillment. There is a distinction between condemning someone based upon the supposed state of their souls and appraising someone of their actions/dispositions and their consequences.
Comment by David — June 3, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
“The reason that I say this is that the liturgy is much more than a means to an end.”
Oh, I agree with you. But it is also a means to an end. I find the summary in Eucharisticum Mysterium to be helpful:
The eucharist is the effective sign and sublime cause of the sharing in divine life and the unity of the people of God by which the Church exists. [See Lumen gentium no. 11; Unitatis redintegratio nos. 2, 15.] It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship we offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit. [See Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 10.] Its celebration “is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives and manifest in others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.” [Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 2; see also art. 41.]
Means and end: seems the same as source and summit.
“In fact, I would suggest that a good percentage of people who do use these terms to self-identify do (mostly unreflectively) take a political world view as their point of departure for understanding the Church rather than starting from a Magisterially taught Gospel world view.”
But you are having this discussion with me, not with a “good percentage” of people. What I’m asking is this: are we conducting this conversation in good faith, or not?
“It is not just desiring others feeling good about themselves. Rather, and more, it is desiring the authentic good of the other for their own sakes.”
I’m not sure where you’re coming up with the feel-good notion here. I find the older I get the more I realize I know very little about the inner workings of others, let alone myself. Often I find it sufficient to just speak to the topic and people at hand. That gets me banned on a few sites, reviled on a few more, and generally drives a number of others to frustration. I don’t think I help people feel good, except in the sense that they might enjoy being angry or frustrated.
In sum, I’m very leery about helping a person unless they ask point-blank to be helped.
Comment by Todd — June 4, 2007 @ 12:49 am