I still hear many of these "doctrinally problematic" hymns in my church. The Music Director is for sure clinging to the 1970s-80s music so, while we get some good processional and recessional hymns, were are subjected to a lot of the syrup during communion time. I really don't like it. Would rather have silence than maple syrup.
That the RC is down to picking and choosing which sentimental card store songs locked in a particular era to keep is just childish. A rich tradition of chant that is by far superior can easily be reclaimed. Is status quo easier? Without question. Is reclaiming patrimony work? Absolutely. Get past the work, applying to divine worship becomes second nature.
I'm amused by parishes who upgrade to, or install pipe organs/higher quality organs just for this genre of "sacred music". I'm particularly amused where organ pipes have replaced sacred imagery or a reredos as a focal point. Mediocre needs no more than adequate because regardless of what you do to it, it sounds mostly the same. My opinion of course - not based on study/poll/quantitative research etc. Just what my ear receives on the rare occasion I'm exposed to this music.
Byz - Chant is lovely, but it is by no means "far superior" than other forms of music used for worship. It is a cultural relic, as are style of architecture and decoration, cuts and embellishments of vesture, design and manufacture of sacred vessels. The Church has learned, mercifully, that being locked into one style of anything but faith is stifling.
Option 1: I simply acquiesce saying "why didn't I think of that?" or "of course, it's a cultural stylistic relic" or "despite doctrinal errors invalidating some contemporary liturgical music, there's no way old-fashioned chant could be superior" and move on.
Option 2: As you adhere to your worldview, I and others adhere to the value of tradition. Therefore, please see the following if you are so inclined:
We are unlikely to ever agree on this, among other matters, I'm not pressing you to spend your time debating.
AI is fun! No, Roman Catholic chant is not antiquated, as it is a centuries-old tradition that is still used today: Gregorian chant This chant is a central part of the Roman Catholic Church's tradition of sacred song. It originated in the 9th and 10th centuries, but its roots go back to the 3rd and 4th centuries when a basic collection of chants was developed. Gregorian chant is still used today. Old Roman chant This chant is believed to reflect a Roman oral tradition that goes back several centuries. It was influenced by elements from other cultures, including the Sacred Books of the Jews, the Greek language, and the modal system. Plainsong The free-flowing melismatic melody form of plainsong is still heard in Middle Eastern music today.
Yes, Gregorian chant developed organically: Natural to the human voice The intervals and patterns of Gregorian chant are easy to imitate and seem to be natural to the human voice. Improvised origins The origins of Gregorian chant are likely closely associated with improvised music. Oral tradition Gregorian chant was primarily transmitted orally during its early development. Evolved over time Gregorian chant is still evolving with new vernacular adaptations and compositions based on chant styles. Suited to the Roman liturgy The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Travels with the liturgy Chant was custom-made music that grew up with the Church's liturgy, so it traveled wherever the liturgy traveled. Gregorian chant is said to have developed around 750 from a synthesis of Roman and Gallican chants, and was commissioned by the Carolingian rulers in France.
Yes, Roman Catholic chant is a cultural art form that connects the present with ancient traditions: Cultural significance Gregorian chant is a rich heritage that connects current practices with ancient traditions. It's a form of sacred art that's inspired by spiritual, theological, and biblical inspiration. Influence on modern music Gregorian chant has influenced a wide range of styles, from classical to ambient and even popular music. Artistic value Gregorian chant is considered one of the richest and most subtle art forms in Western music. Identification with the Catholic liturgy Gregorian chant is immediately associated with the Catholic liturgy. Connection to history Gregorian chant is a sung prayer that's a dialogue with the Creator and an act of praise to Him. Here are some other facts about Gregorian chant: It's a form of monophonic, unaccompanied sacred song in Latin (and occasionally Greek). It's named after St. Gregory I, during whose papacy (590–604) it was collected and codified. It's used to accompany the text of the mass and the canonical hours, or divine office. The earliest form of musical notation used to represent Gregorian chants is called neume.
NOT AI - Simply my opinion: It would appear, looking at history, that the RC chant tradition has evolved/been updated. Adhering to its principals, and maintaining its roots in scripture, it seems very possible for it to be updated and even adapted to areas of the world which, formerly, did not enjoy a Catholic presence.
I'm back to having a ball with AI
Gregorian chant is considered superior to hymnography because it is considered to be more appropriate to the Roman liturgy and is considered to be the supreme model for sacred music. Some say that chant is more suited to the liturgy because it: Contributes to the decorum and splendor of ceremonies: Chant is said to contribute to the general scope of the liturgy, which is the sanctification of the faithful and the glory of God. Is simple and easily understood: Chant is said to be accessible to anyone, regardless of skill level. Is specially suited to the Roman liturgy: The Second Vatican Council affirmed that Gregorian chant is specially suited to the Roman liturgy and should be given first place among all legitimate types of sacred music. Some say that hymns are often not connected to the sacred actions of the Mass, and are sometimes selected at random. Others say that hymns are often selected from a small number of old favorites that are sung week after week.
Yes, Gregorian chant is considered to be theologically sound and is an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church's liturgy: Spiritual meaning Gregorian chant is a sung prayer that is a dialogue with God and an act of praise. The lyrics carry a mystical and spiritual message, and the melody is subordinate to the lyrics. Purpose The liturgy and music of the Roman Church had two aims: to address God and to strengthen the faith of those in attendance. Uniqueness Gregorian chant is distinguished from other music by its non-metricality and modality. It has an otherworldly sound, with restrained emotions and detachment from popular style and worldly associations. Sacred character Gregorian chant is considered to be of the highest artistic quality and uncompromised sacred character. The Council Fathers insisted that Gregorian chant is "specially suited" to the Mass and must be given "pride of place"
Nick - No, you didn't miss any council. But you've missed many other elements of church life and human culture.
Byz - I adhere to Tradition. And I understand the difference between Tradition and tradition.
As for "... because it is considered to be more appropriate to the Roman liturgy..." is a dubious claim. The cultures in which the Catholic liturgy is celebrated are not now and have never been "Roman" culturally. Nor should they be expected to be "Romanized" in such a way that a) the local cultures are suppressed and b) the "Roman way of doing things" is assumed to be superior to any and all more local cultural ways.
There are many modern melodies/texts that "...Contribute to the decorum and splendor of ceremonies." Gregorian is not the only style of music that accomplishes this.
Most places I know of choose hymns that ARE connected to the sacred actions of the mass - to the messages found on the readings, to the presentation of the gifts, to the sending forth at the conclusion of the liturgy.
"Gregorian chant is considered to be of the highest artistic quality and uncompromised sacred character." Quite an overreach. Such a claim could hardly be supported in any other artistic medium. Are the paint8ings of one period or style "of the highest artistic quality"? Is the architecture of one era "of the highest artistic quality"?
I don't disagree with much of what you say; however, my sense is you espouse this notion that things can (which is true) and should (we part ways here) be in a state of change.
The Church, the living body of Christ, should not be a museum piece. Yet, Tradition helps us to preserve, honor, celebrate the past, pass it along to the next generation, show what's important, be humble acknowledging that this tradition isn't ours - we are merely temporary stewards and so forth. Churches don't necessarily have to look a certain way, but it is helpful if they do. Liturgical music and art doesn't necessarily have to sound and look certain way; but cohesiveness and acceptance as universal can only be enhanced if they are. 18th century church architecture vs mid-20th century Brutalist. 18th century seems to honor its origins while Brutalist seems to pivot to an extreme. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, acceptance of unbroken line of tradition and perception of truths. To each his own.
Perhaps your next question might be, "Can we not be challenged by new forms of art, architecture and music"?
I say, sure depending upon place. Church is not a museum, gallery, exhibition, or masterful guitar solo by David Gilmour. It should provide a stability and consistency serving to reinforce truths, not a particular place's version thereof. In the Christian East, there ARE varying styles of architecture, iconography and chant. Despite this, there IS a consistency of "look", sound, placement of appurtenances etc that provides an unwavering message. Different, East vs West is measured by degree and the acceptability thereof.
10 comments:
I still hear many of these "doctrinally problematic" hymns in my church. The Music Director is for sure clinging to the 1970s-80s music so, while we get some good processional and recessional hymns, were are subjected to a lot of the syrup during communion time. I really don't like it. Would rather have silence than maple syrup.
Tom,
Maple syrup is too kind. A better comparison may be zero-calorie, artificially-sweetened Aunt Jemima.
Nick
That the RC is down to picking and choosing which sentimental card store songs locked in a particular era to keep is just childish. A rich tradition of chant that is by far superior can easily be reclaimed. Is status quo easier? Without question. Is reclaiming patrimony work? Absolutely. Get past the work, applying to divine worship becomes second nature.
I'm amused by parishes who upgrade to, or install pipe organs/higher quality organs just for this genre of "sacred music". I'm particularly amused where organ pipes have replaced sacred imagery or a reredos as a focal point. Mediocre needs no more than adequate because regardless of what you do to it, it sounds mostly the same. My opinion of course - not based on study/poll/quantitative research etc. Just what my ear receives on the rare occasion I'm exposed to this music.
Byz - Chant is lovely, but it is by no means "far superior" than other forms of music used for worship. It is a cultural relic, as are style of architecture and decoration, cuts and embellishments of vesture, design and manufacture of sacred vessels. The Church has learned, mercifully, that being locked into one style of anything but faith is stifling.
Gee, I must've missed the ecumenical council calling chant a stifling relic of times past.
Nick
Fr. MJK,
With all due respect:
Option 1: I simply acquiesce saying "why didn't I think of that?" or "of course, it's a cultural stylistic relic" or "despite doctrinal errors invalidating some contemporary liturgical music, there's no way old-fashioned chant could be superior" and move on.
Option 2: As you adhere to your worldview, I and others adhere to the value of tradition. Therefore, please see the following if you are so inclined:
We are unlikely to ever agree on this, among other matters, I'm not pressing you to spend your time debating.
AI is fun!
No, Roman Catholic chant is not antiquated, as it is a centuries-old tradition that is still used today:
Gregorian chant
This chant is a central part of the Roman Catholic Church's tradition of sacred song. It originated in the 9th and 10th centuries, but its roots go back to the 3rd and 4th centuries when a basic collection of chants was developed. Gregorian chant is still used today.
Old Roman chant
This chant is believed to reflect a Roman oral tradition that goes back several centuries. It was influenced by elements from other cultures, including the Sacred Books of the Jews, the Greek language, and the modal system.
Plainsong
The free-flowing melismatic melody form of plainsong is still heard in Middle Eastern music today.
Yes, Gregorian chant developed organically:
Natural to the human voice
The intervals and patterns of Gregorian chant are easy to imitate and seem to be natural to the human voice.
Improvised origins
The origins of Gregorian chant are likely closely associated with improvised music.
Oral tradition
Gregorian chant was primarily transmitted orally during its early development.
Evolved over time
Gregorian chant is still evolving with new vernacular adaptations and compositions based on chant styles.
Suited to the Roman liturgy
The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy.
Travels with the liturgy
Chant was custom-made music that grew up with the Church's liturgy, so it traveled wherever the liturgy traveled.
Gregorian chant is said to have developed around 750 from a synthesis of Roman and Gallican chants, and was commissioned by the Carolingian rulers in France.
Yes, Roman Catholic chant is a cultural art form that connects the present with ancient traditions:
Cultural significance
Gregorian chant is a rich heritage that connects current practices with ancient traditions. It's a form of sacred art that's inspired by spiritual, theological, and biblical inspiration.
Influence on modern music
Gregorian chant has influenced a wide range of styles, from classical to ambient and even popular music.
Artistic value
Gregorian chant is considered one of the richest and most subtle art forms in Western music.
Identification with the Catholic liturgy
Gregorian chant is immediately associated with the Catholic liturgy.
Connection to history
Gregorian chant is a sung prayer that's a dialogue with the Creator and an act of praise to Him.
Here are some other facts about Gregorian chant:
It's a form of monophonic, unaccompanied sacred song in Latin (and occasionally Greek).
It's named after St. Gregory I, during whose papacy (590–604) it was collected and codified.
It's used to accompany the text of the mass and the canonical hours, or divine office.
The earliest form of musical notation used to represent Gregorian chants is called neume.
NOT AI - Simply my opinion: It would appear, looking at history, that the RC chant tradition has evolved/been updated. Adhering to its principals, and maintaining its roots in scripture, it seems very possible for it to be updated and even adapted to areas of the world which, formerly, did not enjoy a Catholic presence.
I'm back to having a ball with AI
Gregorian chant is considered superior to hymnography because it is considered to be more appropriate to the Roman liturgy and is considered to be the supreme model for sacred music. Some say that chant is more suited to the liturgy because it:
Contributes to the decorum and splendor of ceremonies: Chant is said to contribute to the general scope of the liturgy, which is the sanctification of the faithful and the glory of God.
Is simple and easily understood: Chant is said to be accessible to anyone, regardless of skill level.
Is specially suited to the Roman liturgy: The Second Vatican Council affirmed that Gregorian chant is specially suited to the Roman liturgy and should be given first place among all legitimate types of sacred music.
Some say that hymns are often not connected to the sacred actions of the Mass, and are sometimes selected at random. Others say that hymns are often selected from a small number of old favorites that are sung week after week.
Yes, Gregorian chant is considered to be theologically sound and is an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church's liturgy:
Spiritual meaning
Gregorian chant is a sung prayer that is a dialogue with God and an act of praise. The lyrics carry a mystical and spiritual message, and the melody is subordinate to the lyrics.
Purpose
The liturgy and music of the Roman Church had two aims: to address God and to strengthen the faith of those in attendance.
Uniqueness
Gregorian chant is distinguished from other music by its non-metricality and modality. It has an otherworldly sound, with restrained emotions and detachment from popular style and worldly associations.
Sacred character
Gregorian chant is considered to be of the highest artistic quality and uncompromised sacred character. The Council Fathers insisted that Gregorian chant is "specially suited" to the Mass and must be given "pride of place"
Nick - No, you didn't miss any council. But you've missed many other elements of church life and human culture.
Byz - I adhere to Tradition. And I understand the difference between Tradition and tradition.
As for "... because it is considered to be more appropriate to the Roman liturgy..." is a dubious claim. The cultures in which the Catholic liturgy is celebrated are not now and have never been "Roman" culturally. Nor should they be expected to be "Romanized" in such a way that a) the local cultures are suppressed and b) the "Roman way of doing things" is assumed to be superior to any and all more local cultural ways.
There are many modern melodies/texts that "...Contribute to the decorum and splendor of ceremonies." Gregorian is not the only style of music that accomplishes this.
Most places I know of choose hymns that ARE connected to the sacred actions of the mass - to the messages found on the readings, to the presentation of the gifts, to the sending forth at the conclusion of the liturgy.
"Gregorian chant is considered to be of the highest artistic quality and uncompromised sacred character." Quite an overreach. Such a claim could hardly be supported in any other artistic medium. Are the paint8ings of one period or style "of the highest artistic quality"? Is the architecture of one era "of the highest artistic quality"?
Fr. MJK,
I don't disagree with much of what you say; however, my sense is you espouse this notion that things can (which is true) and should (we part ways here) be in a state of change.
The Church, the living body of Christ, should not be a museum piece. Yet, Tradition helps us to preserve, honor, celebrate the past, pass it along to the next generation, show what's important, be humble acknowledging that this tradition isn't ours - we are merely temporary stewards and so forth. Churches don't necessarily have to look a certain way, but it is helpful if they do. Liturgical music and art doesn't necessarily have to sound and look certain way; but cohesiveness and acceptance as universal can only be enhanced if they are. 18th century church architecture vs mid-20th century Brutalist. 18th century seems to honor its origins while Brutalist seems to pivot to an extreme. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, acceptance of unbroken line of tradition and perception of truths. To each his own.
Let us go forth in peace.
Fr. MJK,
Perhaps your next question might be, "Can we not be challenged by new forms of art, architecture and music"?
I say, sure depending upon place. Church is not a museum, gallery, exhibition, or masterful guitar solo by David Gilmour. It should provide a stability and consistency serving to reinforce truths, not a particular place's version thereof. In the Christian East, there ARE varying styles of architecture, iconography and chant. Despite this, there IS a consistency of "look", sound, placement of appurtenances etc that provides an unwavering message. Different, East vs West is measured by degree and the acceptability thereof.
Post a Comment