Elizabeth Schiltz at Mirror of Justice has linked to an interview at The Chronicle of a married couple, both medeivalists at Notre Dame, speaking about the effect that Vatican II has had on liturgical music. While not always true, there does seem to be general consensus that, at the very least, the “spirit of Vatican II” caused a significant decline, or even abandonment, of liturgical music rich in theological content and beauty. Mediocre liturgical music, whether poor in content or execution, is a persistent problem.
Many seemed to think that the introduction of the new translation of the Roman missal would be the first of many remedies to a host of liturgical errors, music included. Benedict XVI has approved the extraordinary form to be celebrated in local parishes, and his striking words concerning the bleak condition of liturgical practice have been strong. But by and large, nothing has changed for liturgical music. We are still cheerfully asked, to our dismay, to turn our hymnals to “Gather Us In” at the processional; we are still confused by the odd theological twists and turns of “One Bread, One Body” at communion; we still must have the strange words, “I am the Lord of the dance, said he,” running through our heads for the remainder of Sunday. From the interview:
“The council did say the church valued all true art from any culture. However, what we’ve had is not so much the adoption of real traditions of music but the assumption that the only way to have congregational singing is to have pop songs written by amateurs. That has not produced a healthy tradition of congregational singing.”
It is difficult to discern the orientation to tradition in hymns like “On Eagles Wings,” and this may be a source of considerable frustration for some, but until these odd constructions from the 70s are heard no longer, we would do well to join in chorus praising, singing the Dies Irae, with Tony Esolen’s slight modifications:
Day of wrath, O day of mourning!
Earth to ashes now returning!
Gather, by millions, burning!Smite them, Lord, yet of they pity
Take their songsters to thy city:
Even Haugen, Haas, and Schutte.Spare them on the stern condition
That they feel a true contrition
For the Worship III edition.
Sing more here
February 7th, 2012 | 9:10 pm
Thank you for posting this! Almost as funny as Alan Jacobs’ review of the complete works of Kahlil Gibran.
Pop songs written by amateurs, indeed. When I hear those gutless so-called hymns, I often wonder, “who actually likes this genre?” I prefer the traditional hymns and chant, but I would be happy with something rather envelope-pushing as long as it’s done well by the standards of its genre. I would argue that a reggae mass, or a heavy metal mass, if the songs are composed with the skill of Bob Marley or Lars Ulrich, would be more pleasing to God than these 70s hymns.
February 8th, 2012 | 12:22 am
I must plead guilty to having at one point in my life liked a lot of the Catholic liturgical songs from the 70′s and 80′s. I was in a big choir in college that did them with 4 part harmonies, and avoided the worst of the songs. Most of the ones we sang were directly from the scriptures – the psalms or gospels. I haven’t sung them in ages, but for instance, I recall liking:
Come to the water (let all those who thirst, let them come to the water…)
Taste and see (the one with 4 part harmony)
Perfect Charity (from a prayer of St. Francis – not the one most people think of)
Several Marian songs from the 70′s and 80′s are very good.
In Earthen Vessels
We Shall Rise Again (a bit later than the others)
Some very nice Christmas and Easter songs that were both solidly orthodox and pretty.
I have to admit I don’t miss them that much, and there are many more I could name that are just terrible. But there were some good ones and they were important to us as college kids back in the 1980′s.
We had about 75 kids in our choir, and we practiced for almost 4 hours a week, and we had very good musicians. I think one of the problems with the dread liturgical music at the guitar mass is that many choirs that aren’t so good choose songs that are too hard to sing. And they often choose admittedly bad and annoying songs.
So I too now prefer the older fashioned songs and chant (although you can find some klunkers among them too).
February 8th, 2012 | 6:53 am
Interesting, but uninformed.
If you’re going to quote a liturgical song, you might do well to use quotation marks, plus get the words right.
I’m rather mystified at the criticism of “One Bread, One Body,” recorded as a choir and organ piece. The text is based on a few New Testament passages (check a few psalms for similar mergings) and a traditional text from the second century, The Didache.
Peter Jeffery, by the way, is a vehement critic of Liturgiam Authenticam and the process behind the new translation of Roman Missal 3.
Watch your timelines, also, people. Most of the songs referenced in the post were not widely sung until the 1980′s.
I would agree with the assessment of the “Lord of the Dance” text. I much prefer the original words “Tis the Gift to Be Simple.” And yet, the Carter text is widely popular. I may disagree, but I am curious.
February 8th, 2012 | 11:16 am
I think one of the problems with One Bread One Body, common with many of the songs of the 70′s and 80′s, is that it is very hard to sing. The tempo of the song is constantly switching, and the melody is counter-intuitive, swinging from a high note to a low note with little anticipation.
A congregation who hears that song only every couple months cannot follow along, and a choir needs to be very good to make it even sound ok. If the choir is not so skilled it sounds awful. Lots of songs are easier to catch on to, and harder to screw up. Theologically, I’d say it’s pretty orthodox.
February 8th, 2012 | 2:10 pm
The fundamental principle, which this post does not mention, is we should sing the mass rather than singing at mass. This requires the people and the priest to know a relatively small set of chant settings for the ordinary parts of the mass and a cantor or choir to chant the proper parts of the mass.
February 8th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
Worship III is actually one of the better hymnals around, and what we use in our parish. Most of the hymns are traditional, although some have some annoying “inclusive language” tweaks. I understad Worship IV has backtracked and includes more of the “contemporary” offerings. Worship III still beats the usual missalettes on offer in most parishes.
February 8th, 2012 | 5:31 pm
Actually, singing the Mass is totally independent of any chant genre. It is also the place for the people to sing or chant the propers–that was never intended to be the sole domain of music “professionals.”
Otherwise, yes, singing the Mass is optimal, and one can find that effort in the three composers mentioned above.
February 9th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Theologically, I’d say it’s pretty orthodox.
Theologically, it’s fine.
Musically, whether it suits its purpose is one of those question that makes you hedge and say, well, it depends on how you define its purpose….
(then go home and spend the next hour wondering, just what is their idea of the purpose of liturgical music? To sell copies of “Sister Act” on DVD?)
February 10th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
Blake – I don’t mean to hedge, if that’s how you read my comments. I don’t like the song because it is hard to sing and usually sounds awful. Even good singers can only make it sound ok, and ok is not sufficient, in my opinion. I don’t like the song and wouldn’t choose it for mass.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact