Posted on 11/02/2007 2:40:04 PM PDT by maryz
I'm having some problems with music in Catholic America. Part of it is my problem. I spent fifteen years in the Anglican Church with the New English Hymnal--which is probably the finest hymnbook ever published in the English language. Musically and liturgically it was the best that traditional Anglicanism had to offer.
Catholic music in England--well we won't even go there. Apart from a few islands of decent church music the Catholic church in England was a wasteland.
I am discovering that in the USA it is not much better. My problem is that I am actually unfamiliar with most of the music in American Catholic Churches because I have lived abroad for so long.
However, what I do experience is not encouraging. Who on earth is writing these hymns, publishing these hymns and choosing to buy, prepare and perform these hymns? Doesn't anybody know what a hymn is for?
Surely a hymn is first, and foremost part of our worship. That means the words are words that we use to address our praise, adoration and worship of God. So much of the stuff I come across isn't that at all. Instead it is sentimental language in which God talks to us to reassure us, make us feel better and comfort or inspire us. So..."Be not afraid...for I am always with you...Come follow me.. etc" This may be a pleasant enough devotional song to remind us of God's promises, and there may be times when it is appropriate to sing such songs, but Mass is not one of those times. We're not really at Mass to sing God's comforting words to ourselves. We're there to worship Him.
Another problem are hymns that simply put Scripture verses to music. "I am the bread of life...he who comes to me shall not hunger...etc" Again, the music may be pleasant and the words of Scripture are undeniably wonderful and true, but it simply isn't a hymn. The words are the words of Jesus about himself. They are not words of praise, worship and adoration addressed to God.
The second problem with much of the contemporary music is that it originates from solo artists or has been written for a choir to perform. If the words are praise and worship words, they don't translate well for congregational singing. An example of this is the well known prayer of St Francis, "Make me a channel of your peace." It was originally written as a solo performance piece, and as such it is nice enough, but try to get a congregation to sing it and it goes all over the place with its croon like phrasing and difficult wording. A good hymn has music that has a good steady, predictable rhythm so everyone can join in.
The final problem is that too many hymn writers seem to have little understanding of either Scripture, the symbols and types of the faith or the theology of the faith. The great old hymns that have stood the test of time were written from the authors' deep immersion in the great themes of Scripture, the great stories of the Old Testament and the great theological concepts that inspire and instruct us as we sing. The newer stuff tends to be dumbed down, sentimental and weak.
So what's a poor old convert priest like me to do? One experiences some pressure to 'give them what they like.' My inclination is to 'give them what they need.' In other words, to select hymns on the correct criteria and not bother whether they are 'new' or 'old'. I'm sure there are some worthy modern hymns just as there are some awful old hymns. Then we have to educate those in our charge to understand what a hymn is for and what makes a good hymn--and it's not just the ones we happen to like.
Finally, it seems to me that the underlying problem with the contemporary hymns is an almost universal lack of understanding in the modern American Catholic Church about what Mass is in the first place. If it is a gathering of friendly Christian people around the table of fellowship in order to get strength and encouragement from one another as we all think about Jesus, why then the contemporary hymns fit the bill very nicely, but then, so would quite a few snippets of music I can think of like--"My favorite things" from The Sound of Music.
However, if the Mass is meant to take us to the threshold of heaven; if it is meant to be a glimpse of glory and a participation in the worship of the spheres of heaven itself, why then the sentimental, sweet and comforting songs just won't do. They wont' do not because they are bad or untrue, but because they are not good and true enough. Worship that takes us to the threshold of glory needs to be, well...glorious.
But, it can be protested, not all parishes can manage to have a grand organ, a paid organist and a fine choir. True, and that's why the church recommends Gregorian Chant. With a little effort and just a little expense a small group of singers can learn Gregorian Chant which beatifies the liturgy simply and give is the transcendental glory that our worship deserves, and to tell you the truth, once you develop a taste for Gregorian chant--it's pretty comforting too.
It would be nice for the song to be written in the correct person. Why am I singing that people should follow me? I’m no one special. I am not the source of comfort, Christ is. Why should I sing that I will comfort you?
I agree with you, but I daresay don’t even try to argue with any of these folks, they think they are better than the rest of the schlubs who find anything worthwhile with any of this so-called crappy music.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Many people like the songs you have mentioned and there’s absoutely nothing wrong with singing them in church - but just NOT in a Mass. They’re not liturgical songs.
They’d be fine for, say, some kind of prayer service, or perhaps to preface the parish Bible study program, etc. But they’re overly personal and overly sentimental for use in a formal liturgical setting. Furthermore, many of them are actually soloist pieces and would sound much better if sung by an individual with the appropriate accompaniment than droned through by a congregation.
Something that sounds great when sung by Cristina Aguillera is not going to sound great when sung early Sunday morning by a roomful of people mostly over the age of 60. And I have noticed that men frequently refuse to sing these songs at all, probably because the words are so emotional and feminine.
So I don’t think people on this thread are condemning these songs, but instead are simply complaining that they don’t “fit” in the Mass. In the 19th century, Church authorities had to weed out many operatic-style songs that did not fit with the Mass (and it was the old Mass, too!) and some of the songs are still popular and still with us today - but not in the Mass. This is the same situation.
That's easy -- a her :)
But it also seems that with the elimination of a lot of the old "hymns" from the churches, the pews are now primarily filled with "hers".
LOL! You’ve got a point there!
I agree with you whole-heartedly. Most of the songs in churches today are so sappy and then I feel somewhat self-conscious because I’m not singing along with the congregation.
I leave the service feeling like I should have been standing on a mountain with a Coca-Cola in my hand, teaching the world to sing.
I can help this convert out!
The Mass is supposed to be sung. That is the priest, choir and congregations are supposed to sing or chant the prayers and responses of the Mass. Over the centuries, until the 20th century, this is how the liturgy was celebrated and there were no hymns in it. Hymns were added to the Mass during the first half of the twentieth century when many churches started celebrating “dialogue” Masses (which were in Latin), in which the prayers and responses were spoken by the priest and the congregation.
The use of hymns became even more popular after Vatican II and in most places hymns have replaced the singing or chanting of the parts of the Mass, which was not something that the Council Fathers had wanted. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy decreed that Gregorian chant was to have “pride of place” in the liturgy but it gave permission for other forms of music to be used as long as they were truly sacred and liturgical. Well, the rest is history as they say. The liturgists and music experts dumped Gregorian chant faster than you can “St. Louis Jesuits,” and they introduced traditional Protestant hymns and soon after, folk songs and much new, but banal, music into the Mass. And Fr. Longenecker is right. Many of the contemporary songs that are used in Mass are not only too hard for congregations to sing, they are doctrinally unsound.
There is a solution, of course, and that is for parish music directors to re-introduce Gregorian chant into the Mass. It can be done and it should be done in Latin. Chant is not too hard for people to learn and bringing it back into the Mass would do much to restore the beauty and solemnity of the liturgy. After all, the chant is the liturgy sung: it is the words of the liturgy put to music and, therefore, the most appropriate form of music to use during the Mass. Chant promotes a greater participation of the congregation in the Mass and it eliminates the need to sing hymns. And, just as an added bonus, it would mean the end of “guitar” Masses or “folk” Masses.
Historical question: wasn't the Mass silent in Ireland, from Cromwell's time, I guess, since saying/attending was punishable by death, so they had to keep a low profile? I think I read that had a big influence on the American chuch.
What ever happened to the wonderful hymn “Oh Lord, I Am Not Worthy” sung at communion time? I loved that hymn because it focused on our relationship to our Lord and on the presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. It was a properly humbling song.
In the parish I was in until a few years ago, one woman started singing it one Sunday on the way to Communion — and everyone knows it, so everyone joined in!
The 1940 Episcopal Hymnal, used at Our Lady of Walsingham, is perhaps even superior to the later version. All the golden oldies including one of my special favorities, the old Fannie Havergal classic, “Take My Life and Let it Be, Consecrated, Lord to Thee”. The only thing missing is the greatest Easter Hymn ever (IMHO), “Thine Be the Glory, Risen, Conquering Son” (sung to Judas Maccabeus, by Handel). We have to sing it printed in the service leaflet.
I did read it — but a while back. I lent it to my sister with the bad memory! :(
In that case, it was the secular polyphony of the madrigal that started creeping in. But either Palestrina or his fellow composer (whose name has just completely escaped me and I'm too lazy to go upstairs and hunt out my copy of Grout's book) DID demonstrate to the princes of the Church that polyphony could be reverent and beautiful, without having the secular/romantic overtones of the madrigal.
I was really sore when they ditched the '28 prayer book, so I was all ready to be sore all over again when the ditched the 1940 hymnal.
But while I never became reconciled to the new prayerbook, I have decided that on balance the musician gains more than he loses in the 1982 hymnal.
I’d say we sing “O Lord I Am Not Worthy” about once every 2-3 Sundays. It comes up regularly.
You are entitled to your opinion
Not, an official “Anglican Ping” but this article is from an ex-Anglican priest and covers ground close to our hearts!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.