Music for Mass

Some music isn't appropriate for Mass.  Why?

Until pretty recently, I uncritically enjoyed the folksy, eclectic, heavy-on-the-Celtic style of liturgical music that is common at many Catholic churches in the U.S.  I was proud to see in my little parish choir all kinds of instruments thrown together, from piano to electric bass to saxophones to African drums; even a little pipe organ tossed in from time to time. I used to brag to my Protestant friends about the quality of the music at my parish, and sniff at one friend's "conservative" distinction between "hymns" and "praise songs."  We Catholics adapted all kinds of styles to our worship, I thought proudly.  Diversity and sanctification of the worldly and all that. 

Sure, some places you only hear a pipe organ; but hey, "traditional" Mass is just as good as "contemporary" Mass.  There's room for everyone's preferences.  Isn't there?

My first collision with this came when I attended the late Sunday evening Mass at my old parish not long after they'd instituted a "contemporary worship style."  Perhaps I would have been less discomfited by the Christian rock band if it hadn't been Palm Sunday.  Don't get me wrong, I like rock music.  Good rock music, that is.  Which is one reason why I've never liked Christian rock much:  not very good Christianity, not very good rock.  But especially today, the combination was sour: the cymbals and electric guitars and over-the-top vocals clashed with the story of the Lord's Passion we'd just heard. The lyrics didn't have anything to do with Passion Sunday, either---just some religious-sounding words, transcending nothing, ordinary and ever-mediocre pop.

On the bright side, remaining in the pews probably qualified as mortification of the flesh.

I learned only later that the Church has a history of specifying which styles of music, indeed which instruments, are appropriate for Mass.  The most recent significant document on the subject seems to be "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," or Sacrosanctum Concilium, starting at paragraph 112. 

Turns out that only the pipe organ is given the blessing of the whole Church, and the local bishop is empowered to decide what other instruments are appropriate or inappropriate for Mass:

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Traditional music of various cultures throughout the world is permitted and to be encouraged, but only where it meets certain requirements:

112. ...[S]acred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.

119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.

Therefore, when missionaries are being given training in music, every effort should be made to see that they become competent in promoting the traditional music of these peoples, both in schools and in sacred services, as far as may be practicable.

What are the "needed qualities?"  For that we turn to St. Pius X, mentioned in SC as an example of one who "explained... the ministerial function " of sacred music.  In 1903 he wrote "On the Restoration of Sacred Music," Tra le Sollecitudini.  This document is full of specific references to specific instruments.  The piano is forbidden, as are "noisy or frivolous" instruments like cymbals, and "bands."  But he also outlined general principles to follow in the selection of music and instruments.  These principles probably still stand, even if the changing culture has altered their application to specific instruments.

As I read these documents, I'm coming to agree that much---not necessarily all, but much---contemporary liturgy has departed from the principles that make sacred music sacred.  It lacks transcendence and has devolved to simple entertainment.  It lacks universality and has become instead a hodgepodge of different flavors.

At the same time I'm sad, because---well---I like a lot of that music.   I can think of many songs I love, some that I'm sure helped me develop as a Christian.  And the idea of banning them from the liturgy seems insane. 

Till I ask myself, well, why do I need them in the liturgy? 

And the answer is only:  Because I won't be able to hear them anywhere else.  So that leads to the question:  Why not?

Maybe the problem is that a whole class of lovely songs have been culturally restricted to church.   Why do we have to go to Mass to hear this kind of stuff?  Why don't I have cds that I play at home, for instance? 

Maybe those songs, with worldly style and holy message, belong in the world calling the people to the Church.  Maybe they don't belong in the church, recalling us to the world.

And let's be honest.  There are a lot of songs in the same hymnal that I positively detest.  I really really really really hate "On Eagle's Wings,"  (warning: link plays sound) a.k.a. "On Beagle's Breath," a.k.a. (from its first two syllables) "the yoo-hoo song."  I hate even more, to the point where I feel ill when I hear it, this horrid song called "I Danced In The Morning" (warning:  link plays sound) that everyone seems to call "Lord of the Dance" and that has ruined the tune "Shaker Song" for me. 

And yet both of those songs were very popular at my old parish.   I resented being trapped in the pews every time they were played, of course, but most people liked them.

Which brings me to another point.  How contemporary music affects you is largely a matter of taste.  OK, so "I Danced In The Morning" doesn't appeal to me.  I could pretend "It's just because the imagery in it is not appropriate for Mass," but frankly anyone else could say the same thing about some of the modern songs that I happen to like.  In Mass itself, in this Universal Church,
perhaps we should be going for something that transcends personal taste. 

I don't know if it's possible for there to be a truly universal liturgical music. I guess we have to ask what the purpose of music in the Mass is.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that there are documents giving guidelines about
music style, let's pretend that it is our job to design the music for Mass for the church throughout the world:  choose the instruments, the styles, etc.  What would our guiding principles be?

We can argue back and forth about whether music should be consistent from place to place or reflect the local culture. But until we go back to guiding principles that will be nothing more than the "argument from taste."  Some folks'd never praise with drums, but then again some folk'll...

Questions to ponder.

- Why does the liturgy have music at all?  What elements would be missing without it?

- Is the music supposed to help us *feel* something?

- Is the music supposed to make us, or draw us to, *do* something?

- Is the music supposed to help us *think* something?

- Is there some music that will affect all of us, or at least those of us who don't have some kind of pathological association with it, essentially the same way?

- How is liturgical music analogous to, say, liturgical art (stained glass windows, statuary, altarpieces, etc.)

- If someone suddenly invented a new kind of musical instrument never heard before, that had no associations with any kind of profane or secular culture, what characteristics would it have that would make it instantly appropriate for Mass?  (Would it be appropriate by default, because of its "purity" of connotation?  If not, why?)

Comments

[John Huntley]

Rather than focus on the entire church, I'll comment on a few items for here in the United States. There are already wonderful hymns in Latin are appropriate to the the entire Church.

My concern is that the music is prayerful. Does it match the liturgy? Does the "instrumentation" match the season and the readings? I should also comment that I am not a "music minister" or "Choir director". However, I am called to sing.

There are times to the ligurgical seasons (the end of lent and the tridium in particular) where singing is unaccompanied. To my mind, this encourages those listening to focus more closely on the words.

For those of us who sing in a choir, we have to remember that "those who sing pray twice". We must always be prayerful in our singing - even if there are times when it must be LOUD. Even if we have heard and sung a song so many times over the years that it begins to feel like "turkey's wings".

As far as the preferred instrument - Organ, it can be wonderful and uplifting or it can (at it's worst) be played as a Calliope. But it is not the only instrument that can lend a circus flair to a liturgy. LOUD contemporary worship music n=can take away from the focus on the celebaration of the Eucharist. A "Windam Hill-esque" piano version of "Kumbia" (sp?) played as a communion mediation recently brought me to a "what? Why? Why that?" state of mind. Then again, this particular parish claps after the Communion mediation. (Performance).

I don't believe that there is a simple answer to the questions about "feel", "do", "think". Certain types of music and certain instruments are, to my opinion, much like praying the rosary. It is not appropriate DURING mass. The focus is on the Eucharist and not on individual devotions. Music is supportive of the liturgy but not the focus. I have been part of small groups singing at mass. When comments have been made about "sounded good", I have too often not remembered to point to the Crucifix and say "put the credit where it belongs".

You asked about music in comparison to stained glass windows. They both teach us. Since the windows are much more permanent, it is more likely that the "message" will be appropriate. However, I have been surprised by some stained glass windows. The first time I saw those at Guardian Angel Cathedral in Las Vegas, my reaction was "Wow, right out of a Marvel Comic book". I am in LV annually for a conference. Since that first time, my response has changed as I mediate on them and see the deeper message in the images on the glass.

What I was leading to is that portions of the music in the OCP hymnals have very suspect Theology.

When was the last time you heard a priest preach using the wonderful visuals of the stained glass windows? But we continually sing and hear songs that lead us in directions that are not part of the church teaching. The focus is on making us feel good rather than giving praise, honor, glory and thanksgiving to God. We do not hear of our sinfulness and our brokenness and the wonderful gift of the saving grace of God nearly as much as I believe we should.

My wife and I have somewhat of an argument over the song "Ashes". We both agree that it is an example of suspect theology. While she would "chuck the entire thing", I believe that simply removing the first verse is sufficient. It comes to mind as we have sung it again during this Lent.

"We rise again from Ashes, From the good we've failed to do" "We rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew"

I will argue with: "We" rise? We "create ourselves"?

Jesus rose. We are lifted up. We are Gods creation.

We are blessed to be allowed to participate in that creation - but not of creating ourselves. (reference to Theology of the body)

Words are important. Fidelity to early translations of the Bible is also important. Changing the words of a hymn may also change the theology of it. "It is only a minor change and unimportant" resonates very strongly in me as a parallel to "I'll still respect you".

We live in a time and society that does not encourage us to ponder and think things through. Maybe we have come to uncritically accept that "New and Improved" really is both.

I guess I just like the older hymns. I look forward to the next time EWTN carries a Mass from the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC. I'll hope that they play an old standard hymn like "For all the Saints". It is amazing how compelling the Organ and singing can sound even on computer speakers.