A number of liturgical reforms seen in the U.S. since Vatican II were not actually mandated or even recommended by the Council, but were reactionary shifts that had more to do with the culture of the decade – it’s time to revisit those changes.
Pope Francis censes the sanctuary as he celebrates Mass with representatives from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia at the Cathedral Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia Sept. 26. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-PENN-BISHOPS Sept. 26, 2015.
Numerous articles and studies published in recent months and years indicate that without a doubt the Catholic Church is changing, and look to millennial trends in part to do so. Conversely – partially as cause and partially as effect – observable shifts in the spirituality of the laity have also been taking place, and a resurgence of traditional aspects of worship are ushering in a sense of deepening reverence and piety among the current youth and young adult populations.
So what is the evidence of this change? Dioceses are revising guidelines for the design of sacred buildings with a greater emphasis on tradition and good liturgical theology. Music directors are rediscovering the beauty of chant and traditional hymnody as they are being republished with increasing frequency in various forms to serve the liturgy. Youth and adult ministries structured around orthodox catechesis and traditional worship and devotion are flourishing to the point of lacking adequate space in many parishes. New media featuring music, audio, literature, and video abound. Parishes are hiring graphic designers and communications directors to improve the efficacy with which information is distributed to a people who increasingly expect the availability of on-demand information regarding Mass and sacrament times, ministry calendars, online giving, and homily archives. Many times credited to the efforts of now Saint Pope John Paul II and his popularization of the New Evangelization, these bright spots that for many indicate a renewed energy and devotion within the faith nonetheless cause dismay for some as both theological and practical regressions. In light of the very apparent generational transition that the Church is currently facing, without going into intimate detail (and in truth, hardly doing each justice), a few growing trends seem to be worth some prayerful consideration as we each discern our contributions to the Church both as she is and in the direction she’s moving.
The subjects discussed below are topics about which the Church did not issue official mandatory directives for change following Vatican II, yet all of them changed in widespread practice, particularly in the U.S. Many such changes to liturgical practice were happening even before the Council in anticipation of what might be decided thereafter. Many of the freedoms granted after Vatican II elicited an over-zealous and in some ways premature response to what the Council intended to accomplish. In an article published on Adoremus a few years ago called “The Day the Mass Changed,” Susan Benofy recalls the sequence of events around this time and gives some background to changes many have since assumed Vatican II mandated. These changes resulted in many clearly re-asserted directives within the documents being overshadowed by a larger clamor for particular reform, encouraged by the same sensationalism of the secular media we have seen in recent times and also headed by many clergy and lay leaders desiring a more radical degree of change.
Because this blog primarily focuses on art and architecture, we will only briefly outline the underlying liturgical topics below to understand their relationship to the arts. Hopefully this initial glance will invite those seeking deeper understanding to study some of the more detailed and in-depth expert resources linked within for further contemplation and discussion.
PART I: Music
Saint Cecilia in a window in the church of St Mary The Virgin in Little Wymondley in Hertfordshire.
“The notion that the Church replaced antiphons and propers with hymns and songs, and did away with chant and Latin is not accurate.”
There are few subjects that can divide Catholics as quickly as musical preference. Quite literally, in most American parishes, there are at least two prevalent forms of music to appease two camps – usually referred to as “traditional” and “contemporary” – with many parishes also tossing into the mix a Spanish Mass and a Saturday evening vigil or early Sunday morning music-less Mass for the time-conscious. Worship style has become a commodity, and it’s an idea reinforced by the services of our Protestant brethren in many places.
But increasingly today, the idea of true worship – not as a commodity but as a place of deep communal prayer – is become a much sought-after ideal: the possibility that music used at Mass could transcend style and draw all who participate into the highest state of worship. The cases for various types of music abound, but here we’re simply suggesting it’s time to take a closer look at what we are singing.
Some instances of questionable doctrinal content aside, much of the music published in the last 50 years that is widely used in Catholic Masses today lacks the richness of spiritual depth and beauty that is contained in more ancient pieces. Any musician who has read the Church documents and guidelines for music in the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Musica Sacram*) might be wondering why organ and chant are constantly mentioned, almost without a second thought about something else being used instead, except where the exceptions are clearly stated. Without at all suggesting a ban on any instrument or musical style, shouldn’t we be asking the question “why isn’t the normative practice in the documents the normative practice in our parishes?” or from another angle, “why has the exception become the rule?” Many of us have grown comfortable and familiar with what we have practiced for years, and change doesn’t come easily. “The Church did away with Latin and chant.” How many times have we heard this myth? In light of this popular misconception, it is particularly interesting to see the surging popularity of these elements among the youngest demographics in the Church. It makes one wonder how exactly the radical change in music after Vatican II happened so quickly.
In her five-part article published in the Adoremus Bulletin called “Buried Treasure,” Susan Benofy gives a great account of this development, including the tragic circumstances surrounding the release of the Graduale Simplex (Simple Gradual). Read more about that here. This liturgical music resource, while intended to serve as a simpler version of the Church’s official song book to make chant more widely available and accessible, hardly made a wave in a liturgical landscape bursting with enthusiasm for what was perceived as a collective dismissal of previous rules and traditions. Published in 1967 well after the writing was on the wall about where liturgical music was heading in popular practice this effectively opened the doors to a number of substitutions (many of which had been experimentally implemented years prior to the culmination of the council, e.g. the Dialogue Mass and later the folk Mass), resulting in the almost-universal replacement of the majority of music that the Council actually intended to be sung at Mass. Unfortunately, as the plans for implementing the liturgical changes the Council intended was released, it was too little too late for a Church that had already made a radical shift.
The details of the case for each of the points below are abundant, and there are many seasoned experts in music who do an excellent job of explaining them. That said, the notion that the Church replaced propers and antiphons with hymns and songs and did away with chant and Latin is not accurate. These aspects are worth a little further study from all Catholics to cultivate, in small steps, a more inclusive understanding of our faith and our practice of liturgy. They also form the framework for some small steps I am personally taking in my ministry to youth and young adults to foster greater knowledge and increased liturgical participation.
1) Greater use of the propers / antiphons,
and a more restrained use of making the exception to them (hymns or other suitable songs) the rule. The Church assigns Scriptural texts for use in musical settings; before we replace them with something from another source, particularly something that is not a Scriptural text, let’s look harder at trying to include them first. Our Mass is intended to be packed with Scripture. Putting Scripture on the lips of the assembly is the best way to help them pray the Mass. If selecting hymns, the most appropriate content is that which reflects the spirit or message, if not the words, of Scriptural text assigned.
2) Greater appreciation for chant,
particularly in the context of Progressive Solemnity (higher feasts have more extravagant liturgies), meaning that perhaps chant is initially reserved and integrated as a component for special seasons and feasts, such as Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter. These special times should feature particularly reverent and special music. The language in the liturgical guidelines concerning penitential seasons speaks of putting away the instruments, all but the bare minimum accompaniment for supporting singing. The Church speaks of the human voice as the primary instrument of the liturgy, with pipe organ second. Attempting to honor this “pride of place” and this integral part of our tradition is something everyone should have in mind, particularly priests, who are instructed to sing specific prayers of the Mass. We know from the adage attributed to St. Augustine that a sung prayer packs twice the punch as it joints our heart to our voices in prayer – “a sacrifice of praise.”
3) Greater inclusion of Latin in the Mass.
Continue reading at Jackson Galloway
Not sure if I’ve been out of an english class or if I’m just tired, but…
I’m confused.
So, while Vatican II never changed the rules regarding the style of song-worship, many churches were so excited about it that they changed it up anyways and it has thus created a generation that is perhaps less focused regarding their faith. (ish?)
Sharky, I would agree with the first part of your summary in terms of what the Church has given us and what we have largely disregarded, but as far as less focused – I’m not sure I could say that. First of all, I don’t have a frame of reference since that was before my time, and second, that is not my really general impression from what I have read about the state of the Church at the time, although as young Catholics we do often tend to romanticize portions of the past.
I would say that currently, because many of the faithful (especially those born after the 60s) have not had much experience of propers / chant / Latin in the Roman Rite liturgy, we are not being offered as rich or as full an expression of connection to the tradition and heritage of the liturgy on a regular basis, which is something that Vatican II encouraged. Obviously the fruits of the changes made have been mixed – they are not all bad. However, in addition to watering down the continuity of worship from ages past and to the practice of the universal Church, arguably, it can be more difficult for the faithful to enter into the mystery in an authentic way – what many people might describe as feeling like a spectator for religious entertainment (that it’s just a service for people to listen to and sing along with and not a miraculous, holy sacrifice). That said, some criticize the pre-Vatican II liturgy for being an out-of-touch spectator event so it’s really hard to make a statement about the Church as a whole.
I will say that both then and now, there has been and continues to be a great need for liturgical catechesis. The Church has been clear that we can make changes until the cows come home, but until people are taught to pray the Mass, we will largely remain spectators regardless of the language or style of the music. This starts with an authentic encounter with the person of Christ as the entrance into the Paschal mystery we celebrate in the liturgy. We have the first part down fairly well in youth ministry, but most haven’t taken the next step to establish the link. Hope this helps!
Very much. Thank you and merry Christmas!!! 😀
Another popular misconception – It is an “article of faith” on many Catholic sites that before vatican 2, all masses were soaring and magnificent.
But in reality, the number of churches that had such masses back then was about the same as now. Which is to say, almost none. Even though the mass was in Latin everywhere and all the time, the typical mass was mumbled through in 15 minutes. Go ask your grandparents, they’ll tell you it’s true.
Agreed Larry! Thanks for sharing that perspective. Certainly there was a widespread lack of participation in the Mass prior to Vatican II (I would guess much more than today, actually), which is what spurred the Liturgical Movement reformers prior to the Council to push for badly needed changes and urge better catechesis. However, some of the implementation of those ideas, in my opinion, has gone too far. This is why the time is right for reevaluating. I think the challenging work that lies ahead of today’s Catholics is recovering some of the good things that were lost in the course of over-correcting the bad, and in general finding a greater balance. That requires an honest look at the good, the bad, and the ugly – both now, and in the time before the Reform.
But liturgists always swing to the extremes. First too far in one direction, with the happy clappy music that nobody knows. And now, if you’d have your way, to the other extreme with Latin and chant that nobody knows. For me, mass is often a series of short naps while the musicians perform for themselves.
Personally I’d like a return to traditional hymns that everyone knows, or no music at all.
Larry, I understand your concerns, but what is contained within the article is neither a proposed musical program nor a single style – so while I know the tension you reference there is no extreme here. I have outlined the things that the Church has given us for selecting liturgical music and pointed out that they have largely been overlooked. Additionally, the primary criterion for music is not that it should be known by all. Indeed, the reality that the music many of us do know from the GIA and OCP hymnals and the like is not fully in step with what the vision the Council Fathers had or what is given to us as liturgical music guidelines means that if known music is the standard, we will never actually honor the guidelines. It makes no sense to throw up our collective hands and say “oh well, what we have inherited falls short, but at least we know it so carry on.” I think the excuse is a flimsy one. People learn quickly, especially if given the opportunity. Incorporating the propers, some chant and some Latin does not mean the choir performs all musical selections this way. It means we reconsider the entire exclusion of Latin and chant in most Masses and the wholesale replacement of the propers with hymns and songs. That is where we start, but by no means is it an extreme proposal or a suggestion for a certain musical style. All of these elements were just incorporated fantastically into a liturgy for 4,000 college students at the FOCUS conference in Dallas this weekend, and will be again in Waco in 4 weeks for 3,000 teens at our own diocesan youth conference. It is not a fringe subject nor an unreasonable expectation the Chrch gives – it is the marriage of the New Evangelization with the liturgical tradition of the Church that will allow both to flourish!
I’m not exactly sure what GIA or OCP hymnals are, but I think they are the mostly lame and folk-y music written in the last 2 or 3 decades. Which may be popular and well-known among musicians, but please take a look out into the congregation when you play them, and notice that no one is singing along.
No, the music that “everyone knows”, are the traditional hymns that our ancestors brought to this country. Old German and French hymns. “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” is one that comes to mind.
Don’t need Latin, don’t need chant. The parish I attended today insisted on saying the Our Father in Latin. With the words projected on the walls so folks could babble along. Feh.
Yes, GIA and OCP have published the hymnals that are found in 95% of churches. I’m not sure I can make a blanket statement about what is sung by the assembly or not in most parishes – that really varies. Personally, I don’t care for much of the music in those resources and would agree that much of it is dated and lacking in content. The older hymns you mention are certainly, in my opinion, more beautiful and rich in theological content in most cases, but I would actually disagree with calling that the music that most people in the U.S. know. Eagles Wings, Bread of Life, Be Not Afraid… these are the songs that the majority of Catholics today know unfortunately. So while you and I might align in terms of personal taste, I don’t think that music is what most people know. I also don’t agree with making that music the reference point and dismissing everything before (chant) or after (GIA/OCP + contemporary).
Using only the hymnal music you mention still lacks the fullness that the Church’s liturgical documents urge in terms of retaining Latin in the liturgy (granted, not necessarily required in the music, although I think that’s an easier place for people to learn it), use of chant (supported by organ or not), and the use of the propers. I am not at all saying that the more Latin / chant the better. In fact, the improper implementation of these elements is a danger and doing it right takes great pastoral care. This is why I said I am not proposing a musical program; simply bringing to light what many people don’t know about what the Church gives us as guidelines. Clearly a wholesale dismissal of them is not what the Church intends. The documents are pretty clear. It really doesn’t just boil down to personal preference. That is the beauty of the Church’s tradition.