COMING THIS THURSDAY!

“A Post for Chant Advocates”

Disclaimer: I love chant!  But this is a post in response to feeling “put down” by some in the Chant world when trying to discuss liturgical music and how contemporary prayer & praise music can be appropriate.

“Robert Feduccia Interview”

Great interview with editor of OCP’s Spirit & Song series focused on contemporary Christian music in the liturgy.

“The Prayer & Praise Project”

A project I was really excited about and hope to return to – its basically my opportunity to share with others a live recording of a “worship set” that I had led periodically.

“Missa Simplex Acoustic Arrangement”

With the revised translation of the Roman Missal coming out I see this as a great opportunity to introduce a parish to Gregorian chant.  While I think chant is amazing with just a voice, I thought I’d share my interpretation of these chant settings with acoustic guitar.

Please feel free to check out our Latest Post section and our Worship Articles section for more posts.  I’m especially excited for the future!  So don’t forget to subscribe to our RSS feed for more updates!

Here’s my response:

@font-face { font-family: “Cambria”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

To begin my response to Fr. Smith’s post, I’d like to point out that my response is written from the perspective of a “Praise & Worship” musician.  That is, I am a Catholic music minister who uses songs & instrumentation that are principally featured in the genre known as “Praise & Worship”.  While most of my experience with P&W is within the context of local prayer gathers, youth retreats, and para-liturgical settings such as Eucharistic Adoration, I do occasionally accompany Mass as a liturgical musician and employ the P&W genre in that as well.

After my first read through of Fr. Smith’s post, I was most surprised by the number of assumptions he makes on the part of Praise & Worship musicians.  This most surprised me, since it appeared through the article that his experience with the P&W genre was limited to a few poor instances of its implementation.  I noticed one commenter mentioned how any liturgical abuses that may have occurred in the name of the Life Teen Movement, have since been corrected by the youth movement itself and no longer continues under its name (hopefully).  My experience with P&W music has been, and continues to be a positive and prayerful one.  I pray that my responses to Fr. Smith’s assumptions will be received as “from the source” rather than from what appeared to be an individuals “bad experiences.” While I do recognize the value of how something may be “received” vs. how it may be in actuality, and if P&W music appears to be all the things Fr. Claims it indeed becomes a problem, I would argue that Father’s experience of P&W is not the whole picture.  Allow me to elaborate:

To begin, I started by going to the Catechism to find a definition of “praise” as a form of prayer.  CCC#2639-2642 provide the foundation for a handful of my remarks.  Father Smith starts out by stating: “P&W music assumes that praise is worship.”  He continues to define praise as a form of prayer, “typically done within an individual or small communal context in the form of culturally relevant symbols & forms.”  He calls worship a type of praise, but he tries to identify worship within the context of a “Mystery which is not of the [community’s] making.”  He also describes worship as a “corporate action, (an act of the baptized in communion with the visible and institutional Church), governed by law & tradition.”  His final contention on this point seems to be that P&W “grafts” a “freer and more individualistic nature of praise onto the communal prayer of the Church’s worship.”

CCC#2639 describes praise as, “the form of prayer which recognizes most immediately that God is God. It lauds God for his own sake and gives him glory, quite beyond what he does, but simply because HE IS. It shares in the blessed happiness of the pure of heart who love God in faith before seeing him in glory. By praise, the Spirit is joined to our spirits to bear witness that we are children of God, testifying to the only Son in whom we are adopted and by whom we glorify the Father. Praise embraces the other forms of prayer and carries them toward him who is its source and goal: the “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist.”

After looking to the Catechism, I do not recognize Father’s assumptions of individualism or liturgically inappropriate liberality as he seems to connect them to the prayer of “praise.”

Fr. Smith goes on to assert that “P&W assumes that worship is principally something we do.”  As, the above CCC’d reference points out, praise is something the Spirit does in us – it testifies to the Son.  As Fr. pointed out the highest Praise to the Trinity is the Sacrifice of Redemption, which is exactly what P&W testifies to, especially in the Mass.  No serious P&W musician would assert that by engaging in P&W we are doing something that somehow does something to our relationship to God apart from his action in our prayer and in our lives.

Fr.’s third assumption describes, “P&W music assumes as its first principle relevance.”  It’s at this point in reading the post I had to say, “ok, enough is enough, Father, where are you getting this stuff?  As I continue reading, all I see is assumptions being made left and right from a person who, according to the article, has only ever had bad experiences with p&w.  Who is he to be making these assumptions on behalf of something he doesn’t fully understand?”

As a P&W musician father, I have learned that if my only goal is to placate the masses, then I’ve completely missed the point of giving praise & worship to God.  Favorite songs come and go, but what remains the same is the heart of worship within the musician, and the community.  You could sing a song that has been “uncouth” for the past decade, but sing it in a way that it comes from your heart and touches other people because they recognize the prayerfulness of what is happening, and then you start to understand P&W music.  Is P&W music relevant today?  Of course it is!  It’s something “new” – relatively speaking.  And for that reason, I plead on it’s behalf to let it grow.  At some point Chant was “relevant” and touched people where they were at, but it has since had hundreds of years to continue & settle.  Until P&W has that time, it will be constantly trying to stay relevant, but I guarantee that only those musicians and communities who understand the heart of P&W, what CCC6239 pointed out – will be the ones who remain and get it right.

Your fourth point regarding the “active participation of a certain age group” is “off” as much as the other points.  P&W today is composed by a wide age range of people.  Many of the P&W songs of today come straight from the Scriptures.  To paint with such a broad brush that their theology & liturgical understanding is sub-par is not accurate.  Sure, some P&W will be “off” in terms of theology or liturgical appropriateness, but it’s up to the music minister to understand the difference.  Don’t punish the genre because it’s been understood and implemented poorly by those in charge of liturgical music on the parish level.  In terms of contemplative “interior” participation in the mass, the act of “praise and worship” comes out of the silence and should always lead back into the silence where individuals and community can contemplate their relationship with God and one another in a profoundly intimate way.  It doesn’t matter if they’re clapping, jumping, singing whatever, unless contemplation is our goal, then p&w will continue to be executed poorly.

With regards to the “dividing” nature that Fr. asserts onto P&W music, I would argue that you could say the same thing against Gregorian Chant – that wouldn’t make either statement true however.  It’s true that P&W seems to come from the “ground up” as opposed to “top down”, but that doesn’t mean its “germane” and “banal” from the start.  Like I said before P&W is growing and maturing, and it appears to me that much of Father’s experience – as well many in the Chant Café, has been that of nascent, immature P&W, and that is unfortunate.

Number 6’s assumption regarding “subverting Biblical & liturgical texts during the Mass” would probably be Father’s best assumption, although I don’t’ 100% agree with it.  It is clear that the Church has prescribed general norms for music in the liturgy.  As we can all agree, Chant & Organ have pride of place, and while I am definitely of fan of this #1 slot when its executed well – just because it’s #1 doesn’t mean it’s always the best option for this reason.  Still, I agree that when possible we should look to “sing the mass” with all its texts.  Thank you SO MUCH to Adam, Jeff and all Simple Proper Project people for making this task a lot more do-able btw!

I would like to argue for a notion of “progressive solemnity” within the mass.  That is, and I can spell this out more later, it would appear to me that the Church sees within “hymnody” and “song” the potential to experience the liturgy in all its fullness.  I mean, think about it, if there were to be something “lacking” in the liturgy by using “hymnody” – would the Church allow it?  Now, obviously there’s probably a better chance of experiencing the fullness of liturgy through chant and organ, however, to me, it seems that P&W can be appropriated to the liturgy under the Church’s teachings.  I agree that the ordinaries should not be messed with, as well as any biblical texts, but I don’t think it means the complete absence of P&W in the liturgy.  Therefore as a rough draft to my “progressive solemnity” proposal: Entrance & Closing, hymnody – the closer to the Eucharist you get, the more you involve chants & propers.  (This is obviously for those who want a “both-and” approach to the liturgy)

Number 7 – OK Father, where’s this coming from?  I mean, I’m sorry, but this seemed like a straight out attack on all P&W musicians that we like the Church, and her laws for faith and morals, but when it comes to the liturgy, we say, “to hell with it, we want to do our own thing.”  Not cool padre, not cool.  I love my Church, and I only wish to serve her with all my heart, and will defend the liturgy to the best of my ability against anyone who would do damage against it musically via P&W, folk, Chant, or otherwise.

Number 8 primarily refers to immature notions and exercises of P&W.  While P&W may connect to the emotions of many of its listeners, I liken it to the wide range of chant enthusiasts who are touched by a beautiful chant piece.  It takes proper instruction and implementation for both the music ministers and the community to understand that emotions ARE NOT the goal of the p&w genre.  I believe this speaks to number 9 as well.  Both these assumptions are another example of a misunderstanding of p&w.

Numbers 10&11, see number 7.

Father, thank you for writing this blog post and giving P&W musicians like myself the opportunity to dialogue with you.  While I will admit I have been extra-sensitive to critique lately (as per my last blog post that Jeff posted that sort of called Chant-advocates “pharisees”), I found your post as a catalyst for me to continue to vocalize my desire to see communion in the Church within the liturgy for both P&W musicians and Chant musicians, as they are properly understood by one another.

For a fuller explanation of my view of P&W in the liturgical life in the Church check out this link to a paper & wrote for one of my graduate course two years ago.

http://thecatholicworshipblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Outline-of-Liturgy-Paper.doc

I’m sorry I got kind of short and casual towards the end, my two sons were starting to awake from a nap that was not nearly long enough for me   God bless!

I know that it has been a long time since my last blog post, but as I’m sure you know, life gets busy!  In this blog post, I would like to layout something that’s been on my heart lately.  As many of you know, I am a follower of the Chant Cafe blog run by Mr. Jeffrey Tucker.  If you are not familiar with the Chant Cafe, please visit this excellent blog here.

Recently,the Chant Cafe has posted a few articles dealing with “Praise & Worship” or “Life Teen” music in the liturgy (you can view them here) and typically I love reading their perspective on non-chant music in the liturgy.  The authors and contributors of this blog, and many others like it, are humble, professional, wonderful individuals who’s greatest desire is to serve the Lord and encourage others to do the same.  However, for whatever reason, this last article responding to Father Robert Schreiner of Life Teen, struck a particularly dissonant chord with me.

I pray that those reading this post, especially those who consider themselves pro-chant and anti-praise and worship will take the following as an invitation and not a dismissal of their views.  For too long has the Church suffered from what I consider a false dichotomy in the field of sacred music between classical and contemporary styles of worship, and I do not wish to add to this situation.  Rather, I hope this might be an opportunity for all music ministers to see the beauty of both worlds and learn from one another.

To be blunt, I found this article, and others like it that have to do with a critique of praise & worship music to be less than helpful, and in some cases dismissive, elitist, and rude.  Now, I must give fair context that while reading this post I was highly stressed at home and probably not in a “good spot” to receive the type of criticism that Mr. Tucker puts forth, however, upon further reflection I could not help but realize that 90% of the time I walk away from conversing with individuals of a chant-only mentality, I tend to feel “looked down upon.”  In no way do I blame this on any individual’s intentional attitude or disposition, I am only bringing up the point so as to help further positive discussion between musicians.  I believe there is much I can learn from the Sacred Music Tradition of the Church, and this is why I love sites like the Chant Cafe Blog, Music Sacra.com and others!  However, my contention is that there is something that authors, contributors, and readers of these sites can learn from the praise & worship genre as well (when executed properly – this of course is another topic).

And so, here I am – challenging & inviting those who are the guardians of the sacred musical tradition of the Church, those whose understanding of the liturgy calls each music minister to look at his or her self in total humility and put his or her self at the total service of the Church, you men and women who have been such an incredible blessing to our Church today, I invite you to:

• Help those of us who may not understand (or even like) the treasure you hold appreciate and grow to love the treasure you’ve found.
• We don’t have time to research all the websites, or take a 2 year graduate program in Sacred Music, but little by little we can learn and we want to learn!
• We don’t want to know why what we’re doing is “wrong” and “banal” and “trite” – but we do want to improve our worship, so show us something more beautiful and how we can bring that to the Church.
• Show us the heart of a teacher, not a Pharisee, who only points out how bad we are and how great you are.
• Don’t simply dismiss us or our opinions because we use guitars, pianos, and/or drums to offer praise to our God whom we love with our whole lives just as you do.
• Listen to us, when we respond.  And when we intelligently use the documents of the Church to defend our legitimate role in the worship of the Church, please acknowledge our role and help us execute that role more fittingly in the context of the liturgy.

Again, brother & sister musicians, my goal is not to increase the rift between music ministers in the Catholic Church.  I intend only to build bridges.  Any “names”, “titles”, or “tough words” are only for dramatic purposes.  I wish for those in the Chant Community (of which I like to consider myself a part of), to understand how their actions, thoughts, and especially their words can be perceived by Non-chant groupies (sorry if that’s a rude term, but you get the point).  Please don’t dismiss this post as just another one of those “hippie, charismatic, folk, guitar playing rock star” advocates ramblings.  My heart rests in the Church, and I believe there is huge potential for the “Reform of the Reform” that includes both Traditional Sacred music as well as Contemporary Christian Worship Music.

As I prepared to write this post, I put on my facebook “Why can’t we all get along?  Chant-ers and Praise & Worship music-ers?”  To which a highly esteemed professor of mine commented: “You mean Benedict-ers and Oprah-ers?”  His point was received in that over time it seems that the dichotomy rests between those who advocate the beauty of Sacred Music vs. those who advocate the banjo or kazoo, but there is another option!  And the reason there’s another option is because contemporary praise & worship music is growing and maturing!  But in this process we still need help, and this is why I reach out to my chant brothers & sisters.  The bottom line, that I want everyone to hear, from a music minister of the Church:

I am Catholic.  I love the Church, & I love her treasure chest of music – both classical and contemporary.  And just because I love BOTH, and not just chant/organ, and just because I am willing to play guitar or piano or even use drums in the Sacred Liturgy, does not make me less of a Catholic or a bad music minister.  Brothers and Sisters, the time is now to start conversing, and helping one another out.  I know that P&W music has grown a lot over the past few decades, and I am SO pumped to see the growth of contemporary chant especially the Simple Propers Project (which I can’t wait to buy!), but I believe that TOGETHER our growth can be expedited and increasingly blest. St. Gregory the Great, St. Cecelia, Blessed John Paul II, ora pro nobis.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and God bless.

Original article:

In my experiences as a Catholic Church musician, the following conversation has often occurred:

“Jeff, why don’t you ever play the piano at Mass? Why do you play only the pipe organ?”
“Because the piano is too much of an emotional, sentimental instrument.”
“But the piano can be very beautiful.”
“I agree that the piano can be very beautiful, but the correct musical instruments must be used in the correct
places at the correct times.”
“OK, Jeff, you agree that the piano is beautiful. Well, God is beautiful. Why not play piano at Mass? It moves me.”
“When it comes to the Church’s public worship of Almighty God and the reënactment of the sacrifice of
Calvary, we have to make sure that the music is of a certain seriousness, loftiness, and dignity.”
“You must not like the piano, Jeff.“

I’ve never had any success whatsoever in convincing people that I love the piano. Therefore, I would like to share with you two recordings I made when I was a sophomore in high school (1998). You can tell these are “live” recordings (no editing) because towards the end of the MacDowell, you can hear members of my family talking and then slamming the door.

Pope St. Pius X wrote in an official Church document (1903): “The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.” Although the piano is a beautiful instrument, I agree with Pope Pius X.

“Music is to be heard, not seen”

People who didn’t like children very much used to say, “Children are to be seen not heard.” In other words, children were to keep their mouths shut.

In my mind, however, music is to heard not seen. I think watching people make music distracts from the pure joy that comes from listening. I’m sure others will disagree strongly with this opinion of mine.

Below are video versions the same two recordings (from above). I simply cannot focus on the music as well when my eyes are “watching” something: do you agree?
CLICK HERE to enlarge [ MacDowell Etude ] CLICK HERE to enlarge [ Medtner Fairy Tale ]

Incidentally, I also think there are many reasons why the choir or cantor at Mass should not become a “center of attention.” Pius X seems to agree, when he said: “It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.”

Piano Culture

Not only was the piano a huge part of my life for many years, but the whole culture of the “golden age pianists” played a huge role in my life. I drew many sketches of the great pianists, and here are some examples:

However, my sketches were nothing compared to those of my mother, who has a natural talent for art:

Join the discussion at the MusicSacra Forum by clicking here.

Letter to Praise and Worship Musicians

From Sing Like a Catholic by Jeffrey Tucker:

You are part of a Catholic generation that has chosen music as a path of spiritual discovery and expression within Catholicism, and music has been central to your own path toward greater understanding of the faith and its place in your life. You are using this gift to give to others, precisely as St. Paul instructed the Corinthians to do. You do this in retreat settings but, more and more, in worship settings, including Mass, as a means of helping others find what you have found.

You are not unaware that the style of music you have chosen has no liturgical precedent in the history of the faith. It is not that you have overtly rejected tradition in favor of innovation. Many of you have written to me that you would greatly appreciate a parish setting in which Gregorian chant and polyphony (the only two musical forms explicitly cited at Vatican II as proper to the Roman Rite) were sung as part of Mass.

But this is not the parish setting you inherited and it doesn’t seem like an option now. The historical context here is everything. You were the third generation raised after the major changes following the Second Vatican Council. When your parents were very young, the standard music was new and innovative, but by the time you heard it, it had grown old and tired.

And there didn’t seem to be much of it: the same few Glorias and Holy Holys, and about twenty or so songs sung again and again, most of it suggestive of half-hearted attempts at folk music of some sort. This was what was considered “traditional Catholic music,” and it didn’t seem to mean much to young people by the time you were coming of age.

The music problem reflected a larger problem. In your childhood and early teen years, you were part of a parish structure that had settled into a kind of routine that you found to be uneventful and static, even faithless. The catechism materials used in your CCD classes, even for confirmation, were unchallenging and cliché. The adult teachers and leaders in your parish lacked enthusiasm.

Even Mass, as much as you tried to throw yourself into it, began to seem blasé. There were new and odd names for everything: confession behind a screen became face-to-face reconciliation, CCD became CFF, Mass became the “Eucharistic celebration,” processionals were “gathering songs,” and you knew nothing of traditional devotions like Holy Hours and novenas. The ghosts of the Catholic past were everywhere in movies and popular culture: people kneeling for communion, priests in black for Requiem Masses, Latin, elaborate vestments, stories of rigorous server training, incense, and tough nuns in schools – but you knew none of this. In many ways, the world in which you grew up had already been thoroughly de-Catholicized, and this was tragically true even of your own parish.

Gregorian chant was the same. It variously became popular on the radio and in bestselling CDs but it was sung by monks in far-off lands. It wasn’t the music of the parish. Even such common tunes such as Pange Lingua and Adoro Te—the last remnants of a repertoire of tens of thousands of chants—were finally put to rest sometime in the 1980s. No one in the parish knew a thing about chant, and neither did there seem to be a way to find out more.

It was your misfortune that you inherited what can only be described as a desert, and you can vaguely recall being bored with the whole thing. At some point in your teen years, that changed with a retreat or a parish mission or possibly World Youth Day or some other occasion. There was a spiritual awakening in your life, and it centered on the realization of the powerful presence that Christ can have in your life. It brought you back to the confessional you had long neglected, and gave you a new appreciation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, as well as the power of the Rosary and of features of Catholic life. This was a transforming event in your life.

This event was tied to the form of music called Praise and Worship, with its characteristic repeating phrases and dramatic beats and sounds. You could hear it on the radio. You bought the CDs. You followed the Catholic bands of the new generation. And yet in your own parish, the music was very different. It was then and still largely remains that “traditional Catholic music” from the 1970s that had made such a splash in the years immediately following the Council but didn’t inspire you in the same way.

This was when you decided to apply your own musical skills to making a difference, usually for a Mass set aside as Life Teen or the Youth Mass. No one said that there was anything strange about this. Sure, some people objected to the style of music, that it was more like rock music than sacred music. But this really an argument about taste. Why should you be expected to adopt the tastes of your parents and their parents? Their music too was based on the style of their times, and it doesn’t speak to your generation. This new Praise and Worship music connects with your time and your own religious revival. To sing it for Mass is only a matter of sharing your gift with others, in response to the call for evangelization.

What about Gregorian chant? You grant that there is an appeal here. You among many have the impression that choosing a chant rather than a Praise and Worship piece is merely a judgment call, a choice based on resources and timing. It is possible to sing Adoro Te instead of something else. In so doing, you are doing what Vatican II called for. All the better, perhaps, is to add some good chords and rhythm underneath it and sing it in a more familiar style.

What is truly tragic is that no one has alerted you to the real significance of chant. It goes far beyond using a chant as one of the four songs you can pick for Mass. The Gregorian chant grew up alongside the Mass itself, one step at a time. Some might date from the early Church, which sang the Psalms exclusively. The tradition developed as the liturgy developed over the next one thousand years as the parts of the Mass were organized and systemized into a liturgical year. There was music to go with the prayers. It was sung by martyrs and saints and heard in all times and all nations where the faith thrived.

The essential musical structure of the Mass as it emerged in the middle ages had an Entrance prayer that was set to chant. This is called the Introit. Sometimes you hear the first word of the chant used to describe the Mass of the day. This is where we get the terms “Gaudete Sunday,” “Laetare Sunday,” and “Requiem Mass.” What is called the “gathering song” or the “processional hymn” is really a replacement for this Introit.

When Vatican II said that the chant should have primacy, what it means is that this Introit should be sung, and that when it is not possible to sing it, the preference for chant still remains.

It is true with other parts of the Mass too. The Offertory is not a musical intermission but the name of a real prayer that is set to music. The same is true of Communion. These are gorgeous chants. Even the Psalm has a melody in the chant books. The more you get to know these treasures, the more it strikes you just how unified the text and the music are. Their assignment is not at all random.

Often the melody clearly reflects the story of the text, so that the melody goes up when speaking of Heaven and down when speaking of humility. The complexity of them can be enrapturing the more you study them. You find beautiful presentations of Gospel narratives and parables. Each chant serves a particular musical function. The Introit and Offertory are processional chants, for example, so they have a forward motion with less elaborate musical expression on individual words. The Psalm chants are more for reflection, so they are long and elaborate.

The chant, then, is not just one choice among many. It is the music of the Mass itself, and the only form of music that truly qualifies by definition. The chants mentioned above are called “propers” and they change week to week. There are also chants for the “ordinary” of the Mass, so-called because their text remains the same. There are parts for the people: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei. You have heard a few of these, most likely the ones people have started to sing for Lent. But the Church has given us fully 18 sets of these pieces of music, and you can see from their structure that they are intended for everyone to sing.

In the experience of our parish, people can pick up these ordinary chants rather quickly. They love singing them. They don’t need accompaniment. They use the human voice alone, the very instrument that God has given all of us. This way there is an absence of elitism in this music. It needs no specialists who know how to play piano and guitar and drums. Actually, you don’t even need the music really. In fact, for the first thousand years of Christianity, the chant was sung without being written out in a way that could be widely distributed. It was learned and carried forward by frequency of use, the way people learn “Praise and Worship” music today.

There are other marks of chant that make it distinctive. It lacks a regular beat-style rhythm such as that we hear in rock, country, soul, blues, or any other style. It is what is called plainsong, so there is an underlying pulse but it doesn’t cause you to want to tap your toe or dance. What it does do is draw the senses upward toward the Heavens. It assists in the goal of all liturgy, which is to take us out of time and help us pray and listen to eternal things. In contrast, music with a beat keeps us grounded and internal.

Another feature of chant is its humility. A major problem with Praise and Worship music is that it tends to focus everyone on the person doing the performing. The bands are featured in the front of the church. The band members are showered with complements. The singing style elicits a kind of egoism that probably makes you uncomfortable but is integral to popular styles. Chant is completely different because it does not seek to put the talent of the singer on exhibit. Instead, it is all about community prayer. The ego is buried. It doesn’t unleash the self but rather requires a submission of self to holiness. In this way, it is like the faith: as St. John Baptist said, let me decrease and let him increase in me. This is what the chant does – what the chant requires.

You are right to suspect that chant requires a substantial change of pace. It is not just a matter of substituting one song for another. The chant leads the embrace of a completely different approach to liturgy itself. The music serves the liturgy and the liturgy serves God. Where does that leave the singers and the community? Precisely where we should be: not as consumers but as servants.

You are all too aware that you were cheated out of a robust form of Catholicism when growing up, not by design but merely because of the unfortunate timing. These were difficult days. In the same way that many aspects of the faith were not well presented to you, the music of the Church has not been presented to you either. But you were born into these times, as a musician, for a reason. Perhaps you are being called to make a difference.

The Pope has made the restoration of sacred music a centerpiece of his liturgical goals. He speaks about the issue often, and has written so much about it. Perhaps it is time to consider that he is onto something profoundly important here.

The Pope speaks of “two fundamental types of music.” One he associates with Apollo, the ancient mythical god of light and reason. “This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it elevates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being.”

The other type of music he says is Dionysian: “It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes ra¬tionality, and subjects the spirit to the senses.” Rock music may have merit outside of liturgy but in liturgy, the Pope writes that it is “in opposition to Christian worship” because its musical structure encourages people released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe.

Where does Praise and Worship fit into this divide? Be honest with yourself and consider that it tends more toward Dionysius than Apollo. Every Pope since the earliest years has made a similar distinction between the sacred and the profane, and it was Pius X who stated so clearly that the standard by which all music at Catholic liturgy must be judged is the chant.

That doesn’t mean that chant is the only music appropriate for Mass. Renaissance composers sought to elaborate on the chant with new forms that retained its spirit, and many modern composers are doing the same. There is also a place for English chant and for newly composed Psalms. What the chant provides in these cases is a standard to measure its suitability. It is essential that it remain the foundational song of the Catholic Church, for if we don’t know or understand the foundation, it is impossible to make any judgment at all.

If the enterprise of learning something completely new sounds daunting, keep in mind that no one can become completely familiar with all chant. That would take several lifetimes. We are all in a state of relative ignorance on this subject as compared with the mind of the Church and the experience of tradition. It is the same with Catholic theology: no one can know it all. But that should not stop us from learning what we can, practicing what we can, and doing our part to hand on the tradition to the next generation.

We have a job to do, a job that we have been assigned. We are not the first to have been given this task. At other points in history, the chant was nearly completely lost, buried in the confusion over passing musical fashion. It returned again and against through the prayerful efforts of faithful musicians who were willing to give of themselves to bring the beauty back and make it live in our parishes in glorious ways.

The first step is to encounter the chant and consider is beauty. “The encounter with the beautiful,” writes the Pope, “can become the wound of the arrow that strikes the heart and in this way opens our eyes, so that later, from this experience, we take the criteria for judgment and can correctly evaluate.”

Perhaps the chant will touch you as it has touch me and millions upon millions of others since the earliest years of the faith, and will continue to touch people until the end of time. If it does, you too might enter into the stream of living persons who have sung the chant and played some role in bringing to the world the most beautiful music this side of heaven.

Here’s one such attempt, please let me know what you think!

25th Sunday Responsorial

Here’s the sheet music (I’m still learning how to use MuseScore so use this sheet music as a “guide” and feel free to play with the “flow” of the score)

25th Sunday Comunio