| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SACRED | LITURGY |
Cantate Domino Canticum Novum
Aspects of the Liturgical Magisterium, Part 2
by Peter A. Kwasniewski
The Magisterium of the Church provides us with a rich source of wisdom and guidance on the subject of sacred music in general, its various types, their varying suitability for the divine liturgy, and the qualities contemporary music composed for the Roman rite ought to possess if it is to be worthy of its exalted function.
What is “Sacred Music”?
It is best to begin with a general definition of what the Church herself means by “sacred music.” The Holy See recognized early on (1967), even before the new Ordo Missae was promulgated by Paul VI in 1970, that “the new norms relative to the faithful’s active participation and the structuring of the rites . . . have given rise to some problems about music and its ministerial function. It seems necessary to solve these in order to bring out more clearly the meaning of the relevant principles of the Constitution on the Liturgy.”1 A succinct definition was provided: “By sacred music is understood that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with holiness and goodness of form. The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.”2
What are the definitive purposes of music that is truly sacred? According to Pius XII, “The dignity and lofty purpose of sacred music consist in this: that its lovely melodies and splendor beautify and embellish the voices of the priest who offers Mass and of the Christian people who praise the Sovereign God. Its special power and excellence should lift up to God the minds of the faithful who are present. It should make the liturgical prayers of the Christian community more alive and fervent so that everyone can praise and beseech the Triune God more powerfully, more intently, and more effectively.”3 In words echoing these, the Second Vatican Council teaches:
The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as a combination of sacred music and words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. Sacred scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song (cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), as have the Fathers of the Church and the Roman pontiffs who in more recent times, led by St. Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial functions exercised by sacred music in the service of the Lord. Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy, the more closely connected it is with the liturgical action, whether making prayer more pleasing, promoting unity of minds, or conferring greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. The Church, indeed, approves of all forms of true art which have the requisite qualities, and admits them into divine worship.4
What are these “requisite qualities”? In numerous documents promulgated before, during, and after the Council, one finds the Church continually pointing back to the seminal documents of St. Pius X (Inter sollicitudines, sometimes referred to as Tra le sollecitudini) and Pius XII (Musicae sacrae) where the subject is treated at length and with great clarity.
Being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, sacred music participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.
Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality. It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it. It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims to obtain by admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds. But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.5
The Primacy of Gregorian Chant
Having given this general description, St. Pius X immediately goes on to say what kind of sacred music may be considered the paradigm, the supreme expression, of these qualities:
These qualities are to be found in the highest degree in Gregorian chant, which is consequently the chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own . . . On these grounds Gregorian chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration, and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple. The ancient traditional Gregorian chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship . . . Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.6
The Pope notes, further, that “the above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by classic polyphony, especially of the Roman School . . . . Classic polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church.”7 Pius XII repeats and develops the same teaching:
First of all, the chants and sacred music which are immediately joined with the Church’s liturgical worship should be conducive to the lofty end for which they are intended. This music—as our predecessor Pius X has already wisely admonished us—“must possess proper liturgical qualities, primarily holiness and goodness of form; from which its other note, universality, is derived.” It must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this holiness. This chant, because of the close adaptation of the melody to the sacred text, is not only most intimately conformed to the words, but also in a way interprets their force and efficacy and brings delight to the minds of the hearers. It does this by the use of musical modes that are simple and plain, but which are still composed with such sublime and holy art that they move everyone to sincere admiration and constitute an almost inexhaustible source from which musicians and composers draw new melodies.8
From these general principles, certain things follow in regard to the use of instruments for solos or for accompaniment. Pius XII speaks to the point: “Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane, nothing clamorous or strident, and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place. Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power.”9 All the Pontiffs before the Council teach the same, as one who goes through the documents can verify.
The Council: A Break with Tradition?
Did the Second Vatican Council change or relativize these teachings of Pius X and Pius XII? It has already been noted that the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), as well as numerous post-conciliar documents, make explicit reference to the teachings of these Pontiffs, thus underlining the doctrinal continuity intended by the Council Fathers. In the first article of this series we showed, moreover, that the Council requests pastoral activity for the promotion of Latin congregational singing: “care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (SC 54).10 In the section from the Constitution on the Liturgy devoted to sacred music, this request is worked out in greater detail. Stating first that “the treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care” (SC 114), it goes on to say (116): “The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy.11 Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.12 Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony,13 are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30.”14 In the context of SC 116, the phrase “other things being equal” can only mean that the Council does not intend to exclude other forms or styles of sacred music, as though it were wrong or always less desirable to make use of them. Rather, Gregorian chant “should be given pride of place” within a rich selection of musical works (e.g., classical polyphony, traditional hymns, or chant-like refrains in the vernacular) that possess the qualities requisite for liturgical worship, “which [works] are by no means excluded” by the primacy given to Latin chant.
As the authorized interpreter of conciliar reform, Paul VI frequently underlined the unique appropriateness of Gregorian chant, for example in an address to the Institut Grégorien in 1964:
This unison style of singing possesses in an eminent degree, as our predecessors have stressed, all the qualities called for by religious music. It enriches the splendor of the rites, it fosters the congregation’s unity of spirit, and it disposes the congregation to praise God more perfectly. Almost as much applies to polyphony, to the degree that it is free of anything theatrical, the meaning of the words remains intelligible to the people listening, and the melody suits the liturgical rite it accompanies.
He reassures his audience of chant-lovers that they need not fear the loss of their jobs owing to the reform: “Some of you may be uneasy about future applications of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which was adopted by the conciliar Fathers and which We promulgated on 4 December 1963. Those who are uneasy should read over again the passages on liturgical singing in this wonderful document, particularly these words: ‘The treasury of liturgical music is to be preserved and fostered with great care’ (SC 114).” “It remains Pope Paul’s firm expectation,” wrote Cardinal Villot of the Vatican Secretariat of State, “that Gregorian chant will be preserved and performed . . . The Pope again recommends, therefore, that every appropriate measure be taken to transform this desire into fact, and that these ancient melodies be treasured as the voice of the universal Church and continue to be sung as expressions and demonstrations of the unity existing throughout the ecclesial community.”15
The minimal place to be accorded to chant is stated in a 1974 letter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church released by the Congregation for Divine Worship. “Our congregation has prepared a booklet [Jubilate Deo] . . . in response to a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei.” The Congregation “recommend[s] to your pastoral solicitude this new initiative, whose purpose is to facilitate the observance of the recommendation of the Second Vatican Council: ‘steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to say or chant together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them’ (SC 54),” and supplies the reason: “Down through the centuries, Gregorian chant has accompanied liturgical celebrations in the Roman rite, has nourished men’s faith and has fostered their piety, while in the process achieving an artistic perfection which the Church rightly considers a patrimony of inestimable value and which the Council recognized as ‘the chant especially suited to the Roman liturgy’ (SC 116).”16
The same text enlarges on the correct relationship between newly-composed vernacular music and the traditional chant of the Church.
Poets and musicians are . . . to be encouraged to put their talents at the service of such a cause [writing new music], so that a popular chant may emerge which is truly artistic and is worthy of the praise of God, of the liturgical action of which it forms a part, and of the faith which it expresses . . . . At the same time, the liturgical reform does not and indeed cannot deny the past. Rather does it ‘preserve and foster it with the greatest care’ (SC 114). It cultivates and transmits all that is in it of high religious, cultural, and artistic worth, especially those elements which can express, even externally, the unity of believers. This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it.17
The same ideal of a balance of old and new is presented in the preface to Jubilate Deo itself:
In the Constitution on the Liturgy, after urging that the vernacular take an appropriate place in liturgical celebration, the Second Vatican Council adds this directive: ‘Nevertheless steps should be taken to ensure that the faithful may say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary which pertain to them’ (54). . . . In this way Gregorian chant will continue to be a bond that forms the members of many nations into a single people, gathered together in Christ’s name with one heart, one mind, and one voice. This living unity, symbolized by the union of voices that speak in different languages, accents, and inflections, is a striking manifestation of the diversified harmony of the one Church.
The preface concludes: “May God grant that the desire shared by all will be successfully realized, namely, that the heart of the Church at prayer will have a joyful, resounding voice throughout the world in these pleasing and reverent melodies.”
Has this “desire shared by all”—at least at the time of the Council—been realized during the past thirty years? Unfortunately it has not. With the exception of monasteries and religious orders faithful to their age-old traditions, the “heart of the Church at prayer” has not been characterized by “these pleasing and reverent” Gregorian melodies. Already at an early stage of the liturgical reform, Paul VI was much troubled by what he regarded as a betrayal of the Council’s true spirit in the area of music, as in many other areas.18
In conformity with the Council’s directives, singing in the vernacular has taken its place alongside singing in Latin. Some people have managed to misinterpret the import of the new directions taken and have been more anxious to destroy and suppress than to preserve and foster growth. But as we said last year in welcoming the Benedictine abbesses of Italy, “the Council is not to be viewed as some sort of cyclone, as a revolution that would displace received ideas and practices and open the way to unthinkable and rash novelties. No, the Council is not a revolution but a renewal” (AAS 58: 1156).
In their formulation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, the conciliar Fathers made their intent absolutely clear: not to empty the Church’s treasury of sacred music, but to enrich it; not to separate fidelity to tradition and openness to renewal but to unite the two; in a word, like the scribe in the Gospel, to combine in a sound balance the old and the new, the nova et vetera (Mt. 13:52). With particular reference to the traditional chant, the Congregation of Rites’ recent Instruction Musicam sacram sheds a clear light on the function and need of choirs and scholae cantorum in the wake of the Council. The Instruction thus explicitly recommends “the study and use of Gregorian chant; its distinctive qualities make it an important foundation for the mastery of sacred music” (52). We are well aware, dear children, that you are dedicated, in a spirit of complete docility to the Church, to promoting both the traditional song of the Church —Gregorian chant and polyphony—and new musical compositions . . . May you thus be enabled to contribute more and more toward bringing to liturgical celebration those marks of sublimity and beauty that are such an aid for people to draw nearer to God.19
New Music for the Liturgy
As Paul VI speaks here of “new musical compositions,” a topic we have mentioned several times in passing, it is certainly appropriate to seek out more carefully the counsels of the Church in this domain. What should be said, then, about the new music which the Council welcomed and encouraged, the contemporary compositions which take vernacular texts of Scripture or the liturgy and make them a vehicle of congregational singing and devotion?
Some have the impression that the Council “opened the doors” to all styles of music and all manner of instrumentation—that, in contrast to the teachings of Pius X, Pius XII, and others, the Church no longer favors one kind of religious music over another for the liturgy. We have already shown from numerous conciliar and post-conciliar texts that this view is quite false, since Gregorian chant should have “pride of place,” being “especially suited to the Roman liturgy” owing to its exceptional qualities and time-honored presence in the prayer life of the Church. But there is something still more important to take into account, namely, the guidelines—often repeated, and repeated in the strongest terms—which must govern the composition and use of new liturgical music. For, as we learn from Paul VI, the nature of genuine sacred music remains always the same, regardless of when or where it is composed.
Music and song are servants of worship and are its subordinates. Accordingly they must always possess the qualities befitting their place: grandeur yet simplicity; solemnity and majesty; the least possible unworthiness of the absolute transcendence of God, to whom they are directed, and of the human spirit, which they are meant to express.20
Music is meant to give expression to the forms of beauty which will accompany the unfolding of the sacred rites during the celebration of the liturgy and adorn the various types of the Church’s prayer with the vibrant harmonies of song. Music makes the splendor of God’s own countenance shine on the congregation gathered in Christ’s name. The spiritual power of art helps to raise the heart more readily to the cleansing and sanctifying encounter with the luminous reality of the sacred and thus to be best disposed to celebrate the mystery of salvation and to share deeply in its effects.21
It is good to remember that the issue of “new music” is not peculiar to the post-conciliar Church, but is a question that has been in the Church’s mind as long as composers have been working, with varying degrees of success, to adorn the liturgy or foster congregational participation. The universal principles governing the use of new music were laid down by Pius X and Pius XII, who were already confronted with examples of new compositions patterned after popular styles.
The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages—always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety, and gravity that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions. Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.22
The progress of this musical art clearly shows how sincerely the Church has desired to render divine worship ever more splendid and more pleasing to the Christian people. It likewise shows why the Church must insist that this art remain within its proper limits and must prevent anything profane and foreign to divine worship from entering into sacred music along with genuine progress, and perverting it.23
It cannot be said that modern music and singing should be entirely excluded from Catholic worship. For, if they are not profane nor unbecoming to the sacredness of the place and function, and do not spring from a desire of achieving extraordinary and unusual effects, then our churches must admit them since they can contribute in no small way to the splendor of the sacred ceremonies, can lift the mind to higher things, and foster true devotion of soul . . . . [Yet] We cannot help deploring and condemning those works of art, recently introduced by some, which seem to be a distortion and perversion of true art and which at times openly shock Christian taste, modesty, and devotion, and shamefully offend the true religious sense; these must be entirely excluded from our churches, like “anything else not in keeping with the sanctity of the place” (1917 CIC, 1178).24
In words reminiscent of these, Liturgiae instaurationes (1970) states: “Although the Church does not exclude any kind of sacred music from the liturgy, not every type of music, song, or instrument is equally capable of stimulating prayer or expressing the mystery of Christ. Music during Mass must serve the worship of God, and thus should have qualities of holiness and good form, should be suited to the liturgical action and the nature of each of its parts, should not impede the participation of the whole congregation, and must direct the attention of mind and heart to the mystery which is being celebrated” (n. 3). Recalling that Pius XII had said that music intended for the liturgy “must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed,”25 we are not surprised to find Paul VI insisting:
The primary purpose of sacred music is to evoke God’s majesty and to honor it. But at the same time music is meant to be a solemn affirmation of the most genuine nobility of the human person, that of prayer . . . . Since that is the essential function for sacred music, what ground is there for allowing anything that is shabby or banal, or anything that caters to the vagaries of aestheticism or is based on the prevailing excesses of technology? . . . Vocal and instrumental music that is not at once marked by the spirit of prayer, dignity, and beauty, is barred from entrance into the world of the sacred and the religious. The assimilation and sanctification of the secular, which is today a distinguishing mark of the Church’s mission in the world, clearly has limits; this is all the more the case when the issue is to invest the secular with the sacredness belonging to divine worship.26
Once more, the post-conciliar Magisterium, instead of repudiating the traditional teaching, insists with equal force that music intended for the liturgy must possess the “requisite qualities,” avoiding at all costs anything that is, or might be perceived as, profane or worldly. Writing in his capacity as Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot expanded on the dangers addressed by Paul VI:
We must avoid and banish from liturgical celebrations profane types of music, particularly singing with an agitated, intrusive, or raucous style that would disturb the serenity of the service and would be incompatible with its spiritual, sanctifying purposes. A broad field is thus opened for pastoral initiative—the effort, namely, of leading the faithful to participate with voice and song in the rites, while at the same time protecting these rites from the invasion of noise, poor taste, and desacralization. Instead there must be encouragement of the kind of sacred music that helps to raise the mind to God and that, through the devout singing of God’s praises, helps to provide a foretaste of the liturgy of heaven.27
Speaking directly to church musicians, Paul VI says: “you must, above all, not lose sight of the function of sacred music and liturgical singing. The alternative is the futility of every attempt at reform and the impossibility of correct and appropriate use of the different structural resources for this noble and sacred endeavor. These resources are, as you well know, Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, and modern music.”28 Noting that the liturgical reform “is not without obstacles that also involve sacred music and song,” he specifies some of these obstacles: “there is a failure at times to hold in due honor the priceless musical heritage; the new styles of music are not always in keeping with the Church’s magnificent and revered tradition, which is so sound even at the level of culture.” The Pope laments how “musical compositions are offered that, although simple and easy to perform, are either uninspired or lacking in any nobility” (ibid.), reminding one of the words of Cardinal Villot: “The faithful, and in particular choir members, must attain and deepen a spiritual perceptiveness that is not satisfied with a few, often sentimental hymns, out of keeping with the spirit of the liturgy, but is attuned to appreciate the beauty and expressive power of sacred chant.”29 The need for new music to draw from and pattern itself after the great exemplars of traditional music, most especially Gregorian chant, is repeated like a refrain by Popes, Congregations, and other officials.
Musicians will enter on this new work with the desire to continue that tradition which has furnished the Church, in her divine worship, with a truly abundant heritage. Let them examine the works of the past, their types and characteristics, and let them also pay careful attention to the new laws and requirements of the liturgy, so that “new forms may in some way grow organically from forms that already exist” (SC 23), and the new work will, in the musical heritage of the Church, form a new part not unworthy of its past.30
“Study the past if you wish for a better future. But above all make sure that the style of song in the new liturgical awareness of the people of God does not lead to a loss of the past but that it is worthy of the sound and holy tradition of the Church and of divine worship to which the Church humbly devotes its service.”31
Earlier we quoted the judgment on musical instruments rendered by Pius XII. The teaching of the Second Vatican Council is exactly the same in the primacy it gives to the pipe organ and the strictures it places upon other instruments.
The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up men’s minds to God and higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, in the judgment and with the consent of the competent territorial authority as laid down in Articles 22:2, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use; that they accord with the dignity of the temple, and that they truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.32
The post-conciliar Instruction on Sacred Music is clearer still:
One criterion for accepting and using musical instruments is the genius and tradition of particular peoples. At the same time, however, instruments that are generally associated with and used only by worldly music are to be absolutely barred from liturgical services and religious devotions (Acta 1958, 652).33 Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.34
Summary of the Church’s Teaching
Let us draw together in five points what the Church teaches about the qualities requisite to any liturgical music, old or new, if it is to be worthy of taking a place alongside of the Gregorian chant and classical polyphony which are the chief musical resources of the Roman liturgical rites. The footnotes give the exact sources from which the following points have been carefully assembled.
1. The primary purpose of sacred music is to evoke God’s majesty and to honor it; the secondary purpose is to affirm in a solemn way the most genuine nobility of the human person, namely, the activity of prayer.35 To accomplish this twofold purpose, it must have grandeur, simplicity, solemnity, and majesty; it must have the least possible unworthiness of the absolute transcendence of God to whom the music is directed, and of the human spirit which music is meant to express.36 It should have an excellence, sobriety, and gravity which make it in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.37 Seeking to stimulate prayer and express the mystery of Christ, it should breathe a spirit of prayer, dignity, and beauty.38 Accordingly, it should always keep to its subordinate place as a servant of divine worship,39 contributing to the splendor of the sacred ceremonies by its sanctity and goodness of form,40 lifting the mind to higher things and fostering true devotion of soul.41 If it is good music, it sheds the splendor of God’s countenance upon the congregation and raises the heart to the cleansing and sanctifying encounter with the luminous reality of the sacred; it disposes the heart to celebrate the mystery of salvation and to share deeply in its effects.42
2. Sacred music thus possesses an intrinsic connection to the liturgy: it is to be considered more holy to the extent that it is more closely connected with the liturgical actions themselves, whether by making prayer more pleasing, promoting unity of minds, or conferring greater solemnity upon the sacred rites.43 (Thus, there should not be merely “singing at Mass,” but the Mass itself should be sung, in the chants which are authorized for the liturgical texts.) It will be most suited to the liturgical action precisely when it has the qualities of holiness, good form, and universality, and does not in any way impede the participation, rightly understood, of the whole congregation—namely, when it directs the attention of mind and heart to the mystery which is being celebrated upon the altar.44 It should have a special power to lift the minds of the faithful up to God, making the liturgical prayer of the Christian community more vital and fervent so that everyone can praise and beseech God more powerfully, more intently, and more effectively.45 Good liturgical music intensifies the spirit of devotion and disposes the faithful to receive the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries; indeed, it should so raise the mind to God that it provides a foretaste of the liturgy of heaven.46
3. Good music and good liturgy thus possess fundamentally the same qualities; that is to say, sacred music at its height has the very qualities proper to the liturgy itself—in particular, holiness, good form or beauty, and universality.47 For music to be holy, it must exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.48 Since holiness is its sine qua non, sacred music must never allow within itself anything that savors of or suggests the worldly; indeed, even in their external forms, pieces intended for use in the liturgy should not be fashioned after the style of profane pieces.49 Good liturgical music ought to be essentially good art as well—of solid artistic merit and good taste simply from a musical point of view, not lacking in or offending against the dignity and nobility appropriate to worship, in continuity with and worthy of the magnificent and revered tradition of Western sacred music, endowing liturgical ceremonies with sublimity and beauty.50 It should be characterized by lovely melodies and a splendor which contribute to the decorum of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, beautifying and embellishing the voices of all who are gathered to praise the Sovereign God.51 Finally, sacred music must be universal, meaning that, although every nation may admit into its compositions elements from its truly native music, still the adaptation of these elements is always to be subordinated to the general characteristics of sacred music already described, so that nobody of any nation may receive a bad impression.52
4. Because it is gloriously outstanding for the qualities of holiness, artistic worth, and universality,53 Gregorian chant is the supreme model of all sacred music54 a patrimony of inestimable value.55 It is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church and specially suited to the Roman liturgy,56 deserving pride of place in liturgical services.57 The more closely new compositions approach Gregorian chant in rhythm, feeling, and savor, the more sacred and liturgical they become; and the more out of harmony they are with that supreme model, the less worthy they are of use in church.58 Chant, with its pleasing and reverent melodies,59 enriches the splendor of the rites, fosters the congregation’s unity of spirit, and disposes the faithful to praise God more perfectly.60 It nourishes men’s faith and fosters their piety61; it makes it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past.62 It is a bond that forms the members of many nations into a single people, gathered together in Christ’s name with one heart, one mind, and one voice.63
5. All music that is not at once marked by that spirit of prayer, dignity, and beauty so striking in Gregorian chant and classic polyphony must be banished from entrance into the world of the sacred.64 Music with worldly characteristics—an agitated or intrusive style that interferes with the serenity of the service and is incompatible with its spiritual, sanctifying purpose,65 the use of popular contemporary idioms at variance with the sacred services and the dignity of church,66 or plain poor taste that contributes to the desacralization of the liturgy67—are to be wholly excluded from liturgical ceremonies.68 Musical instruments other than the pipe organ may be used only when they are suitable for worship, that is, when they accord with the dignity of the temple of God and contribute to the edification of the faithful.69 Instruments generally associated with modern secular music are to be barred from liturgical services and devotions.70
Combining these points with the conclusion of the first article of this series (on the normative place of Latin in the liturgy), we inevitably reach a striking conclusion: according to the mind of the Church, the Modern Roman Rite celebrated in Latin with congregational Gregorian chant and a schola is not only permissible,71 not only encouraged, but is in fact the ideal to be sought throughout the Catholic world. If we raise our eyes beyond the permissions of the Church to her counsels, we can clearly see that such a manner of celebrating is the very paradigm of the Modern Roman Rite which measures the depth of one’s appropriation of the full Catholic heritage—indeed, that it is the most perfect embodiment of the Constitution on the Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council.72
Peter A. Kwasniewski is an Instructor in Philosophy at the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria.
End Notes
1 Musicam sacram, Instruction on Music in the Liturgy (Sacred
Congregation of Rites, 5 March 1967), n. 2. Citations in this article have been drawn from
four sources: Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-conciliar
Documents (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992); Documents on the Liturgy, International
Commission on English in the Liturgy (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1982); NCWC and USCC
publications; and the Catholic Liturgical Library [www.catholicliturgy.com].
2 Ibid. The Latin text of the first sentence reads: “Ideo illa
dicitur Musicae sacrae quae ad cultum divinum celebrandum creata, sanctitate et bonitate
formarum praedita est.” One must beware of English translators who falsify the Latin
original. It is important to note that the document at this point footnotes both Pius
X’s Inter sollicitudines (n. 2), and De musica sacra of the same Congregation (3
September 1958), a document well worth consulting.
3 Musicae sacrae, Encyclical on Sacred Music (25 December 1955), n. 31.
4 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 112. It is clear from this passage as well
as many post-conciliar statements (e.g., Musicam sacram, 1967; Voluntati obsequens, 1974)
that the Second Vatican Council did not intend to abrogate the principles concerning
sacred music that were set forth by Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. As students of
ecclesiology know, the frequent repetition of the same teaching is prima facie evidence of
its integral connection to and abiding character within the ordinary Magisterium.
5 Inter sollicitudines, Motu proprio on Sacred Music (Pius X, 22
November 1903), nn. 1–2.
6 Ibid., n. 3.
7 Ibid., n. 4.
8 Musicae sacrae nn. 41–43.
9 Ibid., n. 59.
10 The promotion of the congregational singing of chant is certainly not
new. It is stressed by Pius X; Pius XI: “so that the faithful may take a more active
part in divine worship, let Gregorian chant be restored to popular use in the parts proper
to the people” (Divini cultus, 20 December 1928, n. 9); and Pius XII: “it is the
duty of all those to whom Christ the Lord has entrusted the task of guarding and
dispensing the Church’s riches to preserve this precious treasure of Gregorian chant
diligently and to impart it generously to the Christian people” (Musicae sacrae n.
44). “Gregorian chant, which the Roman Church considers her own as handed down from
antiquity and kept under her close tutelage, is proposed to the faithful as belonging to
them also”; “it makes the celebration of the sacred mysteries not only more
dignified and solemn but helps very much to increase the faith and devotion of the
congregation” (Mediator Dei, Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, 20 November 1947, n.
191). The General Instruction on the Roman Missal states (n. 19): “Since nowadays the
faithful of different languages come together with ever-increasing frequency, it is
desirable that all should be able to sing together in Latin at least some parts of the
Order of Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer (cf. Sacrosanctum concilium
n. 54).”
11 “Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the
sacred music proper to the Roman Church” (De musica sacra n. 5). In the celebration
of the liturgy, “this same Gregorian chant should be most widely used and great care
should be taken that it should be performed properly, worthily, and reverently”
(Musicae sacrae n. 44).
12 Musicam sacram n. 50 repeats this.
13 Note that the Council Fathers, following Pius X and Pius XII, give a
privileged place to polyphony.
14 Art. 30 reads: “To promote active participation, the people
should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons,
hymns as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a
reverent silence should be observed.” We saw in the first article of our series that
John Paul II in his Ad limina Discourse to the Bishops of the Northwestern United States
(9 October 1998) clarifies what “active participation” means, showing how it
does not exclude the “active passivity” of listening to sacred chant or music in
Latin. Nowhere does the Church teach that the congregation must be verbally or vocally
involved in everything, especially the music.
15 Letter of Cardinal Villot, Secretariat of State, to Cardinal Siri
(September 1973).
16 Voluntati obsequens, Letter to Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of
Plainchant (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 14 April 1974), nn. 1–3.
17 Ibid., nn. 6–8. In the Adoremus Hymnal published by Ignatius
Press—which contains a small repertoire of chants for the Mass, a good number of
traditional hymns, and some new compositions as well—we have, at long last, a decent
model for English-speaking countries of the integration of old and new sought by the
Council.
18 Recall the recent statement of John Paul II critical of
“one-dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the Council” (Ad limina
address to Bishops of Northwestern United States). Cardinal Ratzinger has availed himself
of many public occasions to explain in greater detail what some of these faulty
interpretations are.
19 Address to Choirs from France (Paul VI, 5 April 1967).
20 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia (Paul VI, 18
September 1968).
21 Address to Church Choirs (Paul VI, 6 April 1970).
22 Inter sollicitudines n. 5.
23 Musicae sacrae n. 17.
24 Mediator Dei n. 192, n. 195.
25 Musicae sacrae n. 42.
26 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
27 Letter of Cardinal Villot, Secretariat of State, to Cardinal Siri.
28 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
29 Letter of Cardinal Villot, Secretariat of State, to Cardinal Ursi
(September 1976).
30 Musicam sacram n. 59.
31 Letter to Bishop Charrière of Fribourg, Switzerland (Consilium, 21
August 1965).
32 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 120.
33 Let us recall that at the time this document was written (1967),
guitars playing in the folk style were strongly associated with worldly music (the music
of the 1960s counter-culture), not with sacred music in church, which was the hallowed
domain of the pipe organ, and on special occasions, strings and wind instruments. It would
be a falsification of Sacrosanctum concilium or Musicam sacram to interpret these texts
“retroactively” in view of what has actually happened, since what happened was
in fact contrary to the tradition and wishes of the Church. It is also important to bear
in mind that the use of instruments is governed by the principles stated in DMS of 1958,
which subsequent magisterial documents have only underlined.
34 Musicam sacram n. 63.
35 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
36 Ibid.
37 Inter sollicitudines n. 5.
38 Liturgiae instaurationes (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 5
September 1970), n. 3; Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
39 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
40 Musicam sacram n. 2.
41 Mediator Dei n. 192.
42 Address to Church Choirs.
43 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 112.
44 Liturgiae instaurationes n. 3; Ad limina Address to the Bishops of
the Northwestern United States.
45 Musicae sacrae n. 31; Ad limina Address.
46 Inter sollicitudines n. 1; Letter of Cardinal Villot, Secretariat of
State, to Cardinal Siri.
47 Inter sollicitudines nn. 1 and 2.
48 Inter sollicitudines n. 2.
49 Musicae sacrae n. 42; Inter sollicitudines n. 5.
50 Inter sollicitudines nn. 2 and 5; Mediator Dei nn. 192 and 195;
Musicae sacrae n. 31; Sacrosanctum concilium 112; Musicam sacram n. 59; Liturgiae
instaurationes n. 3; Address to Choirs from France; Letter to Bishop Charrière of
Fribourg; Address to Church Choirs; Letter of Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Siri; Letter of
Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Ursi; etc.
51 Musicae sacrae n. 31; Inter sollicitudines n. 1.
52 Inter sollicitudines n. 2.
53 Musicae sacrae n. 42.
54 Inter sollicitudines n. 4.
55 Voluntati obsequens, n. 3.
56 De musica sacra n. 5; Sacrosanctum concilium n. 116.
57 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 116, Musicam sacram n. 50.
58 Inter sollicitudines n. 3.
59 Iubilate Deo (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 11 April 1974),
preface.
60 Address to the Institut Grégorien of Paris (Paul VI, 6 April 1964).
61 Voluntati obsequens, n. 2.
62 Voluntati obsequens, n. 8.
63 Iubilate Deo, preface.
64 Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia.
65 Letter of Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Siri, etc.
66 Inter sollicitudines n. 5; Musicae sacrae n. 59; Address to
Associazione Italiana di Santa Cecilia; etc.
67 Mediator Dei n. 195; Liturgiae instaurationes n. 3; Letter of
Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Siri, etc.
68 Mediator Dei n. 195; Address to Associazione Italiana di Santa
Cecilia; etc.
69 Musicae sacrae n. 59; Sacrosanctum concilium n. 120; Musicam sacram
n. 63.
70 Musicae sacrae n. 59; Musicam sacram n. 63.
71 Far from expressing reservations about scholae or special choirs
dedicated to Gregorian chant, the conciliar and post-conciliar documents recommend their
preservation and founding on the widest possible scale, not only to lead congregational
singing but to chant the more difficult Propers of the Mass (Entrance, Offertory, and
Communion antiphons; Gradual and Alleluia).
72 A booklet recently published by Ignatius Press, The Mass of Vatican
II—which contains the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin with chant and an English
translation—conveys the kind of liturgy we are speaking of. For more information, go
to www.ignatius.com.
Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Periodical Page