Posted on 06/02/2005 11:17:53 AM PDT by Pyro7480
On 21 May 2005, I attended the bacculareate Mass at Villanova University in southeastern Pennsylvania. My sister was graduating from this school, which was founded by Augustinian priests in the mid-19th century.
The Mass took place in the early evening at the university's stadium, and other than a brief shower, the liturgy started well. A choir sang Palestrina's Tu es Petrus prior to the beginning of the Mass. I was delighted to hear that particular piece of music. However, I should have a heeded a warning of sorts that was right in front of my eyes. There was a table close to the stage were the Mass was going to be offered, and sitting on top of the table were glass chalices, which obviously were going to be used during the Mass.
The atmosphere of the Mass shifted quickly as the processional hymn began. The line-up of the ministers began in a normal fashion. At the very beginning of the procession was a graduate in academic garb carrying a censor. However, not far behind were other graduates carrying multi-colored banners. They were the oddest things I had ever seen processed in during a Mass. It wasn't clear at all what their point was. The colors used weren't Villanova's colors. In fact, they used bright pastel colors. But they didn't have much to do with the Mass itself, so it was a forgiveable error.
The banners, however, was just the beginning of events that could be described as the results of lapses in judgement. The music during the Mass itself belonged to typical post-1970's composing, so that wasn't exactly unexpected either. But when the time for the offertory came, my heart began to sink. The hosts that were to be consecrated were brought in to the stage where the altar was in large wicker baskets. It wasn't immediately clear at that point but inside the larger wicker baskets were smaller wicker baskets, lined with white cloths of some sort, which actually contained the hosts. The wine that was going to be consecrated were brought in large glass/crystal containers.
Both the hosts and the wine were left in their containers during the entire Eucharistic prayer. When time came for communion, baskets containing consecrated hosts were brought to each side of the field. The smaller wicker baskets containing the hosts were taken out of the larger baskets, and most of the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament was taken care of by lay people, most of whom were college students.
When one of them came with the basket, the rest of my family went for Communion, but I decided not to go. I prefer to receive Our Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from the hands of a priest or deacon. Anyway, at that point, I was feeling rather offended by the manner Communion was being distributed. They were treating Our Lord as if He were an appetizer that was being served at a restaurant. When my dad sat back down next to me after receiving Communion, I told him what was wrong about what was taking place.
As the distribution was winding-down, I noticed that some of the students who were distributing Communion were committing more abuses. I saw one of them self-communicate. Some of them stacked the baskets on top of each other, and it was probably the case that on top of the clothes, there still rested small fragments of the consecrated hosts.
After the Mass concluded, my family went to a nice Italian restaurant nearby. I brought up the issue of the Mass. My mom seemed to understand why I was feeling offended. My sister on the other hand, said in response to my complaint (in a rather sarcastic manner), "I'm sorry my liturgy offended you." She couldn't understand why it was wrong to serve the Blessed Sacrament in that manner.
My final thought on this issue: If it is possible for papal Masses to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people during Communion, and do it properly, then an American institute of higher learning which has Catholic roots can afford to do take the proper steps to accomodate a few thousand during a bacculareate Mass.
Your commentary is dead-on, but also calls for an understanding of the nature of Art--something sadly lacking in the US as a whole.
St. Pius X's observation that Art (especially for worship) must possess Beauty, Goodness, and Universality (truth, in a fashion) flies directly against the au courant "ars pro gratia artis" mentality.
As to the guitar--I think that a classical-guitar accompaniment of (e.g.) "Silent Night" can be used without danger of derogating substantially from the essentials--but my thesis is vigorously disputed by others who are quite knowledgeable on the topic. Frankly, I think this is one of those 'de gustibus' questions--but I share with you a very solid skepticism on use of guitars.
As to Mozart: pointing out his personal faith-problems as a 'bar' to utilizing his sacred music offerings has some danger, because one could then state that JSBach's Lutheranism is similar to your objection. I'm not so sure that Schubert was a really "good" Catholic, either. The list could go on...
That's why Pius X wrote his encyclicals on the topic of Musica Sacra--to get to the essentials of what is/is not appropriate as Sacred Music.
It is also important to distinguish between Sacred Music and hymns--they are two entirely different things and are treated as such by Pius X, for good reason. Strictly speaking, musica sacra is that music written for texts which are either Biblical (OT and NT) OR for the text of the Mass. Hymns fall under a somewhat relaxed standard, because, unlike Gregorian Chant propers (e.g.) hymns do not employ the standard calling for music which 'illuminates' the text. A hymn's melody, harmony, or rhythm may well evoke certain feelings, and that's the purpose of a hymn, along with the implicit catechesis in the text.
Thanks for your clarifying and extending remarks. This has turned out to be a really good thread.
As you know of course, tradition holds that the very first accompaniment of "Silent Night" was by guitar, for lack of a functioning organ.
I'll annoy you by saying that I don't think Schubert's "Ave Maria" belongs in church at all. It's a very nice composition, but really, it's a religious song, not a proper hymn. And again, the problem of technical difficulty presents itself. It's not really choral music, and is almost always performed by a soloist who needs some degree of virtuosity to bring it off -- and solos being individualistic, they undermine the sacramental language of liturgy's call to communion. The whole "Charlotte Church" approach to liturgical music strikes me as radically un-Catholic.
And Bach? Oh, dear. Though a Lutheran, he was a devout, believing Christian, which puts him ahead of Mozart right there. His sacred oratorios are not liturgical, so there's no risk of their turning up during Mass (they have some fine hymns embedded in them, which can probably be made acceptable for Catholic liturgical use). The B-minor Mass is one of the most glorious compositions there ever were or will be, but IMO its baroque splendor overwhelms the liturgy: sung in the course of a real Mass, I fear it would be all about the performance, rather than what's happening at the altar. And the instrumental music? My parish has a goofball organist who every year rolls out the Toccata & Fugue in D on the Sunday before All Saints'. Why? Is he suggesting a halloweenish, Phantom of the Opera association? Why? Once again, it's a piece I love, but has no direct bearing on what what happens at church.
Common sense alert. ;-)
Yes I know about Silent Night's genesis--not really the reason I used the example, but...
Schubert also wrote a couple of very nice Masses (one in G major is eminently singable by a parish choir.) The question of solo work, (like the question you raised regarding the B minor Mass) is one of context, I think--that is, bearing in mind that the REAL purpose of music in worship is 'to glorify God and to raise the minds and hearts of the Faithful to God' (Pius X)--then, if the soloist moderates the voice, one can argue that the music's REAL purpose has been fulfilled. However, I do not like a Mass-full-of-solos; again, 'context.' Thanks for mentioning the category of 'devotional' music, into which the Schubert Ave fits. Pius X was (IIRC) of mixed mind on 'devotional' stuff for use during the Mass. I think he wanted to rely on the educated and informed judgment of parish musicians--but then, he also relied on Bishops to SEE TO the proper education/qualification of church musicians--and you know what happened.
As to the B minor (or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis)--you are correct; it's Mass, not a concert with obiter dicta from the priest. Thus, even the Mozart Masses are likely far "too big" for a typical Parish Sunday Mass. HOWEVER, they are not "too big" for a Pontifical High Mass with smells, bells, processions, etc., etc. Context counts.
Bach's orgelmusik is generally highly-developed intellectual exercise, written to stimulate the brain (sometimes it works.) IMHO, using it pre- or post-Mass is fine, although I have reservations about the Dminor fugue precisely because of its secular over-use. OTOH, the D Major fugue makes an excellent recessional, and using JSB's variations on "Sacred Head" during Lent pre- or post-Mass is worthy of approval.
But yes, JSB's music is not "musica sacra"...
My (indult) parish has used Mozart Masses for Christmas and Easter the past few years. They don't quite overwhelm, but liturgically we lay it on rather thick anyway. It's a close call. I wouldn't mind trying Palestrina for a change; maybe I'll find a way to mention this to our pastor (a music major from Northwestern).
Now that I would LOVE to hear. It must be wonderful. When I was growing in Michigan, they used to perform Mozart's Requiem on Good Friday at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Detroit.
I don't care how good (or bad) a Catholic Mozart was, his beautiful music could only have come from some divine inspiration.
Unfortunately, TAN does NOT carry personal Tridentine Missals. There is a new edition out from Angelus, that is 1962 all the way through, and of course the Fr. Lasance Missals are available. Prices typically range from $40 to $70 depending on what you get.
Bless your heart, GG; that's just the problem. The minute you say you'd love to attend a Mass by Mozart or Schubert or whoever, it starts to be about the performance. And the Mass is simply not a pious entertainment. I don't want to scold you too harshly, because you may just mean that you'd love to assist at such a Mass because it would support your participation in the Mass, as Mass, in a special way; that it would lift your mind and heart to God more effectively and completely. And if that's what you mean, I have no criticism for you. But please be sure that that is what you mean, and not just a hankering to enjoy a lavish spectacle as spectator. The Mass after all is something we do for God, not for ourselves.
Anyway, for Askel's encouragement, I have a limerick about that.
Schumann was a poor roommate of Schubert
Schubert once had to ask, -- where's my shoe, Bert?
To which Schumann replied
-- Why, I cooked it all night
I don't see how a shoe in a soup hurt
I'm not sure Pius X would agree with you.
Please forgive the post and run, but you're absolutely right, Schubert's "Ave Maria" is a song, not a hymn.
One reason for the liturgical problems with the Schubert "Ave" is that Schubert did not set the song to the prayer.
The original artsong is called "Ellen's Third Song: the Lady of the Lake" based on a German translation of an English poem by Sir Walter Scott" It was never written for the Mass (and was forbidden for quite a long time)and was solely written as an artsong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.