On September 1, 2004, Father
John Cihak (Director of Personal Formation
at Mount Angel
in Oregon) was here to share with us his vast knowledge of Sacred
Music. I, Jane Doe Webmaster, was there
to hear his presentation. If you missed it, you really missed
out, as it was very "uplifting" and informative. I know
I learnt a lot, anyway.
I wanted to write a synopsis
for you, but since I know I won't give it the justice it deserves,
I happened across something already written that very well sums
up his talk. The following is an excerpt from an essay based on
a lecture given by Father Joseph Fessio in May, 1999. The Lecture
is called The Mass of Vatican II, so
the sacred music of which he speaks ought to, therefore, be considered
The Music of Vatican II.
Father Lappe will share more
of this lecture with you in coming weeks. Enjoy this for now...
The Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two documents
issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents
issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, Inter
Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium is
one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has
been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most
havoc — not by having been fulfilled — but by having
been ignored or misinterpreted...
...In paragraph 112, in which
the Council speaks specifically of music, we read: “The
musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable
value, greater even than that of any other art.” That is
a stupendous and shocking statement; the Council actually says
that the Church’s music is a treasure of art greater than
any other treasure of art she has. Think about that. Think about
Chartres Cathedral. Think about the Pieta. Think about Da Vinci’s
Last Supper. Think of all the crucifixes from Catalonia in Spain,
and all the Church architecture and art and paintings and sculpture.
The Council boldly says that the Church’s musical tradition
is a treasure of inestimable value greater than any other art.
But the Council would be remiss
in making such a shocking statement without giving a reason for
it: “The main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred
song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part
of the solemn liturgy.” What that means is this: it’s
wonderful to have a beautiful church, stained glass windows, statues,
a noble crucifix, prayerful architecture that lift your heart
up to God. But those are all surroundings of the Mass. It’s
the “worship environment,” as they would say today.
But it’s not the Mass itself. The Council says that when
the Mass itself is set to music, that’s what ennobles music,
which, itself, enhances the Mass; and that’s what makes
the musical tradition the most precious tradition of the Church.
Notice, however, that the
Council implies what many Church documents have said explicitly
— that the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the
hymns, the so-called “Gathering hymn” and its antithesis
— I guess you would call it the “Scattering hymn”
— at the end. The most appropriate use of music at Mass,
as seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the Council, is
singing the Mass itself: the
Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations,
the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn’t Father Fessio’s
pet theory; this is what the Council actually says. Paragraph
112 adds, “Sacred music is to be considered the more holy
in proportion as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical
action itself.” This reinforces my point.
Paragraph 114 adds: “The
treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with
great care.” Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker:
“The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited
to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it
should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”
That’s what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish
which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you
should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you’re
not singing the Gregorian Chant, you’re not following the
specific mandate of the Second Vatican Council.
Now, just a little footnote
on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church
music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And
a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn’t come
earlier I don’t know, but the fact is that the Psalms are
songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was
sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately
called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew
School, and I asked, “Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?”
“Well, no, we recite them,” he said. “Do you
know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament
times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?” I asked.
He said, “No, but why don’t you call this company
in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know.”
So, I called the company and
they said, “We don’t know; call 1-800-JUDAISM.”
So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions,
and they didn’t know either. But they said, “You call
this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know.” So, I called
this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation.
At the end, I said, “I want to bring some focus to this,
can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his
Apostles sang the Psalms?” He said, “Of course, Father.
It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us.”
I was amazed. I called Professor
William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and
a friend. I said, “Bill, is this true?” He said, “Yes.
The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and
psalmody.” So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms
at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can
get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones
that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.
So, the Council isn’t
calling us back to some medieval practice, those “horrible”
medieval times, the “terrible” Middle Ages, when they
knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was build
a Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and churches built
that have a tenth of the beauty of Notre Dame de Paris, then I
will say that the liturgists have the right to speak. Until then,
they have no right to speak about beauty in the liturgy.) But
my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th
century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old.
They are called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from
590 to 604. But they were already a thousand years old when he
reigned. He didn’t invent Gregorian chant; he reorganized
and codified it and helped to establish musical schools to sing
it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn’t an invention.
Thus, the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition
of truly sacred music and gives such music pride of place.
The last thing I want to quote
from the Council is paragraph 128, which talks about sacred art
and sacred furnishings: “Along with the revisions of liturgical
books . . . there is to be an earlier revision of the canons and
ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provisions of material
things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially
to the worthy and well-planned construction of sacred buildings,
the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing and
safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability
of the baptistery . . .” and so on.
Return to top
