Please note!
The following has nothing to do with correct liturgical practices, or what would be pastorally appropriate in particular parish. It does not represent what I would actually do if put in charge. It does not represent my understanding of Sacrosanctum Concilium or the USCCB’s guidelines on anything.
The following is what I, personally would like to experience as a consumer of music at Mass.
Generally speaking:
1/3 Plainchant, mostly in English, sometimes in Latin
1/3 “Contemporary Catholic” music from the last 30-40 years: St. Louis Jesuits, a lot of David Haas, Dona Pena, Bob Hurd, Talbot, the Iona Community, Taize
1/3 A mixture of everything else- mostly Protestant Hymnody (especially early American), Sacred Polyphony (mostly Palestrina) and Choral music (mostly British), with a smattering of Contemporary Praise and Worship, Black Gospel, and other ethnic styles from time to time.
The choir and instrumentation:
Big choir.
Mostly piano based, with a rhythm section. It’s great if you can have a separate set drummer and hand drummer. A mandolin or other small lute instrument is a nice addition.
I usually can’t stand organ, so it would be no loss to me if there wasn’t one. (Again- this is just about what I personally like).
Most importantly, though- everyone doesn’t play on everything.
In fact- there should be a strong preference for acappella singing whenever possible, even with contemporary styles. Up to half of the music heard should be unaccompanied.
Which brings me to some specifics:
I want the Ordinary of the Mass (all the dialogues and all the acclamations) chanted, unaccompanied. In English (except perhaps the ones everyone knows well like the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei). There are some composed Mass settings I really enjoy as music, but all that stuff really clutters up what I think should be incredibly simple.
I enjoy the common “four song slots” practice- Gathering (Processional), Preparation (Offertory), Communion, and Sending (Recessional). Those would generally be the Contemporary music styles, with some taken from the last 1/3rd when textually appropriate.
In addition to hymns and songs, the Propers would be sung or chanted. For example- after the contemporary congregational singing during the procession, a Cantor or Schola would solo or lead the Introit. A similar practice would be taken with the other Propers. This would probably lengthen the Mass considerably- which would be fine with me (my preference, here, remember). Some compositional attempt would be made to connect the music of the Propers with the hymns and songs they are being paired with. That is a project I would gladly work on each week.
When the congregational communion song runs out of verses, the choir has the opportunity to sing some (textually appropriate) Palestrina or Tallis or Rutter or Faure or something beautiful along those lines. Sometimes the children’s choir sings. Sometimes we have instrumental music. This music is allowed to go on after everyone has received communion- there is no rush to get the Mass over with.
The congregation, of course, sings contemporary pop hymns and ancient chant equally well, full of joy and earthy heavenliness.
The Ordinary Form is used, and the Priest faces the people. (Prayers are addressed up and out, to God). Gestures are large- slow, and deliberate.
There is incense. There are bells at the Elevation. There are Gothic style vestments and deacons in dalmatics. Altar servers wear the traditional black and white. Processions take a long time. Everything takes a long time. There is plenty of silent space around each action, each reading, each prayer. There is no ad libbing (AT ALL), but the spoken prayers are read so sincerely that we all think they are the Celebrant’s own words. When we do clap, we clap on 2 and 4.
This wide variety of songs and styles will be very well planned out, so that it will feel like a unified whole and not a random collection of things. Great care will be taken with each element individually.
I’m probably missing some details. And I know that this hypothetical Mass would be two hours or more, and that lots of people would dislike at least 1/3 of the music. Some will call it too solemn, others not solemn enough.
I understand all of that. And again- I am not writing this to teach others about proper Liturgical programming. I just thought some of you may be interested in knowing what perfect Mass I have in my head when I dream about Liturgy.
So- rather than fill up my comments telling me that I’m wrong (since I can’t be wrong, because this was really just about what I want), I would like to encourage everyone to write about your perfect Mass.
Not what you think is right. Not what you think is Pastorally appropriate. Just, for the fun of it (maybe more), describe your ideal Mass- the Mass that would most completely cater to your needs, tastes, and desires.
1. A holy priest.
2. At a high altar.
3. The congregation facing the crucifix together, in the same direction.
4. Organ or other appropriate instruments for prelude and postlude.
5. The Mass is sung.
6. The congregation chants the ordinary. The Gloria is sung straight through. The Credo could be recited, but on special occasions, sung.
5. A small, superb volunteer choir of the congregation sings the antiphons proper to the day, with psalm verses, either with or without the organ.
6. The responsorial psalm’s antiphon is sung once by the congregation at the beginning and end. The psalmist sings the verses to a psalm tone.
7. If the congregation is large, the communion antiphon verses are sung in fauxbourdon by the choir, followed by a motet. The harmony could of course be modern.
8. After the dismissal, i.e., after the Mass, the congregation would sing a Marian chant or hymn.
Obviously, this means a lot of chant, either in Latin or a vernacular, but it would be obviously derived or related to the Gregorian chant. No instruments or music with secular associations would be allowed. The choir would sing from the loft. The psalmist and cantor would be modest, face the sides (not the congregation), and sing without a microphone. The Mass would follow its objective course. The overall impression would be holiness, serenity, and awe.
Sounds nice. I hope you have found what you are looking for.
Clearly we have different tastes (part of the point of me posting this). I hope you’ll keep reading anyway.
Adam
I have nothing kind to say about the Pope’s attempt to resurrect the dead Latin Mass. Tridentine is a tradition best left to gather dust in a museum. Liturgy, literally means: The work of the people…So Ratziger has no say in the matter, rather parishioners get to choose the manner in which they worship God. To me what your blog misses is the critical link between Worship, Music and Multimedia. After Pope Benedict dies, the Catholic Church will need to figure out how to incorporate computer art, internet, film, and electronic music into sacred worship. It cannot be put off. When the message of the gospel, modern music, dance, electronic media, and good sermons are brought together the result is a powerful religious experience.
Use of electronic media means one can fulfill the Great Commission as internet allows infinite expansion of a church without bricks and mortar. Recreating Baroque altar pieces with Puti, Frescos, and pompous displays of Gold, Linen, and incense ain’t gonna cut it in a space age society. The Tridentine Mass literally is the theater of the absurd…stagecraft without message. Relationship with God reduced to ritual, magic and superstition. Christ would be ashamed. Modern man’s religious expression needs to be contemporary.
Now, now, cloudsurfer…
First of all, I encourage you to tone down your vitriol. I don’t appreciate the R2 people saying my favorite David Haas songs are trite and meaningless. I equally don’t appreciate your desire to banish the traditional expressions of worship, still beloved and useful to millions around the world, to the dustbin of history.
Additionally, it is simply impolite to refer to Benedict XVI as “Ratzinger.” I sense that you are using his old name to invoke the distaste many liberal Catholics developed for the man during his tenure as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I shared that distaste, but I also have a strong distaste for those who cannot contain themselves to civility and courtesy. He is properly “Benedict” (or one of his many current titles), not “Ratzinger.”
As to the actual content of your comment…
Liturgy is the public work of the church. That is, it belongs to all of us. It does not belong, then, to us individually, or to a particular parish, for us to do with as we will. Whatever my disagreements with him, the Pope certainly has much to say about this as shepherd of the people. To suggest otherwise is absurd, or simply Protestant. (Protestant is fine, but then why bother bringing it up?)
Beyond that, I don’t take any of what the Vatican or this Pope specifically has said to be contrary to a sensible approach to modern expressions of worship. The traditionalists are constantly exegeting the Pope’s statements, as well as the V2 docs, in a way that supports their particular efforts to “Reform the Reform,” but that is not the only possible way to understand the official church teaching. Clearly, the Bishops of the United States have elaborated at least one alternative understanding- which the Vatican has not condemned nor redacted.
I’m not sure what to make of your desires within worship. The internet helps spread information, but we cannot conduct worship online, so the liturgical reach of a parish will always be limited by the physics of the real world. Multi-media and film have been attempted in worship settings over and over for the last 50 years, usually with dismal and tacky results.
The Liturgy, like Christ, is both fully human (the work of us people) and fully divine (the work of God). Artificiality (projected images, pre-recorded music) strips the liturgy of its humanity. Tackiness strips it of its divinity.
I have feelings similar to yours with respect to a general preference away from “Baroque altar pieces with Puti, Frescos, and pompous displays of Gold.” (I like linen and incense…). But I think you’ve missed the boat here, too. If you are claiming that liturgy should respond to your particular needs, and be expressed in a visual and aural (and olfactory) language that will reach you- How can you possibly suggest that others (the traditionalists) not be afforded the same right?
The Tridentine Mass (or any other religious manifestation) is not “the theatre of the absurd.” Absurd theatre was an attempt to show the inherent meaningless of creation. The liturgy of the Church (in its present and past forms) is intended to express the most profound meaning of the universe.
Your equating of traditional liturgy with magic and superstition sounds… Protestant. I have nothing against Protestantism, but if you are Protestant I don’t understand the point in commenting about the Catholic liturgy on a Catholic blog. That’s like a Canadian being upset that the US didn’t follow the Canadian constitution when enacting a new law.
Finally- and in all seriousness:
I can’t fathom why you would be so vehement against outward forms of worship being antiquated, when you yourself refer to humanity using the sexist and outmoded moniker “man.” That’s hardly contemporary of you.
I’m with Pes. Extraordinary Form (Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis) or Ordinary Form with the Ordinary in Latin, chanted, and on some occasions, done in wonderful polyphony of any century as long as it is reverent. Or even Ordinary Form in the new translations, always the Roman Canon. Say the black, do the red. Accompanied by organ or harpsichord, or combinations of strings and winds, or classical guitar, and very rarely, piano; often unaccompanied, and mix it up between accompaniments in the same Mass/in the same piece. Never: drumbeats (an occasional tympani and melodic percussion are totally acceptable); dancing; ad-libbing.
Patricia:
You’re already aware of where my preferences diverge from yours, so I’ll just point out how much I agree with: NO dancing. NO ad libbing.
Thanks for your comment!