[543] INTRODUCTION
A musician called to offer the fruits of his talents to the service of God, either as a composer, as a choirmaster, or as an organist, in a Catholic Church should conform to the regulations established by the Catholic Church. Such rules, prescriptions, or regulations, are definite and precise.
In the old Law (Deut. XXVIII, 15) is the command of God saying: ". . . .if thou will not hear the voice of the Lord, thy God, to keep and to do all His commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, cursed in the field. Cursed shall be thy barn, and cursed thy stores, etc."
And down, in more recent ages, we find Pius V, who orders us: ". . . .decantetur aut recitetur Missa juxta ritum, modum et norman quae per Missale traditur" ("The Mass shall be sung or said according to the rite, the way and the rule laid down in the Missal").
There are many other regulations, or ecclesiastical orders, to prove that no one has any right to presume the possibility of disregarding, with impunity, any regulation of which Our Mother the Church is a very jealous custodian. As soon as we know and feel truly convinced that the Church is the House of God, and we go there ONLY to pray and to worship our Creator and our Redeemer, we easily come to the natural conclusion that everything should be in accordance with the first aim and intention.
In the Introduction to the Motu Proprio, we read: "Nothing therefore ought to occur in tne Temple, which disturbs, or even merely diminishes, the piety and devotion of the Faithful. . . .and, above all, nothing which offends against the decorum and sanctity of the sacred offices, and which appears unworthy of the House of prayer and the Majesty of God."
Consequently all the ceremonies and the singing and playing is to be done in the way that the Church prescribes, abhorring everything that would be even a smallest profanation of that very House of God.
The Duties of The Organist At A Low Mass
In almost all the Catholic Churches in this Country, the organist is also the Choirmaster (or director of the Choir); therefore what is said here of the one, is understood also for the other. A person who occupies a place of responsibility in society must know the duties of his state.
A priest, a doctor, a lawyer, a justice or any magistrate etc. has to know the duties of his particular position. "Whoever asserts that the accepted and approved Rites of the Catholic Church can be ignored or omitted at pleasure, or changed by any Pastor of the Church, let him be an anathema." (Councel [sic] of Trent, 7th S. Can. 13). Consequently, as the Catholic organist occupies a very important place in the service of the House of God he has a duty to learn and to know and to practice [emphasis original] what concerns him, according to his position. He must learn "how to appreciate and love our holy Liturgy". The organist, besides knowing HOW to play well his instrument, must also know especially WHEN to play it; and here the writer will try to help him, by consulting together the three most important official Sources of the Latin Liturgy, namely the Coeremoniale Episcoporum (Ceremonial of the Bishops), the Council of Trent, and the precious Motu proprio of Pius X. It would be well that every Catholic organist and choirmaster should have and peruse the above mentioned Motu proprio, to which that holy Pope commanded that "the force of Law be given", and to the same He imposed a "scrupulous observance on all". And now, let us see at last when the organ may be played at a low Mass.
We may say that in general, it is allowed, or optional, to play the organ at every extraliturgical [sic] service, an organist may start to play a few minutes before the Celebrant goes [544] to the altar for a low Mass*; on all Sundays and Festivals on which the people abstain from servile work; except the Sundays of Advent and Lent; among these are not included the Sundays of Advent and Lent, except the Sunday Gaudette [sic] and Laetare, i.e. the 3rd Sunday of Advent and the 4th of Lent". We may add that the organ, without singing, may play on the Feasts and Ferias in Advent and Lent which are celebrated solemnly by the Church: it is also understood that the organ (without singing) is not allowed in the Masses of the Dead. We said it is optional to play the organ during all the time of a low Mass, loud or soft; in fact if the Ceremonial of the Bishops says that "ad elevationem Sanctissimi Sacramenti pulsatur organum graviori et dulciori sono, during the elevation the organ plays in a grave and sweet way" (XXVIII, 9), it is clear enough that it can play also during the rest of the time of the Mass; but an organist who understands (as he ought to) the various parts of Holy Mass, knows HOW and WHEN to play loud, or soft, or moderately; and, to give an idea, he can play a little louder before the Mass, during the reading of the Gospel, and after the Mass, continuing (if he likes) until a few minutes after the Celebrant has gone to the Sacristy. But let me end this Chapter with the quotation of some good words of Fr. J. Kelly: "As people attend Mass to praise God in supreme act of worship, the position of the organist being a sacred one he should contribute to this praise by such music as will assist the people in their devotions; the possession of technical ability does not imply the possession of skill in playing a Catholic liturgical service." And much more forcible are these words of the Caerem. Ep.: "Cavendum est ne sonus organi sit lascivus aut impurus" (XXVIII, 11), ("Endeavor that the playing of the organ be not lascivious or obscene".) Consequently not all the piano or concert-music is good for the organ, in Church services.
As far as here, the above rules concern only low Mass, when there is no singing at all. Now let us see what the organist (or choirmaster) has to know and to do at the low Mass, when there is singing.
(To be continued.)
---
Footnotes:
* This can be done "in omnibus Dominicis et omnibus festis per annum occurrentibus, in quibus populi a servilibus operibus abstinere solent. Inter eas non connumeratur Dominicae Adventus et Quadragesimae except a Dominica tertia Adventus quae dicitur Gaudete in Domino et quarta Quadragesimae, quae dicitur Laetare, Jerusalem, et nisi celebratur pro Defunctis" (Caerem. Episc. XXVIII. 1-2).
Source: Giuseppe Villani, "'How, When and What to Play': A Guide for Catholic Organists," The Caecilia 60, no. 11 (Dec. 1934): 543–544.
Showing posts with label Pius X. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pius X. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Dom Antoine Bonnet, The Motu Proprio and Organ Music (1954)
The French Revue of the Association des Amis de l'Orgue has recently published a very instructive inquiry on the liturgical role of the organist (cf. L'Orgue, quarterly review, No. 61 and following). One of our better organists, having been questioned by M. Pierre Denis on the conception he held regarding the organ in the Church, answered with his usual frankness and did not hesitate to take, when faced with the problem of the church organ and its relationship with the Liturgy, a very firm position. (cf. L'Orgue, No. 58-59, p. 5-7) "The organ," says he, "will always have a tendency to encumber the liturgy, and when a high mass is sung, it should do nothing more than extend the plainchant with improvisations." Or again, "Let us not forget that the mass is before all else a participation of the congregation in prayer. The organ can do nothing more than distract them to a certain extent in making its own voice heard." (This in regard to eleven o'clock masses).
That an organist as well armed, technically speaking, as Gaston Litaize should speak with this clearness is very significant to start with. What is not less revealing, however, is the number of reactions which this declaration of principles has provoked. Let us admit that certain practical solutions proposed by the organist of St. Francois Xavier church can be open to discussion, such as that, for example, of the concert placed on Sunday between two masses "when the organist could dispense his virtuosity at leisure . . . " Finally, "to clearly forbid the principle itself of eleven o'clock [32] masses" is to affirm a truth which is basically incontestable, but at the same time to disrupt without discretion established habits and provoke inevitable backwaters. Thus it is that in the various answers given to date to the questions raised by the Bulletin des Amis de l'Orgue there is a sort of astonishment manifested, and sometimes even emotion. In any case, no other organist has dared to compromise himself on this point and renounce with such cheerfulness the romantic conceptions of the organ in church. Under diverse forms and proposing accommodations more or less varied in nature, all of them expect to keep the positions gained and to defend the rights of the king of instruments which are supposedly threatened. There is a touching attachment here, to a great extent explicable, considering how full of temptations and dangers the role demanded of the church organist is.
Just think, in fact, of the more or less conscious reactions which take hold of the organist when he seats himself at the console of his organ. From the height of the organ-loft he dominates the assembly of the faithful, and he knows that not only will he be heard by this multitude, but that he alone will have the duty of discoursing with it. Now for that he has in his power an instrument unique in its type which is in itself a universe of sound, endowed with numerous voices, various levels, and countless combinations, running from the most tenuous softness to sovereign power. Why should we be surprised if sometimes the organist loses his sense of the proper limits and is tempted to obey the demon inside him which whispers, "If you bow before me, all this is yours"? We cannot, however, escape the trend of events. It is a fact that in the course of history the organ has owed its development to the decadence of the Liturgy and the steady loss of its primitive traditions. For good logic on authentic restoration of the liturgical Regulations entails a more and more effective participation of all the faithful present in the acts of the Cult, and by way of consequence, a re-casting of the role the organ is called on to fill in the course of the ceremonies.
Is all this really so new, though? To appease our uneasiness and dissipate our doubts, is it not sufficient to read [33] over with attention the Motu Proprio of Blessed Pope Pius X? This document has existed for fifty years, and yet, far from having aged, it appears more up-to-date and fitting than ever in its decisions. The principles which the Holy Father formulates in it are precepts in edict "the fullness of Apostolic Power" and which as such have the force of law. Moreover, however, based on the reality of affairs itself and a profound experience in the exigencies of the Divine Cult, they answer our questions fully and show us with directness the road to follow.
The organ, it can be objected, occupies very little space in this "Code of Law of Sacred Music." This is true, but from this laconicism itself there arises for us an eloquent teaching on the exact place which the Church feels it should give the organ in the course of the Offices. In the Motu Proprio, in fact, the hierarchy among the diverse types of Sacred Music is admirably outlined: 1. Primacy and excellence of Gregorian Chant which is the chant proper to the Roman Church, and in which, as in a supreme model, are found the essential qualities of Sacred Music. — 2. Praise is given to Classic Polyphony and to more recent vocal works, provided that, through their qualities, they are brought closer in style to Gregorian Chant. — 3. Finally, but only in the sixth chapter, the organ is mentioned while emphasizing that the proper music of the Church being purely vocal, it is only in the manner of a permission that music with organ accompaniment can be performed, without, however, covering up the singing, preceding it with preludes or interrupting it with disproportionate interludes.
No doubt these are rather severe conditions, but are they not, when we really think about them, sound wisdom and judgment? The organist who accepts them with an open heart cannot but recognize their sound basis and accept, without sterile regrets, the place which is assigned to him in the whole scheme according to just proportions. And let it be said in passing, how can we explain after such clear directives the habits which are still spread throughout too many parishes, as, for example, the custom of putting in a piece of [34] bravura at the offertory which has no relationship at all with the act which is being accomplished at the altar, and which, under the pretext of "enhancing the ceremony" often obliges the celebrant to wait; or what is more, that of introducing during the Magnificat verses of a quality and brilliance which could still excite the spirit of a Huysmans? (Look over the description of Vespers at St. Sulpice in En Route.)
While the Motu Proprio gives us first of all a lesson in modesty, it does not mean, for all that, to paralyse [sic] the organist in the practice of his art, but, rather, encourage himself to surpass himself, to give up his personal views and renounce facile effects in order to make his playing conform to all the qualities which true sacred music should possess, and find in the difficulties of the service he is asked to give the principle of continually new progress. Erik Satie, speaking one day of "the spirit of music," asserted that "the practice of an art leads us to live in the most absolute renouncement." (P. D. Templier, Erik Satie, 1932, p. 61). Every "servant of music" has this experience, and it is certain that the "abnegation, the sacrifice of oneself, courage and patience" are indispensable virtues to the organist who is conscious of the role which the Church has confided to him in the course of the liturgical Offices. The goal to be attained is so noble that it justifies such requirements, and the organist can believe himself to be lessened in the importance if at the cost of this loyally observed discipline he lifts himself little by little up to that sanctity, that goodness of forms and that universality which, uniting him to the qualities of the liturgy itself, will leave their imprint on his art and render him capable of realizing in his way the very purpose of the whole Cult, the glory of God alone and the spiritual profit of the faithful.
One of the most disputed points of the inquiry to which we alluded at the beginning was that of improvisation. For a Gaston Litaize or an Andre Fleury the question does not seem to raise any difficulties: "Nothing can equal," declared the latter, "a plainchant mass in which the faithful perform the Gregorian melodies, the organ paraphrasing these latter [35] in a sort of direct resonance." (cf. L'Orgue, October-December 1948). This is the point of view of the organists who possess all the elements necessary to make a complete musician, but such a convergence remains exceptional, and even for the most gifted, this spontaneous musical commentary on all the pieces of an Office is a formidable test because of its frequence and its continuity. This is not to mention the immense distances which separate our musical sense from the esthetic proper to the remote composers of the Gregorian melodies. It is not without a long apprenticeship and ceaselessly renewed efforts that a musician of the twentieth century will be able to make his improvisations conform "to the rhythm and the internal structure" of Gregorian melody.
Very few organists are thus capable of improvising in a worthy manner during the liturgical offices. For all the others, the Motu Proprio furnishes the elements of a solution, if not perfect, at least satisfactory. In chapter II, in fact, the exposition of the types of Sacred Music leads us to think that there also exists for the organ a vast repertoire of "classic polyphony" which possesses, keeping all the proportions, the qualities which the Pope recognized in vocal polyphony. No doubt most of these pieces cannot be played at the moments in the Office for which they were written: Verses for the Kyrie eleison, for the Gloria in excelsis, for the Hymns and the Magnificat, etc., but the perfection, the seriousness and the gravity of their style makes them worthy to be inserted in the structure of the liturgical offices.
All of which presupposes long research and a choice which is not without difficulties. There again we find light and guidance in a capital phrase of the Motu Proprio: "A composition destined for the Church is that much more sacred and (to the extent) liturgical as by its movement, inspiration and savor, it more closely approaches Gregorian melodies; and, on the contrary, it is that much less worthy of the Temple to the extent that it diverges from this supreme model." This rule has often been remembered, but has often received a litteral [sic] and sterile interpretation. It is not sufficient that a piece be written on a plainchant theme or in one [36] of the "tones" of Gregorian chant for it to automatically take on a religious and liturgical value. It is with special design that the terms of our text have been chosen to make us understand that a servile imitation of Gregorian melody could not possibly be recommended, and that it could only be a question of coming to a more or less happy approximation of the supreme model through an ensemble of delicate and subtle qualities which alone permit us to decide the degree of relationship and correspondence between the piece being studied and liturgical chant.
The Motu Proprio gives us yet one further piece of advice on which we should insist, so well does it seem to us to answer the difficulties which press on us. In chapter VI, in fact, the Pope states clearly that not only must the organ playing contain all the qualities of true Sacred Music, but that it must be proportioned according to the proper nature of the instrument.
For twenty-five years, at least, an admirable effort has been brought to the manufacture to effect a more and more faithful restoration of the organ according to the glorious tradition which has little by little endowed this great instrument with an ensemble of qualities which confer on it a very special right to take a place in the House of God and to discourse with the choir of voices. Brought to the height of its development and enriched with recent technical perfections (adjustable combinations, etc.) such an instrument offers the organist innumerable possibilities, and this, then, is why it is more than ever opportune to call to his attention that they could in no way be exploited without a profound knowledge of the "proper nature" of the instrument and the elements of which it is composed, without an exact discernment of their extent and limit. The organ does not sound like an orchestra. The relative slowness of the opening of its pipes forbids it too rapid a movement, and certain harmonic audacities which easily get by when they are given to different instruments become unbearable on the organ when all the notes speak with the same force and are enriched by the sparkling brightness of the mixtures.
[37] We must, however, come to the end of these few reflections. They come far from exhausting the admirable concentration of the Pontifical Document. Let us hope at least that they have let us sense its permanent timeliness. What the Church expects of the organist is as though summarized in the celebrated and so often quoted proposition: I desire that my people should pray on Beauty. Servant of Music, and in that way so much more necessary for himself that his work should contribute to the beauty and dignity of the divine office, the organist should at the same time be a man of prayer,—for in order to lead others to prayer, one must first pray oneself—. Let him know how to give his art and his prayer to the texts and chants which fill the liturgical Offices, and he will discover the true means of touching souls and aiding them to raise their prayers to God, Principle and End of all Harmony and of all Perfection.
---
Source: Dom Antoine Bonnet, "The Motu Proprio and Organ Music," The Gregorian Review 1, no. 3 (May-June 1954): 31–37.
That an organist as well armed, technically speaking, as Gaston Litaize should speak with this clearness is very significant to start with. What is not less revealing, however, is the number of reactions which this declaration of principles has provoked. Let us admit that certain practical solutions proposed by the organist of St. Francois Xavier church can be open to discussion, such as that, for example, of the concert placed on Sunday between two masses "when the organist could dispense his virtuosity at leisure . . . " Finally, "to clearly forbid the principle itself of eleven o'clock [32] masses" is to affirm a truth which is basically incontestable, but at the same time to disrupt without discretion established habits and provoke inevitable backwaters. Thus it is that in the various answers given to date to the questions raised by the Bulletin des Amis de l'Orgue there is a sort of astonishment manifested, and sometimes even emotion. In any case, no other organist has dared to compromise himself on this point and renounce with such cheerfulness the romantic conceptions of the organ in church. Under diverse forms and proposing accommodations more or less varied in nature, all of them expect to keep the positions gained and to defend the rights of the king of instruments which are supposedly threatened. There is a touching attachment here, to a great extent explicable, considering how full of temptations and dangers the role demanded of the church organist is.
Just think, in fact, of the more or less conscious reactions which take hold of the organist when he seats himself at the console of his organ. From the height of the organ-loft he dominates the assembly of the faithful, and he knows that not only will he be heard by this multitude, but that he alone will have the duty of discoursing with it. Now for that he has in his power an instrument unique in its type which is in itself a universe of sound, endowed with numerous voices, various levels, and countless combinations, running from the most tenuous softness to sovereign power. Why should we be surprised if sometimes the organist loses his sense of the proper limits and is tempted to obey the demon inside him which whispers, "If you bow before me, all this is yours"? We cannot, however, escape the trend of events. It is a fact that in the course of history the organ has owed its development to the decadence of the Liturgy and the steady loss of its primitive traditions. For good logic on authentic restoration of the liturgical Regulations entails a more and more effective participation of all the faithful present in the acts of the Cult, and by way of consequence, a re-casting of the role the organ is called on to fill in the course of the ceremonies.
Is all this really so new, though? To appease our uneasiness and dissipate our doubts, is it not sufficient to read [33] over with attention the Motu Proprio of Blessed Pope Pius X? This document has existed for fifty years, and yet, far from having aged, it appears more up-to-date and fitting than ever in its decisions. The principles which the Holy Father formulates in it are precepts in edict "the fullness of Apostolic Power" and which as such have the force of law. Moreover, however, based on the reality of affairs itself and a profound experience in the exigencies of the Divine Cult, they answer our questions fully and show us with directness the road to follow.
The organ, it can be objected, occupies very little space in this "Code of Law of Sacred Music." This is true, but from this laconicism itself there arises for us an eloquent teaching on the exact place which the Church feels it should give the organ in the course of the Offices. In the Motu Proprio, in fact, the hierarchy among the diverse types of Sacred Music is admirably outlined: 1. Primacy and excellence of Gregorian Chant which is the chant proper to the Roman Church, and in which, as in a supreme model, are found the essential qualities of Sacred Music. — 2. Praise is given to Classic Polyphony and to more recent vocal works, provided that, through their qualities, they are brought closer in style to Gregorian Chant. — 3. Finally, but only in the sixth chapter, the organ is mentioned while emphasizing that the proper music of the Church being purely vocal, it is only in the manner of a permission that music with organ accompaniment can be performed, without, however, covering up the singing, preceding it with preludes or interrupting it with disproportionate interludes.
No doubt these are rather severe conditions, but are they not, when we really think about them, sound wisdom and judgment? The organist who accepts them with an open heart cannot but recognize their sound basis and accept, without sterile regrets, the place which is assigned to him in the whole scheme according to just proportions. And let it be said in passing, how can we explain after such clear directives the habits which are still spread throughout too many parishes, as, for example, the custom of putting in a piece of [34] bravura at the offertory which has no relationship at all with the act which is being accomplished at the altar, and which, under the pretext of "enhancing the ceremony" often obliges the celebrant to wait; or what is more, that of introducing during the Magnificat verses of a quality and brilliance which could still excite the spirit of a Huysmans? (Look over the description of Vespers at St. Sulpice in En Route.)
While the Motu Proprio gives us first of all a lesson in modesty, it does not mean, for all that, to paralyse [sic] the organist in the practice of his art, but, rather, encourage himself to surpass himself, to give up his personal views and renounce facile effects in order to make his playing conform to all the qualities which true sacred music should possess, and find in the difficulties of the service he is asked to give the principle of continually new progress. Erik Satie, speaking one day of "the spirit of music," asserted that "the practice of an art leads us to live in the most absolute renouncement." (P. D. Templier, Erik Satie, 1932, p. 61). Every "servant of music" has this experience, and it is certain that the "abnegation, the sacrifice of oneself, courage and patience" are indispensable virtues to the organist who is conscious of the role which the Church has confided to him in the course of the liturgical Offices. The goal to be attained is so noble that it justifies such requirements, and the organist can believe himself to be lessened in the importance if at the cost of this loyally observed discipline he lifts himself little by little up to that sanctity, that goodness of forms and that universality which, uniting him to the qualities of the liturgy itself, will leave their imprint on his art and render him capable of realizing in his way the very purpose of the whole Cult, the glory of God alone and the spiritual profit of the faithful.
One of the most disputed points of the inquiry to which we alluded at the beginning was that of improvisation. For a Gaston Litaize or an Andre Fleury the question does not seem to raise any difficulties: "Nothing can equal," declared the latter, "a plainchant mass in which the faithful perform the Gregorian melodies, the organ paraphrasing these latter [35] in a sort of direct resonance." (cf. L'Orgue, October-December 1948). This is the point of view of the organists who possess all the elements necessary to make a complete musician, but such a convergence remains exceptional, and even for the most gifted, this spontaneous musical commentary on all the pieces of an Office is a formidable test because of its frequence and its continuity. This is not to mention the immense distances which separate our musical sense from the esthetic proper to the remote composers of the Gregorian melodies. It is not without a long apprenticeship and ceaselessly renewed efforts that a musician of the twentieth century will be able to make his improvisations conform "to the rhythm and the internal structure" of Gregorian melody.
Very few organists are thus capable of improvising in a worthy manner during the liturgical offices. For all the others, the Motu Proprio furnishes the elements of a solution, if not perfect, at least satisfactory. In chapter II, in fact, the exposition of the types of Sacred Music leads us to think that there also exists for the organ a vast repertoire of "classic polyphony" which possesses, keeping all the proportions, the qualities which the Pope recognized in vocal polyphony. No doubt most of these pieces cannot be played at the moments in the Office for which they were written: Verses for the Kyrie eleison, for the Gloria in excelsis, for the Hymns and the Magnificat, etc., but the perfection, the seriousness and the gravity of their style makes them worthy to be inserted in the structure of the liturgical offices.
All of which presupposes long research and a choice which is not without difficulties. There again we find light and guidance in a capital phrase of the Motu Proprio: "A composition destined for the Church is that much more sacred and (to the extent) liturgical as by its movement, inspiration and savor, it more closely approaches Gregorian melodies; and, on the contrary, it is that much less worthy of the Temple to the extent that it diverges from this supreme model." This rule has often been remembered, but has often received a litteral [sic] and sterile interpretation. It is not sufficient that a piece be written on a plainchant theme or in one [36] of the "tones" of Gregorian chant for it to automatically take on a religious and liturgical value. It is with special design that the terms of our text have been chosen to make us understand that a servile imitation of Gregorian melody could not possibly be recommended, and that it could only be a question of coming to a more or less happy approximation of the supreme model through an ensemble of delicate and subtle qualities which alone permit us to decide the degree of relationship and correspondence between the piece being studied and liturgical chant.
The Motu Proprio gives us yet one further piece of advice on which we should insist, so well does it seem to us to answer the difficulties which press on us. In chapter VI, in fact, the Pope states clearly that not only must the organ playing contain all the qualities of true Sacred Music, but that it must be proportioned according to the proper nature of the instrument.
For twenty-five years, at least, an admirable effort has been brought to the manufacture to effect a more and more faithful restoration of the organ according to the glorious tradition which has little by little endowed this great instrument with an ensemble of qualities which confer on it a very special right to take a place in the House of God and to discourse with the choir of voices. Brought to the height of its development and enriched with recent technical perfections (adjustable combinations, etc.) such an instrument offers the organist innumerable possibilities, and this, then, is why it is more than ever opportune to call to his attention that they could in no way be exploited without a profound knowledge of the "proper nature" of the instrument and the elements of which it is composed, without an exact discernment of their extent and limit. The organ does not sound like an orchestra. The relative slowness of the opening of its pipes forbids it too rapid a movement, and certain harmonic audacities which easily get by when they are given to different instruments become unbearable on the organ when all the notes speak with the same force and are enriched by the sparkling brightness of the mixtures.
[37] We must, however, come to the end of these few reflections. They come far from exhausting the admirable concentration of the Pontifical Document. Let us hope at least that they have let us sense its permanent timeliness. What the Church expects of the organist is as though summarized in the celebrated and so often quoted proposition: I desire that my people should pray on Beauty. Servant of Music, and in that way so much more necessary for himself that his work should contribute to the beauty and dignity of the divine office, the organist should at the same time be a man of prayer,—for in order to lead others to prayer, one must first pray oneself—. Let him know how to give his art and his prayer to the texts and chants which fill the liturgical Offices, and he will discover the true means of touching souls and aiding them to raise their prayers to God, Principle and End of all Harmony and of all Perfection.
---
Source: Dom Antoine Bonnet, "The Motu Proprio and Organ Music," The Gregorian Review 1, no. 3 (May-June 1954): 31–37.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Repost: Communicatio in Sacris
[212] Qu. A Catholic young lady is employed by a concert bureau. Most of the engagements are for music halls or theatres [sic], but the bureau has accepted some engagements for Chautauqua [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chautauqua] work during the coming summer. The young lady is booked for parts in a quartette, who are to sing at camp meetings. The program on some occasions is so arranged that the quartette will sing during the services. This lady is the only support of an invalid father and brothers and sisters. To give up her present work would mean hardships and privation. The young woman does not want to displease God. I would not like to advise anything that would entail suffering unless I am positively sure that such must be done. Kindly give your solution of the case.
Resp. Theologians are unanimously of the opinion that active, formal participation by Catholics in Protestant services is forbidden. On this point there is no room for discussion. Furthermore, it is positively forbidden to play the organ in a Protestant church during heretical services, even when that is the Catholic organist's means of obtaining a livelihood. For this statement we have the authority of an instruction of the S. Congregation of the Propaganda, dated 8 July, 1889 (Collectanea, n. 1854). It should, however, be noted that in the [213] decree the clause "dum ibi falsum cultum exercent" is restrictive. It would be allowed, of course, for a Catholic to practice on the organ in a Protestant church when no services are being held. Similarly, it may be urged with prudence and discretion, in particular cases, that some gatherings of non-Catholics for the sake of what they call moral culture, even when these take place regularly on Sundays, are not engaged in false religious worship in opposition to the Catholic Church. Indeed, the most severe condemnations of such gatherings is that they are not religious at all. This applies, we think, to many of the Chautauqua organizations. It applies particularly in the case propounded, when, as is evident, the young woman has no desire to do anything displeasing to God. Prudence and discretion require that Catholics be discouraged from associating themselves with any activity that may throw doubt on their loyalty to the true Church. They require also that in particular instances persons whose good faith and Catholic loyalty are beyond question should not be forbidden to carry out such a contract as is mentioned in this case.
---
Source: "Communicatio in Sacris," American Ecclesiastical Review 54 (February 1916): 212–213.
Resp. Theologians are unanimously of the opinion that active, formal participation by Catholics in Protestant services is forbidden. On this point there is no room for discussion. Furthermore, it is positively forbidden to play the organ in a Protestant church during heretical services, even when that is the Catholic organist's means of obtaining a livelihood. For this statement we have the authority of an instruction of the S. Congregation of the Propaganda, dated 8 July, 1889 (Collectanea, n. 1854). It should, however, be noted that in the [213] decree the clause "dum ibi falsum cultum exercent" is restrictive. It would be allowed, of course, for a Catholic to practice on the organ in a Protestant church when no services are being held. Similarly, it may be urged with prudence and discretion, in particular cases, that some gatherings of non-Catholics for the sake of what they call moral culture, even when these take place regularly on Sundays, are not engaged in false religious worship in opposition to the Catholic Church. Indeed, the most severe condemnations of such gatherings is that they are not religious at all. This applies, we think, to many of the Chautauqua organizations. It applies particularly in the case propounded, when, as is evident, the young woman has no desire to do anything displeasing to God. Prudence and discretion require that Catholics be discouraged from associating themselves with any activity that may throw doubt on their loyalty to the true Church. They require also that in particular instances persons whose good faith and Catholic loyalty are beyond question should not be forbidden to carry out such a contract as is mentioned in this case.
---
Source: "Communicatio in Sacris," American Ecclesiastical Review 54 (February 1916): 212–213.
Repost: Catholic Singers in Protestant Churches
[524] Qu. Now that the Review is urging forward the correct interpretation of the Pope's motu proprio on Chant and the music reform, our city pastors are threatening to get the bishops into trouble by referring the indignant lady soloists hitherto in possession of the lofty organ domain, to the episcopal parlors for adjudication of their grievances. It is needless to say that explanations are out of the question, but soothings are not, and a bishop who knows his business will not fan the flame of female resentment.
But there is a serious aspect to this question. Some of our singers who have been doing their duty, and have justly earned a salary, even as the priest himself does in the exercise of the sacred functions, are being deprived of a living by being dismissed from the Catholic choir. Some of these could readily find the needed material compensation and more in accepting positions as singers in non-Catholic, that is, Protestant or Jewish churches. In a few cases no other way of earning a decent livelihood would seem to be open to such women, who for the rest are good and believing Catholics. Is there any interpretation of the prohibition of communicatio in sacris which gives these really worthy women a chance for their living? It seems to me that Protestant religious service is in large measure nothing more than a sacred concert, and no theologian would object to our Catholic lovers of music attending sacred concerts in which Protestants take a leading part, since we live in constant intercourse with such; and Catholic charity owes them undoubtedly a certain amount of respect for holding their views on religious matters in good faith, though perhaps not in a very serious way. Are we not too severe in these matters? I felt as if it were so when not long ago a lady said to me, "Priests don't realize our position; they need not look for a living, and so it is easy for them to make laws."
Resp. The Review has had occasion to express an opinion on the above subject before the present supposed urgency arose by which ladies who have been singing professionally in Catholic choirs are thrown out of positions. The question is not whether we make hard laws, but whether the laws which God made may be explained away by our circumstances and needs. Necessity dispenses from the law, but not every inconvenience or hardship implies a necessity, and no inconvenience or hardship could sanction [525] an act of disobedience implying sin. The priests in France who are deprived of their salary and in some cases of a decent support or living might do many things unbecoming their sacred calling, but they could not lawfully go into Protestant or Jewish houses of worship and take part in the same under plea of earning a living.
For the rest, we have only to repeat here what we said in a previous number of the Review upon this subject.[1]
Whilst as Catholics we are not forbidden honorably to assist Protestants, Jews or Pagans when they stand in need of our service, nor to earn our daily bread by serving them in honest employment—the positive divine law forbids all conscious and direct participation in heretical worship. This is done by playing the organ or singing in the religious service of those who deny the revealed truth of Christ as manifested through its only legitimate channel, the Catholic Church. In case of most sects the very term "Protestant," accepted by them as their religious party-name, is an unconscious admission of their denial of the Catholic teaching as emanating from God. Individual Protestants may not realize this fact; they may be, as we say, "in good faith;" [sic] nevertheless they have attached themselves to a wrong or defective system of interpreting the truth in which God commands us to worship Him. Catholics who are supposed to know and realize the fact that they are in possession of the true faith, cannot consent under any pretext to participate in such false worship without denying implicitly the faith which they are pledged to maintain uncorrupted at the risk of their lives.
What is said here of Protestants is true of Jews and of all other sects separated from the one true Church which, like an open book, is accessible to all who will approach and examine her teaching without malice or prejudice.
What the Catholic believes on this subject to-day is precisely the same as that which the early Christians believed when they shed their blood as martyrs rather than worship in the pagan faith; or which the Jews believed before the coming of Christ, as is witnessed by Eleazar and the Maccabees, who preferred to suffer torture and death sooner than participate in a religious worship [526] which they knew to be false, although there may have been men who belonged to it in good faith.
If there could be any doubt as to the duty of Catholics in this respect, it would be dispelled by the following declaration of the sacred tribunal which acts as the ordinary legitimate interpreter of Catholic disciplinary law. (Cf. Collectan., n. 1854.)
Nor is every gathering of non-Catholics for purposes of moral culture, on Sundays, a religious worship in the sense that it excludes or opposes the Catholic teaching of Christ's church.
This [sic] it may be useful for confessors to remember, not because Catholics are in any way to be encouraged to associate themselves with any movement which will cast a doubt upon their thorough and sincere fidelity to the one true Church of Christ, but because circumstances may bring a Catholic unwittingly into associations which look like a denial of faith without being such in reality. In these cases prudence and discretion will counsel and lead a person out of the danger, where blind and mechanical zeal would forthwith condemn absolution under morally unchangeable conditions.
---
Footnotes:
1. Vol. XV, 1896, pp. 428–430.
---
Source: "Catholic Singers in Protestant Churches," American Ecclesiastical Review 33 (November 1905): 524–526.
But there is a serious aspect to this question. Some of our singers who have been doing their duty, and have justly earned a salary, even as the priest himself does in the exercise of the sacred functions, are being deprived of a living by being dismissed from the Catholic choir. Some of these could readily find the needed material compensation and more in accepting positions as singers in non-Catholic, that is, Protestant or Jewish churches. In a few cases no other way of earning a decent livelihood would seem to be open to such women, who for the rest are good and believing Catholics. Is there any interpretation of the prohibition of communicatio in sacris which gives these really worthy women a chance for their living? It seems to me that Protestant religious service is in large measure nothing more than a sacred concert, and no theologian would object to our Catholic lovers of music attending sacred concerts in which Protestants take a leading part, since we live in constant intercourse with such; and Catholic charity owes them undoubtedly a certain amount of respect for holding their views on religious matters in good faith, though perhaps not in a very serious way. Are we not too severe in these matters? I felt as if it were so when not long ago a lady said to me, "Priests don't realize our position; they need not look for a living, and so it is easy for them to make laws."
Resp. The Review has had occasion to express an opinion on the above subject before the present supposed urgency arose by which ladies who have been singing professionally in Catholic choirs are thrown out of positions. The question is not whether we make hard laws, but whether the laws which God made may be explained away by our circumstances and needs. Necessity dispenses from the law, but not every inconvenience or hardship implies a necessity, and no inconvenience or hardship could sanction [525] an act of disobedience implying sin. The priests in France who are deprived of their salary and in some cases of a decent support or living might do many things unbecoming their sacred calling, but they could not lawfully go into Protestant or Jewish houses of worship and take part in the same under plea of earning a living.
For the rest, we have only to repeat here what we said in a previous number of the Review upon this subject.[1]
Whilst as Catholics we are not forbidden honorably to assist Protestants, Jews or Pagans when they stand in need of our service, nor to earn our daily bread by serving them in honest employment—the positive divine law forbids all conscious and direct participation in heretical worship. This is done by playing the organ or singing in the religious service of those who deny the revealed truth of Christ as manifested through its only legitimate channel, the Catholic Church. In case of most sects the very term "Protestant," accepted by them as their religious party-name, is an unconscious admission of their denial of the Catholic teaching as emanating from God. Individual Protestants may not realize this fact; they may be, as we say, "in good faith;" [sic] nevertheless they have attached themselves to a wrong or defective system of interpreting the truth in which God commands us to worship Him. Catholics who are supposed to know and realize the fact that they are in possession of the true faith, cannot consent under any pretext to participate in such false worship without denying implicitly the faith which they are pledged to maintain uncorrupted at the risk of their lives.
What is said here of Protestants is true of Jews and of all other sects separated from the one true Church which, like an open book, is accessible to all who will approach and examine her teaching without malice or prejudice.
What the Catholic believes on this subject to-day is precisely the same as that which the early Christians believed when they shed their blood as martyrs rather than worship in the pagan faith; or which the Jews believed before the coming of Christ, as is witnessed by Eleazar and the Maccabees, who preferred to suffer torture and death sooner than participate in a religious worship [526] which they knew to be false, although there may have been men who belonged to it in good faith.
If there could be any doubt as to the duty of Catholics in this respect, it would be dispelled by the following declaration of the sacred tribunal which acts as the ordinary legitimate interpreter of Catholic disciplinary law. (Cf. Collectan., n. 1854.)
Ex Litt. S. C. de Prop. Fide 8 Jul. 1889, (ad Archiep. Marianopolit.)It must not be forgotten, however, that playing or singing in churches or houses which are used for Protestant worship is not quite the same as playing or singing at Protestant worship. [N.B. This is the part of the reason that early American Catholics could share the same church building with Protestants, having Mass at one time, and the Protestant service at a different time.]
"Quidam . . . istius archi-dioecensis petierat facultatem pulsandi in diebus festis organa in templis protestantium ad victum sibi procurandum. S. Congregatio super precibus, uti supra, hoc edidit decretum Fer IV. die 19 elapsi Junii:
Illicitum esse in templis haereticorum, cum ibi falsum cultum exercent, organum pulsare. . . . Quod decretum SS. D. N. Leo XIII eadem die ratum ha buit et confirmavit."
Nor is every gathering of non-Catholics for purposes of moral culture, on Sundays, a religious worship in the sense that it excludes or opposes the Catholic teaching of Christ's church.
This [sic] it may be useful for confessors to remember, not because Catholics are in any way to be encouraged to associate themselves with any movement which will cast a doubt upon their thorough and sincere fidelity to the one true Church of Christ, but because circumstances may bring a Catholic unwittingly into associations which look like a denial of faith without being such in reality. In these cases prudence and discretion will counsel and lead a person out of the danger, where blind and mechanical zeal would forthwith condemn absolution under morally unchangeable conditions.
---
Footnotes:
1. Vol. XV, 1896, pp. 428–430.
---
Source: "Catholic Singers in Protestant Churches," American Ecclesiastical Review 33 (November 1905): 524–526.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Repost: Catholic Morality and the Tango 2
From the New York Times, January 22, 1914:
TANGO SHAME OF OUR DAYS.
Patriarch of Venice Issues Energetic Denunciation of It.
VENICE, Jan. 21.—Cardinal Cavallari, the successor of the present Pope as Patriarch of Venice, has issued an episcopal letter which is the most energetic of all those so far published with reference to the tango, and acquires even greater importance, as it is reported to have been inspired by the Pontiff.
The letter condemns the tango in the strongest terms, referring to it as moral turpitude, and adding:
"It is everything that can be imagined. It is revolting and disgusting. Only those persons who have lost all moral sense can endure it. It is the shame of our days. Whoever persists in it commits a sin."
The Cardinal orders all ecclesiastics to deny absolution to those who, having danced the tango, do not promise to discontinue the practice.
---
Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Snap/A518-Tango_3.pdf
TANGO SHAME OF OUR DAYS.
Patriarch of Venice Issues Energetic Denunciation of It.
VENICE, Jan. 21.—Cardinal Cavallari, the successor of the present Pope as Patriarch of Venice, has issued an episcopal letter which is the most energetic of all those so far published with reference to the tango, and acquires even greater importance, as it is reported to have been inspired by the Pontiff.
The letter condemns the tango in the strongest terms, referring to it as moral turpitude, and adding:
"It is everything that can be imagined. It is revolting and disgusting. Only those persons who have lost all moral sense can endure it. It is the shame of our days. Whoever persists in it commits a sin."
The Cardinal orders all ecclesiastics to deny absolution to those who, having danced the tango, do not promise to discontinue the practice.
---
Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Snap/A518-Tango_3.pdf
Repost: Catholic Morality and the Tango 1
From the New York Times, January 16, 1914 (emphases mine):
POPE DENOUNCES THE 'NEW PAGANISM'
Cardinal Pompili on His Behalf Issues a Pastoral Letter Attacking Recent Developments.
GIVES WARNING TO PARENTS
Says the Tango and Certain Newspapers, Theatrical Performances, and Fashions Pervert Souls.
ROME, Jan. 15—Cardinal Basillo Pompili, Vicar General of Rome, representing the Pope, has issued a pastoral letter denouncing the tango and also certain newspapers, theatrical performances, and fashions, which, he declares, are perverting souls. The Cardinal says:
"The tango, which has already been condemned by the illustrious Bishops, and is prohibited even in Protestant countries, must be absolutely prohibited in the seat of the Roman Pontiff, the centre [sic] of the Catholic religion."
He urges the clergy courageously to raise their voices "in defending the sanctity of Christian usages against the dangers threatening and the overwhelming immorality of the new paganism."
He warns parents that if they do not protect their children from corruption they will be guilty before God of failure in their most sacret [sic] duties. [...]
---
Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Snap/A518-Tango_2.pdf
POPE DENOUNCES THE 'NEW PAGANISM'
Cardinal Pompili on His Behalf Issues a Pastoral Letter Attacking Recent Developments.
GIVES WARNING TO PARENTS
Says the Tango and Certain Newspapers, Theatrical Performances, and Fashions Pervert Souls.
ROME, Jan. 15—Cardinal Basillo Pompili, Vicar General of Rome, representing the Pope, has issued a pastoral letter denouncing the tango and also certain newspapers, theatrical performances, and fashions, which, he declares, are perverting souls. The Cardinal says:
"The tango, which has already been condemned by the illustrious Bishops, and is prohibited even in Protestant countries, must be absolutely prohibited in the seat of the Roman Pontiff, the centre [sic] of the Catholic religion."
He urges the clergy courageously to raise their voices "in defending the sanctity of Christian usages against the dangers threatening and the overwhelming immorality of the new paganism."
He warns parents that if they do not protect their children from corruption they will be guilty before God of failure in their most sacret [sic] duties. [...]
---
Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Snap/A518-Tango_2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)