Book Excerpt: What’s The Smoke For? Part Four

whatsthesmokeforPray Tell is pleased to share excerpts of Johan van Parys’ latest book, What’s the Smoke For: And Other Burning Questions About the Liturgy. In the book, published by the Liturgical Press, Johan answers questions from parishioners and other interested readers about Catholic liturgical practices. 

The next excerpt is related to Latin Vespers.

Dear Johan,

Why do you think our pastor allows for Latin Vespers to be sung? I thought we had gotten rid of all that in light of Vatican II. Is this yet another setback?

Gentle Reader-

Let’s not come to grandiose conclusions based on the initiative of one pastor. And just for the record, although in light of the Second Vatican Council the celebration of the liturgy happens ordinarily in the vernacular language, Gregorian chant is still considered the premier form of Catholic liturgical music.

Also it seems like Gregorian chant is more popular than ever. CDs of chanting monks and nuns have popped up everywhere. Concerts featuring Gregorian chant are rather fashionable. I have even noticed my church-hesitant friends succumbing to an occasional dabble in Gregorian chant, though they may not quite know what it is.

So, if indeed people respond positively to Gregorian chant, why would we not use it in the liturgy? Of course, this needs to be done with the greatest care and sensitivity to the liturgical competence and needs of individual parishes.

This is by no means a plea for a reform-of-the-reform or a return to pre–Vatican II situations. And it is surely not an argument in favor of the expansion of the use of the so-called Tridentine Mass. It simply is an affirmation of Gregorian chant as a valid and proven form of liturgical music that may spiritually move certain people in certain situations.

As the stewards of liturgical music, we ought to be open to all the voices of our rich tradition while we actively invite new expressions that speak of and to our own times. And herein lies the key—we ought to be open to both. Too often it is one or the other. Gregorian chant should not push out all other valid liturgical expressions and neither should Gregorian chant be pushed out. We are the richer for the presence of all.

So, in the spirit of ongoing aggiornamento I encourage you to be open-minded and participate in Gregorian Vespers someday. It may not be your thing, as it is not most people’s thing. However, it might give you a better understanding of its place within the colorful musical tapestry of our church.

What’s the Smoke For: And Other Burning Questions About the Liturgy is available for purchase from the Liturgical Press, with an option that includes a CD containing bulletin inserts for parish use.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

6 responses to “Book Excerpt: What’s The Smoke For? Part Four”

  1. Paul Fell

    A large part of the wording in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the response makes me nervous. If you take out “Gregorian chant” and a few other words, you could posit this logic to justify any type of music you prefer:

    “Also, it seems like [insert genre here] is more popular than ever. CDs of [insert genre here] have popped up everywhere. Concerts featuring [insert genre here] are rather fashionable.”

    “So, if indeed people respond positively to [insert genre here] music, why would we not use it in the liturgy?”

    Granted, the author goes on to clarify his thinking. Even so, if we feel that certain criteria should be met for specific music to be included in the Mass (or other liturgies), we need to be careful about conveying this in a way that seems to undermine that thinking. The author’s language provides precisely the kind of opening that people regularly use to justify all manner of suggestions and demands, no matter how off-the-wall or imprudent, in the name of popularity and “getting people more involved.”

    Overall, this book seems interesting and informative, but I’m sometimes a little unsure of how the author presents his responses.

    Reply
  2. Paul Inwood

    The thing about CDs and concerts of Gregorian chant is precisely that (a) they don’t take place in a liturgical context, and so the experience is different from how it would be during Vespers or Mass, and (b) they don’t involve the participation of the people except as listeners. I am sorry that Johan did not say anything about the involvement of the people in actually singing some pieces of chant, because this affects both what you sing and how you use it in the rite.

    It might also be useful to start thinking about different musical styles and idioms as if they were different colors on the painter’s palette. Paul Fell (#1) gives the impression that thinks some colors should not be available in a liturgical context. He mentions criteria, but doesn’t say what they are. Johan, on the other hand, talks about care and sensitivity, and also about competence and people’s needs. Is that too woolly and vague? Should he have also mentioned the demands of the particular liturgy you are celebrating?

    Reply
    1. Paul Fell

      My apologies for a somewhat hurried comment–I was called away from the computer unexpectedly.

      The reason that I posted my comment is because I found myself in a very similar conversation recently. In an effort to explain a facet of how music is selected, my words were turned around and misquoted using the type of logic that I listed in my original post. In fairness, I was caught off-guard and had to formulate an answer on the spur of the moment, so my mental disorganization didn’t help the situation. Even so, many people in the congregation are unaware of the liturgical, pastoral, and musical criteria that are associated with selecting music for liturgy. Frequently, I am confronted by people who think that popularity should be the [only] consideration. Therefore, I cringe when people use language in this context that could conveniently be used to justify popularity as the predominant criterion.

      As for “colors on a painter’s palette”, you selected an interesting metaphor, as my family has extensive professional and educational experience in this area. Before an artist begins a work, [s]he must evaluate the subject matter along with the materials to be used. Any good artist will make value judgments regarding which colors will be used and how they will be applied to the substrate. These judgments are based on experience, aesthetic merit, and the style in which the subject will be handled. Just because the painter has tubes of a particular color in his cabinet, it does not follow that those colors must be used on any particular occasion. The nature of the work determines their usage or even exclusion.

      In closing, I did mention that Johan went on to clarify his thinking, so I wasn’t intending to imply that his whole response was without merit. However, from personal experience, I did want to point out how careful one must be when conversing with parishioners, as disparities in knowledge about criteria can lead to all sorts of unintended problems.

      Reply
    2. Charles Culbreth

      Paul, it’s difficult to distinguish your conclusion about active participation at liturgy from your premise about CD’s/concerts. Listening is the objective from that POV. That doesn’t necessarily imply that “listening” at liturgy is the desired outcome of an either/or equation for actual worship. We all know that is not the case in increasing measure in parishes worldwide. There seems to be a presumption from certain quarters that schola directors and scholars insist (de facto) that literally everything chanted must be performed by the schola, for various reasons, not the least of which is competency.
      That is a false presumption. The renewed interest of S.Pio X’s 1903 Motu is part and parcel of the fabric of liturgical reform, and the fleshing out of what we now call FCAP didn’t begin there, but surely was a partial response to various abuses of the era. The author’s statement

      Too often it is one or the other. Gregorian chant should not push out all other valid liturgical expressions and neither should Gregorian chant be pushed out. We are the richer for the presence of all.

      is precisely a worthy goal for universal Catholicism. And in an era such as this, there is evidence a-plenty that putting chant resources in the hands of the Faithful in the pews is actually happening. Big Tent.

      Reply
  3. Scott Pluff

    “We ought to be open to all the voices of our rich tradition while we actively invite new expressions that speak of and to our own times.” How catholic, and how Catholic!

    Reply
  4. Paul Inwood

    Charles, I don’t disagree with you at all. My point was that Johan was concentrating on Gregorian chant as a style, and whether people like it or not, rather than on how it relates to the liturgy, and the question of whether people sing it or not.

    I’m very happy with a mixed grill liturgy in which many different idioms work alongside each other. What I’m not so happy about is when the chant is used as a way for a schola to exclude the assembly. There needs to be congregational chant as well as schola chant.

    I’m also keen that the chant advances the purpose of the liturgy and does not detract from it, as can sometimes happen.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Other Voices

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading