Excerpt from "The History of the Roman Liturgy" by Denis Crouan
Chapter 21 of “The History and Future of the Roman Liturgy”--Posted with the permission of the author, Denis Crouan. This book was recently translated for Ignatius Press by Michael Miller.
Sacred Music: the place and role of Gregorian chant
When it is celebrated according to the Roman rite, the liturgy ought to be sung in its entirety: this is the “normal” form. All parts of the Mass or of the Divine Office, from the simplest prayer to the most complicated readings, including of course the recitation of the psalms, are in fact meant to be declaimed according to principles that obey the laws of music.
That is why the Second Vatican Council devotes considerable space to the question of chant, recalling that the initiatives of Saint Gregory the Great led to the creation of a repertoire of liturgical chants that constitutes the musical tradition of the Church as well as an invaluable treasure.1
Sacred chant combined with the words of the liturgy, then, is an necessary or integral part of the solemn form that the liturgy should assume whenever possible.2
The function of chant and the role of musicians in the liturgy
The conciliar document begins [the section on “Sacred Music”] by referring to Scripture and the Church Fathers, as well as to the studies conducted at the request of Saint Pius X in the modern period,3 to recall the fact that sacred song in and of itself exercises a ministerial function in the liturgy.4
But what is sacred music? Does every song that is performed during a liturgical celebration deserve to be designated as “sacred”?
The Council replies to this twofold question by specifying that sacred music must be closely connected with the liturgical action that is being carried out, and that it must enhance the solemnity of the rites by making prayer more “pleasing”.5
In order for chant to fulfill its purpose, it must be cultivated, taught at a very young age, and handed down by carefully trained choirmasters. The treasure of sacred chant should be preserved principally in the seminaries and in religious houses, by musicians who have had serious liturgical formation.6
Gregorian chant: sacred song par excellence7
If there is one kind of singing that possesses all the qualities of liturgical song, if there is one sort of music that has developed in close contact with the liturgy itself, it is certainly Gregorian chant.
The Council states again forcefully: the Gregorian repertoire constitutes the chant proper to the Roman liturgy. Consequently it deserves to have pride of place in the sacred actions that are carried out in the name of the Church.8
Other sorts of music, certainly, can be introduced into the Roman rite, provided, on the one hand, that it is not to the detriment of Gregorian chant, and provided, on the other hand, that these others types of music have qualities suited to the liturgy. This is tantamount to saying that not all kinds of music are suited to liturgical actions, however pleasant they may be to our contemporary ears or however insistently they may appeal to our emotions.
Without saying so explicitly, the Council recalls here that the encounter with God which takes place during a liturgy is not limited to the simple psychological feelings that could be aroused by a sort of music that aimed to please the faithful.9
The qualities of Gregorian chant
With respect to the liturgy, Gregorian chant must not be considered as one musical form that is more interesting than another, or, more simply, as singing that is added to the liturgy “to make it beautiful”. It is more than that; it is more than a type of “religious” music: it is sung prayer, the most perfect rendition of the Roman liturgy on the musical plane. It is itself, in a way, this liturgy, but as though expanded, as though raised to its highest degree of expression. It follows that Gregorian chant is capable of spreading among the faithful a message that is more universal, more complete, more capable of being “interiorized” than would be the message of a liturgy that had simply been embellished with ordinary hymns.10
The Church recognizes the didactic value of Gregorian chant; this is because she sees that, when it is added to the rites of a celebration, it fosters that openness of heart and soul which enables the faithful to receive the means of living the doctrine that is conveyed by the liturgy. Gregorian chant sets into motion a process of knowing divine realities that passes more through the channel of the senses and experience than along the single path of conceptual thought. The richness of this chant is derived, then, from the fact that it does not open the way solely to a theological (and biblical) content that is accessible to reason alone, but carries the listeners toward a perfect expression of the faith that is to be lived and transmitted.
As Cardinal Daneels has emphasized, “the liturgy cannot become the expression of ourselves.” Thus, if there is always a danger of celebrating only so as to “master the rituals” and, in that way, to make the liturgy a means to an end, there is also another danger: that of singing solely for one’s own enjoyment. To be sure, the liturgy and chant appeal to our senses, but in that capacity they are not supposed to cajole them. There can be a great sensible joy in singing a beautiful polyphonic work or a simple popular hymn; but this joy, legitimate in itself, must in the first place be – within the specific framework of the liturgy – at the service of our interior dispositions, which make use of the sensible elements of the sacred rites to lead us toward the contemplation of the Invisible. Now Gregorian chant has understood this perfectly: it does not caress our feelings but channels them, purifies them, so as to put them at the disposal of our capacity to apprehend the mystery being celebrated.
Just like all true liturgy, all liturgical music must be first and foremost a gift, a gratuitous praise that the Church directs to God through Christ’s sacrifice of thanksgiving; it should not be merely an intellectual construct aimed at expressing or intensifying personal feelings that are more or less orderly, more or less appropriate. And for this reason, because it is at the same time a gift and praise, liturgical music, like the liturgy, must be “fitting and just”.
A type of music that was only beautiful but not “fitting” or “just”, would run the risk of being perceived as nothing more than entertainment, as a means of satisfying a desire for estheticism, as an object of amusement and enjoyment – as is the case with musical numbers performed in concert. Now the liturgy and liturgical song absolutely must watch out and steer clear of this dangerous reef, so as to remain “icons”, that is to say, sense-images inhabited by a presence, and not by emanations of some human feeling that is part and parcel of a superficial religiosity guided by the subjectivism that characterizes our post-Christian societies.11
Now Gregorian chant avoids the dangers that we have just enumerated: prior to being a cause of esthetic pleasure, it is a language that brings about that which it enunciates,12 a language that allows the listeners to grasp more fully the liturgy as a whole instead of understanding individual rituals in a fragmented way.13 It is also the sort of singing that best promotes “active participation” in the liturgy.14
By revealing to us the God who, through the liturgy, acts at the very heart of the created world, Gregorian chant leads us to discover and to revere the mystery of the Divine Presence. It teaches us about what is sacred, places us in a sort of “preserve” where the most delicate and most endangered dimensions of human life are protected.15
Gregorian chant is a sensitive master who takes his time in teaching us: although he loves to cover the words that we sing with a veil, with a shadow, it is not in order to disguise the meaning of what we are proclaiming, but rather to make sure that this meaning is only gradually revealed to us, so that we might never be tempted to celebrate ourselves, but rather might remain turned toward Him who acts at the heart of the liturgy.16, 17, 18
FOOTNOTES
1. John Paul II, “Allocution aux Pueri Cantores” [Address to the choirboys], le 31 décembre 1999 (Osservatore Romano [édition française] no. 3, janvier 2000).
2. Sacrosanctum Concilium 112.
3. See page “59” [beginning of chapter 6].
4. SC 112.
5. Ibid.
6. SC 114-15.
7. See Appendix III.
8. SC 116.
9. Giacomo Biffi, Musica sacra e liturgia (Edizioni Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 1992).
10. The common hymn, inasmuch as it is an adaptation of a popular devotion, must be purified, as it were, by the liturgy (cf. John Paul II, Vicesimus quintus annus). Gregorian chant is already purified because it is the expression of the liturgy: it emanates from the liturgy and owes its development to it.
11. Cf. Luigi Giussani, La conscience religieuse de l’homme moderne [The religious awareness of modern man] (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1999).
12. “The British linguist Austin deserves the credit for having pointed out the fact that certain linguistic acts are not only constative but actually bring about, themselves, the action that they enunciate; he calls this type of language performative or illocutionary, terms that were immediately adopted by liturgists and applied to the sacraments. In them, the language act is an operative expression. Austin’s terminology allows us to distinguish in liturgical language between the simply locutionary dimension (the information or the meaning), the perlocutionary dimension (that is, the effect produced upon the hearers), and lastly the illocutionary dimension that is present in the sacrament but also in the profession of faith and, finally, in a general way, in the liturgical action as a whole inasmuch as it is an expression of the Christian identity.” (Marie-Laure Bourgueuil, quoted by Denis Crouan, Le chant grégorien redécouvert [Gregorian chant rediscovered], Éditions C.L.D., Tours 1997.)
13. The verb saisir in French [“to grasp”, “to seize”] has the advantage of being a synonym of “understand”, while being capable of expressing also, in the passive form, the fact that one is “seized” or “caught up” by the action that is being carried out. Now, strictly speaking, the liturgy is not primarily something that must be understood; it is presented to us as a source of understanding and hence is meant to make us enter into the Mystery of the Covenant. Therefore we are not the ones who in the first place must understand the liturgy; rather, the liturgy must make us comprehend, that is to say, must enable us to establish a relationship with the divine. This is the same perspective in which we should re-frame the question about Gregorian chant after the liturgical renewal of Vatican II.
14. The “active participation” in the liturgy called for by the Church is not an “activist” participation whereby everyone seeks to busy himself or to put himself forward. Quite on the contrary: true “participation in the liturgy” is a participation of the heart, consisting of the intention to carry out as well as possible – with genuine sincerity – what the Church asks us to accomplish in her liturgy.
15. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, op. cit.
16. Cf. the contributions of various authors to Le chant grégorien redécouvert (Éditions C.L.D., Tours 1997).
17. Cf. Appendix IV.
18. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today, trsl. Martha M. Matesich (Crossroad Publishing Company, New York 1996). Bernadette Lecureux, Le latin, langue de l’Église [Latin, the language of the Church] (Éditions Spes, Paris 1964 – There is a new edition of this work, with a preface by Dom Philippe Dupont, Abbot of Solesmes). Dom Jacques Hourlier, Entretiens sur la spiritualité du chant grégorien [Talks on the spirituality of Gregorian chant] (Éditions de l’Abbaye, Solesmes 1985).
Sacred Music: the place and role of Gregorian chant
When it is celebrated according to the Roman rite, the liturgy ought to be sung in its entirety: this is the “normal” form. All parts of the Mass or of the Divine Office, from the simplest prayer to the most complicated readings, including of course the recitation of the psalms, are in fact meant to be declaimed according to principles that obey the laws of music.That is why the Second Vatican Council devotes considerable space to the question of chant, recalling that the initiatives of Saint Gregory the Great led to the creation of a repertoire of liturgical chants that constitutes the musical tradition of the Church as well as an invaluable treasure.1
Sacred chant combined with the words of the liturgy, then, is an necessary or integral part of the solemn form that the liturgy should assume whenever possible.2
The function of chant and the role of musicians in the liturgy
The conciliar document begins [the section on “Sacred Music”] by referring to Scripture and the Church Fathers, as well as to the studies conducted at the request of Saint Pius X in the modern period,3 to recall the fact that sacred song in and of itself exercises a ministerial function in the liturgy.4
But what is sacred music? Does every song that is performed during a liturgical celebration deserve to be designated as “sacred”?
The Council replies to this twofold question by specifying that sacred music must be closely connected with the liturgical action that is being carried out, and that it must enhance the solemnity of the rites by making prayer more “pleasing”.5
In order for chant to fulfill its purpose, it must be cultivated, taught at a very young age, and handed down by carefully trained choirmasters. The treasure of sacred chant should be preserved principally in the seminaries and in religious houses, by musicians who have had serious liturgical formation.6
Gregorian chant: sacred song par excellence7
If there is one kind of singing that possesses all the qualities of liturgical song, if there is one sort of music that has developed in close contact with the liturgy itself, it is certainly Gregorian chant.
The Council states again forcefully: the Gregorian repertoire constitutes the chant proper to the Roman liturgy. Consequently it deserves to have pride of place in the sacred actions that are carried out in the name of the Church.8
Other sorts of music, certainly, can be introduced into the Roman rite, provided, on the one hand, that it is not to the detriment of Gregorian chant, and provided, on the other hand, that these others types of music have qualities suited to the liturgy. This is tantamount to saying that not all kinds of music are suited to liturgical actions, however pleasant they may be to our contemporary ears or however insistently they may appeal to our emotions.
Without saying so explicitly, the Council recalls here that the encounter with God which takes place during a liturgy is not limited to the simple psychological feelings that could be aroused by a sort of music that aimed to please the faithful.9
The qualities of Gregorian chant
With respect to the liturgy, Gregorian chant must not be considered as one musical form that is more interesting than another, or, more simply, as singing that is added to the liturgy “to make it beautiful”. It is more than that; it is more than a type of “religious” music: it is sung prayer, the most perfect rendition of the Roman liturgy on the musical plane. It is itself, in a way, this liturgy, but as though expanded, as though raised to its highest degree of expression. It follows that Gregorian chant is capable of spreading among the faithful a message that is more universal, more complete, more capable of being “interiorized” than would be the message of a liturgy that had simply been embellished with ordinary hymns.10
The Church recognizes the didactic value of Gregorian chant; this is because she sees that, when it is added to the rites of a celebration, it fosters that openness of heart and soul which enables the faithful to receive the means of living the doctrine that is conveyed by the liturgy. Gregorian chant sets into motion a process of knowing divine realities that passes more through the channel of the senses and experience than along the single path of conceptual thought. The richness of this chant is derived, then, from the fact that it does not open the way solely to a theological (and biblical) content that is accessible to reason alone, but carries the listeners toward a perfect expression of the faith that is to be lived and transmitted.
As Cardinal Daneels has emphasized, “the liturgy cannot become the expression of ourselves.” Thus, if there is always a danger of celebrating only so as to “master the rituals” and, in that way, to make the liturgy a means to an end, there is also another danger: that of singing solely for one’s own enjoyment. To be sure, the liturgy and chant appeal to our senses, but in that capacity they are not supposed to cajole them. There can be a great sensible joy in singing a beautiful polyphonic work or a simple popular hymn; but this joy, legitimate in itself, must in the first place be – within the specific framework of the liturgy – at the service of our interior dispositions, which make use of the sensible elements of the sacred rites to lead us toward the contemplation of the Invisible. Now Gregorian chant has understood this perfectly: it does not caress our feelings but channels them, purifies them, so as to put them at the disposal of our capacity to apprehend the mystery being celebrated.
Just like all true liturgy, all liturgical music must be first and foremost a gift, a gratuitous praise that the Church directs to God through Christ’s sacrifice of thanksgiving; it should not be merely an intellectual construct aimed at expressing or intensifying personal feelings that are more or less orderly, more or less appropriate. And for this reason, because it is at the same time a gift and praise, liturgical music, like the liturgy, must be “fitting and just”.
A type of music that was only beautiful but not “fitting” or “just”, would run the risk of being perceived as nothing more than entertainment, as a means of satisfying a desire for estheticism, as an object of amusement and enjoyment – as is the case with musical numbers performed in concert. Now the liturgy and liturgical song absolutely must watch out and steer clear of this dangerous reef, so as to remain “icons”, that is to say, sense-images inhabited by a presence, and not by emanations of some human feeling that is part and parcel of a superficial religiosity guided by the subjectivism that characterizes our post-Christian societies.11
Now Gregorian chant avoids the dangers that we have just enumerated: prior to being a cause of esthetic pleasure, it is a language that brings about that which it enunciates,12 a language that allows the listeners to grasp more fully the liturgy as a whole instead of understanding individual rituals in a fragmented way.13 It is also the sort of singing that best promotes “active participation” in the liturgy.14
By revealing to us the God who, through the liturgy, acts at the very heart of the created world, Gregorian chant leads us to discover and to revere the mystery of the Divine Presence. It teaches us about what is sacred, places us in a sort of “preserve” where the most delicate and most endangered dimensions of human life are protected.15
Gregorian chant is a sensitive master who takes his time in teaching us: although he loves to cover the words that we sing with a veil, with a shadow, it is not in order to disguise the meaning of what we are proclaiming, but rather to make sure that this meaning is only gradually revealed to us, so that we might never be tempted to celebrate ourselves, but rather might remain turned toward Him who acts at the heart of the liturgy.16, 17, 18
FOOTNOTES
1. John Paul II, “Allocution aux Pueri Cantores” [Address to the choirboys], le 31 décembre 1999 (Osservatore Romano [édition française] no. 3, janvier 2000).
2. Sacrosanctum Concilium 112.
3. See page “59” [beginning of chapter 6].
4. SC 112.
5. Ibid.
6. SC 114-15.
7. See Appendix III.
8. SC 116.
9. Giacomo Biffi, Musica sacra e liturgia (Edizioni Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 1992).
10. The common hymn, inasmuch as it is an adaptation of a popular devotion, must be purified, as it were, by the liturgy (cf. John Paul II, Vicesimus quintus annus). Gregorian chant is already purified because it is the expression of the liturgy: it emanates from the liturgy and owes its development to it.
11. Cf. Luigi Giussani, La conscience religieuse de l’homme moderne [The religious awareness of modern man] (Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1999).
12. “The British linguist Austin deserves the credit for having pointed out the fact that certain linguistic acts are not only constative but actually bring about, themselves, the action that they enunciate; he calls this type of language performative or illocutionary, terms that were immediately adopted by liturgists and applied to the sacraments. In them, the language act is an operative expression. Austin’s terminology allows us to distinguish in liturgical language between the simply locutionary dimension (the information or the meaning), the perlocutionary dimension (that is, the effect produced upon the hearers), and lastly the illocutionary dimension that is present in the sacrament but also in the profession of faith and, finally, in a general way, in the liturgical action as a whole inasmuch as it is an expression of the Christian identity.” (Marie-Laure Bourgueuil, quoted by Denis Crouan, Le chant grégorien redécouvert [Gregorian chant rediscovered], Éditions C.L.D., Tours 1997.)
13. The verb saisir in French [“to grasp”, “to seize”] has the advantage of being a synonym of “understand”, while being capable of expressing also, in the passive form, the fact that one is “seized” or “caught up” by the action that is being carried out. Now, strictly speaking, the liturgy is not primarily something that must be understood; it is presented to us as a source of understanding and hence is meant to make us enter into the Mystery of the Covenant. Therefore we are not the ones who in the first place must understand the liturgy; rather, the liturgy must make us comprehend, that is to say, must enable us to establish a relationship with the divine. This is the same perspective in which we should re-frame the question about Gregorian chant after the liturgical renewal of Vatican II.
14. The “active participation” in the liturgy called for by the Church is not an “activist” participation whereby everyone seeks to busy himself or to put himself forward. Quite on the contrary: true “participation in the liturgy” is a participation of the heart, consisting of the intention to carry out as well as possible – with genuine sincerity – what the Church asks us to accomplish in her liturgy.
15. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, op. cit.
16. Cf. the contributions of various authors to Le chant grégorien redécouvert (Éditions C.L.D., Tours 1997).
17. Cf. Appendix IV.
18. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today, trsl. Martha M. Matesich (Crossroad Publishing Company, New York 1996). Bernadette Lecureux, Le latin, langue de l’Église [Latin, the language of the Church] (Éditions Spes, Paris 1964 – There is a new edition of this work, with a preface by Dom Philippe Dupont, Abbot of Solesmes). Dom Jacques Hourlier, Entretiens sur la spiritualité du chant grégorien [Talks on the spirituality of Gregorian chant] (Éditions de l’Abbaye, Solesmes 1985).
3 Comments:
With respect to the author and Pope John Paul, Sacrosanctum Concilium didn't devote much typeface to Gregorian chant at all. In fact, it gave an "out" that most musicians utilize, "all other things being equal." Without many chant-skilled musicians, and lacking any significant repertoire in parishes, chant is definitely not an equal player on this tilted field.
That said, Crouan's principles should be heeded by chant devotees and people who aspire to introduce chant in their parishes. But all should be aware that for most culture-starved Westerners, chant is a novelty.
There were plenty of "chant-skilled musicians" when SC came out. I was learning the Ward Method in grade school myself at the time. They were overtaken by the pop-culture-based influences of the times -- like everything else. Out with the old, in with the new, to hell with everything else.
Ah, but "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
David, I'd even say there were a lot. But there were far more parishes, maybe twenty or more times as many as good musicians.
I wouldn't be as fatalistic as to suggest "everything" was overtaken by pop culture. On the other hand, there was some pretty sappy pre-conciliar devotional music that was inferior even to Ray Repp.
The hoped-for reforms envisioned in the early 1900's just didn't pan out for Catholics. Chant is even more of a novelty today, and I say that from a sense of the truth of what I see, not as a wish of what I hope for.
<