Bulletins & Letters

Gregorian Chant its Pride of Place

A Pastoral Letter

There has been some discussion about the introduction of some basic Latin chants in the liturgy of late, and I felt like this would be a good place to clear the air on the subject, and to again hopefully provide some catechesis and teaching on the subject. Many of you have expressed your joy that the Latin chant has made its return, and I should like to commend the parish in general for your eagerness in chanting. I must say, from where I stand, you chant far more vigorously than you sing the hymns. Nevertheless some others have expressed concerns about the return to the Latin, either because it is new and unfamiliar, or because it is deemed old fashioned and arcane. The Church says over and over again that Gregorian Chant should be given pride of place in our liturgies, but sadly many of us are unfamiliar with chant. Therefore perhaps it is worth reflecting upon a few teachings that many of you may be surprised to learn.

The Second Vatican Council

People will often say that Vatican II got rid of the Latin. This is because Latin disappeared from our parishes after the Second Vatican Council, but if we look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council, we see in the 1963 document, the Constitution on the Liturgy, that the use of Latin and the preservation of chant were very much respected by the Council Fathers. Still, it is true that the Mass was opened up to the vernacular, as we see in Article 36:

The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants.

Further down in Article 54 we read:

A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people ... Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And so it is true that the Vatican II brought about a greater use of the vernacular in the liturgy, but it is equally true that the Council Fathers did not intend for the Church to lose completely either its Latin roots or its venerable tradition of Gregorian Chant. Even the pontiff who called the Council, Blessed Pope John XXIII, affirmed the place of Gregorian chant and called Latin “the immutable language of the Church.”

The Missal of Paul VI

After the Second Vatican Council, in the year 1970, Catholics around the world were introduced to a new missal, and began to celebrate the liturgies according to the Novus Ordo. Again there are those who characterized this “new Mass” as the liturgy that banished Latin, and it is certainly true that the experience in the parish was that the Missal of Paul VI coincided with the virtual extinction of Latin and Gregorian chant, but we might be surprised to learn that in the General Instruction, found at the beginning of our current Roman Missal, we find these words: “All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy” and “it is fitting that [the faithful] know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer.” Still, if we lived through the liturgical movement in the early 1970’s, we would have heard almost no Latin or chant at all.

Jubilate Deo

Just four years later (in 1974) Pope Paul VI grew concerned over the fact that Catholics the world over were hearing part of what the Council had said, but not hearing the other part. The Holy Father wrote a pastoral letter entitled Voluntati Obsequens, writing to the bishops of the world urging them not to misinterpret the Council’s will by jettisoning the chant tradition. Paul VI attempted to give proper interpretation on what it meant to follow the documents of Vatican II on the liturgy where it reads “steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to chant together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” Paul VI even went so far as to publish a booklet of chant entitled Jubilate Deo which included a minimum repertoire of chants in Latin that Rome thought every Catholic should know. The music was copyright free, and Paul VI encouraged its duplication. This booklet, Jubilate Deo, included multiple mass settings in Latin, a Creed, a Paternoster as well as other chants. The Pontiff went on to say that “the liturgical reform does not and indeed cannot deny the past. Rather does it preserve and foster it with the greatest care,” and he states clearly “those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it.” Nevertheless it must be admitted that this directive and this booklet from the Holy See were generally ignored, and most Catholic publishers of hymnals included no chant whatsoever in their publications. Paul VI was, however, used to being ignored, for his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae (which has nothing to do with liturgy) had also been generally dismissed.

Continuity or Discontinuity

How then do we explain the radical loss of the chant tradition within a generation? Part of the explanation goes into how we as Catholics interpret the experience of the Second Vatican Council. Sometimes we hear people talk about “the spirit of Vatican II,” but they may not really be looking at the actual “documents of Vatican II.” These individuals, who may well be acting with every good intention, see Vatican II as a radical break with the past, whereas others see Vatican II as part of a great tradition that went before it. Was Vatican II a great break in the continuity of Catholicism, or did it represent a continued unfolding of the whole? How one answers that question will generally flavor how he or she interprets the event. Some of those who lived through the 1970’s have seen it as more of “a break,” while others (including those for whom Vatican II is history) see it as “part of the continuity” of the Church’s teaching. Our current Holy Father, who was present at the Council itself, is clear that we misread Vatican II if we radicalize it, and see it as an utterly new reality. But if we see Vatican II within its broader context, then we are not tempted to dismiss the first half of the 20th century, or the first 1,900 years of the Church’s history as being simply “preconciliar.” With this view of “Catholicism as a continuum” we are still able to read documents on music in the liturgy by people like Pope Saint Pius X (who wrote Tra le Sollecitudini in 1903) or Pope Pius XII (who wrote Mediator Dei in 1947 and Musicae Sacrae in 1953). Pope John Paul II, who was himself a bishop at the Second Vatican Council, did just this on the 100th anniversary of Saint Pius X’s landmark motu proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini. In 2003 John Paul II reaffirmed the principles set out by St. Pius in his Chirograph; again John Paul II declared that Gregorian chant should not only be preserved but that it should also be the model for new church music as well.

Pope Benedict XVI

It is no secret that Pope Benedict XVI is a great proponent of the liturgy in general, and also of the chant tradition of the Church. Still, in October of 2005, a Synod convened in Rome that had actually been called by Pope John Paul II, but that was opened by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. There were some 256 members of the Synod (mostly patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops and bishops), and the theme of the Synod was “The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church.” Surveys had been sent out to bishops and priests all around the world to find topics to set the agenda for the Synod, and the Synod met for nearly a month, discussing the importance of the Mass to the people of God. After it was all said and done the Synod gave recommendations to the Supreme Pontiff, who thereafter took their thoughts and put them into a cohesive document. And so in 2007 when Benedict XVI penned his Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation entitled Sacramentum Caritatis, he wrote:

The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another … while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy.

Faithful with Joy

And so what does this mean concretely, if we are to take seriously the directives of Vatican II, and that of 100 years worth of papal statements? What does it mean if we are to be faithful Catholics who desire to live within a continuum of tradition, and within not just our particular parish comfort zone, but within the greater and wider Church? For one, it means that we cannot really shun Gregorian Chant as bad or evil – not if we want to be faithful to the Magisterium, and not if we want to be faithful to the Tradition. Does our seasonal use of Latin chants here and there peppered throughout the liturgy seem alien or unfamiliar to some of us? Perhaps, but this is because we have ceased to hear it, not because it is bad or wrong. It is supposed to sound familiar, but the only way it will do so is if we actually hear it and sing it. Most of us can get used to it. It may take some adjustment for some, but learning these Latin texts for the Mass are not difficult, and just as any Jewish student preparing for their bar mitzvah would be expected to sing traditional Hebraic chant, so are we enjoined to pass on the tradition of Christian chant to the next generation, many of whom are delighted for the challenge. Frankly, any Catholic congregation can sing a little bit of Latin, and while we will not always and everywhere only sing and use Latin, we are nevertheless not permitted (in good faith) to reject that tradition out of hand either.

Change is Coming Even in the English

Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind the following, which you may not be aware of: the current English translation of the Roman Missal is changing. The current translation does not follow as closely to the Latin text as the Vatican would like, and so our current English translations of the Mass will soon be replaced. The Gloria that we know and can sing in English is changing. The Sanctus that we know and can sing in English is changing. Even the basic English responses of the Mass that have become so familiar to us are changing. This change is a few years around the bend, but it is inevitable, and it is going to happen. I personally believe that the new translation of the Missal will be a real opportunity for growth and for grace, but it will also be a challenge. Now, let me be clear. I do not believe that reacquainting ourselves with our tradition of Gregorian Chant should be done merely for practical reasons, simply to prepare us for this transition, and then chant can be once again discarded, but there is no question that having a familiarity with our chant tradition will help us, as a parish, to make this transition into the future translation of the Missal.

Catholicism Transcends Nationalism

It is also valuable to reflect upon the fact we are not “the American Catholic Church,” but rather that we are “the Catholic Church in America,” which is a great country with a great melting pot of cultures (even here within our own parish). While one of the reasons to keep Gregorian chant alive is that it is part of our rich cultural heritage, another reason often stated is because we are an international Church. Here in our small North Georgia archdiocese of only about 100 parishes, missions, & student centers, we celebrate Mass every Sunday in at least 10 languages: certainly English; and in slightly over half of our parishes, Spanish; but also, in French, Haitian-French or Creole, Polish, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Ibo & Portuguese. The Church has encouraged the keeping alive our Latin tradition as an example of the “universality” of the Catholic Church. In the mind of the Church, Latin is the hinge or “common denominator” that can help make anyone comfortable no matter what his or her native tongue.

Catholicism Transcends Our Own Age

Lastly, there is the question of the style of music. With Gregorian chant, we are often talking about two things: language and musical style. As we have seen the Church desires that we should keep alive the Latin, but it isn’t just the language of chant that the Church values, but also the aesthetic of chant’s musical style, with its deeply reflective power, and its simple dignity. There is a prayerfulness to chant, once we get it in our heads. There is a remarkable gravitas to it that is most conducive to worship. And so chant is an ideal upon which the Church places an inestimable value. What this could mean practically speaking is that there are many venerable chants that we could learn and sing in English as well. Still, one thing that it is absolutely imperative to hear is that the Church is not living in the past, nor rejecting the artists of our own day. The Church encourages new music, but cautions (again and again) that new music should not attempt to eclipse the chant tradition, nor radically segregate itself from that tradition, but rather that it should work in harmony with it. This was said by Pope John Paul II in the twentieth century, as well as by Pope John XXII in the fourteenth century. I do not believe this stops us from ever singing the great old hymns we’re so accustomed to as American Catholics (many of us converts), nor from bringing in some of the sounds that evoke our own age or region, and new music is whole-heartedly encouraged by Mother Church, as long as it is respectful towards the tradition of chant and sacred polyphony, and does not endeavor to throw away that chant tradition. And so Gregorian chant is also the artistic aesthetic that the Church continues to hold up and to reiterate: that we can integrate new music into our worship just so long as our new music does not alienate us from the familiar Catholic ethos. So we see that Gregorian chant is not just an issue of language, but as a musical style it is also something beautiful and a part of our culural heritage we should treasure and learn to appreciate.

What does all this mean to us?

It means that we are going to hear Latin smattered throughout the year. I am perfectly happy if we switch to vernacular mass settings during certain seasons or during certain months as well, so that we have a variety of both the Latin and the English. As far as I can tell, that would be more or less a good way of interpreting the will and teaching of the Church: that new music (if it is good) is certainly okay just so long as new music does not exclude or dismiss the tradition of Gregorian chant. And maybe, once we grow comfortable with what we’re doing as a parish, we could even venture to learn a different mass setting in Latin in a year’s time, so we have some variety. But for now, we start with very basic things.

What all of this means to me as a Catholic priest is that I have a responsibility of communicating this part of our tradition to the faithful. I pray that for those of you for whom this is “a welcomed return” and “a long time in its coming” will show charity and kindness towards those who may be challenged by the return of Latin or the “novelty” of something they may never have heard before. I also pray that you will not expect all Latin all the time. I pray that those of you who may be disturbed by the use of Latin will not despair or lose heart, because no one is asking anyone to become a Latin scholar here, but just to know a few chants. I pray that we remain faithful and charitable towards one another, so that the “style” of worship we prefer does not isolate us or exclude us from the larger community. And ultimately I pray that we may all embrace ever more deeply our own tradition of the Mass, which comes to us across the ages, and which is ever ancient and ever new.

Fr. Charles Byrd

Completed in Holy Week of 2009