Two Articles on Gregorian Chant

NLM readers may find interesting two articles, published yesterday and today, about the history and characteristics of Gregorian chant that make it perfectly suited to liturgical use -- indeed, that make it liturgical in and of itself.

From “A brief history of chant from King David to the present”:

     The tradition of chanting Scripture, a practice known as cantillation, began at least 1,000 years before the birth of Christ. Various Old Testament books, especially the Psalms and the Chronicles, testify to the central function of music in temple worship. Some Gregorian melodies still in use are remarkably close to Hebrew synagogue melodies, most notably the “tonus peregrinus” used for Psalm 113, In exitu Israel; the ancient Gospel tone; and the Preface tone.
     [...]
     Since the Psalter of David was composed for the very purpose of divine worship and was seen as the messianic book par excellence, we find Peter, Paul, and the Apostolic Fathers citing it heavily in their preaching. The first Christians spontaneously chose the Psalter for their “prayer book.” The Christian liturgy as a whole, then, sprang from the combination of Psalter and Sacrifice. The psalter is the “verbal incense” of our prayers and praises, the homage of our intellects. The bloody sacrifice, the death and destruction of an animal, is the total surrender of our being to God. In the Mass these two are wondrously combined into the rational sacrifice consisting of the perfect offering of Jesus Christ on the altar, who unites our prayers and praises to His and makes them worthy of the Ever-Blessed Trinity.

Its sequel, “What makes Gregorian chant uniquely itself—with recommended recordings,” eight characteristics are identified and discussed:

1. Primacy of the word.
2. Free rhythm.
3. Unison singing.
4. Unaccompanied vocalization. 
5. Modality.
6. Anonymity.
7. Emotional moderation.
8. Unambiguous sacrality. 

Four recordings are then mentioned, which offer particularly fine interpretations of the chant, all in the line of Solesmes, but without any of the lethargy, effeteness, nasality, and diffuse organ accompaniment that sometimes mar chant recordings.

Clericalism, True and False

I do not deny that there are forms of clericalism that have plagued the Western Church in periods of its history, and I would not deny that traditionalists must be on their guard against the reemergence of such forms. Nevertheless, it has been my conviction for a long time that the worst manifestations of clericalism have, in fact, been those that followed the Second Vatican Council.

In my column today at LifeSiteNews, I attempted to describe six of the ways in which "clericalism" rears its ugly head in the postconciliar world. Some excerpts:

1. When a priest, contradicting nearly 2,000 years of unanimous tradition in the apostolic churches of the East and the West, faces the people at Mass (versus populum), he unavoidably imposes himself on them as the principal actor in the liturgy, standing “over against” the passive congregation. In this way the message is transmitted—whether the priest intends it or not—that he is the center of attention, the facilitator and even the validator of the assembled faithful. This is an efficacious sign of clericalism if ever there has been one. ...

2. When a priest says “call me Fr. Jimmy,” acts casually, tells lots of jokes and stories from the pulpit, and “doesn’t stand on ceremony,” he is in fact promoting a cult of the individual personality, the cult of Jimmy, rather than humbly accepting his God-given office or role in the Church as the impersonal minister of the Lord Jesus, one of a million that God will make use of in the span of history. ...

3. On the other hand, when clergy extend traditionally clerical ministries to lay people (e.g., extraordinary ministers of holy communion), they are perpetuating the false view that the only worthwhile, validating “work” for a Catholic is to be busy in the sanctuary. This is one of the worst manifestations of clericalism. The proper role of the laity is not to substitute as “straw ministers” but to sanctify the world outside of the church building...

4. When priests, bishops, and even the pope ignore or hold in contempt the legitimate aspirations and needs of the faithful or of their subordinate clergy; when only the pope, only his collaborators, only his allies, know what is best for everyone else, regardless of education, competency, or expertise — we are facing another notorious form of clericalism, which could be summed up as: “My way or the highway.” ...

5. When bishops or priests want to intrude their personal theological opinions into their preaching and writing, rather than following and handing down the common and traditional teaching of the Church, we are certainly dealing with a particularly acidic form of clericalism.

6. When the pope appoints ambitious men as bishops and curial officials instead of imitating great reforming popes who scoured observant monasteries and parishes for humble, holy, orthodox candidates, or when people entrusted with proposing episcopal candidates fail in their grave charge, they are flexing the muscles of a clericalism that becomes mightier the more successful the ambitious are. ...

Read the full article over at LifeSite. (See here for an archive of my blog posts there, a number of which concern liturgical matters.)

“Why Pro-life Catholics Should Strive for a Higher and Deeper Life”

Yesterday, LifeSite News launched their new Catholic Edition, which promises to be a marvelous resource. LifeSite has engaged me to contribute a weekly column on Catholic life, liturgy, culture, art, beauty, philosophy — well, pretty much anything that is pertinent to the Faith in our times. I look forward to this work, as I admire the courageous coverage and commentary LifeSite offers. My column will usually appear on Tuesday.

NLM readers might be interested in my inaugural article, “Why pro-life Catholics should strive for a higher and deeper life.” Some excerpts (leaving out all the middle terms of the arguments!):

When people in the world hear the expression “pro-life,” they typically think of one and only one issue: abortion. When Christians hear “pro-life,” they might expand the definition to those who are opposed to the murder of human beings at all stages, whether in the womb, in infancy, or on the deathbed. When Catholics hear the expression, a further nuance should be present: those who take into account not only the worst abuses of human freedom but also the more subtle causes of the anti-life mentality, such as sexual hedonism, feminism, contraception, the divorce mentality, and parent absenteeism. All of this is true as far as it goes. But there is more to being pro-life than this. The roots go deeper and the branches spread further.
       [...] We cannot realize our human potential or be mature Christians unless we cultivate our intellectual life in the great disciplines, from literature to philosophy, from the empirical sciences to the queen of all sciences, sacred theology. To be far-seeingly pro-life is to be pro-intellectual life.
       [...] Without the inspiration of a true artistic vision, we grow weary on our journey, we cannot see our way forward. It is like abolishing the sun, the moon, and the stars. To be fully pro-life, then, is to be pro-cultural life. A good culture emerges from, creatively celebrates, and dynamically sustains the love of human life.
       The highest activity of the human person is to turn his mind and heart to God, His first beginning and last end, and to worship Him: “We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory,” as we sing in the ancient hymn of the Gloria. ... That is why to be pro-life in its most profound sense is to be pro-liturgical life. ... Without the Church’s liturgy, we fail to grasp the infinite dignity God has bestowed on us in Christ. We miss out on the flesh-and-blood encounter with the Source of Life, Life incarnate, Life outpoured for eternal life.

Read more here.