Gregorian Chant Is Returning from Exile. Maybe
VALENTINO MISERACHS GRAUValentino Miserachs Grau, president of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, is calling for its revival. Pope Benedict XVI wants it, too. But the path is full of obstacles.
As
on other occasions in the past, this year on December 5 the Vatican Congregation
for Worship dedicated one day to the study of sacred music, on the anniversary
of the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium. The previous days have never produced any significant results.
But now there is a pope, Benedict XVI, who is highly competent in the
area of sacred music, is severely critical of the degradation of music following
the council, and has written on a number of occasions what he thinks and what
he wants: to restore to the Catholic liturgy the great music that “from
Gregorian chant passes through the music of the cathedrals and polyphony, the
music of the Renaissance and the Baroque, to Bruckner and beyond.”
Benedict XVI sent a message to the participants at the congress, gathered
in the New Synod Hall, encouraging them “to reflect upon and evaluate the
relationship between music and the liturgy, always keeping close watch over practice
and experimentation.”
The pope’s encouragement was addressed
to an assembly composed of musicians and liturgists from many nations, some of
whom were in disagreement with him over the matters at hand.
At the end
of the work, cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Worship,
and the former secretary of that same congregation, Domenico Sorrentino, recently
promoted as bishop of Assisi, avoided drawing any conclusions. Arinze criticized
the musical fashions found in many churches, which he characterized as “chaotic,
excessively simplistic, and unsuitable for the liturgy.” But the musical
opening to the day of study was entrusted to a proponent of one of the styles
most susceptible to criticism, a supporter of the very sentimental, vaguely “new
age” style: Maestro Marco Frisina, choir director of the cathedral of Rome.
With concise and concentrated arguments, Miserachs
argued forcefully on behalf of the revival of Gregorian chant, beginning with
the cathedrals and monasteries, which ought to take the lead in this rebirth.
|
But the day of study did demonstrate a reversal in
the trend, back in the direction preferred by pope Joseph Ratzinger.
Musicians
and liturgists of the postconciliar “new direction” found themselves
constrained to justify themselves before an audience mostly oriented toward reviving
traditional liturgical music, and Gregorian chant in the first place.
One
could gather this from the strong and confident applause that greeted the addresses
delivered by Dom Philippe Dupont, abbot of Solesmes and a great cultivator of
Gregorian chant, by Martin Baker, choirmaster of the cathedral of Westminster,
and by Jean-Marie Bodo, from Cameroon, “where we sing Gregorian chant every
Sunday at Mass, because it is the song of the Church.”
But one
could gather this above all from the applause that punctuated and concluded the
address by monsignor Valentino Miserachs Grau, president of the Pontifical Institute
of Sacred Music in Rome, the liturgical-musical “conservatory” of
the Holy See, which has the task of training Church musicians from all over the
world.
With concise and concentrated arguments, Miserachs argued forcefully
on behalf of the revival of Gregorian chant, beginning with the cathedrals and
monasteries, which ought to take the lead in this rebirth.
And he called
upon the Church of Rome finally to act “with authority” in the area
of liturgical music, not simply with documents and exhortations, but by establishing
an office with competency in this regard, as it did for example with the pontifical
commission dedicated to the Church’s cultural heritage.
“This
is the opportune moment, and there is no time to waste,” Miserachs concluded,
clearly referring to the reigning pope.
Here follows the address by the
president of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music: 
Gregorian
Chant: The Possibilities and Conditions for a Revival
by
Valentino Miserachs Grau
That the assembly of the faithful,
during the celebration of the sacred rites and especially during the Holy Mass,
should participate by singing the parts of the Gregorian chant that belong to
them, is not only possible — it is ideal.
This is not my opinion,
but the thought of the Church. See, in this regard, the documentation from the
motu proprio “Inter Sollicitudines” of Saint Pius X until our
own time, passing through Pius XII (“Musicae Sacrae Disciplina”),
chapter VI of the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy,
the subsequent instruction issued by the Congregation for Rites in 1967, and the
recent chirograph of John Paul II in commemoration of the hundredth anniversary
of “Inter Sollicitudines,” which was released in 1903. Another
example is the statement from the conclusion of the synod of bishops that met
last October: “Beginning with their seminary training, priests should be
prepared to understand and celebrate the Mass in Latin. They should also […]
appreciate the value of Gregorian chant. […] The faithful themselves should
be educated in this regard.”
The motivation for this desire is
widely demonstrable, if not self-evident. In fact, the almost outright ban on
Latin and Gregorian chant seen over the past forty years is incomprehensible,
especially in the Latin countries. It is incomprehensible, and deplorable.
Latin and Gregorian chant, which are deeply
linked to the biblical, patristic, and liturgical sources, are part of that “lex
orandi” which has been forged over a span of almost twenty centuries.
Why should such an amputation take place, and so lightheartedly? It is like cutting
off roots — now — that there is so much talk of roots.
|
Latin and Gregorian chant, which are deeply linked to the biblical, patristic,
and liturgical sources, are part of that “lex orandi” which
has been forged over a span of almost twenty centuries. Why should such an amputation
take place, and so lightheartedly? It is like cutting off roots — now —
that there is so much talk of roots.
The obscuring of an entire tradition
of prayer formed over two millennia has led to conditions favorable to a heterogeneous
and anarchic proliferation of new musical products which, in the majority of cases,
have not been able to root themselves in the essential tradition of the Church,
bringing about not only a general impoverishment, but also damage that would be
difficult to repair, assuming the desire to remedy it were present.
Gregorian
chant sung by the assembly not only can be restored — it must be restored,
together with the chanting of the “schola” and the celebrants, if
a return is desired to the liturgical seriousness, sound form, and universality
that should characterize any sort of liturgical music worthy of the name, as Saint
Pius X taught and John Paul II repeated, without altering so much as a comma.
How could a bunch of insipid tunes stamped out according to the models of the
most trivial popular music ever replace the nobility and robustness of the Gregorian
melodies, even the most simple ones, which are capable of lifting the hearts of
the people up to heaven?
We have undervalued the Christian people’s
ability to learn; we have almost forced them to forget the Gregorian melodies
that they knew, instead of expanding and deepening their knowledge, including
through proper instruction on the meaning of the texts. And instead, we have stuffed
them full of banalities.
By cutting the umbilical cord of tradition in
this manner, we have deprived the new composers of liturgical music in the living
languages — assuming, without conceding, that they have sufficient technical
preparation — of the indispensable “humus” for composing in harmony
with the spirit of the Church.
We have undervalued — I insist —
the people’s ability to learn. It is obvious that not all of the repertoire
is suitable for the people: this is a distortion of the rightful participation
that is asked of the assembly, as if, in the matter of liturgical chant, the people
should be the only protagonist on the stage. We must respect the proper order
of things: the people should chant their part, but equal respect should be shown
for the role of the “schola,” the cantor, the psalmist, and, naturally,
the celebrant and the various ministers, who often prefer not to sing. As John
Paul II emphasized in his recent chirograph: “From the good coordination
of all — the celebrating priest and the deacon, the acolytes, ministers,
lectors, psalmist, ‘schola cantorum’, musicians, cantor, and assembly
— emerges the right spiritual atmosphere that makes the moment of the liturgy
intense, participatory, and fruitful.”
Do we want a revival of
Gregorian chant for the assembly? It should begin with the acclamations, the Pater
Noster, the ordinary chants of the Mass, especially the Kyrie, Sanctus,
and Agnus Dei. In many countries, the people were very familiar with the
Credo III, and the entire ordinary of the Mass VIII “de Angelis,”
and not only that! They knew the Pange Lingua, the Salve Regina,
and other antiphons. Experience teaches that the people, following a simple invitation,
will also sing the Missa Brevis and other easy Gregorian melodies that
they know by ear, even if it’s the first time they have sung them. There
is a minimal repertoire that must be learned, contained within the “Jubilate
Deo” of Paul VI, or in the “Liber Cantualis.”
If the people grow accustomed to singing the Gregorian repertoire suitable for
them, they will be in good shape to learn new songs in the living languages —
those songs, one understands, worthy of standing beside the Gregorian repertoire,
which should always retain its primacy. 
A persevering educational effort is called for. This is the first condition
for an appropriate and necessary recovery: something we priests often forget,
since we are quick to choose the solutions that involve the least effort. Or do
we prefer, in the place of substantial spiritual nourishment, to pepper the ear
with “pleasant” melodies or the jarring jangling of guitars, forgetting
that, as the future pope Pius X incisively pointed out to the clergy of Venice,
pleasure has never been the correct criterion for judging in holy things?
A work of formation is necessary. And how can we form the people, if we are
not first formed ourselves? The general congress of the “Consociatio Internationalis
Musicae Sacrae” was recently held at the Pontifical Institute of Sacred
Music, addressing this very topic, the formation of the clergy in sacred music.
For years now, seminarians and men and women religious have lacked a real formation
in the musical tradition of the Church, or even the most elementary musical formation.
Saint Pius X, and the entire magisterium of the Church after him, understood very
well that no work of reform or recovery is possible without an adequate formation.
One of the most substantial fruits of the “motu proprio”
of 1903, which has continued through time and is being renewed in our day, is
the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music in Rome, which has celebrated the hundredth
anniversary of its foundation. How many masters of Gregorian chant, of polyphony,
of the organ; how many practitioners of sacred music, scattered to every corner
of the Catholic world, have been formed in its halls! Without mentioning the other
higher schools of sacred music, and even the diocesan schools, and the various
courses and seminars of liturgical-musical formation. But is Gregorian chant really
taught there? And how is it taught? Has not the prejudice crept in that Gregorian
chant is outdated, to be set aside definitively?
What a serious mistake!
I would go so far as to say that without Gregorian chant, the Church is mutilated,
and that there cannot be Church music without Gregorian chant.
True sacred popular singing will be more valid
and substantial as it takes its inspiration from Gregorian chant.
|
The great masters of polyphony are even greater when they base themselves
upon Gregorian chant, mining it for themes, modes, and rhythmic variations. This
spirit imbuing their refined technique and this faithful adherence to the sacred
text and the liturgical moment made Palestrina, Lasso, Victoria, Guerrero, Morales,
and others great.
The renewal unleashed by “Inter Sollicitudines”
will be all the more valid as it takes its inspiration from Gregorian chant.
At their best, Perosi, Refice, and Bartolucci in our own day made Gregorian chant
the essence of their music. And this is not only true in terms of their complex
or choral compositions, but also in terms of creating new melodies, in Latin or
the vernacular, both for the liturgy and for devotional acts.
True sacred
popular singing will be more valid and substantial as it takes its inspiration
from Gregorian chant. John Paul II took as his own the principle asserted by Saint
Pius X: “A composition for the Church is all the more sacred and liturgical
the more its development, inspiration, and flavor approaches the Gregorian melody,
and the less worthy it is the more it distinguishes itself from that supreme model.”
But how can one address the creation of a high-quality repertoire for
the liturgy, including in the living languages, if the composers refuse to acknowledge
Gregorian chant?
Of course, the best school for mastering a repertoire,
for penetrating its secrets, is the real-life practice of that repertoire: something
that we, the bridge generation between the old and the new, had the fortune to
experience.
But
unfortunately, after us the curtain fell. Why this resistance to restoring, either
completely or partially depending on circumstances, the Mass in Gregorian chant
and Latin? Are the generations of today, perhaps, more ignorant than those of
the past?
The new missal proposes the Latin texts of the ordinary in
addition to the modern language version. The Church wants this. Why should we
lack the courage of conversion?
These young Churches of Africa and Asia, together
with the ministerial help they are already giving to our tired European Churches,
will give us the pride of recognizing, even within chant, the stone that we were
carved from.
|
Gregorian chant must not remain in the
preserve of academia, or the concert hall, or recordings; it must not be mummified
like a museum exhibit, but must return as living song, sung also by the assembly,
which will find that it satisfies their most profound spiritual tensions, and
will feel itself to be truly the people of God.
It’s time to break
through the inertia, and the shining example must come from the cathedral churches,
the major churches, the monasteries, the convents, the seminaries, and the houses
of religious formation. And so the humble parishes, too, will end up being “contaminated”
by the supreme beauty of the chant of the Church.
And the persuasive
power of Gregorian chant will reverberate, and will consolidate the people in
the true sense of Catholicism.
And the spirit of Gregorian chant will
inform a new breed of compositions, and will guide with the true “sensus
Ecclesiae” the efforts for a proper enculturation.
I would even
say that the melodies of the various local traditions, including those of faraway
countries with cultures much different from that of Europe, are near relatives
of Gregorian chant, and in this sense, too, Gregorian chant is truly universal,
capable of being proposed to all and of acting as an amalgam in regard to unity
and plurality.
Besides, it is precisely these faraway countries, these
cultures which have recently appeared on the horizon of the Catholic Church, that
are teaching us to love the traditional chant of the Church. These young Churches
of Africa and Asia, together with the ministerial help they are already giving
to our tired European Churches, will give us the pride of recognizing, even within
chant, the stone that we were carved from. And not a moment too soon!
Two
other factors that I maintain are indispensable for the renewal of Gregorian chant
and good sacred music are the following:
- Above all, the musical formation
of priests, religious, and the faithful requires seriousness, and the avoidance
of the halfhearted amateurishness seen in some volunteers. Those who have gone
through great pains to prepare themselves for this service must be hired, and
proper remuneration for them secured. In a word, we must know how to spend money
on music. It is unthinkable that we should spend money on everything from flowers
to banners, but not on music. What sense would it make to encourage young people
to study, and then keep them unemployed, if not indeed humiliated or tormented
by our whims and our lack of seriousness?
- The second necessary
factor is harmony in action. John Paul II recalled: “The musical aspect
of liturgical celebrations cannot be left to improvisation or the decision of
individuals, but must be entrusted to well-coordinated leadership, in respect
for the norms and competent authorities, as the substantial outcome of an adequate
liturgical formation.” So, then, respect for the norms — which is already
a widespread desire. We are waiting for authoritative directives, imparted with
authority. And the coordination of all the local initiatives and practices is
a service that rightfully belongs to the Church of Rome, to the Holy See. This
is the opportune moment, and there is no time to waste.
Additional
Resources
A previous conference with Valentino Miserachs
Grau, on sacred music in today’s Church: Liturgical
Music: “Here Is the Reform that the Church Needs” (6.8.2003)
On this website, all the articles on these topics: Focus
on Art and music
The Holy See’s “conservatory”:
Pontificium
Institutum Musicae Sacrae
English translation by Matthew Sherry:
traduttore@hotmail.com
Go
to the English home page of www.chiesa.espressonline.it,
to access the latest articles and links to other resources.
Sandro Magister’s
e-mail address is s.magister@espressoedit.it
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Sandro Magister. "Gregorian Chant Is Returning from Exile. Maybe."
Chiesa.com (December 5, 2005).
Reprinted with permission from Sandro
Magister.
THE AUTHOR
Sandro Magister
manages Chiesa and write from Rome.
Copyright © 2005
Chiesa
