The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,
Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two documents issued
on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents
issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document,
Inter Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum
Concilium is one of the most important documents of the
Council, one that has been the least understood and,
I believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by
having been fulfilled — but by having been ignored
or misinterpreted...
...In paragraph 112, in which the Council
speaks specifically of music, we read: “The musical
tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of inestimable
value, greater even than that of any other art.” That
is a stupendous and shocking statement; the Council actually
says that the Church’s music is a treasure of art
greater than any other treasure of art she has. Think about
that. Think about Chartres Cathedral. Think about the Pieta.
Think about Da Vinci’s Last Supper. Think of all
the crucifixes from Catalonia in Spain, and all the Church
architecture and art and paintings and sculpture. The Council
boldly says that the Church’s musical tradition is
a treasure of inestimable value greater than any other
art.
But the Council would be remiss in making
such a shocking statement without giving a reason for it: “The
main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred song
united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part
of the solemn liturgy.” What that means is this:
it’s wonderful to have a beautiful church, stained
glass windows, statues, a noble crucifix, prayerful architecture
that lift your heart up to God. But those are all surroundings
of the Mass. It’s the “worship environment,” as
they would say today. But it’s not the Mass itself.
The Council says that when the Mass itself is set to music,
that’s what ennobles music, which, itself, enhances
the Mass; and that’s what makes the musical tradition
the most precious tradition of the Church.
Notice, however, that the Council implies
what many Church documents have said explicitly — that
the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the hymns,
the so-called “Gathering hymn” and its antithesis — I
guess you would call it the “Scattering hymn” — at
the end. The most appropriate use of music at Mass, as
seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the Council,
is singing the Mass itself: the
Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations,
the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn’t Father
Fessio’s pet theory; this is what the Council actually
says. Paragraph 112 adds, “Sacred music is to be
considered the more holy in proportion as it is the more
closely connected with the liturgical action itself.” This
reinforces my point.
Paragraph 114 adds: “The treasure of
sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great
care.” Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker: “The
Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited
to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal,
it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” That’s
what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish
which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II,
then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish.
And if you’re not singing the Gregorian Chant, you’re
not following the specific mandate of the Second Vatican
Council.
Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian
Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music,
I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And
a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn’t
come earlier I don’t know, but the fact is that the
Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant
to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought
came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San
Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, “Do
you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?” “Well,
no, we recite them,” he said. “Do you know
what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament
times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?” I
asked. He said, “No, but why don’t you call
this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music,
and they may know.”
So, I called the company and they said, “We
don’t know; call 1-800-JUDAISM.” So I did.
And I got an information center for Jewish traditions,
and they didn’t know either. But they said, “You
call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know.” So,
I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a
long conversation. At the end, I said, “I want to
bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what
it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?” He
said, “Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian
Chant. You got it from us.”
I was amazed. I called Professor William
Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a
friend. I said, “Bill, is this true?” He said, “Yes.
The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody
and psalmody.” So, you know something? If you sing
the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as
close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They
sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today
in Gregorian Chant.
So, the Council isn’t calling us back
to some medieval practice, those “horrible” medieval
times, the “terrible” Middle Ages, when they
knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was
build a Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and
churches built that have a tenth of the beauty of Notre
Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have
the right to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak
about beauty in the liturgy.) But my point is that at the
time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th century, the Psalms
tones were already over a thousand years old. They are
called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from
590 to 604. But they were already a thousand years old
when he reigned. He didn’t invent Gregorian chant;
he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish
musical schools to sing it and teach it. It was a reform;
it wasn’t an invention. Thus, the Council really
calls us back to an unbroken tradition of truly sacred
music and gives such music pride of place.
The last thing I want to quote from the Council
is paragraph 128, which talks about sacred art and sacred
furnishings: “Along with the revisions of liturgical
books . . . there is to be an earlier revision of the canons
and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provisions
of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws
refer especially to the worthy and well-planned construction
of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars,
the nobility, placing and safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle,
the dignity and suitability of the baptistery . . .” and
so on.
