Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus

Ave verum corpus is a short Eucharistic hymn dating from the 14th century and attributed to Pope Innocent VI (d. 1362), which has been set to music by various composers. During the Middle Ages it was sung at the elevation of the host during the consecration. It was also used frequently during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

The hymn's title means "Hail, true body", and is based on a poem deriving from a 14th-century manuscript from the Abbey of Reichenau, Lake Constance. The poem is a meditation on the Catholic belief in Jesus’s Real Presence in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and ties it to Catholic ideas on the redemptive meaning of suffering in the life of all believers.

Ave verum corpus (Hail, true Body)
natum de Maria Virgine,(Born of the Virgin Mary)
vere passum, immolatum (Truly suffered, immolated)
in cruce pro homine (On the Cross for man)
cuius latus perforatum (Whose pierced side)
unda fluxit et sanguine, (Flowed with water and blood,)
esto nobis praegustatum (Let it be for us a foretaste [of heaven])
in mortis examine. (In the trial of death.)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s setting of Ave verum corpus was written for Anton Stoll (a friend of his and Haydn’s) who was musical co-ordinator in the parish of Baden, near Vienna. It was composed to celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi.

Mozart composed this piece while in the middle of writing his opera Die Zauberflote, and while visiting his wife Constanze, who was pregnant with their sixth child and staying in a spa near Baden. Mozart died less than six months later.

Lesson from History

...consider the Catholic musician in 1964. He was certain that the future of liturgical music would progress by building upon its past, developing the chant tradition of the church and carrying it into the future. Even the documents of Vatican II, particularly Musica Sacra, called for the composition of “new chants for use in the reformed rites”, a sign that this was the vision being put forward at the time. But that is not how things progressed. In a short period of time, the fundamental paradigm of liturgical music changed, causing not just a swerve in the path, but the ending of the path and the beginning of an entirely new path. It can happen… it did happen only some 45 years ago. There were signs of the coming changes, but the acceptance of the paradigms that had guided liturgical music up to that time kept them from being seen, or at least being taken seriously.
Read more here

Our Bishops Call for Chant

From The Authentic Update:

By an even modest estimation, there are perhaps hundreds of blogs, websites and chat groups dedicated to the discussion of liturgical music. They range from the wildly progressive to the soberingly Orthodox, encompassing every style from Contemporary Christian Rock music to Gregorian Chant and Renaissance Polyphony. The debate about what music is most appropriate in the liturgy began long before the promulgation of the New missal in 1970 and has continued up to this day unabated. Recently however, the debate has heated up, prompted in part by recent liturgical reforms originating from the Holy See, and by the emergence of a grass-roots movement to re-establish the musical tradition of the Catholic Church within the context of these reforms.

With the USCCB document Sing To The Lord, the issue of re-introducing Latin Chant (and other forms of traditional liturgical music) to the liturgy has come suddenly to the foreground, with two camps dominating the debate. Their positions are predictably in line with their views on other aspects of liturgy, centering around what has been perhaps one of the most misunderstood platforms of Vatican II, the call for “full, active and conscious participation of the faithful”. Their respective positions could be summarized as follows:

Pro:– “Gregorian Chant is the music best suited for use in the Roman liturgy. It’s superiority has been re-affirmed by every Pope up to and including the present Holy Father, and it is the music proclaimed as the best suited to the liturgy by the documents of Vatican II, which asked that it be given “pride of place” in the liturgy, taking precedence over other forms of music even though they may be suitable as well. The reason for this suitability is that Gregorian Chant is the actual texts of the Mass itself set to music, expressing eloquently the depth and subtlety of the Catholic faith in a way that substitute “songs” and hymns cannot do. As such, the Chant is an indispensible part of the Roman liturgy, the absence of which has created a serious break with tradition and caused a deterioration of the liturgical form more generally.”

Con: ”Gregorian Chant, while a beautiful and important part of the tradition of the Catholic Church, is unsuitable for a modern liturgy which emphasizes the “full, active and conscious participation of the faithful”. The musical sensibilities of Chant are unfamiliar and alien to all but the elite who study it, and the fact that few if any of the faithful understand Latin means that even if they were able to sing Chant, they wouldn’t be able to understand what they are singing. While the documents of Vatican II re-affirmed the important place of Chant in the traditions of the Church, they also foresaw the creation of new music to better express the call for the participation of the faithful in the liturgy, and likely did not foresee the success of contemporary music in this regard. As such, the prominence of vernacular language contemporary liturgical songs is keeping with the “Spirit of the Council”, allowing the faithful to understand what they are singing and engage more fully in the meaning of the liturgy.”

There are, of course, many other points that can be made either in favor of Chant or against it, but the two above expressions contain, I think, all of the salient points of the positions that are currently engaged in debate. We need to begin by saying that neither side is necessarily right, in the sense that there is a definitive right or wrong to be found, but there are very clearly some assumptions about the liturgy that have led to the acceptance of a flawed premise for the debate in general, and for the adoption of the “con” position specifically. These assumptions might be best described as accepting “too vague a notion of cognition and understanding as they apply to liturgical form.”

Continue Reading ...

Rip Up Those Carpets

Rip up those carpets!
by Jeffrey Tucker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every parish struggles with acoustical problems, some because of the large space, but some because of the wholly unnecessary existence of carpet in the nave and sanctuary. Many parishes have made the huge mistake of carpeting their church space because someone on someone on some know-nothing committee thought that the carpet made the place feel warmer and friendly—like a living room—and perhaps too, someone found the echoes of children crying or hymnbooks dropping to be annoying.

Sadly, carpet is a killer of good liturgical acoustics. It wrecks the music, as singers struggle to overcome it. The readers end up sounding more didactic than profound. And even the greatest organ in the world can't fight the sound buffer that carpet creates. All the time you spend rehearsing, and all the money paying a good organist or buying an organ, ends up as money down the carpet drain.

Elementary errors are involved in the decision. When the church is being constructed and tested for sound, it is during a time when it is empty of bodies. The decision makers stand around and note that a new carpet won't make that much difference. Once installed, it only appears to muffle the sound of steps and things dropped. But once the place is packed with people, something new is discovered. The sound is completely dead—dead in the sense that it doesn't move. This is not the sound of liturgy.

This is when the acoustic engineers are brought in, usually from some local firm that specializes in studio recordings or some such. What they will not tell you is that you can save the expense of massively pricey sound systems and mixing tricks simply by pulling up the carpet. They don't tell you this because they are not in the carpet removal business. Their job is to make the existing space sound better. Sadly, this means sometimes tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, the effect of which is to make it impossible for anyone to be heard unless surrounded by microphones.

Again, this is no solution at all. Chant will never sound right. The organ becomes a complete waste. The instruments and vocal styles that work in a space like this belong more to the American Idol genre of music than sacred music. This is a true tragedy for any parish seeking to reform its liturgical program. I'm very sorry to say this, but it pretty well dooms the reform. You can chant and play Bach all you want but you will never be able to overcome the acoustic limitations.

What to do? The decision makers need to gather the courage to take action. Pull up the carpets immediately. It might leave concrete or wood or something else. It might be unsightly until the time when tile or new concrete or wood can be installed, but the mere appearance alone will call forth a donation perhaps. What's important is that immediately the sound will be fixed, and the parish will have save untold amounts in paying the acoustic firm. Not only that: funds will be saved from future carpet cleanings, repairs, and replacements.

Much of this information I learned from Reidel and Associates, a firm that does consulting on worship spaces. I ordered their pamphlet about sound called "Acoustics in the Worship Space" by Scott R. Riedel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986). It is quite technical and very informative. Here is what he says about floors on page 17.

The floor is typically the building surface that is largest and nearest to worshipers and musicians. It is important that the floor be reflective of sound, particularly near musicians, since it provides the first opportunity for much sound energy to be reinforced. Carpet is an inappropriate floor covering in the worship space; it is acoustically counterproductive to the needs of the worshipers.

The mood of warmth and elegance that carpeting sometimes provides can also be provided with acoustically reflective flooring such as quarry tile or wood that is of warm color and high quality. The notion that the worshiper covers the floor surface, making its material composition acoustically unimportant is false. The large floor area of the worship space bas great acoustical influence. Appropriate floor materials include slate, quarry tile, sealed wood, brick, stone, ceramic tile, terrazzo, and marble.

Walk and Ceiling. Durable, hard-surfaced walls and ceiling are also essential for good acoustical reflections. The ceiling is potentially the largest uninterrupted surface and therefore should be used to reinforce tone. Large expanses of absorptive acoustical ceiling tile are to be strictly avoided. Appropriate wall or ceiling materials include hard plaster, drywall of substantial thickness, sealed woods, glazed brick, stone, med and painted concrete block, marble, and rigidly mounted wood paneling.

The construction of walls, floors, and doors should retard the transmission of noise into the space from adjoining rooms, from the outdoors, or via structure-borne paths. Sound attenuators or absorptive material may be fitted to heat and air ducts to reduce mechanical noise also.

Some may consider using absorbing materials such as carpeting or acoustical tile to suppress noise from the congregation. Noise from shuffled feet or small children is usually not as pervasive as might be feared. It is unwise to destroy the proper reverberant acoustical setting for worship in deference to highly infrequent noisy behavior.

Let me now address the issue of noise. A building in which you can hear your footsteps signals something in our imaginations. It is a special place, a place in which we are encouraged to walk carefully and stay as quiet as possible. Pops, cracks, thumbs, and sounds of all sorts coming from no particular direction is part of the ambiance of church, and its contributes to the feeling of awe.
It was some years ago that I attended a concert of organum—three voices singing early medieval liturgical music—at the National Cathedral in Washington, a vast space. There were only three small voices near the altar, and I was at the back and the people singing looked like tiny specs. Moving my foot a few inches created a noise that could be heard for 20 feet in all directions, loud enough to drown out the music. As a result, everyone sat in frozen silence, fearing even to move a muscle. This went on for more than a full hour. It was a gripping experience.

The closer we can come to creating this environment in our parishes, the holier the space will sound and feel. I've personally never heard an echo that is too extended for worship. It is possible I suppose but I've never experienced it.

One final point about Church acoustics that needs to be added here. The Introit of the Mass is not: "Please turn off your cellphones." This line is increasingly common at the start of Mass. This really must end. Yes, it is a good thing for people to turn off cell phones but instructions to that effect are not what should be the first words one hears at the start of Mass.

And please consider that people are not dumb as sticks. Cell phones are a normal part of life now, and we are all learning to keep them off in any public lecture or event such as a worship service. These things take care of themselves over time. For someone's cell phone to ring ends up being a warning to everyone else for the future.

Sacred Music: Handmaiden of the Liturgy

The place of sacred music in the life of the church has an effective function and a lofty purpose. Its function is to be the handmaiden of the liturgy, making the sung prayers beautiful, solemn, and moving. The lofty purpose of sacred music, like the liturgy itself, was described most succinctly by Pope St. Pius X when he wrote that the purpose of sacred music is "the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful."

The Priests - Pie Jesu

Rehearsal Reflection No. 1

What an amazing night we had! It was an absolute privilege to be in the company of such God-loving, dedicated and EAGER men!

I can tell you that the potential this group has is mighty and powerful . . . not at all because of who we are or what we have done, but because of who He is and all that He has done. I commend each of you for being open to the mission of restoring the sacred. Just as Mary is the window through which we see Jesus, we can be windows others may look through too. People are starving for the sacred, and what greater calling can any of us have than to point them to it? Let us strive to be like Mary, always pointing to her Son.

Remembering that God called each of us to this noble cause, be mindful that He does not always call the equipped, but He is FAITHFUL to equip the called. Singing brings peace and is therefore a prayer for ALL people - both those who sing and those who listen. It is the sacred transendence we concern ourselves with, not some sort of banal cacaphony. Let our song be as incense rising to heaven.

We will be getting down to nuts and bolts in the weeks to come. Please pray for continued openness and patience for all as we move forward.

St. Cecilia, Ora Pro Nobis

--Whenever you begin to undertake any good work, beg God with most earnest prayer to bring it to completion. –St. Benedict