• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

“Polls Ye Shall Always Have With You”

Jeff Ostrowski · February 3, 2014

“The liturgy must keep a dignified and sacred character.” — Vatican Instruction issued 11/5/1970

832 Paul VI Vestments Paul VI ignored “polls” for Humanæ Vitæ OTHING MAKES a Church musician tremble like a parishioner saying: “Why don’t you do more music that people enjoy?” After all, in the year 2014 our decisions are increasingly governed by polls, and we’ve become accustomed to them. Speaking of the infamous Alius Cantus Aptus, László Dobszay said:

No song can be rejected because it is unworthy of the liturgy, for the counter-argument * is always at hand: “Our people like it”; “This congregation favors it”; “The song is fitting for this age group,” and so on.

We become distraught reading the latest poll numbers about how many Catholics think such-and-such or believe in such-and-such. We could learn a thing or two from Gary Larson’s comic strip The Far Side. In one scene, a team of surgeons surrounds an operating table and one doctor says, “OK, let’s put it to a vote: how many here say the heart has four chambers?” The lesson is clear: when it comes to really important things, surveys are often irrelevant. (For the record, the way in which surveys are conducted frequently affects their results.)

Even Rome has occasionally fallen under the influence of polls. Msgr. Schuler describes a 1981 survey which basically determined that “nobody wants Latin at Church and nobody is using it” (I’m paraphrasing). According to Schuler, the progressive liturgists were elated, and he explains how troubling such “glee” is:

      * *  1981 Editorial by Msgr. Richard J. Schuler • “Success” of the Liturgical Reform

Only a fool would give his students a “survey” to determine what he should teach them. Only a quack would give his patients a “poll” to determine what treatment he should prescribe for them. Tastes often change with time. Furthermore, the tastes of Person A, Person B, and Person C often conflict. When it comes to the sacred liturgy, polls and surveys are ultimately irrelevant, in spite of the fact that admitting this can make a person sound arrogant and dismissive. In fact, the Catholic Faith has never been a numbers game (cf. Jn 6:67), and there will be no polls taken when each of us appears before God to be judged.

AS MONSIGNOR SCHULER EXPLAINED in that article, the “progressive” liturgists won and the pronouncements of Vatican II lost … at least with regard to the Roman Liturgy. The heart-rending situation with regard to Sunday Mass attendance, belief in the Real Presence, vocations to the Priesthood, and so forth is not in dispute. Furthermore, the vast majority of Churches replace the Propers with banal music written in a secular style, and we’ve actually reached a point where many faithful Catholics believe songs like Be Not Afraid represent the “good old traditional Catholic hymns.”

And yet … some still aren’t content. The NLM recently reviewed a book attacking Benedict XVI’s decision to allow the Extraordinary Form as an option for those who want it. (Incidentally, this book was practically indistinguishable from hundreds of others commissioned by the same publisher.) It’s almost as if certain parties cannot bear the thought of even 1% of parishes having a reverent liturgy, Gregorian chant, sung Propers, polyphony & organ music, or (horror of horrors!) the Extraordinary Form. All of a sudden, the principle of “what the people want” doesn’t apply.

FOR YEARS, I WONDERED WHY this situation persisted. I’ve come to believe the answer is analogous to the worm that dieth not.  “The worm that dieth not” denotes the pain of regret in hell: knowing for all eternity how easy it would have been to obey God’s Law.

The reality is, serious Catholics know where to locate information about correct liturgical practices. Those who wish to “do it right” know which publishers are loyal to the Holy Father and which music professors take Vatican II seriously. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time you saw the music of today’s popular Catholic composers treated in a serious way? When did you hear such music afforded respect by professional musicians? When did you read an analysis of such music in a scholarly journal? The closest thing I can recall was a DMA thesis paper attempting to present Marty Haugen’s Mass of Creation as a masterpiece “because the melody draws substantially from the chromatic scale.” Gregorian chant is often very simple and singable by everyone — yet it remains highly regarded by serious people because it was composed with great skill.

Those who hate the traditions mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium know deep down that such things are great, beautiful, holy, good, and serious. And this is what drives them crazy.

IN LATE 2013, MAESTRO JAMES MACMILLAN said decades of “mind-numbingly depressing banality” had followed the Second Vatican Council. His words annoyed a “progressive” Church composer named Bernadette Farrell, who published a reply. Her argument was basically that Church musicians ought to stop being selfish by programming music we like (i.e. Gregorian chant). Instead, Farrell continued, we should have the courage to play music according to others’ tastes. Here’s an excerpt from her article:

A conversion that removes my own needs and desires from the centre of my life and replaces it with others’.

Farrell is completely wrong here. In fact, nothing is easier than giving people what they want. What is truly difficult is ignoring the polls and following the Will of God as revealed to each of us through daily prayer, contemplation, and study of the Church documents.




NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

*   Dom Gregory Murray wrote the following in 1977:

Those who like Palestrina will have little use for folk Masses. Everything depends on people’s background and what they are accustomed to. It would manifestly be as absurd to expect the monks of Solesmes to sing a folk Mass as to compel a group of pop-loving teenagers to limit their repertoire to a Mocquereau rendering of the chant.

However, Dom Gregory doesn’t indicate what should be done when a Solesmes monk attends Mass with a “pop-loving teenager.” Or is he saying only those who possess similar musical tastes should be allowed to attend Mass together?

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Annibale Bugnini Reform Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“The recitation of the Office of the Dead, the Christmas Office, the spectacle of the days of Holy Week, the sublime chant of the Exultet, beside which the most intoxicating accents of Sophocles and Pindar seemed to me to be insignificant—all of this overwhelmed me with respect and joy, with gratitude, repentance, and adoration!”

— Paul Claudel (1913)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up