|
The principal participation
asked of the congregation usually is that of the song. We generally
accept the following equation: silent assembly equals dead assembly;
singing assembly equals participation assembly. Without a doubt
the equation makes the role of music too important, for -- it
is necessary to repeat it without growing tired -- we have not
been baptized in order to sing better. But at least the equation
underlines the importance of song in the liturgical celebration.
Generally, we think
that the song which is asked of the assembly is, preferable,
the one wish expresses itself in a sweet and smooth manner,
without shouting, without sudden bursting forth of melody, without
rhythmic jolt: in short, a song which strays neither to the
right not to the left of the "religious" road. Does
not the Consecution on the Sacred Liturgy affirm that
sacred music gives "prayer a sweeter expresion,"
orationem suavius exprimens? It would be difficult for
the ordinary faithful to comprehend that a song which is not
"sweet" could be "pious" in the liturgical
celebration.
It seems that here
again we are victims of the Latin Gregorian model. Actually,
according to Pius X, "... an ecclesiastical composition
is proportionately more sacred and liturgical as by style, position
is proportionately more sacred and liturgical as by style, by
inspiration and by taste it approximates the Gregorian melody
..." To be sure, there are Gregorian melodies bounding
like fawns in spring, gushing like mountain streams, But the
Gregorian restoration was done principally in monasteries. As
a result, we have a "monastic" character in the execution
of the Gregorian.
Truly, around the "sweet"
or sedative song -- integrated with tranquil majesty into the
rhythm of the celebration and suited fully to many of our liturgies
-- there is a wide range of other possibilities for and assembly's
participation. The two extremes of this range are acclamation
and silence.
|
