Christ, the Sacraments, and Gregorian Chant as Art

This reflection came about because of a discussion on the Catholic Answers Forums.

A definition of art might be “an authentic human expression in a sensible medium.”

This means that art comes from human nature and human experience. Therefore, art is directed in some way to the Truth and the Good. These correspond to man’s spiritual faculties of intellect and will. Now, what makes art to be art rather than a purely intellectual exercise is the sensible expression. This is also why art is human: the visible is in harmony with the invisible. We are material bodies informed by spiritual souls.

To say that some art is ‘better’ than other art is to say that it accomplishes its end more effectively, namely, it expresses more profoundly human nature and human experience. Even art that is not explicitly Christian, to the degree that it expresses Truth or Beauty, references Christ in an implicit way. This is not only because Christ is the Truth and is Beauty in his divine nature but because Christ is fully human and without sin. Therefore, in his Person humanity and divinity are united perfectly, and Christ himself is the authentic expression of what it means to be human.

Now, if a piece or genre of art by its nature is misleading about human nature or about the human end (Truth, Good), then it could also be an occasion of sin because it could frustrate in those who experience it the achievement of man’s end: this is sin by definition.

This is not to say that art can never depict or express sinful things. By no means! Sometimes art presents a conflict. It could present a division in man between the visible and the invisible or between man’s end and where he actually finds himself. This does not make art less an authentic expression of human nature because it is expressing the truth of where man finds himself due to original sin. This very conflict makes us desire the resolution for the conflict–Christ–even more and, therefore, helps man to achieve his end.

We have to avoid, therefore, even aesthetic relativism. There is no Beauty without Truth, and there is no Good apart from these. This is simply because God himself is the Truth, the Good, and Beauty.

Some art, then, is more fully art than other art because it is more fully human.

Christ, then, is art par excellence: he is more fully human than we are because sin makes us less human. Why? Man is “in the image and likeness of God” (Note that this is the language of art). Sin defaces that image, but Christ is “the image of the invisible God.” In other words, Christ is “art of God”–a sensible expression of the invisible.

This is on a divine level in Christ’s divine nature: the Second Person is the perfect image of the First Person such that he is actually consubstantial with the First Person.

This is on a human level in Christ’s human nature: Christ’s human nature was flawless and perfectly subordinated to his divine nature. Thus, Christ in his human nature was a perfect human image of the Father: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

Therefore, if Christ is perfect art in himself, divine and human, what are the sacraments? The sacraments–and especially the Eucharist–become more fully than anything art because in them is Christ. The sacraments are our visible, bodily, human encounter with Christ. This is more powerful than any other art because the sacraments not only point to Christ, but they were instituted (or “authored” or “composed”) by Christ and Christ is contained in them.

Because Christ is man’s end and also a perfect man himself, these sacraments instituted by him are a more authentic expression of true human nature and true human experience than anything we could come up with.

Not only that! The sacraments bring about grace in us. By our very reception of them, they help us achieve our end (if we do not resist). They not only dispose us to grace as other types of art might, but they confer grace to us: they give us the Holy Spirit.

Why is Gregorian chant the music most suited for the liturgy of the Roman Rite? Isn’t which music we find most beautiful or sacred a subjective judgment? No. We are in constant danger in this age of regarding beauty as subjective. In fact, God is Beauty. Beauty, therefore is beauty insofar as it corresponds to God, that is, to the Truth, that is, to the Good.

Gregorian chant has several qualities that make it sacred in an objective sense. One is that its instrument, properly speaking, is the human voice. Thus, in a very direct way, the instrument for chant was devised by God himself and calls to mind Christ’s perfect prayers to the Father and the psalms he chanted with a human voice.

Gregorian chant, also, has for its content primarily Scripture. Chant is not only for the liturgy or for the Scripture; it is of the liturgy and of the Scripture. The nature of the melodies, too, is such that it serves the text most effectively. The text and its musical expression are scarcely considered as separate in Gregorian chant. Thus, God may be said to be the author of the chant since its content is given by him in the Scriptures.

We must also not forget the Church’s role in the liturgy. Indeed, the essential and primary liturgies are given by God to the Church (e.g., the essential elements of the sacraments). However, the other rites and things which embellish these essential forms are given to us by the traditions of the Church. The Church, then, is a true mother because she teaches us how to pray, that is, she responds to God because she is united to Christ who perfectly responds to God.

We, then, are taken into the Church’s response, which is Christ’s response to the Father. The Church, therefore, teaches us an authentic and integral human response to God through her liturgical rites and by her presence in the world. We absolutely must pray, then, in continuity with the Church’s tradition. This is not only by following the rubrics but also by praying in the same words and with same melodies which are very ancient.

The traditional liturgical expressions of the Church can never be foreign to us because they are an authentic human response to God. We must allow ourselves to be formed by them so that we may be more fully human. In this way, the Church’s traditional liturgical responses to God: the rites, Gregorian chant and the Latin language (in the Roman Rite) etc. become an authentic personal response to God. We become conformed to the mind and heart of the Church and in doing so become conformed to the mind and heart of Christ. Thus, we become more authentically and integrally the image of God.

St. Augustine, Confessions:

O eternal truth, true love and beloved eternity.

7 Responses to “Christ, the Sacraments, and Gregorian Chant as Art”

Gravatar Michael E. Lawrence

What a wonderful reflection! I’ll post a link from the New Liturgical Movement.

Gravatar Seminarian Stephen Attard

A work of Art! Thank God for such a gift. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Keep it up.

Gravatar Dylan

What an honor! Thank you.

Gravatar Fr. Jeffrey Steel

Excellent site! Glad to add it to my blog here in the UK.

Gravatar jeffrey

Can you please send a copy of this for possible publication in Sacred Music? jatucker@mindspring.com Thank you!

Gravatar Anonymous

Just thought I would comment on your well written piece with a few minor observations.

Firstly I thought your definition of art was slightly insufficient. What is a “sensible” medium, and what is “authentic” human expression? Your definition leans towards a moral bent on the outset with the use of the word “sensible.”

Secondly, I just dont think the whole question regarding Gregorian chant has been answered here. It is true that Gregorian Chant has a scriptural basis, but so can any particular lyrics that anyone can write for a piece of music. The whole premise that the chant is somehow “God’s special music” cannot be sereriously substantiated.

Although you dismiss subjectivity, how is a like or dislike of Gregorian chant over other music anything but subjective. The use of scripture, human voice, and melody are as much a human construction as any other music. Why then do we insist on putting this chant above all else? Just because chant is beautiful and has substantial history behind it doesnt mean we have to theologise it, where it becomes somehow more holy, sacred and “beautiful” than other music. Using the criteria for attributing Gregorian chant given, you could theologise just about any music that somehow fits your personal view on music in the liturgy.

Thanks

Gravatar Dylan

Firstly I thought your definition of art was slightly insufficient. What is a “sensible” medium, and what is “authentic” human expression? Your definition leans towards a moral bent on the outset with the use of the word “sensible.”

‘Sensible’ means “perceptible to the senses,” e.g., a painting is visible and chant is audible. The question of what is an authentic human expression is key. I propose that an authentic human expression is something that is in keeping with the truth about human nature such that it in some way calls to mind the purpose of human existence. This calling to mind can certainly–sometimes more effectively–be indirect such as when art presents something evil as being evil.

The whole question about Gregorian chant is by no means answered here. In fact, I use chant as an example of the fact that what is most appropriate for the liturgy is not the same as what the greatest number of people finds inspiring, prayerful, etc.

Chant not only has a scriptural basis but the form of chant is such that it is non-secular and such that it complements and uplifts the text. To read more about such things, I recommend Tra le Sollecitudini by Pius X.

Although you dismiss subjectivity, how is a like or dislike of Gregorian chant over other music anything but subjective.

You’re right; liking versus disliking Gregorian chant is subjective. As far as the liturgy is concerned, however, it’s not a question of like versus dislike: it’s a question of being taken into the Church’s prayer, which is Christ’s prayer. This concerns even those human elements of the liturgy, which have developed over time. There is much to be said for praying with the same words and the same forms that have been in use for so long.

The use of scripture, human voice, and melody are as much a human construction as any other music.

I have to be honest that I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Scripture, for instance, is primarily the work of God. The human voice, also, was devised and created by God. These qualities are some examples of why chant, in a special way, is sacred.

Why then do we insist on putting this chant above all else? Just because chant is beautiful and has substantial history behind it doesnt mean we have to theologise it, where it becomes somehow more holy, sacred and “beautiful” than other music. Using the criteria for attributing Gregorian chant given, you could theologise just about any music that somehow fits your personal view on music in the liturgy.

I like to think that it’s not about my personal view on music in the liturgy. When my personal tastes and inclinations don’t conform to the Church’s worship of God in a proper way, I am the one who needs to change.

All of this, of course, presumes that a certain type of inculturation is appropriate. The elements present in different cultures, however, are not always on an equal level and ought not to be chosen among indiscriminately. Rather, Gregorian chant (as the example in this case) must truly be given “pride of place” because of its most suitable form and long tradition of use.

Leave a Reply

By submitting a comment, you agree that you have the right to post the comment and the right to place the comment under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License and that you are applying this license to the comment.

Powered by WP Hashcash