This is a thread where people like me who until recently thought they could know lots about music without understanding a thing about choral music fill the gaps in their ignorance.

DonB has been inordinately helpful to me off-board in helping me get my head round some of the standard rules and procedures which determine the appearance of different kinds of music and texts in ritual worship. For now I'm not going to ask any more questions about that, but I want to ask a different question, which is: Do 'liturgical' and 'sacred' mean the same thing, or can a piece of music be sacred without being liturgical? (I certainly don't see how it can be liturgical without also being sacred.)

Also, if they mean different things, is secular the opposite of liturgical or the opposite of sacred?

Sacred is the opposite of secular.

Liturgy has subtly changed its meaning recently.  It used to mean "in official service books."  Evensong is liturgical, a carol service is not. Methodists and Baptists and Pentecostals and Quakers couldn't be said to have any liturgies.

A Palestrina mass was liturgical.  Haydn's Seven Last words were not, although written for a church service.  The service in question, the Three Hours Devotion on Good Friday, was not an official service, and could be categorised as devotional rather than liturgical.  If Biber's Mystery Sonatas were indeed played at a recital of the rosary, then they too would be devotional.

However the word liturgical is used a lot nowadays with a different slant...

O and for the Eastern Orthodox, the Divine Liturgy meant the eucharist or mass.  Their other services are highly liturgical, but the Divine Liturgy can only refer to the eucharist.

Just seen George's point.

This question bothered Handel (and his audiences) a great deal.  I hadn't realised until relatively recently that none of his oratorios was ever performed in a church, chapel or cathedral during his lifetime - with the exception of the MESSIAH performance that was given for the benefit of Thomas Coram's orphans foundation in their (at the time) half-completed chapel.  (Perhaps the very first performance of Messiah for a "church roof benefit", since the funds were intended to complete the building?).  We are so very used to hearing Handel's oratorios in churches (in fact they're almost exclusively performed there) that it's forgotten they were written for concert performances in theatres.  In answer to your question, I suppose this makes them "devout expressions of faith" rather than "sacred" works, and certainly not liturgical.  Handel is more usually alive to the interpersonal conflicts in the story (ie the theatrical - "secular"? - elements) than any "sacred" meaning - with the exception of MESSIAH, which doesn't have "characters" in it.

Does the physical location of a performance make any implicit statement about the "holiness" of a work?  If so, why?  Because of the sanctity of a church*, or because of the sanction made by the priest or bishop who permitted the performance there?

I am somewhat peeved at the moment since we have been refused permission by the Polish Catholic Diocesan Bishop of Moscow to stage THE PLAY OF DANIEL in their cathedral - "on religious grounds".  His Holiness suggested to us that "the medieval monks were ignorant men"  

Yes, but on the more recent meaning of liturgical I have outlined (a communal action) you could apply it, with varying degrees of irony, to secular commemorations.  One example that springs to mind, and you're going to hate this, is the Last Night of the Proms.  I'll try to think of a better example.

O yes, Sir Elton singing Candle in the wind at some wretched woman's funeral, I believe.  Now that was part of a liturgical action, and it does come under reiner's scenario - it is liturgical because it was sung in church.

Have I interpreted that right?
So the obvious one is Christianity, but variety is never bad.


Even so, I didn't mention spirituality.

No (although it comes to the same thing). 'Works' was supposed to be a verb in my sentence.

My post was a bit rushed though, and didn't really say what I meant. Sorry about spirituality. I'll try to come back to this later - I need to explain myself better.

I have always been interested in Pagan traditions. I only know one Pagan person, and she is easily the most ferociously intelligent person I've ever met. We're out of touch now, unfortunately.

As for the topic, I have nothing to add other than registering that I'm following it closely. Here's something decidedly not sacred:



I feel particularly sorry for the fellow whose legs are dangling out of the elephant's belly.