106 years later, has anything changed?

[passus]

Ah, the arrogance of youth! I wish I knew as much now as I did when I was your age! But here’s something you haven’t learned yet: obedience is a virtue. So is humility.

You sound like you’re well-acquainted with humility.

I would appreciate if you could concern yourself less with what you perceive to be my “arrogance,” ignore my age, and address my arguments. Thank you.

Part of service is the willingness to be dispensed with.

Someone who is willing to be dispensed with is not serving with his whole heart. On the other hand, someone who serves with every ounce of his strength and the strongest devotion wouldn’t be as quick to walk away from something he is so passionate about.

The Lord and His Church needs servants of the latter variety.

If you think you are indispensable, then you are lacking in humility.

Nobody who serves the Lord is dispensable.

If you’re not willing to stand down when asked to do so, then it is not the Lord you are serving, but yourself.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Victorious]

You sound like you’re well-acquainted with humility.

I would appreciate if you could concern yourself less with what you perceive to be my “arrogance,” ignore my age, and address my arguments. Thank you.

Someone who is willing to be dispensed with is not serving with his whole heart. On the other hand, someone who serves with every ounce of his strength and the strongest devotion wouldn’t be as quick to walk away from something he is so passionate about.

The Lord and His Church needs servants of the latter variety.

Nobody who serves the Lord is dispensable.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Kid, your arrogance is a little too overpowering to ignore. If I had taken your tone with an adult when I was your age, I’d have gotten my mouth washed out with soap. And you’re the one who made a point of letting me know you are a kid, so it’s a little late to call upon me to ignore your age.

Read again what I said. I am not saying people should be willing to abandon their service. I am saying that when called upon by competent authority to cease serving, they should do so without complaining or protesting. If you can’t understand how the refusal to do that indicates that you are serving yourself and not God, then imagine a person who is fired from his job, but insists on staying on with the company, notwithstanding he has been told to leave. That person is no longer of service to the company, but is a nuisance and a hindrance. The same with somebody who insists on “serving” the Church even after he has been asked to stand down. If you insist on staying on, knowing that you are no longer of service to the Church, then you are not serving the Church but yourself.

When you’re ready to drop the snarky tone, I’ll resume the debate with you.

 

[passus]

If you insist on staying on, knowing that you are no longer of service to the Church, then you are not serving the Church but yourself.

Perhaps in the objective sense, but not in the mind of the person who is being told to basically “get out.” As they see it, they are still serving the Lord, which doesn’t make the person self-serving or, simply, selfish.

 

[Victorious]

Perhaps in the objective sense, but not in the mind of the person who is being told to basically “get out.” As they see it, they are still serving the Lord, which doesn’t make the person self-serving or, simply, selfish.

They may see it that way, but they are mistaken. Why? Two reasons: (1) our capacity for self-delusion is endless; and (2) because their desire to stay on, even after being asked to stand down, flows from a lack of respect for the wishes of the one they think they are serving.

It’s like pressing your amorous attentions on a girl who has made it clear to you that she does not and will not reciprocate your feelings. You may think you are justified in continuing to press, because you think you are showering her with goodness, but in fact it is prideful for you to think so highly of your own favors, to the exclusion of her opinions. Plus, you cannot sincerely love her while you continue to disrespect her wishes, and persist in doing what she has made clear does not contribute to her happiness. This is because love is not a feeling: it is seeking and willing the good of another, whatever it may cost you. It is wanting the happiness of another even if you cannot share in that happiness. In short, love is sacrifice. Unwillingness to sacrifice is unwillingness to love. Unwillingness to love is unwillingness to serve.

Pride very easily disguises itself as virtue. That’s why it’s the deadliest of the deadly sins.

 

[passus]

They may see it that way, but they are mistaken.

I said that such a person is not selfish, not that they are not mistaken in their thinking.

Why? Two reasons: (1) our capacity for self-delusion is endless;

What’s this got to do with it? Individuals also have a capacity for lying, so should I not believe anything you say?

and (2) because their desire to stay on, even after being asked to stand down, flows from a lack of respect for the wishes of the one they think they are serving.

I doubt this–defiance or a lack of respect–is the motivation with many who are called to “stand down” but do not wish to. I would be more inclined to think that someone would be unwilling to give up his service out of love for the work that service entails or for the Church he serves by that work.

It’s like pressing your amorous attentions on a girl who has made it clear to you that she does not and will not reciprocate your feelings. You may think you are justified in continuing to press, because you think you are showering her with goodness, but in fact it is prideful for you to think so highly of your own favors, to the exclusion of her opinions. Plus, you cannot sincerely love her while you continue to disrespect her wishes, and persist in doing what she has made clear does not contribute to her happiness.

Again, this might be true in the objective sense…

Pride very easily disguises itself as virtue. That’s why it’s the deadliest of the deadly sins.

Actually, I believe it’s the deadliest because it is thought that all other sin proceeds from pride.

 

[FrDavid96]

Requiring exclusive use of an “approved” hymnal sure doesn’t sound like it lends itself to the use of newly composed sacred music in the liturgy. The new compositions would have to be approved or cleared. Then they would need to be published in these hymnals. Also, as I said before, anything that could be condensed into a single volume would be hardly representative of the breadth of good, acceptable liturgical music out there.

If composers are going to submit music that meets the long-standing standards of the Church (nothing new here), then they have nothing to fear. On the other hand, the only reason they would be concerned would be if they do not intend to compose appropriate music.

An approved hymnal doesn’t necessarily have to be printed in a single volume. There’s nothing prohibiting new music being submitted for approval. Existing publishing companies have new music all the time. They don’t re-print their hymnals everytime something new is added to the collection, so why should the Church have to do that? The only difference would be an added step of submitting the music to some Church body for approval before they go to print with their supplements or their missallettes. It might be a delay of a few months, I’ll grant that. But what’s the problem there? I’d rather have a delay and know that the music is appropriate rather than have just anything published without any real standards.

There’s no limit to the number of hymns that could be compiled to make an official hymnal. Such a thing could be a constant work-in-progress.

The only reason people have for opposing an official hymnal (or we could call it a collection of hymns or whatever else, it makes no difference) is that people want music that is unsuited for the Mass, and they don’t want the Church to have the opportunity to decide what is or is not appropriate.

If the hymn is truly suitable for the Mass, it will get approved.

What contemporary composers and publishers don’t realize is that they are forcing such a thing on themselves. The more they continue to publish music that does not meet the Church’s standards, the more they are forcing the Church’s hand, and it becomes increasingly likely that someday they will simply push too far and the Church will see no alternative but to require that all music be approved by some kind of authority whose job will be to make sure the standards are being met.

 

[PPeterson]

What about all the faithful who find that kind of music conducive to their worship and enjoy singing and playing and worshiping with it? Are you going to deny the Church’s youth (across America, at least) the music they love?

I mention youth specifically because we haven’t even touched on the newest Catholic composers on the playing field–Matt Maher, Steve Angrisano, Tom Booth, Sarah Hart, and so on. Just pick up an OCP Catalog and you’ll see what I mean. Really, benedictgal, Marty Haugen and David Haas are old news as far as liturgical music goes. They’re yesterday.

So now we have “youth bands” playing rock and pop and gospel or jazz style music during their Masses–and we would do…what? Toss them books of chant they are incapable of singing?

So you’d have massive groups of Catholic youth musicians who no longer have a place in their home parishes because they are not allowed to play or sing the music they are capable of playing or singing and they find it hard to worship in a musical style with which they cannot identity.

Well, where are they going to go?

Protestant churches, if we’re lucky. If people can’t get what they want at home, they’re going to go after it where they can.

Is there a solution for all the mess we have on our hands? I’m not sure; I certainly don’t have one. Who’s to blame? The liturgical music publishers, probably. But I think that Rome definitely dropped the ball on things as well. They had the opportunity to clip David Haas in the bud when his first pieces were making their way into New Dawn’s hymnals. Rome easily could have said, “Who, whoa! That’s not what we meant when we said…” or “That song is way off the mark!” But nobody did anything or said anything and so this–the music sung and played in Catholic churches all over–is the result of it.

Hello,

I can’t speak for other people and can only offer my own perspective, but I thought your post was interesting. When I was your age my church had a “youth mass” and we played a mix of the Haugen style stuff of which everyone on here complains, and the more “rock” or “pop” style stuff you mentioned. I played guitar in the band, and no doubt impressed some co-eds with my killer guitar leads (in my own mind that is). Fast forward over a decade, and I can tell you that out of the over hundred youths who attended that mass, maybe a handful of us still go to church. The pandering to our ill-formed teenage tastes had little or no effect on our retention as Catholics.
As the hormones cool down a little, and one emerges from adolescence, I found that the “lifeteen” or “pop” oriented style of liturgy became not only “not my style,” but something incredibly painful and embarrassing to watch. I wish it was possible to explain this to teenagers, but if you turn into a normal adult, any memory of your past participation in any youthmass, popsy stuff will stand out as far more cringeworthy than your nude toddler pictures at bathtime in the family album.
Also, almost every single adult watching you participate in the liturgy feels deeply embarrassed for you. If we are there at all it is because we:

a)didn’t know it was going to be a youth mass
or
b)are related to you and we are there for moral support.

on the other hand, should you participate in a choir singing classy traditional hymns and some chant, rest assured the rest of the congregation appreciates your talent and contribution. Adults and your peers alike will be thinking, “how lovely, and edifying,” rather than, “someone please kill me before I die of embarrassment.”
Of course my post is meant to be lighthearted.

On a more serious note, I think that the only way for things to improve is for priests to lead. In all but the most profane of liturgies, the priest can restore a lot of decorum by singing the mass. I think it sets a good example, and works to prod the music ministers towards better things. It’s pretty jarring to hear an unaccompanied priest sing the consecration then have the folk group bust in with the guitar “Amen,” and with time I think even those more dedicated to the “popular” school would eventually pick up on this and moderate their music choices.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Cannot wait for some reform of the music.

Add me to the list of young people completely turned off by “praise and worship” and hippie music in the Mass. No wonder so many people don’t believe in the Real Presence and think the Catholic Church is just another denomination when our worship looks and sounds so much like the Protestants’.

If my generation is willing to walk away from the Eucharist, from the faith because the Church says, “No, you can’t have a band at Mass” or “No, you can’t sing that song at Mass” then folks, we’ve got a huge problem on our hands.

Just my :twocents:

Praying for the return of the sacred.

Love is Patient

 

[Love_is_Patient]

On a more serious note, I think that the only way for things to improve is for priests to lead. In all but the most profane of liturgies, the priest can restore a lot of decorum by singing the mass. I think it sets a good example, and works to prod the music ministers towards better things. **It’s pretty jarring to hear an unaccompanied priest sing the consecration then have the folk group bust in with the guitar “Amen,” **and with time I think even those more dedicated to the “popular” school would eventually pick up on this and moderate their music choices.

I completely agree! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been at a Mass where the priest has been praying the Mass in such a sacred, reverent manner – only to have the music sound like such a sappy pop train wreck. Sometimes I think silence would be better.

Love is Patient

 

[PadraigPearce]

Another jarring moment for me is right after the consecration, during the “mystery of faith” part. There’s no better way to destroy any sense of reverence than to have the choir burst into song for 10 seconds, accompanied by crashing guitars or electric pianos, then falling silent again.

 

[benedictgal]

Requiring exclusive use of an “approved” hymnal sure doesn’t sound like it lends itself to the use of newly composed sacred music in the liturgy. The new compositions would have to be approved or cleared. Then they would need to be published in these hymnals. Also, as I said before, anything that could be condensed into a single volume would be hardly representative of the breadth of good, acceptable liturgical music out there.

However, we are under a mandate from Liturgiam Authenticam to do this. The problem is that the publishing houses, especially OCP and GIA, have, as I see it, never bothered to read any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See, including LA and even Redemptionis Sacramentum. There are no quality control measures in either publishing house; thus, you have the weeds joining the wheat.

As Fr. David noted, neither Pope St. Pius X nor the late Pope John Paul II forbad new music. However, as the late Pope Paul VI noted, not everything is written is fit to cross the threshold.

 

[thunderballs75]

Another jarring moment for me is right after the consecration, during the “mystery of faith” part. There’s no better way to destroy any sense of reverence than to have the choir burst into song for 10 seconds, accompanied by crashing guitars or electric pianos, then falling silent again.

YES! “When we eat this breeeead, and drink this cuuup…” Then there is the good ol’ “Great Amen”. It would be great if we could just say these things or use a simple quiet chant, rather then get the guitars and piano rollin’ so quick.

 

[Frosty]

YES! ." Then there is the good ol’ “Great Amen”. It would be great if we could just say these things or use a simple quiet chant, rather then get the guitars and piano rollin’ so quick.

I wonder what your understanding is of the theology behind the Great Amen? If you really do know the reason for it, you would understand that this is one part of the Mass where singing is truly necessary (in a sung Mass).

 

[FrDavid96]

I wonder what your understanding is of the theology behind the Great Amen? If you really do know the reason for it, you would understand that this is one part of the Mass where singing is truly necessary (in a sung Mass).

Then why is it that the typical (Latin) edition of the Roman Missal only has a 1-word response “Amen” and it isn’t repeated? Of course, it could be chanted (and indeed should be if the priest chants “per ipsum…”). But the long-extended variations of the Amen not only repeat the word, but often add other words.

If it’s supposed to be sung 3 or 5 or 15 times, why is it printed only once in the Missal?

I wouldn’t object to these musical versions if they simply used the text from the Missal–one word “Amen.” But that’s not what we actually see offered by the composers.

 

[benedictgal]

Then why is it that the typical (Latin) edition of the Roman Missal only has a 1-word response “Amen” and it isn’t repeated? Of course, it could be chanted (and indeed should be if the priest chants “per ipsum…”). But the long-extended variations of the Amen not only repeat the word, but often add other words.

If it’s supposed to be sung 3 or 5 or 15 times, why is it printed only once in the Missal?

I wouldn’t object to these musical versions if they simply used the text from the Missal–one word “Amen.” But that’s not what we actually see offered by the composers.

Exactly. I personally love the setting used at the Papal Masses. Inasmuch as it is the triple Amen (after the Holy Father intones the “per ipsum…”), the notes vary, often going a step higher. The choir only sings Amen thrice and that’s it. In fact, when I planned the White Mass for the diocese, we used the settings used for the Holy Father’s Installation Mass. My parochial vicar, who was in attendance and who had commissioned me to plan the Mass, said that it was the best setting.

Like you, I have heard settings that manage to tack on things to the Great Amen. This makes it ineligible for use since it fools with the official text of the Church.

 

[thunderballs75]

I wonder what your understanding is of the theology behind the Great Amen? If you really do know the reason for it, you would understand that this is one part of the Mass where singing is truly necessary (in a sung Mass).

Since when do we need to use loud guitars and piano, and say it 6 times?

 

[Disciple96]

The only ones who would probably consider this hell would be OCP and GIA, not to mention Haugen, Haas, Hurd, Ferrel, the SLJ and Reza.

Here, here! Or is that, hear, hear!? Well, anyway, I agree! Most of the “hymns” we sing at the parishes I go to are not only not musical, they’re downright un-Catholic in their “theology”. As one who has protested these things over the years, and has been soundly ignored (heh, I made a funny), I commiserate with all of you who long for beautiful liturgy but who have to contend with sloppy shlop instead.

(I’ve been working on some sacred music of my own for a while now. It’s a passion. And let me tell you, everything I’ve heard from our Popes, including our current one, has only fed the flames of my musical obsession, far from deterring my dilettante dabbling.)

 

[Sarabande]

The belief that a standard hymnal would stymie new sacred music is an unfounded “fear”. For centuries, the Church has always placed limitations/restrictions on what can be done with sacred music. This is mainly because human nature hasn’t and doesn’t change. People always tried to bring the “profane” into the liturgy, so the Church had to always remind musicians and composers that they must refine the music or simply leave it out of mass. History shows that it most definitely did not curtail new sacred music for each period in music. In fact, it encouraged better musicianship and “forced” composers to create works which would be acceptable and refined for Mass, compared to what was often being heard in the secular world of their time. Yes, there was mediocre compositions, but the wealth of really brilliant and other-worldly composition is just so much more than what we have been seeing today. And it’s not that there are very talented composers out there. There are, but they are just not being published in the mainstream publishing houses.

With a standard hymnal, one can always add to it once it has been reviewed, just like other repertoire in the past.

What Pope St. Pius X dealt with was not much different than what is happening today. It wasn’t just operatic music being used at mass at that time, which, although is beautiful and require tons of skill - I’m an opera singer in the secular music world - it is just too “profane” for use at mass, and people of the time weren’t adapting either their compositions or voices to differentiate between what is appropriate for mass and what was appropriate for the secular world. There was also a lot of schmaltz being produced as well during that time. It’s just as or almost as bad as what we hear today.

I think today, there have been too many decades of just letting people do what they want. Of course, it is always a bit of a fight when people feel that their freedom has been taken away when they were given carte blanche for so many years. There will be hurt feelings now just as there were hurt feelings then 100 years ago and every other period prior to that when the Church “cracked down” on what was being produced musically. I think that is one thing that has to be understood. It isn’t just something happening for the first time in our lifetimes - this has been occurring for centuries.

 

[Disciple96]

Originally Posted by passus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Requiring exclusive use of an “approved” hymnal sure doesn’t sound like it lends itself to the use of newly composed sacred music in the liturgy. The new compositions would have to be approved or cleared. Then they would need to be published in these hymnals. Also, as I said before, anything that could be condensed into a single volume would be hardly representative of the breadth of good, acceptable liturgical music out there.

Well, there may be a lot of good, acceptable liturgical music out there…but I rarely hear it. And I’m hoping that we can work toward something more than merely “good” and “acceptable” but perhaps truly excellent. Truly worthy of the Sacred Mysteries our music is a part of. Our music should enhance prayer and evoke it, even, not provoke the congregation to pull their hair out.

 

[Disciple96]

I think today, there have been too many decades of just letting people do what they want. Of course, it is always a bit of a fight when people feel that their freedom has been taken away when they were given carte blanche for so many years. There will be hurt feelings now just as there were hurt feelings then 100 years ago and every other period prior to that when the Church “cracked down” on what was being produced musically. I think that is one thing that has to be understood. It isn’t just something happening for the first time in our lifetimes - this has been occurring for centuries.

I think a little “cracking down” can be a good thing now and then, don’t you?

When I’ve taken friends to beautiful liturgies, the effect on them has been visible. Sacred music, truly beautiful sacred music, can be transformative. It touches something within us too deep for words and I am all for this wave of longing for beauty that seems to be sweeping across the globe. Bring it on, I say! Hoo-ray!