L
lak611
Guest
It sounds like LA was not the first directive addressing the music in Mass. Do you have any links to earlier documents?
- Status
W
Wolseley
Guest
benedictgal—there’s an old saying we used to use on the police force:
"Never wrestle with a pig in the mud. It’s a waste of time, for three reasons:
"Never wrestle with a pig in the mud. It’s a waste of time, for three reasons:
- You can’t win, because the pig is bigger than you are.
- You end up covered with the same filth the pig wallows in.
- Eventually you discover that the pig is enjoying it."
P
pnewton
Guest
Boy, liturgist and now police force. You guys are maing me feel right at home. Twenty-two years in law enforcement and eight years in charge of the parich music and here I am bumping into you folks. God bless you all.
J
JButky
Guest
Well there’s a whole recent history of documents here, take your pick of directives on the ones that pertain to music
adoremus.org/ChurchDocs.html
The Musicam Sacram stated this:
Here’s how it first started out with the charge, but Rome determines the principles. Neither of these happened. If you find all the documents on music, Rome tried to get the Bishops to comply…instruction, instruction, encyclical, etc…
The ending is very telling of the first instruction #68 in that same document.
The Diocese of Lincoln Nebraska has one. That’s the only one I could find on a quick search. Most have a liturgy office, but this not what the documents really specified it should be, which was a Sacred music office:
That was 1967
From the Sacrosanctum Concilium
That was 1963 and the issue of vernacular translations was already a directive. It just never turned out right.
2002, we finally have this, but who knows about it or uses it:
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml
It’s not an unusual question to ask…Why? And why are so many unaware of these documents???
Joe B
B
benedictgal
Guest
This boggles my mind, especially in this day and age when all we have to do is some serious surfing on the web and we can have these documents at our fingertips. No one can say that we don’t have access to things like L.A. and the GIRM, especially since they are posted and have links upon links that help us find everything. Go figure.Well there’s a whole recent history of documents here, take your pick of directives on the ones that pertain to music
adoremus.org/ChurchDocs.html
The Musicam Sacram stated this:
Here’s how it first started out with the charge, but Rome determines the principles. Neither of these happened. If you find all the documents on music, Rome tried to get the Bishops to comply…instruction, instruction, encyclical, etc…
The ending is very telling of the first instruction #68 in that same document.
The Diocese of Lincoln Nebraska has one. That’s the only one I could find on a quick search. Most have a liturgy office, but this not what the documents really specified it should be, which was a Sacred music office:
That was 1967
From the Sacrosanctum Concilium
That was 1963 and the issue of vernacular translations was already a directive. It just never turned out right.
2002, we finally have this, but who knows about it or uses it:
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml
It’s not an unusual question to ask…Why? And why are so many unaware of these documents???
Joe B
L
lak611
Guest
Thank you for providing all the documents regarding music in Mass.Well there’s a whole recent history of documents here, take your pick of directives on the ones that pertain to music
adoremus.org/ChurchDocs.html
The Musicam Sacram stated this:
Here’s how it first started out with the charge, but Rome determines the principles. Neither of these happened. If you find all the documents on music, Rome tried to get the Bishops to comply…instruction, instruction, encyclical, etc…
The ending is very telling of the first instruction #68 in that same document.
The Diocese of Lincoln Nebraska has one. That’s the only one I could find on a quick search. Most have a liturgy office, but this not what the documents really specified it should be, which was a Sacred music office:
That was 1967
From the Sacrosanctum Concilium
That was 1963 and the issue of vernacular translations was already a directive. It just never turned out right.
2002, we finally have this, but who knows about it or uses it:
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml
It’s not an unusual question to ask…Why? And why are so many unaware of these documents???
Joe B
P
peary
Guest
**Now we are having the problem of the protestant concept of “praise bands” infiltrating the Church complete with guitars, drums, keyboards and drums.
I DO enjoy some praise & worship music but I find that the way it is presented is very distracting to the Mass. The whole purpose of putting it in our parish for a Mass was to attract the younger generation. It has attracted them, but what it has attracted even more are those old 60s hippie wannabe’s. I wish they’d all just retire and move to Florida LOL.**
I DO enjoy some praise & worship music but I find that the way it is presented is very distracting to the Mass. The whole purpose of putting it in our parish for a Mass was to attract the younger generation. It has attracted them, but what it has attracted even more are those old 60s hippie wannabe’s. I wish they’d all just retire and move to Florida LOL.**
L
lak611
Guest
C
Cat
Guest
[Edited by Moderator]
“Old 60s hippie wannabes” are hardly ready for the grave, and their souls are just as important as the souls of teenagers. If P and W music truly attracts them to Mass and allows them to receive graces from the Lord, then I say P and W music forever!
As St. Paul said, “I have become all things to all men that I might win some.” (paraphrase)
If the P and W music is not heretical (most of it isn’t), and if it isn’t worldly or secular (good heavens, P and W music is totally un-secular and un-worldly! How often do you hear P and W-style music on your Top 40 radio station?! Never! Most secular types would gag if they had to listen to P and W-style music!)–then there is no problem with including it in the Mass.
You might say, “But it’s not reverent!” That’s YOUR personal opinion.
I personally am not fond of P and W music, BTW, but neither am I fond of chant and songs done in Latin. I am glad that the Lord has established bishops who are given the authority to appoint priests who are given the authority to hire music ministers and liturgical ministers who are given the authority to select the music for Mass that is best for their parish.
C
Cat
Guest
Again, is this supposed to be a joke? I find it hurtful, but if you tell me it is a joke, I won’t be hurt.When your parents move to Florida, go with them, please.
I’m sorry you can’t be around people who meet your expectations all the time.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Might I say that those of us who have expressed opinions contrary to yours have cited qualifiable documentation to back up our statements. You, have not.
For the most part, Gregorian Chant remains the “default musical standard” of the Church. Look at the documents dating back to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy (Vatican II) and going forward to today (Sacramentum Caritatis). His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI rightfully points out in Sacramentum Caritatis that
when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Furthermore, as Supreme Pontiff, he writes,
P and W music does not fit into this category. It’s not consistent with Catholic liturgicfal tradition. It’s more in the spirit of the cult of Dionysis than it is of reason and sobriety, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in Spirit of the Liturgy.
As far the reference to St. Paul that you made in your post, I remidn you that he was very keenly aware of abuses that crept up in the Holy Sacrifice. Just read his First letter to the Corinthians. Yes, he said that he tries to be all things to all men, but, not at the cost of abusing the sacred rites of the Church.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Having just witnessed the replay of the Ordinary Consistory (which, by the way, included the creation of Texas’ first cardinal 
), I was particularly moved by the music. Clearly, the changes that Pope Benedict has brought to the quality of our sacred liturgies are quite noticeable.
The Holy Father, himself, is setting the example and the standard by which our liturgies should flow. The faithful gathered was certainly international in nature, as the new cardinals were from nearly every part of the world. Yet, with the chanting and prayers in Latin, all were united by the language of the Church.
In fact, my father’s best friend, who attended the consistory, said that the music, albeit the entire ceremony was beautiful. He said that it was something that the TV cameras and sound couldn’t adequately capture.
My point in all of this is that if the naysayers who think that “picking and stumming” is the best form of liturgical were to take a serious listen to what transpired today (and the Mass that will follow tomorrow morning), perhaps they will realize that there is more out there than the tripe that OCP continously shoves down our throats. There is something deeper when the Church speaks her own language, especially in song. Clearly, the atmosphere is more prayerful and conducive to worship, as opposed to “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” or “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”
I don’t profess to know Latin, but, there is something very deep involved here that’s beyond our understanding. The liturgy is something out of the ordinary. We enter God’s time and God’s presence. We enter the same mystery that Mary beheld at the Anunciation, Birth, Life and Death of Her Son. Music like “Gather Us In”, “We Remember”, “Ven al Banquete/Come to the Feast” and “Lord of Glory” just don’t adequately capture.
Perhaps this is what those who voted for the document that the USCCB was supposed to have adopted and sent to Rome had in mind. I am reminded of the title of one of Star Trek’s final episodes, “Is there in Truth no Beauty?” Is there in liturgy no real beauty or are we on the verge of losing it over the course of 40 years?
), I was particularly moved by the music. Clearly, the changes that Pope Benedict has brought to the quality of our sacred liturgies are quite noticeable.The Holy Father, himself, is setting the example and the standard by which our liturgies should flow. The faithful gathered was certainly international in nature, as the new cardinals were from nearly every part of the world. Yet, with the chanting and prayers in Latin, all were united by the language of the Church.
In fact, my father’s best friend, who attended the consistory, said that the music, albeit the entire ceremony was beautiful. He said that it was something that the TV cameras and sound couldn’t adequately capture.
My point in all of this is that if the naysayers who think that “picking and stumming” is the best form of liturgical were to take a serious listen to what transpired today (and the Mass that will follow tomorrow morning), perhaps they will realize that there is more out there than the tripe that OCP continously shoves down our throats. There is something deeper when the Church speaks her own language, especially in song. Clearly, the atmosphere is more prayerful and conducive to worship, as opposed to “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” or “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”
I don’t profess to know Latin, but, there is something very deep involved here that’s beyond our understanding. The liturgy is something out of the ordinary. We enter God’s time and God’s presence. We enter the same mystery that Mary beheld at the Anunciation, Birth, Life and Death of Her Son. Music like “Gather Us In”, “We Remember”, “Ven al Banquete/Come to the Feast” and “Lord of Glory” just don’t adequately capture.
Perhaps this is what those who voted for the document that the USCCB was supposed to have adopted and sent to Rome had in mind. I am reminded of the title of one of Star Trek’s final episodes, “Is there in Truth no Beauty?” Is there in liturgy no real beauty or are we on the verge of losing it over the course of 40 years?
P
peary
Guest
Actually, we are on the verge of re-discovering it after 40 years!
C
Cat
Guest
I am not being sarcastic or baiting.
I would like to know if you are saying that during an NO Mass, with music from OCP, we DON’T enter the same mystery that Mary beheld." Is this what you are saying?
I hope not, because that seems to me, a humble convert, to be contrary to the teachings of Holy Mother Church about the NO Mass and the contemporary music. According to the teachings I received when I entered the Catholic Church, an NO Mass in English with contemporary music is just as much our “entry to the sacred mysteries” as the TLM with Latin and chant.
Please clarify for me exactly what you are saying. Thank you.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is getting off topic. Discussion of the Latin Mass is reserved for the Traditional Catholicism forum.
P
peary
Guest
But it’s tied into SACRED MUSIC. How can that be “off topic”?
C
Cat
Guest
peary, I hope this doesn’t sound rude. I don’t mean it to sound rude at all.
I honestly, truly have no interest whatsoever in a foreign language and chant music and ancient historical traditions. I watch it on TV once in a while and just don’t get what all the excitement is about.
I respect that you and others are thrilled by it, but I’m not you.
I support with all my heart the TLM and believe that it should be available to ALL Catholics. And if by some chance, the Holy Father should make it the only Mass form approved for all Catholics, I would submit, of course.
But while I have the choice of my own dear language and music that I enjoy (traditional hymns, the popular classics like Schubert’s Ave Maria and anything by Bach, the beautiful Haugen and Haas songs, and yes, the occasional CCM or rock song with drums and guitars!), I will attend NO Mass to receive the Lord.
Thank you for understanding. We are all one in Christ.
- Status