V
VAC
Guest
This is one of my favorite communion songs for those reasons
- Status
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
I remember a song by David Haas entitled *Creating God. *At the time, I liked it. If you look at just the title, you would think that it’s heretical. However, the lyrics were a taken from a protestant hymn:
**Creating God, your fingers trace
the bold designs of farthest space;
let sun and moon and stars and light
and what lies hidden praise your might.
Sustaining God, your hands uphold
earth’s mysteries known or yet untold;
let water’s fragile blend with air,
enabling life, proclaim your care.**
So, if you get passed the title, you would see that the phrase Creating God or Making God could mean “God who creates” or “God who makes”.
W
Wolseley
Guest
And then you have this one, based on the first one…A little levity (or, depending on your parish, a bad flashback)
Many have probably seen this, but it’s worth a look - :bounce::banghead:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc
youtube.com/watch?v=AHubdhKu0zA&mode=related&search=
W
Wolseley
Guest
Some parishes I’ve been in, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. One parish I know of has a steady band consisting of two guys on tambourine and harmonica, and a woman playing a kazoo. (I’m not kidding, unfortunately.)My band, “The Back Porch Jug Band,” has been asked to play
out our Mass Sundays. This is great I can’t wait. We have a wash-tub bass and a washboard player that are just great. One of my friends does a great job with a juice harp, hopefully he’ll join in.
OK relax, put down your heart medication, I’m just joking.
Jim
B
BobP123
Guest
Burn calories while singing hymns. Perfect. Hit the spot.A little levity (or, depending on your parish, a bad flashback)
Many have probably seen this, but it’s worth a look - :bounce:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc
Now he’s got me doing it. LOL.
K
kamz
Guest
Amen!!!
I’m 33 and I have grown up all my 33 years of life with this music… it is beautiful and I find myself singing the songs often and have in fact ordered many of these cd’s to help me prepare for the Mass… really… isn’t that what’s most important? Preparing for Mass?
Everyone likes different kinds of music and that certainly does not make one bad etc.
I have never known anything different than these songs that many are describing as “awful” does that make me less than as a Catholic because I enjoy them?
Eagles wings was sung by the choir at my grandpa’s church in Anoka, MN in 1984 for his funeral… it was beautiful and as a 9 year old girl it touched my heart and I could in vision the Lord tenderly caring for my grandpa who I was missing so badly… to this day I can’t keep a dry eye when they play Eagles Wings… that song was the song I needed at that moment of terrible pain… if that was not from God I don’t know what is… that song gave a little girl so much comfort… If you don’t like the music… find a church that chants etc. the complaining and cutting down of what some of us really have come to enjoy is very rude and totally uncalled for… I don’t like chanting and if my church started to do chanting I would drive to a different parish… not start a thread and cry about it… gee sh:shrug:
D
DWPC
Guest
Those who don’t understand the opposition to contemporary liturgical music should perhaps consider how they’d feel if their church was summarily stripped of many things that they considered basic elements of their religious experience; e.g., no stained glass, perhaps put the Stations of the Cross on black velvet, the priest saying mass in jeans and a polo shirt. Imagine if all Catholic churchs were to be redecorated with new stuff from Michael’s craft stores. Maybe you’ll get the idea.
C
Cat
Guest
DWPC, I don’t see what the connection is between liturgical music and the decor in the church.
Does it really matter what the church looks like? I agree, it’s nice when things are pretty, but Auschwitz wasn’t pretty–was Saint Maximillian Kolbe’s Mass any less glorious?
When the “Vatican” exhibit was at the museum in Milwaukee, all those magnificant artifacts didn’t touch my heart as much as that little shot glass and the metal can lid used by priests at Auschwitz. Ugliest thing in the exhibit, yet the most beautiful thing at the exhibit, even more beautiful than Pope John Paul II’s crozier or the gem-studded chalice.
As for “new music,” read the chapter in the Documents of Vatican II about music. It doesn’t call for the elimination of all “old” music, but it does call for the implementation of “new” music. (I’m greatly simplifying the actual text.) The Vatican didn’t throw out all your beloved music, but instead, opened the windows so that more music could be included in the liturgy.
Does it really matter what the church looks like? I agree, it’s nice when things are pretty, but Auschwitz wasn’t pretty–was Saint Maximillian Kolbe’s Mass any less glorious?
When the “Vatican” exhibit was at the museum in Milwaukee, all those magnificant artifacts didn’t touch my heart as much as that little shot glass and the metal can lid used by priests at Auschwitz. Ugliest thing in the exhibit, yet the most beautiful thing at the exhibit, even more beautiful than Pope John Paul II’s crozier or the gem-studded chalice.
As for “new music,” read the chapter in the Documents of Vatican II about music. It doesn’t call for the elimination of all “old” music, but it does call for the implementation of “new” music. (I’m greatly simplifying the actual text.) The Vatican didn’t throw out all your beloved music, but instead, opened the windows so that more music could be included in the liturgy.
D
DWPC
Guest
I was *trying *to draw an analogy. But I should know better around here. Your second comment about music is an example of how the liturgical bullies hide behind the technicality of VCII text. What VCII (which I have read) *says *is immaterial. What matters is what was improperly and shamefully *done *in its name. And that was the ravaging of an ancient, rich culture and its forced march into Calvinistic sterility.
If anyone did to an ethnic culture what the post-VCII mob did to the Catholic culture in the 70s and 80s, the UN and Amnesty International would demand sanctions and action. Your holier-than-thou pronouncement about the artifacts from Auschwitz has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, but I won’t say more as I don’t really want to be banned!
C
Cat
Guest
DWPC, please calm down.
Heavens, I don’t mean to sound “holier-than-thou.” I truly found the Auschwitz artifacts touching. What is “holier-than-thou” about that? I wasn’t the only one crying over these pieces at the museum.
And I certainly didn’t say “Out with the old!” did I? No, I didn’t!
I thought I had made it clear in my post that Vatican II didn’t mean that all the old music should be tossed. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize profusely. The Vatican II document makes it clear that OLD and NEW music is to be included in the liturgy.
There, did I say that better, I hope? OLD and NEW, not just NEW.
Did someone actually “strip” your church of its stained glass windows (by boarding them up, perhaps, or breaking them out) and its Stations of the Cross? Did someone actually sweep through and throw out all the chant, the hymns, your pipe organ?
That’s HORRIBLE! No wonder you’re upset.
I read through the Vat II document that VociMike recommended and I agree, it definitely states that we should preserve the beautiful art in our churches. If your church was stripped of its beautiful art pieces and all the traditional music was eliminated, then you have every right to grieve.
My mother was Protestant, and in her church, a “famous” music minister was hired who eliminated almost all the hymns, turned the choir into a “Praise Chorale” that you had to try out for, and basically used his own contemporary jazz compositions in all the services. Many of my mother’s friends left the church (quietly) because there was nothing there for them anymore. It was very sad for them after they had spent all their lives there.
So I sympathize entirely with you if your church was ravaged by someone who wanted to “open the windows and clean out all the old.” That’s NOT what Vat II was all about at all.
However, I think it’s clear from the document that new art forms and architectures, along with new music styles, are not only allowed but encouraged. New churches will be built without stained glass windows or Renaissance-style Stations, and that’s OK according to the Vatican. Also, churches will include contemporary music in their Masses, and that’s OK, too, according to the Vatican.
I’m not a liturgical bully at all. I just want to do things the way the Catholic Church teaches.
And I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the Vat II documents don’t matter. Is that really what you mean? I really can’t agree with that statement because the Vatican supports the Vat II documents and I want to be under the authority of the Vatican and submit to their teachings and decrees, even if I don’t personally agree with it.
Heavens, I don’t mean to sound “holier-than-thou.” I truly found the Auschwitz artifacts touching. What is “holier-than-thou” about that? I wasn’t the only one crying over these pieces at the museum.
And I certainly didn’t say “Out with the old!” did I? No, I didn’t!
I thought I had made it clear in my post that Vatican II didn’t mean that all the old music should be tossed. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize profusely. The Vatican II document makes it clear that OLD and NEW music is to be included in the liturgy.
There, did I say that better, I hope? OLD and NEW, not just NEW.
Did someone actually “strip” your church of its stained glass windows (by boarding them up, perhaps, or breaking them out) and its Stations of the Cross? Did someone actually sweep through and throw out all the chant, the hymns, your pipe organ?
That’s HORRIBLE! No wonder you’re upset.
I read through the Vat II document that VociMike recommended and I agree, it definitely states that we should preserve the beautiful art in our churches. If your church was stripped of its beautiful art pieces and all the traditional music was eliminated, then you have every right to grieve.
My mother was Protestant, and in her church, a “famous” music minister was hired who eliminated almost all the hymns, turned the choir into a “Praise Chorale” that you had to try out for, and basically used his own contemporary jazz compositions in all the services. Many of my mother’s friends left the church (quietly) because there was nothing there for them anymore. It was very sad for them after they had spent all their lives there.
So I sympathize entirely with you if your church was ravaged by someone who wanted to “open the windows and clean out all the old.” That’s NOT what Vat II was all about at all.
However, I think it’s clear from the document that new art forms and architectures, along with new music styles, are not only allowed but encouraged. New churches will be built without stained glass windows or Renaissance-style Stations, and that’s OK according to the Vatican. Also, churches will include contemporary music in their Masses, and that’s OK, too, according to the Vatican.
I’m not a liturgical bully at all. I just want to do things the way the Catholic Church teaches.
And I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the Vat II documents don’t matter. Is that really what you mean? I really can’t agree with that statement because the Vatican supports the Vat II documents and I want to be under the authority of the Vatican and submit to their teachings and decrees, even if I don’t personally agree with it.
J
JButky
Guest
Why are you so against what the Church teaches? Aren’t we to be nourished by the Church to be closer to Christ by her teachings? Catholic music is considered the highest form of art liturgically (catechism reference - 1156), and because of that, has very important standards set upon it. How does one reconcile your statement with what the Church teaches???:
GIRM
That’s not crying about it. It is attempting to be faithful to what the Church teaches it should be and evangelizing those to what the Church teaches. IMO, there is “bad” music unfortunately because people ignore what the church teaches about it…
Joe B
K
kamz
Guest
If it is so wrong then why wasn’t this changed 40 years ago? Why was this music ever started in churches in the first place?
T
THutch04
Guest
I’m not necessarily against contemporary music played at Mass (although I’m not a fan of the Haugen/Haas/Schutte group). At one point even the “classic” hymns were considered “new.” I just think that we need to make sure that by including newer music we’re not taking away from any of the theology of the Church, and that we’re preserving the sacred nature of the Mass. I think if we let things get too “contemporary” then we run into problems where the Mass will be subject to many more abuses and the sacred character of it will be lessened.
V
VAC
Guest
41***. All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.50
Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies*******. **
I read this as saying chant holds pride of place and is proper.
Nowhere does it say that chant must be played to the exclusion of all else, although that would be allowed. The US Bishops had a meeting on this subject (and others) and chose not to exclue any instruments or composers from this century. . The church is quite clear and specific on it’s other doctrines, so they are very capable of providing strict guidelines for the music, but have chosen not to.
I found the US bishop’s guidelines to be vague and leave much room for interpretation. Again: They have the authority to be more specific and have chosen not to.
Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies*******. **
I read this as saying chant holds pride of place and is proper.
Nowhere does it say that chant must be played to the exclusion of all else, although that would be allowed. The US Bishops had a meeting on this subject (and others) and chose not to exclue any instruments or composers from this century. . The church is quite clear and specific on it’s other doctrines, so they are very capable of providing strict guidelines for the music, but have chosen not to.
I found the US bishop’s guidelines to be vague and leave much room for interpretation. Again: They have the authority to be more specific and have chosen not to.
J
JButky
Guest
There have been TONS of books on this very subject. Many claimed the right to do in in the “spirit” of VAII. Or what Fr. Groeschel has jokingly referred to as the “Poltergeist” They simply IGNORED what VAII said and did what they wanted. The Church has steered in corrective mode ever since…
People still have free will. The Church doesn’t take that away. It only instructs… When people don’t listen and do what they want… you end up with all sorts of things. Why were there Arians, or Montanists, or any other groups not in accord with church teaching? The answer is the same.
The Church is constantly reiterating it too and people seem to continue to ignore it. But the Church will continue regardless. It’s been worse before.
Historically, music has always been a concern of the Church that has been in proportionate response to the times. Augustine and Aquinas addressed different issues and Clement of Alexandria was even quite austere in criticism. Although the responses of each of these are quite different to the music of the time, the overall theme has never changed.
IMO, we are living through one of those time period blips in church history. When all is said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of overused secularly styled music that is prevalent in our churches will be relegated to the ash heap of Church History…
Joe B
C
Cat
Guest
I just finished reading a book that was written in 1968 by a group of musicians, priests, and bishops during some kind of meeting held after Vatican II to hash out the “music issue” in the Catholic Church. (The book was all of their “papers” that they presented at the meeting.)
It could have been written today.
I don’t think music issues in the Church will ever be resolved. I don’t think there has ever been a time in church history where there hasn’t been some kind of conflict. Protestants have been involved in “Music Wars” since I was a kid. They’re still warring. It looks like the Catholic Church is still warring, too.
It just seems to me that the resolution of the conflict is up to each individual. We all have to learn to tolerate each other and even appreciate all the different styles of music a little.
It could have been written today.
I don’t think music issues in the Church will ever be resolved. I don’t think there has ever been a time in church history where there hasn’t been some kind of conflict. Protestants have been involved in “Music Wars” since I was a kid. They’re still warring. It looks like the Catholic Church is still warring, too.
It just seems to me that the resolution of the conflict is up to each individual. We all have to learn to tolerate each other and even appreciate all the different styles of music a little.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Hence why the joking phrase “Catholics can’t sing” was developed after Vatican 2. Hopefully after the Traditional Latin Mass is un restricted, you will begin to hear much better and spiritual Catholic music for once.
A
anamchara
Guest
I am curious, how do you know that phrase was developed after Vac II? Presbyterians get accused of being the frozen chosen and can’t sing either. I used to be one, I know
Frankly the only ones with any kind of soul is the Baptist and Methodist 
- Status