Bongo drums, modern songs, and waving hands

  • Thread starter Thread starter stringbeanduck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
that was what i meant by ‘cool’. perhaps awesome would have been more appropriate. it seems like a real experience. not just ‘church’. not to put down regular mass as i said before, but there’s something that makes it seem so much more … holy. maybe it’s the mystery that appeals to me. and, although it is a small difference, the idea of the priest also facing the altar. in the NO mass there’s more of a focus on the priest himself (who i suppose being in persona christi deserves some focus) . but the idea of everyone, the priests included facing the altar. it’s no doubt a celebration of god.
Yes, you are right. I also think it’s “awesome”. 🙂 Perhaps it is not that important, but I also thought the idea of everyone, including the priest, facing the altar as one, was beautiful. My husband and I have been renting a great History Channel series called “History of Britain” (we’re admitted “anglophiles”. When we got to the Reformation and the historian was explaining how the Catholic Church as they knew it in Britain was practically obliterated, andwhat they did to the Catholic churches and the altars, etc. my husband and I looked at each other and said simultaneously, “That’s what they did to the altars 40 years ago! We’ve become more Protestant!” hahah! - Well, don’t know if I should be laughing about that. 😊
 
But, as we allow modern music and such it keeps pushing away tradition. Again I say, why does the modern ways have to be brought to mass. Can’t there just be a Faith rock Friday er something. It makes no sense to have drums and modern music at mass. Why I feel so very much up lifted at a traditional mass. So I ask again. What gain is there to have drums, modern, music, waving hands at mass. I am a teen, but I don’t like the modern way.
Hi Bean:

I OLD and I admit it. But when I was your age was when I converted. I was raised as an agnostic. But that aside I remember very clearly how active the youth of our parish were in the CYO (Cathlic Youth Org). We had monthly dances, we served coffee and pasteries after all Masses (we has five on Sunday none on Sat night) and we helped run the small Catholic Gift shop as a way to make some money for the fun stuff.

We had cookouts, beach parties (yes the boys and girls swam together 😃 ) we had weekly Sunday night meetingsthat strenthened our faith. A priest and nun were always there to answer questions and give advice. The youth ministry was full of good moral examples for all of us.

I don’t see this in the “modernized” parishes. I might be wrong but in some places (personal experience here) the people that run the youth group and the CCD classes are not always following the Church teachings. It is not even a do as I say not as I do because many just openly teach falsly. Everyone is afraid to tell them about it.
 
The life teen masses and the new music are part of Vatican II. It is a way of reaching every person, especially through the vernacular. It is a way of evangelizing, which is a big part of Vatican II.

I specifically do not like the stuff, but I do not disapprove of it. It is part of Vatican II and as I stated in *The Spirit of Vatican II *thread, to disagree with Vatican II is to say that you are disagreeing with the infallibility of the Church and Our Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ. Because these documents carry a lot of weight as most of them are encyclicals and we all know and accept that when Our Holy Father speaks on grounds of faith and morals then he is infallible and Vatican II is faith and morals.

One thing that we have to realize is that as Church History shows us, changes are never accepted and it takes years, sometimes centuries before they do become accepted. Vatican II is only 40 + years old, in the grand scheme of things in regards to Church History, that is just a blink of an eye.
 
Kathleen, rlg, et.al. :

I don’t view my ideas as a means of “entertaining” , nor of bringing them in “the back door”. The ones who are already attending Mass don’t need to be sold.

It’s the ones who see no relevance for them in the traditional Mass that I’m talking about. If we get them in “the back door” as Kathleen puts it, is that really a problem. If we get them in ANY door so that they can be exposed to the reall message of the Mass and the Church’s teaching, might we not catch more fish?

Yes, some will see only the “entertainment”, but isn’t it possible (likely) that even a few will have their souls touched by a deeper meaning?

Make no mistake…I’m a traditionalist. My days in RC grammer school and the seminary provided me with a solid foundation upon which to build. But, I was one of the lucky ones. I was consistently exposed to RC teaching from early on. I’m mainly concerned about those who aren’t so fortunate.
 
patrick1945,

I understand your points. That’s why I said to bring them in to a teen event separate from Mass - a different door, if you will. There they will get the fellowship and understanding to prepare them for Mass. I’m not convinced that bringing someone to a Lifeteen Mass is the best way to introduce a teen to the sacrifice of the Mass. IMO it gives the wrong impression.

Pax,
Robert
Kathleen, rlg, et.al. :

I don’t view my ideas as a means of “entertaining” , nor of bringing them in “the back door”. The ones who are already attending Mass don’t need to be sold.

It’s the ones who see no relevance for them in the traditional Mass that I’m talking about. If we get them in “the back door” as Kathleen puts it, is that really a problem. If we get them in ANY door so that they can be exposed to the reall message of the Mass and the Church’s teaching, might we not catch more fish?

Yes, some will see only the “entertainment”, but isn’t it possible (likely) that even a few will have their souls touched by a deeper meaning?

Make no mistake…I’m a traditionalist. My days in RC grammer school and the seminary provided me with a solid foundation upon which to build. But, I was one of the lucky ones. I was consistently exposed to RC teaching from early on. I’m mainly concerned about those who aren’t so fortunate.
 
Just a thought - All hymns started off as ‘modern’. Many of what we know as traditional hymns are very different from each other. I wonder if people have had arguments such as ours before. In the 8th century, did the worshippers debate which of the hymns were acceptable? In 500 years time will new praise and worship material be considered ‘traditional’? In the time of Peter, I don’t expect they used organs? They might have used anything! I wonder if bongo drums, modern songs and waving hands will be considered ‘old’ in 500 years time.
 
Just a thought - All hymns started off as ‘modern’. Many of what we know as traditional hymns are very different from each other. I wonder if people have had arguments such as ours before. In the 8th century, did the worshippers debate which of the hymns were acceptable? In 500 years time will new praise and worship material be considered ‘traditional’? In the time of Peter, I don’t expect they used organs? They might have used anything! I wonder if bongo drums, modern songs and waving hands will be considered ‘old’ in 500 years time.
Yes, Linnyo, there were similar debates in history regarding sacred music. For example, the Archbishop of Salzburg during Mozart’s time did not approve of many of Mozart’s sacred compositions, although they were approved and played during mass in places like Vienna and other cities. For those who aren’t familiar with this, Mozart was born and raised in Salzburg and was a child prodigy as well as an adult musical genius. There was a bit of a tempestuous relationship between him and Salzburg. The Archbishop believed Mozart’s compositions were too joyful among other things, although, he still recognized Mozart’s genius and did have his unfinished Great Mass in C played at the Cathedral there with Mozart’s wife as the soprano soloist since they were in the city visiting his father and sister. BUT it wasn’t because he thought Mozart’s music was too “modern” or not good enough - it was more about the “reverence” of some of his works as he did recognize that Mozart was incredibly talented - some would say that he and many of the musicians in Salzberg were probably jealous or turned off my Mozart’s overly confident personality since he was, by all accounts, a better and greater musician. And although Mozart was a playful person, he didn’t abide by mediocrity in any secular or sacred work - whether it was by it’s musicianship or composition. Some people have a problem with that attitude and sometimes the genius.

Some people still believe some of Mozart’s compositions are too joyful and playful for mass, although, he did compose absolutely sublime and ethereal sacred works which weren’t “joyful” at all. And I guess there have been compositions of his which could be on the border of not really being appropriate. Funny thing is now, at practically every high mass, they do an entire Mozart mass at the Cathedral in Salzburg with organ, choir, soloists and strings, etc. and the masses are PACKED - it may not be just the music, but they’re doing something right over there. They sometimes would practically run out of communion and have to break it up in the tiniest pieces. It was a spiritual joy to experience that when I studied music there.

So, I don’t think it is a question of the “modernity” of the music being performed today, but perhaps the quality, the mood and reverence (or lack of) it evokes and the talent behind the music and performances that are being measured. (I hate using that word for sacred music, but it is essentially being “performed” - I guess you can call it a prayerful performance) I’ve heard many “modern” compositions by contemporary composers who are of the high quality level and filled with reverence which would be and is performed at masses today. So, it’s really not about the modernity of it. And “quality” can be subjective in terms of just liking or disliking (I do like works that I know are pretty lousy compositionally-speaking), but it can also be objective if dissected scholastically and by people who are experts in music - just like people who are experts in medicine, law, etc.
 
Oh… one other thought… Although there are some hymns where the melody was derived from popular songs (i.e. Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee - taken from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony who took the melody from an old drinking song), many if not most, religious/liturgical music were sacred from the start. There truly was a distinction between sacred/religious music and “pop” music. I have recordings of popular music from various centuries and many are different in mood, performance and especially in the lyrics. So most sacred music was not popular music, per say.

Then there is what is called “absolute music” - music that had no secular or sacred connotation to them. These are the works that have crossed both boundaries in the secular world and the church world.
 
Just a thought - All hymns started off as ‘modern’. Many of what we know as traditional hymns are very different from each other. I wonder if people have had arguments such as ours before. In the 8th century, did the worshippers debate which of the hymns were acceptable? In 500 years time will new praise and worship material be considered ‘traditional’? In the time of Peter, I don’t expect they used organs? They might have used anything! I wonder if bongo drums, modern songs and waving hands will be considered ‘old’ in 500 years time.
It is a way to look at it but also think of it this way. Catholicism was not always here. Jesus had started the foundation on peter. He left it up to the apostles to get the new religion established. I don’t believe there was much argument against having an organ. We had to establish some sort of tradition, and it is not just the music and drums. The waving hands clapping and that one guy who does a Star Jones at the end of a song? You know what I mean. Behavior during mass is a problem. As we allow modern ways into our church we become more like a protestant church. Tradition as I said before is one of the things that seperates the CC from protestants.
 
Tradition as I said before is one of the things that seperates the CC from protestants.
(Boldface mine)

As you know, I am a convert from evangelical Protestantism.

I think you would find many Protestants who would disagree with you.

Although Protestant “traditions” (lower-case t) are not as ancient as Catholic “traditions” (lower-case t), they are still there.

Many of the mainline Protestant churches are over 500 years old and have plenty of “traditions.”

But even the newer Protestant churches have “traditions.” E.g., “tent meetings,” “revivials,” “singspirarations”, “children’s Christmas pageants,” “Founder’s Day,” “Rally Day,” “sword drills,” “testimony time,” “cottage prayer meetings,” “altar calls,” etc. etc.

I grew up in the Baptist General Conference, and I was fond of many of their traditions.

I think that there are some Protestant denoms who are seeking to rid themselves of all assocations with the past, including their treasured “traditions.” Many churches have re-named their church to sound less “traditional.” For example, the large Assemblies of God church in our city has renamed itself simply “The Community.”

I think this is a shame, and it is one of the reasons that Protestants leave their church and gravitate toward Catholicism. In my case, I attended a huge Catholic parish that is very contemporary. To me, their most modern Mass seemed extremely “traditional” compared to what I was used to in the Protestant church. I think that a very traditional Mass would have scared me away; it would have seemed like some kind of weird ritual. Now that I understand Catholicism and have embraced it as my faith, these TLMs are fine. But as a Protestant, it would have been too much.

I disagree entirely with the idea that Catholics should refuse to modernize in order to attract non-Catholics. I think that the “modern” Masses are a very valuable “bridge” that allows non-Catholics to cross over into the Church. Without this bridge, I think that most Protestants would never make it across the river. Those of you who have grown up traditional Catholic have no concept of the fear that Protestants have of “ritual.”

If you invite someone to your house, you will be hospitable and do those things that will make your guest more comfortable. E.g., if you have cats, and you know your guest is allergic, you will secure the cats in another room until your guest leaves. If your guest is a vegetarian, you will serve something that he/she can eat.

I think that the Church should be the same way–hospitable to guests. If your “guests” are afraid of ritual and think it is devilish, then you will do your best to minimize the “ritual” feel of the Mass and help your guests feel more comfortable by speaking a language that the guest can understand, playing music that he/she is somewhat familiar with, etc. All of this is perfectly allowable by the GIRM. To play a contemporary hymn instead of Palestrina is OK according to the rubrics.

I realize that there will be exceptions; Protestants who embrace wholeheartedly the “traditions” and rituals of the Catholic Church. But I honestly think these people are the minority. I grew up Protestants, and I honestly believe that many of them would consider much Catholic ritual “pagan.”

Let’s get them through the door and into the Mass first so that they can actually meet Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and realize that “It is the Lord!” Let’s get them through RCIA so that they understand the origin of all the “traditions.” Let’s get them confirmed and receiving all the sacraments, especially the precious Eucharist.

If bongos, contemporary songs, and hand-waving will get them through the door, AND if these things are allowed by the CHURCH, (which they are), then bring on the bongos, contemporary songs, and hand-waving!

As for doing these things outside of the Mass, what is the point? Even a non-Catholic receives some graces at the Holy Mass. Why do you want to deprive them of these graces that will help them to attain salvation and hopefully eventually become a Catholic Christian?

It was at Mass that I first recognized Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I KNEW it was HIM! Unless a special dispensation is given so that a “youth meeting with rock music” can include the Blessed Sacrament, the Jesus will not be present at the Youth Meeting in the Blessed Sacrament. It is JESUS that Protestants need to receive, it is the Holy Eucharist that they are longing for to be
complete Christians. LET THEM SEE JESUS IN THE MASS, and if playing rock music will get them there and KEEP them there, then PLAY IT!
 
I am 14 as well, and thankfully, my parish still does some of the traditional music. I am an active member in my parish, as I am an altar server, and member of the choir. I usually coordinate what music will be used at each mass, with the organist, and the pastor, so I do everything I can to keep the traditional music in the church. I ask that we all pray that more people will use the traditional music, and realize its beauty and the place it has in the church. Thank you.
 
I realize that there will be exceptions; Protestants who embrace wholeheartedly the “traditions” and rituals of the Catholic Church. But I honestly think these people are the minority. I grew up Protestants, and I honestly believe that many of them would consider much Catholic ritual “pagan.”
But why should Catholics have to compromise our traditions to appeal to Protestants or any other religious group? Why should we have to change who we are because some people think we’re pagan? The Orthodox and the other rites of the Catholic Church aren’t changing they’re liturgies to support the latest secular fads (correct me if I’m wrong). As I said earlier, we have been duped into thinking that evangelical Protestant-style worship is the norm, when it is actually an aberation. Liturgical worship has been, and should be, the norm for Christians. The existance of child and young adult saints such as St.Charles Lwanga and his companions, St. Vitus, St. Lucy, St. Maria Goretti, and St. Dominic Salvo illustrates that you don’t need rock music in the masses to attract young people or to create saints.
 
It is a way to look at it but also think of it this way. Catholicism was not always here. Jesus had started the foundation on peter. He left it up to the apostles to get the new religion established. I don’t believe there was much argument against having an organ. We had to establish some sort of tradition, and it is not just the music and drums. The waving hands clapping and that one guy who does a Star Jones at the end of a song? You know what I mean. Behavior during mass is a problem. As we allow modern ways into our church we become more like a protestant church. Tradition as I said before is one of the things that seperates the CC from protestants.
Well said Duck. Well said. Your home-schooling shows:thumbsup:
 
Why should any religion compromise their Traditions or traditions for the comfort level of others?

Extra things that conform to the CCC to attract those interested in the Catholic Church are great.

But, I think that many of us could lives our lives as living examples of what Jesus would expect from us. This would go a long way to bring souls into the Church.
 
I am 14 as well, and thankfully, my parish still does some of the traditional music. I am an active member in my parish, as I am an altar server, and member of the choir. I usually coordinate what music will be used at each mass, with the organist, and the pastor, so I do everything I can to keep the traditional music in the church. I ask that we all pray that more people will use the traditional music, and realize its beauty and the place it has in the church. Thank you.
This young man and the OP (blessing to you both!) are shining examples of why the “progressives” and “modernists” of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are on their way out.

The younger generation will take over, and in a hundred years, the liturgical abuses, the dissent, the substandard music, the false ecumenism…maybe even the Novus Ordo itself…will all be aberrations of the past. And what we will have instead will be a Catholic Church easily recognizable to a Catholic from 1950, 1870, or even 1560.

Thank God for the youngsters!
 
This young man and the OP (blessing to you both!) are shining examples of why the “progressives” and “modernists” of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are on their way out.

The younger generation will take over, and in a hundred years, the liturgical abuses, the dissent, the substandard music, the false ecumenism…maybe even the Novus Ordo itself…will all be aberrations of the past. And what we will have instead will be a Catholic Church easily recognizable to a Catholic from 1950, 1870, or even 1560.

Thank God for the youngsters!
Yes.😃 and many others also.
 
I disagree entirely with the idea that Catholics should refuse to modernize in order to attract non-Catholics. I think that the “modern” Masses are a very valuable “bridge” that allows non-Catholics to cross over into the Church. Without this bridge, I think that most Protestants would never make it across the river. Those of you who have grown up traditional Catholic have no concept of the fear that Protestants have of “ritual.”

If you invite someone to your house, you will be hospitable and do those things that will make your guest more comfortable. E.g., if you have cats, and you know your guest is allergic, you will secure the cats in another room until your guest leaves. If your guest is a vegetarian, you will serve something that he/she can eat.

I think that the Church should be the same way–hospitable to guests. If your “guests” are afraid of ritual and think it is devilish, then you will do your best to minimize the “ritual” feel of the Mass and help your guests feel more comfortable by speaking a language that the guest can understand, playing music that he/she is somewhat familiar with, etc. All of this is perfectly allowable by the GIRM. To play a contemporary hymn instead of Palestrina is OK according to the rubrics.
You are incorrect from a logical standpoint. Let’s make a list of things that Protestants feel are “devilish:”
  1. The Pope
  2. The Rosary
  3. Statues of Saints
  4. The Crucifix (Corpus)
  5. The Eucharist
  6. Calling priests “father”
  7. “Repetitive” prayers
I know there is more, but that is enough. By your logic we should “minimize” our statues, mention of the Pope, mention of Mary, Eucharistic Adoration, etc. IOW…cease to be Catholic.

You remind me of the complaints many people in the Northwest and Colorado have of some Californians who move in. A lot of Californias are attracted to these places because of their beauty and lifestyle. After they move in, they do their best to make their new home and surroundings as Californian as possible. It makes no sense. If you change the surroundings to match California, the beauty that originally attracted the Californians will be gone.

There are other ways to “attract” non-Catholics. The main one is to live our faith and pray, not to become more Protestant-like.
 
Originally Posted by rlg94086:

You are incorrect from a logical standpoint. Let’s make a list of things that Protestants feel are “devilish:”
  1. The Pope
  2. The Rosary
  3. Statues of Saints
  4. The Crucifix (Corpus)
  5. The Eucharist
  6. Calling priests “father”
  7. “Repetitive” prayers
The Protestants find The Eucharist devilish? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top