Catholic Folk Masses--Uncomfortable?

[Mike_Searson]

I “love” lots of songs. Doesn’t mean I want or need to hear them at Mass.

 

[mhazell]

Um, yes they are.

Erm, no, they’re really not.

As I have been at pains to say, and have said repeatedly, one is free to like whatever music one likes. One is free to use whatever religious music one likes in one’s own devotional life.

Whether that music is suitable for the Mass is an *entirely *different question. (All sacred music is religious music, but not all religious music is sacred music.)

So yes, the argument started into taste…trying to talk someone out of liking a song. This is getting ridiculous.

It has certainly not been about that from my perspective, and I have also read the entire thread. No-one is trying to talk anyone else out of liking a song. As has just been said above, I can like a song, but that doesn’t mean it’s suitable for Mass. I like Metallica, but that genre of music is not suitable for Mass, it is not sacred music.

What is and is not sacred music is not a question of taste (again, something I have been at pains to point out), but a question of what the Church has said on such matters. There are objective criteria for what constitutes sacred music. If something does not meet these criteria, it is not sacred music, and is decidedly unsuitable for the liturgy.

Again, no-one is trying to talk anyone out of liking a song, as if merely liking a song were illicit. The point (certainly my point) is that liking a song has no bearing on its suitability for the Mass. You might get something out of folk songs, but that doesn’t make them sacred. Likewise, you might think chant is boring, but the Church has repeatedly decreed that it should have pride of place in the liturgy and is specially suited to the liturgy.

[J]ust because the church holds chant in high esteem does not mean our tastes automatically change nor should they.

If the Church holds something in high esteem, shouldn’t we also?

Yes, it doesn’t mean our tastes automatically change, but as to whether they should… I think they should, if only gradually. I think it says something about one’s spiritual disposition if stubbornness about one’s own personal tastes/opinions get in the way of what the Church has said is truly holy and sacred.

 

[agapewolf]

If the Church holds something in high esteem, shouldn’t we also?

.

Apparently, you didn’t read the quotes…where the person just flatly stated they liked the song, and the next post was telling them they shouldn’t. It did digress to that, it wasn’t just about the liturgy.

As I already gave the disclaimer…I’m not arguing that it should be in the liturgy either. I’m not saying that because one likes it it should go into the liturgy. That was a different point than what the conversation narrowed down to.

and not having a taste for something does not mean you don’t hold it in high esteem.

I love billy joel music. i can give very long diserations on why his music is objectively good (from a rock stand point). I can do the same for Elton John, but I do not have a taste for his music. It doesn’t catch me like it does others. That does not mean I think it is objectively bad, and I still appreciate it and hold it in high esteem for what it is.

Same with vedgatables. They are objectively good for us, and i believe it. Does not mean that I like the taste.

Sometimes, you also can’t control your “taste”. The fact that I don’t like cauliflower, I can’t just “will” myself to like it. it has nothing to do with stubbornness.

 

[benedictgal]

Apparently, you didn’t read the quotes…where the person just flatly stated they liked the song, and the next post was telling them they shouldn’t. It did digress to that, it wasn’t just about the liturgy.

As I already gave the disclaimer…I’m not arguing that it should be in the liturgy either. I’m not saying that because one likes it it should go into the liturgy. That was a different point than what the conversation narrowed down to.

and not having a taste for something does not mean you don’t hold it in high esteem.

I love billy joel music. i can give very long diserations on why his music is objectively good (from a rock stand point). I can do the same for Elton John, but I do not have a taste for his music. It doesn’t catch me like it does others. That does not mean I think it is objectively bad, and I still appreciate it and hold it in high esteem for what it is.

Same with vedgatables. They are objectively good for us, and i believe it. Does not mean that I like the taste.

Sometimes, you also can’t control your “taste”. The fact that I don’t like cauliflower, I can’t just “will” myself to like it. it has nothing to do with stubbornness.

If you read my response to both you and the person supporting this song, I made it very clear that one can like whatever he likes. However, when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there are paramters that should be followed. I even cited a survey that the USCCB took regarding Sacred Music. One can certainly listen to that type of music as a private devotional if he chooses to do so. However, the song is not appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is a public act of worship.

 

[Thomone]

Hello, I am new to this forum. Let me introduce myself. I have played guitar since 1967. At Mass since 1968. I am not a professional musician, by choice. I have seen a lot of “folk” music and “contemporary” music used in our Churches. That being said, some of it did not belong at Mass. As a liturgist, I respect the parts of the Mass and believe that the music, no matter what kind it is, must support the readings of the day, the season of the Church, and respect and understand the congregation.

That being said, I am one who loves a more contemporary liturgy. I believe that all instruments have there place. I also believe that no matter who plays or what is being played, it must be done reverently and with professionalism. A bad guitar player, organist or other musician doesn’t belong in the liturgy.

My next comment is that for those who like to participate in the more contemporary style of worship, many Churches offer contemporary “Praise and Worship” services that make use of the more modern music. I enjoy this.

I belive that our Lord loves to chant and can also tap His foot. As long as we do it for His praise…who can judge any of us wrong?

 

[benedictgal]

Hello, I am new to this forum. Let me introduce myself. I have played guitar since 1967. At Mass since 1968. I am not a professional musician, by choice. I have seen a lot of “folk” music and “contemporary” music used in our Churches. That being said, some of it did not belong at Mass. As a liturgist, I respect the parts of the Mass and believe that the music, no matter what kind it is, must support the readings of the day, the season of the Church, and respect and understand the congregation.

That being said, I am one who loves a more contemporary liturgy. I believe that all instruments have there place. I also believe that no matter who plays or what is being played, it must be done reverently and with professionalism. A bad guitar player, organist or other musician doesn’t belong in the liturgy.

My next comment is that for those who like to participate in the more contemporary style of worship, many Churches offer contemporary “Praise and Worship” services that make use of the more modern music. I enjoy this.

I belive that our Lord loves to chant and can also tap His foot. As long as we do it for His praise…who can judge any of us wrong?

Welcome to the forum.

Have you read any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See? If you read through them carefully, you will find that the Church does indeed have her standards. Even Pope John Paul II, who founded World Youth Day, indicated that the music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs purification.

In 2003, he wrote the Chirograph on Sacred Music to mark the 100th Anniversary of the Motu Propio:

1. On various occasions I too have recalled the precious role and great importance of music and song for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations[9]. I have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.

In this perspective, in the light of the Magisterium of St Pius X and my other Predecessors and taking into account in particular the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, I would like to re-propose several fundamental principles for this important sector of the life of the Church, with the intention of ensuring that liturgical music corresponds ever more closely to its specific function.

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

Furthermore, the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Holy Eucharist noted that there was a serious concern with the kind of music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. While they specifically targeted the Masses for youth (where the praise and worship genre you mentioned is mostly used), they still indicated that it was indeed a shadow.

For his part, when responding to the concerns of the Synod Fathers, Pope Benedict XVI noted, in Sacramentum Caritatis, that:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

Thus, the Church does have her standards.

 

[pnewton]

I have heard the I/we/He arguement back and forth for years. I have never yet come to see any validity in it, both from a common sense and a Biblical perspective.

Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in Heaven, as it is in earth.

All about God

Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses; as we also forgive those who trespass against us. And lead** us** not into temptation; but deliver **us **from evil.

All about us.

Both are found throughout the Bible, in the Psalms, everywhere. Yes, the focus of Mass is on God, but this Sacrifice of Calvary was for our sake, our forgiveness, our call to serve each other. It is God who chose in His mercy to put the focus on us, even to the point of death on a cross. So we have the two-fold message of the Bible, the Mass and of music. Worship and honor due God for who he is and what he did. Honoring that sacrifice by putting into action real works of charity toward each other, or as the Lord put it, the world will know we are His disciples by our love. I have a hard time arguing over a song Jesus inspired.

 

[Thomone]

Yes, I am acquainted with the requirements and restrictions. That said, many modern writers respect these guidelines, Cooney, Haas and Schutte for instance. The song does not have to be “old” to be appropriate, nor does it have to be published by a special group or organization. It must be done with reverence, and the lyrics must be in line with the season and reading of the Mass.

Again that said, instruments and enthusiasm can vary.

 

[PoliSciProf]

No, I’ve never been uncomfortable with liturgies that incorporate guitars or other instruments usually associated with North American folk music. In fact, I have often been moved to great prayer at such masses. You do make a point, however, when you note that “choir members often participate more in the Mass than the priest does.” This is a shame and I must admit I have also been irritated when the liturgy seems to be one big practice session for the choir or the music seems to replace or distract from what is happening on the altar. This doesn’t mean that “folk masses” as such are bad, but simply that there is a need for liturgical education and guidance. I certainly don’t think we should banish popular instruments from the liturgy or ignore those kinds of musical forms that may have a very strong and positive impact on Catholic youth, but the sacrifice on the altar must always remain central in the liturgy and the music should be appropriate for creating joyful reflection and participation in that liturgy.

I am with you here. There are many different spiritual modes and devotions within the Church and as long as the Mass is preserved let there be some diversity with the music as long as it doesn’t get out of hand. I attended a mass in Hawai’i once and some of the songs were set to Hawai’ian music. The music was respectful but different and my wife and I liked it very much.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I am acquainted with the requirements and restrictions. That said, many modern writers respect these guidelines, Cooney, Haas and Schutte for instance. The song does not have to be “old” to be appropriate, nor does it have to be published by a special group or organization. It must be done with reverence, and the lyrics must be in line with the season and reading of the Mass.

Again that said, instruments and enthusiasm can vary.

With all due respect, the three writers you named are not quite as respectful of the documents as they seem to be. Haas’ compositions are very horizontal in nature and focus too much on the community instead of God. There are also some serious doctrinal deficiencies with his work. Schutte and the rest of the SLJ are not any better. In fact, they are responsible for the worst of the music. Cooney is not any better.

In fact, a lot of what has come out of OCP, and, even GIA, fails miserably as it lacks a genuine sense of the Faith.

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect, the three writers you named are not quite as respectful of the documents as they seem to be. Haas’ compositions are very horizontal in nature and focus too much on the community instead of God. There are also some serious doctrinal deficiencies with his work. Schutte and the rest of the SLJ are not any better. In fact, they are responsible for the worst of the music. Cooney is not any better.

In fact, a lot of what has come out of OCP, and, even GIA, fails miserably as it lacks a genuine sense of the Faith.

Schutte just had to re-write one of his most common songs for failure to abide by Church tradition. You would think, since this is his job, he would have know better.

My problem with these writers is that since they are employed for writing these songs, they turn out vast quantities of titles, far more than their talent (or the talent of anyone) should deem prudent. Yes, some are beautiful and inspired. Most are insipid and lack-luster. When contrasted with centuries of Catholic inspiration, the industrialization of inspiration turns wan and pale, like butter spread over too much bread, to steal a line from Tolkien.

 

[benedictgal]

Schutte just had to re-write one of his most common songs for failure to abide by Church tradition. You would think, since this is his job, he would have know better.

My problem with these writers is that since they are employed for writing these songs, they turn out vast quantities of titles, far more than their talent (or the talent of anyone) should deem prudent. Yes, some are beautiful and inspired. Most are insipid and lack-luster. When contrasted with centuries of Catholic inspiration, the industrialization of inspiration turns wan and pale, like butter spread over too much bread, to steal a line from Tolkien.

It reminds me of the first half of what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spirit of the Liturgy when he treated the subject of Sacred Music:

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). **It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. **

Both of you are pretty much saying the same thing, as I read it.

 

[Jimzz12]

Does anyone feel as uncomfortable about Folk Masses as I do?

Yeah they suck. I feel violated on so many different levels when I am subjected to one, feeling as though my fundamental, inalienable human rights, as enummerated in the Canon Law, have been violated.

And, I’m not even a Latin Mass aficionado.

 

[Jimsdun]

Mass is not about entertainment.

The Eucharist, not the music, should always be the central focus of the mass. Unfortunately, a lot of parishes have this backwards, particularly those who place a lot of emphasis on contemporary Christian rock music with guitars and drums. There is nothing inherently wrong with it unless the music detracts from the real reason to attend mass which unfortunately is too often the case.

 

[Jimzz12]

Some good blog entries on this stuff

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/2974/

sisterallie.blogspot.com/2008/10/havent-written-one-of-these-in-while.html

 

[mhazell]

I have heard the I/we/He arguement back and forth for years. I have never yet come to see any validity in it, both from a common sense and a Biblical perspective.

It is not necessarily just about pronouns.

Who is doing most of the actions in the Lord’s Prayer? God.

Who is doing most of the actions in “They’ll Know We Are Christians”? We are.

And therein is the difference. Yes, there is a place in the Mass for self-examination, and the like, but the actor in the Mass is the triune God. Thus, the primary actor in any song sung in the Mass should be God, not us.

“They’ll [Actually] Know We Are Christians” by our glorification of God in the Mass, and our worship of him, not by us singing songs about how we’ll do lots of stuff to make sure they’ll know we are Christians.

I have a hard time arguing over a song Jesus inspired.

With all due respect, whether He inspired it or not is not the issue here. The issue is whether it is *sacred *music or not. I could sing a heavy metal song inspired by Jesus, but that doesn’t make it suitable for Mass, it doesn’t make it sacred music.

If it is not sacred music, it is not suitable for the Mass. End of story.

 

[Phemie]

That entrance hymn always bothered me – the language seemed unnecessarily gender-specific. I’d agree with the offertory and Communion songs being inappropriate. But that recessional never bothered me – and I could sing it.

I’ve always hated “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love”. To me it implied that other faiths couldn’t love like we do which is certainly not the case. And thinking back to some parish council meetings I’ve attended and I flinch at how they wouldn’t have known …

 

[pnewton]

It reminds me of the first half of what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spirit of the Liturgy when he treated the subject of Sacred Music:

Imagine that. Truly a must read for any musician. However, unlike my post, it contains no Lord of the Rings allusions.

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect, whether He inspired it or not is not the issue here. The issue is whether it is *sacred *music or not. I could sing a heavy metal song inspired by Jesus, but that doesn’t make it suitable for Mass, it doesn’t make it sacred music.

If it is not sacred music, it is not suitable for the Mass. End of story.

It was not written for any secular purpose, nor does it use any heavy metal. When I referred to the inspiration by Jesus, I was referring to the issue with the lyrics being too focused on us. Jesus is the one that focuses this task on us. I was not referring to whether it was a secular or sacred song.

BTW - I do not use any song ever borrowed from musicals, movies or pop performers. By definition, these are not sacred, but secular and forbidden. At least that is my understanding.

 

[mhazell]

It was not written for any secular purpose, nor does it use any heavy metal.

I never said “They’ll Know” was written as a secular song. It’s not sacred music, though–it’s a religious song. “They’ll Know” does not fulfil the criteria laid out by the Second Vatican Council and various popes for what is sacred music.

All sacred music is religious, but not all religious music is sacred.

When I referred to the inspiration by Jesus, I was referring to the issue with the lyrics being too focused on us. Jesus is the one that focuses this task on us.

I’m not too sure what your point is, then. Forgive me, I must have missed something.

In my opinion, the lyrics, like many contemporary religious songs, are way too focused on us. *We *are the ones acting, we are the ones doing, not God, or even God through us. Hence, “They’ll Know” and similar songs are not suitable for use at Mass. Doesn’t matter whether Jesus inspired the song; doesn’t matter whether Jesus is the one who “focuses this task on us”. We are not the principal actors in the Mass, so we should not sing songs at Mass in which we are the principal actors.

To state again: people can listen to this song and similar ones all they like outside of Mass. Scream it out in your car and have fun doing it if you like! The issue arises when people suggest that songs like these (or even songs in a particular genre like folk) can be used as sacred music and thus can be used at the Mass. My contention–which I think would be the same as a few other people on this thread–is that if Vatican II and the various papal documents about the Eucharist and the liturgy were properly understood by people, many parishes wouldn’t be in the liturgical music malaise they seem to currently be in.

We need to start being far, far more critical of what we sing at Mass. Lex orandi, lex credendi applies just as much to music sung at the liturgy as it does to the words of the liturgy.