Commentary: It’s Time to Boycott the Worship Industry

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopyBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_Mallory said:
I don’t know when or how the liturgy became subject to peoples’ personal preferences/taste but it is not continuous with the Catholic tradition. Changes have been made throughout history to the Roman liturgy but always with the intention of nourishing souls and making saints. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger disagrees with your opinion that music is subjective.

He writes in his The Feast of Faith, “Through rhythm and melody themselves, pagan music often endeavors to elicit an ecstasy of the senses as a means of release. This imbalance toward the senses recurs in modern popular music: the “God” found here, the salvation of man identified here, is quite different from the God of the Christian faith.”
Code: 
 If Cardinal Ratzinger's view here appears extreme, it is only because western culture has drifted so far from its Christian roots. Music used to be taken seriously but a high view of it has no place now in our utilitarian culture. The value of objects are determined by their usefulness. Pop music gives us results. It releases the neurotransmitter dopamine, which makes us feel pleasure in the way Gregorian Chant just doesn't do.
P.S. I highly recommend The Feast Of Faith. It is a great book to read if you want to learn about liturgy.

P.S.S. In my opinion, the commercialized music in some “liturgies” hurts ecumenical relations with the Orthodox who have an understanding of liturgy that is more consistent with past Christian thought. Cardinal Newman wrote over a hundred years ago that if St. Athanasius were alive, he would feel right at home in the Catholic Church. Now, I am not so sure. I think many of the Saints wouldn’t recognize it today. We need to restore a high view of liturgy that Vatican II actually sought to protect.

By the way, I enjoy pop music but I think the context in which one enjoys it matters.
Click to expand...
I’m all for extricating popular music from the Mass and leaving it to fill stadia (or radio stations, etc) where it’s really in-context.

But I think it’s not that reasonable to suggest that the use of such music in worship is inherently detrimental to nourishing souls, just because you and I would prefer a musically traditional Mass. I wouldn’t say it’s reasonable for then-Cardinal Ratzinger so to argue either - if only because for anyone to argue that music is not subjective is *itself *subjective!

To put it another way: Gregorian chant (when well done anyway) can be just as transportive into ecstasy and a brilliant song composed last week can leave one cold. Yes absolutely musical tastes change but the fundamental power of music - our differing responses to it - haven’t

Now there is an undeniably more solemn and edifying (I am sure some people today would say “boring”) spirit in the traditional liturgical music which is perhaps more suitable to the occasion, and if only for that reason alone it ought to be preferred. But I think any argument beyond that is ultimately a way of justifying imposing personal preferences (which I hasten to add I share!) on everyone else.

With regards your PPS I hadn’t thought about ecumenical relations before and you are probably right to draw attention to it! However - Newman, wonderful writer as he is, was really referring to the doctrine of the Church, surely, and not its music? Chant, for instance, as we have today and as Newman knew, did not really exist in the same way in St Athanasius’ time. He died in about 370AD . St Athanasius would have felt as out of place at a Mass of 1880 as Newman would in many of 2016.
 
Murmurs said:
I’m all for extricating popular music from the Mass and leaving it to fill stadia (or radio stations, etc) where it’s really in-context.

But I think it’s not that reasonable to suggest that the use of such music in worship is inherently detrimental to nourishing souls, just because you and I would prefer a musically traditional Mass. I wouldn’t say it’s reasonable for then-Cardinal Ratzinger so to argue either - if only because for anyone to argue that music is not subjective is *itself *subjective!

To put it another way: Gregorian chant (when well done anyway) can be just as transportive into ecstasy and a brilliant song composed last week can leave one cold. Yes absolutely musical tastes change but the fundamental power of music - our differing responses to it - haven’t

Now there is an undeniably more solemn and edifying (I am sure some people today would say “boring”) spirit in the traditional liturgical music which is perhaps more suitable to the occasion, and if only for that reason alone it ought to be preferred. But I think any argument beyond that is ultimately a way of justifying imposing personal preferences (which I hasten to add I share!) on everyone else.

With regards your PPS I hadn’t thought about ecumenical relations before and you are probably right to draw attention to it! However - Newman, wonderful writer as he is, was really referring to the doctrine of the Church, surely, and not its music? Chant, for instance, as we have today and as Newman knew, did not really exist in the same way in St Athanasius’ time. He died in about 370AD . St Athanasius would have felt as out of place at a Mass of 1880 as Newman would in many of 2016.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. We often impose our personal preferences on others and those who have a preference for traditional worship need to be careful. Would you not agree, however, that Beauty is something you cannot reduce to the merely subjective? Good music is beautiful but if the value of music is determined by a person-to-person basis, is there actually such a thing as “good” music? I think the multiplicity of Rites and different ways of worship are a good thing. Vatican II teaches thus. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his “Feast of Faith” does not argue for purely European traditional music such as polyphony/Gregorian Chant. He argues, however, that existing forms of music in different cultures need to be purified in the same way early Christianity purified some of the existing pagan traditions. If music is a matter of taste, then talk of purification is absurd.
 
Dacinom said:
Thank you, with all Christian charity I would like to ask how do you know with certainty what others around you at Mass were focused on?

People are very different, have different temperaments and find different things distracting as well as different things enhancing to help them focus. I had a son that found it helpful to pace the floor, shoot baskets or tap his fingers when he was trying to concentrate on something, maybe a lesson or an important conversation. Another child found soothing classical music extremely helpful to concentrate, one daughter couldn’t stand classical music she needed total silence when concentrating.

This is why I don’t believe we can make blanket statements that a certain kind of music is the best music for Mass and the Catholic church in Her wisdom has allowed for a wide variety knowing Her members have different needs. God bless and thank you for an interesting conversation.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Those of us who have a personal preference for traditional liturgies often unfairly judge those who prefer different ways of worship. Instead of the concert, we end up preferring the opera. We are guilty of sentimentalism and a false nostalgia. Instead of loving our neighbors as we ought, we run the risk of simply acting like snobs. Still, I think there is a danger when we reduce music to the realm of the purely subjective. Worship becomes an “I” without a “thou” and worship degenerates into mere sentimentalism. There is beauty itself and there is our response to beauty. Since beauty cannot be reduced to the realm of the subjective and music is something that should aspire to beauty, music should not be reduced to the subjective. It becomes banal and we treat the liturgy the same way we treat ordering a latte at Starbucks–according to our personal preferences. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas warn against the sentimentalism certain types of music induce and I think we have largely forgotten this aspect of our patristic heritage.
 
Murmurs said:
I’m all for extricating popular music from the Mass and leaving it to fill stadia (or radio stations, etc) where it’s really in-context.

But I think it’s not that reasonable to suggest that the use of such music in worship is inherently detrimental to nourishing souls, just because you and I would prefer a musically traditional Mass. **I wouldn’t say it’s reasonable for then-Cardinal Ratzinger so to argue either - if only because for anyone to argue that music is not subjective is *itself ***subjective!

To put it another way: Gregorian chant (when well done anyway) can be just as transportive into ecstasy and a brilliant song composed last week can leave one cold. Yes absolutely musical tastes change but the fundamental power of music - our differing responses to it - haven’t

Now there is an undeniably more solemn and edifying (I am sure some people today would say “boring”) spirit in the traditional liturgical music which is perhaps more suitable to the occasion, and if only for that reason alone it ought to be preferred. But I think any argument beyond that is ultimately a way of justifying imposing personal preferences (which I hasten to add I share!) on everyone else.

With regards your PPS I hadn’t thought about ecumenical relations before and you are probably right to draw attention to it! However - Newman, wonderful writer as he is, was really referring to the doctrine of the Church, surely, and not its music? Chant, for instance, as we have today and as Newman knew, did not really exist in the same way in St Athanasius’ time. He died in about 370AD . St Athanasius would have felt as out of place at a Mass of 1880 as Newman would in many of 2016.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Ratzinger was a theological adviser at Vatican II (he wasn’t a cardinal of course back then). I think it is fair to say that he knows the content and intent of the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy better than you and I. His book is an exposition of Vatican II teaching on the subject. I don’t think it is fair to dismiss his thoughts so easily.
 
lantheria said:
A fantastic rebuttal that absolutely tears Aigner and his elitist, snobbish nonsense to pieces:

Pulling Weeds out of Potholes: It’s NOT Time to Boycott the Worship Industry; It’s Just Time to Worship
Click to expand...
Interesting rebuttals. However going through them:

His point 1 doesn’t really address what the original argument was discussing in their point one. The argument in the original article wasn’t objecting to paying artist for their music, but rather that the music that the artists were being paid for wasn’t necessarily good music to use as part of worship and instead is more an extension of the regular music entertainment industry. And it’s a somewhat valid point depending on certain factors of the music and how it’s presented.

His rebuttal to point 2 is actually both misunderstanding how much some people do idolize Christian rock performers, and in fact an expansion of the original article’s argument against such idolization unintentionally. I mean he points out that Christian mega pastors and authors are themselves also becoming idolized. Yes he may not idolize the singers or know who they are (I had no clue either), but many other people have started to do so, just as he acknowledges that some have started to idolize mega pastors and authors. The “Worship Industry” is not limited to song.

His rebuttal to point 3 is somewhat on point, though he focuses more on the volume of the music rather than it’s style and content. That said, his overall point is sound. While modern music might be hard for some to sing with, to say it’s not organic or that you can’t sing to it is itself an incorrect statement IMO. Some of the more modern praise music is very understandable, very easy to sing along with, and no more or less “organic” than some traditional hymns.

His rebuttal to point 4 IMO could have been used in part to rebut point 3. The idea that passive worship is somehow bad is something I’ve never understood. I typically worship passively. I attend mass with no music on purpose. When I attend masses with music I typically am a passive listener, either to the choir or my fellow congregants. I find nothing wrong with simply observing the majesty of others raising their voices up to the lord (that and frankly I couldn’t carry a tune if my life depended on it so I’m doing everyone a favor by keeping quiet). As a rebuttal to the original point 4 though I’m inclined to agree with the rebuttal. Emotion is not itself a bad thing in a worship service. If you’re moved it’s not necessarily pure emotionalism. I mean the idea that Christ wouldn’t move some people more than others with his majesty is frankly kind of narrow minded from my view. I’m like the rebuttal author in that I’m not emotional during a service. But if someone is moved is it necessarily bad? I mean the original author seems to think that everyone moved by more modern music is moved for the wrong reasons, and some may be, but that ignores that many are moved in similar ways by more traditional hymns or even services that don’t include music.
 
Rebuttal or not, this is not truly a boycott and this frivolous idea will die an early death. Not buying stuff you do not like is not a boycott.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top