Contemporary=BAD?

[benedictgal]

I looked up the matter regarding instruments and whose competency it is to regulate their usage. According to a letter written by the CDWDS to the USCCB regarding American adaptations to the GIRM:

As to the provision for n. 393, the Congregation appreciates the evident intent to encourage a new era of responsible creativity among liturgical musicians and composers, and has no difficulty in principle with a provision for the submission of texts of the Gloria, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the acclamations and responses (perhaps more simply “the musical settings for the various parts of the Order of Mass”) as well as other rites to the Conference’s Secretariat for the Liturgy prior to publication. At the same time, it would ask the Bishops to extend the same provision to the melodies. It is clear that according to the past implicit criteria which it has developed, the Conference would not approve banalizing settings or others that conflict with the liturgical spirit. Moreover, at a juncture when new compositions are to be made, it seems prudent to set in place a filter to exclude inappropriate settings for the future. For the implementation of this norm of the Institutio Generalis, the Congregation is willing to sanction internal legislation at the level of working regulations (not requiring the formal recognitio of the Holy See), whereby the Conference regulates this matter as they do copyright, liturgical edition design and other matters in a case-by-case manner through the Liturgy Secretariat or any other appropriate organ of their devising.

Certain other provisions seem to require further study and specification before being introduced as adapting legislation. **What is said here may be understood to apply to nn. 301, 304, 326, 329, 339, 343, and the portion of n. 393 referring to approved musical instruments. In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses. In the absence of any particular legislation on such a matter, specifications contained in the universal law maintain their full force. In **other words, the Conference of Bishops may name specific materials or instruments as suitable in addition to those universally deemed so, but in the absence of such specification, only the “traditional” materials or those otherwise specified in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani are to be regarded as approved.

Thus, the competency falls on the national bishops’ conference and not an individual bishop/archbishop.

Now, regarding the music itself, one of the things mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam was that the individual national episocpal conferences submit a repetoire of hymns to be used in their particular territories. The USCCB submitted theirs in 2006; however, the Holy See has yet to approve it. In other words, the content, settings and music are all under review. The document was supposed to have come out in early 2009; however, with the change in administration at the CDWDS, there has been a delay as the new Prefect and his team are reviewing everything. When I met the previous secretary to the CDWDS back in 2008 while I was at a conference in St. Louis, he told me that he and the Congregation were aware of the musical situation in the United States and that things would be changing. Yes, the wheels of the CDWDS may grind slowly, but, they grind finely.

 

[VociMike]

My question is this…why do so many people think that because music is contemporary and uses different instruments, that it is somehow less sacred than more traditional music? I’ve even heard it referred to as irreverent…and I completely fail to see how music that is BASED ON SCRIPTURE can be irreverent.

This question makes the common mistake of thinking that the music is just a vehicle, a wrapping for the all-important text/message. In fact, Vatican II defines sacred music as “sacred song united to the words”. You must have “sacred song” in addition to “the words”. “The words” alone isn’t enough.

What is “sacred”? It is the opposite of profane. It is set aside, set apart for God and holy purposes.

Let me ask, why do you (or anybody) use guitars and keyboards and drums as opposed to other instruments? Why do you use music with contemporary structures as opposed to other structures? Once you can answer the question why one would choose modern instruments and styles, then it is possible to examine whether these reasons are suitable reasons.

 

[dnu]

“Ever” is a very, very long time, far longer than the Church has seen a need to enforce. Your argument about what was used in the synagogues of Jesus’ time is also an argument against organs and polyphony, not to mention modern musical scales and harmonies. “Every single Christian on earth” is a lot of people, as well.

I’m not arguing in favor of innovation for innovation’s sake, but Church doesn’t teach that musical practices should never change. It doesn’t teach that the music of every Catholic church on the planet, let alone every Christian, ought to sound the same as every other. That is clearly over the top. If you think of all the music we wouldn’t have, if the Church really used that yardstick…Yes, it would be Sad. Very sad indeed.

(By the way, what is your evidence that there were no musical instruments used in worship of Jesus’ time? Do you really know that, or did you just make that up?)

The organs should go too. In the Liturgy of St. John Chysostom, the Eastern Orthodox do not use any musical instruments at all and that is perhaps one of the most reverrent and beautiful services I’ve ever seen. There is no need for any artificial instrumentation during a Christian Sabbath service. God gave us the greatest “instrument” in our own voice.

 

[choy]

“Left” and “Right” are not applicable in matters of liturgy or Church teaching. Something either accords with what the Church says, or it doesn’t. If I accept the Church teachings on liturgical music and on the death penalty, does that make me an extreme right wing extreme left winger?

leftists means you’re against

rightists means you’re for, but you’re taking it to the extreme

thats why i call those who i was describing are extreme rightists. yes, what they are asking for in Liturgy are valid, but they take it to the extreme that they tend to overstep their place in the Church and some even outright would declare they do not follow their bishops, thinking they’re better. and also they would dismiss everything else valid, but does not conform to their persona likes and tastes

a good example is nationalism, lets say america. an extreme leftist would be anti-america. and extreme-rightist with be pro-america, but with extreme prejudices. perhaps they’ll also be staunchly anti-immigration, even legal ones.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

*** sigh *** more tripe from liberals.
No cupcake, its because contemporary worship today in church( any denomination ) is more of a distraction and seems to be just for entertainment purposes.

kristie, just understand that some people on this forum has taken their traditional stance to the extreme right, and are resistant to the changes of modern era. for them, any change would equal irreverence, concentrating only on the outside appearance without taking into account that reverence comes from the heart

as long as your parish and archdiocese says you can use those instruments, then they are not forbidden

 

[MarkThompson]

a good example is nationalism, lets say america. an extreme leftist would be anti-america. and extreme-rightist with be pro-america, but with extreme prejudices. perhaps they’ll also be staunchly anti-immigration, even legal ones.

As someone on the American right, this is a highly confused understanding of our politics. I won’t derail this thread by trying to give an explanation, but I thought I’d let you know.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

The organs should go too. In the Liturgy of St. John Chysostom, the Eastern Orthodox do not use any musical instruments at all and that is perhaps one of the most reverrent and beautiful services I’ve ever seen. There is no need for any artificial instrumentation during a Christian Sabbath service. God gave us the greatest “instrument” in our own voice.

good for them. But we in the western ROMAN rite use organs.

 

[Joe_5859]

Now, regarding the music itself, one of the things mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam was that the individual national episocpal conferences submit a repetoire of hymns to be used in their particular territories. The USCCB submitted theirs in 2006; however, the Holy See has yet to approve it. In other words, the content, settings and music are all under review. The document was supposed to have come out in early 2009; however, with the change in administration at the CDWDS, there has been a delay as the new Prefect and his team are reviewing everything. When I met the previous secretary to the CDWDS back in 2008 while I was at a conference in St. Louis, he told me that he and the Congregation were aware of the musical situation in the United States and that things would be changing. Yes, the wheels of the CDWDS may grind slowly, but, they grind finely.

That’s interesting. I remember hearing about this possibility, but I had about given up on it. It’s good to know that it’s still in process. It would be helpful to have more direction.

 

[VociMike]

leftists means you’re against

So leftists are against abortion, and rightists are for it?

But to say more would be to derail a good thread, so I’ll shut up on this point.

 

[VociMike]

good for them. But we in the western ROMAN rite use organs.

And in fact the organ is singled out in the documents of Vatican II which delare that it is “to be held in high esteem” because it “adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.”

 

[lizaanne]

If the melody brings to mind some very secular songs or songs that unfortunately have been put to commercial or another decidedly non-sacred use, that would not be reverent.

PERFECT example!!!

I was recently at a Confirmation Mass, which was actually very lovely for the most part. But during the sprinkling rite we sang this sort of a round with the choir that had lines like “quenching” “refreshing”, etc. set to a tune that made me feel like I was singing a Pepsi jingle! I actually felt silly singing it - it totally took away from the rite.

Now - the words themselves were fine (if not a bit corny) - but the tune was so commercial sounding it turned it into a really great example of what NOT to choose.

~Liza

 

[VociMike]

PERFECT example!!!

I was recently at a Confirmation Mass, which was actually very lovely for the most part. But during the sprinkling rite we sang this sort of a round with the choir that had lines like “quenching” “refreshing”, etc. set to a tune that made me feel like I was singing a Pepsi jingle! I actually felt silly singing it - it totally took away from the rite.

Now - the words themselves were fine (if not a bit corny) - but the tune was so commercial sounding it turned it into a really great example of what NOT to choose.

~Liza

Good example. Would one’s mind likely to be on God listening to those words, or imagining pouring an ice-cold thirst-quencher later that afternoon? Yours is an example of those things, which are not bad in and of themselves, but which are “not fit to cross the threshold” as Pope John Paul II quoted from one of his predecessors.

 

[VociMike]

Here’s a thought experiment. If you heard a religious song in another language, a language which you did not speak, and, based on the instrumentation and style of composition and performance, you could not tell if the song was a secular song or a religious song, would such a song be suitable for the liturgy? Why or why not?

(assume there is nothing problematic in the lyrics)

 

[japhy]

The organs should go too. In the Liturgy of St. John Chysostom, the Eastern Orthodox do not use any musical instruments at all and that is perhaps one of the most reverrent and beautiful services I’ve ever seen. There is no need for any artificial instrumentation during a Christian Sabbath service. God gave us the greatest “instrument” in our own voice.

We should discontinue use of electricity in our worship as well: no more lights except for natural light and candles.

While a capella music is the ideal, there is no reason to exclude all instruments, especially the organ which has been specifically adopted in the West.

 

[mick321]

Contemporary is one thing - but it all depends on how you define that.

For example - a parish I used to attend (a National Shrine no less) uses contemporary music at Mass. One Sunday I had returned to my pew after receiving Holy Communion and just couldn’t put my finger on what that song was - it was only the piano, no lyrics. Hmmmm… Well, after I got home and let it roll around in my head awhile I realized it was a Beatles tune - Long and Winding Road. Lovely tune, but not for Mass!

…

~Liza

That’s nothing.
Life Teen Mass recessional song.
Electric piano, guitar, bass, drums & anvil.
That there were no vocals made little difference.
The tune to Maxwell’s Silver Hammer was unmistakable.
Many of the Faithful sang the chorus all the way to their cars.
.

 

[EasterJoy]

*** sigh *** more tripe from liberals.
No cupcake, its because contemporary worship today in church( any denomination ) is more of a distraction and seems to be just for entertainment purposes.

“Tripe” is patronizing enough…but, “Cupcake”? How would you like it, if someone called you “Cupcake” or “Fruitcake” or something like that? It’s almost picking a fight on purpose. That’s not a charitable way to address someone in a discussion, unless you know the person well enough to be certain the address will be taken as charitable. We can do better than that here.

Besides, it is not what “seems” to you or anyone liberal, conservative or independent to define what is proper or objectively “distracting” for the liturgies of the Roman Catholic Church. Although their exact interpretation may be up for some debate, we have objective standards of liturgy, promulgated by our chief liturgists, the bishops. Your stated standards are far, far narrower than the true standards the Church intends Catholic parishes to aim for.

 

[stuart12]

The Roman Rite is characterised by solemnity, sobriety, simplicity and logic. These must be adhered to. Questions to ask oneself include, whether the music is directed towards the Sacrifice or is it for mere entertainment?

 

[EasterJoy]

The organs should go too. In the Liturgy of St. John Chysostom, the Eastern Orthodox do not use any musical instruments at all and that is perhaps one of the most reverrent and beautiful services I’ve ever seen. There is no need for any artificial instrumentation during a Christian Sabbath service. God gave us the greatest “instrument” in our own voice.

You refer to a beautiful way to celebrate the Mass, but that hardly makes it the only legitimate or reverent way to do it.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but you don’t have the authority to make your favorite way into the liturgical norm. I wouldn’t hold my breath about getting there, either. If you’re not already Eastern Orthodox and you can’t find a monastery that chants without the use of so much as an organ, good luck. I suppose what you want is out there somewhere, but I couldn’t guess where to find it.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Roman Rite is characterised by solemnity, sobriety, simplicity and logic. These must be adhered to. Questions to ask oneself include, whether the music is directed towards the Sacrifice or is it for mere entertainment?

a) What is the source from which you got these particular standards? Or did you just make them up by selecting the features of the Roman rite that you happen to like?
b) Where is mystery in your list of attributes? Transcendence? Aesthetic beauty?
c) Who is to say that you aren’t just as entertained by a ritual of logic, simplicity, and sobriety as someone else is by a greater spectacle? Are you saying that playing baseball is entertainment, but playing chess is not?

There are actual standards and actual Church documents that outline what those standards are. The Roman rite is characterised by the rubrics and by those standards, not by a level of austerity or spectacle that some random Catholic out there happens to like.

 

[stuart12]

a) What is the source from which you got these particular standards? Or did you just make them up by selecting the features of the Roman rite that you happen to like?
b) Where is mystery in your list of attributes? Transcendence? Aesthetic beauty?
c) Who is to say that you aren’t just as entertained by a ritual of logic, simplicity, and sobriety as someone else is by a greater spectacle? Are you saying that playing baseball is entertainment, but playing chess is not?

There are actual standards and actual Church documents that outline what those standards are. The Roman rite is characterised by the rubrics and by those standards, not by a level of austerity or spectacle that some random Catholic out there happens to like.

It is commonly said that the Roman Rite is characterised by these features, as opposed to the more poetic form of the Eastern liturgies. My ‘list’ was not exaustive, but mystery may be included within solemnity. As for a source, Father Fortescue states these aspects in his ‘Ceremonies of the Roman Rite’.
The music must be directed towards the worship of God and not a mere sideshow which often happens nowadays.