"Contemporary" Mass?

[RPRPsych]

Perhaps to those folks, there is nothing sad about it.

(and I say this as someone who loves the older forms of music, but doesn’t see the need to proselytize on the issue. I mean, even Gregorian chant was a creation of the later Church; it wasn’t exactly what Jesus and the Apostles were singing at that last Passover, or even what Saint James was telling us to sing. )

Well, everything was great. No clowns or liturgical dance, hahaha!

Good for you.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Sacred music is not confined to a compositions from a particular style or time period. I could write something today that would be totally appropriate for Mass in a current style of music.

If it sounds like the current style of music, then it would be considered profane, not sacred. Contemporary Masses often use music that sounds like secular music. Such music is not sacred.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sacred music is not confined to a compositions from a particular style or time period. I could write something today that would be totally appropriate for Mass in a current style of music.

A thousand years from now, choir, musical ensemble and hymnal genre would probably be very different than what we know today.

Before pipe organ was invented, King David had his musicians played the string instruments, cymbals, tambourines and harps in their worship. We know what happened to his critic, Michal, who famously disdained at David’s seemingly lack of dignity.

And then the famous Jehoshaphat’s priests blowing their trumpets that resulted in the fall of Jericho. Priests used ram’s horns those days to herald the worshipping of the Lord God.

Music can be used for good or bad purpose regardless of our personal preferences

In our area, most hymn and music genre in our mass can be considered contemporary, whatever that means. They are no less reverent than any mass can be.

Once a month, we allow our youth group choir to provide the music during the Sunday mass, much to the delight of their parents seeing their children involved in the liturgy. And yes, that included drum set and guitars. There was some resistance from some parishioners and liturgists initially, but they adhered to the bishop/priest’s instruction, and all was well.

Depend on our listening ears, not all that what they were singing was bad.

 

[Generic_Name]

If it sounds like the current style of music, then it would be considered profane, not sacred. Contemporary Masses often use music that sounds like secular music. Such music is not sacred.

I don’t oppose modern church music, just modern church music that sounds like what one can hear in “the world.”

 

[john_ennis]

There is a quality of the music which is important to consider and has nothing to do with time period or what we’re used to. It is the question of whether the music is primarily a quest for an emotion, or instead a means of prayer. Augustine said that to the extent we are seeking a pleasurable feeling from the music, we are not really praying.

Not to say that good emotions don’t result from prayerful music; just that they aren’t a goal. And let’s face it–some music clearly is written and chosen for that goal. I was at a mass where the Glory to God in the Highest prayer was performed with a blazing acoustic guitar riff. It was a performance, not a prayer. Many felt compelled to applaud. Few were more aware, during this, of the meaning of the prayer.

 

[RPRPsych]

There’s a song my grandmother once taught me. I can’t remember all the words, but it began:

“Little Sir Echo, how do you do?”

(And since Google is our friend, here it is: lyricsmania.com/little_sir_echo_lyrics_bing_crosby.html)

Funny that I should start thinking of it now.

 

[otjm]

If it sounds like the current style of music, then it would be considered profane, not sacred. Contemporary Masses often use music that sounds like secular music. Such music is not sacred.

There is no such thing as “the current style of music” as there are a large number of styles.

If the text of the music is, say, from one of the psalms or Isiah, how is the music accompanying it “profane”?

Answer - it is not - this is just another opinion in the sea of opinions about music at a Mass, most of which comes down to “I don’t like that.”

Everyone is entitled to opinions; not everyone is entitled to pronouncements. Even musicologists cannot agree on the subject.

 

[otjm]

There is a quality of the music which is important to consider and has nothing to do with time period or what we’re used to. It is the question of whether the music is primarily a quest for an emotion, or instead a means of prayer. Augustine said that to the extent we are seeking a pleasurable feeling from the music, we are not really praying.

Not to say that good emotions don’t result from prayerful music; just that they aren’t a goal. And let’s face it–some music clearly is written and chosen for that goal. I was at a mass where the Glory to God in the Highest prayer was performed with a blazing acoustic guitar riff. It was a performance, not a prayer. Many felt compelled to applaud. Few were more aware, during this, of the meaning of the prayer.

I like your example (and agree with it).

However, given the degree to which Gregorian Chant and Palestrina make some people’s socks roll up and down, I would submit that for them, both of those styles of music would come under Augustine’s admonishment.

 

[twf]

There is no such thing as “the current style of music” as there are a large number of styles.

If the text of the music is, say, from one of the psalms or Isiah, how is the music accompanying it “profane”?

Answer - it is not - this is just another opinion in the sea of opinions about music at a Mass, most of which comes down to “I don’t like that.”

Everyone is entitled to opinions; not everyone is entitled to pronouncements. Even musicologists cannot agree on the subject.

I’ve asked this question before and have never received an answer that satisfied me. When you read through Vatican II or various directives the Church has issued on sacred music, they are clear that certain styles (not just lyrics) of music are profane and not appropriate for mass. What is the Church referring to? If any style of music is appropriate for Mass and it’s merely a matter of taste, what do we make of these Church directives?

 

[RPRPsych]

I like your example (and agree with it).

However, given the degree to which Gregorian Chant and Palestrina make some people’s socks roll up and down, I would submit that for them, both of those styles of music would come under Augustine’s admonishment.

Good point.

 

[twf]

(and I say this as someone who loves the older forms of music, but doesn’t see the need to proselytize on the issue. I mean, even Gregorian chant was a creation of the later Church; it wasn’t exactly what Jesus and the Apostles were singing at that last Passover, or even what Saint James was telling us to sing. )

Good for you.

Yes, Gregorian chant was a development, but it was a sacred development - a genre of music developed by the Church for the sole purpose of divine worship. And of course chant in general is exclusively used for sacred purposes… I imagine the chant of our Syriac rite brothers and sisters in the Near East would not be that far off from what the Apostles chanted in the temple.

 

[john_ennis]

I like your example (and agree with it).

However, given the degree to which Gregorian Chant and Palestrina make some people’s socks roll up and down, I would submit that for them, both of those styles of music would come under Augustine’s admonishment.

I think, if you read my second paragraph, you’ll see that isn’t a problem. Finding an immense emotion in music doesn’t take away from the worship, does it? It’s when your goal is that, and you selfishly seek that feeling…

 

[IOGD]

The Council Fathers clearly state that profane music, or music begot of a secular style, is inappropriate for Mass. We are told that Gregorian Chant is to be given the “pride of place,” and then that in regards to other music, “polyphony” is next most apt. The Council Fathers clearly envisioned music that was not appropriate for Mass. A simple connecting of dots shows that, as the contemporary and folk styles of music sung at many Masses in the US nowadays are clearly derived from secular styles, they are not appropriate for Mass.

There is also a difference between preference and objective good. I love the blues: but religious music sung in a blues style is objectively inappropriate for Mass. I love mellow folky music: that kind of music is not appropriate for Mass. Drawing on the tradition of the Church we can see what is objectively good. Drawing from the Second Vatican Council we can see what is objectively good. And preference comes down to choosing between the options that the Council and Church envision.

 

[otjm]

I’ve asked this question before and have never received an answer that satisfied me. When you read through Vatican II or various directives the Church has issued on sacred music, they are clear that certain styles (not just lyrics) of music are profane and not appropriate for mass. What is the Church referring to? If any style of music is appropriate for Mass and it’s merely a matter of taste, what do we make of these Church directives?

I don’t recall ever saying that any style of music is appropriate for Mass. Nor would I.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

There is no such thing as “the current style of music” as there are a large number of styles.

If the text of the music is, say, from one of the psalms or Isiah, how is the music accompanying it “profane”?

Answer - it is not - this is just another opinion in the sea of opinions about music at a Mass, most of which comes down to “I don’t like that.”

Everyone is entitled to opinions; not everyone is entitled to pronouncements. Even musicologists cannot agree on the subject.

The Church has made it clear that only sacred music should be used at Mass, and what this music consists of. The lyrics aren’t the only thing that matters nor is it the sole criteria for determining whether the hymn is profane or sacred. Here is a quick video about it, and here is a longer video about it.

 

[otjm]

I think, if you read my second paragraph, you’ll see that isn’t a problem. Finding an immense emotion in music doesn’t take away from the worship, does it? It’s when your goal is that, and you selfishly seek that feeling…

Well, elsewhere in a different thread = probably in several, I have related my experience with a schola who, from the sound of them, would not accept anyone as a member who lacked both forma training and formal performance in voice.

That is not to condemn all scholas - I was a member of one when I was in seminary in the mid 1960’s, and we cut a record of Gregorian chant. But there can ba a poit of being too polished - or should I say, professional, IMHO. And I am aware of people who rave about going to Mass where they are singing. The comments made are such that they seem to reflect only on the schola. I will leave it to you to discern, should you wish to, but it seems to fit within your guidelines…

And that is pretty much in the category of “if it has wings, feathers, a bill and webbed feet, it isn’t a fish.”

 

[otjm]

The Church has made it clear that only sacred music should be used at Mass, and what this music consists of. The lyrics aren’t the only thing that matters nor is it the sole criteria for determining whether the hymn is profane or sacred. Here is a quick video about it, and here is a longer video about it.

After what - 45 years, the Church has not come out and said that the hymns, for example in OCP (everyone’s favorite whipping boy) are profane as opposed to sacred.

This discussion pops up every so often, and it goes round and round, arriving at nowhere. I am not going to be dragged further down the pike; Rome has had decades to respond andd the silence has been pretty close to deafening.

You have your opinion, and you have expressed it repeatedly. I disagree, so we can probably leave it there.

My parish is a suburban parish in one of the most unchurched states in the US. We have had perpetual adoration for about 20 years; produced two deacons, 4 priests, one sister with another approaching vows, and we sing from OCP.

You want to tell me we are singing profane music, fine; and I will repeat the teenage mantra from a decade or two ago: you are talking to the hand because the head ain’t listening. I am not interested in getting into a debate with aficionados.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You have your opinion, and you have expressed it repeatedly. I disagree, so we can probably leave it there.

But for me, as a priest and as a professor of liturgy, this is where the matter actually and critically revolves.

There are those who have posted on this thread about what constitutes sacred music and what constitutes profane music. But, in their case, it is opinion.

Above and beyond opinion is the reality of what is dispositive in terms of what constitutes music that may be used and instruments that may be employed in the liturgy. That is from the Bishops. That is not opinion; it is what the Bishops have decreed. And the orientation of the Bishops is very far from the limited and narrow focus pointed to by opinion expressed in certain posts in this thread.

It is by their authority that the Bishops decide the music…in all its aspects and all its various forms and types that can be used…and, once it is approved by the Bishops, all who are not Bishops must yield in the face of their decisions.

Moreover, rather than opinions, it is once again the Bishops who also decide what complies with all the various norms – since they are the ones to either authoritatively enact norms in their competence or authoritatively implement higher norms.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States issued guidelines to which all Americans are subject. Among other things, they state:

• Contemporary composers are to be employed to create new hymns, instrumental accompaniment, and other musical works. The Church never ceases to find new ways to sing.
  Today, as they continue to serve the Church at prayer, composers are encouraged to concentrate on craftsmanship and artistic excellence in all musical genres.
• The use of a variety of musical instruments
  [F]rom the days when the Ark of the Covenant was accompanied in procession by cymbals, harps, lyres, and trumpets, God’s people have, in various periods, used a variety of musical instruments to sing his praise. Each of these instruments, born of the culture and the traditions of a particular people, has given voice to a wide variety of forms and styles through which Christ’s faithful continue to join their voices to his perfect song of praise upon the Cross. Many other instruments also enrich the celebration of the Liturgy, such as wind, stringed, or percussion instruments
• The broad gamut of genres is to be welcomed
  No matter what the genre of music, liturgical beauty emanates directly from that mystery and is passed through the talents of composers to emerge in music of the assembled People of God.
• There is to be no cease in finding new expressions to the music used in the liturgy from a variety of sources
  The Church awaits an ever richer song of her entire gathered people. The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid.

As the Bishops of the United States eloquently said:
In every age, the Church has called upon creative artists to give new voice to praise and prayer. Throughout history, God has continued to breathe forth his creative Spirit, making noble the work of musicians’ hearts and hands. The forms of expression have been many and varied.
And as they went on to say:
The Church joyfully urges composers and text writers to draw upon their special genius so that she can continue to augment the treasure house.
We are indeed blessed to live in an age of such remarkable genius in contemporary musical composition and instruments and that enriches beyond any one repertoire of music.

 

[otjm]

The Church has made it clear that only sacred music should be used at Mass, and what this music consists of. The lyrics aren’t the only thing that matters nor is it the sole criteria for determining whether the hymn is profane or sacred. Here is a quick video about it, and here is a longer video about it.

Both of these are the personal opinions of the producers; what they fail to recognize is, as Don Ruggero has pointed out, the authority of the bishops, and the acknowledgement of Rome that the bishops have the authority over the issue. Both producers have a point of view; and they limit the facts which they set forth to those which support their point of view. In failing to tell the “rest of the story”, they are less than completely honest about the matter.

Again, they are welcome to their opinions; opinions are what make for lively conversations. They both seem to be young, and youth tends toward passionate defense of a position, whereas older age often with much less passion, can reflect on the alternatives which the Church allows.

 

[pnewton]

I think it helpful to remember what exactly “sacred” means. It means something that is set aside for specific use. A chalice is sacred that is used in Mass, as opposed to also being the priest coffee cup, even if the designs of the chalice was copied from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Most of what passes for contemporary music in Church’s comes not from secular radio, but from other faith traditions, that is praise and worship music. One may not like Kum Ba Yay, for example, but you will not have heard it on any pop music channel.

What people here think is appropriate music is totally irrelevant to any priest/bishop determining what can be used. What best serves the people in each individual parish is what is of paramount importance.