Contemporary Praise Music - Too sensual?

[DrumminFool91]

Depends on what you mean by “contemporary”. If you mean “something written in the past 40 years” then of course it’s not all unacceptable. If you mean “electric guitars, trap set, electronic keyboards” then it becomes much more problematic.

I’m really struggling to understand why this is problematic. Has the Church actually said this directly in an official doctrinal or disciplinary statement? If the Church has, then we must, like it or not, be obedient to its teaching.

Can you offer me objective criteria that specifically makes music written in the “past 40 years” acceptable, and like-wise making music written after this point not?

It seems we are going on and on in circles trying to make objective statements about subjective matter.

*"Are most contemporary composers profoundly steeped in the mind of the Church regarding liturgical music? *

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but the underlying statement here is ‘contemporary artists can’t possibly be profoundly knowledgeable in these matters, because if they were they would turn from their self-indulgent ways and embrace Gregorian chant.’

We’ve established that the Mass is valid if it is accompanied by contemporary tunes and that the Church has not and probably will not call for the exclusive** use of a certain style of music. That means there are other acceptable forms of music that can be used in the liturgy. So if the ‘contemporary’ Mass (complete with drums and guitars) is valid in the eyes of the Holy See, and the priest and the congregation approve, where is the issue ?

Please hear me when I say that I’m not trying to argumentative here. I just really think that we really should abandon our divisive positions regarding music and really embrace the fullness of our Catholic faith that is expressed in song. After all, isn’t division a tool of the Devil? You have shown me statements that the Church has made regarding the benefits of Gregorian Chant, and we **must **acknowledge the beauty of this music. I’m just not seeing (maybe I’m too stubborn) where we shouldn’t embrace the beauty of the other forms as well. Can this be an area in the Church where we can really “let bygones be bygones”?

Can’t we all just get along?!

Peace​

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yup!

There was a time the Pope banned violins at Mass. Why? Because his assistant, played the violin and it irritated the Pope to hear violins. After he died, his assistant was made Pope, and lifted the ban.

Do you recall which Pope we are talking about here?

 

[VociMike]

I’m really struggling to understand why this is problematic. Has the Church actually said this directly in an official doctrinal or disciplinary statement? If the Church has, then we must, like it or not, be obedient to its teaching.

The issues raised by secular styles and instruments have been discussed here many times. You’re gonna have to do some thread searches.

Can you offer me objective criteria that specifically makes music written in the “past 40 years” acceptable, and like-wise making music written after this point not?

No, there’s no checklist. There is no Vatican Music Commissar. That would be far, far to limiting. The Church does not treat her composers or other artists like children. By the same token, she expects that, as adults committed to offering their best to the Church, they will absorb on their own both the musical skills and the proper understanding of her musical tradition and of the place of music in the liturgy. She treats them like adults and expects them to live up to that trust.

It seems we are going on and on in circles trying to make objective statements about subjective matter.

If one truly believes that a kazoo and banjo Mass is equivalent to a Palestrina Mass then there is probably not much hope for them. But most people understand at some level that there really are objective differences in the quality and suitability of music for the liturgy. I’m sure there is some music that you would not use in the Mass. But what do you base your judgement on? Is it based on the criteria given by the Church, or is it based on some vague and inexplicable sense of what is proper or improper. Much better if you base it on the former.

*"Are most contemporary composers profoundly steeped in the mind of the Church regarding liturgical music? *

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but the underlying statement here is ‘contemporary artists can’t possibly be profoundly knowledgeable in these matters, because if they were they would turn from their self-indulgent ways and embrace Gregorian chant.’ **
Yes, you are reading too much into it. Please, please, please, please stop assuming that we will settle for Gregorian chant and nothing else. That is a caricature of our position, and at some point it becomes a deliberate and obstinate caricature.

BTW, there is quality sacred music being written today. It’s just that most music directors don’t or won’t use it. See e.g. www.canticanova.com and www.themusicmakers.org for some examples.

Is it too much to ask that composers and music directors actually read the documents of the Church regarding music, and try sincerely to adhere to them - to perform an honest and objective musical examination of conscience based upon them? Because if that happened the music situation in the Church would vastly improve for the better.

 

[Cat]

Yeah, just assume the worst about those you oppose. That approach always bears fruit.

This is not about some mythical Vatican Music Commissar. What it is really about is getting qualified people to make a good-faith appraisal of the music used in the liturgy. Qualified means not only musically qualified, but with a strong understanding of the “treasure of inestimable value” that is the Church’s musical tradition, and which forms (starting with Gregorian chant) the “supreme model” and “permanent standard” for any new music. As John Paul II stated, “Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.” (my emphasis)

Are most contemporary composers profoundly steeped in the mind of the Church regarding liturgical music? Are you, thus justifying your dismissive comments and judgements? Or will you just reject out of hand those who are so profoundly steeped as “snobs”, and thus reject the will of the Church in this matter? Have you even attempted to truly understand and absorb, to steep yourself in, the sensus Ecclesiae regarding that on which you pass judgement?

No, I haven’t. Vocimike, are you saying that only “qualified” people have the right to select music for the Church? Where is that in the Catechism? Are they working on things even as I write?

Are you one of the qualified people?

What I suspect is that the Church has not made any official ruling or established any “qualified” people as of yet. Perhaps in the future they will. I know there have been “meetings” and committees. Our Bishop has a “Liturgy Committee” that is trying to hammer together policy about Mass music.

But I don’t think there is anything “official” yet, and so I maintain
that it is all a matter of personal opinion at this point.

And I am NOT opposed to you, VociMike, and I am certainly not opposed to classical music in the Mass. I am opposed to presenting personal opinion as “dogma.” This is the kind of thing that creates misunderstandings of what Catholicism is all about.

 

[VociMike]

But I don’t think there is anything “official” yet, and so I maintain
that it is all a matter of personal opinion at this point.

Nothing official yet? As if documents from Councils and Popes were not official enough? That you can still say it’s all a matter of personal opinion is, well, inexcusable, given your position of musical ministry in your church.

Just read the documents with an open mind, learn the history and purpose of Catholic liturigical music, and do an honest and sincere musical examination of conscience. That’s the least that the faithful have a right to expect.

 

[Cat]

VociMike, I have no position of authority as a pianist. I play what the liturgical director and/or the priest tells me to play. The only time I play my own thing is prelude and postlude, and I almost always play a hymn. (I think the classical stuff is too distracting and “entertaining.” )

I have read a few of the documents. I honestly don’t see that they exclude contemporary or “new” styles of music from the Mass. I don’t think they specifically forbid anything except music that is “irreverent.” And the word “irreverent” is not defined; this is left up to the local clergy.

And I didn’t see anyplace where music by Haugen et.al. is excluded from the Mass. I’m glad–I honestly love these “Gather” songs. I think they’re beautiful and the poetry is very moving.

 

[VociMike]

Cat, it’s one thing to read the documents looking for any “permission” to do the music you want to do anyway. It’s quite another to read the documents in order to try and truly understand what styles and compositions are more worthy and which are less worthy, and then to focus more effort on the more worthy and less effort on the less worthy.

 

[Cat]

I’m not “looking for permission” to do anything. Like I said, I play what I am told to play.

When I came into the Catholic Church, I knew nothing about the music. I had no pre-conceived notions.

When I was received into the Church, I agreed that I will submit to the Church in everything, that I believe that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ.

I would willingly do whatever the Church tells me to do.

The authority in the Church is the Pope, the Bishops, and the priests. I trust my priests and my bishop. I trust that they know and understand the documents that you refer to. I trust that they are exercising their authority given by Jesus Christ, and that they are leading Catholics correctly. I trust that they are promoting liturgically-correct and as-near-to-perfect-as-humanly-possible Masses. I trust that they are allowing only good and holy music at the Masses.

I don’t normally trust too many people, but I’ve been listening to and watching Bishop Doran for years and years, long before I even considered becoming Catholic. As a Protestant, I knew that he was an apostle. He speaks and lives the Truth. He wouldn’t let flaws creep into the Masses in his diocese.

I don’t go poking around looking for faults in this Catholic Church that I love. If our parishes are doing Haugen, Life Teen, folk music, etc., then I trust that it is all totally approved by our Bishop and suitable for the Mass.

If our Bishop were to say, “Out with it all!” then I would trust him and go along with whatever kind of music he approved. I am in complete subjection to my Church. I don’t look for permission to get away with things; I simply do what my Church tells me is right.

I suppose you might say that I don’t do a lot of thinking for myself in the Catholic Church. Well, you’re right. I did that for over forty years in the Protestant Church and got very tired of myself. I really don’t want to do a lot of research on all the things that the Catholic Church is “lacking.” As far as I’m concerned, Jesus leads the Catholic Church, and I trust Him, not me.