Does musical inculturation apply to the use of pop and rock styles in American liturgies?

[YoungTradCath]

opus, I just tried setting some really nasty lyrics to the tune of Dominus dixit ad me! It worked quite well and not so well at the same time… =o

 

[CatholicGeek1]

When one considers the origins of American Rag Time and Jazz, in the brothels and juke joints (low dives) of New Orleans, and the cities on the shores of the Mississippi River, and as it spread throughout American culture its venue was saloons, bars and low class night clubs, I hardly think that it is suitable as music for worship. The same thing goes for Rock and Roll, especially considering the blasphemous and utterly sinful nature of much of its lyrics.
However, Southern Gospel Music, which has many of its roots in the American Negro
Spiritual is entirely a different thing.
The unfortunate thing about the rest of popular music - including much of so-called folk or “hillbilly” music is its utter banality. There is little about it that is spiritually up lifting.
I happen to agree with the Bishop on this.
The ugly fact of the matter is that much of what we come across in modern Catholic Hymnals since V II falls into this latter category. Banal tunes with infantile lyrics that are an insult to intelligent people! It is as if the people compiling these Hymnals thought Catholics lived in trailor parks!

This is the argument that I have seen a couple of times now that I am not understanding. Certainly no one is talking about playing secular music of any kind including Rock and Roll or anything else during the liturgy. Are we not just talking about music with a Christian/Catholic message that happens to be set to the beats and or style of contemporary music? That is my understanding anyhow. I do not see a problem with it. Personally, I do not like contemporary music during mass. I find the more traditional styles make it easier for me to maintain a prayerful attitude. However, that does not mean that it is not appropriate for those people that find it helpful. I personally do like this type of music outside of mass.

I believe that masses with both types of music should be an option and people should go to the ones that they are most comfortable with.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Can you give me an example please? I mean, an actual title? Because I think we frequently mix genres here.

As an aside, let me just point out that just because Jazz developed they way in which you describe does not mean it is objectively bad. About 800 years ago many people told some goofy priest he ought not read Aristotle because be was pagan. When this goofy priest was done with Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas had given the church the Summa Theogiae.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Yeah, that music originated with sinners!

Fortunately, we have music that–oh, wait…

This is a perfect quote for these arguments. Thank you!

 

[CatholicGeek1]

What I’m interested in though is the reason behind this question? I don’t mean to single you out opus101. You just happen to be the individual to whom I am responding right now. But, why is there so much vitriol on this site? I’ve never experienced so much anger towards priests and bishops as I do on this web site. It’s almost as though among faithful Catholics there is a game being played about who can critique Fr. So and so’s Mass the most, who can quote the most magisterial documents to prove his position, and who can prove himself to be the most traditional/orthodox. Rather than fostering dialogue, this hinders it.

Frankly, and again, I don’t mean to single you out, but your post plays right into what I’m talking about. In your initial post, you asked for our opinions. I gave mine. It didn’t match with yours, so your response was that I must not understand the point. So, in other words, it seems to me that you think I only understand the point if I happen to agree with you. Otherwise, I don’t understand the point.

Elsewhere, I have had people implicitly assert that someone with a couple of undergraduate classes in ethics or morals from a secular university knows more about moral theology than the professor of morals at my seminary, a man who earned his doctorate in the field.

I suspect that after reading this, many might suspect me for being a “liberal” priest. It might surprise some to learn that a JPII generation priest who wears a cassock, enjoys using Latin in the liturgy, isn’t afraid to preach on contraception and abortion, and hears confessions everyday actually enjoys contemporary music and thinks it has a place for use in the liturgy. But, that is the situation.

I realize this is straying from the topic at hand, but I feel like this needs to be said on this board. As it stands now, I would not recommend these fora to someone interested in exploring the faith. Understand, it’s not that I have any huge disagreement with what is written here. I disagree with the tone in which it is often presented. The end result fosters an inherent spirit of suspicion among the faithful. The faithful then stop praying, and start questioning. We start worrying more about how Father holds his hands during the orans position than the state of our hearts. We start worrying more about whether or not the introductory rite used was approved than whether or not we are examining our consciences preparing to receive the King of Kings into our very bodies.

OK…off rant…off soap box. That’s all I have to say, but I felt like I needed to say it. I’d be happy to have a civil conversation with you, opus101, or anyone else, on the issue at hand, which is Bishop Sample’s pastoral letter.

I have been waiting a long time for someone to say this as well as you just did. Thank you!

 

[opus101]

*]In talking with young people whom I have taught, worked with in youth groups, met on conferences, etc, they explicitly tell me by their words, and implicitly by their participation, that they prefer the music at these conferences and wish we could have it at home.

Is it possible, at these conferences, to use this music in a variety of settings/venues other than the Mass? It would certainly highlight the difference between the two types of prayer. It would be a great teaching tool about the true nature of the Mass. It could even prepare them spiritually to enter into the Mass with greater devotion, and appreciate more its beauty and simplicity.

Still though, my experience tells me that our young people are looking for more.

Would it be possible to offer them “more” outside of the context of the Mass? Maybe at conferences, talks, prayer meetings, catechism classes, "praise and ‘worship’ " gatherings, retreats, picnics,etc.?

Eventually, I’d like to get them to the point where they enjoy this type of music.

I appreciate your desire, but I respectfully disagree with your tactics. First of all, is it really necessary that we “enjoy” the music? Isn’t the music more of a sacred conduit for us to pray the Mass? Secondly, it is not easy to grow in appreciation of something that one is not exposed to regularly. Just my opinion.

I can’t evangelize someone who isn’t there. I can’t share my love of Christ with someone who isn’t there.

Again, there are many venues for young people to be evangelized outside of Mass, but most young Catholics under 18 attend with their families anyway (if they come from a church-going Catholic family), so I don’t see how they could be absent just because they don’t like the music… As far as college students go, there are bible studies, Catechism classes, social work groups, etc., that are perfect for evangelization. There are also RCIA classes and retreats.
It is interesting that we expect RCIA candidates to leave the Mass after the Gospel reading (having been evangelized elsewhere), but we try to evangelize young Catholics at the Mass itself by trying to cater to their likes and dislikes.
As I said before, what about everyone else? I’ve been putting up with adolescent pop and rock music at Mass for more than 15 years, and yet I still go to Mass. I don’t like it. But it doesn’t excuse me from attending Mass.And believe me, people like me need to be evangelized too.

Short of doing something immoral or illegal (and by immoral, I would include changing things in the liturgy that cannot be changed) I will leave no stone unturned to bring people to Christ.

Some would say that admitting this type of music into the liturgy is very close to being sacreligious.( This is no criticism of individuals who provide the music, who are undoubtably good, generous with their gifts and sincere.) Is there no other venue in the 16 waking hours of our day to bring people to Christ?

 

[opus101]

Certainly no one is talking about playing secular music of any kind including Rock and Roll or anything else during the liturgy.

Well, actually we are talking about playing secular and rock “styles” of music (the compositional structures and sometimes instrumentation) in the Mass, sans the secular text.

Are we not just talking about music with a Christian/Catholic message that happens to be set to the beats and or style of contemporary music?

Yes, and it is this that some (including myself) are wrestling with. Last year, Bishop Olmsted described the difference between “religious music” and “sacred music”. There is quite a difference. Religious music can be in a secular style, and is not composed for the liturgy. Sacred music is written in a style that conforms to the vast heritage of (and Church directives for) music for liturgical purposes, and is set aside for those purposes alone.

Also (IMO), “contemporary” is really not a good term to use, as it can breed confusion. “Secular styles”, or “popular music” might be better terms, since “contemporary” music can also include chant settings of the Mass that have been recently composed, and also contemporary classical music which is quite diverse in nature.

To quote Bishop Sample:

“…so often the music selected for Mass is reduced to a matter of subjective “taste,”,i.e. what style of music appeals to this or that person or group, as if there were no objective principles to be followed.” (page 1)

and:
“…it is necessary to next discuss the “qualities” of sacred music. These qualities are not arbitrary or subjective. Rather they objectively flow from the essential nature and purpose of sacred music itself.”(page 3)

and, in my opinion, very importantly:

“One often gets the impression that, as long as the written text of the music or song speaks about God, then it qualifies as “sacred music.” Given what has been articulated here, this is clearly not the case. As an example, the “Gloria” of the Mass set to Polka beat or in the style of rock music is not sacred music.” (page 5)

 

[buc_fan33]

Is it possible, at these conferences, to use this music in a variety of settings/venues other than the Mass? It would certainly highlight the difference between the two types of prayer. It would be a great teaching tool about the true nature of the Mass. It could even prepare them spiritually to enter into the Mass with greater devotion, and appreciate more its beauty and simplicity.

This is a good idea. I know that the organizers are certainly open to suggestions, and I suspect the topic at hand is one that is often brought up. I can say this though. The music IS toned down for Mass. My experience has been that three “levels,” for lack of a better word, are used at the conferences.

There is what I call “pump up” music, used to fire youth up, wake them up in the morning after they stayed up talking all night, and keep them engaged throughout the day. This level is a blend of strictly secular music (I love when they play Bon Jovi’s “Livin on a Prayer” and Jouney’s “Don’t Stop Believin.” These two songs really set the tone for the rest of the evening) and what I would call Christian rock. Something that is objectively louder, with a heavier rhythm.

The second level is what they use for adoration. I guess I’d call this praise music. It seems quite appropriate to praise our Lord in the Eucharist. I do know, however, that one of the requests in past conferences was for more silence during adoration, and I’ve noticed that they have begun incorporating silence into the evening with more and more frequency, which I think is a good thing.

Third and finally is what they use for Mass. This music is more reverential and softer. While there is a band playing, I’ve NEVER felt like they are performing for themselves or like they were expecting applause or anything like that. On the contrary, the impression I’ve received from each member has been that they understand their role is to lead the worship, and they want any and all praise turned towards the Lord.

This third level of music is not, strictly speaking, chant. It’s not Holy God We Praise thy Name. But, it’s not Bon Jovi either. It’s not even Newsboys’ God’s Not Dead if you’re familiar with that.

 

[buc_fan33]

Would it be possible to offer them “more” outside of the context of the Mass? Maybe at conferences, talks, prayer meetings, catechism classes, "praise and ‘worship’ " gatherings, retreats, picnics,etc.?

Yes. Absolutely. And at least in our parish, we do. We don’t actually have a “teen” Mass, or a “contemporary” Mass, as a matter of fact.

I appreciate your desire, but I respectfully disagree with your tactics. First of all, is it really necessary that we “enjoy” the music? Isn’t the music more of a sacred conduit for us to pray the Mass? Secondly, it is not easy to grow in appreciation of something that one is not exposed to regularly. Just my opinion.

I don’t think that it’s necessary that we enjoy it, no. But, I also don’t think our objective should be to bore either. My first experience with Franciscan University of Steubenville was not one of their conferences. This was about a year before I entered the seminary and I was invited by a friend to join her for the University’s celebration of the Triduum. I got their for the liturgy on Good Friday, and then I was there for the Easter Vigil. I was completely blown away! The Mass started at 8:00 and didn’t finish until 12:30 Easter Sunday morning. But, wow! It seemed like only ten minutes went by. This was the one time in my life when I can truly say I felt as though I were participating in the heavenly liturgy. Just remembering that experience gives me chills about what the actual heavenly liturgy must be like. Now, I realize that EVERY SINGLE TIME I celebrate Mass, I’m objectively in the heavenly liturgy. But, knowing something is true objectively and subjectively experiencing it are two different things. In the spiritual tradition of the Church, there has always been an understanding of spiritual consolation. With the exceptions of my own ordination and first Mass, never have I experienced as much spiritual consolation at Mass as I did that Easter Vigil. It wasn’t just the music…but I think the music played a major role in that for me.

I could read Dr. Scott Hahn’s book The Lamb’s Supper or the more academic version of it, Wedding Feast of the Lamb by Fr. Roch Kerestzy, a thousand times and not have as much of an understanding of what John is writing about in the Book of Revelation as I do from simply being at that Mass. I look back on that Mass as truly a formative experience for me.

So, must we enjoy the music? No. But, I don’t think it hurts if we do. Believe me, I’ve been to plenty of Masses where I don’t enjoy the music.

Again, there are many venues for young people to be evangelized outside of Mass, but most young Catholics under 18 attend with their families anyway (if they come from a church-going Catholic family), so I don’t see how they could be absent just because they don’t like the music… As far as college students go, there are bible studies, Catechism classes, social work groups, etc., that are perfect for evangelization. There are also RCIA classes and retreats.

True, but most young people don’t come to those things. Most young people don’t want to go to youth group or Bible study. It’s not “cool” enough for them. For whatever reason though, I can get them to sign up in droves for these conferences.

I was initially evangelized by FOCUS, the Fellowship of Catholic University Students. One of their big models focuses on Win-Build-Send. In other words, first you have to win a soul for Christ (the process of evangelization) then you build that person up (catechesis) and then you send him/her out to in turn win more souls for Christ. I look at Steubenville, National Catholic Youth Conference, World Youth Days, and other things like that as the best opportunities I have to win a soul for Christ. We can win people over in Bible study. But, by and large, if someone is coming to Bible study, the person is already won. Bible study is in the stage of building someone up, at least as I see it.

As for coming with their families…that’s true. But, and this spans across generations, people are present, but not really present. I’m looking for ways to get people to be there in mind, body, and soul, not just in body. I think many factors go into this:

• Quality of preaching
• Reverence, dignity, and simplicity in celebrating the liturgy
• Quality of lectors (their ability to read well from an ambo)
• and Quality and type of music.

It is interesting that we expect RCIA candidates to leave the Mass after the Gospel reading (having been evangelized elsewhere), but we try to evangelize young Catholics at the Mass itself by trying to cater to their likes and dislikes.

A valid point.

As I said before, what about everyone else? I’ve been putting up with adolescent pop and rock music at Mass for more than 15 years, and yet I still go to Mass. I don’t like it. But it doesn’t excuse me from attending Mass.And believe me, people like me need to be evangelized too.

Yes indeed! We must evangelize ALL! Christ came to save ALL and the Gospel message is intended for ALL. I certainly don’t think this music should be used in every liturgy, precisely for the reasons you give. Some people simply don’t like it. Just as I don’t want to hinder a 16 year old’s ability to come to Christ by insisting on only using Gregorian chant in every single liturgy, I don’t want to limit YOUR ability to come to Christ by insisting on Matt Maher at every single liturgy. I just think the Church is a big tent. There is ample room to praise God in different ways.

 

[buc_fan33]

Some would say that admitting this type of music into the liturgy is very close to being sacreligious.( This is no criticism of individuals who provide the music, who are undoubtably good, generous with their gifts and sincere.) Is there no other venue in the 16 waking hours of our day to bring people to Christ?

True. That’s why I’m glad we’re having this discussion. I may be wrong. As I skim Bishop Sample’s letter, and as I read, for instance, Ratzinger (who I LOVE) in Spirit of the Liturgy, the preference is CERTAINLY for chant and polyphony. I don’t deny that for a moment. But yet, I come back to the fact that these conferences are producing tons of spiritual fruit. Among them are:

• Powerful confessions (obviously, I can’t and won’t say more about this, but trust me on this point)
• Vocations
• Deeper, more vibrant faith lives among teenagers
• Increased love of the Mass and of the Holy Eucharist

I also still come back to the fact that Archbishop Chaput (Steubenville of the Rockies) as well as Cardinal Burke (Steubenville Mid-America is not technically in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, but it is sponsored and organized by the Archdiocese of St. Louis) found no problems with the conferences, or at least an insufficient number of problems to justify shutting them down. Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke are certainly not liturgical liberals.

 

[opus101]

True. That’s why I’m glad we’re having this discussion. I may be wrong. As I skim Bishop Sample’s letter, and as I read, for instance, Ratzinger (who I LOVE) in Spirit of the Liturgy, the preference is CERTAINLY for chant and polyphony. I don’t deny that for a moment. But yet, I come back to the fact that these conferences are producing tons of spiritual fruit. Among them are:

• Powerful confessions (obviously, I can’t and won’t say more about this, but trust me on this point)
• Vocations
• Deeper, more vibrant faith lives among teenagers
• Increased love of the Mass and of the Holy Eucharist

I also still come back to the fact that Archbishop Chaput (Steubenville of the Rockies) as well as Cardinal Burke (Steubenville Mid-America is not technically in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, but it is sponsored and organized by the Archdiocese of St. Louis) found no problems with the conferences, or at least an insufficient number of problems to justify shutting them down. Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke are certainly not liturgical liberals.

I really don’t have any problem at all with the conferences, and think they are probably a very, very good thing. My interest is with sacred music for the Mass.
I’m not at all saying that the people involved with the non-sacred style music are sinning or are subjectively wrong for participating in it. The reason why is that, aside from the writings of Bishops Olmsted, Sample and Cardinal Burke, there has been little or no SPECIFIC guidance on these matters from our bishops (even though the Popes have been very vocal and specific about it). How can we be held responsible for things we don’t know or things that we may have been misled about (whether by omission or commission)? Frankly, I think that everyone has had the best of intentions. But maybe now, 50 years after Vat.II, we need to settle down a bit and try to see where we’ve gone a bit overboard.

 

[mburn16]

" First of all, is it really necessary that we “enjoy” the music? Isn’t the music more of a sacred conduit for us to pray the Mass?"

Interesting question. Since Music is not required for Mass, I would argue that there has to be more to it than just being some sort of conduit. I would argue that, at least to the extent that it does not actually detract from the dignity due to God during the liturgy, then, yes, our worship should be performed in a way that is “enjoyable”.

People should not come to God reluctantly, I don’t know for sure whether there is anything in church teaching on this, but I would think that a person who comes to Mass in full desire and yearning to praise and worship receives more favor than one who comes reluctantly and half-heatedly, out of some sense of guilt or duty.

 

[buc_fan33]

I really don’t have any problem at all with the conferences, and think they are probably a very, very good thing. My interest is with sacred music for the Mass.
I’m not at all saying that the people involved with the non-sacred style music are sinning or are subjectively wrong for participating in it. The reason why is that, aside from the writings of Bishops Olmsted, Sample and Cardinal Burke, there has been little or no SPECIFIC guidance on these matters from our bishops (even though the Popes have been very vocal and specific about it). How can we be held responsible for things we don’t know or things that we may have been misled about (whether by omission or commission)? Frankly, I think that everyone has had the best of intentions. But maybe now, 50 years after Vat.II, we need to settle down a bit and try to see where we’ve gone a bit overboard.

What did Cardinal Burke say? I’d love to read that if you have a link for it.

 

[opus101]

What did Cardinal Burke say? I’d love to read that if you have a link for it.

Here is one. I’ll try to find others.forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/5255/cardinal-burke-speaking-on-sacred-music/p1

 

[BTNYC]

Actually, I think it’s a terrible thing. The first mission of the Church is to evangelize, so says Pope Paul VI. John Paul II said in Redemptoris Missio the time has come to place all of the Church’s energy into the New Evangelization.

I heartily agree that the Church must evangelize. That means bringing the Church to the world, not the world into the Church. Evangelization does not mean cavalierly junking ancient and venerable traditions in favor of whatever modernist mush might keep the pews a little fuller.

Our current Holy Father has suggested more than once that the Church must become smaller and purer. That’s directly at odds with the “any thing to get them in the door” kind of thinking that leads to “rock Masses” and other such abominations.

We mustn’t take the attitude of, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Rather, we must listen to people first.

With all due respect, I think we should listen to God first (Acts 5:29). God’s voice can be heard in Catholic Tradition, not in the spirit of this godless age (and what passes for “culture” therein). To withhold any part of the Church’s treasury of beautiful music, devotions,or art in favor of some modernistic simulacra is not Evangelization, but giving serpents and stones to souls in need of fish and bread.

 

[TCCOV]

IMO, the only commenters who’ve addressed the real concern of the OP have been Opus1 and mburn16. Otherwise the whole discussion is just another renewed skirmish over the wholly unnecessary 100 years Music Wars.
The two commentors conceded that music, per se, is a “conduit” to authentic worship, if I understood them correctly. I don’t agree with that exactly, particular where Opus qualified the form as “sacred music.” Music, in and of itself, can in no way be deemed “sacred.” It requires a direct (or indirect, as in the case of associative organ pieces) with a sacred and/or liturgical text. The Church, in its wisdom, recognizes that of all forms of sung texts, chant (of various types beyond just the Gregorian collective) is best suited not to be a conduit, but to serve those appointed texts in the propers, collects and ordinaries. It acknowledges polyphony, but I want to avoid “going there” because not all polyphony actually fulfills that sacral obligation, but we get hung up even more over FACP concerns.
So, there is great deliberation behind those legislated dictums in the VII docs.
OTOH, the president of CMAA has used (I paraphrase) the following question of discernment and assessment to determine another form’s suitability use at worship: would a congregant (singing or listening) automatically, impulsively upon the hearing of any given sung item of prayer or praise, associate its propriety elsewhere besides a hearing in church? Secondly, does said piece aesthetically compliment the servitude of the text beyond question?
For myself, I know that the Church has to allow for those two answers to be “yes.” And that is reflected in the documents supporting new composition for service.
What is obviously missing from the equation is, who makes those calls? The documents actually do not, though I could die happy just chanting until my last breath. But, it requires much of musical “shot callers” in each parish, small or big, to discern the mind of the Church with each musical decision they make.

 

[BTNYC]

I would argue that, at least to the extent that it does not actually detract from the dignity due to God during the liturgy, then, yes, our worship should be performed in a way that is “enjoyable”.

Whether or not a music is “enjoyable” is a totally subjective matter. Whether it is “dignified” is less so.

To be dignified, music should be holy, in the strictest sense of the word (reserved and consecrated for God). I happen to enjoy Gregorian (and Greek) chant, but if I did not, that would not change the fact that it is the most solemn, proper and dignified form of music for the worsip of God. At no point in history was Gregorian chant the preferred style of music for saloons and soirees. It was, 1000 years ago, as it is today, a form uniquely consecrated for liturgical use. It is “reservd” for God, and therefor holy. Whether or not it is “enjoyable” is irrelevant. I sometimes attend Ukrainian Catholic Divine Litugies and I find their style of chant most unenjoyable. I nevertheless recognize its dignified and holy character.

In harmony with the concept of “holiness” is the concept of “sacrifice.” Something “sacrificed” is something set apart, something given up for God. We Catholics are a sacrificial people. Can we not even sacrifice our own frivolous attachments to modernistic music while taking part in the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass?

We can go without cheeseburgers on Fridays for love of God; can we not forswear the junky pop pablum during our musical pallettes have become accustomed to on Sundays, for the same reason?

 

[mburn16]

“We can go without cheeseburgers on Fridays for love of God; can we not forswear the junky pop pablum during our musical pallettes have become accustomed to on Sundays, for the same reason?”

If it does more harm to worship than it benefits (through, for example attracting large numbers of new people, particularly young people who would otherwise be drawn more easily into sinful behaviors, outside of religious influence), then yes.

At the same time, even as someone who thinks it is probably difficult to fit in most (currently) popular music into the liturgy, I resent what comes off as arrogance on the part of those who prefer chant.

I’m torn. On one hand, its a challenge to see much of this music fitting in…on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that music composed for a couple hundred years several hundred years after the death of Christ has a monopoly on what is good for Christian worship.

 

[BTNYC]

We can go without cheeseburgers on Fridays for love of God; can we not forswear the junky pop pablum during our musical pallettes have become accustomed to on Sundays, for the same reason?

Sorry that’s so garbled.

Should read:

We can go without cheeseburgers on Fridays for love of God; can we not forswear the junky pop pablum that our musical pallettes have become accustomed to on Sundays, for the same reason?

 

[opus101]

I don’t agree with that exactly, particular where Opus qualified the form as “sacred music.” Music, in and of itself, can in no way be deemed “sacred.” It requires a direct (or indirect, as in the case of associative organ pieces) with a sacred and/or liturgical text.

While it is true that sacred music is comprised of music and text, the type/style of music to which the text is set is one of the criteria used to determine whether or not it is sacred. This can be found throughout all of Church history up to the most recent papal (and other magisterial) documents on the subject. The music must have a sacred character that is not associated with secular life.

Maybe these analogies will help: The chalice is considered a sacred vessel even when it is not holding the precious blood of our Lord. It is “set aside” for this purpose alone.

The altar is a sacred object, as it will be where the holy sacrifice takes place. It is used for no other purpose.

The priest wears sacred vestments during Mass, as he will be acting “in persona Christi”. He may not wear these vestments to go to the movies or to catch a beer at the local tavern.

Similarly, music is the “vessel” or “vestment” of the sacred text - it too needs to be made of something that is specifically used for the liturgy and nothing else.

Imagine if the priest used an Evian bottle for the chalice during Mass! Or used the chalice for a cold beer with his pretzels while watching a football game.Or wore a basketball uniform or swimming trunks during the Mass (with no overlaying alb,stole and chasuble). What if, for no good reason, he decided to use an overturned crate rather than the altar at your parish Mass.

Most people would be shocked by this, and totally scandalized. Most would consider it sacrilege.

The sacred words of the Mass are “set aside” and holy. If I’m not mistaken, they are especially blessed by the Church, so much so that Gregorian Chant is considered a non-material sacramental. (I read that somewhere, someone correct me if I’m wrong).