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

[BTNYC]

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.

Failing to attract “new pople” because Catholic tradition was not compromised is not an evil. If the Church were a business, your assessment would be correct. It is not a business, and this is not about playing a numbers game. It’s better to attract fewer people to Catholicism with tradition than more people with novelty. That’s just applying “Succisa Virescit” to evangelization. Better to get good quality conversions than large quantity conversions.

After all, I’m sure “clown Masses” draw people who would not be drawn to Latin Mass. That doesn’t change the fact that Latin Mass is genuinely Catholic and “clown Masses” are objectively abominable.

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.

If it doesn’t deserve a “monopoly,” certainly it has a better claim than does music composed 2,000 years after the time of Christ.

It was also composed at a time when the faith permeated the entire culture in a way it most certainly does not now. Quite a differet spirit informs the “culture” of our godless era. For these reasons, with respect to Worship, Gregorian chant is to be trusted, contemporary music is to be held suspect.

Pope St. Pius X thought so. And what about Pope Paul VI? Sacrosanctum Concilium decreed that Gregorain Chant should be given “pride of place.” Do you think that that has been carried out in the five decades since? In my experience, the answer to that would be a resounding “no,” unless “pride of place” means “used rarely if ever.”

 

[TCCOV]

While I am very sympathetic to your analogies, Opus 101, the big gorilla in the room negating the analogy is that music, again per se, is not a tangible object like the chalice, the altar and vestments, etc. Perhaps that is the inextricable tie that determines why, I believe, that sacred music is the most venerable of the sacred arts.
I also would further assert that is precisely why, whether it was at Bugnini’s, Paul VI’s, or the Holy Spirit’s behest, the documents do not at all endorse an essentially “iconoclastic” solution to these concerns.
To be fair, honest and (ahem) true to profession, the licenses optioned under the documents do not, OTOH, endorse any sort of laissez faire “anything goes” mentality that continues to vex our parishes and impede a dialectic of true reform from St. Pio X to our beloved Benedict XVI.
And in full disclosure, I don’t regard G-chant or other chant tradition repertoire to be “music” (for the last time) per se. As many of my CMAA colleagues have intimated, it should be regarded more as a “language” unto itself, its own sacred nature.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

Your first sentence here is party right and partly misses the mark. I don’t like the arrogance either, but most of it I see as consternation. Next, we have this issue of “prefer chant.” That is not! why I argue for its principal use in liturgy. Do I like it? Yes, I happen to enjoy Gregorian Chant. But that is not why I argue for its use. Perhaps it gives me more of a reason, more passion in my arguing for it, but that is not the basis of my argument. I like pop music, but I don’t advocate for its use in liturgies, because I realize it doesn’t fit well. It isn’t suited to such a setting.

To your second part, I’d say era of composition is beside the point as well. There is plenty of recently composed music that is very much in line with the directives of the Church. Think of the things published by those who compose for CCWatershed.

 

[YoungTradCath]

While I am very sympathetic to your analogies, Opus 101, the big gorilla in the room negating the analogy is that music, again per se, is not a tangible object like the chalice, the altar and vestments, etc.

So? The Sign of the Cross isn’t a material object either, but we don’t go around using it for profane uses, nor do we wave our hands to Father at Mass instead of making the Sign of the Cross when he blesses us. The Sign of the Cross is a physical action like chanting that is transmitted to receptors in eyes via light waves like sound is transmitted to our ears via sound waves. Really no different from the chant/sacropop issue, if you use my example and reasoning.

 

[opus101]

… I resent what comes off as arrogance on the part of those who prefer chant.

I hope I haven’t come off as arrogant. If so, I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intention. Sometimes people get so frustrated that they might come off that way, but really what is at play is a certain exhaustion that comes from trying to support the guidance of the Church in an environment where (some) others have little regard for it. It can be quite exasperating until someone with authority comes out and clarifies things in a specific way, such as what Bishop Sample has done very recently.

It would really be great if people would actually read it. It actually explains what the magisterium means by certain statements, and sheds light on things that people often interpret wrongly and argue about.

 

[buc_fan33]

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.

Good point, but I think you might be jumping to conclusions a bit. I’m merely suggesting that something like Remembrance by Matt Maher is a fine Communion hymn. I’m not suggesting that we allow “whatever modernist mush might keep the pews a little fuller.” There’s a 10,000 mile wide gap between what I’m suggesting and inviting people to say, have a dance party in the sanctuary.

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.

I’ve heard this quote attributed to him, but can you show me where he said this and in what context? I’ve also heard that he and JPII were at odds on this very point. If that’s the case, as much as I love our Holy Father, I would tend to agree with JPII. But again, please provide me the quote in context.

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.

I’m not suggesting we withhold ANYTHING. I am suggesting that we broaden the definition of what constitutes “sacred.” I agree we ought to listen to God first, which is what I submit I am doing. For instance, we are told:

“Cry out with joy to the Lord all the earth. Serve the Lord with gladness.
Come before Him singing for joy!” --Psalm 100

“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” --Matthew 19: 14

“I have become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the Gospel, that I might share in its blessings.” --1 Corinthians 9: 22b-23

 

[buc_fan33]

OK…a couple of things.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been very interested in this discussion, perhaps a little too interested. But, I’ve been listening to various examples of chant on youtube, and I’m finding that I like them more than I thought I did. Maybe it’s just that my experience with chant has been really, really bad.

I also took the time to read Bishop Sample’s letter, at least until the part when he started talking specifically about things in the Diocese of Marquette. He makes some terrific points. I can’t find anything with which I disagree.

To be honest, I simply don’t have the expertise to comment on much of what he says specifically. One point I’d like to comment on though is this quote from Pope Pius XII.

It cannot be said that modern music and singing should be entirely excluded from Catholic worship. For, if they are not profane nor unbecoming to the sacredness of the place and function, and do not spring from a desire of achieving extraordinary and unusual effects, then our churches must admit them since they can contribute in no small way to the splendor of the sacred ceremonies, can lift the mind to higher things and foster true devotion of soul. 22

I guess this is the crux of the argument. Does Matt Maher and Hillsong and the like meet these requirements? I contend that it does. Others contend that it does not. But, that seems to me to be where the debate lies.

I also like that he outlines three objective qualities of sacred music: sanctity, beauty, and universality. Again, the debate, it seems to me, is whether or not contemporary Christian pop meets these requirements.

At this point though, and I hope this doesn’t come across as a copout, I have to leave that up to more qualified musicians than myself. I’ve mostly argued this from a pastoral point of view, not a musicologial point of view. I’m not a musician. E, G, B, D, F, and FACE is about the extent of my musical knowledge, except when it comes to rhythm…I am a good percussionist.

I will admit that, regardless of what my personal preferences are, Gregorian chant does hold pride of place in the Roman liturgy, all things being equal. I might suggest though, that when we are discussing a Mass which is primarily attended by teenagers, all things are not equal. The same could be said for a Mass, say, at an elementary school.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I guess this is the crux of the argument. Does Matt Maher and Hillsong and the like meet these requirements? I contend that it does. Others contend that it does not. But, that seems to me to be where the debate lies.

I also like that he outlines three objective qualities of sacred music: sanctity, beauty, and universality. Again, the debate, it seems to me, is whether or not contemporary Christian pop meets these requirements.

I will admit that, regardless of what my personal preferences are, Gregorian chant does hold pride of place in the Roman liturgy, all things being equal. I might suggest though, that when we are discussing a Mass which is primarily attended by teenagers, all things are not equal. The same could be said for a Mass, say, at an elementary school.

I will have to extend this crux a bit further. When there is gross disagreement about whether music meets these criteria, we should not judge a piece on its genre. Rather, we should judge individual pieces. I admit that there are a great number of Catholics willing to say that contemporary Christian music meets standards. So we must instead be willing to argue about individual songs. We can justify Gregorian chant as an entire genre. Perhaps we cannot do that with contemporary Christian music.

About the teenagers thing, eh, I don’t know. If you have ever seen an urban parish served by the FSSP or ICKSP, you will see lots of young college people and married couples. I’ve been invited to two huge retreats in Atlanta for youth, and I refused both times on grounds that the music would drive me insane. On the other hand, if I could make it to a FSSP retreat, I’d be all over it in no time… I see value to sacropop music (my generic term) in the realm of prayer services and evangelical efforts, however, because many people do like it.

 

[Cat]

I would be interested in knowing how many of the people in this thread are parents with children/teenagers.

It’s one thing to sit and condemn the “enjoyability factor” of Mass music, or to post links to various Church writings that support one’s own point of view.

It’s another thing for a parent to have a child who utterly refuses to come to Mass because they hate the music, but the same child WILL attend a Mass that makes use of “contemporary” music, or guitars/drums.

Would those people who insist on chant in the Mass tell those parents that their children will just have to stay away from Mass if they can’t or won’t listen to chant?

Some would say, “Well, a parent should force the child to come to Mass. This shouldn’t be open for discussion in families. If the parent can’t make their teenager come to Mass, then…”

Then what? The teenager goes to hell? For the sake of ancient music? So that we can sit in our “holy” Mass and feel good about the “liturgy,” while souls die to God outside the Church doors?

The Lord Jesus used a lot of methods to attract people to the message of the Gospel. He told stories. He used object lessons. He used visual aids. He talked to questionable women. He attended dinners with sinners and with synagogue officials. He beat up moneylenders.

He did all kinds of things that shocked people, not for the sake of shocking them, but to reach out to them and draw them into His Kingdom.

Holy Mother Church, so far, allows for all kinds of music in the Holy Mass. There is no prohibition against contemporary Christian music or against different instruments, in the Mass. (There is prohibition against secular music, which means Beethoven or Bartok as well as Madonna and Snoop Dog.)

I can certainly see using contemporary music styles in settings outside the Mass to try to attract teens and young people back to God. This is a great plan. But there are many issues with this approach, too, and it’s easier said than done. The teen who attends the “concert” or the “youth rally” has to somehow be approached, catechized, and gradually drawn back to regular Mass attendance. This is no small job. I would challenge you to spend as much time reaching out to real-life young people and helping them to find their way back to God as you spend researching and posting the reasons why “pop music” is wrong for the Mass.

 

[pnewton]

I just found this thread. I did a little checking since the OP is shy on details. Bishop Sample made this statement as Bishop of Marquette (Michigan?) in January. He is in charge of the liturgy, so what he says goes there. Beyond that, there is the teaching of the Church on music that guides his authority. In the OP, the bishop said:

“It is important to note here that when we speak of the sacred music of a particular culture, we are indeed speaking of music that is considered truly “sacred” within a culture. This is not applicable to subcultures within a given society that have no connection with a religious or spiritual culture.”

Here is the letter:

thechoirofstcolumbas.com/2013/02/14/essential-reading-bishop-samples-pastoral-letter-on-liturgical-music/

He is definitely one of the more conservative bishops, which I am sure befits his placement in the midwest. However, America is not the same everywhere, and we are definitely not European in many places. At no point did the bishop say his words were intended to be used anywhere outside of his diocese or aimed at teaching the Church. They are disciplinary within his diocese. He actually forbids few things specifically and mandates little, though he did choose a diocesan wide Mass setting (Mass of Resurrection).

We probably fit within his guidelines with no changes at my parish. Some of the points he is specific about might not fit everywhere, but in the end, if he is not your bishop, then this letter is only good for education, not direction.

As to inculturation, I can not imagine any reason it would not apply, especially in some parishes. My own parish is mostly immigrant and protestant converts, with some cradle catholics in the mix. Hymns are a strong part of our culture. I would think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with popular entertainment would recognize this. Television series almost always show church scenes as people standing singing a hymn. As far as Praise and Worship music, I simply can no understand why this would be considered “pop” not spiritual. It is used exclusively in Churches and on Christian radio. I think those songs which come from the pop charts into the Church are problematic under the bishop’s guidelines.

 

[pnewton]

I would be interested in knowing how many of the people in this thread are parents with children/teenagers.

It’s one thing to sit and condemn the “enjoyability factor” of Mass music, or to post links to various Church writings that support one’s own point of view.

It’s another thing for a parent to have a child who utterly refuses to come to Mass because they hate the music, but the same child WILL attend a Mass that makes use of “contemporary” music, or guitars/drums.

Would those people who insist on chant in the Mass tell those parents that their children will just have to stay away from Mass if they can’t or won’t listen to chant?

I think the Church will never loose her missionary desire to be all things for all people, as St. Paul put it. For the life of me, I do not understand those that are willing to write off souls rather than do all they can to reach them. I do understand we may not agree the best way to accomplish this. I think we should pray for those in this diocese that they will find a way to meet this need, just like I also pray for those who do not have their desire for the extraordinary form available.

 

[pnewton]

I admit that there are a great number of Catholics willing to say that contemporary Christian music meets standards. So we must instead be willing to argue about individual songs. We can justify Gregorian chant as an entire genre. Perhaps we cannot do that with contemporary Christian music.

I think your last statement needs to be a warning about this genre, as well as hymns. Bishop Sample even stated that music directors need to be wary of hymns in their hymnal! First, some of the music is borrowed directly from the secular world, which is verbotten. Second, a lot of the Protestant generated hymns and PW music may not be theologically prudent, or even objectively contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Selection of anything not listed in the universal Church documents needs to be made with all caution.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Remembrance by Matt Maher
Christ is Risen by Matt Maher
Whom Shall I Fear by Chris Tomlin
The Stand by Kristian Stanfil/Hillsong (yes, it’s Protestant…as I said above, Aristotle was pagan)
Not for a Moment by Meredith Andrews
Lifted High by Andy Needham
Your Great Name by Natalie Grant

These are just a few.

Thank you for this list. Have you any more examples. My own 3 kids play each Sunday evening at Mass along with 3 others (so in total 2 flutes, 1 violin, 1 guitar, 2 vocals). They play a mix of contemporary and ‘trad’. A lot of Chris Tomlin, some David Haas interspersed with “Golden Oldies”- ‘O sacrament Most Holy’ with soaring flutes, descant violin and 2 sopranos is beautiful and has caused many a tear to fall -. I was just starting to compile tomorrow’s list and had just asked the flautists’ if they had anything ‘new’ as the suggestions of ‘God of Mercy and Compassion’ + ‘40 days and 40 nights’ were exactly what was done on Lent 1 last year

 

[opus101]

buc_fan33;10360959.:

Let me give some examples of things that seem to me to be perfectly appropriate for the celebration of Holy Mass:

Remembrance by Matt Maher
Christ is Risen by Matt Maher
Whom Shall I Fear by Chris Tomlin
The Stand by Kristian Stanfil/Hillsong (yes, it’s Protestant…as I said above, Aristotle was pagan)
Not for a Moment by Meredith Andrews
Lifted High by Andy Needham
Your Great Name by Natalie Grant

These are just a few.

I finally went to youtube to listen to these songs. Father, with all due respect, maybe it is your admittedly weak musical background that is causing you to not be able to discern the difference between secular style religious pop music and sacred music for the Mass. Maybe the amount of exposure you have had to sacred and other types of music has been insufficient for you to be able to make musical distinctions. You are not alone, there are many church musicians on these threads who seem to be in the same boat, and take offense whenever this is suggested.

In one of your posts, which you termed a “rant”, you complained of those who wrote as if they knew more about the liturgy than you, a trained priest who has been educated by renowned liturgists with doctorates in the field. You asked that we not see this statement as arrogant. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and do not see it as arrogant at all. It’s just plain fact.

However, something similar is at play here. Those with little or no background in music (other than being able to play an instrument as a hobby, maybe) have the gall to try to make distinctions about sacred music, and even lead parishes musically. Heck, they even have the gall to compose music and foist it on the entire Roman Catholic population of the country.

The following is not an arrogant statement, it is simple truth: among the various fields of study, after Philosophy, Music and Medicine are listed as the most vast, comprehensive and difficult fields of study. Then history of music is so huge, varied , technical, and vast. Even undergraduate music majors in colleges and universities might find it difficult to contribute well to these discussions.

Just factually speaking, with two degrees in music and and two years of doctoral studies, I find it difficult to understand a lot of the highly specified liturgical talk on sacred music in these threads.

This has lead me to believe that, in order for a priest or church musician to interpret the guidance of Christ through His Church on these matters, the person involved would not only need to know about the liturgy, but have quite a knowledge of music as well. The documents can only be interpreted through the lens of what you know, and risk being grossly misinterpreted if you know nothing or very little on the subject.

That said, here is my opinion on some of the songs you listed. I hope no one takes my comments personally, or becomes offended because their opinion happens to be different.

REMEMBRANCE and CHRIST IS RISEN by Matt Maher:

OMGsh. Both songs started out w/ totally synthetic and electronic sounds produced by keyboard/percussion. One was “twinklier” than the other (the 2nd one). Both are TOTALLY examples of pop/easy-listening rock music. Both are examples of “songs” (not hymns or psalms, etc.) that are examples of pop religious music, as opposed to sacred music for the Mass.

I LIKED both of them - they would be especially useful at a dentist’s appointment. Both are very, very similar to some of the music recorded by the group “Five for Fighting”. I really like their music, one of my favorite groups. To be honest, with a bit of tweaking of the text, these tw Maher songs could easily be recorded by this group and sound exactly like the style of some of their other hits, such as “It’s not easy to be me (Superman Theme)” and “100 Years” (“15, there’s still time for you…”).

In the context of my everyday life, or at a concert, these songs are useful and have a certain degree of beauty that can draw my attention to God and spur devotion.Kind of like a Helen Steiner Rice greeting card verse. But, just as it would be inappropriate to read an inspirational H.S. Rice verse in lieu of the responsorial psalm, it is (IMO) inappropriate to sing pop religious song at Mass. Not only is it liturgically inappropriate, it is (IMO) exceedingly tacky in that context.

One of those shiny metallic gazing balls on a pedestal found in many gardens might draw some people to devotion, as they contemplate the reflection of the sky and the flowers, reminding them also of St. Paul’s words about “Through a glass darkly…” But what if a parish purchased 14 of them and had a station of the cross painted on the front side of each one, and used them for the Staions of the Cross inside the church? Some might say that, not only are these gazing balls inappropriate for sacred use, they are also quite tacky and cheesy in that context. After all, they are profane items (meaning for secular use) anyway.

THE STAND (Hillsong) and NOT FOR A MOMENT (Andrews):

Again, that same synthetic, pop-style of popular religious music. Completely non-sacred in style. IMO, totally sappy and tacky in the context of the Mass. Fine for radio, or a concert.Or a prayer meeting or religious song singing session.

Also, it is important to note that these are all SONGS. By “singer-songwriters”. They are written in “song” forms.

This brings to mind Bishop Sample’s comment: "…we ‘sing the Mass at Mass’, rather than ‘sing songs during Mass’. " (p.11)

While composers who are contemporaries of our time should compose new music for the Mass, it should conform to the wise guiding principles of the Church. Contemporary does not = Pop. Contemporary sacred music might even be newly composed chant settings.

 

[opus101]

In addendum, the popular religious songs that were listed by buc-fan33 do not even qualify as popular “sacred” music.

Some light can be shed on this by Bishop Sample’s letter. On p. 8 he writes:

“In the context of the sacred liturgy, the term “popular” does not signify the so-called “pop culture” but comes from the Latin “populus”, people. Popular sacred music includes hymnody, psalmody, vernacular Mass settings, many of the Latin chant Mass settings, and other forms of sacred music suited to the musical abilities of the people.”

In other words, rather than some relatively more complicated music sung by a trained and rehearsed choir, popular sacred music is accessible to the average parishioner while retaining characteristics of sacred music as opposed to non-sacred popular music.

 

[opus101]

I finally went to youtube to listen to these songs. Father, with all due respect, maybe it is your admittedly weak musical background that is causing you to not be able to discern the difference between secular style religious pop music and sacred music for the Mass. Maybe the amount of exposure you have had to sacred and other types of music has been insufficient for you to be able to make musical distinctions. You are not alone, there are many church musicians on these threads who seem to be in the same boat, and take offense whenever this is suggested.

In one of your posts, which you termed a “rant”, you complained of those who wrote as if they knew more about the liturgy than you, a trained priest who has been educated by renowned liturgists with doctorates in the field. You asked that we not see this statement as arrogant. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and do not see it as arrogant at all. It’s just plain fact.

However, something similar is at play here. Those with little or no background in music (other than being able to play an instrument as a hobby, maybe) have the gall to try to make distinctions about sacred music, and even lead parishes musically. Heck, they even have the gall to compose music and foist it on the entire Roman Catholic population of the country.

The following is not an arrogant statement, it is simple truth: among the various fields of study, after Philosophy, Music and Medicine are listed as the most vast, comprehensive and difficult fields of study. The history of music is so huge, varied , technical, and vast. Even undergraduate music majors in colleges and universities might find it difficult to contribute well to these discussions.

Just factually speaking, with two degrees in music and and two years of doctoral studies, I find it difficult to understand a lot of the highly specified liturgical talk on sacred music in these threads.

This has lead me to believe that, in order for a priest or church musician to interpret the guidance of Christ through His Church on these matters, the person involved would not only need to know about the liturgy, but have quite a knowledge of music as well. The documents can only be interpreted through the lens of what you know, and risk being grossly misinterpreted if you know nothing or very little on the subject.

That said, here is my opinion on some of the songs you listed. I hope no one takes my comments personally, or becomes offended because their opinion happens to be different.

REMEMBRANCE and CHRIST IS RISEN by Matt Maher:

OMGsh. Both songs started out w/ totally synthetic and electronic sounds produced by keyboard/percussion. One was “twinklier” than the other (the 2nd one). Both are TOTALLY examples of pop/easy-listening rock music. Both are examples of “songs” (not hymns or psalms, etc.) that are examples of pop religious music, as opposed to sacred music for the Mass.

I LIKED both of them - they would be especially useful at a dentist’s appointment. Both are very, very similar to some of the music recorded by the group “Five for Fighting”. I really like their music, one of my favorite groups. To be honest, with a bit of tweaking of the text, these tw Maher songs could easily be recorded by this group and sound exactly like the style of some of their other hits, such as “It’s not easy to be me (Superman Theme)” and “100 Years” (“15, there’s still time for you…”).

In the context of my everyday life, or at a concert, these songs are useful and have a certain degree of beauty that can draw my attention to God and spur devotion.Kind of like a Helen Steiner Rice greeting card verse. But, just as it would be inappropriate to read an inspirational H.S. Rice verse in lieu of the responsorial psalm, it is (IMO) inappropriate to sing pop religious song at Mass. Not only is it liturgically inappropriate, it is (IMO) exceedingly tacky in that context.

One of those shiny metallic gazing balls on a pedestal found in many gardens might draw some people to devotion, as they contemplate the reflection of the sky and the flowers, reminding them also of St. Paul’s words about “Through a glass darkly…” But what if a parish purchased 14 of them and had a station of the cross painted on the front side of each one, and used them for the Staions of the Cross inside the church? Some might say that, not only are these gazing balls inappropriate for sacred use, they are also quite tacky and cheesy in that context. After all, they are profane items (meaning for secular use) anyway.

THE STAND (Hillsong) and NOT FOR A MOMENT (Andrews):

Again, that same synthetic, pop-style of popular religious music. Completely non-sacred in style. IMO, totally sappy and tacky in the context of the Mass. Fine for radio, or a concert.Or a prayer meeting or religious song singing session.

Also, it is important to note that these are all SONGS. By “singer-songwriters”. They are written in “song” forms.

This brings to mind Bishop Sample’s comment: "…we ‘sing the Mass at Mass’, rather than ‘sing songs during Mass’. " (p.11)

While composers who are contemporaries of our time should compose new music for the Mass, it should conform to the wise guiding principles of the Church. Contemporary does not = Pop. Contemporary sacred music might even be newly composed chant settings.

 

[opus101]

oopsy. don’t know how the above happened.

 

[pnewton]

I finally went to youtube to listen to these songs. Father, with all due respect, maybe it is your admittedly weak musical background that is causing you to not be able to discern the difference between secular style religious pop music and sacred music for the Mass. Maybe the amount of exposure you have had to sacred and other types of music has been insufficient for you to be able to make musical distinctions.

I do not think suggesting this to a priest would be appropriate. In the Church, authority trumps education, especially in a more subjective area like art or music.

In one of your posts, which you termed a “rant”, you complained of those who wrote as if they knew more about the liturgy than you, a trained priest who has been educated by renowned liturgists with doctorates in the field. You asked that we not see this statement as arrogant. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and do not see it as arrogant at all. It’s just plain fact.

Those with little or no background in music (other than being able to play an instrument as a hobby, maybe) have the gall to try to make distinctions about sacred music, and even lead parishes musically.

I do not think the heart of a servant is the same as “gall”. I find this statement highly offensive as it implies a bold type of arrogance in the face of ignorance. Not every parish has the resources to employ doctorate level liturgists and musicians. The diocese have these resources and set the boundries that all follow. If a parish is within these boundries, no one’s education level is sufficient to allow them to oppose the priest. Discuss and suggest, yes. Trump, no.

I like what Peter Kreeft once said. All that is need to believe any of the 100 most absurd things in the world is a Ph.D. Thanks be to God that he chose the base things in the world to confound the wise.

 

[pnewton]

I also took the time to read Bishop Sample’s letter, at least until the part when he started talking specifically about things in the Diocese of Marquette. He makes some terrific points. I can’t find anything with which I disagree.

Same here. Some of the things he said, I had to scratch my head and ask, “Who is doing this that you have to specifically mention it?”

 

[opus101]

I do not think suggesting this to a priest would be appropriate. In the Church, authority trumps education, especially in a more subjective area like art or music.

In one of your posts, which you termed a “rant”, you complained of those who wrote as if they knew more about the liturgy than you, a trained priest who has been educated by renowned liturgists with doctorates in the field. You asked that we not see this statement as arrogant. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and do not see it as arrogant at all. It’s just plain fact.

I do not think the heart of a servant is the same as “gall”. I find this statement highly offensive as it implies a bold type of arrogance in the face of ignorance. Not every parish has the resources to employ doctorate level liturgists and musicians. The diocese have these resources and set the boundries that all follow. If a parish is within these boundries, no one’s education level is sufficient to allow them to oppose the priest. Discuss and suggest, yes. Trump, no.

I like what Peter Kreeft once said. All that is need to believe any of the 100 most absurd things in the world is a Ph.D. Thanks be to God that he chose the base things in the world to confound the wise.

This exactly what I meant when I said that it is impossible to broach this subject and second the opinions of the Church without someone taking it personally and being offended.

“Gall” was probably an inappropriate word, and I apologize for using it. However, it’s not terribly far off base. Servanthood also implies a certain docility to the guidance of the Church, especially in areas where your own background is weak. This applies to priests and bishops as well as church musicians. Although some of the above mentioned, through ignorance, may interpret guidelines incorrectly because of an inability to make musical distinctions, and might have false ideas in their minds about what certain terms mean (such as “popular sacred music”), this does not excuse them from seeking guidance from those who have extensive backgrounds in this area. Part of servanthood is the ability to admit that you are wrong.

(from “Rejoice in the Lord Always”, p.1)

“At the outset, it must be acknowledged that Church musicians have labored long and hard in the wake of the Second Vatican Council to help accomplish the Council’s goals as it concerns the renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Mass. Indeed, many have made it their life’s work to provide music for the Sacred Liturgy. The Church, including both clergy and laity, is grateful beyond words for their dedication and service. IT MUST ALSO BE SAID THAT THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS WHICH FOLLOW WILL COME AS A REAL CHANGE IN FOCUS AND DIRECTION FOR MANY OF THESE SAME DEDICATED MUSICIANS. What is attempted here is a faithful presentation of what the Church has taught as it regards sacred music from the time before the Council, at the Council itself, and in the implementation of the Council’s thought in subsequent years. ALTHOUGH MUCH OF WHAT FOLLOWS MAY CONTRAVENE THE FORMATION THAT MANY HAVE EXPERIENCED OVER RECENT YEARS, THIS IS IN NO WAY TO BE INTERPRETED AS A CRITICISM OF THOSE DEDICATED CHURCH MUSICIANS WHO HAVE OFFERED THEIR SERVICE WITH A GENEROUS HEART AND WITH GOOD WILL.
CHANGE CAN BE DIFFICULT, BUT THIS CAN ALSO BE AN EXCITING TIME OF REDISCOVERING THE SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY AND EXPLORING NEW HORIZONS OF SACRED MUSIC.”