I like this statement too. But, in a backhanded way, this seems to be meant as an insult. I do not take offense at it, as it was not necessarily aimed at me,.but want to point out that as there are base things in the world that confound the wise, there are also base things in the world that just remain base things, and out of pride, comment on things that they know nothing of.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.
I think the concept of right or wrong can not be applied to the majority of opinions on this thread. I do not think there is some resource out there that is familiar with the needs of each and every parish that one can contact. The Catholic Church does not operate under any sort of principle whereby the most learned make decisions, but under subsidiarity where the most immediate make decisions. Again, authority trumps education. There is not one of us here in this situation that does not do everything we can to follow the guidelines of the Church, both the documents, and the authority of the bishop and priest. The opinion of anyone not in the parish, no matter how well educated, is missing the most important data.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.
I have a Bach in Sci in Music Education, including a decent amount of music history. I am a professional musician, both in church and outside of church.I like this statement too. But, in a backhanded way, this seems to be meant as an insult. I do not take offense at it, as it was not necessarily aimed at me,.but want to point out that as there are base things in the world that confound the wise, there are also base things in the world that just remain base things, and out of pride, comment on things that they know nothing of.
And while many a PhD has fallen into darkness due to pride and arrogance, there are many who have achieved sainthood. Like Blessed John Paul. (Who offered useful guidelines for liturgical music) …and all of the educated saints and doctors of the Church.
Like I said, I admittedly find it difficult to follow all of the liturgical technicalities found on these threads - that’s not my area. I need to seek people who are learned in those areas and are faithful to the Church in order to increase my understanding.
One thing is for sure - my comment was not directed at you personally. You are not the center of the universe, and when someone makes a comment it is not necessarliy directed at you. My comment was directed at the types of church musicians that I personally have been in contact with during the last 15 or so years of my life. Some had a bitterness toward any Church guidelines, would not even discuss things in a civil manner with those of opposing points of view, and the music that they offered the parish would make the song suggestions made by buc_fan33 sound like Gregorian chant or the gates of heaven. Others were not as bad, but misinterpreted guidelines (such as what “popular sacred music” is) and were not at all open to any type of clarification. In other words, they refused to learn. They refused to accept the fact that there was more to this than what they, as amateur musicians, could grasp. Talk about insulting.
IMO, your post has nothing at all to do with this thread. I’ve heard you repeat similar things in the past ad nauseum, and , quite frankly, it seems that there might be a bit of self-righteous defensiveness involved here.I think the concept of right or wrong can not be applied to the majority of opinions on this thread. I do not think there is some resource out there that is familiar with the needs of each and every parish that one can contact. The Catholic Church does not operate under any sort of principle whereby the most learned make decisions, but under subsidiarity where the most immediate make decisions. Again, authority trumps education. There is not one of us here in this situation that does not do everything we can to follow the guidelines of the Church, both the documents, and the authority of the bishop and priest. The opinion of anyone not in the parish, no matter how well educated, is missing the most important data.
An example of what I meant when I said that even music majors might not understand the guidelines. Heck, no one will understand them if they don’t read them!!!agapewolf, the fact that you get compliments on certain selections means nothing at all. All that means is that those who made them are just as clueless about things. Sincere, nice, charitable…and clueless.I have a Bach in Sci in Music Education, including a decent amount of music history. I am a professional musician, both in church and outside of church.
I frequent these boards to make sure I stay balanced, and to truly hear what people are thinking about music-- well, this board is most certainly not the norm. I’ve made sure to include ALL types of music from chant to Praise and worship. All of the compliments I get on song choices— ALL of them, are when I use praise and worship.
I do NOT agree that the actual authoritative documents declare in the narrow way that some think it does, what should be used in mass. And you know what? I’m with Burke. He was in my diocese, and supported the Lifeteen masses, and the Steubenville conferences. As well now, as Rice, Hermann, and Carlson in St. Louis.
I’m with the many other bishops that support it in their diocese.
You threw out a song because of the recording instrumentation. That is not how its played at mass. I’ll bet you you would think it was halfway decent if you heard me play it at mass.
You are the one insulting when you claim such narrow interpretation that is much much more narrow than so many bishops do. You are insulting when you say that people that don’t agree with you are “refusing to learn”…
You are right that no one should have used such a word, just like no one should try and judge another’s heart by calling them self-righteous, or another’s motive by calling them defensive.IMO, your post has nothing at all to do with this thread. I’ve heard you repeat similar things in the past ad nauseum, and , quite frankly, it seems that there might be a bit of self-righteous defensiveness involved here. …For me, that meant that I could finally present this position without being maligned and called an arrogant person who presents her own “opinions” as fact,…
If I speak in human and angelic tongues,
but do not have love,
I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
So I guess you are saying that Burke failed in leading St. Louis according to his own take on sacred music. RightAn example of what I meant when I said that even music majors might not understand the guidelines. Heck, no one will understand them if they don’t read them!!!agapewolf, the fact that you get compliments on certain selections means nothing at all. All that means is that those who made them are just as clueless about things. Sincere, nice, charitable…and clueless.
My interpretation is not “narrower” than that of many bishops. It may be different, but it is the SAME as that of Bishop Olmsted, Bishop Sample, AND CARDINAL BURKE forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/5255/cardinal-burke-speaking-on-sacred-music/p1 (where he spoke of “chant, polyphony and ‘worthy’ hymnody”) and is also the same as that proposed by all of the recent popes including Benedict XVI.
It would be great if the Bishops could lead in union with the Pope on these matters. It would be a great sign of unity.
Thank you. I do not, ever, want to be guilty of clericalism. Paraphrasing Augustine, “For you, I am a priest. With you, I am a Christian.” I sincerely hope that we can respect, and love (in the best, Christian sense of the word, “agape”) each other as brother and sister in Christ. You are quite right, I am not a trained musician. Indeed, I must rely on the wisdom and knowledge of others more learned in the field. Simply because I wear a Roman collar should not, in my estimation, earn me any more respect than anyone else. As Benedict said, “I am but a humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord.”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.
Thank you for the the sermon on I Corinthians. I return the same words to you, with the addition of “love does not take offense.”You are right that no one should have used such a word, just like no one should try and judge another’s heart by calling them self-righteous, or another’s motive by calling them defensive.
Obviously I think my posts have related to the topic, so we get to disagree on that too. I would like to clarify what I said about musicians being servants. I was only referring to the ones here, maybe a dozen, who seem very devoted to service of the Church and following all the guidelines, though they may not all agree on what those guidelines are.
As to our opinions, yes, I do think they are often presented as more factual than they really are. Even this letter by Bishop Sample contains some opinion, all of which is now authoritatively the disciple to be followed in his diocese. Not all bishops have the same guidelines. I am sure what he is doing is for the best up in Michigan. I will end with this appropriate verse:
The fact that people “liked” it does not mean that it “worked” liturgically.The point that I get compliments is that the music works. It does its job.
So what did you think about the document we are talking about?An I am not clueless. I HAVE read them.
Thank you for your post, I greatly appreciate the whole of it. And I agree with the above. Thanks and prayers,If you are correct in your premise, trust that the Holy Spirit is working in and guiding the Church. The change may not come as quickly as you would like, but if it truly is from the Holy Spirit, it will come in time.
I think a lot of the differences is so much in the understanding as the application. No one thinks truly “anything goes” that I have seen post here, but one can conclude the the guidelines seldom give specifics. That is the nature of the operation of the Church. Doctrine dictates the liturgy (lex crendi, or however that goes). This is set as principles and guidelines. The bishops then apply them to their diocese. In doing so, the can choose to set specifics. Then the priests can make all the choices, or set further guidelines and let someone else choose.My conclusion from this thread is anything goes. We can’t get past that.
This is probably one of the best posts I have seen about music on CAF. :yup:My conclusion from this thread is anything goes. We can’t get past that.
Catholic “liturgical” music seems to be remarkably consistent in only one thing: inconsistency. For all these documents, in effect, they are nothing but hot air. Nice little treatises, but nothing we should pay too much attention to, that seems to be the message.This is probably one of the best posts I have seen about music on CAF. :yup:
It’s not quite true. There are some limits on Mass music. But not nearly as many as some people seem to think there are.
I think a more accurate “conclusion” would be, “It’s up to the Bishop.”
Also check out Tra Le from 1903. It talks very clearly about the difference between liturgical music and religious music.Personally, I think a number of you are completely missing the point. If you read the entire pastoral letter, you might get a better understanding of the bishop’s teaching.
In it he makes a distinction between secular and “sacred” music, he is not talking about the difference between secular and simply “religious” music. Bishop Olmsted, last year, was able to describe the difference between “sacred” and “religious” music quite clearly.
Pop/secular styles of music are often used in “religious” music, but are never used in truly “sacred music”. Sacred music is music that is used specifically for the divine liturgy… “Sacred” in the sense that it is “set aside”. It has a character that is not merely “religious”, but recognizably sacred (for sacred purposes alone).
For instance, Hebrew folk music was not used in the temple sacrifices, nor in the synagogue - Hebrew chant was their “sacred music”. Amost all cultures and religions have a type of music that is associated with the sacred alone.
This is true, that it is up to the Bishop, but I would probably re-phrase that and say “the buck stops with the Bishop”. In other words, while many things may be “allowed” (through the absence of any directive on that particular point or through negligence and omission), it does not mean that we, as Catholic Christians should stop seeking guidance from the magisterium, or stop trying to understand what the Popes meant in their documents. If a bishop chooses to “allow” something that seriously contradicts the guidance of the magisterium, you are not the one who will be held responsible should it turn out to be wrong. But he will be.This is probably one of the best posts I have seen about music on CAF. :yup:
It’s not quite true. There are some limits on Mass music. But not nearly as many as some people seem to think there are.
I think a more accurate “conclusion” would be, “It’s up to the Bishop.”
It seems that they are just writing exercises done by the Pope and the Bishops to take up their spare time.Catholic “liturgical” music seems to be remarkably consistent in only one thing: inconsistency. For all these documents, in effect, they are nothing but hot air. Nice little treatises, but nothing we should pay too much attention to, that seems to be the message.
De Musica Sacra? Nope
Sacrosanctum Concilium? Nope
Musicam Sacram? Nope
General Instruction? Nope
Tradition of the Latin Church? It doesn’t matter, 'cause what did tradition ever do for us? Oops…
These things mean nothing in practice, absolutely nothing.