Folk Mass

[Elliott]

At our Church’s folk mass the folk group stands in front of with backs to the tabernacle which is on the left side of the church. This seems irreverant to me. Also sometimes they snap their fingers to their songs or clap their hands against their hip. This always bothers me but is this just a matter of preference or are there rules against any of this. I usually try to avoid this mass. I don’t want to be knit picky, overall things there are pretty good but this is annoying.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

It sounds like what they are doing is within the scope of what is permitted. As for clapping their hands, they are simply complying with Scripture: “PS 47:2 I All you peoples, clap your hands; shout to God with joyful cries.”

Deacon Ed

 

[tom.wineman]

How many “styles” of Mass do we have now ?

---

Remember when there was only one.

 

[tee_eff_em]

How many “styles” of Mass do we have now ?

---

Remember when there was only one.

Which one was that? High Mass or Low Mass?

tee

 

[Deacon_Ed]

How many “styles” of Mass do we have now ?

Remember when there was only one.

There was never “only one.” Even in the Tridentine era there were Solemn High Masses, High Masses, the famous Missa cantata, the Low Mass. Then there were the other ritual Masses (Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc.) that were still permitted following the Council of Trent.

Deacon Ed

 

[oat_soda]

It sounds like what they are doing is within the scope of what is permitted. As for clapping their hands, they are simply complying with Scripture: “PS 47:2 I All you peoples, clap your hands; shout to God with joyful cries.”

that is totally out of context. i could just as easily pointed to all of the strict guidelines for the temple outlined in leviticus to support the tridentine mass. the truth is there is a clear difference between sacred and religious music. while folk music may be religious, it can never be called sacred. we can also say all things being equal, gregorian chant is the best music for the celebration of the mass. this is a fact outlined in VII’s SC, B-16 in spirit of the liturgy, and by Pius X in his letter on sacred music to just name a few.

people who support folk music are either well intentioned but ignorant of the church’s traditions, or middle aged radicals who impose this banal profane garbage on the laity -contrary to all norms and legitimate traditions of the church.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

people who support folk music are either well intentioned but ignorant of the church’s traditions, or middle aged radicals who impose this banal profane garbage on the laity -contrary to all norms and legitimate traditions of the church.

*Au contraire! *Most Church music started as “popular songs” – at least in terms of the melody. The words were written to fit popular music (look at the writings of St. Roman the Melodist for examples of this). What we call Gregorian Chant actually grew out of the music used in both Byzantine worship and Jewish chant. Later the Church accepted the use of polyphony which was simply another form of “popular music” that found its way into the Church.

Guidelines from the Church with regard to music do not limit us to the human voice, the only instrument accepted until that new-fanged organ worked its way out of the home and small theater into the Church (what an uproar that caused!). Even today most Eastern Catholic Churches do not use instruments of any sort to support the singing by the people. Today the Church permits any instrument provided its use is not profane. The harp and the lyre were used in Greece, the lute in England to support singing. Even the famous Christmas carole Silent Night was first written for the guitar.

Deacon Ed

 

[Elliott]

Thanks Deacon Ed. It still seems irreverent to me. It looks like they’re performing a concert up there.

 

[Sparky]

I’ve been in a parish where the musicians stood with their back to the tabernacle. I felt the same way as you. In fact, I was asked to sing a wedding there, and I had to stand by the organ in front of the tabernacle. I’ve never felt so uncomfortable in my entire life.

I do think it is an irreverant placement and whoever designed that church deserves to get slapped upside the head.
–Ann

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

*Au contraire! *Most Church music started as “popular songs” – at least in terms of the melody. The words were written to fit popular music (look at the writings of St. Roman the Melodist for examples of this). What we call Gregorian Chant actually grew out of the music used in both Byzantine worship and Jewish chant. Later the Church accepted the use of polyphony which was simply another form of “popular music” that found its way into the Church.

Guidelines from the Church with regard to music do not limit us to the human voice, the only instrument accepted until that new-fanged organ worked its way out of the home and small theater into the Church (what an uproar that caused!). Even today most Eastern Catholic Churches do not use instruments of any sort to support the singing by the people. Today the Church permits any instrument provided its use is not profane. The harp and the lyre were used in Greece, the lute in England to support singing. Even the famous Christmas carole Silent Night was first written for the guitar.

Deacon Ed

While this is very true, Oat Soda’s mention of Cardinal Ratzinger’s separation of “sacred” and “religious” music is also true. Most people nowadays deem anything remotely religious or pious as fit for liturgical use, while our now-pope believes in stricter criteria.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Andreas Hofer:

While this is very true, Oat Soda’s mention of Cardinal Ratzinger’s separation of “sacred” and “religious” music is also true. Most people nowadays deem anything remotely religious or pious as fit for liturgical use, while our now-pope believes in stricter criteria.

I certainly agree with this! The music that was being played was not, however, the question that was being asked. The original poster asked if where they were standing was acceptable. It is. He commented that they snapped their fingers or sometimes clapped their hands in time to the music. This is not directly addressed by any documents of the Roman Church. It is not disparaged, nor is it encouraged. I cited a passage from the Psalms to indicate that it is not unheard of. I, personally (as a deacon and as a musician) would prefer that this not happen, but the Church has not said it can’t happen and, therefore, I don’t say it is inappropriate or wrong.

I was addressing only Oat Soda’s claim that:

people who support folk music are either well intentioned but ignorant of the church’s traditions, or middle aged radicals who impose this banal profane garbage on the laity -contrary to all norms and legitimate traditions of the church.

with which I vehemently disagree, and do so with a knowledge of the history of musical development within the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[tom.wineman]

tee_eff_em:

Which one was that? High Mass or Low Mass?

tee

**Low, high, solemn high, pontifical they were all in Latin and were holy ( set apart) . **

 

[Deacon_Ed]

**Low, high, solemn high, pontifical they were all in Latin and were holy ( set apart) . **

Are you, then, suggesting that the Mass of Paul VI is not holy?

Deacon Ed

 

[JButky]

Elliott:

At our Church’s folk mass the folk group stands in front of with backs to the tabernacle which is on the left side of the church. This seems irreverant to me. Also sometimes they snap their fingers to their songs or clap their hands against their hip. This always bothers me but is this just a matter of preference or are there rules against any of this. I usually try to avoid this mass. I don’t want to be knit picky, overall things there are pretty good but this is annoying.

If it is a distraction to the sacred action at the altar it should be dealt with. The Ceremonial of Bishops states that these distractions should be removed. As is customary, those serving in the choir function, can be placed behind a screen to remedy the distraction as long as the acoustical integrity is not compromised either.

A screen might also place an undo sight distraction which could be remedied by moving the group so as not to distract. The screen is acceptable only as long as it is in keeping with architectural norms and doesn’t become a distraction in and of itself. If it is possible, the easier solution is to move the group and remove the distraction.

Joe B

 

[Guar_Fan]

JButky:

If it is a distraction to the sacred action at the altar it should be dealt with.

That sounds appropriate. Perhaps the original poster would consider taking it up with either the pastor or the person in charge of music at his church.

Or maybe its not worth the fuss. But I do appreciate him mentioning his view… I doubt anyone wants to offend him or others in attendence. And his viewpoint is one I will remember.

 

[JButky]

*Au contraire! *Most Church music started as “popular songs” – at least in terms of the melody.
Deacon Ed

With all due respect Deacon Ed. This is nonsense and represents a complete misunderstanding and knowledge of the evolution of Western Music, Church Music and association to the Greek and Roman music of the ancient world.

The Church was very guarded against popular music in the first three centuries for many reasons. It always has been which has changed form over the centuries but not intent. this was mainly to guard the Sacred from the profane (which was the popular music of the day and pagan in nature.)

Any reading of the the vast understanding and integration of the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans when compared to the evolution of Church Music shows two very distinct and different paths. Church music was never derived from popular music. It was specific in form and purpose. So was the Ancient Greek and Roman Music, specific for it’s purpose and the two did not mix as a result. Early Church music was by no means ever described as “popular” for its day.

The “silent night” story also contains a bit of error. Where are you getting your music history from???

Joe B

 

[Deacon_Ed]

JButky:

With all due respect Deacon Ed. This is nonsense and represents a complete misunderstanding and knowledge of the evolution of Western Music, Church Music and association to the Greek and Roman music of the ancient world.

I disagree. Again, I refer you to the works of St. Roman the Melodist who freely admits to using popular melodies in the composition of his hymns. Most Byzantine Church use his music.

The Church was very guarded against popular music in the first three centuries for many reasons. It always has been which has changed form over the centuries but not intent. this was mainly to guard the Sacred from the profane (which was the popular music of the day and pagan in nature.)

This does not seem to be the case. In fact, there is not a single statement from the Church Fathers with regard to the form of music to be used. It is true the Araphat the Persian Sage advised people to avoid (among other things) “festive music.” On the other hand, St. Augustine tells us that “…not a few things are closed to us and obscured by ignorance of music.” He also tells us “And in several places in the Holy Scriptures we find both numbers and music mentioned with honor.” (On Christian Doctrine).

Any reading of the the vast understanding and integration of the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans when compared to the evolution of Church Music shows two very distinct and different paths. Church music was never derived from popular music. It was specific in form and purpose. So was the Ancient Greek and Roman Music, specific for it’s purpose and the two did not mix as a result. Early Church music was by no means ever described as “popular” for its day.

Again I disagree. The music of the Byzantine Churches was, in general, popular melodies. This is especially true of the Arabic Churches. Yes, eventually there was a slight divergence when the Jewish chant, which seemed to form a large portion of Roman liturgical music was exported to other Latin Rite areas. This is the forerunner to Gregorian Chant. It did, eventually, influence others. However, composers like Palestrina were influenced by the polyphony of the day (Gregorian chant is not polyphonic) and that was introduced into the Church.

The “silent night” story also contains a bit of error. Where are you getting your music history from???

From a study of music. The song was composed by Fr. Joseph Mohr in 1816. It was, however, not set to music until Fr. Mohr was transferred to Oberndorf. On Dec. 24, 1818 he went to the home of Franz Gruber who composed the music for the guitar that Fr. Mohr had brought with him. Fr. Mohr accompanied the two men, and their choir in singing “Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!” for the first time that evening. There is no “error” in what I said. Error would have entered in if I had said they did this because the organ would not work (there is no indication that this is the case). Where do you get your music history since it does not seem to correspond to what I learned?

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

JButky:

Here’s a quick reference to assist you in understanding the development of liturgical music in the very early Church: liturgica.com/html/litEChLit.jsp?hostname=null

Deacon Ed

 

[JButky]

Deacon Ed:

I disagree. Again, I refer you to the works of St. Roman the Melodist who freely admits to using popular melodies in the composition of his hymns. Most Byzantine Church use his music.

These were not the popular melodies of the day but those that were popular modes used by the Church for liturgical purposes. There was distinct separation due to the very nature of the Greek concept of music which the Romans took for themselves. There is no Historical evidence that this popular Greek music ever made its way into liturgical functions. The sources for these were Jewish Traditions which developed into a modal system. The meaning and purpose of the popular Greek music of the day was completely unsuitable for liturgical purposes as a result. Read Plato and Aristotle and you will see why it was impossible for the two to be combined.
Deacon Ed:

This does not seem to be the case. In fact, there is not a single statement from the Church Fathers with regard to the form of music to be used.

This is also untrue. Augustine comments in his confessions on the threat of Greek music. Much later on, Aquinas also makes statements concerning music but by his time there was a difference for his reasonings due to the difference in music evolution by that time.
Deacon Ed:

Again I disagree. The music of the Byzantine Churches was, in general, popular melodies. This is especially true of the Arabic Churches. Yes, eventually there was a slight divergence when the Jewish chant, which seemed to form a large portion of Roman liturgical music was exported to other Latin Rite areas. This is the forerunner to Gregorian Chant. It did, eventually, influence others. However, composers like Palestrina were influenced by the polyphony of the day (Gregorian chant is not polyphonic) and that was introduced into the Church.

This analysis is replete with error and completely distorts the evolution of Music to the form of Gregorian Chant. The Byzantine churches were not based on popular melodies in the profane sense. They were the popular melodies based from the Jewish Tradtion from which our Liturgy is derived. (In other words the popular church modes in use at the time.) Due to the very nature and purpose of the Greek so called "popular "music (another misleading term), it is virtually impossible to confuse the two genres as having any correlation from historical sources. You have completely confused the different systems of echoi, which later developed into kontakia and kanones later leading to, what we now know as Gregorian chant, with the greek tonoi which might possibly have given some influence to the later Western Medieval system in terms of theory only. (hence the difference in comments by Aquinas and Augustine that I mentioned earlier.)

The silent night stuff you posted is somewhat misleading since there is a bit of folklore surrounding what actually happened leading people to continue to report as fact what you presented. No one really knows all the details for sure.
Deacon Ed:

Where do you get your music history since it does not seem to correspond to what I learned?

Deacon Ed

My degrees are in music. The information you are presenting is, at best, severely incomplete because your references exclude huge significant portions of information.

There is no credible Historical evidence to demonstrate that our liturgical music tradition ever came from popular music which was Greek in its day. Any reading of the Greek philosophers great works demonstrates the reasons why it was impossible. If you want references to look up, check out scholarly dissertaions by people like Mountford and Henderson for anaylysis of Greek music and people like Idelsohn and Strunk for Hebrew and Byzantine for starters. For a good dissertation encompassing the differing situations duringthe Augustine and Aquinas time periods, one of my favorites is “Theology and the Arts” by Viledesau.

Joe B

 

[JButky]

Deacon Ed:

JButky:

Here’s a quick reference to assist you in understanding the development of liturgical music in the very early Church: liturgica.com/html/litEChLit.jsp?hostname=null

Deacon Ed

This source has some good info and some error. The section concerning the Oxyrhynchos papyrus is flat out wrong. This was already towards the end of the third century and was so badly damaged that it could not be completely reconstructed.

According to Grout: “It was formerly thought that the Oxyrynchos fragment proved a definate influence of Greek music in the early Church; but later research has indicated that, in spite of the Greek notation, the melody probably has a more Eastern provenance.”

“A History of Western Music” third edition pg 13

This link you posted starts out OK and then goes really of track because it too has a fatal misunderstanding differentiating between Greek music theory and practice with respect to musical evolution, Church music not withstanding…

Joe B