Hands Clapping and Guitar masses... Charismatics

[Arrowood]

mjs:

Actually, believe it or not, Arrowood, I did not expect that it would be found in the Catechism. I was just posing a question based on what someone had said in an earlier post about the Catechism specifically saying every church must have an organ. I have the document “Sacrosanctum Concilium” and every other pre and post-Vatican II document written.

Oops! Sorry - I missed your reference to the previous posts and the fact that your question was actually making a statement! I guess I was just supporting your point then! I hope I didn’t inadvertantly insult you.

While I am aware that the organ is the favoured

(not only) instrument, I still see nothing that precludes the use of guitars (or pianos, or flutes, or violins, or drums, or cymbals…). And I don’t see anyone trying to challenge me on what the Church documents say regarding music and Sacred Liturgy - obviously because they can’t.
I am no expert on this, but within the limits of my current knowledge I agree with you. My main contention is that music should not become an end unto itself, but should lead the congregation into the Mass more deeply (see my previous post).

Music is an integral part of worship and I always work within the guidelines the Church has set out for me. In fact, all music, be it for weddings, funerals, school Mases, etc. goes through me, because my priest trusts me to choose music that is both liturgically and theologically correct.

I wish I could come and experience it some time. Maybe you would give me a better idea of what meets these standards.

I really don’t think the instrument has anything to do with what makes for good or bad music during Mass. I have heard choirs led by organs and guitars that have done absolutely nothing to enhance my worship experience. And showmanship or entertaining is not exclusive to guitar and all other instrumentation not the organ, as I have sat through Masses where the choir presented the music (accompanied by organ) and the congregation couldn’t join in if they wanted to. Neither is the correct liturgical approach to music.

Again, I am no expert, but I totally agree with you. I have also experienced organ and choir showmanship and did not think it to be helpful for worship. Arguing about what instruments are proper seems to me to be missing the point, unless there are specific liturgical norms that specify them. The point is does it lead to deeper participation into the Mass or does it distract and become “entertainment”?

As someone quoted earlier, I like coffee, you like tea. I happen to like good, solid liturgical music regardless of the instrument that leads it and I leave others to their own preferences. And I rest secure in the knowledge that I am doing good things for God and for his Church here on earth.

I don’t like the coffee/tea argument because it brings things down to personal preference (as in entertainment preference). Personal preference is too close to self-interest, which is not the point of worship! Rather, I would argue that there are effective and ineffective styles of music for worship, and within the scope of effective worship there are styles that will be more effective for certain people.

 

[Arrowood]

Mandi:

1. Because singing should always have top priority, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain it and never oppress it.
2. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church. Only in special cases with the consent of the [bishop of the diocese] will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place. In that case, the composition and accompaniment must be written in a serious and appropriate style; the composition and accompaniment must conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

Hmmm . . . are these two points intertwined? Singing should be the primary priority, and the use of wind instruments should be limited and their use patterned after the organ. Is the latter in support of the former? That would make a lot of sense! Singing is participation in the prayer - use of some instruments encourages spectation instead.

 

[Serafin]

SocaliCatholic:

Charismatic worship is BORING!

Some churches ALLOW it only so older people will think they are reaching younger people, when in fact they are short-changing them from authentic worship. A solemn Mass is a blessing from God! I went to protestant worship for years and dont miss one bit the same tired, distracting, non-catholic lyrics played with electric guitars and drums ect At my first communion, every one of my 15 or so potestant or non-christian friends that went (all in their early 20’s) told me that they truly enjoyed the Bi-Lingual THREE HOUR EASTER VIGIL!

_

This of course is your opinion which you are entitled to, as is everyone else. A Solemn Mass has its place in the church I am sure, but is no more authentic worship than any other celebration of the Eucharist where more lively music is played.

I am sorry you did not enyoy “protestant worship” or “non catholic lyrics” whatever that may mean, many other Christians including many Catholics do!

As far as young people finding charismatic style worship boring, you obviously have not attended a teen mass lately! It also seems you have little exposure to non “gringo” Roman Catholics whose style of celebrating the mass can have many elements of “boring” charismatic style worship. Much modern Hispanic liturgical music is put out by Oregon Catholic Press and replete with Latin American and African rythms and melodies…no organs there!

I happen to like the easter Vigil… at Easter, but the fact is that my kids…19, 16 and 8 find the more traditional masses in our Anglican tradition …boring! They like the charismatic celebrations best. When we have had the occassion to visit the RCC they prefer livelier masses as do their teenage RC friends… wake up and smell the coffee!

You really have not commented on God’s taste…read Psalm 150… you know in the Bible!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Only an old person would say something so completely stupid and ignorant.

Hi there teenie:

At 44 I guess I am as old as the dinosaurs…but I do have kids who go to church and would not agree with your assesment here! By the way my mother is 70, she grew up on latin masses and does not like them either…according to her …" It sounds like a funeral in another language"…it must be a Hispanic thing!

God is “older than the hills” and he seems to have no problem at all with some of the things you object to…Psalm 150, 1 Corinthians 14…in the big book you know the Bible!

Blessings

Serafin +

 

[Arrowood]

John Of Cinci:

Many of the post on this thread are originating in the mind.

Way too much analyzing going on - make the journey from the mind to the heart. This is the longest, most dificult, most trying, most edifying journey one has to make. It is called dying to self. Cut the Spirit some slack!

The Gifts of the Spirit are real - - meant for all - - for all times. They do not reside in the head.

I must speak as a self-appointed “defender of the intellect.” Actually, the problem many of us are having may not be in failing to make the journey from the mind to the heart, but in focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. God wants us to come to Him with our whole selves. Exercising the intellect is a good thing to do with this topic as long as we don’t lose track of the rest of our nature, especially the heart (which is understood as the core of our being). To leave the intellect out would be dangerous, since God does call us to discern many things for ourselves. In the same way, to be purely intellectual without seeking God’s will through the Holy Spirit would be fruitless. We need it all!

 

[pnewton]

Jeff B, through the cyan maze pointed out correctly that many of us converts had to muck our way through understanding dogma, doctrine and discipline.

While I would never opt to attend a Charasmatic Mass, I am also slow to condemn them. Is not Jesus still present as substantially as he is at a more traditional Mass?

For those who believe in Latin only Masses:
Latin was not chosen for its great beauty or divinve origin. It was chosen for used because of its commonality. (Latin Vulgate-vulgar). Perhaps we could really go back to our roots and celebrate Mass in Aramaic. I am sure Jimmy Akin would be happy.

While guitars may not be the prefered instrument, they are permitted in my diocese and at my parish by those in authority to make the determination.

 

[Jeff_B]

pnewton:

Jeff B, through the cyan maze pointed out correctly that many of us converts had to muck our way through understanding dogma, doctrine and discipline.

While I would never opt to attend a Charasmatic Mass, I am also slow to condemn them. Is not Jesus still present as substantially as he is at a more traditional Mass?

For those who believe in Latin only Masses:
Latin was not chosen for its great beauty or divinve origin. It was chosen for used because of its commonality. (Latin Vulgate-vulgar). Perhaps we could really go back to our roots and celebrate Mass in Aramaic. I am sure Jimmy Akin would be happy.

While guitars may not be the prefered instrument, they are permitted in my diocese and at my parish by those in authority to make the determination.

Agreed on all points. I hope I am not misunderstood in any
way to be condemning on Charismatic worship, although I agree
with some on the abuse/misuse that can go on with that.

Good point on the use of Latin, and folks should understand your
point on why Latin was insisted on.

My only aim is to counter what some people where trying to
take issue on regarding what “mjs” was saying.

In Him

Jeff

 

[Mandi]

Jeff_B:

“Therefore, says Pius X, nothing should take place that would disturb or diminish the prayer and piety of the faithful. There should never be reasonable cause for disgust or scandal. Above all, he says, there should be nothing which directly offends the decorum and holiness of the liturgy. That would be unworthy of the house of prayer, of the majesty of God.”

The ticket here Jeff is that I have very rarely witness music done modern or contemporary that I could say could be compared to the “Sacred Arts” Lets look at the words of Pope Pius X , disturb, diminish, prayer, piety, decorum, holiness. Look around the next time you are in Church, 1st how high is the noise level, how many people are deep in prayer, what is the decorum to be found. I am grieved to the point of distraction at what is going on in the house of God. There is something definately missing and probably the abuse of “Sacred Music” has something to do with it. That which was Holy is no longer.

Here is another selection from Pope Pius X

Still, since modern music has come into being mainly to serve secular purposes, greater care must be taken with regard to it. This must be done so that contemporary musical compositions, allowed in church, will contain nothing profane, will be free from associations with melodies used in theaters, and will be not written in the style of secular pieces, even in their outward forms.

Now according to Pope Puis X music associated with theaters and the secular world do not belong in Churches. Have you ever heard “Morning has Broken” on the radio - I have, And I would never in a million years call that sacred. And I have also heard it sung in Church. What the Good Pope is saying is music used for entertainment can not be used for God! Period!

In the rules, all this is certainly charicterized and defined,
but even then, back in 1903 when this was written,
there were boundaries, but not limitations, such as:

“On the one hand, every country can admit its own native music forms into its compositions for church. On the other hand, these kinds of music must be subordinate to the general character of sacred music. This must be done in such a way that, on hearing the music, nobody of any other country would receive a negative impression”

Read carefully, native music is subordinate to sacred music, number one, number two “nobody of any other country would receive a negative impression”. When it comes to modern music the number who receive a negative impression is huge.

3 While he used the Gregorian chant as a model and ideal,​

the Pope in no way limited the style to that, in fact he spoke
of
" qualities [which] are also possessed in an excellent degree by classic polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the fifteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina. After his time, polyphony continued to contribute compositions of excellent quality, from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic polyphony is an admirable match for Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music."

“Gregorian Chant, is the supreme model of all sacred music” it is not the only, but all are to live up to it - “We are one in the spirit, we are one in the Lord” does not come close.

1. The Church has consistently favored the progress of the fine arts, but modern music is not “fine art” I beg you to give me a comparison piece of music to “O Sacred Head, surrounded” St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) Adaptation as given by J.S. Bach. You give me a modern song that compares to that and I’ll gladly sing it in Church.

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am nothing more then a fan of Classical music, I am not, my music of choice is Country, - which I would not define as “Sacred” either. I know nothing of Classical music, I can however recognize when I am listening to something Holy.

God Bless you all, as daily we move closer to Christ!

 

[beng]

John Of Cinci:

Yes! I am charismatic! I do not speak tongue - I pray in tougue.
I am thinking that Wisdon, Knowledge and Understanding would be some of the gifts the Holy Spirit would shower on a soul that praises God with music and joyful worship.

Do you pray in tongues out loud amongst fellow Catholics (or Christian)? (such as in prayer meeting etc)

 

[beng]

John Of Cinci:

Yes! I am charismatic! I do not speak tongue - I pray in tougue.
I am thinking that Wisdon, Knowledge and Understanding would be some of the gifts the Holy Spirit would shower on a soul that praises God with music and joyful worship.

One more thing,

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding only come after music and joyful worship???

Too bad for Thmas Aquinas who busy himself with books. To have knowledge, understanding and wisdom

 

[Jeff_B]

Hi Mandi,
No argument from me on any of the points you bring up.
In fact I had brought up those points to illustrate exactly what you
are saying.

There are plenty of “Christian” songs that simply do not belong
in a worship service. Morning Has Broken would be an example
and you have at least a couple or more of decades of songs
after that!

But on the other hand there are plenty of songs that do, or can
fit in perfectly in a service.

How about lyrics such as

YOU ARE HOLY, HOLY
LORD THERE IS NONE LIKE YOU
YOU ARE HOLY, HOLY
GLORY TO YOU ALONE
from (You are Holy) © 1995 Reuben Morgan, Hillsong Music Australia

ABOVE ALL POWERS
ABOVE ALL KINGS
ABOVE ALL NATURE
AND ALL CREATED THINGS
ABOVE ALL WISDOM
AND ALL THE WAYS OF MAN
YOU WERE HERE BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN

ABOVE ALL KINGDOMS
ABOVE ALL THRONES
ABOVE ALL WONDERS
THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN
ABOVE ALL WEALTH
AND TREASURES OF THE EARTH
THERE’S NO WAY TO MEASURE
WHAT YOU’RE WORTH

CRUCIFIED, LAID BEHIND A STONE
YOU LIVED TO DIE, REJECTED AND ALONE
LIKE A ROSE TRAMPLED ON THE GROUND
YOU TOOK THE FALL AND THOUGHT OF ME
ABOVE ALL
(Above All by Lenny Leblanc and Paul Baloche)

There are so many, and these are not necessarily the foremost
examples, and some may not rise to the level of
“sacred” but the point is, that not all music is secular
in the same sense that Morning Has Broken.
Songs ‘about’ God are not the same thing as songs
to God.
Another point I would restress, and it really echoes what
Pius X had said in his own way, is that even if the lyrics
are “correct” the presentation of the song must also be line
with proper worhsip, as well, and not distracting in any way,
and profaning the holiness of how we worship, never mind
who we worship.

In Him,
Jeff

 

[Jeff_B]

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am nothing more then a fan of Classical music, I am not, my music of choice is Country, - which I would not define as “Sacred” either. I know nothing of Classical music, I can however recognize when I am listening to something Holy.

Whether you realize it or not, you are still defining “holy”
by the style of music. My guess is if you didn’t hear something
in a similar style to what was done in Bach’s era, you would
probably be inclined not to ‘hear’ it as “sacred”.

Interestingly, Handel, Bach, and also Mozart had to overcome
similar barriers before their music was eventually accepted in
the church. The same debates when on back in those days
as well, including what was used for instrumentation.

Agan, it’s not the style, in of itself that should be the issue,
within obvious boundaries, of course!

God Bless,

Jeff

 

[Jeff_B]

Disclaimer!!
I have to get a little better at this. In the above post,
that first paragraph was a quote from Mandi…

Jeff

 

[Mandi]

To Jeff,

I kind of feel like we are butting heads and agreeing at the same time?:yup: :nope: .

Yes you are correct, I just wanted to point out that Handel, Bach and the likes have written many things and not all would be considered acceptable for Church. The only classical concert I have ever been to is Handel’s “Messieh” Here a concert (or whatever you call it) about the birth of Christ. - Not considered Church (sacred) music.

I guess the whole point I’d like to get across to people is that there are MAJOR abuses going on here. If any out there are choir directors or such please start looking into this, it is IMPORTANT! It has nothing to do with choice.

 

[Jeff_B]

Mandi:

To Jeff,

I kind of feel like we are butting heads and agreeing at the same time?:yup: :nope: .

Yes you are correct, I just wanted to point out that Handel, Bach and the likes have written many things and not all would be considered acceptable for Church. The only classical concert I have ever been to is Handel’s “Messieh” Here a concert (or whatever you call it) about the birth of Christ. - Not considered Church (sacred) music.

I guess the whole point I’d like to get across to people is that there are MAJOR abuses going on here. If any out there are choir directors or such please start looking into this, it is IMPORTANT! It has nothing to do with choice.

I wouldn’t exactly say we’re butting heads, the important points
are agreed on, I think. My point I guess, is that as long as
what is (I think) obviously important , and has been spelled out,
for instance by Pope PiusX, is adhered to, it’s still not style,
in of itself, that is the issue. If that were the case,
you wouldn’t be hearing Bach in the service even now.

We all need to be careful as to how and what we are discerning
in what the abuse actually is. And again, how God looks at
worship—he is looking first at the heart of the worshipper,
and that applies not just to musicians or choirs, but as well
to the congregants.

Personally, I refrain from using musicians, or singers, even with
the most exceptional talent, whose lives do not reflect a life of
worship. I know plenty of instances where those who serve in
that capacity, aren’t in some cases even Christians, yet
churches have no problem using them, simply because of their
natural talents. To me, that’s profane!

In Him,

Jeff

 

[Pastor_Aeternus]

I generally object to charismatic excesses as well as hand clapping and guitar-styled masses because they are disruptive and draw attention away from the Alter of God.

In paragraph no. 120 of *Sacrosanctum Concilium *[Vatican II - Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], we learn the pipe organ is “held in high esteem” and stakes its rightful claim as the Church’s “traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up men’s minds to God and higher things.” Other instruments, such as guitars, drums, etc., may only be admitted “for use in divine worship … only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use; that they accord with the dignity of the temple…”

Guitars, drums, etc. are instruments powerfully tied to the secular culture. When was the last time one of these instruments “powerfully lifted up your mind to God and higher things?” When utilized in the Mass (I have even seen them played on the alter!) and played in much the same way they would be in secular settings (around a camp fire or a rock concert) it makes my blood boil.

Suitable? Sacred? In accord with the dignity of the temple? Not hardly!

The Sacred Liturgy is not ours. It is foremost a sacrifice offered up to our Creator God, recalling that perfect gift – the sacrifice of His Beloved Son.

I hope to see a day when Catholics everywhere see fit to once again praise Him with only sacred music, by which I mean mankind’s most beautiful and time honored works of instrumental and vocal artistry. Good bye and so long guitars and electronic piano boards!

 

[jdemelo]

I ONLY attend Catholic Churches where this montanist movement has NO STRONGHOLD! Including on the priests there.

I dont agree. Always find it interesting that I have never met the kind of heretical charismatics that everyone else has run into.

 

[Mandi]

jdemelo:

I ONLY attend Catholic Churches where this montanist movement has NO STRONGHOLD! Including on the priests there.

It’s a funny thing when you can pick and choose what kind of Catholic religion you want to belong too… The Catholic Church is suppose to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTALIC. Jesus said you will be able to recognize the one true church by these 4 marks.

My question here and maybe this should become a new thread but can the Catholic Church still be called ONE?

 

[JimO]

I used to attend a fairly sedate Charismatic prayer group and got to know a lot of people in that movement. I must say that I have never been comfortable with bringing too much of the Charismatic experience into the Mass and I am currently not involved. However, I did benefit greatly from the experience in that I developed a deeper understanding of my relationship with Christ. I also developed a hunger for reading Scripture and I grew spiritually. Ultimately, the experience led me to a deeper love and appreciation for the Sacraments and the full experience of our Faith.

I did observe, however, that there was too much “freedom” in groups that did not have close pastoral oversight and this is why I believe that the Charismatic renewal has been shrinking in recent years. There is also a tendancy for emotions to get the better of those involved in Charismatic worship (another reason it probably doesn’t belong in the Mass). But, like any other movement in the Church there are always abuses. It doesn’t mean that the movement is not from God or that it doesn’t have a place in the Church. If you look around at many parishes, you will often find that the people who are most involved in the life of the parish have been touched in some way by the Charismatic renewal.

In general, I have found that many people experience an awakening of their faith through the Charismatic renewal that often leads them to a deeper appreciation of the Catholic Faith. Others, sadly, get caught up in “experiences” follow those “experiences” right out of the Church. This was the source of early criticism of the Charismatic renewal. But, those folks may have left the Church anyway, who’s to say. My point is that although I agree with you that Charismatic worship may not be appropriate for the Mass, I believe that the renewal has done much to build the Church through these difficult years. It has its place, even if that is outside the Mass, just like Scripture study, apologetics, praying the rosary and other elements of our faith experience.

 

[Mandi]

JimO:

 I believe that the renewal has done much to build the Church through these difficult years. It has its place, even if that is outside the Mass, just like Scripture study, apologetics, praying the rosary and other elements of our faith experience.

Sorry to sound sarcastic but if that renewal has helped build the Catholic Church it has done a pretty poor job. Catholics need to get back to being Catholic that is what will rebuild the Catholic church. It would do well for all to read the lives of the Saints in particular the Martyrs who wrote their Act of Faith with their blood. They were countless men and women of every race, nationality, class, occupation, station in life, age, and temperanment: Jews, Greeks, and Romans; rich and poor; patricians, freemen and slaves; doctors, scholars, soldiers, men of business, common laborers, popes, bishops, priests and deacons, virgins and the married; little children, youths, mature men and women, and the aged. When I compare these people with those of the Charismatic movement I see no resemblence of The Catholic Church! I could go on but I have no wish to offend, only to point out that what ever they (charimatics) are about - you can call it what ever you want but don’t call it Catholic!!