How's the Music?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathias64
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The point I am attempting to make is this: Our Mass is full of tradition and Scripture, and of course the Holy Eucharist. The rubics surrounding the Mass have been rather clearly established by the Vatican and then adapted to the US by our Council of Bishops. Ergo, a complete, acceptable, worship within the Mass occurs when we follow the current guidelines provided to us. Since there really is only one Mass, celebrated within these guidelines, it is, in its entirety, “sacred”.

So as others have opined, it is personal preference then that comes into play. That personal preference is often geographically, regionally determined. I may “like” one music type more than another, but as long as the venue is as described above…as my son says…“it’s ALL good”. Some of the posts within this forum seem to go way beyond personal preference and cast degrading comments on venues totally within the Bishops guidelines…why?

Peace
bruce
While I know you were not addressing me directly, I hope I have not said anything that you find to be a “degrading comment”.

Yes, personal preference does have a place within the musical selection for the Liturgy, but that personal preference does not mean the each form of music is of equal value. For example, we have both forms of music that are proper and preferred (and here I speak of the Church) and we also have music that is acceptable and allowed.

The OP asked what music is proper for the Liturgy, to which the Church herself replies that chant is the music proper for her Liturgy. Having said that the Church also allows other forms of music to be used, (within certain guidelines of course.) That is the main distinction I am trying to draw here.
 
The documents and what they mean is one thing and the actual experience of people going to mass is another. The fact is that there is tremendous variation out there, from which, I conclude, that tremendous variation is permitted.

That you might want to change this is another matter. I think you are more likely to persuade people on criteria such as excellent music, traditional, integral part of the mass, sing-able, etc., than trying to use quotations. Clearly, documents don’t enforce themselves.
JHOW, I salute you. For all, IMO one of the main reasons the Catholic Church is WAY behind in evangelization is its haughtiness & refusal to meet the people where they live. This is no more evident than in the area of music. Let’s face it, the vast majority of us have a very “Jesus centric” view (which is what Jesus requires). I think that’s a good thing. We live and breathe and work in a modern world, and the churches we compete with for members know the secret. GET THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE DOOR AND THEN FEED THEM ! The issue is communication. Contemporary music speaks a language the people understand & thus attracts them to the Church. Music that works, works, period. It’s a vehicle. Chant is good but it’s generally not effective as a tool for evangelization. Any music that praises God and invites people to worship is good and I think, is blessed. The overwhelming success of the Lifeteen program and The Edge proves this point. You grown ups may not like it but - rock & roll are here to stay (joke;).

Relax - it’s all about Jesus anyway.
 
IMO one of the main reasons the Catholic Church is WAY behind in evangelization is its haughtiness & refusal to meet the people where they live.
And IMO, the main reasons are the extreme ignorance of the majority of Catholics when it comes to the Faith, (as well as the general lack of holiness of most of us as well.)
GET THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE DOOR AND THEN FEED THEM !
There is far too much of this going on as it is. I have witnessed far too many RCIA programs with this type of mentality bringing people into the Church who neither know, nor care to know, (and often times disagree) with the teachings of the Church. These are the same people who tend to leave the Church later on, or spread misinformation and dissent from within (which is far worse.) What we need is quality, not quantity, (though through quality the numbers will eventually come.)
The overwhelming success of the Lifeteen program
We could argue about said “success” of the LifeTeen program, but that is for another thread.
 
While I know you were not addressing me directly, I hope I have not said anything that you find to be a “degrading comment”.

Yes, personal preference does have a place within the musical selection for the Liturgy, but that personal preference does not mean the each form of music is of equal value. For example, we have both forms of music that are proper and preferred (and here I speak of the Church) and we also have music that is acceptable and allowed.

The OP asked what music is proper for the Liturgy, to which the Church herself replies that chant is the music proper for her Liturgy. Having said that the Church also allows other forms of music to be used, (within certain guidelines of course.) That is the main distinction I am trying to draw here.
No offense taken from any poster…I just like sometimes to remind folks that we can tend to get away from decorum, when we are not face to face. You actually have clarified my point even more. Now, not from the Vatican II perspective…but perhaps more importantly the US Catholic Church’s actual, real world implementation of the guidelines, what would we say the “preferred” venue is? Is it not that which the faithful come together around, that participate assertively in, that praise joyously to God?

I understand the references to The Church as in the Magisterium. All well in good. Yet, as we all know the “real” church is comprised of the faithful, and their adapting the Magisterium’s teachings. There is Dogma, that we MUST believe, and general guidance that the essentially Italian Magisterium would LIKE us to practice preferentially.

I submit that the actual practices taken by the faithful…i.e. the church of the people, is the “preferred”, and “acceptable” application of it all. I further submit that this preferred venue is greatly different in Italy, Africa, Mexico, The Eastern Church, and the American Catholic Church. Each, in my humble opinion, is maximizing praise to God in a way that engages them most completely while still following their Bishops guidelines.
 
No offense taken from any poster…I just like sometimes to remind folks that we can tend to get away from decorum, when we are not face to face. You actually have clarified my point even more. Now, not from the Vatican II perspective…but perhaps more importantly the US Catholic Church’s actual, real world implementation of the guidelines, what would we say the “preferred” venue is? Is it not that which the faithful come together around, that participate assertively in, that praise joyously to God?

I understand the references to The Church as in the Magisterium. All well in good. Yet, as we all know the “real” church is comprised of the faithful, and their adapting the Magisterium’s teachings. There is Dogma, that we MUST believe, and general guidance that the essentially Italian Magisterium would LIKE us to practice preferentially.

I submit that the actual practices taken by the faithful…i.e. the church of the people, is the “preferred”, and “acceptable” application of it all. I further submit that this preferred venue is greatly different in Italy, Africa, Mexico, The Eastern Church, and the American Catholic Church. Each, in my humble opinion, is maximizing praise to God in a way that engages them most completely while still following their Bishops guidelines.
I see what you are trying to get across, but I disagree with your conclusions. In fact, even the US documents point out that the preferred and proper music for Liturgical services is chant. The fact that there was a great divergence from the council (and documents that have come since then) does not then nullify said documents nor does it now make contemporary music (for example) to be the “pride of place”, (even though it would appear this is what a large percentage of the music ministers in the US have done.

The Magisterium has spoken out clearly that chant is to be given pride of place. The Church isn’t a Democracy.
 
And IMO, the main reasons are the extreme ignorance of the majority of Catholics when it comes to the Faith, (as well as the general lack of holiness of most of us as well.)

There is far too much of this going on as it is. I have witnessed far too many RCIA programs with this type of mentality bringing people into the Church who neither know, nor care to know, (and often times disagree) with the teachings of the Church. These are the same people who tend to leave the Church later on, or spread misinformation and dissent from within (which is far worse.) What we need is quality, not quantity, (though through quality the numbers will eventually come.)

We could argue about said “success” of the LifeTeen program, but that is for another thread.
This attitude defines my point. It appears that you view Cathiolicism as an elete club. When I converted, I freely admitted at my first confession that I just could not wrap my mind around the concept of Mary having such status. My confessor (an 80-year-old priest who had seen it all) alayed my fears by telling me that accepting Mary was by far the biggest leap for most converts and that for MOST of the hundreds of people for whom he had heard first confession, it only came with time & prayer. In my case, lots of both. It took neary six years. Frankly, your “quality over quantity” statement is one of the most Catholically arrogant statements I have ever heard. It appears that what you fear most is the idea of “outsiders” stealing your peace. Got good news; it cannot be stolen by any mortal, but you can give it away.

As for Lifeteen, I am open to debate at any time. My band did mass every Sunady afternoon for 2 years when we cranked up the program here. I saw worship in that environment that I never thought possible. In my experience, those who do not like it never will, so perhaps all we could do is trade blows. Not exactly productive. It’s success is not even ours to judge.
 
This attitude defines my point. It appears that you view Cathiolicism as an elete club. When I converted, I freely admitted at my first confession that I just could not wrap my mind around the concept of Mary having such status. My confessor (an 80-year-old priest who had seen it all) alayed my fears by telling me that accepting Mary was by far the biggest leap for most converts and that for MOST of the hundreds of people for whom he had heard first confession, it only came with time & prayer. In my case, lots of both. It took neary six years. Frankly, your “quality over quantity” statement is one of the most Catholically arrogant statements I have ever heard. It appears that what you fear most is the idea of “outsiders” stealing your peace. Got good news; it cannot be stolen by any mortal, but you can give it away.

As for Lifeteen, I am open to debate at any time. My band did mass every Sunady afternoon for 2 years when we cranked up the program here. I saw worship in that environment that I never thought possible. In my experience, those who do not like it never will, so perhaps all we could do is trade blows. Not exactly productive. It’s success is not even ours to judge.
FYI, I am a convert as well, but now that this is out of the way, let me address the two bolded statements above. I absolutely do not view the Church as some sort of “elite club”, but rather as the Mystical Body of Christ, of Whom the Lord is its Head and we are the Body. She is no mere human institution, despite the sinful human beings who comprise her in this world, but His sacrament, Bride and very Body. She is the Kingdom of God, visible in human history, already but not yet perfected in heaven. A love of “our Mother and Teacher” the Church should be fostered at every level, not primarily as an istitution, but as a holy mystery to be contemplated, loved, and suffered for.

But I digress, if you have ever read any of our current Holy Father’s writings on the issue you would see that Pope Benedict has spoken of a smaller, more faithful Church as perhaps the model of the Church for these perilous times, not unlike the early Church in its intense solidarity. “Getting people through the door” at the expense of the truth does nobody any favors, in fact all it does is spread a cancer through the Body of Christ, rather we need people to come to the Faith because it is the Truth, and because they wholeheartedly believe it. Those who come into the Church for ulterior motives risk very great danger on their own souls as well as the souls of others, through scandal, dissension, heresy, or other similar dangers.

“…two generations of us now have a very poor knowledge both of the Catholic Faith and of Jesus Christ. A religious illiteracy and ignorance pervades many sectors of the Church; it is an open wound in her side. We need a solid, systematic, and comprehensive catechesis, not eschewing “what” and “how,” but also answering also “why,” faithful to the entire Deposit of Faith and the Church’s Magisterium, forming both head and heart.” Ecclesia Semper Reformanda October 15, 2009

I am convinced with Pope John Paul the Great that the “the more the Church, whether on the local or the universal level, gives catechesis priority over other works and undertakings, the results of which would be more spectacular, the more she finds in catechesis a strengthening of her internal life as a community of believers and of her external activity as a missionary Church.”

I take it serious because the Church Herself takes it serious, and because all of our very souls are at stake. Remember, it was Christ Himself that said the road to salvation is narrow, and difficult, and few that are on it, and that the road to perdition is wide, and easy, and many who are on it.
 
…I am convinced with Pope John Paul the Great that the “the more the Church, whether on the local or the universal level, gives catechesis priority over other works and undertakings, the results of which would be more spectacular, the more she finds in catechesis a strengthening of her internal life as a community of believers and of her external activity as a missionary Church.”…
If you agree with this as the solution, then the root of the problem is also obvious (even if it can’t be spoken about), but it is most certainly not the “diluting” effect of a stampede of converts.
 
If you agree with this as the solution, then the root of the problem is also obvious (even if it can’t be spoken about), but it is most certainly not the “diluting” effect of a stampede of converts.
Will you enlighten those of us for whom it is not obvious?
 
If you agree with this as the solution, then the root of the problem is also obvious (even if it can’t be spoken about), but it is most certainly not the “diluting” effect of a stampede of converts.
I never said anything about a “diluting effect” at all, nor did I imply it in the least. Rather I said the “Get them in the door, then feed them…” was an improper and bad idea for the reasons already stated. A stampede of good converts would be a great thing, however a stampede of false converts is most certainly NOT a good thing, (and a person “converting” for anything other than the truth is certainly a false “convert”.)

Some examples I have personally witnessed from local RCIA classes:
  1. Catechumen: “Do I have to believe in God to become Catholic, because I still don’t…?”
    Priest: Oh, I’m sure she believes, so no need to stop her from getting baptized. (One month before Easter no less…)
  2. Gay lover 1 sponsors gay lover 2 into the Church…openly.
  3. Me: “So what made you decide to become Catholic?”
    Catechumen: “Oh, well, my wife is Catholic, so I thought I’d give in for the kids sake…but I don’t believe in most of that stuff anyway.” (This happens ALL THE TIME!!)
There are so many more stories just like these that happen because the people leading these RCIA programs have the “Let’s just get them in the Church…” mentality. Or perhaps worse yet, the sponsors and RCIA instructors themselves don’t believe it themselves (yet another product of poor catechesis.)
 
I never said anything about a “diluting effect” at all, nor did I imply it in the least…
You’re right, you mentioned “cancer”… like small deadly cells growing a tumor, until it spreads throughout the whole body. A much stronger metaphor than dilution. My quotes were irony quotes, by the way, not quoted speech.
Some examples I have personally witnessed from local RCIA classes:
Your examples are pretty bad, I’ll give you that.

What does any of this have to do with music? If you don’t want to “get them in the door and then feed them”, you would prefer to “feed them and them bring then in the door?”
 
You’re right, you mentioned “cancer”… like small deadly cells growing a tumor, until it spreads throughout the whole body. A much stronger metaphor than dilution. My quotes were irony quotes, by the way, not quoted speech.
Indeed, cancer fits what I referring to, while dilution has a completely different connotation.

If you want to get a better idea of how misinformation inside the Church is exactly like cancer inside the Body of Christ, please read Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
Your examples are pretty bad, I’ll give you that.
Indeed.
What does any of this have to do with music?
You may want to read back several posts to where the digression took place, you should be able to follow it from there. (For brevity it was back when Mathias64 was objecting to what he believes are the Church’s inadequacies when it comes to evangelization.)
If you don’t want to “get them in the door and then feed them”, you would prefer to “feed them and them bring then in the door?”
What I would prefer to do is teach the truth. Those who who seek the truth will convert. I don’t want to just tickle everyone’s fancy, and pass over the harder and “less agreeable” parts of the Faith just to get a bunch of numbers, as it does more harm than good to everyone involved.
 
What I would prefer to do is teach the truth. Those who who seek the truth will convert. I don’t want to just tickle everyone’s fancy, and pass over the harder and “less agreeable” parts of the Faith just to get a bunch of numbers, as it does more harm than good to everyone involved.
It is good to teach the truth. We should always teach the truth.

Remember that the rubrics do not forbid the use of contemporary music in the Mass. So there is not conflict between “teaching the truth” and “using the Gather hymnal.”

You have to get people to a point where they are willing to sit down and listen to the truth. If they won’t even walk through the door, then you won’t have any success trying to teach them.

That’s where contemporary or traditional praise music can really help. It can provide a “bridge” for people to cross into the church building. It can help some people relax. It can give some people a starting place to return to the Church and begin learning what they never internalized back when they were children in the CCD classes.

For some people, contemporary music that speaks to them in modern language and style can be the beginning of a healing from a church “injury”; some of these people have a difficult time facing “traditional” Catholic practices, including music, because that’s the music that was happening back when they went through “something bad” in their parish. Chant makes them have flashbacks, while a pleasant contemporary melody and vernacular lyrics helps them to see the Church and Jesus in a fresh way.

I think a lot of Christians, even “damaged” Christians, eventually “move on,” so to speak, and develop a tolerance for and even a love of more traditional forms of Christian music. But they need to be eased into it, and that’s OK. But baby steps! A baby doesn’t just get up and start walking. They spend months developing all the muscles and nerves necessary for the skill of walking. Same for Christians. We shouldn’t criticize people who simply aren’t ready for a foreign language and songs with no regular rhythms or melodies.

I’m sure you’ve met them–people who shake their heads and grimace when you mention the words “classical music” or “traditional music.” In the U.S., people have extremely strong preferences for music, including music in their churches. Many Catholics have not grown up in happy church situations in their family (either too conservative or too liberal), and have not been well-catechized, and they don’t realize that personal preference has nothing to do with the liturgy.

*We have to start where these folks are right now, not where we are right now. * You might be a very mature Catholic Christian with an excellent background of catechesis, a disciplined life in which Mass is the center of your existence, and an extensive knowledge of the rubrics. But most people in the Church are no where near that level of maturity yet! Maturity doesn’t happen all at once. It’s a gradual process, and we simply have to accept people at whatever place they are in their “growing up.”

And sadly, many Catholics are at a point in their “growing up” where they won’t even darken the door of a Catholic Church! You can’t teach truth to such immature people. So yes, it’s very appropriate and very charitable to plot evangelistic strategies to “get them through the church doors,” or at least, get them to a hoome Bible study (Catholics) or a social event (e.g., a concert) that is meant to incite interest in the Catholic Church.

And to that end, Christian contemporary music can be very useful.

And since the rubrics do not disallow contemporary music in the Mass, it is appropriate to incorporate it into the Mass with the hopes of reaching out to those Christians who need a little help (or a lot of help) to fully embrace the Catholic Church.

Yes, I know that the Mass is not an “evangelistic meeting,” but the reality is in the United States that the Mass is often the ONLY opportunity that Catholics have to try to get relatives and friends who are estranged from the Catholic Church interested in returing to the Catholic Church. E.g., Dad and Mom can often convince a wayward child to “please come to Mass with us since it’s Dad’s birthday” or something like that. And so since the rubrics allow contemporary music in the Mass, it makes sense to include it so that perhaps that wayward child might just sit up and listen instead of slumping down in the pew and enduring.

Think of it as a hospitality issue. When you invite someone to your house, you do what you can to make them comfortable. You don’t change all your decor or buy new furniture or throw out all your favorite foods and replace them with your guests’ favoriates. But you do what you can. E.g., if you know that your guests despise country music, you don’t play Hank Williams and Johnny Cash on your stereo system during the dinner party!

I hope this post is helpful and useful.
 
It is good to teach the truth. We should always teach the truth.

Remember that the rubrics do not forbid the use of contemporary music in the Mass. So there is not conflict between “teaching the truth” and “using the Gather hymnal.”

You have to get people to a point where they are willing to sit down and listen to the truth. If they won’t even walk through the door, then you won’t have any success trying to teach them. …
…
…

I hope this post is helpful and useful.
I shortened your posted for the sake of brevity. 🙂

Perhaps you came into this thread a bit late, but it seems as though you may have overlooked a couple of things, judging by your response. First, I have mentioned several times in my posts that I realize that the use of contemporary music is not forbidden, (nor am I advocating such), secondly, my posting on the issue of evangelization was a digression I followed on from another poster (Matthias64 particularly), and lastly, you may be misinterpreting the whole “get them in the door” phraseology. What I was referring to about “getting people in the door/Church” was specifically about baptizing people who knew/believed/assented to very little about the Faith, but are brought in anyway because of this mentality.

I do want to thank you, however, for a rather polite and lengthy response, but I feel as though it was not really addressing my intention, (hence my response in the previous paragraph.) 🙂
 
Cat: yourt statement, “We must meet them where they are, not where WE are.” is the whole thing in a nutshell.

While I feel sad for the legalists who favor “Fortress Catholica”, I am equallity lifted by those with missionary hearts.

Ever heard these things? “Catholics do not know how to sing, or have no spirit, or don’t know how to evangelize”. Well, that’s where we (all pof us) should come in. Case & point: Yesterday, my band and I played praise & worship music mixed in with Christmas music for 2 hours a “feed the hungry” event. There were maybe 30 families there. Most of them ignored us & left soon as they were finished - but- 2 people stayed on even into the clean-up, to watch and listen. At the end, they asked what church we were from. Well, in actuallity, we represent 3 different parishes - but to those people, we were The Catholic Church. They (who admitted to not attending ANY church) promised to come to St. Bart’s to “check it out”. OK - so will they actually show up? Not my problem.The door has been opened. And I know that regardless of how anyone feels about it, if we lead this couple to experience Christ, then our job was done. Of course, I know the next step for them would be RCIA, but frankly, they are probably miles away from being ready for that. Meanwhile, we will meet & accept them personally, seat them over near us (the choir) on Sunday & share our love as they start to learn that the Church loves THEM too. May we will start by explaining what Advent is. And, while we take communion, they can certainly pray and be granted a seat at the table as they start there journey toward full-communion.
 
While I feel sad for the legalists who favor “Fortress Catholica”, I am equallity lifted by those with missionary hearts…
I too am lifted by people with “missionary hearts”, which our parish has a very percentage of (due to the small in number and missionary nature of our parish). To date, however, I have yet to meet a Catholic who I could describe as a “legalist who favors ‘Fortress Catholica’”, (although I have a feeling you are likely directing this at me, but if that’s the case I forgive your misunderstanding. ;))
 
Amazing how the early missionaries on this continent converted so many thousands, when their typical liturgy consisted of only the Traditional Latin Mass.

Depending on the entertainment value of rock or other popular music to attract and hold converts will only last until a better band with better music comes along in another church down the road somewhere.
 
The partially vernacular Asperges you linked is fascinating.
Do you have any indication that they used the vernacular for the Mass itself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top