Is guitar music OK at Mass?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Who is calling for a “negation” of anything save for those calling for abolition of guitars?

You did when you wrote:

I am afraid I must reject your argument as a false dichotomy. The negation of chant does not mean the only thing left to sing is Kum-bay-yah.

Oh, so this is about what you like, not about what is liturgically sound. I understand you now…

Yes I do like it. But, besides that, it is most fitting for the Liturgy. To say that the rich patrimony that has nourished (and still continues to nourish in some parishes - thank God) the Church (in all Her rites) for over 1000 years is liturgically unsound is ridiculous to say the least. What is liturgically unsound is the mass of kumbayyahish and (the majority of) praise and worship drivel that has infected the Mass in the past few decades.

Simply put, it means communicating in a mode that people understand, that they can relate to.

And why is this so utterly important. Other than the fact that you think so poorly of your fellow man that you don’t believe that he can comprehend what his ancestors did (who were most likely less educated than him to begin with), why is there such a move to focus on the people instead of on God?

Whoa, that’s quite a fruit salad you’ve got there with all thos apples and oranges in the same bowl. Although there is rich value in anachronistic music, in the realm of liturgical effectiveness, such value has diminished somewhat. NOT by any fault of the music, which indeed is timeless, but by our vernacular slipping ever further away from that particular mode. Still, there settings where such music could be made more effective but they are quite grand and require more money and talent that 95% of parishes can muster.
It is analogous to “Elizabethean English”. Even many avid theater-goers have difficultly understanding Shakespeare and only the most learned students of the Bard will pick up his nuances of language. Were you or I to conduct ourselves in our day to day lives speaking like Falstaff or Hamlet or Titania, we would create such a disconnect with our peers that communication would suffer. Still, when done correctly, Shakespeare’s plays are still held up as the pinnacle of English Theater. But when done poorly it is an unintentional farce.

Again, I don’t know why you (and a good host of others) think so poorly of people that you doubt their intelligence.

I also, in previous posts, acknowledged this similar cultural problem. I don’t think that the degradation and disintegration of culture should have a bearing on this - and I also showed how the Church has failed in Her duty to actively create a Catholic culture.

“…and he will hold his manhood cheap who did not fight with us on St. Crispin’s Day!” Why such a call to arms? Why, too, do you seem to imply a termination date for the Church’s musical tradition? Do you do the same for the Magisterium or any other aspect of the Church?

Ah, we few, we happy few - we band of brothers!

What do you mean a termination date for the Church’s musical tradition? The sludge that has been produced in the past few decades most certainly is not a part of the musical tradition of the Church. I doubt that most of the junk from before the late nineties is even regularly played anymore as new junk has taken its place for the fickle appetites of the entertained congregation. The only termination date is the one where enemies of the Church had (almost successfully) tried to murder the rich patrimony of music in the Church - and that occur, at its zenith - during the seventies and eighties.

And what do you mean by the same for the Magisterium? I don’t know if it was in this thread or another, but it was discussed and the Magisterium (up until recently) has been eerily silent on the issues of music and musical instruments. While most of the Bishops had given tacit approval by their silent permissiveness, they for the most part were silent on what was and wasn’t allowed. And if you read the documents, to veer from the norm of Gregorian Chant/Polyphony/Sacred Hymns and plain voice or accompanied by organ required the explicit approval of the Bishop - which for the most part wasn’t granted. It should also be noted that while Bishops have a wide margin of competence in this realm, it does have its limits - first and foremost the limit of common sense.

 

[benedictgal]

I would like to try to put chant into the repertiore at my parish, but have not found the resources to do so effectively. In particular, I would like to have a setting of the entrance antiphons for the four weeks of Advent that the choir (and effentually the assembly!) could sing those Sundays.

Last year someone in the forums recommended a book that had these in the Gregorian chant. My choir found them very difficult to learn though and objected to the fact that they were in Latin.

So, I thought that I could take the English and fit it to the chant itself. But that didn’t work too well. Of course, the problem is that if you have music and try to fit the words to it, you are serving the music and not the words. For me though, the words are the primary element. So, now, in order to get this task done, it seems that I need to learn how to compose chant in the Gregorian style. I am completely at a loss as to how to gain that skill.

Oh the whoa’s of a semi-talented choir leader.

Oh, yes and I would accompany the chant with a simple setting on … guitar!
Have a great Sunday!

Actually, chant should not be accompanied by a guitar. It should be done accapella (forgive spelling). I find your statement that the choir thought that chant was too hard to learn. Our children’s choir used to sing plainsong chants such as O Come, O Come Emmanuel, Attende Domine and Creator of the Stars of Night, and many of them found it a lot easier to work with this setting than the multiple-note stuff that is out there today. When we explained the history behind this music, it piqued their interest. Plus, our rector would come up and help us teach it to them.

There are some beautiful pieces that can be performed without accompaniment. I think that the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy also noted that musical instrumentation should only be used to sustain music during penitential seasons (we often forget that Advent falls under that category). So, a more subdued guitar would work with the hymns. It would not work with chant. I can say this with exprience because a well-meaning musician strummed O Come, O Come louder than an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo and it killed it.

 

[Guitar]

So, a more subdued guitar would work with the hymns. It would not work with chant. I can say this with exprience because a well-meaning musician strummed O Come, O Come louder than an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo and it killed it.

So again, as in the other thread and the Ave Maria, you have heard one musician (“musician”?) do something completely inappropriate with a piece (and a volume knob) and this is therefore proof that his instrument is by definition incapable of accompanying that music under any circumstances? I apologise if I misunderstand you, but that seems to be what you are saying.

Guitar accompaniment can and does work with some, repeat some, chants. I prefer my chant unaccompanied too, being a paid-up member of the early music movement, but Veni Emmanuel is one that we accompany where “necessary” with “subdued” guitar, which works very well even without the optional violin, cello and oboe parts to go with it that we slot in where possible. Many other chants I would not even think about it, but for that one (and I can say this with experience), it works.

 

[FAB]

As a cantor, songleader and guitarist in mass, this thread sounds like one of personal preference. The guitar and instruments like it are very old. I even believe that Silent Night was origianlly composed to be played on a guitar. The liturgical text allow for the use of many musical instruments. Since in the Hispanic culture, guitars are widly the norm, then it is perfectly acceptible. In youth mass, the use of the guitars would much more relate to that group than say organ music. The instrument is not the issue but the style of music. Rap, rock, secular songs would not be appropiate in most cases since the music would not, in most cases add to the liturgy. Most music minsters will tell you that this problem mostly arrises at wedding ceremonies. “Stairway to Heaven” would not be appropriate. Even the “Wedding March” so widely used, is of questionable origins.
The new missal for the mass will apparently address the songs allowed, but believe guitars will still be allowed.

Peace,FAB

 

[luswife]

1. Given the nature of Sunday Mass and its importance in the lives of the faithful, it must be prepared with special care. In ways dictated by pastoral experience and local custom in keeping with liturgical norms, efforts must be made to ensure that the celebration has the festive character appropriate to the day commemorating the Lord’s Resurrection. To this end, it is important to devote attention to the songs used by the assembly, since singing is a particularly apt way to express a joyful heart, accentuating the solemnity of the celebration and fostering the sense of a common faith and a shared love. Care must be taken to ensure the quality, both of the texts and of the melodies, so that what is proposed today as new and creative will conform to liturgical requirements and be worthy of the Church’s tradition which, in the field of sacred music, boasts a priceless heritage.

A quote from the Blessed John Paul II on the importance of music in the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. Notice the emphasis on FESTIVE
I think that as leaders of music we should focus on selecting music the people can sing. The Eucharist is a celebration and whatever fosters the their full participation is wonderful. All things work to the glory of God- even guitars.

 

[brotherhrolf]

As a cantor, songleader and guitarist in mass, this thread sounds like one of personal preference. The guitar and instruments like it are very old. I even believe that Silent Night was origianlly composed to be played on a guitar. The liturgical text allow for the use of many musical instruments. Since in the Hispanic culture, guitars are widly the norm, then it is perfectly acceptible. In youth mass, the use of the guitars would much more relate to that group than say organ music. The instrument is not the issue but the style of music. Rap, rock, secular songs would not be appropiate in most cases since the music would not, in most cases add to the liturgy. Most music minsters will tell you that this problem mostly arrises at wedding ceremonies. “Stairway to Heaven” would not be appropriate. Even the “Wedding March” so widely used, is of questionable origins.
The new missal for the mass will apparently address the songs allowed, but believe guitars will still be allowed.

Peace,FAB

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am of Acadian ancestry. There are no Missa Chank-a-chank. Dance music was dance music and not to be confused with music for Mass. There were no mariachi Masses before 1967 (at the earliest) Silent NIght by the way was played upon the guitar because the organ had broken - which is not the same as saying it was composed for guitar.

I’m having trouble with my browser so I can’t provide you with a specific link. However, if you will go to Amazon and type in SAVAE (San Antonio Vocal Arts Ensemble) and "cuban baroque, it doesn’t sound like anything that comes our of the San Antonio Cathedral on Sunday morning.

Guitars are no more intrinsic to Hispanic culture than they are to Irish or Cajun culture. Our ancestors did not sing along with guitars. It’s new…1967 or beyond.

 

[Strummer]

Well, JMJ, I’ll grant you the introduction of “negation” was mine. I was trying to tie my post to yours thematically in the first use and should have used perhaps “substitution” instead.

Yes I do like it. But, besides that, it is most fitting for the Liturgy. To say that the rich patrimony that has nourished (and still continues to nourish in some parishes - thank God) the Church (in all Her rites) for over 1000 years is liturgically unsound is ridiculous to say the least.

Still the bulk of your argument is essentially two part: 1) the really old stuff is practically the only thing worth hearing in Mass; hardly anything of value has been created in the last 100 years or so AND 2) Strummer thinks people or too stupid to appreciate that good music of yester-century.

To your first point: you are, by definition, referring to classics which become so because they were great and well-appreciated even in their own time such that they become…well, timeless. Rest assured there is plenty of music from those times that just didn’t make the cut. The same goes for the music of today. But even in playing SOME of the less-than-great music of today (assuming quality musicianship), I hold that we have a better chance of enriching the Mass experience for more people than would an *exclusively *“ancient traditions” liturgical music Mass. Which leads us to your second point…

And why is this so utterly important. Other than the fact that you think so poorly of your fellow man that you don’t believe that he can comprehend what his ancestors did (who were most likely less educated than him to begin with), why is there such a move to focus on the people instead of on God?

Again, I don’t know why you (and a good host of others) think so poorly of people that you doubt their intelligence.

It is NOT a question of “intelligence” so I will not be partaking of your delicious sounding red herring. It is a question of communication. Were someone to come up to you off the street and start evangelizing in say Russian or Portuguese or Mandarin or even Olde English, you might pick out a few words and maybe catch the gist of what they’re trying to say to you but it would not be effective communication. Music is a form of “language” in a sense and certain modes communicate better to people of a particular time and place than others, generally speaking. However, this is not to say that the sublime beauty of some of the “ancient” traditions you’ve cited might not also reach “modern” people on *some *level. But that would be as an audience member and not as a participant in the prayer which is the aim of liturgical music.

What do you mean a termination date for the Church’s musical tradition?

You answered that yourself…

The sludge that has been produced in the past few decades …The only termination date is … the seventies and eighties.

And what do you mean by the same for the Magisterium?

Finally, my question regarding you possibly putting time limits on the Magisterium is in reference to you stating that there is no liturgically sound music after X date. If one can state such in that regard, I wonder if one might hold a similar opinion of the Church in general. Strict adherence to tradition in one integral area tends to lead to similar thought in other areas as well.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Strummer: Please tell me who is writing music today (besides John Rutter) who can equal Durufle, Howell, Faure or even, gee, the anonymous composers of Taize.? All within the last century.

Sure there was music that didn’t make the cut. Our choir director every few years pulls out a 1923 copy of “Our Lady of Guadalupe” for the choir to sight-sing. We’ve never been able to make it through the entire hymn without gales of laughter.

Tell me, please. What music of today reaches what Durufle, Howell, and Faure wrote?

 

[Sarabande]

Tell me, please. What music of today reaches what Durufle, Howell, and Faure wrote?

Harold Boatrite. He is a 20th/21st century composer of secular and sacred works and is well-respected by people in the classical music world. He is Curtis graduate and his compositions are performed in the secular realms as well as during mass when we’ve attended Trid Latin masses at one of the parishes in our area. (We also had one of his works played at our wedding mass which was an NO mass.) My husband used to take composition lessons from him. The man is brilliant and is also a very devout Catholic (convert from the Episcopal church).

The Mater Ecclesiae website has an example of his work on their home page. It’s an “Ave Maria” setting:

materecclesiae.org/

Unfortunately, you rarely hear his works in a regular NO mass. Granted, you need good musicians to perform his works, so that is probably one of the reasons why.

 

[pilgrimR]

I think that as leaders of music we should focus on selecting music the people can sing. The Eucharist is a celebration and whatever fosters the their full participation is wonderful. All things work to the glory of God- even guitars.

I agree with you on this point. In my role as choir director for one of the Masses each week at my parish I choose music primarily from two perspectives:

1. Music that will honor and glorify God and lift the hearts of the faithful from the mundane and secular to the contemplation of Him.
2. Music that the assembly at this particular Mass can identify as their own prayer. This one is hard for me to put into words. At Mass, we pray the Church’s prayer of praise to God through the sacrifice of Jesus. We also add our own prayers, those desires put into the inmost parts of our souls by God Himself in union with Christ. If the hymns used at Mass resonate with those desires, then I have successfully served God in the music calling He has given me.

Over the top of these elements, I add the theme that the Church is bringing forth from the Scripture readings and antiphons assigned for the week.

If I find one or both of those two elements in harmony with the readings in the rich musical tradition of the Church in an accessible hymn, then I use it. Otherwise, I fall back on what is practical on this particular week and choose what is next best from the more recently composed music.

I have found using these principles that we do have lively participation of the faithful in attendance. I have to conclude that my mission for that week has been a success.

Whether or not I agree with the direction that main stream liturgical music has taken in the last 40-50 years, the fact remains that the assembly I worship with prefers to pray with that music. It is also a fact that many of this particular assembly find it very difficult to pray when the music is lead by the organ, because of the inadequacies of our particular organist when it comes to leading the assembly. I can’t imagine how worship in Spirit and Truth would come about if half the assembly are mumbling under their breath about how hard it is to sing with this accompaniment!

At the same time, I do understand how others find it hard to offer worship when accompanied by guitar. Fortunately, most parishes give the parishioners the opportunity to attend the liturgy featuring their choice of accompaniment.

To those of you who do not believe that music lead by guitar is proper, are you in the situation where you have no choice but to attend liturgies lead with that instrument? Or do you think that the people who do attend those liturgies are not truly worshiping God? I agree with you that the ideal would be that we all worship with full throated singing of Gregorian chant sustained as needed by the king of instruments. But I do not live in an ideal world (or parish).

Peace In Christ!

 

[pnewton]

Boy, I wish I had the luxury of being picky about the type of liturgical music we have. I do not know if my parish is unique, but reading this thread, I wonder if I am the only one out there that has a problem finding musicians. For me, the over-riding problemis finding anyony capable of leading singing and just making sure we follow all the required instructions.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Still the bulk of your argument is essentially two part: 1) the really old stuff is practically the only thing worth hearing in Mass; hardly anything of value has been created in the last 100 years or so

I would say the last 50 years. There still has been some decent music produced in the last half-century. I heard a psalm mode that was from the early nineties, that I think is exquisite (John Foley, S.J.) - but the text is horrific. It mangles even further the already mangled text from ICEL. Remember, there are two components of sacred music - melody and text. While there have been several decent melodies written in the past half-century, the quality of the text is the one area that is dismally lacking. And in the same period, melody and text became thought of as one in the same so that it was uncommon for modern melodies to be coupled with any but the original text. Most of the text has been very “us”-centered instead of God-centered and very lacking in evocative and poetic prowess.

Strummer thinks people or too stupid to appreciate that good music of yester-century.

I wouldn’t say appreciate - I would phrase it as their ability to understand the regal text that was the custom in sacred music from yester-century. For instance, the noble text from “O God of Loveliness”:

O God of loveliness, O Lord of heaven above,
How worthy to possess my heart’s devoted love.
So sweet thy countenance, so gracious to behold
That one, one only glance to me were bliss untold.

Thou art blest Three in One, yet undivided still,
Thou art the One alone, whose love my heart can fill.
The heavens and earth below were fashioned by thy Word,
How amiable art Thou, my ever dearest Lord.

To think Thou art my God,–O thought forever blest!
My heart has overflowed with joy within my breast.
My soul so full of bliss, is plunged as in a sea,
Deep in the sweet abyss of holy charity.

O loveliness supreme, and Beauty infinite,
O ever flowing Stream and Ocean of delight,
O Life by which I live, My truest Life above,
To Thee alone I give my undivided love.

To your first point: you are, by definition, referring to classics which become so because they were great and well-appreciated even in their own time such that they become…well, timeless. Rest assured there is plenty of music from those times that just didn’t make the cut. The same goes for the music of today.

As another poster asked - what produced today - can compare to the beauty and grandeur of “O God of Loveliness” or other similar hymns?

But even in playing SOME of the less-than-great music of today (assuming quality musicianship), I hold that we have a better chance of enriching the Mass experience for more people than would an *exclusively *“ancient traditions” liturgical music Mass.

Why do you hold that view?

It is NOT a question of “intelligence” so I will not be partaking of your delicious sounding red herring.

It is a logic conclusion of the argument you presented.

It is a question of communication. Were someone to come up to you off the street and start evangelizing in say Russian or Portuguese or Mandarin or even Olde English, you might pick out a few words and maybe catch the gist of what they’re trying to say to you but it would not be effective communication. Music is a form of “language” in a sense and certain modes communicate better to people of a particular time and place than others, generally speaking. However, this is not to say that the sublime beauty of some of the “ancient” traditions you’ve cited might not also reach “modern” people on *some *level. But that would be as an audience member and not as a participant in the prayer which is the aim of liturgical music.

I agree that if someone started to speak to me in Russian I wouldn’t know what they were saying. But Old English - I would say that if an educated adult cannot understand a conversation in Old English (that is Elizabethian era), then that person should go back to their primary school and demand a refund. The same with ecclesiastical Latin - if a fully catechized adult Catholic doesn’t understand the Latin being said or sung at Mass, then they should go to their religion teacher and demand a refund (and in this area, as well as in general doctrine, the vast majority of those religion teachers should give a full refund and an apology for their complete failure of their duties).

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

Finally, my question regarding you possibly putting time limits on the Magisterium is in reference to you stating that there is no liturgically sound music after X date. If one can state such in that regard, I wonder if one might hold a similar opinion of the Church in general. Strict adherence to tradition in one integral area tends to lead to similar thought in other areas as well.

Huh? I still don’t follow. It is not the duty of the Magisterium to produce sacred music - although it is their duty to make sure what is produced is in complete accordance with Catholic teaching and fitting for the Liturgy. As Pope Benedict wrote:

In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (Cf. Propositio 25: “Like every artistic expression, singing must be closely adapted to the liturgy and contribute effectively to its aim; in other words, it must express faith, prayer, wonder and love of Jesus present in the Eucharist.”). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (Cf. Propositio 29.). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (Cf. Propositio 36.) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 41.).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Boy, I wish I had the luxury of being picky about the type of liturgical music we have. I do not know if my parish is unique, but reading this thread, I wonder if I am the only one out there that has a problem finding musicians. For me, the over-riding problemis finding anyony capable of leading singing and just making sure we follow all the required instructions.

You could employ a method I suggested to my choir director - decimation conscription. Every tenth person in the door to Mass gets handed a choir card by the usher - you’ve been drafted for this week, report to the choir director.

 

[anamchara]

Strummer: Please tell me who is writing music today (besides John Rutter) who can equal Durufle, Howell, Faure or even, gee, the anonymous composers of Taize.? All within the last century.

Sure there was music that didn’t make the cut. Our choir director every few years pulls out a 1923 copy of “Our Lady of Guadalupe” for the choir to sight-sing. We’ve never been able to make it through the entire hymn without gales of laughter.

Tell me, please. What music of today reaches what Durufle, Howell, and Faure wrote?

This sounds snobbish to me. IMHO. People have different tastes in music and yours is obviously very centered around one kind. Music in Mass should be able touch the hearts of many different faithful. To limit liturgical music to one era is far to rigid in my opinion. Personally, I don’t even know who these artists are that you listed. It goes completely over my head much like latin does. I grew up with an organ and piano in Church and I can be comfortable with that but I also grew up with guitar music/folk. I love folk guitar. I was born into the 1960s. It brings me very close to God in a most profound way as does a flute and violin.

One of the advantages of growing up with liberal minded parents is that God was never limited. We can hear His voice in the organ and the piano and the guitar and the violin and the flute and the even the sax. I can be touched by God even in the gifts He gave someone like Bono from U-2. Hearing him evoke his soul with his powerful, passionate yet tender voice reaches deep into my heart and reminds me of just how powerful our God can be in the gifts he has given us. So, I see God in secular music as well. Music comes from God.

The Church is fairly clear on what is allowed to be played in Mass ( I don’t want to debate that issue) and I realize that some on here can only be comfortable with one kind of music in Mass. That is fine for them but I don’t think it is fair for anyone to try and disregard guitar music or any of the more modern artists as being less than holy.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Harold Boatrite. He is a 20th/21st century composer of secular and sacred works and is well-respected by people in the classical music world. He is Curtis graduate and his compositions are performed in the secular realms as well as during mass when we’ve attended Trid Latin masses at one of the parishes in our area. (We also had one of his works played at our wedding mass which was an NO mass.) My husband used to take composition lessons from him. The man is brilliant and is also a very devout Catholic (convert from the Episcopal church).

The Mater Ecclesiae website has an example of his work on their home page. It’s an “Ave Maria” setting:

materecclesiae.org/

Unfortunately, you rarely hear his works in a regular NO mass. Granted, you need good musicians to perform his works, so that is probably one of the reasons why.

Oh, wow! Thanks Sarabande! I’m going to bring this to the attention of my choir director. I wouldn’t say you need good musicians to sing his works; I would say you need people who are willing to put in the time and practice. We have four paid section leaders in my cathedral choir who are professionals. All the rest of us are simply parishoners but we put in three hours of practice per week. It can be done.

 

[anamchara]

It is a logic conclusion of the argument you presented.

 

[Strummer]

I would say the last 50 years. There still has been some decent music produced in the last half-century.

Ah, but there is a time limit. The point is, it really comes down to personal preference. This whole debate, which started as a question of instrumentation and morphed now to the music itself, is really a question of *preference *and taste and how far one might go to impose his/her own preference upon the liturgy. To be sure, a liturgical experience can be so far outside one’s aesthetic that it hinders rather than aids the individual worshiper. But I would submit that this can be the case at either end of the scale. While some might call for a certain “uniformity” of experience as a means of uniting a vast community, others seek to reach the community which then unites in their experience of worship.

I wouldn’t say appreciate - I would phrase it as their ability to understand the regal text that was the custom in sacred music from yester-century.

What?! Reading the words and knowing their definition is not the issue. It is whether those words (and melodies) reach the heart and soul of the worshiper. That IS appreciation, NOT understanding.

For instance, the noble text from “O God of Loveliness”

Eh, it’s alright, I guess. Some dull and predictable rhymes, some weak word choices (“amiable”?) and one passage of opposing imagry that confuses the point (plunged into a sea of…charity?) But it scans reasonably well (as long as you say “heav’n” for “heaven”, an established and acceptable tradition). It’s okay but…“regal”? Well, if it works for you I hope you sing it often and let your soul rejoice in it. Just don’t force it on me every Sunday, OK?

It is a logic conclusion of the argument you presented.

Uh, no. It is not. There is a major difference between intelligence (the ability, among others, to learn and apply knowledge) and knowledge (a store of facts and experiences). I hold that the majority of worshipers do not hold the facts and experiences necessary that would open the doors of their hearts and minds to the worship experience you seem to propose. Yes, I suppose we could “educate” the worshipers in these alien-to-them forms. OR we could reach them right now in their own vernacular. I say, why wait when their souls are hungry now?

I agree that if someone started to speak to me in Russian I wouldn’t know what they were saying. But Old English - I would say that if an educated adult cannot understand a conversation in Old English (that is Elizabethian era)…

And you would in no way be considered “unintelligent” for not understanding Russian. It simply was not an effective mode of communication.
Also, BTW, while you are off by 500 years or more on your history of English, I doubt you would understand much of what is considered the early modern English of the Elizabethean era were it spoken as it was commonly done at that time. Not for the words but the accent of the times was such that you’d be unlikely to identify more than maybe 50% of the words. Go back to Old English (circa 450CE to 1150CE, if memory serves) and I doubt even most modern scholars would comprehend more than a rudimentary level.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Personal preference? How can that be when the vast corpus of HMC’s musical heritage has not been heard in your average parish in over 40 years? How many people have grown up with what my choir director calls sacro-pop and Muppet music over the last 40 years and have absolutely no idea of the treasures available?

I’ve sung in a cathedral choir for the last 24 years. There are only four paid professionals in our choir. The rest of us are parishoners who are willing to put in three hours of practice every week. We sing primarily acappella or with the organ which was restored (along with the choir loft) in 1992 - the 200th aniversary of my parish.

In 1983 there were 200 souls in my parish. Today we number well over 2500 - largely because we have a reverent NO coupled with music from HMC’s vast treasury.

On Pentecost Sunday, the bishop confirms all the adults in the diocese who have not been confirmed before. I can’t tell you how many people have come up to me after Mass and asked me about us singing the Veni Creator Sequence in Latin much less the macaronic Veni Sancte Spiritus from Taize …or the entrance hymn Come, Holy Ghost or the recessional To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King. With the exception of the Taize hymn, everything else I heard as a child.

How can anyone make a personal preference if they have not been exposed to our treasury from the past?