Consecrated:
Thanks to Topher and Prometheum for responding to my question!
Everyone agrees that the objective of the music is to rouse the faithful to better devotion, that they may gather more of the fruits and graces available.
Everyone agrees that the music must be reverent, or holy.
Quote, from the same source as in my post #305 above:
“Sacred music must therefore eminiently posess the qualities which belong to the liturgical rites, especially holiness and beauty, from which its other characteristic, universality, will follow spontaneously.” (my emphasis)
What, then, is the standard of reverence, of holiness? If you can say that “such and such song” is more reverent than “such and such song”, there must be a standard by which we judge, right?
What makes sacred music sacred? What makes “rock” music inappropriate?
Is such a standard really only relative to this or that person’s disposition?
Should the music of the Mass take its tone from the Mass itself (that is, should it “possess the qualities which belong to the liturgical rites”)?
Or should it take its tone from the people attending the Mass?
(again, not rhetorical questions… anyone have any ideas?)
Be at peace in the Heart of Mary
I have read the various things you are quoting, but I don’t remember which one out of several possible documents it is. I’ll keep the mystique and won’t throw out any names.
In answer to your questions:
What is the standard of reverence? I’m not really sure that there is an objective standard in terms of the inherent qualities of the music itself.
What makes sacred music sacred? It is difficult to define “sacred” without the context of “secular”. According to the dictionary (
merriamwebster.com), sacred is defined thus:
**
1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund
sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration
: HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion
: not secular or profane <
sacred music>
The only definition that seems to have anything to do with the qualities of the object is #2, but that doesn’t really seem to make much sense in regards to sacred music. Music isn’t sacred in the same way that an altar, or relic, or some other such thing is. We don’t give the music itself religious veneration.
The other two definitions have to do more with how something is used. I would contend that it is the way in which music is used that determines whether or not it is sacred.
For example, one time when I was playing music for mass, we played a very nice song. There was one part of the song that had a chord pattern similar to that of a U2 song, and the music leader decided to use a melodic line directly from the song. . . and everybody in the church knew it, and it was quite inappropriate in my opinion. There wasn’t anything in the music itself that made it inherently inappropriate. Rather, it was inappropriate
due to its overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing.
In answer to your last question, it should primarily take its tone from the liturgy, but there are similar documents to the one you are quoting that indicate that this should be done with some reference to the culture of the people. This is particularly the true when in mission lands – the traditional western musical forms may be
so strange to their ears that it truly is a hindrance and not a help.
But those are two different things. Tone in this case has to do with the
attitude of the music, not the actual sound. In the United States, I really can’t imagine using jazz music at mass. This is not because I can’t imagine using trumpets, saxophones, or pentatonic and blues scales, but because right now in our culture (and really since the advent of jazz as a style), jazz has a very secular significance. In our culture, those jazz forms have a very earthy, shallow, sensual-to-the-point-of-erotic significance and are generally devoid of the sacred. So does Elvis Presley style rock 'n roll.
What we must not, cannot do, is say, “Well, in the 50’s and 60’s, the word “rock” was used to describe Elvis Presley style music. Therefore, when the word “rock” is used to day, it must mean exactly the same thing.”
This last section wasn’t intended to be in bold. There’s some underlying formatting that I couldn’t change.
**
)
that it is a universally accepted authority on Church liturgy, quotes taken from a document written in last century.
