"Life Teen" Liturgy and it's destruction of centuries of Holy Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Servus_Pio_XII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks! 😛 And thank you also for your well-thought response.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to be contrary, but I would submit that there is indeed “an objective standard in terms of the inherent qualities of the music itself.” Doesn’t there have to be if we are to say that some music (whether we’re talking about a type or one song in particular) is more suited to Mass than other? I submit that the standard is this: The more perfectly music mirrors the Truth, Beauty and Goodness of God, the more like God it is. The more like God it is, the better it is suited to the Divine Mysteries. Purely sacred music, music as devoid of the secular as is possible for humans to accomplish, is the best suited.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
What makes sacred music sacred? It is difficult to define “sacred” without the context of “secular”.
Click to expand...
Why must we define it "without the context of ‘secular’ "? I think your Webster definition is right on. The more like God music is, the more it leaves the profane behind and transcends the “world” to become sacred.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
According to the dictionary (merriamwebster.com), sacred is defined thus:

**

…
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.**
It is true the the way music is used contributes to its sanctity or takes away from it, but the music itself, the composition of notes and lyrics, can also be judged more or less sacred.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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
Click to expand...
.
This is a really great example of how elements of the secular mar the purity of the sacred. I submit that this “overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing” is the very thing that makes said selection “inherently inappropriate”.
Let me take this another step, though, and submit that a drumline, for example, and the drums themselves, have an “overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing.” In what context did the world first hear the drumline, and see the drum set typically part of the modern “band”? In a completely secular context, right? Does everyone agree that, drums first, and for a long time solely, were used for music that was not sacred, as the word is defined in Webster? Does it not follow that this would give them an “overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing”? Even the big tymponi (sp?) drums used in classical orchestras were first used in the performance of music entirely unrelated to the Sacred Mysteries.

continued next post
Click to expand...
 
continuation from previous
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Let me include a quote from the same source I’ve been using that addresses this issue:

“But it must also be universal in this sense, namely, that although each country may use in its ecclesiastical music whatever special forms may belong to its own national style, these forms must be subject to the proper nature of sacred music, so that it may never produce a bad impression on the mind of any stranger who may hear it.”
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that the less like to this “earthy, shallow, sensual-to-the-point-of-erotic” sound the music of the Mass is, the less secular? In fact, since jazz and Elvis Presley style rock 'n roll are “devoid of the sacred”, wouldn’t it be impossible to have purely sacred music that even has the breath of a resemblance to these styles?
40.png
Prometheum_x:
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.”
Click to expand...
“Rock” might not mean exactly the same thing now as it did then, but the styles referred to in both meanings have a distinct resemblance. Today’s “Rock” evolved from and had its beginnings in Elvis Presley style music among other things. They both mean something secular.
 
Consecrated said:
*Would you agree that the less like to this “earthy, shallow, sensual-to-the-point-of-erotic” sound the music of the Mass is, the less secular? In fact, since jazz and Elvis Presley style rock 'n roll are “devoid of the sacred”, wouldn’t it be impossible to have purely sacred music that even has the breath of a resemblance to these styles?
Click to expand...

Just because they have something in common does not mean they are alike.
One could put secular, even profane lyrics to the tune of Amazing Grace or some other notable sacred hymn, but that would not cause the song to lose its sacred value because someone might remember the parody.
The Bible and a romance novel are both books, but a Bible does not lose its sacred value because a romance novel has tainted all books everywhere.
That said, we did have a jazz Mass at my campus ministry. Not saying it should be a flagship example, but a lot of people really liked it. We had a very talented piano jazz piano player who wrote most of the music. I wasn’t a big fan, but I didn’t feel it detracted from the Mass in any way. It was done very tastefully.
In fact, many historical traditions (little t) in the Church have been derrived in part from pagan traditions, especially with respect to the timing of Church holy days. Rather than tainting the Church or the Mass or the holy day, I think it demonstrates victory over all that is evil. This goes along with the whole idea that Satan’s lies are simply counterfiets of the Truth. When secular society shows us something that has been warped and ruined, we have a duty to untwist it, put it in a Catholic perspective, and show them what they’re looking for. (with all due respect to Christopher West conveying this idea particularly regarding Theology of the Body.)
 
40.png
vluvski:
Just because they have something in common does not mean they are alike.
One could put secular, even profane lyrics to the tune of Amazing Grace or some other notable sacred hymn, but that would not cause the song to lose its sacred value because someone might remember the parody.
The Bible and a romance novel are both books, but a Bible does not lose its sacred value because a romance novel has tainted all books everywhere.
That said, we did have a jazz Mass at my campus ministry. Not saying it should be a flagship example, but a lot of people really liked it. We had a very talented piano jazz piano player who wrote most of the music. I wasn’t a big fan, but I didn’t feel it detracted from the Mass in any way. It was done very tastefully.
In fact, many historical traditions (little t) in the Church have been derrived in part from pagan traditions, especially with respect to the timing of Church holy days. Rather than tainting the Church or the Mass or the holy day, I think it demonstrates victory over all that is evil. This goes along with the whole idea that Satan’s lies are simply counterfiets of the Truth. When secular society shows us something that has been warped and ruined, we have a duty to untwist it, put it in a Catholic perspective, and show them what they’re looking for. (with all due respect to Christopher West conveying this idea particularly regarding Theology of the Body.)
Click to expand...
I disagree very much so. You are correct that some traditions have come from pagan origin, but some they remain. We need not take a bunch of different paganish things and cover them up with a nice smiley face. And considering this is in regards to the mass (Heaven on earth, at least supposed to be) this is should be even stronger against secular society creeping in.

Everything is created good. And most things need to be used in there place to get the fullness of the good that it is. But these things need NOT come into mass. They no longer become good but something bad, and disruptive. The objective quality to mass is being clouded like so many other things in the church by people who want to form there Catholic faith rather to conform To The Catholic Faith.

But I think I should get to the most important thing… and that is the thoughts of our current Holy Ecumenical Pontiff Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger)

"At the Eighth International Church Music Congress in Rome in 1986, for example, Ratzinger blasted rock music as a “vehicle of anti-religion”. He said rock and roll is a secular variant of an age-old ecstatic religion, in which man “lowers the barriers of individuality and personality” to “liberate himself from the burden of consciousness”. Rock is thus “the complete antithesis of Christian faith in the redemption”.

Thank God (literally) for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
 
40.png
Consecrated:
Let me take this another step, though, and submit that a drumline, for example, and the drums themselves, have an “overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing.” In what context did the world first hear the drumline, and see the drum set typically part of the modern “band”? In a completely secular context, right? Does everyone agree that, drums first, and for a long time solely, were used for music that was not sacred, as the word is defined in Webster? Does it not follow that this would give them an “overwhelming identification with a purely secular thing”? Even the big tymponi (sp?) drums used in classical orchestras were first used in the performance of music entirely unrelated to the Sacred Mysteries.
Click to expand...
The same could be said of the organ. It was used for secular music long before it became used for sacred. Drums, IMHO, can make music much more beautiful. Of course, they can also make it inappropriate for Mass. It all depends on how they are used.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
I admire your passion, and I have some questions:

First, where did the Jews get their music?

Second: What, *exactly, *is “devout reverence”? Please define this phrase.

Third, why did you put “liturgy” in quotes?

Fourth, can you explain how the use of Latin makes a song more conducive to “devout reverence”? This is a question about the nature of Latin itself, not whether or not Latin is the official language of the Church and should be used more often.

Fifth, can you explain how being difficult to sing for the congregation makes a song more conducive to “devout reverence”?

Sixth, are you not aware that their are two parts to the Liturgy we call Mass: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist? We need them both.
Click to expand...
First: I am unsure. However, what we do know is that the Church evolved from a sect within Judaism, so, if you are trying to get back to the “roots” of the Church, you will find the Ultra-Traditionalists are right on most counts.

Second: How about not treating Mass like a prayer service or Protestant worship service. We are proclaiming the death of the Lord until He comes in glory, as Paul eloquently stated. The least we can do is actually act as we would in His prescence, because we are in His prescence. This ranges from dress, to behaviour, and, yes, to music.

Third: I hate that term. It is the MASS, a firm, unchanging and unifying part of Christian Life. What happens when you use a “liturgy”? People adapt it and change it to “suit their culture”. That should not be so.

Fourth: Ah, the nature of Latin. Latin, in and of itself, is perhaps the most beautiful language man hath ever devised. It adds to the Mass, by this, a certain degree of trascendance. It separates the sacrifice of the priest from the congregation, making him the celebrant, not everyone. In music, it deters the “sing-along” nature of most Masses, and instead provides a prayerful atmosphere for people to offer their true intentions to God, not the intentions written by composers and sold to Missal publishers, which no one pays attention to anyway.

Fifth: I sort of addressed this in point four. It makes it so they will be less inclined to simply sing along, and actually PRAY. Offer their intentions to God, to Mary, to the Saints, rather than those broad, all-encompassing ones in hymns. Nay, they will offer up what is in their HEART!

Sixth: True, but why does one go to a Mass? You can read a Bible at home. But the one thing which makes the Mass what it is; that is Eucharist. It takes Mass from a simple prayer service, and instead makes it the most spiritual experience one could have.
 
Servus Pio XII:
Second: How about not treating Mass like a prayer service or Protestant worship service. We are proclaiming the death of the Lord until He comes in glory, as Paul eloquently stated. The least we can do is actually act as we would in His prescence, because we are in His prescence. This ranges from dress, to behaviour, and, yes, to music.
Click to expand...
Great points. I completely agree.
Servus Pio XII:
Third: I hate that term. It is the MASS, a firm, unchanging and unifying part of Christian Life. What happens when you use a “liturgy”? People adapt it and change it to “suit their culture”. That should not be so.
Click to expand...
There can be many types of liturgies. But there is one called the Mass. I agree, the term Mass is more appropriate.
Servus Pio XII:
Fourth: Ah, the nature of Latin. Latin, in and of itself, is perhaps the most beautiful language man hath ever devised. It adds to the Mass, by this, a certain degree of trascendance. It separates the sacrifice of the priest from the congregation, making him the celebrant, not everyone. In music, it deters the “sing-along” nature of most Masses, and instead provides a prayerful atmosphere for people to offer their true intentions to God, not the intentions written by composers and sold to Missal publishers, which no one pays attention to anyway.
Click to expand...
Beauty, of course, is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder. While latin is beautiful to you, it may not be to all people. The Church calls everyone to Full, Active, Conscious participation. Our bishops (in my diocese), as well as all of the pastors that I have been under, have stated that this means that we are to sing the songs. The musicians are not there to perform the songs for us, they are there to lead us in singing the songs. Therefore, the songs must be singable, simple, and scriptural.
Servus Pio XII:
Fifth: I sort of addressed this in point four. It makes it so they will be less inclined to simply sing along, and actually PRAY. Offer their intentions to God, to Mary, to the Saints, rather than those broad, all-encompassing ones in hymns. Nay, they will offer up what is in their HEART!
Click to expand...
Same comment as above.
Servus Pio XII:
Sixth: True, but why does one go to a Mass? You can read a Bible at home. But the one thing which makes the Mass what it is; that is Eucharist. It takes Mass from a simple prayer service, and instead makes it the most spiritual experience one could have.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Eucharist is the central focal point of the entire Mass.
 
“Beauty, of course, is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder”

As long as this means there is an objective beautiful.

If your statement which is used early and often by those who want to justify some evil that they think is beautiful… I have a problem with this. But if we are working in the realms of objectiveness. Very well then. 👍
 
As for music there is an objectivity to it. If you have a piano, try playing the black and white key next to each other at the same time and tell me if that sounds good or bad.
 
Honestly, that depends. It depends on whether the keystroke is used to complement another (pretty) or standing alone (not pretty).

I think that also applies to Christian “Praise and Worship” music. If it is used by the teens to deepen their faith, outside of Mass, props to them, keep it up.

Once they put it in the Mass, it grates, and becomes the very evil of apostasy it attempts to fight. (Maybe that’s a bit harsh, but you get the point)
 
Michael Welter:
Beauty, of course, is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder. While latin is beautiful to you, it may not be to all people. The Church calls everyone to Full, Active, Conscious participation. Our bishops (in my diocese), as well as all of the pastors that I have been under, have stated that this means that we are to sing the songs. The musicians are not there to perform the songs for us, they are there to lead us in singing the songs. Therefore, the songs must be singable, simple, and scriptural.
Click to expand...
This is not what the Church teaches however on “Active Participation” Apparantly the Bishops and Pastors who are instructing you ignored Pope JPII in his “Ad Limina Address of Pope John Paul II to Bishops of the United States” (Link found at)

adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html

“The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Council’s call for full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.”

and

“Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.”

Studying other documents as well will lead one to the realization that your given description of active participation is not entirely correct.

Regarding your first comment regarding beauty, you should also read Church documents concerning your comment as well. JPII’s “Letter to Artists” (also easily found on the Church Documents page of Adoremus) reveals a great deal on the inherent Nature of Beauty in contradiction to your described concept of relativistic beauty.

Joe B
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Fabulous! I enjoy being (mostly) in agreement with others! Of course, a good debate is fun too. . . :cool:

We run into problems when we rely on the music to give the mass meaning. As a musician, I think it would be great to celebrate mass with the youth without any music at least once, a) because it would give me the night off (haha) but, more importantly, b) it would serve as a reminder that we are there for a greater reason than the music. Music is a wonderful aid to worship, but it is not necessary for worship.
Click to expand...
Oh, I love quiet Masses. Sometimes we just need to ditch all the noise of the day. All day it’s noise from this and that, and the beeping and ringing of cellphones, and yelling, and loud music, and it’s all so loud and so busy that you can’t even hear yourself think. Modern society likes noise. They like being busy. It’s a way of forgetting about or to keep from dwelling on how essentially empty secular culture is.
To expand on your point about the importance of catechesis, especially regarding the Eucharist (and I would add, the purpose of the Liturgy in general), it should be, as then Cardinal Ratzinger is purported to have said in “The Spirit of the Liturgy” (purported because I haven’t read that far yet), that the central act of mass towards which our attention should be directed is the Eucharistic Prayer. It is then that the Upper Room and Calvary are made present to us in substantial form.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Uh, guys. Apparently I’m a traditional Gregorian Chant type person. 😉 Anyway, I’m not familiar with Gregorian Chants. Can anyone here recommend me anything so I can familiarize myself with them?
 
40.png
RobNY:
Indeed.

Uh, guys. Apparently I’m a traditional Gregorian Chant type person. 😉 Anyway, I’m not familiar with Gregorian Chants. Can anyone here recommend me anything so I can familiarize myself with them?
Click to expand...
Gregorian Chant
 
40.png
RobNY:
Anything specific I should listen to?

EDIT: It can be almost eerie, but it’s cool. 😛
Click to expand...
Although I have not read this article yet, I trust the source that i got it from, so I would suggest you take a look at it.

musicasacra.com/2005/09/excerpt-from-history-of-roman-liturgy.html

Also, just about everything on that site is good. Although the sound quality can be annoying at times… Those are Benedictine Monks from Brazil. The Benedictines are kind of like the Keepers of Gregorian Chant.

Check for “Solemnity of All Saints” very beautiful.

I found my favorite Hymn, “Veni Creator Spiritus” that I downloaded from a Polish Dominicans website. It’s one of the most beautiful versions of the Hymn I have ever heard.

dominikanie.lub.pl/english/choral.htm

Scroll down and download “Veni Creator mp3” It cuts off at the end, but you get most of it. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

EDIT (again):198.62.75.1/www2/cantgreg/missa_omnium_sanctorum.html
 
My granddaughter and I are having a conversation concerning the “teen Mass”. She loves to sing, plays violin, piano. Her opinion is that it is better to have lively music to get the teens attention. Her dad, my son, directs the teen Mass choir, and classes. They all have a lot of fun as well as learning about their faith.

I love the teen Mass. I remember going to Mass and not feeling involved at all. Yes, there was a sense of “holiness”, but I actually feel that more now than when I was a teen attending Mass. We sat up in the choir loft and sang the Latin music. The priests voice lulled some of us to sleep during his homily. My GD says that the priest gets more involved in the TM, and the kids all stay awake. They have a part in the Mass. I really believe that if we are to keep these kids going to church we are going to have to accomodate them as well as those who have dozed off during the homily for the pst 50 years.

If you don’t like the music, go to another Mass, or start to watch, listen and participate and you just might find yourself enjoying the great spirit that comes from these wonderful young people praising God in their youthful way.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5
 
Do you know of any place where I can read the lyrics to these songs (with translations)?
 
Trying to maintain as much charity as I can… So we should “accomodate” secularism, a lack of reverence for the sublime gift that is the The Holy Eucharist, and obviously an attention span that is lacking because one doesnt want to be “bored” at mass?

I really want to pass on this proposal.
 
Michael Welter:
The same could be said of the organ. It was used for secular music long before it became used for sacred.
Click to expand...
Good point… thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top