MERGED: Music in Mass/Sacred Music

[benedictgal]

Like I said, write a letter to my bishop, the guy with the doctoral degree in canon law, and more trips to the Vatican to work on various committees than most of us make to the grocery store in a lifetime.

Tell HIM, not me.

Cat, with all due respect, it seems as though whenever any one of us makes a point in these threads about something, you seem to want to deflect it. Being Catholic does not mean closing off your mind. We are called to be faithful Catholics, not “Stepford Catholics.”

Unfortunately, there are times when not even the bishops read the authoritative documents of the Church. The Venerable Pope John Paul II knew very well from some painful experiences with various episcopal conferences that this was the case. That is why he ordered that Redemptionis Sacramentum be promulgated. The faithful are even invited to read the documents. Every time I say that, you mischaracterize this as Protestantism. It is not.

Whether some here choose to believe it or not, the documents are clear on things such as music and the liturgy. Unfortunately, a lot of music publishers have run roughshod and have taken things more than what they mean and have gone beyond the boundaries. The bishops assume that the publishers have read the documents, and, sadly, that is not always the case. There is really no quality control here.

 

[ProVobis]

Like I said, write a letter to my bishop, the guy with the doctoral degree in canon law, and more trips to the Vatican to work on various committees than most of us make to the grocery store in a lifetime.

Tell HIM, not me.

So are you writing here in behalf of your bishop or as his official representative?

 

[snowlake]

Like I said, write a letter to my bishop, the guy with the doctoral degree in canon law, and more trips to the Vatican to work on various committees than most of us make to the grocery store in a lifetime.

Tell HIM, not me.

There wouldn’t be anything wrong with you respectfully asking him about this. Yourself.

 

[snowlake]

On the other hand, the brief honor given an extraordinary accomplishment in the announcements would not be “breaking out” or for entertainment.

Why not just congratulate/thank these “extraordinary accomplishments” in the bulletin.
People can also verbally congratulate someone after Mass is completely over. People often linger (hopefully in the vestibule, in a “gathering space”, or outside)to chat after Mass anyway.But come to think of it, “thanking” is more appropriate than “congratulating”.
If you want to congratulate someone on their accomplishments, give them a call.

A verbal “thank you” in the announcements should suffice. Applause gives the effect that
entertainment was involved, and that is contrary to the spirit of the Liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

A verbal “thank you” in the announcements should suffice. Applause gives the effect that
entertainment was involved, and that is contrary to the spirit of the Liturgy.

Really? So if someone was celebrating a milestone like 60 years of marriage you think anyone who claps is entertained by that? Maybe it is a culture thing, but clapping has more than one meaning here.

 

[snowlake]

Really? So if someone was celebrating a milestone like 60 years of marriage you think anyone who claps is entertained by that? Maybe it is a culture thing, but clapping has more than one meaning here.

Yes, I agree, it has more than one meaning. But I still think couples can be congratulated on their anniversaries in the bulletin/announcements w/o applause.
After all, the Mass isn’t about us anyway(about our birthdays, anniversaries, etc.).
Most people have parties/receptions for these kind of things anyway. They can clap
all they want there.

Opinions, opinions, opinions. But this one includes one by the Holy Father.

 

[ProVobis]

Really? So if someone was celebrating a milestone like 60 years of marriage you think anyone who claps is entertained by that?

To some extent, yes. Or at least that is the message according to our culture, which applauds everything from introductions to record breakers.

It’s not the 60th anniversary that’s at issue here, pn. IT IS THE INVITATION TO APPLAUSE that’s the issue.

 

[snowlake]

Except, that it is not on any list of proscribed songs. Therefore, this is nothing but an opinion. Considering how many bishops and priests allow this song, it is a minority opinion. You said:
The key there is that it is** their** job to decide. You and I have no idea as to the amount of consultation they get individually. It matters not that we do not know. At the end of the day, or job remains the same. We listen to our leadership.

PNewton, I’ve been thinking about this post, and was wondering how your parish and pastoral musicians reacted when you included the Latin/Greek Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei? Was there any opposition? I guess this is also addressed to Cat and everyone else too.

 

[Cat]

Yes, I agree, it has more than one meaning. But I still think couples can be congratulated on their anniversaries in the bulletin/announcements w/o applause.
After all, the Mass isn’t about us anyway(about our birthdays, anniversaries, etc.).
Most people have parties/receptions for these kind of things anyway. They can clap
all they want there.

Opinions, opinions, opinions. But this one includes one by the Holy Father.

When something appears in the church bulletin, that is the official opinion of the office staff of that parish. Many people, especially young people, never bother to pick up a bulletin.

But when an entire congregation of people and their priest applauds–this sends a STRONG message to all who are present–"We all join together in unity in expressing our enthusiastic approval of your accomplishment, and recognize together that this is something that GOD has done through you. Glory to God for what He has done! "

This public applause, public recognition and approval of certain accomplishments; e.g., a 60-year anniversary (Wow!) or volunteering for parish ministries or retiring after 30 years of service–will give the message to any young person or any person in the congregation LOUD AND CLEAR that this is GOOD behavior, of the Lord, and something that we should ALL aspire to because it brings honor and glory to God and advances the Kingdom of Christ on this earth.

It is my opinion that this kind of strong message NEEDS to be sent in a public way, and perhaps that is why the bishops and priests ask for applause at times that some of you find shocking. Young people (and older people, too) are bombarded with constant messages that attack the family, the church, hard work, etc. We need to hear it proclaimed publicly that these kinds of things are good and proper and wholesome and of the Lord. There is no sin in congratulating people for allowing the Lord to work through them and accomplish great and wonderful things that glorify Him and His Church. In fact, such recognition of such accomplishments often serve as an illustration of the priest’s homily–“See what God can do when you allow Him to work through you!”

There are some people who can’t get past the secular meaning. They hear applause and they think, “Theater” or “Ball game.” I can understand that. I can’t hear Gregorian chant without thinking, “Spooky.” In fact, I was talking to my brother-in-law (Protestant) this weekend and explaining that Gregorian chant is supposed to have pride of place because it’s not secular, and he said, “Oh, I have it on my iPod–it got popular a few years back and I find it relaxing.” Hmmph–so much for the “non-secular” place of Gregorian chant. It’s all a question of what your personal background and experiences are.

My suggestion for people who can’t get past the secular meaning is to not applaud, but offer up a prayer of thanks for the accomplishment that is being recognized, and to remember that we are not clapping for mere men, but for children of God who have allowed their Heavenly Father to work through them.

 

[snowlake]

PNewton, I’ve been thinking about this post, and was wondering how your parish and pastoral musicians reacted when you included the Latin/Greek Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei? Was there any opposition? I guess this is also addressed to Cat and everyone else too.

I’m also interested in whether or not you were able to find settings of the above in your
parish hymnal?

 

[ProVobis]

But when an entire congregation of people and their priest applauds–this sends a STRONG message to all who are present–"We all join together in unity in expressing our enthusiastic approval of your accomplishment, and recognize together that this is something that GOD has done through you. Glory to God for what He has done! "

Not necessarily. Are we applauding a losing baseball team when they take the field in recognition of their wonderful accomplishments or to encourage them in spite of their accomplishments?

Again, the applause isn’t the problem. It’s the INVITATION to applause that must be examined for its real purpose. Just because it’s done in your parish or your diocese doesn’t mean it’s always right and done for the right reasons. Your rationalization to almost everything done in your church is wearing quite thin.

 

[snowlake]

It is my opinion that this kind of strong message NEEDS to be sent in a public way, and perhaps that is why the bishops and priests ask for applause at times that some of you find shocking.]

The message is sent through preaching at Mass. It is sent through other means in other
“non-liturgical” settings.

[There is no sin in congratulating people for allowing the Lord to work through them and accomplish great and wonderful things that glorify Him and His Church.](quote from Cat)

Who said it’s a sin to congratulate people? The topic is about where/how it is done.

I can’t hear Gregorian chant without thinking, “Spooky.” ](quote from Cat)

What Gregorian chant have you heard? How much of it have you heard? Where did you hear it? When you hear it at your parish, do you really think it sounds spooky?

[In fact, I was talking to my brother-in-law (Protestant) this weekend and explaining that Gregorian chant is supposed to have pride of place because it’s not secular, and he said, “Oh, I have it on my iPod–it got popular a few years back and I find it relaxing.” Hmmph–so much for the “non-secular” place of Gregorian chant. It’s all a question of what your personal background and experiences are.](quote from Cat)

Cat, you seem hell-bent on insisting that if something is used outside of the liturgy ,that makes it secular. That is totally backwards. And illogical. Who could possibly control
the use or misuse of liturgical things outside of the Mass? If it’s a misuse, then the word
“sacrilege” applies. As far as it being simply a question of your personal background, it needs to be said that there comes a time in our lives when we have to face facts and not let our emotions/past experiences rule us. It has something to do with growing up and becoming mature spiritual persons. The Eucharist accomplishes this in us. If we ask the
Divine Physician to heal our memories and false associations, He will.
I hope you are not letting your personal “feelings” affect those around you. Is this attitude reflective of the musicians inyour parish? Have any of them protested the simple singing of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei? Are their thoughts similar to yours?

 

[benedictgal]

When something appears in the church bulletin, that is the official opinion of the office staff of that parish. Many people, especially young people, never bother to pick up a bulletin.

But when an entire congregation of people and their priest applauds–this sends a STRONG message to all who are present–"We all join together in unity in expressing our enthusiastic approval of your accomplishment, and recognize together that this is something that GOD has done through you. Glory to God for what He has done! "

This public applause, public recognition and approval of certain accomplishments; e.g., a 60-year anniversary (Wow!) or volunteering for parish ministries or retiring after 30 years of service–will give the message to any young person or any person in the congregation LOUD AND CLEAR that this is GOOD behavior, of the Lord, and something that we should ALL aspire to because it brings honor and glory to God and advances the Kingdom of Christ on this earth.

It is my opinion that this kind of strong message NEEDS to be sent in a public way, and perhaps that is why the bishops and priests ask for applause at times that some of you find shocking. Young people (and older people, too) are bombarded with constant messages that attack the family, the church, hard work, etc. We need to hear it proclaimed publicly that these kinds of things are good and proper and wholesome and of the Lord. There is no sin in congratulating people for allowing the Lord to work through them and accomplish great and wonderful things that glorify Him and His Church. In fact, such recognition of such accomplishments often serve as an illustration of the priest’s homily–“See what God can do when you allow Him to work through you!”

There are some people who can’t get past the secular meaning. They hear applause and they think, “Theater” or “Ball game.” I can understand that. I can’t hear Gregorian chant without thinking, “Spooky.” In fact, I was talking to my brother-in-law (Protestant) this weekend and explaining that Gregorian chant is supposed to have pride of place because it’s not secular, and he said, “Oh, I have it on my iPod–it got popular a few years back and I find it relaxing.” Hmmph–so much for the “non-secular” place of Gregorian chant. It’s all a question of what your personal background and experiences are.

My suggestion for people who can’t get past the secular meaning is to not applaud, but offer up a prayer of thanks for the accomplishment that is being recognized, and to remember that we are not clapping for mere men, but for children of God who have allowed their Heavenly Father to work through them.

Bur, Cat, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the appropriate venue for this. The church bulletin is. Again, please re-read what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. He pretty much sums up the whole argument against applause.

As I read your posts, you seem to be picking and choosing what you want to believe rather than reading what the documents state and letting these documents speak for themselves.

You tend to characterize Gregorian chant as “spooky” because you are looking at it through a lens that is not necessarily compatible with the way the Church sees it. This is the Mass, not some Hollywood production. Inasmuch as we all tend to see things through certain lenses, at some point, we need to grow and move past them. At some point, we need to let things go and start looking at them the way the Church sees them.

 

[pnewton]

Opinions, opinions, opinions. But this one includes one by the Holy Father.

And it is one I totally agree with, when people break into applause, to use the exact words. No musician in my parish wants to be an entertainer. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen.

 

[pnewton]

PNewton, I’ve been thinking about this post, and was wondering how your parish and pastoral musicians reacted when you included the Latin/Greek Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei? Was there any opposition?

None at all. The Gloria was a little tough, but with enough time, we got it.

 

[snowlake]

With the exception of Cat’s statement about “spooky” associations, I firmly believe that the vast majority of people (of all nations, religions, walks of life, genders, ages, levels of education) would identify chant as a sacred type of music.(Not only chant, but sacred polyphony and regular 4-part style hymns.) Even if someone from a non-western culture would probably be able to do so. And in the opposite direction, we can distinguish Buddhist chant from
Chinese folk-music. Two different animals. It’s only in the the secular-style music we’ve been talking about that disagreements come into play. Therefore, for the sake
of unity, let’s use chant to avoid arguments and also to avoid possibly doing the wrong thing.

There is such a thing as sin in this regard. I’m speaking of objective sin, and am not saying subjectively that anyone is “culpable”.

If we have been told that chant is to hold first place, and that we have a responsibility to
make sure that at least a minimal amount of it is done in our parishes (w/ specific Mass parts listed by the Bishops), then this sounds like it even approaches confessional matter.
Church musicians have grave responsibilities in this regard, as the Vatican itself has told us that it is the most important thing of all the sacred arts.We all know what the church asks of us in this regard.

For the good of our souls we need to drop the controversial items, and make sure that the
non-negotiable things are taken care of.

At least everyone (except Cat and those w/a fundamentalist background) is agreed that
chant and other sacred styles are appropriate. We disagree about the other music.
To avoid trouble, how about sticking with that which we know is required of us?

OR AT LEAST GIVE IT EQUAL TIME?

 

[pnewton]

If we have been told that chant is to hold first place, and that we have a responsibility to
make sure that at least a minimal amount of it is done in our parishes (w/ specific Mass parts listed by the Bishops), then this sounds like it even approaches confessional matter.

Where does the Church ever called a music selection other than chant sinful?

 

[snowlake]

Where does the Church ever called a music selection other than chant sinful?

I was speaking of the very obvious directives of the documents about chant
being given “pride of place”, and the minimal requirements in that regard. It sounds like you have a good parish that is open to this. Unfortunately, mine isn’t. In fact, those who suggest such things in all charity are maligned and made fun of.

Allowing pop music into the Mass is “going beyond what is written”. Like you said,
people interpret this in different ways. Maybe we should wait for clarification before
engaging in things that might go against the mind of the church. We have a huge history
of Sacred music styles to draw from, why engage in conroversial things if it’s not necessary?

In defense of this position I offer you the words of Cardinal Arinze : "The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as something we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of
instrument used, THE TYPE OF MUSIC USED.

He later speaks of guitar. He states that it should be allowed only in special circumstances, and not be the ordinary thing we use all the time. He said much of guitar music is “unsuitable”.

Later he said""…if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by
people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe.
‘Lex orandi, Lex credendi’. and that (about the Liturgy) “an individual does not tinker with it, but MAKES THE EFFORT to celebrate it as Holy Mother Church wants.”

 

[pnewton]

From the USCCB website, Sing to the Lord

In the years immediately following the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican
Council, especially because of the introduction of vernacular language, composers and
publishers worked to provide a new repertoire of music for indigenous language(s). In
subsequent decades, this effort has matured, and a body of worthy vernacular liturgical music
continues to develop, even though much of the early music has fallen into disuse. Today, as they continue to serve the Church at prayer, composers are encouraged to concentrate on
craftsmanship and artistic excellence in all musical genres.
85. The Church awaits an ever richer song of her entire gathered people. “The faith of
countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers,
either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is
experienced as vibrant joy, love, and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God.”

 

[snowlake]

From the USCCB website, Sing to the Lord

• Today, as they continue to serve the Church at prayer, composers are encouraged to concentrate on*
  craftsmanship and artistic excellence in all musical genres.

Again, is this referring to all SACRED genres (after all, the document IS about
sacred music) or is it referring to any/all musical genres? Including completely
secular styles that include pop/jazz/country/classical/folk/blue-grass/ ? “Genre”
is speaking of musical form and other aspects of music theory/composition.
There is a vast array of SACRED musical genres exemplifying every stylistic era in history.
This is what I meant about the Bishops being more specific with their terminology.

We need help!

How could this mean secular styles? If it does, this is something unprecedented,
and a huge departure from our heritage.