MERGED: "Musical abuse" at Mass tonight/Rock/Contemporary

[nicolakirwan]

When I was in high school we had youth masses with contemporary music that was very well done. The group 4Him has an album Hymns that is a great example of how contemporary instruments such as drums can be used in a very reverent and worshipful way. Great album.

I feel really bad for saying this, but the music is not the best at our parish.

I respect the fact that the ladies try their best but…they sound like they are wailing. The guitar, organ, and base is ok. Just the singing…not really a fan.

I think that a lot of churches feel like they have to have a certain type of music ministry even if the gifts and abilities within that congregation do not lend themselves to it. There is much that can be done with very simple music if the choir directors are respectful of the limitations of choir members. A choir is not even necessary if there is a solid cantor and a few “ringers” in the congregations.

 

[Sarabande]

Citation please. Not doubting, just curious.

I learned about this through my studies of music history, so the books I read it in are in a box at my parents’ house, but I do know that polyphony was banned briefly at least three times by three different popes. If you look up books on music history and sacred music history, you should be able to find it. It has been in almost every history of music I’ve ever read. When it first came onto the scene, the music was originally secular. The way it was performed made those believe that it was “lascivious”, immoral and incited lustful thoughts, among other things. How we hear sacred polyphony was different from the secular polyphony of the time. It was “popular” music. People are people no matter what century we live in. They began bringing this music into their liturgies and it caused an uproar and a “scandal”, especially when using specific intervals (ie. The Devil in Music/Diabolus in Musica… the tritone) to the point where popes did ban it.

I read a great biography on Eleanor of Acquitaine and her very colorful court used polyphony for both secular and sacred events. There were some interesting commentaries on the use of polyphony by contemporaries of the day who visited the court of Eleanor and Henry and most were complimentary, yet not complimentary. They shared the same views of the Church at that time, but were intrigued by it as well because her court was “in” and “happening”. It was the place to be. It wasn’t until Guillame de Machaut in the mid-1300s wrote a mass in polyphony which “rendered” and “refined” the music “apt” for liturgical use. The Council of Trent in the 1500s also discussed the use of polyphony and it was there that they allowed it as long as it was serious and dignified in style and the text could be clearly understood, which distinguishes the difference of sacred polyphony from secular polyphony. A major complaint about some of the sacred polyphony was that there were too many over-lapping voices so that the words were incomprehensible. Palestrina was very successful in writing beautiful sacred polyphony which still could be understood and this is one of the reasons why his polyphony is held in such high esteem. At the Council they also complained and discussed about how corruption of sacred music was becoming too prevalent in the liturgies. Popular, secular melodies were being incorporated into the liturgical music and they felt that this was corrupting the Church. So, the condition that sacred music being solemn and dignified was stressed in order to differentiate it from the popular music of the time.

(Just to add) As we can see from the Council, debate about the use of secular music at mass or what constitutes something appropriate has been going on for centuries. We’re doing nothing new here and I suspect will keep going for centuries to come.

There isn’t as much out there about organs because it was very early in the Church’s history that the organ at one point was not considered appropriate for use. I’m not as well versed in it as well, so I can’t give more info on it. Actually, wasn’t it pnewton who had the information regarding the history of the organ? I remember there was a really interesting thread on it about three years ago. (I remember this because I think I was pregnant with my first and I used the document and thread as an exercise on my brain which suffered very much from placenta head. lol!)

 

[Lochias]

Oh my… I know it would be hard for many of us NOT to be distracted by that!

As far as our parish - we seldom have any music. Our keyboardist (electronic keyboard - we can’t afford an organ) has gotten too ill with Parkinson’s to play any longer. Our “choir” is about 4 people who may or may not show up, but if they do, they will sing the same hymns over and over. Believe me, only a couple can carry a tune much less move beyond their particular octave.

So hardly any music, and when we do, its down to about 7-10 tried and true hymns. And Father often forgets his mike is on, so his off-key renditions drown the rest of us out anyway.

Still… not as bad as the drum solo you had to endure!

Thank goodness the Mass doesn’t really depend on music, or candles, or pretty side-shrines or kneelers. We don’t have any of that either . Its only human to miss the “frills” – I sure do. But there’s much to be learned about our faith when you are reduced to a few folding metal chairs, no music or all the rest.

This sounds just like our choir. I cantored for a while with them, but couldn’t afford the gas to continue reliably.

 

[Endoplex]

It is not hard to find.

Tra le Sollecitudini, 1903, Pope St. Pius X.

It’s difficult to believe that anyone would think that this is still in force.

 

[Endoplex]

It’s not the instrument, but it’s appropriate use. We have to know when our preferences are matters of faith or simply of culture and habit.

According to this article, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states:

Can’t we just praise God without making a particular instrument an issue?

So very true.

 

[pnewton]

There is this:

newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service.

I also found this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

It was not merely polyphony that offended the medieval ears, but the notion of secular music merging with the sacred and making its way into the papal court. It gave church music more of a jocular performance quality removing the solemn worship they were accustomed to. The use of and attitude toward polyphony varied widely in the Avignon court from the beginning to the end of its religious importance in the fourteenth century. Harmony was not only considered frivolous, impious, and lascivious, but an obstruction to the audibility of the words. Instruments, as well as certain modes, were actually forbidden in the church because of their association with secular music and pagan rites. Dissonant clashes of notes give a creepy feeling that was labeled as evil, fueling their argument against polyphony as being the devil’s music. After banishing polyphony from the Liturgy in 1322, Pope John XXII spoke in his 1324 Bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum warning against the unbecoming elements of this musical innovation.

 

[Endoplex]

A drum solo is about the drummer, not about the Mass.

If the drums came to my parish. I would be down the road at the Greek Orthodox Liturgy (which is my canonical right to do), whenever I am unable to Make the seven hour round trip to a Catholic church that I can count on to offer a reverent Mass.

How’s that your “canonical right?”

You cannot substitute a GO Divine Liturgy when a licit/valid Mass is available simply because you personally feel it is not “reverent.”

In the case of the GODL it’s also unlikely that you would be admitted to Holy Communion. Their choice, not your choice.

 

[Endoplex]

There is this:

newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service.

I also found this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

It was not merely polyphony that offended the medieval ears, but the notion of secular music merging with the sacred and making its way into the papal court. It gave church music more of a jocular performance quality removing the solemn worship they were accustomed to. The use of and attitude toward polyphony varied widely in the Avignon court from the beginning to the end of its religious importance in the fourteenth century. Harmony was not only considered frivolous, impious, and lascivious, but an obstruction to the audibility of the words. Instruments, as well as certain modes, were actually forbidden in the church because of their association with secular music and pagan rites. Dissonant clashes of notes give a creepy feeling that was labeled as evil, fueling their argument against polyphony as being the devil’s music. After banishing polyphony from the Liturgy in 1322, Pope John XXII spoke in his 1324 Bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum warning against the unbecoming elements of this musical innovation.

Thank you for this. There seems to be an issue of people dredging up obscure/dated references with no authority only because they support their personal preferences.

If another similarly obscure/dated/non-authoritative reference did not support their personal preferences, it would be summarily ignored.

 

[SonCatcher]

I saw the thread title and caught myself wondering whether they were using a Mass Setting by John Cage.

Now that’s “musical abuse”.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

If I can’t get “carried away” celebrating the greatest sacrifice of love ever…then what can I get “carried away” with in life?

It’s almost like I’m hearing that we’re supposed to be mourning at Mass. Other than mourning over our sinfulness, my question is: Why?

Was the last supper a party?..a 'celebration?..

Or, was it a solemn reverent event?

Since the SACRIFICE of the mass (the eucharist) is the ‘source & summit’ of or lives…should it not be revered in the manner our Lord presented it?

 

[agapewolf]

Was the last supper a party?..a 'celebration?..

Or, was it a solemn reverent event?

Since the SACRIFICE of the mass (the eucharist) is the ‘source & summit’ of or lives…should it not be revered in the manner our Lord presented it?

The resurrection was, which is also what mass “celebrates”

 

[Lawrence178]

It’s almost like I’m hearing that we’re supposed to be mourning at Mass. Other than mourning over our sinfulness, my question is: Why?

You are supposed to be celebrating the Lord’s Resurrection. But the reason that He had to do that in the first place was because of your sins. Celebrate=/=Party, Solemnity=/=Mourning

ABsolutely! The unbloody part. That is a true reason to celebrate.

Note that in the article and important noun is elided in the first sentence. “Same” is an adjective (one that may be immediately contradicted, btw, in English). So this causes us to ask an important question. The same what? Well, the same sacrifice seems the obvious answer. An unbloody sacrifice. So it is the same something or other, but not really exactly the same. What it is not, is the same scene. It is not the same suffering, the reason we would truly be mourning. Though the substance remains, the accidents have no nerve endings. That one change from bloody to unbloody is quite significant.

Umm, I don’t think so, the re-presentation part just means we don’t (as some accuse us of) “re-crucify” Christ. We are there as at the foot of the cross all the same, the same scene, the same suffering, but also the love and ultimate triumph of Our Lord.

Forgive me, I was not clear in my post.

A POSTLUDE is played AFTER Mass. That is when the people gather around the piano. Not during the Mass.

“Peaceful” I guess that leaves out “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name,” “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee,” and many other traditional hymns that have a strong beat and stronger words.

The postlude should still be dignified. Just because Mass ended three seconds ago doesn’t give one licence to raise the roof.

And in what world is Holy God, We Praise Thy Name not peaceful? Anyway, maybe peaceful wasn’t the right word, maybe dignified. If I was at the foot of the Cross, I wouldn’t have any qualms about singing that one. I would have qualms about busting a move to the latest “Our God is an Awesome God” type song.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

The resurrection was, which is also what mass “celebrates”

No. Except during the Easter season.

The eucharist. Source. The reason for our lives.
The eucharist. Summit. Nothing higher.

 

[Cat]

You are supposed to be celebrating the Lord’s Resurrection. But the reason that He had to do that in the first place was because of your sins. Celebrate=/=Party, Solemnity=/=Mourning

Umm, I don’t think so, the re-presentation part just means we don’t (as some accuse us of) “re-crucify” Christ. We are there as at the foot of the cross all the same, the same scene, the same suffering, but also the love and ultimate triumph of Our Lord.

The postlude should still be dignified. Just because Mass ended three seconds ago doesn’t give one licence to raise the roof.

And in what world is Holy God, We Praise Thy Name not peaceful? Anyway, maybe peaceful wasn’t the right word, maybe dignified. If I was at the foot of the Cross, I wouldn’t have any qualms about singing that one. I would have qualms about busting a move to the latest “Our God is an Awesome God” type song.

I’m not sure why you are assuming that the people “raise the roof.” Another poster (not sure if it was you or not) descried the people as “rocking.”

All I said was that the people joined in the singing. It would be nice of you not to make assumptions about people and situations that you don’t know.

You know, I would love to try something. I think that if Our God is an Awesome God were sung “Gregorian chant style,” slowly, accapella, and with a male cantor chanting the verses, while a male chorus joined in on the responses–I would be willing to bet hard cash that no one would guess that it’s a “contemporary hymn.” Do any of the rest of you who are real musicians agree with me?

 

[maryjk]

You know, I would love to try something. I think that if Our God is an Awesome God were sung “Gregorian chant style,” slowly, accapella, and with a male cantor chanting the verses, while a male chorus joined in on the responses–I would be willing to bet hard cash that no one would guess that it’s a “contemporary hymn.” Do any of the rest of you who are real musicians agree with me?

I am not a real musician by any means. And this isn’t “slowly.”

But where do I send the check.

youtube.com/watch?v=pebZOHoQbYE

 

[tabycat]

I would not want to hear drums at Mass !/QUOT

Drums at mass, no, unless it is at a ‘enthic’ Mass where drums are a importent part of their culture.

 

[pnewton]

Umm, I don’t think so, the re-presentation part just means we don’t (as some accuse us of) “re-crucify” Christ. We are there as at the foot of the cross all the same, the same scene, the same suffering, but also the love and ultimate triumph of Our Lord.

In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. It is the Church’s teaching that was so well presented in the EWTN link. However, there is no wormhole. There is no smell of Jerusalem, clang of Roman swords or dirt of the Middle East appearing under the altar. It is a spiritual reality. Very real, but spiritual.

Should we be in the same mind as if we were at Calvary 2000 years ago? Is vomiting allowable?

The same, and not. We may have to just disagree on this, but I think the differences do mean something. Also, it may be we are talking about two different things. The whole of the Mass is not the consecration and the liturgy of the Eucharist. The Mass has more than just the sacrifice of Calvary. Yet at the cross there was no homily, no offertoring collected. There was no procession. The same, and not.

I will try and make a distinction in the future if I am referring to the Liturgy of the Eucharist (our source and summit) or the Mass.

A final clarification for those that do not know me here. I am not a Pand W guy, at least at Mass. My favorite music is old hymns and I like most of the more traditional stuff and some of the newer music, as long as it is quality and not just cranked out stuff. However, I respect the authority of the Church as it is put into practice through the bishops and priests. I think they make the best choices they can and usually just catch grief.

 

[nicolakirwan]

You know, I would love to try something. I think that if Our God is an Awesome God were sung “Gregorian chant style,” slowly, acapella, and with a male cantor chanting the verses, while a male chorus joined in on the responses–I would be willing to bet hard cash that no one would guess that it’s a “contemporary hymn.” Do any of the rest of you who are real musicians agree with me?

The flow of the rhythm would still be “contemporary.” The emphasis placed on the backbeat is what makes contemporary/Christian pop its own thing. The type of instrumentation can accentuate or exaggerate it, or subdue it, but it’s still in the flow of it.

I still like “Our God is an Awesome God” though.

 

[pnewton]

The flow of the rhythm would still be “contemporary.” The emphasis placed on the backbeat is what makes contemporary/Christian pop its own thing. The type of instrumentation can accentuate or exaggerate it, or subdue it, but it’s still in the flow of it.

I still like “Our God is an Awesome God” though.

I do not think so. The emphasis is almost always on the downbeat. (the chorus, not the verses), though I do not consider syncopation the work of the devil.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Masses like this used to make me angry and very upset. Then it was suggested that I start consoling Jesus, telling him I love him and was here with him while all the silly stuff was going on. What had previously been bitter turned to sweetness.