- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Yet, for some it does the same thing. This is why the Church supports the principle of subsidiarity, along with inculturation. The needs of each parish needs to be pastorally assessed and the music most appropriate to the need implemented. Each bishop exercises authority in this matter for his diocese.
O
opus101
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
In the article, the Bishop says he is taking Sacred music in the most narrow sense. Thus, music like hymns, chants apart from the actually sacramentary and classis like Panis Angelicus and Attende Domine are all considered religious music.
O
opus101
Guest
Bishop Olmsted describes something quite different than what we’ve been hearing from various posters on the theme ,(or maybe the “excuse” ?), of “inculturation” and its relation to the Mass. Any thoughts?catholicsun.org/bishop/2012/021612.html
O
opus101
Guest
I liked his explanation that it is “religious” music which best uses the specific cultural characteristics of an area, rather than “sacred” music.
O
opus101
Guest
No, he defined it in its narrowest sense, then proceeded to make a clear distinction between it and popular hymns and praise and worship music. He said the latter can have a “salutary force” in NON-liturgical services and ceremonies and OUTSIDE the Church.
Maybe this includes Panis Angelicus, etc., I don’t know - but he is definitely saying that some (religious) music is is inappropriate for Mass, and is better suited for other venues.
T
TigerKitty
Guest
Finally!
Does this mean the end of the angst-ridden youth and young adult “rock bands” at Mass? :extrahappy:
And…
Can we please now stop ending each liturgy with “Happy Birthday”?
Does this mean the end of the angst-ridden youth and young adult “rock bands” at Mass? :extrahappy:
And…
Can we please now stop ending each liturgy with “Happy Birthday”?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Of course there is a difference.
Doubtful.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
And music containing the word Yahweh. Benedict XVI did that.
P
pnewton
Guest
I guess I didn’t get that impression from the article. In fact, when he is first making that sharp distinction, he says,
This is the only time he mentions praise and worship music. Then he goes on to say of this religious music,
I guess what I am saying, is that any attempt to view this article as a ban on music other that, well, usually music one does not like, is misdirected, if one reads what the cardinal actually says. He does lump modern music in the category of religious music, as opposed to liturgical music, but then he gives it a place in the liturgy. I think folks are reading the title, maybe scanning the article, but not following the main point. With the mind of the Church, we should recognize:
O
opus101
Guest
PNewton, the Bishop clearly had a different intent than that which you decribe, and it is very, very clear! And no one said anything at all about a BAN!!! Good grief, where on earth did you get that? That is a clear misinterpretation of my post!
The Bishop CLEARLY says that there are types of “religious” music that are not appropriate for Mass. Although these types are salutary in other venues, they are not for the Mass. He lists them as being “much popular hymnody, ‘praise and worship’ music, as well as a host of other musical forms.”
What do you mean by “He does lump modern music in the category of religious music as opposed to liturgical music, but then he gives it a place in the liturgy.” What are you referring to as “modern” music? There are many types of modern music: minimalistic, atonal, quartal harmonic, aleatoric, impressionistic, neo-romantic, jazz, pop, rock, rap…Not many of these styles have a place in the liturgy!
Any new music for Mass would have to fall under the category of Sacred Music - and be written in a style that is not connected with the music that has come to have a primarily profane connotation. Having such a connotation would put it in the category of “religious” music for use outside of the Mass.
Your last quote (about encouraging “religious” music) doesn’t really do anything but reinforce the Bishop’s notion that “religious” music is a good thing. Outside of Mass.
The Bishop CLEARLY says that there are types of “religious” music that are not appropriate for Mass. Although these types are salutary in other venues, they are not for the Mass. He lists them as being “much popular hymnody, ‘praise and worship’ music, as well as a host of other musical forms.”
What do you mean by “He does lump modern music in the category of religious music as opposed to liturgical music, but then he gives it a place in the liturgy.” What are you referring to as “modern” music? There are many types of modern music: minimalistic, atonal, quartal harmonic, aleatoric, impressionistic, neo-romantic, jazz, pop, rock, rap…Not many of these styles have a place in the liturgy!
Any new music for Mass would have to fall under the category of Sacred Music - and be written in a style that is not connected with the music that has come to have a primarily profane connotation. Having such a connotation would put it in the category of “religious” music for use outside of the Mass.
Your last quote (about encouraging “religious” music) doesn’t really do anything but reinforce the Bishop’s notion that “religious” music is a good thing. Outside of Mass.
C
christofirst
Guest
The “ban” idea might have come from one of my earlier musings about an “Index of Forbidden Music” Don’t take anything I say too seriously.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I just want to clear up this fantastically ambiguous misnomer again.
NO ONE who is actually serious about Catholic liturgical music and wants a restoration of it will say, “All modern/contemporary music is inappropriate for Mass.” That would be asinine. That would be equivalent to saying, “Because this piece was written in the last 100 years, it is inappropriate for Mass.” No one is trying to absolutely connect the year a piece was written to its suitability for Mass. That is simply either ignorant or unintelligent. Take your pick. There are plenty–though not exactly a lot–of Mass settings written in the past 100 years or so that are abundantly appropriate for Mass.
No one is saying that only Palestrina and Mozart and Victoria are appropriate for Mass. They, among others, are certainly the masters, but there are several modern contemporary composers who write very appropriate Mass settings. Take Dr. James MacMillan. He wrote music for the Papal visit to the UK as well as music for Archbishop Nichol’s enthronement to the See of Westminster, most (but perhaps not all…?) of which was very high quality and elicited much praise. His music is totally appropriate for the Mass, and you will do well to note that his music is anything but “Baroque-sounding” or whatever. It has clear continuity with the past, but he does do a clearly modern take on orchestral music. Consequently, it has heritage while also not sounding like it was written in the 17th century (although there is nothing at all wrong with modern composers writing such music).
My point is that we cannot judge modern music SOLELY on its year of publishing. That would be absolute folly. However, it is clear that most of what is being put out today is not appropriate for the Mass, at least not liturgically speaking. EVERY era has its sacred music and EVERY era has its junk music. The reason we are in such a term conundrum is because we speak of modern music “not being appropriate for the Mass.” This, I think, is due to the fact that we often say something like, “Baroque music is appropriate for the Mass,” or, “Renaissance music is appropriate for the Mass.” The reason why we say these things, and why they are correct, is because generally, low-quality music of such eras does not survive to this day in common use, and so we can use a broader brush when using the terms. However, we cannot use such a broad brush with modern music because we live in the modern era, and as such, we have various qualities of music that all endure, because it has not been long enough to “weed out” the low-quality stuff.
THEREFORE, I posit that we use new, more precise terms:
“Contemporary sacred music.”
This term would be used to describe music by such composers as Dr. Macmillan and Kevin Allen, to the complete exclusion and discrimination of pop- or hymn-type music, which we can call:
“Religious music.”
The difference between contemporary sacred music and religious music being that the former is specifically intended for liturgical use, and the latter is intended for unofficial actions/devotions/parish get-togethers/whatever else of the Church. The former will be, in the words of Pius X, “excellent, sober and grave.” The latter will have more liberal allowances, in that it can be of almost any style and quality as long as it is not sacrilegious.
Of course, I am open to refinement of the terms and their definitions, but can we agree basically?
NO ONE who is actually serious about Catholic liturgical music and wants a restoration of it will say, “All modern/contemporary music is inappropriate for Mass.” That would be asinine. That would be equivalent to saying, “Because this piece was written in the last 100 years, it is inappropriate for Mass.” No one is trying to absolutely connect the year a piece was written to its suitability for Mass. That is simply either ignorant or unintelligent. Take your pick. There are plenty–though not exactly a lot–of Mass settings written in the past 100 years or so that are abundantly appropriate for Mass.
No one is saying that only Palestrina and Mozart and Victoria are appropriate for Mass. They, among others, are certainly the masters, but there are several modern contemporary composers who write very appropriate Mass settings. Take Dr. James MacMillan. He wrote music for the Papal visit to the UK as well as music for Archbishop Nichol’s enthronement to the See of Westminster, most (but perhaps not all…?) of which was very high quality and elicited much praise. His music is totally appropriate for the Mass, and you will do well to note that his music is anything but “Baroque-sounding” or whatever. It has clear continuity with the past, but he does do a clearly modern take on orchestral music. Consequently, it has heritage while also not sounding like it was written in the 17th century (although there is nothing at all wrong with modern composers writing such music).
My point is that we cannot judge modern music SOLELY on its year of publishing. That would be absolute folly. However, it is clear that most of what is being put out today is not appropriate for the Mass, at least not liturgically speaking. EVERY era has its sacred music and EVERY era has its junk music. The reason we are in such a term conundrum is because we speak of modern music “not being appropriate for the Mass.” This, I think, is due to the fact that we often say something like, “Baroque music is appropriate for the Mass,” or, “Renaissance music is appropriate for the Mass.” The reason why we say these things, and why they are correct, is because generally, low-quality music of such eras does not survive to this day in common use, and so we can use a broader brush when using the terms. However, we cannot use such a broad brush with modern music because we live in the modern era, and as such, we have various qualities of music that all endure, because it has not been long enough to “weed out” the low-quality stuff.
THEREFORE, I posit that we use new, more precise terms:
“Contemporary sacred music.”
This term would be used to describe music by such composers as Dr. Macmillan and Kevin Allen, to the complete exclusion and discrimination of pop- or hymn-type music, which we can call:
“Religious music.”
The difference between contemporary sacred music and religious music being that the former is specifically intended for liturgical use, and the latter is intended for unofficial actions/devotions/parish get-togethers/whatever else of the Church. The former will be, in the words of Pius X, “excellent, sober and grave.” The latter will have more liberal allowances, in that it can be of almost any style and quality as long as it is not sacrilegious.
Of course, I am open to refinement of the terms and their definitions, but can we agree basically?
P
pnewton
Guest
Have you talked to him? If not, how would you know his intent. No where in the article does he differentiate religious music by type. Thus, all non-liturgical music is lumped together in the article. I never said that you mentioned a ban. Rather, I was following both your thread and the other one on the same subject. I note that the moderator also considered them related enough to merge.
I was not thinking so much of the list of forbidden music, though that was brought up, but rather the idea of a bishop publishing a list of acceptable music. Though that is the perogative of a bishop and one I would not object to, this article considers all non-liturgical music, from chant to Praise and Worship, in the same category. In fact, the only time P and W is mentioned (do a search) is in a sentence defining religious music, which the bishop commends even in the liturgy.
Any new music for Mass would have to fall under the category of Sacred Music - and be written in a style that is not connected with the music that has come to have a primarily profane connotation. Having such a connotation would put it in the category of “religious” music for use outside of the Mass.
You stated that not many styles of modern music fit can be suitable for sacred music. While you are surely entitled to that opinion, the article does not say that. In fact, “sacred music” is not even defined, in the way that liturgical music and religious music are. I will re-link the article for any that care to look back over and search it for this fact.
catholicsun.org/bishop/2012/021612.html
Finally, the article does not differentiate between religious music that is suitable for inside the Mass and that suitable for outside the Mass. Again, I am not saying there is no distinction, simply that we can not use this article for any such point.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
May I ask, what is your argument regarding non-liturgical/non-sacred religious music? I don’t quite understand what your point is. I understand what you’re saying, but to what end?
P
pnewton
Guest
This would go in a whole different direction, namely, my intent. Suffice it to say that in this, my intent was to consider what this article said, and what it did not say.
If we consider this a discouraging on Eagle’s Wings, for example, then the same argument can be used to discourage all but the music that is directly part of the Sacramentary.
At the end of the day, as he is not my bishop, I will take what I can from him, in areas that he is in agreement with the Church. I do the same with Sing to the Lord, the USCCB document. This is a link to the USCCB document on Sacred Music.
evansville-diocese.org/worship/SingToTheLord.pdf
Correction:
I was caught by the time limit of this place. The correct link to the thread I was answering was:
catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html
P
pnewton
Guest
While I am at it, let me add that I think the Bishop uses the word “profane” in a rather unique sense and one that I do not see the Catholic Church using anywhere else. It is a little like putty and seems to be a label for anything not traditional Catholic. I found this by Fr. Serpa:
I do not see how religious music that is beneficial for evangelization can also be described as profane, unless one is using it more as a matter of taste than reality.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74985
I do not see how religious music that is beneficial for evangelization can also be described as profane, unless one is using it more as a matter of taste than reality.
O
opus101
Guest
That is not the sense in which Bishop Olmsted used the word. When speaking of religous things versus profane things, the word “profane” simply means something that is secular and not consecrated or dedicated to Sacred purposes alone. A profane style of music is something that is secular in style, and not something that is irreligious. Even the music used for the texts of “religious” music can be (and usually is) profane as opposed to Sacred.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do think you are correct, although I think such a definition just redefines the negaitve and is circular in nature. I see no practical definition here, but one that will only beg the question of what is secular and what is not, or if you prefer, what is not profane and what is. I find Fr. Serpa’s definition far more practical. In any case, one can not define a word as one sees fit, then apply it to the Church teaching unless the Church has defined that same word in agreement with you.
- Status