Mushy worship music...

  • Thread starter Thread starter CanMan86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Music possibly appropriate for a Baptist wedding but not a Catholic Mass during Ordinary Time (or Easter or Lent or Advent…) Not going to be found in approved hymnals any time soon.

And I am reading Theology of the Body now, so I welcome any links or quotes to this erotic love of Jesus concept.

Eros and Ethos Meet and Bear Fruit in the Human Heart
Pope John Paul II:
Connotation of the term “eros”
  1. According to Plato, eros represents the interior force that drags man toward everything good, true and beautiful. This attraction indicates, in this case, the intensity of a subjective act of the human spirit. In the common meaning, on the contrary—as also in literature—this attraction seems to be first and foremost of a sensual nature. It arouses the mutual tendency of both the man and the woman to draw closer to each other, to the union of bodies, to that union of which Genesis 2:24 spoke. It is a question here of answering the question whether eros connotes the same meaning in the biblical narrative (especially in Gn 2:23-25). This narrative certainly bears witness to the mutual attraction and the perennial call of the human person—through masculinity and femininity—to that unity in the flesh which, at the same time, must realize the communion-union of persons. Precisely because of this interpretation of eros (as well as of its relationship with ethos), the way in which we understand the lust spoken about in the Sermon on the Mount takes on fundamental importance.
I see here a clear reference to sexual complementarity and sexual attraction of husband and wife… perhaps I should read it in the original language and this would unlock the concept of erotic love we must have for Jesus?
 
As for “Faith of Our Fathers”, I used to like it for the first 100 hearings…but Faber’s usual ‘sickly-sweet’ lyrics pall, and never appealed to the Newman’s of his day either.😉
I find it cloying, but I try to be happy for the people who love it. 😉
“Spread wide” and “your fragrance so intoxicating” is more suitable for a pornography film and I hesitate to use it even here.
Putting the lyrics back into context:
“Spread wide in the arms of Christ is the love that covers sin.”
There’s nothing “pornographic” about that.

As for Christ being “fragrant,” see also Psalm 45:

“My heart overflows with a pleasing theme;
I address my verses to the king;
my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.
You are the most handsome of the sons of men;
grace is poured upon your lips;
therefore God has blessed you forever…
God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia…
Hear, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear:
forget your people and your father’s house,
and the king will desire your beauty.
Since he is your lord, bow to him.”
Erotic love for Jesus from a Christian human is inappropriate.
It is not generally considered inappropriate to use such metaphor, however. Consider a poem written by St. John of the Cross and set to music by John Michael Talbot. And there’s more where that came from:
“O Living Flame of Love
that tenderly wounds my soul
in its deepest center!
Since now you are not oppressive,
now consummate! if it be your will:
tear through the veil of this sweet encounter!”
 
Hey,

I find that the music commonly played in non-liturgical Catholic worship settings (and even sometimes liturgical settings) to be overly mushy, modern, protestant, emotional and even effeminate.

(snip)

Does anyone have a similar experience? Thoughts?
I personally do not care for this kind of music, but I see nothing wrong with having it performed at non-liturgical settings. Having been trained in stricter ideas of appropriateness of liturgical music as most of my liturgical mentorship came from a cathedral and have directors of worship who were either trained at the Vatican or very conservative, there are many kinds of music, ranging from classical to contemporary, which I find inappropriate for liturgy, but perfectly fine in other worship settings. That said, I also understand there are different needs and talents in various parishes, so I’m not really critical. Someone mentioned that poorly performed music is more tolerable when it’s the music you like. As a musician, for me, that is completely the opposite. Because I know how it can sound, hearing it done poorly is a thousand times worse. I would rather not hear Palestrina, for instance, if it’s done by a choir who can’t sing in pitch a capella, or chant if it’s sung by a singer who might be a good musician and singer, but doesn’t know how to chant or sing with as much straight tone as possible. When it’s music I don’t care for, it doesn’t matter as much for me if it’s done poorly, so in a weird way, it’s more tolerable.

I also don’t necessarily see it as “Protestant”. Having worked at various Protestant churches as a musician, I know there would be many at those churches who would find that categorizing offensive. Now, perhaps this kind of music came about in certain Protestant denominations, but it shouldn’t be categorized as strictly Protestant. Many of those the Protestant churches I’ve sung in actually do a lot of Catholic sacred repertoire… music that many Catholic churches no longer do. So… 🤷

All that said, I do empathise with you. As a teenager, I also felt really disconnected with many people my age because the parishes all seemed to cater to one kind of youth. As a teen, we never had chant, polyphony, etc. done at mass, so all we knew were the folk music that was mostly played at the time back in the 90s and then the Christian contemporary music was coming into vogue. I first heard this music at my cousins’ church who were born-again, fundamentalist, non-denominational Christians. The very first song I ever heard like this was “Our God is an Awesome God”. I never connected to it and then the, I don’t know what to call it… maybe the culture, of what kids and adults did when the music played (ie. raising hands in the air, etc.) always was too shallow for me. I have nothing against the people who like this music and find spiritual fulfillment from it. (I’m sure many would find the music I prefer spiritually shallow as well - in fact, I know a few who do.) When parishes started to use this music more, people like me were often left out and looked down upon. So, it initially left a bad taste in my mouth and for years as a younger woman, I actually would become physically affected whenever I heard this music at mass… to the point where I would have to run to the bathroom as I thought I would throw up. I have since learned to control these physical reactions and I don’t let it bother me if I have to hear it at mass. The years have also taught me that not all people who like this kind of music were not rude and condescending like those initial individuals I met at the parishes which started to do this music. I also found that many received similar treatment from musicians on more of the classical strain. It was happening all around, so it was good for all of us to see that we were not all like that.

Anyway, I don’t know what kind of advice I can give you. If you live in a more metropolitan area, you might be able to find a parish which employs the kind of music you are looking for. Where I live, the kind of music you are talking about isn’t as prevalent in the parishes as it used to be, but you probably find it more in the suburbs. The cities and more “artsy” areas use more “regular” kinds of hymns or chant, polyphony, traditional hymns (some volunteer, some paid instrumentalists/singers, like in the parishes where I currently work, so they can do this kind of music) I didn’t find it until my junior year of college and joined a volunteer choir in the city which is also where I met my first real mentor and friend in liturgical music… one of the most humble people I know. I learned so much during my years there and I’m very thankful for that time. I was the youngest in the choir at the time, most of whom were in their 30s, 40s and 50s, but I fit in immediately. (I always got along better with older people anyway.) You don’t have to be with people your own age to feel connected.
 
Music possibly appropriate for a Baptist wedding but not a Catholic Mass during Ordinary Time (or Easter or Lent or Advent…) Not going to be found in approved hymnals any time soon.

And I am reading Theology of the Body now, so I welcome any links or quotes to this erotic love of Jesus concept.

Eros and Ethos Meet and Bear Fruit in the Human Heart

I see here a clear reference to sexual complementarity and sexual attraction of husband and wife… perhaps I should read it in the original language and this would unlock the concept of erotic love we must have for Jesus?
Your fixation on wedding vs mass does not make sense. The mass IS a wedding. The priest’s marriage bed is the altar.
 
Hai dòng s?n ph?m thuong hi?u n?i ti?ng nhu nh?ng s?n ph?m c?a hãng Nature Made : Sleep Natural Sleep Aid ( h? tr? gi?c ng?), Triplex Probiotic Multivitamin ( h? tr? h? tiêu hóa) ho?c s?n ph?m c?a hãng GNC, Swnsanon hi?n dã có m?t t?i Vi?t Nam. V?i mong mu?n ngu?i Vi?t Nam du?c s? d?ng nh?ng s?n ph?m cao c?p c?a các nu?c tiên ti?n, **Thuocbocaocap.vn **cam k?t luôn có giá t?t nh?t t?i tay khách hÃ*ng v?i nh?ng ch? d? cham sóc chu dáo nh?t.
 
Your fixation on wedding vs mass does not make sense. The mass IS a wedding. The priest’s marriage bed is the altar.
There are different types of Masses. One type of Mass is a Nuptial Mass. This is commonly when Song of Songs is read. To my knowledge, this is the only type of Mass where Song of Songs is read.

Also, a citation is needed for your assertions. Not easy to just Google them.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Sacrifice of the Mass
With the name “Love Feast” (agape) the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected.
That is the first thing I found about “love” in the Mass. And it refers to “agape”. And it is a negative assertion.

Eucharistic Theology by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
I see a lot about “love”, but not much about “erotic” or “eros” or “marriage” or “wedding”.
 
Start with TOB 47:4
There is an error in numbering on this website where I am reading it. Is 47:4 somewhere in this quote?
Need to be aware
  1. Christ’s words are severe. They demand from man that, in the sphere in which relations with persons of the other sex are formed, he should have full and deep consciousness of his own acts, and above all of interior acts. They demand that he should be aware of the internal impulses of his heart, so as to be able to distinguish them and qualify them maturely. Christ’s words demand that in this sphere, which seems to belong exclusively to the body and to the senses, that is, to exterior man, he should succeed in being an interior man. He should be able to obey correct conscience, and to be the true master of his own deep impulses, like a guardian who watches over a hidden spring. Finally he should draw from all those impulses what is fitting for purity of heart, building with conscience and consistency that personal sense of the nuptial meaning of the body, which opens the interior space of the freedom of the gift.
Well, if man wishes to respond to the call expressed by Matthew 5:27-28, he must learn, with perseverance and consistency, what the meaning of the body is, the meaning of femininity and masculinity. He must learn this not only through an objectivizing abstraction (although this, too, is necessary), but above all in the sphere of the interior reactions of his own heart. This is a “science,” which cannot be learned only from books, because it is a question here in the first place of deep knowledge of human interiority. In the sphere of this knowledge, man learns to distinguish between what composes the multiform riches of masculinity and femininity in the signs that come from their perennial call and creative attraction, and what bears only the sign of lust. These variants and nuances of the internal movements of the heart can, within a certain limit, be confused with one another. However, it must be said that interior man has been called by Christ to acquire a mature and complete evaluation, leading him to discern and judge the various movements of his heart. It should be added that this task can be carried out and is worthy of man.
In fact, the discernment which we are speaking of has an essential relationship with spontaneity. The subjective structure of man shows, in this area, a specific richness and a clear distinction. Consequently, a noble gratification, for example, is one thing, while sexual desire is another. When sexual desire is linked with a noble gratification, it differs from desire pure and simple. Similarly, as regards the sphere of the immediate reactions of the heart, sexual excitement is very different from the deep emotion with which not only interior sensitivity, but sexuality itself reacts to the total expression of femininity and masculinity. It is not possible here to develop this subject further. But it is certain that, if we affirm that Christ’s words according to Matthew 5:27-28 are severe, they are also severe in the sense that they contain within them the deep requirements concerning human spontaneity.
At the price of self-control
  1. There cannot be such spontaneity in all the movements and impulses that arise from mere carnal lust, devoid as it is of a choice and of an adequate hierarchy. It is precisely at the price of self-control that man reaches that deeper and more mature spontaneity with which his heart, mastering his instincts, rediscovers the spiritual beauty of the sign constituted by the human body in its masculinity and femininity. Since this discovery is enhanced in the conscience as conviction, and in the will as guidance both of possible choices and of mere desires, the human heart becomes a participant in another spontaneity, of which “carnal man” knows nothing or very little. There is no doubt that through Christ’s words according to Matthew 5:27-28, we are called precisely to such spontaneity. Perhaps the most important sphere of praxis —concerning the more interior acts—is precisely that which gradually prepares the way toward such spontaneity.
This is a vast subject which will be opportune for us to take up another time in the future, when we will dedicate ourselves to showing what the real nature of the evangelical purity of heart is. We conclude for the present, saying that the words of the Sermon on the Mount, with which Christ called the attention of his listeners—at that time and today—to lust (looking lustfully), indirectly indicate the way toward a mature spontaneity of the human heart. This does not suffocate its noble desires and aspirations, but on the contrary frees them and, in a way, facilitates them.
Let what we said about the mutual relationship between what is ethical and what is erotic, according to the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount, suffice for the present.
 
A mass is a mass. It may be offered for a marriage, for a soul at a funeral, for the living, for a specific intention.

That does not reduce it to not being a marriage/wedding feast EACH AND EVERY TIME the mass is offered.
 
How exactly is that “Protestant”? Please?

Matt Maher is Catholic. There was nothing “protestant” in the lyrics. It’s an anthem.
I have to agree, Christ is Risen is actually a very good song.
Protestant in the sense that it’s what is often played in many protestant churches, especially evangelical or charismatic. Not protestant in the lyrics but in style I guess you could say. This music “style” is not traditionally thought to be Catholic in my opinion. For example, I showed an Orthodox friend this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=UQud1LgLPw0

and asked him what he thought and his only response was “protestant.”
Let’s have a logic lesson for a moment (for what it’s worth, this is a sort-of reduction ad absurdum). I’m going to use your logic here to make a conclusion you’re not going to agree with.

Pipe Organs are often used to play cheesey tunes between at-bats at baseball games across America.
Therefore, Pipe Organs are Secular in the sense that they’re used at Baseball games.
Therefore, Pipe Organs shouldn’t be used in Churches because they’re used in secular places.

See how your argument is absurd?
You are right about this of course, though I have noted over the years it seems here a CAF, the need for an emotional lift comes more from those who are wanting chant more than something like LifeTeen. Outside this place and in the parishes, the reverse seems to be true.
I’ve seen that too. There are usually watch-phrases you can see, such as “It makes me feel like I’m in a Catholic Church” or “I feel connected with the traditions of the Church” (maybe not in those exact words, but those are the underlying sentiments).
In this optic, music like Gregorian Chant and the music of the OP’s link do not relate to the same idea; theoretically, yes - they both tie up with God - but in concrete, no. The God experienced in Pentecostal music is not the same as the God of Gregorian Chant (and other kinds of music that have the same generic effect as Gregorian Chant).
I could make a really inappropriate snide remark about this that the “non-Gregorian chant” side would make, but I’ll restrain myself. You can probably guess.

Instead, I’ll say this: The God experienced is different? The rest of your post (that I snipped) was talking about how we need to get away from “tastes”, but you’ve just tried to use a subjective phrasing to try and make an objective point. Going from particular descriptions of events to universal normatives usually doesn’t work, it’s how most philosophers have got their stuff wrong.
 
I am getting the feeling that these whole concepts of erotic love for God and the Mass-as-a-wedding and altar-as-priest’s-marriage bed are nothing more than private interpretation and pious tradition, rather than official teachings of the Church. You all have presented me with a wealth of writings of great Saints and that is commendable. But I have not seen any Church documents, not even from Blessed John Paul the Great, who had ample time before, during and after composing Theology of the Body, to compose his ideas into an encyclical or something.

Are any of these writings considered Tradition? Can you quote a Catechism or a Papal document citing these writings to make a point about one of the three concepts I have named above?

I mean, writings of the saints are great, but we all know that they are not necessarily the Word of God and they are not necessarily part of Tradition. I don’t have to subscribe to a particular school of religious spirituality, I only have to give assent to Church doctrine and dogma. And you are presenting this song written by Baptists as if it is based on sound doctrine taught infallibly.
 
nope. You must be reading the old translation?
OK, I found TOB 47:4
Blessed John Paul the Great:
Many shades of meaning of “eros”
  1. However, we have already mentioned that the term eros has many semantic shades of meaning. Therefore, wishing to define the relationship of the enunciation of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28) with the wide sphere of erotic phenomena, that is, those mutual actions and ways of behaving through which man and woman approach each other and unite so as to be one flesh (cf. Gn 2:24), it is necessary to take into account the multiplicity of the semantic shades of meaning of eros. It seems possible, in fact, that in the sphere of the concept of eros—taking into account its Platonic meaning—there is room for that ethos, for those ethical and indirectly even theological contents which, in the course of our analyses, have been seen from Christ’s appeal to the human heart in the Sermon on the Mount. Also knowledge of the multiple semantic nuances of eros and of what, in the differentiated experience and description of man, at various periods and various points of geographical and cultural longitude and latitude, is defined as erotic, can help in understanding the specific and complex riches of the heart, to which Christ appealed in Matthew 5:27-28.
Part of what he is saying here seems to be “eros is more than what you think it means. eros is more than sexual attraction.” So expanding the concept of eros to a sphere and taking into account its Platonic meaning, we can understand the preaching of Christ more fully. I still don’t see where it is saying we must have sexually erotic love for God.
 
I am getting the feeling that these whole concepts of erotic love for God and the Mass-as-a-wedding and altar-as-priest’s-marriage bed are nothing more than private interpretation and pious tradition, rather than official teachings of the Church. You all have presented me with a wealth of writings of great Saints and that is commendable. But I have not seen any Church documents, not even from Blessed John Paul the Great, who had ample time before, during and after composing Theology of the Body, to compose his ideas into an encyclical or something.

Are any of these writings considered Tradition? Can you quote a Catechism or a Papal document citing these writings to make a point about one of the three concepts I have named above?

I mean, writings of the saints are great, but we all know that they are not necessarily the Word of God and they are not necessarily part of Tradition. I don’t have to subscribe to a particular school of religious spirituality, I only have to give assent to Church doctrine and dogma. And you are presenting this song written by Baptists as if it is based on sound doctrine taught infallibly.
TOB isn’t opinion. It was official Papal Wednesday audiences
 
TOB isn’t opinion. It was official Papal Wednesday audiences
Show me where Pope Benedict (because Francis hasn’t been around long enough) has cited it as part of Tradition and de fide teaching for all Catholics to believe.
 
Of course I have read Song of Songs, which is appropriate Scripture for a Nuptial Mass.

The above hymn was used in Ordinary Time Masses at a Newman Center, where college students should be focusing on their studies and spiritual growth, and the vast majority are unmarried.

Yes, it was Catholic Masses where I was made to sing this junk! “Spread wide” and “your fragrance so intoxicating” is more suitable for a pornography film and I hesitate to use it even here.

Erotic love for Jesus from a Christian human is inappropriate. Erotic love for one’s spouse mirrors the self-giving love of the Holy Trinity. Jesus is in the form of a man - are we human men supposed to have erotic, homosexual love for Jesus Christ?
From your objections to certain phrases, it is possible to conclude that pornography has left scars that appear to haunt even the most innocent or innocuous terminology. Jesus does spread his arms wide to embrace us with His love - this is not a new concept.

Your last question is offensive and blasphemously inappropriate - and is unworthy of a “practicing Catholic”:mad:
 
OK, I found TOB 47:4

Part of what he is saying here seems to be “eros is more than what you think it means. eros is more than sexual attraction.” So expanding the concept of eros to a sphere and taking into account its Platonic meaning, we can understand the preaching of Christ more fully. I still don’t see where it is saying we must have sexually erotic love for God.
You are again reducing it. “Sexual” means difference. Our sexuality makes us male or female, and we are meant to love AS a man or a woman-- to each other, to our children, to our parents, to God.

Continue reading.
 
From your objections to certain phrases, it is possible to conclude that pornography has left scars that appear to haunt even the most innocent or innocuous terminology. Jesus does spread his arms wide to embrace us with His love - this is not a new concept.

Your last question is offensive and blasphemously inappropriate - and is unworthy of a “practicing Catholic”:mad:
The double entendres of this song are indeed cleverly crafted, and some of you have failed to grasp what is obvious to many male teenagers with a steady diet of porn. These are not poorly-written lyrics, they just belong to a Protestant praise-and-worship song that is not appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but perhaps a Baptist wedding liturgy with electric guitars, drums and a lot of hand-clapping.

I am sorry that you are offended by my comment, but it was meant rhetorically, and seems to me the logical conclusion of some of the reasoning presented by others in this thread.
 
Show me where Pope Benedict (because Francis hasn’t been around long enough) has cited it as part of Tradition and de fide teaching for all Catholics to believe.
JPII’s delivery as an official wednesday audience doesn’t count, but Pope benedict does?
 
JPII’s delivery as an official wednesday audience doesn’t count, but Pope benedict does?
According to Brother JR, the Holy Father interprets Holy Tradition, and has the last word on what is, and isn’t Tradition. The writings of one Pope may be incorporated into Tradition, but not by that Pope himself! Only by later Pontiffs affirming that these teachings contained therein are in harmony and building on Holy Tradition. Therefore, we need affirmation from at least Benedict XVI, and the lack of a repudiation by Francis, in order to accept Theology of the Body (or the writings of St. John of the Cross, or the sayings of Ven. Fulton Sheen…) as inspired and part of Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top