Music at Mass, Again

[pnewton]

These words, written 105 years ago, still ring very true today. The serious problem with the sixties/seventies Joan Baez/Caren Carpenter dribble that is still used today (Be Not Afraid, You are Near and other songs) is that the genre is not fitting for use in the Holy Sacrifice…

I might disagree with some of the choices you see as not fitting. It is not Peter that anyone questions, or the Holy Father. It is where where opinion of their statements enter in. If you re-read what you wrote, do you not understand why others might consider your opinion somewhat prejudicial? We must not let our own tastes color the way we interpret Scripture or tradition.

 

[benedictgal]

I might disagree with some of the choices you see as not fitting. It is not Peter that anyone questions, or the Holy Father. It is where where opinion of their statements enter in. If you re-read what you wrote, do you not understand why others might consider your opinion somewhat prejudicial? We must not let our own tastes color the way we interpret Scripture or tradition.

What is prejudicial about adhering to the statements issued by Pope St. Pius X, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI? Each, in his own right, has questioned the state of liturgical music. What was wrong 105 years ago, is still wrong today.

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe you need to read the psalms:

Then I guess all these psalms that are done by King David should be thrown out, too. THESE are what P/w songs are based on! These psalms right here are how p/w songs are worded, and you are saying how wrong it is! Sorry, that argument is wrong.

Aug 24, 2008

R. (8bc) Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
**I will give thanks **to you, O LORD, with all my heart,
for you have heard the words of my mouth;
in the presence of the angels **I will sing **your praise;
**I will worship **at your holy temple.
R. Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
I will give thanks to your name,
because of your kindness and your truth:
When I called, you answered me;
you built up strength within me.

August 28, 2008

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 145:2-3, 4-5, 6-7

R. (1) **I will praise your name for ever, Lord.
Every day will I bless you,
and I will praise your name forever and ever.**Great is the LORD and highly to be praised;
his greatness is unsearchable.
R. I will praise your name for ever, Lord.

Aug 31, 2008
Responsorial Psalm
Ps 63:2, 3-4, 5-6, 8-9

R. (2b) **My soul is thirsting **for you, O Lord my God.
O God, you are my God whom I seek;
for you my flesh pines and my soul thirsts
like the earth, parched, lifeless and without water.
R. My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
**Thus have I gazed toward **you in the sanctuary
to see your power and your glory,
For your kindness is a greater good than life;
my lips shall glorify you.
R. My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
Thus will I bless you while I live;
lifting up my hands, I will call upon your name.
As with the riches of a banquet shall my soul be satisfied,
and with exultant lips my mouth shall praise you.
R. My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.
You are my help,
and **in the shadow of your wings I shout for joy.**My soul clings fast to you;
your right hand upholds me.
R. My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 119:97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102

R. (97) Lord, I love your commands.
How I love your law, O LORD!
It is my meditation all the day.
R. Lord, I love your commands.
Your command has made me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
R. Lord, I love your commands.
I have more understanding than all my teachers
when your decrees are my meditation.
R. Lord, I love your commands.
I have more discernment than the elders,
because I observe your precepts.
R. Lord, I love your commands.
From every evil way I withhold my feet,
that I may keep your words.
R. Lord, I love your commands.
From your ordinances I turn not away,
for you have instructed me.
R. Lord, I love your commands.

Psalm 89: On Nativity Vigil
The promises of the LORD I will sing forever, proclaim your loyalty through all ages.

The problem with the Praise and Worship songs is that the delivery is altogether inapprorpriate for the Mass. Agapewolf, you have never answered my challenge to you. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist found the music used at Masses to be problematic, casting the songs as shadows to the liturgy. [Edited]

 

[pnewton]

The fact that you’re focused on songs shows that you still don’t really get it. The 4-hymn Mass is the lowest, least ideal form of sung Mass, since it is only singing AT Mass rather than the ideal of singing THE Mass. A Mass sung with the four best hymns in all Christendom is still less ideal than singing the actual texts of the Mass.

The GIRM mentions different parts for the incorporation of hymns and no on is suggesting that any hymns replace the singing of the Mass. Let us not assume that some one “doesn’t get it” by inserting things not said by the poster and reading it in the worst light. Instead, a legitimate question deserves a sincere answer, not unfair criticism.

 

[benedictgal]

The GIRM mentions different parts for the incorporation of hymns and no on is suggesting that any hymns replace the singing of the Mass.

However, there is a level of hierarchy regarding what needs to be sung at the Mass: Musicam Sacram lists these:

1. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

1. The following belong to the second degree:

(a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

(b) the Creed;

(c) the prayer of the faithful.

1. The following belong to the third degree:

(a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

(b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

(d) the song at the Offertory;

(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.

Hymns are at the lowest rung of the ladder.

 

[agapewolf]

The problem with the Praise and Worship songs is that the delivery is altogether inapprorpriate for the Mass. Agapewolf, you have never answered my challenge to you. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist found the music used at Masses to be problematic, casting the songs as shadows to the liturgy. [Edited]

[Edited]

You keep using the argument that the songs are wrong BECAUSE OF the perspective and the language, such as the focus. I have challenged you that the argument is wrong, many times, yet you continue to ignore that challenge and yet keep bringing it up in other threads. Your argument does not hold water.

I HAVE also answered you, yet you continue to ignore it. It is your interpretation of these documents and this music that is not matching up with the mind of the church and its interpretation. Your opinion that the song is bad.

 

[VociMike]

The GIRM mentions different parts for the incorporation of hymns and no on is suggesting that any hymns replace the singing of the Mass. Let us not assume that some one “doesn’t get it” by inserting things not said by the poster and reading it in the worst light. Instead, a legitimate question deserves a sincere answer, not unfair criticism.

Hymns are always the last choice for those parts. The first choice is to sing the actual texts of the Mass, the Propers. The next choice is to sing a seasonal text, the seasonal Propers. Only the very last choice is to sing a hymn. There is a reason that each and every Mass has a set of Proper texts, and that the Church has also introduced seasonal Propers.

It’s not unfair to say someone doesn’t get it if they really don’t get it. Anybody who thinks the question about music in the Mass comes down to which hymns should be selected is stuck in the least ideal option for a sung Mass.

 

[pnewton]

What is prejudicial about adhering to the statements issued by Pope St. Pius X, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI? Each, in his own right, has questioned the state of liturgical music. What was wrong 105 years ago, is still wrong today.

No, the principles of 105 years ago apply today. There was a time polyphonic chant was wrong. What I saw as prejudicial was your opinion of music styles that you labeled as “dribble.”

 

[benedictgal]

No, the principles of 105 years ago apply today. There was a time polyphonic chant was wrong. What I saw as prejudicial was your opinion of music styles that you labeled as “dribble.”

Most of the songs from that era are just that, to be perfectly frank with you. “They’ll Know We are Christians” sounds like Fleetwood Mac’s “Tusk”. Others sound like the lame cheesy theme songs to bad TV sitcoms. Even one of the setings for the Gloria found in Spirit and Song sounds like one of the hits Survivor had in the 1980s, and, it’s not “Eye of the Tiger.”.

 

[pnewton]

Why are you always twisting my words and taking extremes with my thoughts?

I noticed that music is such an emotional hot button that the rhetoric always gets ramped up on this forum. At least benedictgal puts her time where her mouth is and is active in her parish. But there is always a tendancy for emotions to run a little hot and charity to back a back seat. Yes, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But do you know how many times God had to send prophets to straighten out His people that what He loves most is for His people to do justice, while practicing charity and humility?
Micah 6 comes to mind.

 

[snhs]

How?

Writing letters? You and others have already told me that I know nothing about the various documents, so why on earth would I dare to write to…who exactly do I write to, anyway? The bishop? That’s like an ant scratching a message to a human.

Refusing to play songs that the CAF Liturgy Police (people that I don’t know from Adam!) say are “wrong?” No way! I at least want to hear people that I know and trust and see their everyday lives say “these songs are bad” before I refuse to sit down and play what I am asked to play.

HOW?!!

snhs, how are YOU making these changes to the Mass? And how are you efforts being received by the priests and the people?

Well you could start by reading some of the quotes and the documents themselves rather than dismissing them all the time. You could stop making comments such as this one from earlier “And thank you for your earlier posts, especially the one that says that rather than criticizing and “proving from the documents” why all the hymns that Catholics like are “inappropriate” or “irreverent,””, if hymns are inappropriate, irreverent or deemed unsuitable for the Liturgy by the Church/the standards set by her then they should be called as such. The standards set by the Church should be followed and respected as such.

Reason and Church norms tend to remain the same. The decision from the CDW that hymns with the word Yaweh are not to be used, for example. So if you are asked to play such a hymn then inform them of the CDW’s decision, if they refuse to change the hymn speak to the Priest about it. If the Parish is consistently playing hymns which go against the guidelines of the Church, or which your Bishop may classify as “dreck” then mention it to whoever is choosing them, if they don’t remedy it then bring any concerns to the Priest. If someone on here makes a cogent argument against a certain hymn firmly grounded in what the documents say then chances are there is a problem with the hymn.

Bernard Cardinal Griffen said, “To serve at the altar … is, next to the priesthood, the highest privilege which a human can enjoy.”. I’m currently involved with Altar serving on a weekly basis, lead the servers at one of the Sunday Masses and at the more complicated Liturgies (e.g. Easter/Christmas Vigil, First Communions, Confirmation etc.) and, when required, help with training new servers. The Priest has yet to complain as have the Parishioners.

 

[Sarabande]

There was a time polyphonic chant was wrong.

Yes, from the 1100s to about 1335 or so. It was banned by a couple of popes because the way the music was “performed” was too secular. It wasn’t until Guillame de Machaut that he refined and adapted polyphony so that it no longer had strong secular elements in order for it to be acceptable for mass.

I feel like a broken record, but this type of refining and adapting has been going on for centuries. (People need to recognize and understand this. It is nothing new.) Certain music comes into the mass for a while, it is then reviewed and some will eventually be not permitted any longer (even if the music uses sacred or religious texts) and some will have good enough composers who will take the form and adapt/refine it enough so that it no longer has the secular elements either in the performance of it or in the compositional style.

The last time the Church went through this heavily was in the early 20th century after a few decades of various kinds of music creeping into the liturgy. They had to put a stop to it. I find that the same is happening now, and I believe people in all various “camps” are being affected by it. There are those who are more classically trained and have used many compositions which are religious, such as arias or choral works from religious oratorios, etc. being reminded again (this isn’t new for classical musicians) that some of these works really aren’t appropriate for liturgy. Perfect for sacred music concerts, but not necessarily for mass.

Then there are people who play music from the folk/rock/pop, etc. styles being reminded that reviews are currently being made of these newer forms of music that have made its way into liturgy. Some will be thrown out - just like some of the classical repertoire that has been thrown out of liturgy for centuries. It has been happening recently and people aren’t liking it. (Just like the people in the past. Humans don’t change.)

**The musicians and composers of our time will have to do what our “forefathers” in sacred music had to do in the past. We have to adapt and refine. ** Either the newer forms will be thrown out for good in time or there will be talented enough musicians/composers who will work hard at refining the styles so that it works more closely to what the Church considers as appropriate sacred music and closest to the spirit of sacred chant and polyphony. Of course, it doesn’t have to sound like it, but the tone and “performance” of the music needs to be close to it.

We know that there will be many people in my diocese who will absolutely abhor or just dislike the “changes” which will be taking place this fall and in the coming years. Our DW is just bringing back what he has learned while working at the Vatican and making sure it is being properly implemented here as it is has been too many years that things have gone unchecked. This a time of transition and transition always hurts before it becomes
good again. So, it is also important to go about it in as gentle a way as possible. There is that fine line of being too caught up in the rules and working from that angle. It needs to be implemented in a gentle and spiritual way, having the understanding that not all parishes will be able to do polyphony or chant right away and giving the parishes time to adjust and transition.

 

[Sarabande]

Hymns are always the last choice for those parts. The first choice is to sing the actual texts of the Mass, the Propers. The next choice is to sing a seasonal text, the seasonal Propers. Only the very last choice is to sing a hymn. There is a reason that each and every Mass has a set of Proper texts, and that the Church has also introduced seasonal Propers.

The unfortunate thing is that most people don’t know this. I’ve been in music ministry since I was 15 and didn’t know this until I was in my mid-20s. I’ve never heard the propers done at mass until in my 20s and it wasn’t at a typical parish mass. I was speaking with my music director friend for my parish who is tasked with doing the propers for all of our masses by our DW for the diocese. It has actually been a blessing for him as it is actually much easier for liturgical planning then to find hymns with the proper texts which would truly work with each Sunday. Luckily for us, we use hymn sheets, so it is a little easier to get better appropriate text for each Sunday and just set metrically to a hymn melody, but he agrees that the Propers are the ideal.

 

[Cat]

Yes, from the 1100s to about 1335 or so. It was banned by a couple of popes because the way the music was “performed” was too secular. It wasn’t until Guillame de Machaut that he refined and adapted polyphony so that it no longer had strong secular elements in order for it to be acceptable for mass.

I feel like a broken record, but this type of refining and adapting has been going on for centuries. (People need to recognize and understand this. It is nothing new.) Certain music comes into the mass for a while, it is then reviewed and some will eventually be not permitted any longer (even if the music uses sacred or religious texts) and some will have good enough composers who will take the form and adapt/refine it enough so that it no longer has the secular elements either in the performance of it or in the compositional style.

The last time the Church went through this heavily was in the early 20th century after a few decades of various kinds of music creeping into the liturgy. They had to put a stop to it. I find that the same is happening now, and I believe people in all various “camps” are being affected by it. There are those who are more classically trained and have used many compositions which are religious, such as arias or choral works from religious oratorios, etc. being reminded again (this isn’t new for classical musicians) that some of these works really aren’t appropriate for liturgy. Perfect for sacred music concerts, but not necessarily for mass.

Then there are people who play music from the folk/rock/pop, etc. styles being reminded that reviews are currently being made of these newer forms of music that have made its way into liturgy. Some will be thrown out - just like some of the classical repertoire that has been thrown out of liturgy for centuries. It has been happening recently and people aren’t liking it. (Just like the people in the past. Humans don’t change.)

**The musicians and composers of our time will have to do what our “forefathers” in sacred music had to do in the past. We have to adapt and refine. ** Either the newer forms will be thrown out for good in time or there will be talented enough musicians/composers who will work hard at refining the styles so that it works more closely to what the Church considers as appropriate sacred music and closest to the spirit of sacred chant and polyphony. Of course, it doesn’t have to sound like it, but the tone and “performance” of the music needs to be close to it.

We know that there will be many people in my diocese who will absolutely abhor or just dislike the “changes” which will be taking place this fall and in the coming years. Our DW is just bringing back what he has learned while working at the Vatican and making sure it is being properly implemented here as it is has been too many years that things have gone unchecked. This a time of transition and transition always hurts before it becomes
good again. So, it is also important to go about it in as gentle a way as possible. There is that fine line of being too caught up in the rules and working from that angle. It needs to be implemented in a gentle and spiritual way, having the understanding that not all parishes will be able to do polyphony or chant right away and giving the parishes time to adjust and transition.

Thank you for an excellent post.

You have said well what I am trying to say. Even though some people on this thread seem to think that I am saying to replace all traditional music with Weird Al Yankovic fun songs, that’s NOT at all what I am saying.

Music is a very personal thing, and for any layperson to just walk in and say, “Out with it! It’s trash!” is hurtful.

It doesn’t matter if you are correct in your assessment of the various Church documents. A doctor is often right about a patient’s need for surgery, but the doctor doesn’t just throw the patient on the table and start cutting. He or she spends a lot of time with the patient before the day of surgery, explaining everything that will happen and describing how the patient can help make things less painful. Sometimes there is therapy before the surgery to help the patient be ready. Then on the day of surgery, the anesthesiologist puts the patient out and meds are given to prevent pain and everything is done carefully to make sure the patient not only survives, but has a good qualify of life after the surgery

And as long as we are using the “doctor” analogy, I’ll remind everyone that it is the DOCTOR who calls the treatment, not the nurse, the PT, the med tech, the receptionist, or all the people waiting in the lobby. In the same way, the proper authorities in the Church will make the call when it comes to liturgical music. Laymen who are not in a position of responsibility are not the ones qualified to make this call.

The Catholic Church seems to be wise, prudent, and kind-hearted when they give the norms for Liturgy and implement these norms. Even this new rule about not pronouncing the word “Yahweh” in Mass has a “grace period” (I believe it’s three months?). It’s not something that must be implemented RIGHT THIS MINUTE OR ELSE!

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for an excellent post.

You have said well what I am trying to say. Even though some people on this thread seem to think that I am saying to replace all traditional music with Weird Al Yankovic fun songs, that’s NOT at all what I am saying.

Music is a very personal thing, and for any layperson to just walk in and say, “Out with it! It’s trash!” is hurtful.

It doesn’t matter if you are correct in your assessment of the various Church documents. A doctor is often right about a patient’s need for surgery, but the doctor doesn’t just throw the patient on the table and start cutting. He or she spends a lot of time with the patient before the day of surgery, explaining everything that will happen and describing how the patient can help make things less painful. Sometimes there is therapy before the surgery to help the patient be ready. Then on the day of surgery, the anesthesiologist puts the patient out and meds are given to prevent pain and everything is done carefully to make sure the patient not only survives, but has a good qualify of life after the surgery

And as long as we are using the “doctor” analogy, I’ll remind everyone that it is the DOCTOR who calls the treatment, not the nurse, the PT, the med tech, the receptionist, or all the people waiting in the lobby. In the same way, the proper authorities in the Church will make the call when it comes to liturgical music. Laymen who are not in a position of responsibility are not the ones qualified to make this call.

The Catholic Church seems to be wise, prudent, and kind-hearted when they give the norms for Liturgy and implement these norms. Even this new rule about not pronouncing the word “Yahweh” in Mass has a “grace period” (I believe it’s three months?). It’s not something that must be implemented RIGHT THIS MINUTE OR ELSE!

The problem is that, many times, the publishing houses and composers just churn stuff out. Had they taken the time to read the documents and what the Supreme Pontiffs have written, perhaps things would be different.

The Church encourages music; however, she does have her parameters, which, unfortunately, have gone ignored. That is why the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist noted the huge problems with music used in Youth Masses. That is why Pope Benedict XVI said that as far as the liturgy is concerned, one song is not as good as another.

Unfortunately, there will be those who will ignore the grace period and maintain the status quo. This happened with the Neocatechumenal Way. Unfortunately, bad habits are very hard to break.

By the way, having read through the document, I don’t find a grace period anywhere. In fact, the date on the letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is June 29, 2008. The date on the letter from Bishop Serrateli, the Bishop of Paterson, is August 8, 2008. The bishop’s letter doesn’t indicate a grace period.

 

[Cat]

Well you could start by reading some of the quotes and the documents themselves rather than dismissing them all the time. You could stop making comments such as this one from earlier “And thank you for your earlier posts, especially the one that says that rather than criticizing and “proving from the documents” why all the hymns that Catholics like are “inappropriate” or “irreverent,””, if hymns are inappropriate, irreverent or deemed unsuitable for the Liturgy by the Church/the standards set by her then they should be called as such. The standards set by the Church should be followed and respected as such.

Reason and Church norms tend to remain the same. The decision from the CDW that hymns with the word Yaweh are not to be used, for example. So if you are asked to play such a hymn then inform them of the CDW’s decision, if they refuse to change the hymn speak to the Priest about it. If the Parish is consistently playing hymns which go against the guidelines of the Church, or which your Bishop may classify as “dreck” then mention it to whoever is choosing them, if they don’t remedy it then bring any concerns to the Priest. If someone on here makes a cogent argument against a certain hymn firmly grounded in what the documents say then chances are there is a problem with the hymn.

Bernard Cardinal Griffen said, “To serve at the altar … is, next to the priesthood, the highest privilege which a human can enjoy.”. I’m currently involved with Altar serving on a weekly basis, lead the servers at one of the Sunday Masses and at the more complicated Liturgies (e.g. Easter/Christmas Vigil, First Communions, Confirmation etc.) and, when required, help with training new servers. The Priest has yet to complain as have the Parishioners.

I do not dismiss the “documents.” I do dismiss some of the interpretations that some of you have regarding the documents.

I read them, snhs. I don’t study them like many of you do, but I do read through the documents regarding church music (since I play piano and feel that I should have some clue).

Interestingly, I arrive at totally different conclusions than some of you arrive at. Hmmm…

Kind of reminds me of Protestantism, where everyone has a different interpretation of the Bible and everyone is convinced that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. It’s an awful way to do church, people.

Could it be that the same thing happens when laymen who are not called to do so read these various Church documents and attempt to interpret them?

Maybe that’s why it’s important for those of us who are not called to positions of authority in the Church to leave these issues to those who ARE called and trust that they are making the correct decisions.

The Holy Spirit gives special charisms to those who are appointed to various positions in the Church. These people are qualified to read and study and interpret the various documents of the Church. I am NOT qualified.

For all I know, my interpretations of the documents regarding liturgical music are doo doo. But there’s no problem, because I am not in a position to put the doo doo into the Mass!

With all due respect, I don’t think most of us are qualified and I think that many of us are also coming up with “doo doo.”

Like I said, I read the various documents and quotes posted by benedictgal and others, and I just don’t see the rigid interpretation that some of you seem to see. I see a very loving and flexible Church that allows freedom for priests to choose many different options in Mass music.

And some of you see something very different.

So which of us are right? Probably you, since you have been Catholic a lot longer than I have, and you have not only read through the documents, but you have studied them and correlated them with the vast body of other Church documents, as well as the Holy Scriptures. Some of you have even earned degrees in this area. I haven’t done any of that.

But…most of you are not in any position of authority in the Church. So I have no obligation to obey you, even if it seems that you might be correct. **I DO have the obligation to obey my priest and his appointed staff. **

I think that the person who is “correct” about liturgical music is the person who is currently in the position of authority in this area in the local parish. That’s why the Holy Spirit appointed these people–He knows what He wants to get done in the Church, and He will protect His Church from “doo doo.”

 

[benedictgal]

I do not dismiss the “documents.” I do dismiss some of the interpretations that some of you have regarding the documents.

I read them, snhs. I don’t study them like many of you do, but I do read through the documents regarding church music (since I play piano and feel that I should have some clue).

Interestingly, I arrive at totally different conclusions than some of you arrive at. Hmmm…

Kind of reminds me of Protestantism, where everyone has a different interpretation of the Bible and everyone is convinced that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. It’s an awful way to do church, people.

Could it be that the same thing happens when laymen who are not called to do so read these various Church documents and attempt to interpret them?

Maybe that’s why it’s important for those of us who are not called to positions of authority in the Church to leave these issues to those who ARE called and trust that they are making the correct decisions.

The Holy Spirit gives special charisms to those who are appointed to various positions in the Church. These people are qualified to read and study and interpret the various documents of the Church. I am NOT qualified.

For all I know, my interpretations of the documents regarding liturgical music are doo doo. But there’s no problem, because I am not in a position to put the doo doo into the Mass!

With all due respect, I don’t think most of us are qualified and I think that many of us are also coming up with “doo doo.”

Like I said, I read the various documents and quotes posted by benedictgal and others, and I just don’t see the rigid interpretation that some of you seem to see. I see a very loving and flexible Church that allows freedom for priests to choose many different options in Mass music.

And some of you see something very different.

So which of us are right? Probably you, since you have been Catholic a lot longer than I have, and you have not only read through the documents, but you have studied them and correlated them with the vast body of other Church documents, as well as the Holy Scriptures. Some of you have even earned degrees in this area. I haven’t done any of that.

But…most of you are not in any position of authority in the Church. So I have no obligation to obey you, even if it seems that you might be correct. **I DO have the obligation to obey my priest and his appointed staff. **

I think that the person who is “correct” about liturgical music is the person who is currently in the position of authority in this area in the local parish. That’s why the Holy Spirit appointed these people–He knows what He wants to get done in the Church, and He will protect His Church from “doo doo.”

Cat, have you ever read any of the documents? Reasonable interpretations are not something that belongs in file 13, especially, if they are in line with interpretations given by the Supreme Pontiff, whom we are supposed to obey.

Pope Benedict was very clear and very direct when he said that “one song is not as good as another” as far as the liturgy is concerned. Pope Paul VI said that not everything that crosses the threshold is fit for use in the liturgy. These are the interpretations of the documents by two Pontiffs. They are also in line with what Pope St. Piux X wrote and what Pope John Paul II wrote 100 years later.

Something else to consdier is the fact that is the right of the laity to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated according to the norms and directives of the Church. Music falls under such a category. If the music is not at all suitable, then, the faithful have the right to petition the priest, using the authoritaitve documents of the Holy See. The clergy and their appointed staff are not free from error. I have seen, heard and experienced some huge whoppers. I was overruled by the wife of the bishop’s executive assistant because she wanted to sing Angels We Have Heard on High in lieu of the Gloria for Midnight Mass one year. I was reduced to tears during the Mass becuase I knew that there would be a chilling effect, especially since it was being broadcast on the radio. Sure enough, the following year, a prest wanted to do the same thing at his Mass. Talk about setting a bad precedent. What was worse was that the bishop went along with it.

The reason I ask if you’ve even read the documents is that these are readily available for all to digest. It’s not rocket science. The problem is that perhaps there are those who are afraid or leery to read them because they will find themselves (and perhaps their leadership) proven wrong by what the Church says. The Supreme Pontiffs have provided authoritative interpretation of what the liturgical documents say.

 

[snhs]

Music is a very personal thing, and for any layperson to just walk in and say, “Out with it! It’s trash!” is hurtful.

It doesn’t matter if you are correct in your assessment of the various Church documents. A doctor is often right about a patient’s need for surgery, but the doctor doesn’t just throw the patient on the table and start cutting. He or she spends a lot of time with the patient before the day of surgery, explaining everything that will happen and describing how the patient can help make things less painful. Sometimes there is therapy before the surgery to help the patient be ready. Then on the day of surgery, the anesthesiologist puts the patient out and meds are given to prevent pain and everything is done carefully to make sure the patient not only survives, but has a good qualify of life after the surgery

And as long as we are using the “doctor” analogy, I’ll remind everyone that it is the DOCTOR who calls the treatment, not the nurse, the PT, the med tech, the receptionist, or all the people waiting in the lobby. In the same way, the proper authorities in the Church will make the call when it comes to liturgical music. Laymen who are not in a position of responsibility are not the ones qualified to make this call.

I don’t think anyone has proposed the complete eradication of entire genres of music, have they? Whether it should be removed from the Liturgy of the Church is an entirely different question.

That depends on how much danger the patient is in. If a cancer has advanced so far that the patient’s life is endangered by waiting days or hours the decision may be taken to operate immediately. You were quite happy telling us earlier “we shouldn’t give Satan one little inch”, surely it therefore makes sense to stop the rot immediately and remove the tumour entirely before it can spread and infect any more of the body than it already has?

In case you have never seen any E.R. type shows those Doctors often have students with them who will advise as to the course of treatment having studied the works of prominent experts in the field, that doesn’t mean they will always be right but they’re far better placed to make a diagnosis that the patient or a relative without such knowledge. And in case you haven’t noticed eventually those students will become Doctors themselves, what remains important is that their work is founded in what they have been taught. For Doctors, the practice of medicine, to do no harm. And for Composers/Musicians/Music Directors within the Church to follow the teachings and standards of the Church with regard to sacred music. Now if a Doctor failed to practice medicine properly they’d lose their licence to practice, perhaps the same should happen to serial offenders when it comes to liturgical music.

The Church has taken extreme action in the past to deal with problems entering liturgical music. It is essential that the refinement take place, as Sarabande pointed out. This has not happened with many of the modern musical genres, there has been no incentive for it to take place when the same sort of “dreck” has been accepted for the Mass as for a secular pop concert, albeit with slight modifications to the lyrics.

The expert bodies of surgeons, the Congregations and Vatican, may set the standards, but it is up to individual Doctors and students, in Diocese and Parishes, to put it into practice. If all of these Doctors had actually been obeying what the Church taught we wouldn’t have the situation we’re in now, with clappy Glorias and next to no Gregorian Chant. I can’t say I’d be sorry if the expert surgeons decide to remove the growth immediately and worry about salvaging the healthy parts of it after.

 

[Cecilia_Selby]

Dear Brownginger
I know what you are talking about.I think too much singing about bread and wine without any songs about body and blood turn the meaning to a very Protestant view. Surprise surprise there are
Catholics that do not beleive in the Real Presence.
Cecilia

 

[Cat]

Well you could start by reading some of the quotes and the documents themselves rather than dismissing them all the time. You could stop making comments such as this one from earlier “And thank you for your earlier posts, especially the one that says that rather than criticizing and “proving from the documents” why all the hymns that Catholics like are “inappropriate” or “irreverent,””, if hymns are inappropriate, irreverent or deemed unsuitable for the Liturgy by the Church/the standards set by her then they should be called as such. The standards set by the Church should be followed and respected as such.

Reason and Church norms tend to remain the same. The decision from the CDW that hymns with the word Yaweh are not to be used, for example. So if you are asked to play such a hymn then inform them of the CDW’s decision, if they refuse to change the hymn speak to the Priest about it. If the Parish is consistently playing hymns which go against the guidelines of the Church, or which your Bishop may classify as “dreck” then mention it to whoever is choosing them, if they don’t remedy it then bring any concerns to the Priest. If someone on here makes a cogent argument against a certain hymn firmly grounded in what the documents say then chances are there is a problem with the hymn.

Bernard Cardinal Griffen said, “To serve at the altar … is, next to the priesthood, the highest privilege which a human can enjoy.”. I’m currently involved with Altar serving on a weekly basis, lead the servers at one of the Sunday Masses and at the more complicated Liturgies (e.g. Easter/Christmas Vigil, First Communions, Confirmation etc.) and, when required, help with training new servers. The Priest has yet to complain as have the Parishioners.

snhs, I do wish that you would stop quoting Bishop Thomas Doran out of context.

You have picked up on one word in one sentence in one article–“dreck”–and you are driving this word in like a nail.

I have been listening to him on the radio for many years, starting in the 1990s when I moved to my city. I was still Protestant and recognized that this man was an apostle. I felt that I was listening to Jesus speak when I heard him speak.

He is one of the reasons why I am Catholic today. I truly believe that he fulfilled his role as shepherd and helped this “sheep” find her way into the fold.

I love him very much and am honored to be part of his diocese. I pray that he will continue to stay healthy and stay free of the cancer that attacked him a year ago. I honestly think it was Satan trying to bring him down.

I trust him unreservedly.

I have heard him speak at Masses and at seminars, and I have read many of his writings.

He is NOT the stern, firm, unyielding, “Latin-or-die” Bishop that you apparently think he is. He is orthodox and he doesn’t hesitate to speak out against wrongs, and he speaks out with salt in his tone.

But he doesn’t walk around lashing out against music and calling all the Haugen songs “dreck” and condemning rock music in the Mass or Protestant P and W music in the Mass.

At the Catholic Family Conference a few weeks ago, he was a keynote speaker and also said the Opening Mass for the Conference. Yes, traditional hymns were used, and yes, he praised this (and made a special mention of the young boy who sang Ave Maria during Communion).

But the Mass cantor and pianist (yes, pianist, not organist) were both professional contemporary singers, and performed contemporary songs throughout the Conference, including before, during and after Mass. The pianist in particular played a definite “pop” style, even during the traditional hymns. And the cantor sang Latin with an “Amy Grant” intonation, if you know what I mean!

Bishop Doran didn’t kick them out or criticize them or their music. Neither did any of the other priests who were at the Conference.

At the various Masses that I have been at with Bishop Doran, Latin hymns were done–along with Haugen and other contemporary (40 years old) songs.

He is a good bishop, and one of the reasons he is good is that he practices charity towards all, and he knows when to push and when not to push.