Music at Mass, Again

[Cat]

After chatting with my husband, I have figured out the problem here, and I ask that you please read this.

I spent the first 47 years of my life as an evangelical Protestant. As many of you know, evangelical Protestants believe that each person is their own “authority.” That’s an over-simplification, of course. What they actually believe is that each person yields their life to Jesus Christ and turns over the authority or “throne of their life” to Him.

Evangelical Protestants reject the idea of a “church authority” with supreme authority. They will accept that the local pastor is the authority of the local church–EXCEPT when he is teaching something that is un-Biblical or sinful. THEN evangelical Protestants believe that we need to challenge him and possibly reject him and his church.

When an evangelical Protestant becomes a Christian, the hardest issue is the Authority Issue. I remember one of my friends said, “So you’re going to turn yourself over to Rome?”

That’s exactly what we do when we become Catholic–we abdicate ALL authority, and accept Holy Mother Church with Jesus Christ at the Head as our Supreme Authority.

And it is such a relief! Finally, we can stop being our own “pope” and let the real Pope be in charge! Finally there is a “chain of command” that Jesus instituted.

So what is happening here, folks, is that as an ex-evangelical Protestant, I have an absolute horror of taking back ANY authority to myself.

I am grateful that the Church is in charge and I want the Church to be in charge. I don’t WANT to challenge anything that the Church does. There are “people” who are charged to be on the lookout for errors and sins, and sound the alarm if need be. I am not one of those people.

I would certainly speak out against grave sin in the Church; e.g., sexual abuse. But I would do so with the greatest of care, making sure to use the proper channels.

As an evangelical Protestant, I saw many situations where someone who “knew more than the pastor” stepped up and challenged the pastor and their church on various issues. Sometimes the issues were truly serious, but more often, the issues were personal preference issues (e.g.,“Why are we using New International Bible instead of King James Version?”–yes, this is a REAL issue for some Protestants!)

And often, these issues were about church music. Funny isn’t it? You think maybe Satan is having a field day making Christians fight about music?

Many of these situations ended in splits away from the church. Even if there was no split. almost always the situations resulted in broken friendships and bitterness.

**I almost wish that every Catholic could be Protestant long enough to experience the heartbreak of a church conflict/church split. It is so devastating, so painful and hurtful. **

I’ve seen many people, including pastors, who never recover their faith after a split. Some become so bitter that they lash out against God and the Church and become enemies of Christ and Christianity. I believe that God is merciful to them because of the pain that they suffered at the hands of fellow church members.

My parents-in-law were involved in such a conflict. They ended up staying away from church for 14 years. That’s how hurt they were. They do attend now (a UMC), but they are still very cynical about church.

After our church kicked us out, my younger daughter stopped all assocation with church. It’s been almost 7 years now. She still doesn’t trust “church,” including the Catholic Church.

So you see, everyone? I CAN’T challenge my Church because to me, it would be an occasion for sin. I don’t WANT to go back to being my own judge and authority. I don’t WANT to go back to the Protestant attitude of constant “watchfulness” for “wolves” or “little foxes.”

Everyone, that’s what it feels like to me–it feels like evangelical Protestantism, where we practiced a constant alertness for any lack of “Biblicalness” that the pastor tries to pull over us–if we spot it, we’d better do our duty “to the Lord” and speak up and put a stop to it. Can I hear an “Amen,” brothers and sisters?!

Maybe as a lifelong Catholic, you feel comfortable bringing up issues to your priest or Music Director. Maybe it’s a “family thing,” and since you’ve been in the “family” for a long time, you know how to do it without creating a monstrous conflict and causing hurt and pain and a split.

In a way, I envy you. I wish I felt as comfortable in the “family” as you do. You know you’re really part of the family when you can join in the big fight around the dinner table and walk away loving each other.

But I don’t know how to do this thing.

Do you hear me? Can you possibly understand what I’m telling you? I CAN’T BE A CATHOLIC AND ACT LIKE THE FIGHTING PROTESTANT THAT I USED TO BE!

So please, please, don’t tell me to seek out wrongs, bring up issues, challenge abuses, watch out for errors. For me, this kind of activity is an occasion of sin. I don’t WANT to be in charge!!! I want to obey, only obey. I want to submit to the Authority that Jesus Christ Himself established on this earth. I trust that Jesus meant it when He said that gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. That is my peace.

Maybe when I’ve been Catholic for 47 years (I’ll be 98 years old), then I will feel right about challenging the Church authorities. But until then, let me just obey, please. You all do the challenging, OK? Then hand me whatever music you all decide is “good,” and I’ll play it.

 

[benedictgal]

If I may interject some comments based upon this logic.

Music is not the cause of goodness. It neither exists as a causation nor a direction. It is a reflection, itself being an integral part of Liturgy by its very nature. Its very nature is of course recognized by the Church as the highest artform because it was divinely created to SERVE the Liturgy. It does not seek to serve the congregation. It has the capacity to move Man’s heart although that is not its primary purpose. That is merely a secondary result. It is within this very status that the danger of Music in Liturgy also exists to be misunderstood and twisted from its created purpose.

Music, like all of creation, suffers in imperfection as a result of the Fall of Man imparted upon all creation. It too is also reflected in the wound known as original sin and can be twisted from its purpose. The closest we can experience perfection on this planet is made manifest during the liturgy. Music has the unique ability to reflect that in it’s purest form and it also has the ability to be sullied since Man’s wounded nature holds dominion over its usage on Earth.

One must simply look historically to the Church fathers speaking of music at various points and it becomes clear that the Church has always guarded against the times when music has fallen prey to a fallen state. These were all responses to the secular forces of the time. To read Augustine, Aquinas, Popes Gregory or Pius X, is to see that they often speak of very different things for music at face value. The commonality with the Church pronouncements on guiding Music ALWAYS concern themselves with a response to the secular conditions at the time.

The Church ultimately recognizes the power of Music, its extreme importance as an integral part of liturgy, and, as a result, She MUST speak out against secular forces which have preyed upon our weakened human nature to force music to be subservient to our needs. When Holy Mother Church does speak out, it is always to maintain the integrity of the purpose for which music was created. (Once again, that purpose is the closest look by reflection of the perfection we do not see now. We are however destined to see it through our free will acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice for our salvation). The primary purpose of Music has not changed. The form as a result of it’s secondary effects does manifest itself differently through the ages however. Make no mistake when you read the Doctors of the Church. They may seem to disagree at face value in their responses through the ages, but that is not true. They are completely consistent with the primary purpose and the opposing treatments they espouse at any given moment in time is a response to the distortion of the Man’s manipulation of Music’s resultant effects. That is a HUGE difference!

These discussions for me always end up as puerile as this one because we simply forget or have never realized the purpose of Music’s creation, it’s unique bond to perfection, and its ability to be corrupted by Man’s weakened Nature distorting it’s purpose.

To therefore state that Music is justified because it can move someone to a desired response is a grave danger. That logic is an end justifies the means response. It denies the very nature and purpose for which music was created (and what the Church teaches) and ignores what the Church has taught on the subject for generations.

Joe B

Well said!

Like your fellow Tennesseean (sp?) Davy Crockett, you’ve ridden up at the right time!

My parochial vicar and I had the same conversation a while back. He told me that feelings are fleeting. Yes, a piece may move us; however, that is not the original intent. The music is designed to engender a sense of worship, a sense of the divine. We forget that we are not the only ones inside the church. We are joined by the Church Triumphant (the saints in heaven) and the Church Suffering (the souls in purgatory). It’s not about us. It should never be about us. Unfortunately, a lot of the newer music focuses on the community rather than on God.

P.S.: Glad you have Vince Young, but we need him back down here. Just kidding. Seeing your locale, I had to slip that one in to you.

 

[ibkc]

Cat, that was a really moving post. God bless you and your your Dh for the soul-searching.

 

[pnewton]

To be honest, I would not consider myself knowledgeable enough about music to be able to choose one song as “better” than another.

So I would humbly bow out of any evaluating committee!

Yet in extreme examples we can see what is, and is not, appropriate. For exampe, Be Thou My Vision (or as I use it, Lord of All Hopefulness), is hauntingly beautiful, prayerful and very well suited to parts of some Masses. Whereas Jesus is Just Alright With Me, is not. Ave Maria is more beautiful than Hail Mary, Gentle Woman, but not as singable in a congregational setting. Even in Hail Mary, Gentle Woman, I find the “Hail Mary” part much more beautiful than the “Gentle Woman” part which has always seemed to me a bit force. It seems almost added just to make the song long enough. I frequently use the first part alone just as a congregational prayer. I find classic hymns more often to be appropriate than modern music, which often has the earmarks of coming through a corporate compostion mill.

 

[benedictgal]

Cat, you’ve made some interesting points. Thank you for sharing the struggles regarding “protestant” tendencies.

However, I think that you might be confusing things just a bit regarding the faithful protesting certain aspects, especially where the liturgy is concerned.

The issue is not about being our “own pope”. We are not protesting the Church, at all. In fact, we are trying to defend the standards that the Church has set forth. Unfortunately, there are those who have either not read the documents or have simply chosen to ignore them and go their own way.

Pope John Paul II recognized this problem back when he wrote the Chirograph. He notes that there needs to be careful planning and studying, something that has not been fully implemented (as mandated by the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy):

From the smooth coordination of all - the priest celebrant and the deacon, the acolytes, the altar servers, the readers, the psalmist, the schola cantorum, the musicians, the cantor and the assembly - flows the proper spiritual atmosphere which makes the liturgical moment truly intense, shared in and fruitful. The musical aspect of liturgical celebrations cannot, therefore, be left to improvisation or to the arbitration of individuals but must be well conducted and rehearsed in accordance with the norms and competencies resulting from a satisfactory liturgical formation.

1. In this area, therefore, the urgent need to encourage the sound formation of both pastors and the lay faithful also comes to the fore. St Pius X insisted in particular on the musical training of clerics. The Second Vatican Council also recalled in this regard: “Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiate houses of studies of Religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools”[24]. This instruction has yet to be fully implemented. I therefore consider it appropriate to recall it, so that future pastors may acquire sufficient sensitivity also in this field.

The late Pontiff hit the nail on the head when he said that the instruction from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy has yet to be fully implemented. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict made pretty much the same plea.

In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost.

Actually, he has taken great pains to get the music at the Vatican back on track. He is doing his part by leading by example.

The problem is that obedience filters from the top down. The bishops are bound just as much by obedience as are the priests, deacons, religious and the faithful. If the chain of obedience gets fuzzy, then we are in trouble. The bishops are obliged to obey the documents of the Holy See much the same as the rest of us are.

Improvisations on the part of the ones who are supposed to be the stewards of the liturgy constitute the biggest problem here.

 

[Cat]

OK, fair enough. But suppose a person was “knowledgeable enough”. What standards would you expect that person to use, and why?

To put it another way, are you aware of any standards by which such a choice of one song over another can be made?

I frankly am not aware of any standards, but I’m sure they exist. I’m sure that various musicians have written papers outlining various criteria. Sounds like the kind of thing that would be useful for composers to have.

Within each genre of music, I am aware of standards that exist for judging songs and performances of those songs. For example, I know enough about country music to tell you that “Stand By Your Man” is a classic, one of the best country songs ever written, while “I Love A Rainy Night” does not approach the same level of greatness.

I am the Chair of a classical music competition in my city. That doesn’t mean that I am an adjudicator. But I do give the adjudicators a form that they can use to evaluate the music. There are categories like “Technique,” “Dynamics,” “Style,” “Fluidity,” etc.

I would not possess the knowledge to evaluate the various performances, although I could probably place them in Top Half and Bottom Half. But that’s why I hire adjudicators. THEY do understand the criteria and know how to apply it to the performers.

Of course, they are NOT evaluating the music itself. I have no idea how someone decides which Beethoven Sonata is the “Best” and which is the “Worst,” but I’m sure criteria exist.

You’re talking to a total igmo here. I am willing to accept the evaluation of experts. I am not willing to make that judgement myself. As far as I’m concerned, Ave Maria and “Gentle Woman” are equally good. Sorry to be such a Philistine! Good thing I’m not “in charge” of liturgical music at the Vatican, right? God knows what He’s doing by making me the pianist, not the director!

 

[benedictgal]

Yet in extreme examples we can see what is, and is not, appropriate. For exampe, Be Thou My Vision (or as I use it, Lord of All Hopefulness), is hauntingly beautiful, prayerful and very well suited to parts of some Masses. Whereas Jesus is Just Alright With Me, is not. Ave Maria is more beautiful than Hail Mary, Gentle Woman, but not as singable in a congregational setting. Even in Hail Mary, Gentle Woman, I find the “Hail Mary” part much more beautiful than the “Gentle Woman” part which has always seemed to me a bit force. It seems almost added just to make the song long enough. I frequently use the first part alone just as a congregational prayer. I find classic hymns more often to be appropriate than modern music, which often has the earmarks of coming through a corporate compostion mill.

I wouldn’t go that far with Hail Mary/Gentle Woman. When my mother died, our pastor asked me if I wanted that song at her funeral Mass. I told him that if he really wanted to witness a miracle, it would be my mother banging on the casket telling everyone to shsh.

Hail Mary/Gentle Woman is not at all on par with the Ave Maria. By the way, there is a chanted Ave Maria that is not as difficult as Schubert’s version. In fact, my parochial vicar chanted it while he was incensing my grandma’s casket. He also chanted it while he was incensing the altar for the Solemnity of the Assumption. What was so funny about this one was the fact that many of us started chanting along and the PV stopped us with a simple hand gesture. I guess that he wanted to chant on his own.

 

[Cat]

Cat, you’ve made some interesting points. Thank you for sharing the struggles regarding “protestant” tendencies.

However, I think that you might be confusing things just a bit regarding the faithful protesting certain aspects, especially where the liturgy is concerned.

The issue is not about being our “own pope”. We are not protesting the Church, at all. In fact, we are trying to defend the standards that the Church has set forth. Unfortunately, there are those who have either not read the documents or have simply chosen to ignore them and go their own way.

Pope John Paul II recognized this problem back when he wrote the Chirograph. He notes that there needs to be careful planning and studying, something that has not been fully implemented (as mandated by the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy):

The late Pontiff hit the nail on the head when he said that the instruction from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy has yet to be fully implemented. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict made pretty much the same plea.

Actually, he has taken great pains to get the music at the Vatican back on track. He is doing his part by leading by example.

The problem is that obedience filters from the top down. The bishops are bound just as much by obedience as are the priests, deacons, religious and the faithful. If the chain of obedience gets fuzzy, then we are in trouble. The bishops are obliged to obey the documents of the Holy See much the same as the rest of us are.

Improvisations on the part of the ones who are supposed to be the stewards of the liturgy constitute the biggest problem here.

Yes, and I am grateful that people like you are trying to stop the wrongs.

I marvel that you can throw yourself into this fray without becoming bitter and filled with malice towards the Church. I couldn’t do this. Such a life of constant study and surveillance and campaigning would turn me into a dried up fig tree, useless and ugly and possibly poisonous to those who approach me.

Not all of us have the same calling. What is good for you would quickly become sin and death for me. While your actions would HELP the Church, mine would HURT the Church.

You do your job, answer your calling, be true to your convictions. I’ll do the same. And hopefully we’ll meet in heaven.

May I please caution you, though, to please be careful around evangelical Protestant converts? I realize that there are those who haven’t been damaged by church conflicts, and they might become your allies in your struggle against abuses in the Church.

But so many of us have come to the Catholic Church through a mine field of constant battles in church. We bear scars. We still hurt, especially in the night. We have to fight the urge in ourself to go back to being “the champion who defends the church against all comers.”

When we see a conflict on the horizon, we get really, really scared. Our first thought is, "Oh, NO, this isn’t the True Church after all! It’s all a lie! This is just like my Protestant church, full of factions and fights and self-proclaimed “Righteousness Police!”

Sounds like battle fatigue, doesn’t it? Well, in a way, it is. We are tired of the constant battle. You say it’s not about being our own pope. To you it isn’t. To US, it IS! Please try to see it from our point of view and be less zealous about recruiting us for the front lines of the liturgical battles.

Like I said, just tell us what to sing and play, and we’ll do it. If there’s one thing that evangelical Protestants are used to, it’s working hard in the service of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

I wouldn’t go that far with Hail Mary/Gentle Woman.

I have to love the words. What I use it for most often is a meditation prayer at the end of Mass. (only the first part, of course). Heck, how many Churches today even pray the Hail Mary together. It has the added benefit of being short enough to allow a few minutes of silence before the concluding rite.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, and I am grateful that people like you are trying to stop the wrongs.

I marvel that you can throw yourself into this fray without becoming bitter and filled with malice towards the Church. I couldn’t do this. Such a life of constant study and surveillance and campaigning would turn me into a dried up fig tree, useless and ugly and possibly poisonous to those who approach me.

Not all of us have the same calling. What is good for you would quickly become sin and death for me. While your actions would HELP the Church, mine would HURT the Church.

You do your job, answer your calling, be true to your convictions. I’ll do the same. And hopefully we’ll meet in heaven.

May I please caution you, though, to please be careful around evangelical Protestant converts? I realize that there are those who haven’t been damaged by church conflicts, and they might become your allies in your struggle against abuses in the Church.

But so many of us have come to the Catholic Church through a mine field of constant battles in church. We bear scars. We still hurt, especially in the night. We have to fight the urge in ourself to go back to being “the champion who defends the church against all comers.”

When we see a conflict on the horizon, we get really, really scared. Our first thought is, "Oh, NO, this isn’t the True Church after all! It’s all a lie! This is just like my Protestant church, full of factions and fights and self-proclaimed “Righteousness Police!”

Sounds like battle fatigue, doesn’t it? Well, in a way, it is. We are tired of the constant battle. You say it’s not about being our own pope. To you it isn’t. To US, it IS! Please try to see it from our point of view and be less zealous about recruiting us for the front lines of the liturgical battles.

Like I said, just tell us what to sing and play, and we’ll do it. If there’s one thing that evangelical Protestants are used to, it’s working hard in the service of the Church.

Thank you for the kind words, Cat. :hug1:

Believe me. It’s not always hearts and flowers. It can and is a struggle. I am blessed to have had a rector, a pastor and a parochial vicar who have been supportive. We’ve been great sounding boards for each other. Yes, there have been arguments and fights. We challenge each other because we want to bring out the best in each other for the sake of having a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that is fitting and proper.

I get torn into a lot by folks both at CAF and down here because I’m a stickler for the documents. Some of them will tell me that it doesn’t mean a lot. But, I am reminded of a little-quoted and little known line from Gone With the Wind. He and Scarlett’s first husband, Charles, were having a debate, and Charles aske him, “This doesn’t mean anything to a gentleman.” Rhett told him, “It means a great deal of things to a great deal of gentlemen.” That has been my attitude. It may not mean a lot to some, but, it means a lot to me.

I’ll sign off for now. I have an elderly dachshund asleep at my feet who needs to get to a soft bed. God bless!

 

[benedictgal]

I have to love the words. What I use it for most often is a meditation prayer at the end of Mass. (only the first part, of course). Heck, how many Churches today even pray the Hail Mary together. It has the added benefit of being short enough to allow a few minutes of silence before the concluding rite.

I love the words to the Hail Mary, myself. My beef is that Hail Mary/Gentle Woman has the same tone as “Give Peace a Chance.” Don’t even get me started on the Gentle Woman part.

By the way, is Gustav heading y’all’s way? Here’s hoping y’all will be okay.

 

[pnewton]

I love the words to the Hail Mary, myself. My beef is that Hail Mary/Gentle Woman has the same tone as “Give Peace a Chance.” Don’t even get me started on the Gentle Woman part.

By the way, is Gustav heading y’all’s way? Here’s hoping y’all will be okay.

Too early to tell. I was thinking the same thing about brotherholf in New Orleans.

 

[GemmaRose]

I think I have asked you previously to stop responding in this way as it makes it very difficult to respond.
Unless I missed something, I don’t believe you have. I think you asked Cat. If I am mistaken, please refer to your post #. (Or was it on another thread? Please refresh my recollection as to exactly what you object to. Thanks.)

On your ‘comments’:

1. I was asked “show me in the Bible where the liturgy of the Mass is”, I did so. You may not realise this but the Eucharist forms an integral part of the Mass, the liturgy of the Catholic Church. You can check here where it has the phrase “The Mass of Pope Paul VI is the liturgy of the Catholic Mass of the Roman Rite promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).”
   I have been a liturgical musician for 35 of my 53 years and I know darn well that the Eucharist forms an integral part of the Mass, and that the institution of the Eucharist is in the Bible. What is not in the Bible, however, is any instruction on how Mass is to be celebrated, nor what music should be used therein. (Unless they’ve added a new book to the New Testament that I don’t know about.)
2. If I may be permitted to suggest that you should stop making such ignorant comments.
   Are you always so rude?

The authority given to Peter to “bind and loose” is not as you say “off-topic, since this quote refers to Confession.”, it refers, as benedictgal has already informed you, to the establishment of the Petrine Ministry.
**No, you don’t seem to have a competent understanding. Let’s explore the relevant verses.

Peter’s authority and the establishment of the “Petrine ministry” can be inferred from Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 - “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

A closer study at two words in this verse, “Peter” and “church” -
The Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.”

Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Moving on to Matthew 16:19 - “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” There are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone**.

In Matthew 18:18, ALL the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing. The context in which this power is given is the forgiveness of sin. Matthew 18:12-18:

"12 What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray? 13 And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray. 14 In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost. 15 “If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Therefore, as can be seen in Scripture, the power of the keys were given to Peter (i.e., only one Pope), but the power of binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles (the first Bishops, and through their hands, to all subsequent Bishops and the clergy they ordained).

1. You really are going all out to show how ill informed you are.
   Again, are you as rude to all with whom you interact? Just curious.

When the Pope issues a Moto Proprio they are to be followed, leaving aside the studious attempts of some clergy and lay people to ignore Summorum Pontificum. Such a Moto Proprio was written by Pope Pius X, his words have since been reiterated by Pope John Paul II.
And I repeat, neither Pope has specifically restricted one genre of music, but only reiterated the place of chant and the respect it deserves. I have never advocated that Gregorian chant should be relagated to the trash heap. I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing more of it from the mouths of our Church’s many local choirs, rather than some of the hideous pieces which are sometimes sung.

1. Pope Pius X did so, Pope John Paul II in his chirograph reiterated it and went so far as to say “I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated”. It remains in effect.
   A “general rule” is not a mandate, and in fact much was left to the discretion of the local Bishops.
2. In case you haven’t noticed Cat had posted to this thread prior to me making a post to it. She had already made statements and assertions which she posted no evidence for then and has yet to post any for.
   Then take that up with Cat.

Perhaps in future before you get carried away in a 60s-esque sisterly love in you should review a thread in full. And if it’s not too much trouble before you start writing your own norms for what standards should be used to determine what music is suitable for the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, as you appear to do in your post replying to Wolseley, could you possibly provide us some evidence of your authority to do so? Or at least back it up from the teachings of the Church rather than the usual unproven assertions you and Cat seem so fond of.
**I have been a liturgical musician for 35 years (paid and volunteer), received training in liturgy and music at the New York School of Liturgical Music, served on liturgy planning teams, and never received a complaint since I always first and foremost respected the liturgy and never planned any dancing clowns or things of that nature.

What exactly have you done?**

 

[GemmaRose]

I find it amusing that you are responding to my posts, since both you and I were instructed to put each other on our respective ignore lists.

Originally Posted by GemmaRose
These debates always leads to a who-can-bash-Marty-Haugen-more fest.

 

[GemmaRose]

I’ll give you that the TITLE of the song is based on St. Francis’s great hymn, but after that, all similarity ends.
I disagree. The song paraphrases the prayer. It is not a literal translation.

Here is the text of St. Francis

**Here is a text of the song:

The Canticle of the Sun
Lyrics by Marty Haugen

Refrain: The heavens are telling the glory of God, and all creation is shouting for joy. Come, dance in the forest, come, play in the field, and sing, sing to the glory of the Lord.

1. Praise for the sun, the bringer of day, he carries the light of the Lord in his rays; the moon and the stars who light up the way unto your throne.
2. Praise for the wind that blows through the trees, the seas’ mighty storms, the gentlest breeze; they blow where they will, they blow where they please to please the Lord.
3. Praise for the rain that waters our fields, and blesses our crops so all the earth yields; from death unto life her mystery revealed springs forth in joy.
4. Praise for the fire who gives us his light, the warmth of the sun to brighten our night; he dances with joy, his spirit so bright, he sings of you.
5. Praise for the earth who makes life to grow, the creatures you made to let your life show; the flowers and trees that help us to know the heart of love.
6. Praise for our death that makes our life real, the knowledge of loss that helps us to feel; the gift of your self, your presence revealed to bring us home.
   **

First of all, note to whom the hymn is addressed. To God.
While it is true that the song is not addressed to God, it is exhorting us to praise God. The phrase, “praise for” - who do you think we are praising? God!

The Haugen version is addressed to humans, specifically a call to dance in forests and play in fields and to sing.
The song exhorts us to praise God. "Sing" - sing to whom? “Sing to the glory of the Lord.”

Could you point out exactly where Mr. Haugen has written that it is woeful for those who die in mortal sin? Or bearing sickness and trial for the Love of Our Lord?

I seemed to have missed that part.
The song is obviously meant as a song of praise to God for His creation. He chose not to include the one reference to mortal sin.

Many of our responsorial psalms, and readings, do not contain the entire psalm or reading, but leave out selected verses. If the scholars and Bishops who put our Lectionary together can do that with Sacred Scripture, why would anyone object to Mr. Haugen doing that with a prayer?

 

[GemmaRose]

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.

I think another problem that needs to be addressed is that singing the Propers is often not up to the musician. There are priests who want 4 hymns and that’s it because it’s “faster,” or will tolerate some Propers to be sung, but not others. Many grouse about a sung Gloria because “it’s too long.”

Some priests with whom I’ve worked, wonderful and holy men, who have been “put in charge of the music,” choose dreadful songs because they “like them.” One even insisted on a Bob Dylan song (but we tactfully ignored that request).

 

[snhs]

GemmaRose:
It was in another thread. By adding your response to the statement you are quoting you make it very difficult for anyone to quote what you have said and make a response to it.

1. Excellent so you will now realise why when asked what the Bible had to say about the Liturgy I mentioned the institution of the Eucharist. I’m glad you that your 35 years of Liturgical music have taught you something. The Bible gives Peter the authority to “bind and loose”, that includes setting what practices are acceptable for the Liturgy.
2. Do you never read a whole thread before sticking your oar in?

Nice try, baffling people with science, transliterations, introducing multiple other verses etc may work in some circles, indeed I’m sure some Protestant Ministers would be proud to have concocted such a spiel. I refer you to the Catechism, where it says quite clearly:

"553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep.“288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.”

1. If you keep demonstrating how ignorant you are of the truth then it is worth pointing it out.

Perhaps you would like to correct yourself before I do. You said the Moto Proprio “only reiterated the place of chant and the respect it deserves”. That isn’t all it did, perhaps you should go read it and find out what it actually did say.

1. Oh I forgot that as far as you’re concerned the Pope just gives out his “papal opinions and preferences”. I’ll refer you to VoiciMike’s response “That’s right, papal documents are simply opinions and preference. It says so right in the Catechism. And that’s why we’re going to have any darned music we want, and the rest of you can all take a long walk off a short pier. Case closed - next!”

Perhaps you should read up on your Catechism, particularly about the authority of the Pope and the various documents he can issue. Out of interest are the CDW’s publications just ‘opinions’ as well, or do you obey them from time to time?

1. No, just now I’m taking it up with you. I’ll accept that you probably made your comment in ignorance, so I’ll just wait until you’ve retracted your statement “You are the one making the claims, therefore you should be backing up your claims.”

Out of interest are you claiming that that experience gives you the authority to set your own norms for liturgical music? You certainly seem to do so in post #100, although maybe that’s where the rest of us went wrong, we were under the obviously illusory impression that we should follow the teachings of the Holy Father and his predecessors when all along we should have been listening to GemmaRose and the New York School of Liturgical Music.

Do you want a round of applause for not scheduling clowns and things like that? I suppose in some places that might make your Mass the most reverent for miles around, we’re in quite some state where the defence for any kind of music is ‘we didn’t have clowns dancing around’.

 

[snhs]

The song is obviously meant as a song of praise to God for His creation. He chose not to include the one reference to mortal sin.

Many of our responsorial psalms, and readings, do not contain the entire psalm or reading, but leave out selected verses. If the scholars and Bishops who put our Lectionary together can do that with Sacred Scripture, why would anyone object to Mr. Haugen doing that with a prayer?

So St Francis felt the need to mention mortal sin in his prayer, yet for some reason that great visionary and saintly man Marty Haugen? Now lets see who do we think is better placed to compose a prayer a man who was acknowledged as a Saint or a composer?

Scholars are scholars who have studied theology and their own fields in depth. Bishops are Bishops who have studied theology and often various other things. What pray tell are ‘Mr. Haugen’'s qualifications in Catholic Theology?

 

[Brendan]

The song exhorts us to praise God. “Sing” - sing to whom? “Sing to the glory of the Lord.”

If it’s not addressed to God then it isn’t a hymn, it’s a song. And thus should not be used when the liturgy calls for hymns.

What you have then, are one group of people talking to another and no one talking to God.

That was my entire point. St. Francis wisely (and correctly) addressed his Canticle to God. God is the one to whom anyone who sings the real Canticle of the Son is speaking to.

In Haugen’s “version”, God has been removed as the subject, and replaced with other humans.

One fortunate thing about Liturgical Authenticam is that it also requires for music what it did for the Mass text. Set standards and place requirements.

It calls for the Bishops to create a standard Hymnal for the US, consisting of a limited number of hymns that will be send and approved by the Vatican. That was actually supposed to be done two years ago, but the Vatican gave the US bishops a reprieve until the new Mass texts were approved.

Here is a Powerpoint that the US Bishops Committee on the Liturgy used to brief the US bishops at large.

usccb.org/liturgy/MUSIC%20FDLCnew.ppt

If you don’t have Powerpoint, here is a web version

praytwice.com/usccb/MUSIC…iles/frame.htm

Take a good look at slide 16, it shows the theological precision that the bishops are looking for.

 

[GemmaRose]

This is an example of what I am trying to get across. At the moment that you asked the bishop, you demonstrated submission to your authority. He in turn, through his instruction to do what you think is best, passed his authority to YOU. This authority was given to him by the Lord Jesus, and he in turn passed it to you for this task.

And that means that YOU were given the authority of the Lord Jesus for the task.

I believe that at that time, because of the authority of the bishop being passed to you, the Lord gave you the charism, the wisdom, the discernment, to choose the best music for the Mass (or other occasion).

And this of course means that all of the people, including the musicians, the cantors and choir, and of course, the congregation, were obligated to submit joyfully to you and to carry out your selections with a good will.

That is the attitude that I seek to have towards ALL of the liturgical directors and music directors that I work with. When I submit to them, I am submitting to the Lord Jesus Himself. If they choose music that is not my personal choice, that’s not important. The Mass is NOT about my personal choice. It is the choice of the Lord and He uses human agents to make these choices of music. Therefore, I can trust that they are the “right” choices for any given Mass. I do not question and doubt and challenge Him, and neither will I question, doubt, and challenge His appointed human agents.

If the rest of you wish to challenge them, OK. I will not join you in this.

This is a wise post, especially where you say: “I believe that at that time, because of the authority of the bishop being passed to you, the Lord gave you the charism, the wisdom, the discernment, to choose the best music for the Mass (or other occasion).”

I have planned music for countless Masses, Penance Services, etc., and have always prayed before and during planning the music. I truly believe that the Lord has (for His own reasons and certainly not for any of my own attributes) blessed and graced me with an openness to the Holy Spirit when I plan music. Although my specialty is contemporary music, I have never held back from using some of the “golden oldies” (Holy God We Praise Thy Name, Immaculate Mary, etc.) where appropriate.

I have attended Masses where, after hearing some of the musical choices - both contemporary and more traditional - all I could think of was “What was he/she [the musical director] thinking?!?” The only decision I could come up with was that whomever had planned the music could not have prayed about it.

Just because the Lord may choose a person to plan music for a Mass doesn’t mean the person should not pray and seek the Lord’s guidance in the planning.

When prayer has been included in the planning, it shows (just as it shows when prayer has not been a part of the musical planning).