Music at Mass, Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brownginger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
If you are responding to a post of mine, I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you believe “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,” fine. That’s not what I said.

Since you seem to know so much better than I, please tell me the name of the document, and the paragraph number, wherein one specific genre of music is banned, one specific song is banned, or the works of one specific composer is banned.

Thank you.
 
[Quite frankly, I find this ambiguous. The second sentence seems to allow “jiggling” the text a little to make it more “suitable for being set to music” while the fourth sentence says that “paraphrases are not to be substituted.”

When I attended the New York School of Liturgical Music, we were taught that it was permissible to move or change a word or two in order to make something fit musically, especially in the Psalms.
The example I heard was that if a composer wanted to set a Chorus-Verse method he\she could.

If they were setting the Gloria to music, they could have a Refrain "Glory to God in the Highest, and Peace to men of Goodwill"

And have that refrain repeat between sections of text.

But the composer could NOT change the words or paraphrase, such as "Glory to God in the Highest and peace to ALL of goodwill"

That would be forbidden, the texts of Scripture and the Liturgy must be used as approved by the Bishops and by Rome.
[/quote]
 
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).
I respectfully disagree with GemmaRose’s interpretation of the Scripture. The Petrine ministry involves binding and loosening. Jesus

Furthermore, Paul submitted himself to Peter’s authority, presenting himself to Christ’s Vicar first and then to the rest of the Apostles.

Peter’s authority is binding and perpetual. Peter and his successors (the Popes) have the authority to act in the name of Christ. Yes, there is a Magesterium that acts in conjunction with the Holy Father, but, ultimately, the buck stops with Peter.

Were we to take GemmaRose’s stance, we would reduce the Holy Father to the position of first among equals, something similar to what the Orthodox have. But, it is not so with the Church.

Therefore, when the Pope speaks on something like music, he is not just rendering an opinion that you can disregard and treat flippantly, he is speaking with the authority of his office.

Furthermore, regarding Haugen’s song “We Remember”, he is not very explicit at all about the Lord’s presence. Furthermore, he does not take the Church’s Eucharistic theology into account. His songs are a whiter shade of pale in comparison to doctrinally rich hymns such as those written by St. Thomas Aquinas.
 
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?!?” :eek: 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).
I’m sorry to abandon you on this thread, GemmaRose. I am playing for a huge music festival in our city over Labor Day weekend (secular setting), and also hosting our daughters at our house AND working at the hospital. Too much stuff going on.

I appreciate your practical description of choosing liturgical music. I only know four Liturgical Directors personally, but I know that they are godly Catholics who love the Mass and take their responsibilities seriously.
When changes are made, they implement them immediately (e.g., when we started standing for the “May the Lord accept the sacrifice” prayer).

I’m sure there are some self-serving people and “rock stars” out there serving as Liturgical Directors, although I have a hard time believing that anyone can become a rock star with ANY Catholic contemporary piece! They’re just too mellow. Now with the traditional Catholic hymns, definitely! Remember “Hail Holy Queen” from Sister Act?! I think a lot of the old Catholic hymns ROCK! They’re a drum set and a keyboard away from becoming rock hits. 🙂 Don’t cringe, everyone! Protestant groups like 2nd Chapter of Acts did albums of old hymns in contemporary settings, and there have been several releases of “Young Messiah” with rock band and singers! So it CAN be done, and I predict that it WILL be done! And I’ll buy the CD (or download it from I-Tunes–I think that’s the way all the young people buy music nowadays.)
 
If you are responding to a post of mine, I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you believe “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,” fine. That’s not what I said.

Since you seem to know so much better than I, please tell me the name of the document, and the paragraph number, wherein one specific genre of music is banned, one specific song is banned, or the works of one specific composer is banned.

Thank you.
Why would I attempt to answer such a question when that was not what I responded to? Don’t try moving the goalposts. What I responded to was your assertion that papal documents are mere opinion or preference. In other words, what I responded to was you blowing off the Magisterium.
 
Actually, Tradition takes a whole lot of items under its huge umbrella. The faithful of Thessalonica didn’t get the Holy Sacrifice through osmosis. St. Paul introduced the Church’s form of worship to them. Such worship, no doubt, also included music. Surely instructions were given to the faithful to carry on with the liturgy even after St. Paul’s departure. The Holy Sacrifice is part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition.
You are correct in that St. Paul introduced our traditions to the faithful of Thessalonica, however, using 2nd Thess. to bolster any assertion about the liturgy is not applicable since 2nd Thess. is talking about a totally different subject.

The fact that the Holy Father noted (even when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) that there are serious deficiencies in music is important enough to not be dismissed as mere personal opinion. He has stated quite clearly that one song is not as good as
another as far as the liturgy is concerned.
However, he has never stated which songs are better and which ones are worse.

Remember, the same hand that penned Sacramentum Caritatis also wrote “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and “A New Song for the Lord.”

Pope St. Pius X had to contend with theatrical and operatic stuff that had no business in the Mass. Pope Paul VI already suspected that the music flowing out as a result of the Second Vatican Council wasn’t a joyful noise at all. If not, why would he have said that not all is fit to cross the threshold as far as liturgical music was concerned? Pope John Paul II, the father of WYD, echoed those sentiments when he wrote his Chirograph on Sacred Music. Pope John Paul II was not all hearts, flowers and love. He had some pretty strong things to say about the decline in the quality of music and in liturgical abuses.
None of these pontiffs have restricted either a specific genre(s) or specific song(s).

Finally, I respectfully submit that you have missed the entire point of the liturgical norms dictated by God throughout significant parts of the Pentatuch. The Lord dictated just how He was to be worshipped going down to the smallest detail. The animal sacrifices and holocausts prefigure the perfect sacrifice of Our Lord, the new covenant, if you will.
I respectfully submit that you have missed the entire point that God did not dictate how He was to be worshipped in the New Covenant. He left that up to the leaders of HMC, who, over the centuries, introduced many changes from the original Seder meal at which Jesus actually instituted the Eucharist, combining them with elements of Temple worship.

If you notice, much of what the Church, the New Israel, does in her sacrificial worship of the Triune God, mirrors what ancient Israel did. We have a priest who wears vestments who offers a sacrificial victim on the altar (albeit in an unbloody manner, but He is offered, just the same). There are prayers and the sacrifice is consumed by both priest and faithful. Incense is used, as are sacred vessels made of the finest material. Hymns are sung. The Gospel accounts indicate that after the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles sang a hymn on their way to Gethsemane. They were chanting the psalms.
**Our worship today also mirrors what ancient Israel did. However, we do not use the same musical settings of the psalms which Jesus and the apostles sung as these have been lost to time. They certainly weren’t chanting in Gregorian chant.

Other than the knowledge of what a Seder meal consists of, and how Jews worshipped in the Temple, the rest of the New Testament is almost silent on the format of worship in the early Church. (Here, of course, I’m speaking only of that which is in the Bible, not in any early Church documents.)

The only references outside of the institution narratives in the Gospels are:
Acts 2:42 – They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top