Music at mass

[lak611]

How is modern music irreverent if it complies to church doctrine and moral teaching? I listen to bands such as Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Leeland, etc. They are great inspirational songs with a good message. They get me in the mood for worship.

Would you say that the music from Iron Maiden or Megadeth is acceptable for liturgical music so long as the lyrics are theologically correct?

If not, why not?

Any of this music would be ok to listen to in the car or at home. However, music that makes me want to tap my toes, clap my hands, or “head-bang” is not appropriate for Mass. The purpose of Mass is to worship God, not be entertained.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Paramedigirl -

I’ve read it. Nothing new to me, but it was helpful to read it in the particular way that priest wrote it. It helps to read the same points expressed by different folks. It certainly is helpful.

What it doesn’t address is the music itself, lyrics aside, which is really what I’m trying to sort out in this particular thread.

 

[Sarabande]

Why, when Gregorioan chant first arose, was it considered sacred and alternative forms secular, rather than vice versa? In other words, we know where various forms of music came from, and in what realm they are most at home. What I have yet to see and answer to is why any of this is the case.

It’s too late for me to have a well thought-out addition to/response to your entire post, but I think I do understand where you are coming from. I’ll have a more detailed response tomorrow, hopefully.

In regards to your quote above, I do know that different forms of chant was used as a form of worship and spiritual devotion of the ancient world of pagan faiths and Judaism long before Christianity. The Gregorian chant style, or the western plainchant, was what Christianity used and developed into western music theory as we know it today.

So, although chant would find its way to the secular realm, it was almost exclusively for prayer and spiritual devotion first.

Now, why chant has always been placed in this status rather than the other “secular” forms, is an answer I’d like to know as well. There may never be a direct answer as we weren’t there to see it evolve. What I find interesting, though, is that in many other older or ancient religions and cultures you also find that still they have a style of chanting for their spiritual devotion. For some, if chanted correctly, perhaps it’s the quality of that kind of monophy and flow which creates a state of spiritual meditation and focus to transcend the physical into the spiritual for the experience of closeness with God, at a level you sometimes can’t get with other forms. Having heard various forms of chant, I can see and have experienced the “other-worldly” quality which chant can conjure. That is just one theory. I’m sure there are many others.

 

[VociMike]

The problem I see is that whenever I read an explanation of what sort of music ought to be used in the Liturgy, it is expressed in very subjective terms. The quote from John Paul II is a perfect expression of this. He says that sacred music must posess dignity and beauty. However, these are subjective terms. What is beautiful to me is not necessarily what is beautiful to you.

But he says more than this. He says
With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.
So we have a model, a standard. And only composers who are profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can properly apply that standard, that model, to their own compositions.

I’m going to repeat the questions I asked earlier. Why do people want to use contemporary secular sounding music in the liturgy? What advantages do they think such music holds? Only when we start looking at the answers to these questions can we evaluate whether the answers are in line with the purposes of liturgical music.

And again, why should priests wear sacred vestments to celebrate the Mass rather than business suits, jogging outfits, hawaiian shirts and cutoffs, or leather pants and jackets? Why shouldn’t a priest be able to celebrate Mass in the “clothes of the people”, in contemporary secular fashions?

 

[snhs]

Then why, you ask, do people leave the Church? Quite frankly, I blame many “Catholics” themselves. Let me use an analogy here:

Say you go to a restaurant. Once inside, there is a delicious aroma in the air. However, when your meal arrives, it is bland, tasteless. You think that maybe the chef is having a bad day. You decide to give the restaurant another chance. You go again. The aroma in the air still smells delicious. You order something different, and again, when it arrives, the food is bland and tasteless. You don’t go to the restaurant again.

The delicious aroma is the music. The bland food is the homily. For those who are poorly catechized, they have not yet understood the great and precious gift of the Eucharist, and so they leave.

Let’s go back to the restaurant. This time, you order something simple, say meatloaf, and it comes so spicy that with your first taste you are miserable. You feel like you’ve been sucking on jalapeno peppers. You are upset and irate and complain to the manager.

In this instance, the spicy meatloaf is the homily which “tells it like it is,” the homily which isn’t afraid to call sin by its name - adultery, fornication, etc. - the homily which comes right out and says that living together is a sin, artificial birth control is a sin… the homily that tells people why they should be in Church every Sunday and not just when they “feel like it”… the homily that tells the value and holiness of the Body of Christ and if you’re living in mortal sin you should not be receiving it… the homily urging people to go to Confession… the homily which “disturbs” the senses of some who complain to the Bishop who contacts the priest who then tones down his sermon to baby pablum which doesn’t help to catechize the poorly churched masses who are attracted to the music but not getting fed and so they leave.

That’s why people leave the Church.

If music was the problem, how do you explain the difference in Confession lines now and 50 years ago?

So you think people should be deciding to come to Mass on the basis of the music? Sorry but I fundamentally disagree with that. The food we come to Mass to get comes from Our Lord which for most Catholics reaches its fullest expression in receiving His Body and Blood and hearing his Word. The only smell to be added into that equation is incense. If you think the music is so delectable now then just wait till Gregorian Chant is restored to a place more inkeeping with the esteem the Church holds it in.

You can’t expect every Homily to be entertaining, spiritually fulfilling and/or amusing and you can’t expect every Priest to be a St Thomas Aquinas or G.K. Chesterton. You can’t seriously advocate that its a good thing for a Priest to not tell the congregation about sin, the state they should be in to receive Communion or the value and significance of that Communion. You are contradicting yourself, people will never understand unless someone tells them the truth, you can’t expect the Priest to couch every Homily so that it offends no one and then criticise him when his Homily says nothing.

Well if I remember correctly not much longer than 50 years ago there was the TLM, which in many places had more suitable music which was more vertically focused and wasn’t driven by the gratification of the congregation. The real difference is 50 years ago we had a greater number of Priests who would call a sin a sin and give a Homily which wasn’t afraid to tell the congregation that. Now we are starting to get more Priests and Seminarians who are willing to do the same. We have Orders which restore Church music to its proper place, and put the focus of the liturgy back where it belongs, not in the hands of ‘music leaders’ which can only be a good thing.

 

[GemmaRose]

Then you might want to read this. Ritus Narcissus.

I followed the link, read the article & found problems from the very first sentence:

Imagine the following scene: You arrive at Mass on Sunday, eager to thank God for His goodness to you. You slide into the pew early, kneel in prayer, and direct your praise and worship to your Lord and God.

It’s obvious from the opening sentence that this article is written with the view of Mass being a cozy “God & me” experience. What about the Mass being the community worshipping together?

Thanking God for His goodness should be a daily occurrence, not something you eagerly await to do one day a week.

This argument reminds me of those congregants who object to reviewing any music before Mass because they are saying their Rosary. These are usually the same folks who refuse to sing because they “don’t know the song” - which they would know if they wouldn’t complain about being taught something before Mass.

This is not an argument to use only old traditional hymns because that would be is akin to saying that no one should ever write any new liturgical music again; also, I have met younger Catholics who didn’t know “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name.”

You stand as the song leader introduces the opening hymn: “Table of Plenty”. Suddenly your praise comes to a screeching halt, not because of your own prayers, but because of what you are singing. In fact you are no longer praising God at all, but singing to the others:

Come to the feast of heaven and earth!
Come to the table of plenty!
God will provide for all that we need,
here at the table of plenty.

Why should we not sing with joy at the great gift & mystery that is the Mass? God is stooping down to come to His people. Yes! Come to this great feast! Come to the table set by Him who provides all that we need! Come & bring all of yourselves - your heart & soul, your mind & body… come & celebrate our great God!

Now it gets worse: you begin to sing His lines:

O, come and sit at my table
where saints and sinners are friends.
I wait to welcome the lost and lonely
to share the cup of my love.

This is the first of many times in the article where the author takes issue with us singing the lines of a song where it is the Lord who is speaking. Using the same argument, no one should be reading a Gospel. After all, the Gospels contain the words of Jesus.

The author goes on to explain “two essential aspects of the Mass: presence and dialogue,” then says:

Given the lyrics of much contemporary liturgical music, however, we must ask what has become of this dialogue and our ability to enter it. Many hymns have us sing only about ourselves and to ourselves, even going so far as to usurp God’s part. Such words fail to convey the true meaning of the Mass as a dialogue between Christ and the Church. The offending lyrics come in two varieties: in the first, we sing to one another and about one another, but do not include God in the conversation; and in the second, we sing God’s parts.

Regarding singing “to one another,” it appears that the author, Fr. Scalia, must be blessed with a congregation which is not only fully aware of the essential aspects of Mass, but also not affected by the generalized coma from which many of our congregants appear to suffer. Regarding singing “God’s parts,” unless Jesus is planning on joining the choir… no seriously, there are more people in the pews who need to hear words such as “O, come and sit at My table where saints and sinners are friends. I wait to welcome the lost and lonely, to share the cup of My love,” which can lead them to the “vertical” of which Benedictgal writes.

Our congregations are not made up of bishops and cardinals, but plain old human beings - not all of whom are proficient in prayer, not all of whom well catechized, but to whom we owe a duty to attempt to raise their minds & hearts to God through our various ministries, in this case, music.

If Joncas music does the job, then we should use it… if more traditional hymns do it, then we should use them… if chant does it, then we should use it, always being careful to use a variety of genres, yet not necessarily all mishmashed together in one Mass.

Of course, many traditional hymns also address the other believers rather than God. But a close look at such hymns (for example, “Now thank we all our God”, “Praise, my soul, the King of heaven”, or “Ye watchers and ye holy ones”) reveals a crucial difference: the traditional hymns address others only to invite them to worship God, while most contemporary songs invite us to glorify ourselves.

In this paragraph, the author uses the same argument to promote older hymns, while criticizing contemporary ones! The broad statement that “‘most’ contemporary songs invite us to glorify ourselves” is absurd. Does the author know each & every contemporary song? Where do his statistics come from? From his own, personal and subjective opinion?

The author mentions 9 (unless I’ve miscounted) contemporary songs which he has trouble with in one way or another. Fine. What of the hundreds of other contemporay songs? Surely, not each & every one fails the author’s litmus test of liturgical music!

So many condemn “Protestant-inspired praise and worship music,” yet so many of those songs do exactly what Fr. Scalia says that sacred music should do: worship God & not sing of ourselves.

Maybe if all protestors’ arguments made sense, were born out of experience as opposed to personal tastes, and were made with full knowledge of what they are protesting against, maybe then I might tend to agree with them.

 

[Lazerlike42]

But he says more than this. He says
With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.
So we have a model, a standard. And only composers who are profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can properly apply that standard, that model, to their own compositions.

I’m going to repeat the questions I asked earlier. Why do people want to use contemporary secular sounding music in the liturgy? What advantages do they think such music holds? Only when we start looking at the answers to these questions can we evaluate whether the answers are in line with the purposes of liturgical music.

And again, why should priests wear sacred vestments to celebrate the Mass rather than business suits, jogging outfits, hawaiian shirts and cutoffs, or leather pants and jackets? Why shouldn’t a priest be able to celebrate Mass in the “clothes of the people”, in contemporary secular fashions?

This is good so far as it goes, but it is not an answer to the more fundamental questions being asked, for two intimately connected reasons.

First, it tells us that proper Liturgical music does in fact not imitate Gregorian chant, but is in the “spirit” of it. This is again a subjective definition. What is this spirit, objectively speaking?

Second, it does not answer the very fundamental question of what about Gregorian chant makes Gregorian chant appropriate and indeed the best for the Liturgy. Please understand that I do not present this question in a confrontational way, as when one asks, “who died and made you king?” One might ask that question with the intention of challenging that the individual in question is indeed king, or one may ask it with the acknowledgment that he is indeed king, for the sake of knowing how it is that he came to be. It is in this latter sense that the question is posed. It being given that Gregorian chant is in fact the music which is most appropriate for Liturgy, the question is, why? What is it about it that makes it so?

Therin we also go back to the first reason. If one is to write music in the spirit of Gregorian chant, just what constitutes that spirit? What is it that makes Gregorian chant proper for the Liturgy? The questions are one and the same.

 

[Sarabande]

…So we have a model, a standard. And only composers who are profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can properly apply that standard, that model, to their own compositions.
…
And again, why should priests wear sacred vestments to celebrate the Mass rather than business suits, jogging outfits, hawaiian shirts and cutoffs, or leather pants and jackets? Why shouldn’t a priest be able to celebrate Mass in the “clothes of the people”, in contemporary secular fashions?

I think these are important point that you raise. There are objective standards in art, education and philosophy which have been imposed throughout the centuries within the Church. These were set by educated, deep thinkers and holy people. In a way it was not an “Anything goes” or “What I think is beautiful and inspirational” philosophy. It was what is the standard set by the Church and how are we to uphold that?

Please know that I’m NOT one of these people who believe that it is chant or nothing at all. I’m very much in favor of music that follow along the standards which was set by the Church. Through my posts I’m just trying to think these thoughts and the philosophies, practices and educated beliefs of the Church through. It probably doesn’t completely answer the beauty question set by Lazerlike42, but these are just my thoughts.

Chanting/plainsong has always been in the church and in other religions and spiritual beliefs. Plain singing is the most primitive and integral instrument to the human body. The modes of musical theory developed, evolved, and grew around it. As I mentioned previously, it wasn’t just as simple as Gregory creating chant and injecting it into the mass. To have had it last this long within almost every old or ancient religion and spiritual practice is an interesting thing. Something about it has obviously “touched a nerve” or a part of the soul which has kept generations of people to hold it up high as the ultimate in musical worship.

In regards to the subjective or objective view of “beauty”, true there can be and are huge shades of gray with respect to beauty. But again, there does need to be some objective standards imposed. If someone is having trouble determining what beauty is, then simply rely on what our cultural heritage has deemed to be beautiful - not what popular culture has held up high for the time being. All across the world people revere the works of the classical masters (which were birthed from the musical theory standards set by those who created and began to notate sacred music -ie sacred chant and polyphony) through the modern age. They come from disparate cultures, but yet revere this music even if they may not choose it as their main form of “listening pleasure”. Why is that? There is an intangibility to it. Why do we value gold or precious stones so much as humans? It is just an element or mineral like any other. What makes it more special? That is something intangible as well, yet it is a set standard.

In a more ‘clinical’ train of thought, for all of the postulating we do about why these forms of music are more beautiful is because that is what educated and non-educated people have accepted as truth. True, there are pieces from chant to modern-day composers that bore me to death. However, I do not deny the genius that went into to writing them, especially within the period that they were written. To believe that proven musical knowledge and the mastering of that knowledge is not necessary to create beauty, is to deny the necessity that a man needs in order to be ordained a priest. There has to be some objective on what our culture finds beautiful.

 

[benedictgal]

Pope Benedict XVI offers this reflection on Sacred Music in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Whether it is Bach or Mozart that we hear in church, we have a sense in either case of what gloria Dei, the glory of God, means. The mystery of infinite beauty is there and enables us to experience the presence of God more truly and vividly than in many sermons. But there are already signs of danger to come. Subjective experience and passion are still held in check by the order of the musical universe, reflecting as it does the order of the divine creation itself. But there is already the threat of invasion by the virtuoso mentality, the vanity of technique, which is no longer the servant of the whole but wants to push itself to the fore. During the nineteenth century, the century of self-emancipating subjectivity, this led in many places to the obscuring of the sacred by the operatic. The dangers that had forced the Council of Trent to intervene were back again. In similar fashion, Pope Pius X tried to remove the operatic element from the liturgy and declared Gregorian chant and the great polyphony of the age of the Catholic Reformation (of which Palestrina was the outstanding representative) to be the standard for liturgical music. A clear distinction was made between liturgical music and religious music in general, just as visual art in the liturgy has to conform to different standards from those employed in religious art in general. Art in the liturgy has a very specific responsibility, and precisely as such does it serve as a wellspring of culture, which in the final analysis owes its existence to cult.

Thus, even the Holy Father himself, makes that distinction between the music we use for the liturgy and that which is used for other religious purposes (retreat settings, perhaps). Pope Benedict also brings to the table something that his immediate predecessor did not have: classical training in music (not to mention a brother who served with great distinction as a renowned choirmaster in Regensberg).

Incidentally, during the Papal Mass at St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, Austria, Pope Benedict made these very telling reflections (as reported by Sandro Magiester in the online edition of Cheisa:

"It was a particularly beautiful experience this morning to celebrate the Lord’s Day with all of you in such a dignified and solemn manner, in the magnificent cathedral of Saint Stephen. The celebration of the Eucharist, carried out with due dignity, helps us to realize the immense grandeur of God’s gift to us in the Holy Mass, and fills us with deep joy. It is precisely in this way that we draw near to each other as well, and experience the joy of God. So I thank all those who, by their active contribution to the preparation of the liturgy or by their recollected participation in the sacred mysteries, created an atmosphere in which we truly felt God’s presence.

And that afternoon, in the monastery of Heiligenkreutz, where each day 80 Cistercian monks celebrate the divine office in pure Gregorian chant and entirely in Latin, he said:

“In the beauty of the liturgy, …] wherever we join in singing, praising, exalting and worshipping God, a little bit of heaven will become present on earth. Truly it would not be presumptuous to say that, in a liturgy completely centred on God, we can see, in its rituals and chant, an image of eternity. …] In all our efforts on behalf of the liturgy, the determining factor must always be our looking to God. We stand before God – he speaks to us and we speak to him. Whenever in our thinking we are only concerned about making the liturgy attractive, interesting and beautiful, the battle is already lost. Either it is Opus Dei, with God as its specific subject, or it is not. In the light of this, I ask you to celebrate the sacred liturgy with your gaze fixed on God within the communion of saints, the living Church of every time and place, so that it will truly be an expression of the sublime beauty of the God who has called men and women to be his friends.”

I happened to get up before the chickens to watch this Mass. It was truly astounding. What I highlighted is surely an indictment of what is missing in much of the contemporary music that we use for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass today.

 

[VociMike]

This is good so far as it goes, but it is not an answer to the more fundamental questions being asked, for two intimately connected reasons.

First, it tells us that proper Liturgical music does in fact not imitate Gregorian chant, but is in the “spirit” of it. This is again a subjective definition. What is this spirit, objectively speaking?

Second, it does not answer the very fundamental question of what about Gregorian chant makes Gregorian chant appropriate and indeed the best for the Liturgy. Please understand that I do not present this question in a confrontational way, as when one asks, “who died and made you king?” One might ask that question with the intention of challenging that the individual in question is indeed king, or one may ask it with the acknowledgment that he is indeed king, for the sake of knowing how it is that he came to be. It is in this latter sense that the question is posed. It being given that Gregorian chant is in fact the music which is most appropriate for Liturgy, the question is, why? What is it about it that makes it so?

Therin we also go back to the first reason. If one is to write music in the spirit of Gregorian chant, just what constitutes that spirit? What is it that makes Gregorian chant proper for the Liturgy? The questions are one and the same.

Well, what do you think it might be? Why do you think Gregorian chant is proclaimed by the Church to be the supreme model and permanent standard of Catholic sacred music? The Church has sound reasons for proclaiming this, not anything vacuous like “because we’ve always done it this way”.

So, what is the “problem,” such that Gregorian chant is a (not the, but a) perfect “solution”?

 

[Lazerlike42]

GemmaRose, I understand where you are coming from, but I must critique your thoughts. Please understand I do so in a spirit of understanding, and in a spirit of love.

It’s obvious from the opening sentence that this article is written with the view of Mass being a cozy “God & me” experience. What about the Mass being the community worshipping together?

It is true that our faith involves community. God created us this way. However, this community exists not as anything at all in its own right, but only as it directly relates to God. In other words, we are a community for the sake of worshipping God, not merely for the sake of enjoying one another.

Certainly enjoying one another in community has its place. In fact, this is critical to an orthodox understanding of the faith. What msut not be lost is that even this is related to God. Perhaps one of St. Thomas’ teachings on Heaven will illustrate the point. He taught that man’s fulfillment comes entirely in God. In Heaven, he said, man does not attain to any greater happiness due to the community of the saints than he receives from the vision of God. Man’s beatitude lies in God alone. However, those in Heaven do rejoice in the joy of one another in seeing the face of God. The community of saints in Heaven do, then, find happiness in one another, but it is in the relationship of one another to God in which this happiness lies. It is out of love for one another that they are joyous because their brothers and sisters are able to see God and rejoice in Him as they do.

So the community of faith matters, and there is proper happiness in friends and loved ones, but it is in its highest and most authentic sense due to the relationship with God. We see a glimmer of this on earth insofar as we often take the most joy in seeing the happiness of those we love, rather than in our own happiness. However, most of the time, we do not see this reality altogether, thanks to the sin which burdens us. No matter how devout we are, almost all of us have a hard time seeing our relationships with others in total line with these fundamental realities. Some, Saints Francis of Assisi and John of the Cross coming to mind, did achieve this on this side of Heaven.

Now the Liturgy is directed entirely at the worship of God. It is a very - indeed the most - God-centric component of our lives. It is the highest form of prayer, as you certainly know. In the Liturgy, we give the most complete, authentic and the highest worship to God that man is capable of. It is when we join in the heavenly worship of the angels and the saints. It is a worship that is mystically lifted up above our natural humanity by the power of the Holy Spirit and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not conformed in the slightest way to our fallen nature, but rather is a supernatural and wholely authentic worship that is only possible because it is in reality Christ who is doing the worshipping.

In the Mass, a fallen people worship God in an entirely unfallen manner. Thus, it will sometimes not match the apparent desires of our hearts or our own experiences. This is why people on occasion say they are not being fed at Mass: their natural desires are not being fulfilled, while behind the veil of our fallen humanity, the true desires of their heart are being fed with the infinity of the Bread of Life. One of those natural desires is the desire to focus on the sense of community in a way that is not entirely based on an properly ordered relationship with God. There is certainly nothing at all wrong with this desire. The problem is in the way the desire is understood by fallen man. The Mass is entirely about God, and because God loves us, it is about us, but in a way very intimately tied to its relationship with Him.

This does not exclude the sorts of music, the particular understanding of community, or the lyrical styles which you [at least seem] to be defending from authentic Christian worship. We are here on earth, and we do not now posess the beatific vision. It is entirely appropriate and in most cases good to desire and participate in praise and worship music, to celebrate community, and to do the other sorts of things we speak of. Where it is not appropriate is in the Mass which is really an entirely different sort of worship with an entirely different purpose.

I often take efforts to point out to people that one of the reasons Protestants feel so uncomfortable at the Mass, and why many Catholics feel very out of place when attending a Protestant service, is that people tend to view the Mass and the Protestant service as two different ways of doing the same thing. In other words, both Catholics and Protestants go to Church Sunday mornings, they just do things differently there, or have a different structure. In reality, they are two entirely different things with two entirely different purposes.

The Protestant service is intended to worship God, but it does so through the means of spiritually feeding the congregation. The music lifts the souls of the congregation up, the service is centered around instruction - that is, the pastor’s sermon - and the people celebrate their community of faith. Certainly these are all types of worship, and important ones. We worship God in our daily lives by obeying His commands, and so instruction in this is indeed a very important variety of worship.

continued…

 

[Lazerlike42]

continued from previous post

The Mass, on the other hand, is intended to worship God in a heavenly and entirely supernatural sense. The flock is fed by virtue of participating in this, and because one of the things that God desires is to feed us, and so by receiving His food in the readings, the homily, and the Eucharist, we worship God by allowing Him to give us these things. Yet in the Mass, these things are present secondarily, by virtue of God’s desire to provide us with this, rather than as the primary focus. Note that I do not intend to diminish their importance by saying secondarily. I am referring here to the logical place of them as it derives from the fundamental purpose of the Mass.

In other words, the Protestant serice is about giving to God by means of giving to one another. Worship is given to God by the pastor giving his instruction to the people. Worship is given to God as the people show love for one another. Worship is given to God as the people lift their spirits up through music. In the Mass, worship is given to God by giving to Him, and that which is received is received because God gives back. It may be difficult to see the difference between some of these things, such as the homily in the Mass and the sermon in the Protestant service, for example, as the difference is subtle. In both cases worship is given to God through the gift of instruction given by the pastor or priest. The key is in the very subtle difference of the fundamental and original intention.

In the Mass the people seek to give directly to God. We begin by confessing our sins and seeking greater sanctity in the Kyrie so that the worship may be more pure. We then praise God in the Gloria. We then proclaim His Word (note that it is proclaimed, as a service to Him, rather than simply read so that we may hear it). We offer the Creed to God. Then comes the center of the Mass - the Sacrifice of Christ. All throughout, we receive too, but only as a result of God giving back to us. For example, we do not offer the Mass in order to receive Communion: we offer the Mass to present the body and blood of Christ to the Father, and we receive Communion because He gives Them back to us as a gift. I am reminded of the line from the beautiful prayer of St. Francis, “It is in giving that we receive.” God could have made Communion an act altogether separate from the Mass, but in His Wisdom He chose that our receiving be in the context of our total self-*giving *, as if to stress exactly what the prayer says: our receiving consists in giving.

In the Protestant service, the intention is to praise God but it is to do so through these acts of receiving what He wants to give us, rather than through the pure and undiluted act of offering our entire selves to Him. Catholics do the latter in the Mass, and receive all of those same things in the process. This doesn’t mean no Protestant ever seeks to give himself entirely to God at his Sunday service, but that when one does so, it is in a very subtle way a means rather than and end, as it is in the Mass.

Thus, I have often advocated Catholic churches offering Protestant style services where the sorts of music you mention would be appropriate. This music and these other sorts of activities are not appropriate for Mass due to the nature and purpose of the Mass, but they are entirely appropriate for Christian people who wish to worship God in this way in addition to the Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Something else to remember (and a point that is almost always forgotten) is that there is a cosmic component to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The warm bodies inside the Church aren’t the only ones present at the Mass. During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the veil between heaven and earth is lifted. The entire Church, the Church Militant, the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering, comes together at every Mass. Those of us here on earth aren’t the only members of the Church. There is somerthing greater involved here than us. This is a component that is also absent in the Protestant ecclesial communities.

Liturgical music helps to bring these three elements together. The writers of the centuries-old hymns had a better handle on this than the contemporaries. The “Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete” lyrics that GemmaRose quoted from the article pale in comparison to Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence and Alleluia, Sing to Jesus. Sacred liturgical Music is supposed to draw us deeper into the mysteries we are celebrating, not entertain us.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Well, what do you think it might be? Why do you think Gregorian chant is proclaimed by the Church to be the supreme model and permanent standard of Catholic sacred music? The Church has sound reasons for proclaiming this, not anything vacuous like “because we’ve always done it this way”.

So, what is the “problem,” such that Gregorian chant is a (not the, but a) perfect “solution”?

I’m asking precisely because I don’t know why it is. I am not denying that Gregorian Chant holds “pride of place.” I am trying to comprehend on an ontological level just why this is. My point is that I have never seen an answer that goes beyond “this is how it has always been done.” I truly belive that there are sound, indeed profound reasons, and I am seeking to understand them for my own enrichment and that I may better be able to make judgments about providing Liturgical music for the Liturgy when I am called to do so - which I am and will continue to be!

 

[Sarabande]

I’m asking precisely because I don’t know why it is. I am not denying that Gregorian Chant holds “pride of place.” I am trying to comprehend on an ontological level just why this is. My point is that I have never seen an answer that goes beyond “this is how it has always been done.” I truly belive that there are sound, indeed profound reasons, and I am seeking to understand them for my own enrichment and that I may better be able to make judgments about providing Liturgical music for the Liturgy when I am called to do so - which I am and will continue to be!

The more I think about it, the more I see that there may never be an answer to this, or it may take a lifetime of discovering. It may also be a variety of answers depending on the person - which would then, in a way, make it subjective. So, I haven’t really dug deep enough to receive that objective and transcendental answer if I just become content with that.

I’m with you - I also believe that there are deeper reasons than the historical aspect of why chant has always been within almost every society and spiritual practice. But the question is always Why?

I believe a part of it is the intangible that I’ve mentioned in a previous post. It’s a level and form of transcendental spiritual intangibility which cannot be achieved through other forms or styles of music. It is the meditative “drone” and “humming” that helps transport a person from the physical realm into the spiritual - which no other form can achieve in that way and can only be achieved if a person does truly quiets his/her mind and focuses only on God - which can be a difficult thing for people to achieve in this day and age, even for me. This, for me, would in a way answer why the various societies and spiritual practices almost always and inclusively seemed to be called and summoned to use a form of chant rather than their more popular styles of music from their time.

 

[VociMike]

I’m asking precisely because I don’t know why it is. I am not denying that Gregorian Chant holds “pride of place.” I am trying to comprehend on an ontological level just why this is. My point is that I have never seen an answer that goes beyond “this is how it has always been done.” I truly belive that there are sound, indeed profound reasons, and I am seeking to understand them for my own enrichment and that I may better be able to make judgments about providing Liturgical music for the Liturgy when I am called to do so - which I am and will continue to be!

I can start with a few reasons, and hope that others will chime in as well, to make this a real exploration.

First, GC (and sacred polyphony, which is also recognized by the Church as being especially suitable) sing the actual texts of the Mass (and other liturgies) rather than other more-or-less relevant song texts. This is a crucial reason. The ideal for music in the liturgy is to elevate the prayers of the liturgy, not to bolt on sung interludes to the spoken prayers. Hymns, whether old or contemporary, do not do this, which is why the 4-hymn Mass is not the ideal regardless of the hymns chosen. We are called first of all to sing the Mass, not to sing at Mass. Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony are both considered to be exquisite blendings of the sacred texts and beautiful, sublime music in service to those texts.

Second, chant is without question a sacred music form, clearly recognized as set apart for holy purposes. Hymns and sacred polyphony also meet this standard to a large degree. Contemporary music, in its style of composition, instrumentation, and style of performance, does not meet this standard. It comes with strong secular associations (that’s exactly why people want to use it for “youth” Masses - nobody would deny this). This is in opposition to the teachings of the Church that nothing profane (that is, of the outside world) is fit to enter the temple. Secular associations are at odds with the sacred acts being celebrated. That’s also why priests don’t say Mass in business suits or hawaiian shirts or leather outfits.

 

[Lazerlike42]

This argument reminds me of those congregants who object to reviewing any music before Mass because they are saying their Rosary. These are usually the same folks who refuse to sing because they “don’t know the song” - which they would know if they wouldn’t complain about being taught something before Mass.

Actually, Church documents prohibit reviewing music before Mass. This is because the Mass is a very profound experience, as I attempted to describe in my previous post, and requires a very prayerful preparation which is disturbed by practicing or reviewing music beforehand. Please hold your thoughts/comments on this point, because I will build on it in a critical way below. (I think I might say that very briefly revieing the Psalm response immediately before the procession begins may be acceptable. It is more prolonged things to which I refer).

Why should we not sing with joy at the great gift & mystery that is the Mass? God is stooping down to come to His people. Yes! Come to this great feast! Come to the table set by Him who provides all that we need! Come & bring all of yourselves - your heart & soul, your mind & body… come & celebrate our great God!

This is the first of many times in the article where the author takes issue with us singing the lines of a song where it is the Lord who is speaking. Using the same argument, no one should be reading a Gospel. After all, the Gospels contain the words of Jesus.

In reading the Gospel, one is not offering vocal prayer to God. One is offering a variety of mental prayer, which involves receiving and assimilating the Word of God. The Mass is, as I attempted to explain below, a prayer in which our entire focus is to give to God. He returns to us in the process, as I said, but the congregation is not the instrument by which this happens. Music in which God speaks to the congregation is not inappropriate, but He must be indeed speaking to the congregation, rather than the congregation speaking His words to themselves. A choir sining the words of God would be appropriate.

Think about the responsorial Psalm. In some of them, God does speak to the people, however the response is always the people’s response to God. The cantor may sing to the people as a sort of representative of God, and the people respond as themselves.

In other words, in the Mass, people are “playing various parts.” The priest is in a very real way acting in the person of Christ. The lectors, the cantor, the choir, the deacon, and other “official roles” in the Mass may do so in a lesser way, but the congregation is always present as itself.

The author goes on to explain “two essential aspects of the Mass: presence and dialogue,” then says:

Regarding singing “to one another,” it appears that the author, Fr. Scalia, must be blessed with a congregation which is not only fully aware of the essential aspects of Mass, but also not affected by the generalized coma from which many of our congregants appear to suffer. Regarding singing “God’s parts,” unless Jesus is planning on joining the choir… no seriously, there are more people in the pews who need to hear words such as “O, come and sit at My table where saints and sinners are friends. I wait to welcome the lost and lonely, to share the cup of My love,” which can lead them to the “vertical” of which Benedictgal writes.

Our congregations are not made up of bishops and cardinals, but plain old human beings - not all of whom are proficient in prayer, not all of whom well catechized, but to whom we owe a duty to attempt to raise their minds & hearts to God through our various ministries, in this case, music.

If Joncas music does the job, then we should use it… if more traditional hymns do it, then we should use them… if chant does it, then we should use it, always being careful to use a variety of genres, yet not necessarily all mishmashed together in one Mass.

This gets to the fundamental misunderstanding of the Mass as a service intended to feed the congregation. This is not so. The Mass is solely for the purpose of giving worship to God, and all receiving that takes place is, as I tried to explain below, a sort of “side effect.” In the Mass, we participate in heavenly worship. Regardless of how well the congregation understands what is going on, they are present at the supernatural worship of God. This is what I was referring to when I said I would develop the issue of reviewing music before Mass.

In the Mass, our frail humanity is lifted up to give supernatural worship to God in Spirit and in Truth. For devout souls, the time before Mass is a time for intense prayer in order that one may be raised to this high level and able to offer as pure a worship as possible. The soul needs tremendous preparation for this act, and so silent prayer - especially in the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist! - must be afforded those who wish to take advantage of it. In this, they join in the agony of Christ in the Garden. It has been believed by many that in the Garden, Christ’s sufferings and His sweating of blood were in part the result of His effort to lift His humanity to a supernatural level. He was preparing Himself for His Passion and Sacrifice, and this required stretching out His humanity to the extent of its capabilities. As we prepare for the representation of this Sacrifice, we need to do the same thing.

You are correct; tragically, not all do understand this or the other things of which you spoke. However, this is not a reason to water down the Mass - it is a reason to improve the education of these people in religious education, homilies, special evening programs (which are quite popular at my parish), and so forth.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Sarabande]

I can start with a few reasons, and hope that others will chime in as well, to make this a real exploration.

First, GC (and sacred polyphony, which is also recognized by the Church as being especially suitable) sing the actual texts of the Mass (and other liturgies) rather than other more-or-less relevant song texts. This is a crucial reason. The ideal for music in the liturgy is to elevate the prayers of the liturgy, not to bolt on sung interludes to the spoken prayers. Hymns, whether old or contemporary, do not do this, which is why the 4-hymn Mass is not the ideal regardless of the hymns chosen. We are called first of all to sing the Mass, not to sing at Mass. Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony are both considered to be exquisite blendings of the sacred texts and beautiful, sublime music in service to those texts.

Very interesting and excellent point. Interweaves well into the how these chants would even more so bring one to a state of spiritual transcendence - because you are singing the mass. You can’t do that with anything else.

 

[VociMike]

Very interesting and excellent point. Interweaves well into the how these chants would even more so bring one to a state of spiritual transcendence - because you are singing the mass. You can’t do that with anything else.

The one other form that sings the texts of the liturgy is sacred polyphony, but it requires much more skill and practice to sing polyphony. Thus, while polyphony has a legitimate place in liturgy (just as choirs have a legitimate place), Gregorian chant or some other form of chant is more universal, more accessible by all the faithful.

 

[Sarabande]

The one other form that sings the texts of the liturgy is sacred polyphony, but it requires much more skill and practice to sing polyphony. Thus, while polyphony has a legitimate place in liturgy (just as choirs have a legitimate place), Gregorian chant or some other form of chant is more universal, more accessible by all the faithful.

Very true.