Music at mass

[GemmaRose]

continued…

As far as I know its the only form of music that the Church has stated it holds in high esteem. Can you isolate a post where I said it should not be held in high esteem? That being the case perhaps we should put the Church preference before that of a few people who might prefer the rock party down at the Evangelical church. Here is another insulting statement. Evangelicals do not have “rock” parties. They have services where they worship the Lord. Are you always so judgmental?

If they deal with important issues and do so in a way which better conveys Church teaching and is not as open to misinterpretation then I would suggest they do a better job at it. Would you agree? If people better understand the position of the Church from an old hymn than a new one then I think it better to use that old hymn for its clarity of expression and truth rather than the new for its preferability to a few members of the congregation. And there is not one contemporary hymn which has clarity of expression and contains truth?

It has everything to do with it. Your position was that using new music helps keep people who might otherwise not come or attend Evangelical churches and that those who are already in the Church and properly catechised will not leave because of it. My point was the those same people would understand that they can still fulfil their obligations to the Church, and remain in full Communion without staying in the same Parish. For example their obligation would be satisfied by going to SSPX Parishes as while their Mass is illicit it is considered to fulfil the Sunday obligation. Likwise they could leave their own Parish and join the FSSP or go to a more orthodox Parish in their own area. Hence the Parishes would be losing many of those people who are most involved with the faith, the kind of people the they would need to help with Catechism classes and to teach new converts about the faith. My position, which I have posted many, many, many times, still remains the same: Each parish should provide Masses to satisfy everyone - a Mass with no music since many people find any music to be a distraction, a Mass with a well-trained choir who specializes in more traditional forms of music, and a Mass with more contemporary music. For those who are only satifiled with TLM, it is becoming more widely available.

You were criticising people for not looking happier. How is it you want us to look when we are remembering what Our Lord did for us? There was no presumption on my part however the presumption you had in criticising others for their “looking like they’ve lost their best friend” when they are focusing on the Mass is truly breathtaking. At Mass, we should not only be focusing on what Jesus did for us, mourning His sorrwful Passion and Death, but celebrating with joy what He does for us each day - stooping down to us to become the Bread of Life, forgiving our sins… if this is not cause for joy, I don’t know what is.

If contemporary liturgical music is enjoyed by some Catholics then fine, they can use it. But they should not be allowed to impose it into the Mass. I don’t see where these two statements can co-exist. Especially to the extent that it becomes the main attraction. When people start coming to Mass just for the music there is a serious problem and that is just what you have encouraged in your argument. If they come to the Mass for an earthly reason they’re not likely to look very far beyond? Are you saying people should not be free to attend the Mass they prefer? (And I’m speaking of valid, licit Masses - not Mr. Potato Head Masses.) If one person finds contemporary music so disruptive to their participation in the Mass that they need to leave or attempt to block it out entirely in order to pray and the next enjoy it to the point of ecstasy just what compromise do you propose? See above. I am not going to try to impose my preference on the Mass, never have and hopefully never will, but I also hope others will have the same courtesy by not trying to introduce music which can be so disruptive to the participation of others. Which is why I advocate different music for different Masses. (Although even in that situation, I think that occasionally - once or twice a month - the traditional choir should sing something a little more contemporary and the contemporary choir sing something a little more traditional, or perhaps a couple of times a year the choirs can switch Masses. I sang in a choir once that rotated every few months from the 5:30 (Saturday) to the 9:00 to the 11:00 to the 12:30.)

Glib is defined as:

" 1. a) Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation.
b) Showing little thought, preparation, or concern: a glib response to a complex question.
2. Marked by ease and fluency of speech or writing that often suggests or stems from insincerity, superficiality, or deceitfulness."

Perhaps you could either point out which parts of my argument were insincere, superficial or deceitful or apologise for an inaccurate accusation.

Mass is the Sacrifice of Our Lord, you’ll have to excuse us for looking slightly serious about such a thing. Our Lord died for our sins we’re there to thank him, not to derive joy for ourselves.

 

[GemmaRose]

First of all, the cultic norms were dictated directly by God to Moses. Any deviatoin from the norms of worship established in Exodus, expounded in Leviticus and repeated in Numbers and Deuteronomy were often fatal (as were the cases with Aaron’s sons and Dathan, the priest). The cultic liturgy of Ancient Israel centered around offering sacrifice, whether it was for the Passover, for Atonement of for Thanksgiving. This was the official form of worship for Ancient Israel. The only musical instrument that was mentioned was the horn to call the assembly together. The other instruements that are repeatedly mentioned by some posters come from the psalms written by David, but, these were not used for the official cultic worship of Ancient Israel.

All of these sacrificial liturgies prefigured the one Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was to be celebrated in perpetuity by the Church. Jesus entrusted these Sacred mysteries to him.

The issue of the vertical notion of liturgy certainly applies to the music. Bear in mind that Cardinal Arinze is the Church’s ranking official on all matters pertaining to Divine Worship. He and Pope Benedict XVI are definitely on the same page when they speak of the problem of the over-emphasis of the horizontal and the de-emphasis of the vertical.

The sad trend in contemporary music is that it focuses on the people rather than on God. “We come to tell the story. We come to…” makes the faithful the main actors, with God as an after-thought, or, in the case of the “Song of the Body of Christ”, not even mentioned. “O Love of God/O Amor de Dios” is another example of the banal. Bob Hurd places more emphasis on building up the community instead of offering rightful adoration to the Triune God.

I quote directly from the third paragraph of the Introduction to the Book of Psalms which Introduction was written by the experts and Scripture scholars who worked on the NAB translation which is available for all to see on the USCCB website. I will emphasize the pertinent parts:

Two important features of the psalms deserve special notice. First, the majority were composed originally precisely for liturgical worship. **This is shown by the frequent indication of liturgical leaders interacting with the community **(e.g., Psalm 118:1-4). Secondly, they follow certain distinct patterns or literary forms. Thus, the hymn is a song of praise, in which a community is urged joyfully to sing out the praise of God. Various reasons are given for this praise (often introduced by “for” or “because”): the divine work of creation and sustenance (Psalm 135:1-12; 136). Some of the hymns have received a more specific classification, based on content. The “Songs of Zion” are so called because they exalt Zion, the city in which God dwells among the people (Psalm 47:96-99). Characteristic of the songs of praise is the joyful summons to get involved in the activity; Psa 104 is an exception to this, although it remains universal in its thrust.

And let us not ignore the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph of the same Introduction:

Although the majority of the psalms have a liturgical setting, there are certain prayers that may be termed “liturgies,” so clearly does their structure reflect a liturgical incident (e.g., Psa 15, 24).

And if we read the Psalms we will see the variety of instruments used by the ancient Israelites in their LITURGICAL worship.

 

[VociMike]

Has anybody answered the question why Hatebreed, Impaler, or Napalm Death would be liturgically unacceptable instead of the usual fluffy “Praise & Worship” prattle that we’re mercilessly tormented with each week?

I never saw an explanation other than opinion as to why music in this style, with appropriate lyrics, would not be suitable, especially given the fact that it might draw in people who would not otherwise come to Mass. I think the people who would oppose this music at a gut level (as they should) have no objective standard by which they can oppose this music at an intellectual level while at the same time accepting music in other contemporary secular composition and performance styles. Thus all they can say (and all they have said, unless I missed something), is that they would not personally choose such music or want it to be used.

But I would welcome such an explanation as part of this discussion, if anybody wants to give it a whirl.

 

[benedictgal]

I quote directly from the third paragraph of the Introduction to the Book of Psalms which Introduction was written by the experts and Scripture scholars who worked on the NAB translation which is available for all to see on the USCCB website. I will emphasize the pertinent parts:

And let us not ignore the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph of the same Introduction:

And if we read the Psalms we will see the variety of instruments used by the ancient Israelites in their LITURGICAL worship.

Gemma, that they were composed for liturgical worship, no one is arguing. However, the instruments were certainly not used. In fact, Ancient Israel was governed by the norms prescribed by God, Himself, as He dictated them directly to Moses.

Remember, too, that after the First Temple was destroyed, there was no sacirifce because such worship could only happen at the Temple. What evolved was the service of the Word where the Torah was read and psalms were chanted. It was only after the Temple was rebuilt that the Sacrificial worship resumed.

It’s interesting how people try to pull everything out to justify their logic without even going to the Church documents themselves for guidance. Documents such as Musica Sacram and the Chirograph on Sacred Music have been quoted repeatedly to indicate the Church’s position on Sacred Music, but, there are some who will either ignore them, disregard them or simply dismiss them as someone’s own personal opinion.

Something else to consider. Quoting from the NAB and the Catechism doesn’t necessarily help the argument because neither of these documents govern the Church’s liturgy. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, the GIRM, Musica Sacram and Redemptionis Sacramentum, along with other pertinent documents issued by the Holy See on the matter have already spoken loudly and clearly on the issue of Sacred Music and its use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

One may have many years of experience in singing; however, if one is not well-versed in what the documents actually say and is only relying on the alleged spirit of the Council, then it would behoove those folks to look at the documents and study them at face value. Experience may help, but, you need to have the documents on which to build a solid foundation.

 

[ontologysue]

“Horizontal worship” emphasizes the people and the community, whereas “vertical worship” emphasizes God. Generally speaking, “horizontal worship” leans towards making the people “feel good” and can end up seeming like entertainment or production; whereas, generally speaking, “vertical worship” leans toward the transcendent, focusing on the awe and mystery of God, and does not resemble our normal earthly affairs.

Generally speaking.

Certainly, proper Catholic worship must have both vertical and horizontal elements, but it is important to pay attention to their proportion, their emphasis, and their integration with one another. For example, the “sign of peace” seems out of place in the middle of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, since we are told by Jesus to make peace with our brother before presenting our gifts at the altar, and the focus of Liturgy of the Eucharist should be completely on the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass taking place on the altar. The “Memorial Acclamation” during the Eucharistic Prayer also seems out of place (to me, at least), especially when it’s the “Christ has died” one, which isn’t even directed at Christ (who has just been made present on the altar), so it seems to take the attention away from him. Contrast that with saying “My Lord and my God” during the elevation of the Host and Chalice (a personal pious practice).

So, when these terms are used in regards to music, generally speaking, “horizontal” music dwells on us and the things we do, while “vertical” music dwells on the things God (and His saints) and what He has done (and how they have glorified Him).

I agree with you about the “sign of peace,” etc. It is wholly out of context and very disruptive. I know people who absolutely refuse to do it. In the traditional Anglican Catholic and Orthodox it is not done. For me, it is like interruptng a sacred mystical silence with a clanging “symbol!”

 

[Cathyd241]

[SIGN]

It’s not a matter of how I define “sacred” or you define “sacred”, it’s a matter of how the Church defines “sacred”. Generally speaking, there’s nothing wrong with “religious music”, but the Mass is the public worship of the Church and the Church regulates what happens at Her public worship. To that end, She has consistently taught that Gregorian Chant is the supreme model for sacred music; Pope Pius X said so in 1903, and Pope John Paul II confirmed it in 2003!

Here’s how the Church broke down “sacred music” in 1958, from De Musica Sacra:
4. “Sacred music” includes the following: a) Gregorian chant; b) sacred polyphony; c) modern sacred music; d) sacred organ music; e) hymns; and f) religious music.

[/SIGN]

So, according to this, modern religious music is sacred.

 

[Cathyd241]

First of all, it is not mumbo-jumbo. Vertical means that we are directing our prayer towards God. Horizontal means that we are directing things towards each other; in other words, we are celebrating ourselvex. While there is some wiggle room, the current and unforunate trend has shifted the focus to us, rather than to God.

So I guess you’re an expert on the lyrics of modern worship music.

Now that I understand the whole “horizontal/vertical” thing better, perhaps I can point out that not all “liturgical” music is vertical. Some common songs that I’ve sung in church include “Taste and See”, “They’ll Know We Are Christians”, “We Walk By Faith”, and “Prayer of St. Francis”. These all seem more horizontal than vertical to me (feel free to look up the lyrics).

On the other hand, I challenge you to dispute the vertical nature of songs such as “Above All”, “Breathe”, "All in All, “Awesome God”, “Forever”, “God of Wonders”…I really could go on. So many of today’s modern worship songs are just that…geared towards worshipping the Lord. This is a bad thing?!

 

[japhy]

So, according to this, modern religious music is sacred.

But modern religious music “is not to be used during liturgical ceremonies” (n. 10).

… not all “liturgical” music is vertical. Some common songs that I’ve sung in church include “Taste and See”, “They’ll Know We Are Christians”, “We Walk By Faith”, and “Prayer of St. Francis”.

See, that’s just the point. Those songs (which are almost all recent compositions and are not in the style of ancient or modern “sacred music”) are quite horizontal.

On the other hand, I challenge you to dispute the vertical nature of songs such as “Above All”, “Breathe”, "All in All, “Awesome God”, “Forever”, “God of Wonders”

The vertical nature of those songs is not the issue; their very style is. They’re Christian Contemporary Music. They weren’t written for the liturgy. They’re written in secular styles – if you heard the music alone (and not the words), you wouldn’t readily identify them as hymns, would you?!

Liturgical music is not supposed to sound secular or profane.

The other point (which has to be made in ALL of these music-during-Mass threads) is this: there are particular chants proper to each day of the year, found in the Graduale Romanum. Chants for the entrance (often replaced by some hymn or song), the gradual (often replaced, more legitimately than these other chants, by a responsorial psalm), the Alleluia (often replaced by a handful of verses that get rotated throughout the year), the offertory (often replaced by a hymn or song), and communion (often replaced by a hymn or song). See, instead of singing the music proper for the Mass, the music minister decides what hymns or songs we sing instead. We’re replacing the proper text of the Mass with our own preferred songs.

Here’s what I mean. Next Sunday is the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity. The entrance antiphon is Benedicta sit sancta Trinitas…, the gradual is Benedictus es, Domine… (or the hymn Benedictus es Domine Deus…), the Alleluia verse is Benedictus es, Domine Deus…, the offertory is Benedictus sit Deus Pater…, and the communion is Benedicimus Deum caeli…. But I highly doubt any of us will hear these chants. If we’re lucky, we’ll hear some traditional hymns to the Trinity… but I’d bet a lot of us will hear one or two Trinitarian songs and two or three generic horizontal songs (most likely a song during Communion that only depicts it as an act we do, simply with bread and wine).

 

[Lepanto]

They’re written in secular styles – if you heard the music alone (and not the words), you wouldn’t readily identify them as hymns, would you?!

So you’re saying that even with theologically correct “vertical” lyrics that praise the Almighty and tunes that are appealing to the congregation, music from Hatebreed, Impaler, and Napalm Death would not be liturgically appropriate simply because of their style??

 

[peduzzi89]

Holy **** this has stirred up such an argument. The music is meant to sincerely praise God. If we are sincerely praising God with contemporary Christian music, who cares. There was a time when the music which is now considered traditional was contemporary. I don’t get why so many Catholics want to stop the world from turning. There’s always a fight when change inevitably happens. Traditions will always change, get over it. God wants us to praise him. The argument against contemporary music has no biblical basis. He never said praise him using the traditional manner. There are sooo many more important things people could spend there time on yet there has to be this stupid argument. God is probably rolling his eyes at the time wasted.

 

[peduzzi89]

Oh and just a note, those stars are not what you think they are - I did not swear on this bulletin. Next time I shall say holy cow, instead of the other c word.

 

[Zarathustra89]

Holy **** this has stirred up such an argument. The music is meant to sincerely praise God. If we are sincerely praising God with contemporary Christian music, who cares. There was a time when the music which is now considered traditional was contemporary. I don’t get why so many Catholics want to stop the world from turning. There’s always a fight when change inevitably happens. Traditions will always change, get over it. God wants us to praise him. The argument against contemporary music has no biblical basis. He never said praise him using the traditional manner. There are sooo many more important things people could spend there time on yet there has to be this stupid argument. God is probably rolling his eyes at the time wasted.

God demands to be worshiped in a very particular manner
2Kings 6:6
I want to attend Mass not a rock concert.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

[cathochic]

I will bite this carrot.

As a parish musician, the moment I most dread is someone marching up to me after Mass because I had secretly offended them with the song selection. Fortunately, this does not happen often.

Everyone needs to understand that most of the time, with the exception of the larger cathedrals and congregations with money, your local parish musician is often a volunteer with limited resources. Please use all your catholic christian charity when dealing/talking with your local parish musician.

I use a mix of contemporary worship music and music from OCP. I try to be very discerning in the music I choose. Some of the hymns you mention are seriously lacking. Some of the lyrics are bad. However, there are also good ones out there, that can “stand up” well. What I mean by “stand up” well, is in the sense that they can be played on a simple guitar and keyboard, without gratuitous percussion, etc. that does not really belong at Mass. It can be done - but it’s LOTS of work - listening to tons of songs, selecting the ones with good melody and good lyrics, and often changing the arrangement for liturgical use. Also, just because something is written by someone who is Catholic, doesn’t automatically make it a good choice. On the converse, a song written by a Protestant Christian is not automatically a pariah. Each piece needs to stand on its own.

Chant is the standard, in the sense that the texts are meaningful, and the melodies are simple, yet spiritual. You don’t need to “sell it” with a lot of instrumentation. This is the ruler with which to measure the songs.

In my lifetime, I have attended Masses both modern and traditional, that have been pure Heaven, and Masses both modern and traditional that have been unmitigated disasters. In an ideal world, I would like to see each parish have good Masses of both types. It would be a testament to our claim of universality.

PS. Just as you pray for our Priests, pray for us liturgical musicians too.

 

[snhs]

Would you mind placing your response below the quote, its a bit

How? Have I ever denigrated it? No, I believe it has suggested or recommended. It has not mandated. My view is borne of 35 years of experience. And you are clairvoyant that you can know this? Unfortunately, too few. (I have always advocated that different genres be used, not that one particular form be thrown out.) I have never said it was disruptive, nor do I think anyone else has.

Unless there are naked pole dancers (or Mr. Potato Heads - that’s another thread), I cannot conceive of walking out of a Mass because of something disturbing. If this were the case, then even a crying baby could cause someone to walk out. How sad! As I posted earlier, I’ve noticed that the weaker one’s argument becomes, the more ludicrous examples are used. If you think that contemporary liturgical music is a “cheap gimmick,” then you are hopelessly deluded and I’m wasting my time here.

Masses with contemporary liturgical music are “empty and vacuous”? So, by attending a Mass with contemporary liturgical music then there’s nothing else in the Mass which could impart a deeper theological truth?

I was under the impression that we are God’s people, not under the control of some ‘liturgical musician’. I can sing things and tune it out quite easily, indeed I often have to if I want to keep my mind on what is most important about the Mass. Their minds should be on the Sacrifice of Our Lord, their hearts should be given up freely to him, neither should be focused on ‘liturgical musicians’ waving their arms around or doing whatever it is they do to 'get their people to sing. Now you are just sinking to being downright insulting.

*You said “whatever draws them”. If you are going to make stupid statements then be prepared for people to point out the reality of what you are saying. The whole example stemmed from your lack of a reasoned argument. I have every confidence in the soundness of my position, which is precisely why I don’t make silly and inaccurate blanket statements in an attempt to reinforce it. *"’[L]iturgical musicians’ waving their arms around or doing whatever it is they do to get their people to sing" - and this is not a silly and inaccurate blanket statement?

My 35 years of experience backs me up. And this is valid for you. I’m not denying there are others who agree with you. However, it is not valid for everyone on the face of the earth.

We can get far more from Church history, which is far too often completely neglected, than we can from Evangelical practices. Maybe we should look back at that history, there was a reason the Church told Palestrina et al that suspensions, plagal cadences etc were the way to go.

My evidence which I have seen with my own eyes is my singing, smiling, praying congregation including the elderly lady with the walker who took a bus from another county (unfortunately, the bus route changed and the stop is now way too far for her to walk); the entire CCD staff of the neighboring parish; the senior citizen who took a long bus ride from where she lived many neighborhoods away; and the many others who have told me so over the past 35 years. Let those who take the other view provide evidence also.

. No… there are rubrics dictating what kind of bread may be consecrated. I think everyone (almost) is in agreement that liturgical dancing is not, well, liturgical. The same is not true of the music.

By placing your opinion, i.e. that contemporary liturgical music is better for the Mass and is more helpful to more people to pray than that which the Church holds in high esteem.

Actually that is incorrect, see here and, for a more formal reference here. I particularly like

“But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.”

Now quite a few people from many nations find some of the contemporary American music gives a less than good impression, likewise with some contemporary British liturgical composers etc. It is also worth highlighting “16. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.” and “19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.”

Which means very little compared to the view of the Universal Church. Besides which if contemporary liturgical music is as good for prayer and helping people to focus on the Mass as you suggest shouldn’t the Vatican have started making ringing endorsements of it by now.

Hardly, you are the one who stated “That there are people who advocate contemporary music states plainly that there are Catholics who find contemporary music an aid to prayer” which could in fact have several different meanings than the most favourable one which you put forward. I said it was not necessarily true and that is the case, there are other possible reasons

If people were holding Gregorian Chant in the ‘high esteem’ the Church does then far more Parishes would have scholas and far fewer the contemporary choirs etc which run rampant in many areas.

I certainly find contemporary music disruptive to my participation in the Mass. You are constantly referring to all these people who find it so helpful for prayer etc, how about presenting some evidence which shows that it helps more people than it harms, likewise as to whether it is appropriate in the Mass.

Perhaps others set the bar for the respect due to the Eucharist higher than you do? There is also a vast difference between finding something which is done purposefully disruptive and finding something which can not be helped disruptive. You still don’t appear to have realised that this originates from your rather hopeless argument that “whatever draws them”. Are you going to retract what has been a completely ridiculous statement from the start or are you going to keep trying to blame me for it?

n what way is it not a cheap gimmick? The way you advocate and propose certainly implies that it is. A significant strand in your argument is that it keep people in the Church and stops them going to other churches with music they find more agreeable. I don’t think I’m deluded for advocating music which “contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies” and possesses “in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality”.

You don’t appear to follow that my posts link directly with what you have said. If you can’t remember then go back and look at your post. You said “Again, if they leave, they certainly won’t gain such insight from a church that doesn’t believe it”. My point was that if they go to such churches where the music is just what they desire with all the hand waving, and joyful services they want then they have more chance of ultimately realising how “empty and vacuous” such churches/practices by comparison with the truth and theological depth of the Catholic Church than if we just keep them as tenuous Catholics by caving in on the music.

I don’t think there was anything insulting about it. We are not under the control of the liturgical musicians, that is a point worth making given that your post had said we were. You had said that “a good liturgical musician can get their people to sing”, that implies that they do something to get them to sing. The traditional secular method of doing this is conducting, if there is some other method beng used then I also incorporated that in “doing whatever it is they do…”.

No its not. You had said that “a good litugical musician can get their people to sing”, my statement took into account whichever method they use to do this be it conducting or something else. I didn’t, for example, say that liturgical musicians can do what they like during the Mass which would be a blanket statement similar o your own.

Your 35 years experience, which means very little compared to the view of the Universal Church. You have experience in a couple of Parishes, most if not all of which will be within one or two Diocese and which are more than likely entirely based in American culture. If the Church encourages something it is worth looking at why they encourage it and why they say this is held in ‘high esteem’ while making little/no comment on or being opposed to other forms of music.

I don’t know of many people who would go up and tell the liturgical musicians they thought the music was absolutely awful do you? That doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone in the congregation like it. Even if they do come up and congratulate you it isn’t always going to mean they enjoyed/found it beneficial to prayer etc, nor does it suggest that it was their preferred form of liturgical music. It seem that the evidence presented by Benedictgal and japhy is reasonably good, especially given that it represents what the Church actually is most suitable as liturgical music.

I would argue that a similar rule applies to certain types of music, from the earlier source:

“6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music . Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.”

I’d suggest that the same is true of some of the styles currently being added to the Mass by ‘liturgical musicians’.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

God demands to be worshiped in a very particular manner
2Kings 6:6
I want to attend Mass not a rock concert.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

2 Kings 6:6: “Where did it fall?” asked the man of God. When he pointed out the spot, Elisha cut off a stick, threw it into the water, and brought the iron to the surface.

Is that the quote you meant to use? I was just wondering how that related to music in the Mass.

 

[snhs]

continued…
Can you isolate a post where I said it should not be held in high esteem?

Here is another insulting statement. Evangelicals do not have “rock” parties. They have services where they worship the Lord. Are you always so judgmental?

And there is not one contemporary hymn which has clarity of expression and contains truth?

My position, which I have posted many, many, many times, still remains the same: Each parish should provide Masses to satisfy everyone - a Mass with no music since many people find any music to be a distraction, a Mass with a well-trained choir who specializes in more traditional forms of music, and a Mass with more contemporary music. For those who are only satifiled with TLM, it is becoming more widely available.

At Mass, we should not only be focusing on what Jesus did for us, mourning His sorrwful Passion and Death, but celebrating with joy what He does for us each day - stooping down to us to become the Bread of Life, forgiving our sins… if this is not cause for joy, I don’t know what is.

I don’t see where these two statements can co-exist.

Are you saying people should not be free to attend the Mass they prefer? (And I’m speaking of valid, licit Masses - not Mr. Potato Head Masses.)

Quote:
Mass is the Sacrifice of Our Lord, you’ll have to excuse us for looking slightly serious about such a thing. Our Lord died for our sins we’re there to thank him, not to derive joy for ourselves.

Maybe I came down a little bit heavy, but to use the definition “Showing little thought, preparation, or concern,” I felt that’s what you did with the above two sentences. Liturgical musicians want to thank and glorify God as much as you want Him thanked and glorified, and we are as serious as you are. That you have thought this out doesn’t come through from your statement which basically says that people who agree totally with you are serious about these things and dissenters are not, or that we want to derive joy for ourselves instead of praising God. If I misinterpret you, then I apologize. However, if that’s what you mean, then no, you haven’t thought this matter through nor been concerned about your fellow Catholics who don’t want someone else’s tastes imposed upon them.

No. My topic has been confined solely to music.

By consistently praising other forms of music for their appeal, their alleged ability to keep people in the Church and their ability to help people pray you appear to place them above Gregorian Chant. If your previous statements have not adequately represented your view them fine.

They have ‘services’ often with loud rock music hand waving etc etc. If it looks like a rock party and sounds like a rock party then there’s a reasonable chance it is a rock party. If you prefer I will amend it to “rock party atmosphere”.

In my view not to the same extent as the hymns which preceded them e.g. Phemie’s example of Come Holy Ghost being replaced by ‘The Spirit is A Moving’.

And by doing that we create division which should not exist in Parishes. One of the points made in that earlier source is that although national music is fine to an extent “these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.” Hence if a lot of people from the same nation finds them disagreeable and get an unfavourable impression on hearing them then its quite obvious there’s a problem with the music.

So you want everyone to be grinning ear to ear throughout the Mass? Our joy comes from the Sacrifice which He made for our sakes, an air of solemnity is appropriate when we participate at the Mass.

They coexist quite comfortably. In private religious devotions, even in day to day life they are perfectly free to listen to that kind of music (so long as it doesn’t contradict the Church’s teachings). When it comes to the Mass however the music should be such that it is conducive to vertical thoughts and selected such that “nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”.

It would be helpful in preventing misunderstandings if you were to read what I have written. I said “Especially to the extent that it becomes the main attraction. When people start coming to Mass just for the music there is a serious problem and that is just what you have encouraged in your argument. If they come to the Mass for an earthly reason they’re not likely to look very far beyond?” Hence it relates to when music becomes the main/only attraction.

Thats much better then, so rather than criticising me for being insincere/superficial and or deceitful you are saying that I have little thought, preparation or concern for the Sacrifice Our Lord made for us. I stated that that was my main focus, if you object to that its your problem. I go to Mass to thank him, not to concern myself with my facial disposition or how others might view it.

In case you didn’t follow I made that statement in response to your objection at people looking like they’ve lost their best friend, not to liturgical musicians intents as a whole but to your very superficial preference.

I find your last line quite interesting “However, if that’s what you mean, then no, you haven’t thought this matter through nor been concerned about your fellow Catholics who don’t want someone else’s tastes imposed upon them.” Quite clearly I have thought about my fellow Catholics and would rather that we have music focused on the vertical rather than the usual stuff inflicted on us by the ‘liturgical musicians’ which runs parallel to the ground.

And had your statement reflected that it might be acceptable, but you didn’t say ‘whatever music…’ you said ‘whatever…’. Besides which as far as I know the Church has yet to give the go ahead for any type of music to be used in the Mass so your statement would still be wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

So I guess you’re an expert on the lyrics of modern worship music.

Now that I understand the whole “horizontal/vertical” thing better, perhaps I can point out that not all “liturgical” music is vertical. Some common songs that I’ve sung in church include “Taste and See”, “They’ll Know We Are Christians”, “We Walk By Faith”, and “Prayer of St. Francis”. These all seem more horizontal than vertical to me (feel free to look up the lyrics).

On the other hand, I challenge you to dispute the vertical nature of songs such as “Above All”, “Breathe”, "All in All, “Awesome God”, “Forever”, “God of Wonders”…I really could go on. So many of today’s modern worship songs are just that…geared towards worshipping the Lord. This is a bad thing?!

What happens during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something extraordinary. It’s not some sort of Protestant praise and worship service that centers around the Word, preaching and Music.

During the Mass, the veil between heaven and earth is lifted, so to speak and the entire Church comes together: the Church Triumphant (saints in heaven), the Church suffering (those in purgatory) and the Church Militant (those of us on earth). The music needs to reflect that.

The titles you listed do not do that at all. They are all horizontal in nature and many of them are not suitable, at all, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The problem is that “They’ll Know We are Christians” and “The Prayer of St. Francis” (I’m assuming that you are referring to the piece written by Sebastian Temple) came out at a time fresh out of the Council where an anything goes attitude prevails (unfortunately, that attitude still exists today at OCP). Composers were drunk with the alleged spirit of Vatican II, but, they never actually took the time to read what the Council actually said and they ignored the fact that the same Council never abrogated anything that was written prior its existence. In other words, as Pope John Paul II pointed out in 2003, the document on Sacred Music written Pope St. Pius X still carries a lot of weight.

 

[VociMike]

Holy **** this has stirred up such an argument. The music is meant to sincerely praise God. If we are sincerely praising God with contemporary Christian music, who cares. There was a time when the music which is now considered traditional was contemporary. I don’t get why so many Catholics want to stop the world from turning. There’s always a fight when change inevitably happens. Traditions will always change, get over it. God wants us to praise him. The argument against contemporary music has no biblical basis. He never said praise him using the traditional manner. There are sooo many more important things people could spend there time on yet there has to be this stupid argument. God is probably rolling his eyes at the time wasted.

Is there any room in this analysis for actually reading what the Church says about liturgical music, and for striving to follow her guidelines? For evaluating old and new compositions and instruments according to her standards and the standards of true art?

Or is it all just whatever floats one’s boat?

 

[aloysiusg]

I don’t think it’s possible for the two sides of this to come to a reasonable conclusion, having read a few threads and hundreds of posts on the subject now. I think we;ll have a Schism on one side or the other before we reach a resolution on liturgical music.

 

[shiikis]

During the Mass, the veil between heaven and earth is lifted, so to speak and the entire Church comes together: the Church Triumphant (saints in heaven), the Church suffering (those in purgatory) and the Church Militant (those of us on earth). The music needs to reflect that.

I couldn’t agree more with this concept and the subsequent need for quiet reflection and contemplation. This need for a community sing-a-long is intrusive at best.