Music at mass

[SacredHeartFan]

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.

 

[Lepanto]

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?

 

[SacredHeartFan]

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?

Do you honostly think that Iron Maiden would write a theologically correct song? But in the case that they would yes.

 

[Lepanto]

Do you honostly think that Iron Maiden would write a theologically correct song? But in the case that they would yes.

Then I’d suggest reading Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)'s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, starting on page 136.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

But don’t you think this is one of the reason’s that we are losing people to these non-denominational churches? Does God really care what kind of music we use if we are praising him with our whole being? Wasn’t the music we have in church the style back then? If so we can’t we use our style?

 

[Lepanto]

But don’t you think this is one of the reason’s that we are losing people to these non-denominational churches? Does God really care what kind of music we use if we are praising him with our whole being? Wasn’t the music we have in church the style back then? If so we can’t we use our style?

Well, back to my original question which wasn’t answered: if Iron Maiden and Megadeth are my “style,” why can’t they be played at Mass so long as their lyrics are theologically acceptable?

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Well, back to my original question which wasn’t answered: if Iron Maiden and Megadeth are my “style,” why can’t they be played at Mass so long as their lyrics are theologically acceptable?

I said yes. But I also asked if you honostly believe that Iron Maiden would ever come out with a theologically correct song. YOu still didn’t answer some of my other questions.

(if I sound like it, I’m not trying to be rude or cocky)

 

[muffinmojo]

Actually, Gregorian Chant and traditional hymns were not in the style of the day. Secular music at the time was far different-and remained so until the baroque era. Then secular music became church music, which is why Bach and Mozart and all these people wrote Masses. Pope St Pius X reformed the music and brought us back to Gregorian Chant, Polyphony, and traditional hymns sometime around 1900, 1911 something like that. Which lasted a mere 50 years until it was removed again

 

[muffinmojo]

My personal opinion would be that if this music helps you, then by all means listen to it before and after Mass, praying or meditating, whatever works. At Mass, sit back and try to enjoy the chant. =]

 

[Lepanto]

But don’t you think this is one of the reason’s that we are losing people to these non-denominational churches? Does God really care what kind of music we use if we are praising him with our whole being? Wasn’t the music we have in church the style back then? If so we can’t we use our style?

The vast majority of Catholic parishes (in my experience) long ago dropped traditional music and completely ignored centuries of tradition and magisterial documents by doing so.

In its place, these parishes have adopted Protestant-inspired “Praise and Worship” music (which in turn is inspired by music from the secular world). If this is what it would take to keep Catholics from leaving the Church, then our modern Church music has been an abysmal failure.

Please read this:
tommcfaul.com/escritaria/litmusic.html

 

[VociMike]

The Church calls for her sacred music to have sanctity, goodness of form and universality. She also declares that Gregorian chant is the supreme model and permanent standard of her sacred music. How does the music you propose hold up to those requirements?

I’m curious, since you answered “yes” to the question about Iron Maiden, is there any musical style that you would not allow in the Mass if the lyrics were acceptable?

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is actually an interesting question to me.

I agree that music at Mass ought to be a particular sort.

However, I can’t quite understand and/or explain why.

The thing is that I recognize that the music at Mass is for the purpose of the worship of God. It is vertical, rather than horizontal - directed towards God, rather than towards the congregation. However, I also recognize that God does not have an aesthetic style. He doesn’t like one kind of music over another. (I suppose Christ might, in His humanity, but what that would even be nobody would know .) So I know the music ought to be a certain thing because of the vertical dimension of it, but I also know that God the sort of music it is doesn’t matter to God - not directly anyways. In some way, the importance of the music has to do with how it relates to the congregation, even thogh that actually doesn’t matter at all. What matters is something about how the music helps the people to relate to God, or something, but I can’t explain it.

I brought this up on Fr. Z’s blog, but I didn’t really get any answers other than people telling me where they thought I was modernist. I’m hoping I get more help here

And I certainly think that this question will help contribute to the OP’s question. I think it’s simply a more specific way of asking the question.

Peace and God bless

 

[VociMike]

This is actually an interesting question to me.

I agree that music at Mass ought to be a particular sort.

However, I can’t quite understand and/or explain why.

The thing is that I recognize that the music at Mass is for the purpose of the worship of God. It is vertical, rather than horizontal - directed towards God, rather than towards the congregation. However, I also recognize that God does not have an aesthetic style. He doesn’t like one kind of music over another. (I suppose Christ might, in His humanity, but what that would even be nobody would know .) So I know the music ought to be a certain thing because of the vertical dimension of it, but I also know that God the sort of music it is doesn’t matter to God - not directly anyways. In some way, the importance of the music has to do with how it relates to the congregation, even thogh that actually doesn’t matter at all. What matters is something about how the music helps the people to relate to God, or something, but I can’t explain it.

I brought this up on Fr. Z’s blog, but I didn’t really get any answers other than people telling me where they thought I was modernist. I’m hoping I get more help here

And I certainly think that this question will help contribute to the OP’s question. I think it’s simply a more specific way of asking the question.

Peace and God bless

I can tell you’ve been thinking about this.

It might be helpful for people to ponder why they think music that mimics the current secular music (in any age) is a good choice for liturgical music. What qualities does this contemporary-sounding music have that recommends it to liturgical use over any other music? Why do those who recommend it, recommend it?

I also like to ponder whether at the same time priests should celebrate Mass dressed not in priestly vestments but in business suits, jogging outfits, hawaiian shirts and cutoffs, or any other contemporary secular clothing style. It’s the same concept, and the same arguments should apply one way or the other.

 

[GemmaRose]

The vast majority of Catholic parishes (in my experience) long ago dropped traditional music and completely ignored centuries of tradition and magisterial documents by doing so.

In its place, these parishes have adopted Protestant-inspired “Praise and Worship” music (which in turn is inspired by music from the secular world). If this is what it would take to keep Catholics from leaving the Church, then our modern Church music has been an abysmal failure.

Please read this:
tommcfaul.com/escritaria/litmusic.html

I disagree with you. It has been my experience that when good, contemporary liturgical music is used at a Mass, the Mass where it is used attracts more congregants.

I, personally, try to stick to liturgical music, but will throw in a "Protestant-inspired ‘Praise and Worship’ song now and then. There are very many beautiful, praise-filled, and worship-inspiring songs in the genre of what you call "Protestant-inspired ‘Praise and Worship’ music.

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?

 

[Sarabande]

Actually, Gregorian Chant and traditional hymns were not in the style of the day. Secular music at the time was far different-and remained so until the baroque era. Then secular music became church music, which is why Bach and Mozart and all these people wrote Masses. Pope St Pius X reformed the music and brought us back to Gregorian Chant, Polyphony, and traditional hymns sometime around 1900, 1911 something like that. Which lasted a mere 50 years until it was removed again

Actually, there was secular chant and secular polyphony which was performed during everyday life when those forms (especially polyphony) was just happening and becoming “popular”. There was a lot of secular polyphony from Spain, also from Germany, and various other European countries. I’ve also read about “Georgian folk polyphony” (the country of Georgia).

**BUT ** there was also secular music quite different from that of church music, not within the classical genre, not written with much talent - although enjoyable (I have a few cds of this kind of music before, during and after 1600) and was always considered like their “pop” music. Many times they were not transcribed to paper until much later. That style of music would have never been considered to be used during mass. It is with no doubt that people enjoyed these styles, but they also had a belief that there was a time and place for that kind of music and then the style/genre of music for mass.

The secular music in these styles written and performed during and after 1600, was also quite different from that of Bach and Mozart. Composers like those gentlemen did compose absolute music and secular music, but they did it in the style that derived from the western art form of chant and polyphony - not the other way around. Meaning, most did not create a secular form of music then try to use it for writing sacred or religious music. Of course, there has always been debates about whether or not some compositions of composers were appropriate for mass. This is nothing new.

We have to remember that western musical theory (which is what we basically use to compose, especially in the classical genre) was developed and supported first through the Church. Most importantly, chant, polyphony and those other classical forms were considered the High Art of the day. It was the best that was offered - whether or not it was the most “popular”. We see this in other forms of “sacred” art that was taken and incorporated into secular art. The artistic technique of Michaelangelo and men/women like him were used to create inspiring works of sacred art, but those same techniques were used for everyday artwork for the secular world. Same with architecture, sculpture and the various other forms of art. And there were “folk” or less “worthy” forms of these styles in their day as well, but were not considered appropriate for mass or for their house of worship. The Church usually employed the best, most gifted and most talented of artists, musicians, composers of their time to praise God, which was almost never derived from the folk or ‘pop’ styles of their day. Again, chant, polyphony and various kinds of classical music was “popular” during certain periods, but was never considered the “pop” music of their day.

The difference with some of the music being written today is that there was a break with the tradition of compositional writing for sacred music in which a compositional style which has more of its origins with ‘pop’ and ‘folk’ music styles began to surface. It was no longer about finding the best in high art. Some people would debate that this was a great change for the Church. Others would most certainly disagree.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that what many tend to forget is that the Church has written extensively on the matter. This is what the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II said about Sacred Music:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI continues that thread in Sacramentum Caritatis wherein he writes:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

Unfortunately, what many proponents of contemporary music fail to see is that most of it leans towards the horizontal while ignoring the vertical. When the lyrics focus on what I am doing for God, when I become the “actor”, then, the thrust of the music becomes centered on me/we and not on God. That is why a lot of the contemporary songs don’t necessarily work for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The writings of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger certainly confirm this viewpoint. His words are already very well known. When we begin to celebrate ourselves, as he writes, then, we have completely lost the point of the object of our liturgies.

 

[Crystal_H]

Dear SacredHeartFan,

I, too, really enjoy some “modern Christian music” While some of those songs are wonderful for perhaps a praise and worship service, they are not appropriate for mass. As some posters have stated, it is about how God is worshipped in the Mass.

Just a small thing that i noticed is that most of the songs that i love are me-centered. How does God make me feel? Regardless of how I feel, God is God and should be worshipped.
I know there are many posters who really dislike the format of the folk mass… I appreciate the reverence in which we celebrate the folk style mass at our parish.

Many prayers for you as you discern a vocation.
Crystal

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

When I have said this before, I have been told that beauty is not truly subjective, but in reality it is objective. It is one of St. Thomas’ transcendentals, for example. I agree with this. However, if we are to say beauty is objective, then one must be able to define what it is, objectively. And so, this makes these answers circular. The original question is about what is appropriate for Liturgy. The answer is, at least in part, that the beautiful is, but there is no answer as to what is beautiful.

Some have explained the history of music and pointed out that secular music has always been to some degree separate from sacred music. There has been a difference. Sarabande does a fine job of this, and goes in to explaining how Western musical theory has developed primarily from the Church over the centuries.

Yet this seems to leave us with a very arbitrary rationale for distinguishing the sacred from the secular. Sacred music is that which throughout history was used sacredly, in opposition or as an alternative to that which was used secularly. Sacred music can be in some way identified with that which follows the rules of music theory. The question is, if Gregorian chant and polyphony were originally quite seperate from secular music and the theory based upon and developing from them is proper to sacred music, why is this?

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.

 

[paramedicgirl]

This is actually an interesting question to me.

I agree that music at Mass ought to be a particular sort.

However, I can’t quite understand and/or explain why.

Then you might want to read this. Ritus Narcissus.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Then you might want to read this. Ritus Narcissus.

Thanks; I’ll take a look at it. From a quick scan, it doesn’t look like anything I wouldn’t already be able to express. I understand how the lyrics ought to be in the Mass, and why.