The Mass is the Mass. If the Church says, as it does of Gregorian Chant, that it is to be held in high esteem and is such a suitable type of music for the Liturgy then how can we say that other types of music, which are completely different, are equal or, as you advocate, in some cases preferable. First, I’ve never posted that chant should not be held in high esteem. Second, the Magisterium might state an opinion, but has never mandated one type of music over another. Third, more contemporary music is preferable when that is the type of music which helps a congregation to pray. That there are people who advocate contemporary music states plainly that there are Catholics who find contemporary music an aid to prayer, and it should not be denied them. The Church doesn’t defines specifically which music is acceptable, but by singling out Gregorian Chant they give a good indication of how we should decide on the music at the Mass.
I don’t think anyone will leave the Church, if they are properly catechised, because the music has become too liberal. Nor do I think people true to the faith would ever leave because the music was too conservative. However it creates division within the Church which shouldn’t be there which is not a good idea. Persons who are only marginally Catholic may very well leave when enticed by a church with “livelier” worship. If contemporary music keeps them inside the Church and church building, there’s more of a chance of a conversion of heart to full and healthy Catholic faith. Additionally, I have read posts in other threads in CAF from proponents of more traditional forms of music that they have walked out of Masses with contemporary music not to their preference. What does that say about their faith in the Eucharist?
Are they Catholic if they don’t believe in the Real Presence? I would submit that the music no matter how good, or well suited to their preference is not likely to give them sudden insight into it. Again, if they leave, they certainly won’t gain such insight from a church that doesn’t believe it. If however the music becomes so like secular song that it sounds like something they’d hear in the background of an advert it is far easier for them to tune it out and keep their thoughts on earthly things, whether the guitarist is out of tune or the vocalist is really able to sing notes that high. They can’t tune it out if they are singing the words which can lift their minds and hearts to God, and a good liturgical musician can get their people to sing. The other side obviously is we use music completely out of the ordinary, something which accomplished the same purpose for our ancestors as the great Cathedrals and Churches, to turn their thoughts to something beyond the humdrum of life and on to the things of the next. This is just the type of music which some people tune out. (I’m not blaming the music. I’m not “blaming” anyone or anything. It’s just the way it is.)
No the Church’s opinion actually. (I just happen to agree with it though
)
Again I disagree, you say “whatever draws them”. It might draw them if we had them clapping along or if we had semi clothed female dancers on either side of the Altar. It’s interesting that when people cannot formulate a good argument, they resort to making up ludicrous examples such as “semi clothed female dancers on either side of the altar.” That aside they will never be properly catchised if we are teaching them that the Church will resort to changing the music to pack the pews, The music has already changed, and it’s not to pack the pews, it’s to help people to pray. or try to keep up with the Evangelical lot down the block. No one is trying to “keep up with them,” but we could learn a little from them, but that’s beside the point. There is good, contemporary liturgical music. And where is the evidence that more people are drawn by this kind of music? The evidence lies in the people who say they prefer it and the people whom it helps to pray. Besides which the Church is not a democracy, we don’t decide to dump opposition to contraception or anything else if a majority would prefer it. Are you saying that good contemporary liturgical music is a sin on the level of contraception
? That’s news to me (probably to the Magisterium also). If we start getting a few Church approved visions where the Virgin Mary raps out a message or the choirs of angels announce the Lord’s preference for Pop then I’ll go along with it, until then I think we should keep the Gregorian Chant going. Once again, never said we should stop it. But it is not the only form of liturgical music.
One of the other points is that although some modern tunes may be theologically correct they often don’t transmit the same depth or intricacy of philosophy as older songs. Someone was complaining in another thread that older hymns were too wordy, but they are needfully so because they are teaching fairly in depth teachings which more modern hymns manifestly fail to do. And the lyrics of many modern hymns come directly from Scripture. Do “wordy” older hymns contain greater truth that Scripture?
True, a well catechised Catholic probably wouldn’t leave the Church. However a particularly well catechised Catholic would also be aware that he can fulfil most of his obligations to the Church by going to illicit Masses, which are nonetheless valid. They would only need to go to a Church in Full Communion once a year or so, and our Churches would be losing some of the most knowledgeable and faithful Catholics who are most needed to help with things like Adult Catechism etc.
What does this paragraph have to do with music at Mass? Surely you’re NOT saying that Masses with contemporary liturgical music are illicit?
Mass is the Sacrifice of Our Lord, you’ll have to excuse us for looking slightly serious about such a thing. Just a tad presumptious, aren’t we? :tsktsk: I am as serious as you are, and probably a little more experienced at what I’m talking about than you are. Our Lord died for our sins we’re there to thank him, not to derive joy for ourselves. And if contemporary liturgical music helps some people to thank Him, then you should not be so glib about it. If you don’t like it, you are free to have your opinion. But your opinion is not everyone’s opinion. And what moves you might not move the next person. And I would be willing to guess that the Lord is more concerned about a person’s heart being moved to Him rather than the method used. We are never going to have even the slightest glimpse of Heaven on Earth if we are so focused on Earthly things that we do not allow our minds to transcend them. Amen. And this is a very earthly argument.
Well when an Angels comes and gives us a copy of the Heavenly Hymnbook I don’t think anyone will complain about using it. Until then we should keep Gregorian Chant in the esteem the Church requests. Together with using whatever will help move people’s minds and hearts to God.
Let us be able to express our opinions/beliefs and be able to disagree or agree with each other without doing that.