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.
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?
Again, if they leave, they certainly won’t gain such insight from a church that doesn’t believe it. 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. 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.)
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.” The music has already changed, and it’s not to pack the pews, it’s to help people to pray. 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. The evidence lies in the people who say they prefer it and the people whom it helps to pray. 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). Once again, never said we should stop it. But it is not the only form of liturgical music.
And the lyrics of many modern hymns come directly from Scripture. Do “wordy” older hymns contain greater truth that Scripture?
What does this paragraph have to do with music at Mass? Surely you’re NOT saying that Masses with contemporary liturgical music are illicit?
Just a tad presumptious, aren’t we? 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. Amen. And this is a very earthly argument.
…Together with using whatever will help move people’s minds and hearts to God.
If you agree with what the Church says i.e. that Gregorian Chant should be held in high esteem then you have a very funny way of showing it. Actually in the past it has mandated a certain type of music, hence it is false to say it “has never mandated one type of music over another” because it has. If you can demonstrate that it helps a congregation to pray then do so, if you can’t then stop advocating that it is preferable with no basis for that view. It means there are some people who enjoy/prefer it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it helps then to pray better. Furthermore how many Parishes have regular access to Gregorian Chant? My guess is there are many people who have not been fortunate enough to hear the music which the Church holds in high esteem in a liturgical setting. It should be denied to them if it disrupts a significant number of the other people attending Mass, it should also be denied them if it is inconducive to the nature of the Sacrifice of Mass. As far as I know it has yet to be demonstrated that a) they are appropriate for the Mass and b) the number of people who find it disruptive are fewer than those who are enthusiastic about it.
It says that they believe the Eucharist should be respected and if they find the activities of others at the Mass are inappropriate or if they believe they are unable to continue participating with the congregation in the correct state of mind then they will leave rather than be forced to watch such things which they can do nothing about. If we converted Churches to a drive through more people might come through as well or if unconditional absolution was given out at a window. If we dropped a couple of dogmas or our objection to abortion/contraception more people might come as well. We should not risk demeaning the Sacrifice of Mass by using cheap gimmicks to pack the pews.
They might well gain it when they see just how empty and vacuous such forms of worship are. If they don’t see how empty other things are then they may never be drawn to look further than that. If we make a few concessions just to keep them in Church and give them enough of what they want then that which could draw them to look at the deeper theological truths will never happen.
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.
The whole point of the music is it is not meant to be their main focus, they’re not meant to be giving it laldly or trying to emit notes more suited to marching piccolos or a coloratura soprano.
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.
Your argument states that having this kind of music helps keep people in the Church rather than going off to Evangelical churches with a soundtrack more to their liking, that is a blatant attempt to keep up the numbers in pews. If your position is that it is to help people pray then how about providing something which demonstrates that it helps them to pray, moreso than Gregorian Chant etc. I know it has exactly the opposite effect on me, whether others are the same I don’t know.
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.
Where are these people? You, a few other people directly involved in providing it in the Mass, and those who are friends of people who provide it? Until you can provide some evidence to back up this position its all supposition and for every person who comes on this thread to approve of contemporary music there is probably at least one who’ll take the other view.
I didn’t say that. I said that the Church is not a democracy, you can’t deny that fact. People might prefer it if the Priest were to attempt to consecrate crisps that wouldn’t make it right to do so. Likewise a majority of people in a Parish might prefer it if the Priest added some liturgical dancing to the Mass, but that too wouldn’t make it right to do so. The same is true of the music.
As far as I know its the only form of music that the Church has stated it holds 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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? 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? 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.
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.
Do you mind if we do what the Church tells us rather than adding what we want them to do on to it? The Church has not told us to use “whatever will help move people’s minds and hearts to God” and probably for a good reason. By using the blanket term ‘whatever’ you are in fact in error, because that would permit practices the Church has explicitly told us not to use e.g. gathering around the Altar alla LifeTeen etc. and indeed many others which the Church probably hopes people would have enough sense not to introduce.
!