Music at mass

[Sarabande]

**Can’t we just continue the unattached, unemotional questions and answers and opinion that was in the beginning of the thread? ** I think more would come out of that for all rather than assuming that the “other side” is ignorant (ie “don’t know what they’re talking about”). We can’t get anywhere in a discussion when that is brought up.

P.S. I do know this can be difficult to do and I guess this is more of a wish than a request. I’m extremely passionate (I’m a musician, so there is no way for me not to be passionate - ha! ha!), so working hard to make it unattached, analytical and unemotional is really hard for me too, but this was a gem of a thread in the beginning.

 

[japhy]

one difference - the Church of to day is far less Eurocentric than the Church of 100, or even 50, years ago. Such a change is bound to have an effect on some aspects of liturgical practice.

Can you explain this a bit more? I’ve heard some “Europe” arguments before that don’t hold up.

Are you saying that, because there are more… say… Chinese Catholics, that the Mass should exhibit a slightly more Chinese character?

I would propose that the Mass should not be an expression of us and our nationalities and culture, but something “other”.

 

[Sarabande]

Many of your arguments have swayed my opinion. I have come to my final conclusion. The musician should play whatever he/she feels most comfortable playing and a piece that he/she feels that coming from them it gives God praise.

I have vascillated with this myself, especially since my parish doesn’t do the more secular style of music for mass and thus the “out of sight, out of mind” idea. Also, I love a lot of things, especially in music, that bring me spiritual fulfillment, although I would never think about bringing it into the realm of the mass. But thinking about this, it reminds me of some of my friends/contemporaries (meaning 20 and 30 year olds) who have this same outlook in terms of their spiritual lives. Many believe that as long as they believe in God and worship or pray to Him in their own way, that’s good enough. They don’t have to be Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Jewish, etc.
or they don’t have to follow the rules and traditions of their respective denominations. What feels good to them is best for them. Some of what they do would be considered harmless, so I’m not saying that using certain genres of music is completely destructive. It hasn’t been around long enough to do a true scientific study of it, but in some ways I feel that this “if it feels good, do it” mentality does stem from our parents’ generation and have been passed on to mine. It wasn’t all bad, but it wasn’t all good either.

 

[Cathyd241]

What contemporary pop-style songs of today will be revered and sung in 500 years, and why?

How are any of us to know the answer to that question? Only time will tell…

 

[Cathyd241]

What is hostile or condescending in the questions I asked? Do you disagree that they are legitimate questions? Did I attack anybody by asking them?

I don’t know…I guess it just seemed like the tone of your remarks.

 

[Cathyd241]

What would this compromise look like? And since when are people who simply want to do what the Church calls for in liturgical music now labeled as “traditionalists”? What then should we call people who don’t want to do what the Church calls for in liturgical music?

I used the word ‘traditionalists’ for lack of a better word…I just wanted a name to refer to those of you in favor of tradition…therefore this seemed appropriate. I guess you could call us ‘non-traditionalists’ if you like.

As far as a compromise, I guess I’d just like you all to be a little more open minded about such things. Again, as long as the purpose of our music is to praise the Lord, I don’t see where the genre should be the issue, and it would be nice to see different styles of praise music to be played at Mass.

 

[Cathyd241]

How much contemporary music is of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art?

Is that music worthy to push aside a treasure of inestimable value? Is it worthy to stand alongside music that is greater than any other art? Can anybody possibly make an objective argument that it is?

I don’t believe we *could *possibly make an objective arguement. Who are we to measure the value of a song?

 

[brotherhrolf]

I don’t believe so. Who are we to measure the value of a song?

So, what you are saying is I’m OK; you’re OK and anything goes. Sons of God is the functional equivalent of Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus”. I went through this in 1969 when all of this began.

So, a composer from Bourbon St. can compose a bump and grind stripper hymn and it is perfectly OK as long as it has appropriate sacred lyricss. Is that what you are saying?

 

[VociMike]

I used the word ‘traditionalists’ for lack of a better word…I just wanted a name to refer to those of you in favor of tradition…therefore this seemed appropriate. I guess you could call us ‘non-traditionalists’ if you like.

But I reject the term for myself. What I am in favor of is following the teachings of the Church, in this case her teachings on sacred music. Since the concept of organic growth is so important to the Church, it is natural that her teachings will support tradition and growing new music from tradition. But I emphasize again that I am not a traditionalist, I am a do-what-the-Church-teaches-rather-than-fighting-against-her-ite.

As far as a compromise, I guess I’d just like you all to be a little more open minded about such things. Again, as long as the purpose of our music is to praise the Lord, I don’t see where the genre should be the issue, and it would be nice to see different styles of praise music to be played at Mass.

I doubt there is one “traditionalist” (that term thing again) here who does not want to see new compositions of liturgical music. We cannot live off the art and faith of the past, although we can draw strength and inspiration from it.

But, those compositions must flow organically from what has gone before, and must take Gregorian chant as their supreme model and permanent standard. That does not mean they need to sound like Gregorian chant (Palestrina doesn’t sound particularly like Gregorian chant), but they must emphasize the same features that make Gregorian chant the song of the Roman rite (as Pope Benedict has recently reiterated).

We have mostly abandoned our musical “treasure of inestimable value” for music which is artistically shallow, has no connection with past generations of the faithful, and will have no connection with future generations of the faithful. It is music which is universal neither in artistic quality, or in space, or in time. It is, quite frankly and compared with what it should be, an embarrassment and a disservice to the faithful.

If this were an orphanage and we fed the children food as thin as the music in most Masses I’m sure we’d all be arrested. But we continue to feed our brothers and sisters in Christ the thinnest possible spiritual gruel, when we could offer them a banquet.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t believe we *could *possibly make an objective arguement. Who are we to measure the value of a song?

One who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae and who takes Gregorian chant as the supreme model and permanent standard would have no problem doing so.

Your question essentially is saying that when Pope Benedict recently declared that “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another,” he was stating a falsehood, and in fact one song is as good as another. For if we cannot measure the value of a song, then it must follow that every song is as good as every other song.

So let me ask you point blank. As far as the liturgy is concerned, is one song as good as another? Do you agree or disagree with the pope on this question?

 

[aloysiusg]

So, what you are saying is I’m OK; you’re OK and anything goes. Sons of God is the functional equivalent of Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus”. I went through this in 1969 when all of this began.

So, a composer from Bourbon St. can compose a bump and grind stripper hymn and it is perfectly OK as long as it has appropriate sacred lyricss. Is that what you are saying?

brotherhrolf - this is the kind of “contemporary music” bashing I am talking about. You use this phrasing time and time again - come up with a new one please.

No, a bump and grind stripper hymn is not ok - SATISFIED!! (What an incredibly stupid hypothetical)

Voci - you follow the Church’s guidelines - that is laudable - so do I - and the Church says there is nothing wrong with the music I play, so I play it - my question to you is - if the Church is ok with it, why are you not?

 

[VociMike]

Voci - you follow the Church’s guidelines - that is laudable - so do I - and the Church says there is nothing wrong with the music I play, so I play it - my question to you is - if the Church is ok with it, why are you not?

I have no idea what music you play, so of course I could not comment on it. I do know that Pope John Paul II called for “an examination of conscience so that the beauty of music and song will return increasingly to the Liturgy”, and that “It is necessary to purify worship of deformations, of careless forms of expression of ill-prepared music and texts which are not suited to the grandeur of the act being celebrated.” And I know that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.”

So there it is. Are you playing songs that are not as good as other songs? Are you playing songs that have deformations, careless forms of expression, ill prepared music and texts which are not suited to the liturgy? If you are then you are part of the problem. If you aren’t then you are part of the solution.

But please don’t pretend, to yourself or to others, that all songs are OK, that it’s all about personal preference.

You say you follow the guidelines of the Church. Do you then give Gregorian chant pride of place as the song proper to the Roman rite? That is a guideline of the Church.

 

[japhy]

I used the word ‘traditionalists’ for lack of a better word…I just wanted a name to refer to those of you in favor of tradition…therefore this seemed appropriate. I guess you could call us ‘non-traditionalists’ if you like.

There was a time when “those of you in favor of tradition” wasn’t a dividing line within Catholicism…

 

[brotherhrolf]

brotherhrolf - this is the kind of “contemporary music” bashing I am talking about. You use this phrasing time and time again - come up with a new one please.

No, a bump and grind stripper hymn is not ok - SATISFIED!! (What an incredibly stupid hypothetical)

Voci - you follow the Church’s guidelines - that is laudable - so do I - and the Church says there is nothing wrong with the music I play, so I play it - my question to you is - if the Church is ok with it, why are you not?

Ah, if you had followed my dialogue with my young contemporary just to the geographic south of me, you would have seen that he stated that it was acceptable that the style of music did not matter, it was the content. I grant you that it was an extreme example on my part but, as I put it to him, why have the Cajuns not incorporated dance hall music into the Mass? The Cathedral in San Antonio regularly has a mariachi Mass - it’s on TV. How do we explain this dichotomy? What about the Irish? Why is there no ceili Mass? Notre Dame University did publish an Irish Mass but it is most certainly NOT a ceili Mass.

So, there must be some standards and I submit to you that my classmates back in 1969 didn’t give a fig newton about standards - otherwise why in the heck did we sing Simon and Garfunkle (do an Amazon search in case you’ve never heard of them) at my Catholic high school graduation?

I reiterate what I said earlier in this thread. We are Catholics. We have a 1500 year heritage of our own sacred music. We don’t need to emulate our protestant brethren. If I can buy a CD at Walmart containing contemporary praise and worship music and hear it sung at Mass in my local parish, are we honoring our 1500 year heritage of sacred music or are we looking towards the latest “hit” from K-Tel?

So many of the local parishes in my diocese have absolutely no idea of what traditional Catholic music sounds like. Traditional Catholic music - Oh! “Be Not Afraid”. “Eagles Wings” …Am I wrong or have I been reading so many comments over the years like that on these forums?

No, aloysius. It is appalling to me that a young person like SHF is a member of my own diocese and can make a statement such as he made. That it is not the type of music played but the intent behind the music.

There was a concert performance of a Mass composed using all of the musical genres of New Orleans in honor of the victims of Katrina. The concert was given in St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans with the archbishop and bishops of Louisiana in attendance as a Katrina benefit and broadcast on PBS. I love ragtime. My grandmother played ragtime on the parlor piano when I was a kid but ragtime is not a suitable genre for Mass.

My high school was on the corner of Rampart and Esplanade in New Orleans. We used St. Augustine’s classrooms for our eighth grade. St. Augustine is to this day an historically African American parish. I saw so many New Orleans jazz funerals because the Brothers let us out of class to view. They thought it was an important part of our heritage. The jazz bands did not enter St. Augustine and they did not play inside the church for Mass. African American Catholics, aloysius, and the requiem Mass was in Latin. BTW aloysius, I am a member of the 100th and last graduation class of St. Aloysius High School in New Orleans.

So, now we have reached the point that contemporary praise and worship music is the equivalent of Mozart, Vivaldi, Haydn to name but a few. It started in 1968 with my classmates and their guitars.
I’ve got the 40 year been there, done that medal. I make no apologies for what I have said.

And, there are composers, aloysius, who are writing Catholic music that is “Catholic” music without having to resort to K-Tel.

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by aloysiusg
brotherhrolf - this is the kind of “contemporary music” bashing I am talking about. You use this phrasing time and time again - come up with a new one please.

No, a bump and grind stripper hymn is not ok - SATISFIED!! (What an incredibly stupid hypothetical)

Voci - you follow the Church’s guidelines - that is laudable - so do I - and the Church says there is nothing wrong with the music I play, so I play it - my question to you is - if the Church is ok with it, why are you not?

Have you ever read any of the documents put forth by the Holy See or are you just relying on what the publishing houses like OCP spew out?

In 2003, Pope John Paul II wrote the Chirograph on Sacred Music to mark the 100th anniversary of the document written by Pope St. Pius X. In this document, John Paul writes:

1. On various occasions I too have recalled the precious role and great importance of music and song for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations[9]. I have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.

…4. 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.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

Pope Benedict XVI carries this same 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, most of the contemporary music that OCP and GIA shoves down the liturgical pipeline takes on a more horizontal approach while neglecting the vertical. These publishing houses have managed to turn a deaf ear to what truly constitutes Sacred Music and are more interested in producing stuff that is tripe, banal and is more about celebrating the community than about adoring God.

 

[aloysiusg]

Original question reads:
How is modern music irreverent if it complies to church doctrine and moral teaching?

Answer - it isn’t irreverent - doesn’t mean it belongs at mass though.

FIrst answer (from Lepanto), however, doesn’t address that, but goes off on a ridiculous hypothetical tangent - thread regressed from there, to the point where it is now.

Let’s review the facts:
Fact: Chant has been decreed to be the most pure, and best, form of worship - good for it - I love chant - others don’t - bully for them.
Fact: Music by more recent composers, post VCII, like SLJ, Haugen, Haas, etc, while not as pure in a sacred sense as chant, is perfectly acceptable to use at mass, as decreed by the Vatican - thus there should be no issue if someone chooses to use it at mass.

Am I wrong on either counts?

 

[aloysiusg]

And to address the personal assaults…

Voci - Are you playing songs that have deformations, careless forms of expression, ill prepared music and texts which are not suited to the liturgy? If you are then you are part of the problem. If you aren’t then you are part of the solution.

So is this one of those - "If you’re not with us, you’re against us bits? - how very catholic (lowercase) of you. I use music approved by the Vatican - you should need no other reassurance than that.

But please don’t pretend, to yourself or to others, that all songs are OK, that it’s all about personal preference.

Please show me the thread where i said all songs are OK, where I said it was all about personal preference

You say you follow the guidelines of the Church. Do you then give Gregorian chant pride of place as the song proper to the Roman rite?

I do not choose the songs we sing, my music minister does - I merely perform them as part of the music ministry. If he chooses chant, then I happily sing chant. If he chooses something from GIA or OCP, then I sing and play those - sometimes reluctantly, but I do it to the best of my ability anyway.

brother - I submit to you that my classmates back in 1969 didn’t give a fig newton about standards - otherwise why in the heck did we sing Simon and Garfunkle (do an Amazon search in case you’ve never heard of them) at my Catholic high school graduation?

and I don’t give a flying fig about your classmates from 1969 - they are irrelevant to his discussion. As for your insipid S&G line - yes I’ve heard of them [edited] - I’m almost 40 - I once had every one of their albums, now I have them on my Ipod - maybe you’ve heard of those - if not, go to www.apple.com to find out what they are - they are like a thin 8-track. And you can do S&G at a graduation - doing it at the Baccalaureate would be the problem - be specific brother.

benedictgal - Unfortunately, most of the contemporary music that OCP and GIA shoves down the liturgical pipeline takes on a more horizontal approach while neglecting the vertical. These publishing houses have managed to turn a deaf ear to what truly constitutes Sacred Music and are more interested in producing stuff that is tripe, banal and is more about celebrating the community than about adoring God.

You don’t like OCP and GIA - good for you - I couldn’t care less. If you want to attack them go for it - that is different from attacking the composers of the music - they are trying to celebrate God - you just don’t appreciate the way they do it - ok - so long as the Vatican says how they do it is ok, then I figure who am I to argue with the Vatican? If tomorrow the Vatican said that we aren’t to play Haugen anyjmore, then I wouldn’t play Haugen anymore. But as long as it is ok with them, it is ok with me. As for your continued diatribe of horizontal vs vertical, I would tell you to relax, take a deep breath and lie down, but then you would be horizontal, and we wouldn’t want that of course.

OK - I’m done - flame away.

 

[benedictgal]

Original question reads:
How is modern music irreverent if it complies to church doctrine and moral teaching?

Answer - it isn’t irreverent - doesn’t mean it belongs at mass though.

FIrst answer (from Lepanto), however, doesn’t address that, but goes off on a ridiculous hypothetical tangent - thread regressed from there, to the point where it is now.

Let’s review the facts:
Fact: Chant has been decreed to be the most pure, and best, form of worship - good for it - I love chant - others don’t - bully for them.
Fact: Music by more recent composers, post VCII, like SLJ, Haugen, Haas, etc, while not as pure in a sacred sense as chant, is perfectly acceptable to use at mass, as decreed by the Vatican - thus there should be no issue if someone chooses to use it at mass.

Am I wrong on either counts?

Yes and no. This is what Musica Sacram says regarding Sacred Music:

1. It is to be hoped that pastors of souls, musicians and the faithful will gladly accept these norms and put them into practice, uniting their efforts to attain the true purpose of sacred music, "which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful."1

(a) By sacred music is understood that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form.2

(b) The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.3

52. In order to preserve the heritage of sacred music and genuinely promote the new forms of sacred singing, “great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutes and schools,” especially in those higher institutes intended specially for this.37 Above all, the study and practice of Gregorian chant is to be promoted, because, with its special characteristics, it is a basis of great importance for the development of sacred music.
53. New works of sacred music should conform faithfully to the principles and norms set out above. In this way they will have "the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, being within the capacities not merely of large choirs but of smaller choirs, facilitating the participation of all the faithful."38

As regards the heritage that has been handed down those parts which correspond to the needs of the renewed Liturgy should first be brought to light. Competent experts in this field must then carefully consider whether other parts can be adapted to the same needs. As for those pieces which do not correspond to the nature of the Liturgy or cannot be harmonized with the pastoral celebration of the Liturgy – they may be profitably transferred to popular devotions, especially to celebrations of the word of God.39

1. The new melodies for the vernacular texts certainly need to undergo a period of experimentation in order that they may attain a sufficient maturity and perfection. However, anything done in churches, even if only for experimental purposes, which is unbecoming to the holiness of the place, the dignity of the Liturgy and the devotion of the faithful, must be avoided.

Evidently, Haugen, Haas, Hurd and company have ignored the parameters set by this document (as does most of OCP’s catalogue, and some of GIA’s). Most of their music is geared towards the horizontal while ingoring the veritical. Sometimes, they’ll throw in a passing reference to the vertical, but, it’s just that, fleeting.

To dismiss this as diatribe would mean that you take no stock whatsoever in what the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has to say on the matter. It also means that perhaps you may not understand the importance of the vertical dimension in the liturgy. After all, this is a constant point that even Pope Benedict has made several times. The liturgy is cosmic. Yes, there are some horizontal elements, but, you cannot ignore the vertical. That is what many of these songs are doing. Being flippant about this discussion means that perhaps you have not taken the time to study the matter thoroughly. Perhaps reading about what the Holy Father and the Curia have to say on the matter might help you to understand the situation. But, to resort to insults indicates that perhaps you may not be at a level of maturity that would lend itself to being open to the truth.

A lot of Haugen’s lyrics are questionable. Gather Us In is one such example. “Not in some heaven light years away” does not even take into account that at every Mass, the Church Triumphant (just where does Haugen think these souls are), the Church militant (us) and the Church Suffering (souls in Purgatory). David Haas’ Song of the Body of Christ focuses more on I/We/Us than on adoring God. The same holds true for many of Bod Hurd’s compositions, especially O Love of God/Amor de Dios and Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete. These songs stress the community and make adoring the Lord an after-thought.

Incidentally, those who are gung-ho about the contemporary songs have yet to provide any documentation from the Holy See to substantiate their insistence that this stuff is actually suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Might I remind you that neither OCP nor GIA have any ecclesial authority whatsoever. They have no more authority than you or I do in this matter. The only thing that they have is a strong marketing agency that promotes their stuff. That’s about it.

One need not be flippant or rude when trying to make a point. This is supposed to be a forum for mature adults who have agreed to disagree, to some extent. Those of us who have cited documents should not be put down, especially by others who seem to be unable to find anything from the liturgical and regulatory documents of the Holy See to support their claims and are simply relying on what feels good to them.

It is not what feels good to us that should be important. It is what the Church has mandated and has advocated. As Pope Benedict notes, “Certainly, we cannot say that as far as the liturgy is concerned, one song is as good as another.” That is definitely true about a lot of what is sung today.

 

[aloysiusg]

To dismiss this as diatribe would mean that you take no stock whatsoever in what the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has to say on the matter.
*
Not hardly - I just take no stock whatsoever in what you have to say on the matter.*

Incidentally, those who are gung-ho about the contemporary songs have yet to provide any documentation from the Holy See to substantiate their insistence that this stuff is actually suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

As I said, if the Vatican tells me not to play it, then I won’t play it - they haven’t told me that, so I play it, along with chant and other musical genres, all apropriate for the mass.

One need not be flippant or rude when trying to make a point.

Here you and I agree completely, so the second you can refer to people like Haugen, Haas, or the SLJ, and companies like OCP and GIA with even the slightest modicum of Christian charity, then I will do the same with you

It is not what feels good to us that should be important.

Again you and I agree (hey - that makes twice!) So since the Vatican says the music from GIA and OCP, which in their eyes may not be great, but is acceptable for mass, and since you would obviously feel better if the Vatican banned such music, then you just need to get over your personal preferences and fall in line with what the Vatican has decreed as ok

ok - back to flaming me - don’t worry, I am not the least bit intimidated by this - attack me and my faith and the way I practice it - you don’t know squat about me and you treat me like you are the better practicing Catholic - fine think that - I don;'t care what you think of me - I care what God thinks of me, and I care about how I treat Him and His love for me. My only regret in all of this is that I’ve given in to selfish impulses and attacked you in a way that I know goes against my teachings - i will have to go to Confession for that - fortunately, I go to work with priests every day, so it shouldn’t be hard to find one.

Peace out dudes,
“I am just a poor boy though my story seldom told, that I have squandered my existence, for a pocket full of mumbles such are promises…”

 

[VociMike]

And to address the personal assaults…

Voci - Are you playing songs that have deformations, careless forms of expression, ill prepared music and texts which are not suited to the liturgy? If you are then you are part of the problem. If you aren’t then you are part of the solution.

So is this one of those - "If you’re not with us, you’re against us bits? - how very catholic (lowercase) of you. I use music approved by the Vatican - you should need no other reassurance than that.

You don’t seem to grasp my point. Our two most recent popes have spoken about problems in the music used at Mass. Obviously this is a big problem, since popes don’t concern themselves and go on record speaking out against trivial problems. So our two most recent popes perceived that there was a serious problem with liturgical music that was ugly (their word), distasteful (their word) uninspired (their word), not worthy (their phrase), and not as good as other available music (their statement). Would you thus say to our two most recent popes, as you said to me, “how very catholic of you”?

And to claim that you use music approved by the Vatican is odd, considering how much time the Vatican has spent lamenting all the bad music being used. As I said, I don’t know what music you’re using, but just because the local bishop doesn’t come banging at your door doesn’t mean that your music is “approved by the Vatican”. Clearly the message here is that there is far too much music being used that is not approved by the Vaticen, that is positively rejected by the Vatican.

But please don’t pretend, to yourself or to others, that all songs are OK, that it’s all about personal preference.

Please show me the thread where i said all songs are OK, where I said it was all about personal preference

Then what standards do you propose we use, other than lyrical correctness, to judge which songs are not OK? If one song is not as good as another, how are we to judge which songs are better and which songs are worse? The choices come down to personal standards or the standards of the Church. I think you know which standard is to be preferred.

You say you follow the guidelines of the Church. Do you then give Gregorian chant pride of place as the song proper to the Roman rite?

I do not choose the songs we sing, my music minister does - I merely perform them as part of the music ministry. If he chooses chant, then I happily sing chant. If he chooses something from GIA or OCP, then I sing and play those - sometimes reluctantly, but I do it to the best of my ability anyway.

Please understand my use of the word “you” is not personal, but refers to any and every person involved in Catholic liturgical music. And a great many of those people are simply ignoring what the Church teaches about what music is preferable, what music has pride of place, and what music is less worthy, and what music is downright unworthy.