Music at mass

[aloysiusg]

Very fair post Voci - thank you…

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.

*Honestly, I don’t know. I leave that to my higher ups, whose responsibility it is to determine such things. Mine is to perform what I’ve been asked to perform to the best of my abilities with the intent of helping lead the congregation in prayer. That is what I do.

That being said, I will be honest in being slightly skeptical of people, even higher ups, who question the validity of a song in terms of praising God because of its musical style. As another posted, and I believe there is some truth to this - if we are singing praise to God, I don’t really think God cares so much the style. I don’t think God only has chant on His Ipod (must be a few thousand gigs on THAT one ) But, I do not question so much authority as to be flippant about it - but there is not harm in questioning, I’ve been taught.*

oh - and good morning.

 

[VociMike]

Very fair post Voci - thank you…

Thanks - I’m not trying to be an SOB here.

(wonder if the mods will remove that?)

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.

*Honestly, I don’t know. I leave that to my higher ups, whose responsibility it is to determine such things. Mine is to perform what I’ve been asked to perform to the best of my abilities with the intent of helping lead the congregation in prayer. That is what I do.

That being said, I will be honest in being slightly skeptical of people, even higher ups, who question the validity of a song in terms of praising God because of its musical style. As another posted, and I believe there is some truth to this - if we are singing praise to God, I don’t really think God cares so much the style. I don’t think God only has chant on His Ipod (must be a few thousand gigs on THAT one ) But, I do not question so much authority as to be flippant about it - but there is not harm in questioning, I’ve been taught.*

oh - and good morning.

Yes, good morning. We have birds and they don’t respect weekends. They chirp at sunrise 7 days a week.

At this point I think it might be most useful for you just to think about what standards should be applied to liturgical music. Work backwards from the clear claims of our last two popes that much of the music being used today does not rise to those standards, and must be purified of departures from those standards, and then consider what the Church might desire those standards to be. John Paul II actually wrote “The Christian community must make an examination of conscience so that the beauty of music and hymnody will return once again to the liturgy.” Wow, “must return”! That right there tells you that this problem is not isolated, but is deep and pervasive.

Fact is, it’s hard to be a Catholic and have to submit to an earthly authority, even one deriving its authority from God. But why be Catholic if we’re not going to be Catholic?

I think you’d be surprised at the music I listen to at home and on the road. The vast majority of it is not chant or polyphony or sacred music of any kind. I listen to a lot of music that my wife, a trained church musician, turns her nose up at (although she has her own lowbrow musical pleasures too, which she’s not afraid to proclaim ). But in the area of liturgical music I am attempting to submit to the mind of the Church, the sensus Ecclesiae.

 

[Cathyd241]

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?

Yeah, right…that’s what I’m saying. No, seriously, I said the music needed to have sacred lyrics, but on the other hand should be appropriate…obviously ‘bump and grind stripper hymn’ is not appropriate. You are just being rediculous!

 

[VociMike]

Yeah, right…that’s what I’m saying. No, seriously, I said the music needed to have sacred lyrics, but on the other hand should be appropriate…obviously ‘bump and grind stripper hymn’ is not appropriate. You are just being rediculous!

No, he’s using reductio ad absurdum. By choosing an extreme he is getting people to acknowledge that lyrical correctness is not all that is necessary for a piece of liturgical music to be appropriate.

The question then naturally follows, what else besides lyrical correctness is necessary for a piece of liturgical music to be appropriate? And who decides what is necessary, individuals or the Church?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Frankly, I don’t see where I have engaged in any ad hominem attacks on you, aloysius. [Edited] Did I insult your intelligence by making a comment about knowing what an IPOD was? So why the vehemence against me?

I reiterate my point. My young friend, SHF, lives very near me and I gave him a specific restaurant and bar that plays Cajun music (it is family restaurant BTW) and asked him if that kind of music was appropriate for Mass. He responded that “any” kind of music was appropriate so long as the intent is to praise God.

I am sorry that my choice of “bump and grind” offended some of you. However, SHF and I both live in close proximity to New Orleans and one can walk down Bourbon St and hear this kind of music without ever entering into any establishment. If this kind of music is never appropriate for Mass, then there are standards. Right?

Because I was primarily responding to a person who is younger than both of my two sons (in their twenties), I was not sure that my references to Simon and Garfunkle would be recognized any more than I would have recognized specific song references about Tommy Dorsey back in the 60s. So, I added the Amazon link as a reference. And, yes, we did have to sing “Sounds of Silence” as the Offertory hymn and “Bridge over Troubled Waters” as the Communion hymn at my Catholic high school graduation Mass in 1969. Frankly, I fail to see the need for such rancor in reply to my posts.

All of you contemporary music afficiandos are so inurred to its omnipresence that you have never tried to put yourselves into any one else’s shoes. I went through that abrupt and wrenching change in September of 68 when overnight (literally over the summer) out went all the traditional hymns, chants, and motets in Latin at school and in came the guitars and blatantly secular music. What you now take as the “norm” was anything but back then. And all of that was on top of the rush from the TLM to the NO. By September of 1968, well over a year before its official implementation of the First Sunday of Advent in 1969, we had the NO at my high school.

VociMike, benedictgal, and sarabande routinely cite Vatican documents about what liturgical music should be. My comments come from the heart because I went through the transistion and know all too well the before and the after. It is automatically assumed that all of us young folks in '68 were happy with the guitars and the new music. Such was not the case - we had it pushed down our throats as we have had for the last 40 years.

 

[shiikis]

Well played Brotherrolf! Well played.

 

[benedictgal]

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…”

First of all, the insults you claim that are leveled certainly don’t come from this end. It seems that when one cannot argue or make one’s point using the documents of the Church, that is when it is time to bring out the insults.

Inasmuch as you may not take stock in what I say (and, that is fine), I am merely repeating what Cardinal Arinze and the Holy Father have said on the issue of vertical and horizontal music. To take an insulting tone indicates that perhaps you don’t want to engage in a mature and adult discussion on the matter of Sacred Music.

As VociMike said, the Church, of late (inclusive of what Pope Benedict XVI and the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II have written) has lamented much of the contemporary music used at Mass today. In fact, the current state of music is what the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist noted as one of the shadows of the Mass, as indicated in the Lineamata (working document) they used for their meeting:

In other responses some lamented the poor quality of translations of liturgical texts and many musical texts in current languages, maintaining that they lacked beauty and were sometimes theologically unclear, thereby contributing to a weakening of Church teaching and to a misunderstanding of prayer. A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy.

Certainly, the compositions of Haugen, Haas, Hurd and a majority of OCP’s stable writers falls under this category. This also includes Protestant-style Praise and Worship Music.

As I said, you can take an insulting tone with me as often as you like, but, unless you devote some time to reading what the Church acutally says, as opposed to what the publishing houses promote, then, you will never be convinced of the poor quality of today’s music.

 

[brotherhrolf]

As I said, you can take an insulting tone with me as often as you like, but, unless you devote some time to reading what the Church acutally says, as opposed to what the publishing houses promote, then, you will never be convinced of the poor quality of today’s music.

 

[Orpheus2112]

And, yes, we did have to sing “Sounds of Silence” as the Offertory hymn and “Bridge over Troubled Waters” as the Communion hymn at my Catholic high school graduation Mass in 1969.

I love Simon and Garfunkel and Paul Simon in particular, but that’s just creepy.:tsktsk:

 

[brotherhrolf]

I love Simon and Garfunkel and Paul Simon in particular, but that’s just creepy.:tsktsk:

Indeed and I have never forgotten it after all these years… And I am not making it up.

 

[Cathyd241]

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.

These comments are exactly what I’ve been talking about…you are not only using your own personal opinion as the basis of your arguement, but you are being critical and judgemental as well. I don’t think that’s called for…nobody on this side of the debate have been putting down the music that you prefer.

 

[Cathyd241]

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?

To some extent this is true…obviously there are some “Christian” songs that would not be appropriate during a Mass.

 

[Cathyd241]

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

You are taking this out of context. I am referring to the desire for traditional music, that’s all. I’m not referring to the tenets of our faith…those I believe should hold steadfast throughout the generations. Music, however, I believe is a wonderful form of expression, a way to show praise and reverence to the Lord, which can vary from person to person, parish to parish, culture to culture, without changing the Mass or the beauty of it.

 

[benedictgal]

These comments are exactly what I’ve been talking about…you are not only using your own personal opinion as the basis of your arguement, but you are being critical and judgemental as well. I don’t think that’s called for…nobody on this side of the debate have been putting down the music that you prefer.

First of all, it is not so much of a personal preference statement that VociMike (and quite a few of us, for that matter) are making. Rather, it is something that the documents of the Church have repeatedly stated.

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).

This above quote comes from Sacramentum Caritatis, written by Pope Benedict XVI. It is consistent with what he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger. It is also the same thing that many of us have been saying. And, it is also a prevailing theme in the liturgical documents issued by the Holy See.

During his Apostolic Voyage to Vienna, Austria, last year, Pope Benedict also had this to say about Sacred Music in the service of the Liturgy (the musical settings came from Mozart):

"It was a particularly beautiful experience this morning to celebrate the Lord’s Day with all of you in such a dignified and solemn manner, in the magnificent cathedral of Saint Stephen. The celebration of the Eucharist, carried out with due dignity, helps us to realize the immense grandeur of God’s gift to us in the Holy Mass, and fills us with deep joy. It is precisely in this way that we draw near to each other as well, and experience the joy of God. So I thank all those who, by their active contribution to the preparation of the liturgy or by their recollected participation in the sacred mysteries, created an atmosphere in which we truly felt God’s presence.

Furthermore, as reported by Sandro Magiester, the Holy Father went on to say that:

“In the beauty of the liturgy, …] wherever we join in singing, praising, exalting and worshipping God, a little bit of heaven will become present on earth. Truly it would not be presumptuous to say that, in a liturgy completely centred on God, we can see, in its rituals and chant, an image of eternity. …] In all our efforts on behalf of the liturgy, the determining factor must always be our looking to God. We stand before God – he speaks to us and we speak to him. ***Whenever in our thinking we are only concerned about making the liturgy attractive, interesting and beautiful, the battle is already lost. Either it is Opus Dei, with God as its specific subject, or it is not. In the light of this, I ask you to celebrate the sacred liturgy with your gaze fixed on God within the communion of saints, the living Church of every time and place, so that it will truly be an expression of the sublime beauty of the God who has called men and women to be his friends.” ***

Benedict XVI also told the monks of Heiligenkreutz: ***“A liturgy which no longer looks to God is already in its death throes.” ***

A lot of the music that is being used at Mass today doesn’t look to God; it focuses on ourselves. In fact, even the USCCB recognized this very disturbing trend. Very little of the music is directed at God. Scant mentions of the word “Father” are found in many pieces; this word, which is also the name of the First Person of the Trinity, is often deleted and substituted. The composer for “I, Myself am the Bread of Life”, rewrote the line: “This bread is spirit, gift of the Father’s love” to read “This bread is spirit, gift of the Maker’s love”. Not only does that song have theological problems, it also crosses a dangerous line when it refuses to recognize the First Person of the Trinity by the name given by Jesus, Himself: Father.

In essence, we shouldn’t go by whether a piece just “feels” good. The music needs to be heavily vetted to ensure that it is suitable for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is painfully obvious that publishing houses like OCP and GIA don’t vet their music and have taken on an anything goes approach.

 

[japhy]

I am referring to the desire for traditional music, that’s all. I’m not referring to the tenets of our faith…those I believe should hold steadfast throughout the generations. Music, however, I believe is a wonderful form of expression, a way to show praise and reverence to the Lord, which can vary from person to person, parish to parish, culture to culture, without changing the Mass or the beauty of it.

The music used in worship is an expression of our faith; lex orandi, lex credendi. I think it is safe to say that chant (although not necessarily Gregorian chant) has been a perpetual element of Catholic worship. The music of the Church is supposed to be universal (catholic!) in that, “from person to person, parish to parish, culture to culture”, the same music can be used and embraced in worship.

The Mass is the public worship of the Church, so it’s not subject to our tastes; parishes aren’t franchises. Outside of the Mass, musical selection is another story.

And someone could take your argument and extend it (unjustly and incorrectly) to the liturgy itself, saying that the Mass, as found in the liturgical books, is a tradition that they needn’t feel themselves beholden to, and they can celebrate it however they want, so that it varies “from person to person, parish to parish, culture to culture”.

 

[Cathyd241]

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).

I don’t really see how this proves your point. Sure these are the words of the popes, but this statement is very vague and doesn’t specify exactly what is ‘ugly, distasteful, uninspired, and not worthy’. That seems to be somewhat subjective, don’t you think?

 

[Cathyd241]

The parishes aren’t franchises

Aren’t franchises geared towards a universal approach? Then this statement contradicts what you were saying.

And someone could take your argument and extend it (unjustly and incorrectly) to the liturgy itself, saying that the Mass, as found in the liturgical books, is a tradition that they needn’t feel themselves beholden to, and they can celebrate it however they want, so that it varies “from person to person, parish to parish, culture to culture”.

As I have said before, the Mass is defined as the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist…this is our faith and has no room for exception. I don’t think my feeling about the music in anyway implies that the Mass itself could be changed or varied.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t really see how this proves your point. Sure these are the words of the popes, but this statement is very vague and doesn’t specify exactly what is ‘ugly, distasteful, uninspired, and not worthy’. That seems to be somewhat subjective, don’t you think?

Well, then, let’s get specific here. This is what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.

This describes pretty much the kind of music that has infiltrated may of the youth Masses. In fact, the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist raised specific concerns about the music being used for these so-called Youth Masses.

Now, roughly 20 years ago, the former Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say:

It is obvious that with the adoption of a sociological language there comes an adoption of evaluations. The value structure that the sociological language has formed constructs a new view of history and the present, the one negative, the other positive. Thus, traditional (and also conciliar!) concepts such as the “the treasury of musica sacra”, the “organ as queen of the instruments”, and the “universality of Gregorian chant” now appear as “mystifications” for the purpose of “preserving a certain form of power”.6 A certain administration of power, we are told, feels threatened by processes of cultural transformation and reacts by masking its striving for self-preservation as love for the tradition. Gregorian chant and Palestrina are tutelary gods of a mythicized, ancient repertoire,7 elements of a Catholic counterculture that is based on remythicized and supersacralized archetypes,8 just as in the historical liturgy of the Church it has been more a question of a cultic bureaucracy than of the singing activity of the people.9

The content of Pius X’s motu proprio on sacred music [Tra le sollecitudini] is finally designated as a “culturally shortsighted and theologically empty ideology of sacred music”.10 Here, of course, it is not only sociologism that is at work but a total separation of the New Testament from the history of the Church, and this in turn is linked with a theory of decline, such as is characteristic for many Enlightenment situations: purity lies only in the original beginnings with Jesus. The entire further history appears as a “musical adventure with disoriented and abortive experiences” which one “must now bring to an end” in order finally to begin again with what is right.11

But what does the new and better look like? The leading concepts have already been indicated in previous allusions. We must now pay attention to their closer concretization. Two basic values are clearly formulated. The “primary value” of a renewed liturgy, we are told, is “the full and authentic action of all persons”.12 Accordingly, Church music means first and foremost that the “people of God” represents its identity in song. The second value decision operative here is likewise already addressed: music shows itself as the power that effects the coherence of the group. The familiar songs are, as it were, the identifying marks of a community.13 From this perspective, the main categories of the musical formation of the liturgy arise: the project, the program, the animation, the direction. The how, we are told, is more important than the what.14 The ability to celebrate is above all the “ability to do”. Music must above all be “done”.15

…Although it is incontestable that they cannot be based on the text of the Second Vatican Council, the opinion that the spirit of the Council points in this direction won acceptance in so many liturgical offices and their agents. In what has just been described, an all too widespread opinion today holds that so-called creativity, the action of all present, and the relationship of group members who know and address one another are the genuine categories of the conciliar understanding of the liturgy. Not only chaplains, but sometimes even bishops, have the feeling that they have not remained true to the Council when they pray everything as it is written in the Missal; at least one “creative” formula must be inserted, however banal it may be. And the civil greeting of those present, with friendly wishes at the dismissal, has already become an obligatory ingredient of the sacred action which anyone would hardly dare to omit.

What was true then is just as true now. I would challenge you to pick up his three books: The Spirit of the Liturgy; A New Song for the Lord; and Feast of Faith. You want specifics and I can assure you that the Holy Father will give them to you. That is why, when he said, in Sacramentum Caritatis, that “Certainly, as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another”, he speaks from an experience that neither you nor I have, and, he is certainly aiming those remarks at much of what is being used today.

 

[aloysiusg]

Let me try this approach, since I must apparnetly watch what I say or someone will tell on me to the principal again.

Here are two songs - don’t know to what extent any of you are familiar with them, but if you are, please tell me, in as simple a way as possible, their appropriateness for a mass. Maybe even use a scale - 1 - totally inappropriate up to 5 - perfectly fine.

“Take, Lord, Receive” - from G&P, based on the prayer of St Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits

“Lord I lift Your Name on High” - a P & W tune - don’t know offhand the composer, but it is recent (post 80’s, I’m pretty sure) - popular tune in the Steubenvillish crowd.

 

[japhy]

Aren’t franchises geared towards a universal approach? Then this statement contradicts what you were saying.

Perhaps I misunderstand franchising… maybe I did mean the opposite. I was under the impression that Joe Q. Public can purchase a franchise of Burger King and can regulate the menu as he sees fit, etc. The whole “participating stores only” thing you hear in commercials.

Regardless, what I mean is that it is not up to each parish (or diocese) to determine what part of tradition they feel like upholding and where they feel like innovating. The Church is universal.

As I have said before, the Mass is defined as the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist…this is our faith and has no room for exception. I don’t think my feeling about the music in anyway implies that the Mass itself could be changed or varied.

(Plus the Introductory and Closing Rites.) And these parts that make up the Mass are not a priest’s or bishop’s to do with as he pleases. He is supposed to follow the ritual the Church has prescribed… yet we do see many instances of priests and bishops exercising a freedom with the liturgy that does not belong to them.

Now, when it comes to music, the Church has made it clear the chant is the supreme model (with polyphony a close second), so whenever lesser forms of music are chosen, a conscious decision is being made to go below the music that traditionally belongs to and is proper to the Mass itself. It’s not that chant is “good” or “suggested”… it’s proper to the Mass.