Music in the Catholic Church

[pyropam]

QUOTE: Vatican II calls on us to “preserve and foster” the traditon of sacred music. Part of the fostering of this tradition is to keep it alive and growing with new music of suitable form, beauty and holiness.

The problem that I have has nothing to do with the songs or the music. The tradition of sacred music would be great!! I just wish that people would sing the songs given to them. I attend a church with approximately 200 people on Sunday morning…and when someone on the opposite side of the church tells me that I have a great voice…well…someone else needs to be singing…

Too many of these people don’t seem to want to sing. It’s part of the praise of GOD!! Sing!!

 

[DebChris]

QUOTE: Vatican II calls on us to “preserve and foster” the traditon of sacred music. Part of the fostering of this tradition is to keep it alive and growing with new music of suitable form, beauty and holiness.

The problem that I have has nothing to do with the songs or the music. The tradition of sacred music would be great!! I just wish that people would sing the songs given to them. I attend a church with approximately 200 people on Sunday morning…and when someone on the opposite side of the church tells me that I have a great voice…well…someone else needs to be singing…

Too many of these people don’t seem to want to sing. It’s part of the praise of GOD!! Sing!!

“Make a joyful noise unto the Lord.” Don’t worry if you can’t carry a tune. God gave each of the voice we have.
The forest is full of magpies as well as larks.

 

[dessert]

Well its actually not just my opinion, but that of the the Church as a whole. Its one of the main points for the calling of Vatican II, which in the liturgy, was to bring the people into fuller participation in the Mass, which wasn’t happening.

Jim

You guys got this all wrong I was there I lived it.
I grew up before VII and our mass was not dull it was just mass.

No chants not much music just organ cues and she was the soloist and not paid much I think.

We just went because that was it we were suppose to.

The mass was 30 min. MAX and no big long procession like the priest is going up the aisle like at a wedding.

The daily was 15 min MAX and us kids were marched over there every day at 8am.

You must have heard those chants all the way from the east where the orthodox were.
Dessert

 

[RWMorris]

As an unpaid church musician for our little cathedral, all I can say is “You get what you pay for…”. I have to work fulltime in my “real” job Monday through Friday and then get up on Sunday morning and play at church for free. Not too inspiring for me, either. Catholic churches are notorious in the music community for not paying their musicians well.
If I could have a well-paid position, I would have all the time in the world to have a well-trained choir who could sing Gregorian chant and do other great works like Mass in B minor, but I don’t get paid at all. Our singers are not paid. Therefore we have really dull music because no real professional wants to do their jobs without getting paid.
I do it out of a sense of duty because there is no one else to play but me, but I don’t have time to train a choir, too. Wish I did. I’m too busy trying to earn a living elsewhere.
Whatever happened to allotting money to the music program so musicians like me could live without starving or working elsewhere?

 

[CrypticWritings]

Am I alone or is the music in the church just dull? I’m a new Catholic coming to the church from the Episcopal Church who’s music just blows the Roman church away. Any thoughts?

The purpose of the “music” at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not aimed at being “exciting” or being a performance.
Thus sacred chant is used to promote an atmosphere of silence which does not equate to a “lack of all sound” but instead promotes an atmosphere condusive of/to worship and Adoration.
It is a means of *directing our body and soul toward God Almighty, our Final *End.

Other forms of music are for outside of Mass. This is to preserve the sacredness of the liturgy and maintain its rightful place.

 

[BritishCatholic]

The purpose of the “music” at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not aimed at being “exciting” or being a performance.
Thus sacred chant is used to promote an atmosphere of silence which does not equate to a “lack of all sound” but instead promotes an atmosphere condusive of/to worship and Adoration.
It is a means of *directing our body and soul toward God Almighty, our Final *End.

Other forms of music are for outside of Mass. This is to preserve the sacredness of the liturgy and maintain its rightful place.

Thank you for that post. I concur.

I am just so sick and tired of people wanting to “spice up” liturgical music. If you want guitars and drums at Mass, go to a Pentacostal Church. If you want up-beat hymns that “get you in the spirit” then go to one of those charismatic Episcopal Services. Such music is not appropriate for Roman Catholic liturgy.

I know this may sound harsh, but if you personally want to “change” Catholic liturgy to make it more “modern”, then, by golly, just convert. Just convert. Convert to another denomination that suits you.For what you ask is contrary to Rome: If Rome doesn’t do it, neither do we. Accept it.

 

[chicago]

The purpose of the “music” at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not aimed at being “exciting” or being a performance.
Thus sacred chant is used to promote an atmosphere of silence which does not equate to a “lack of all sound” but instead promotes an atmosphere condusive of/to worship and Adoration.
It is a means of *directing our body and soul toward God Almighty, our Final *End.

Other forms of music are for outside of Mass. This is to preserve the sacredness of the liturgy and maintain its rightful place.

That said, you are talking about an ideal which is not the actual experience of most parishes these days.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The purpose of the “music” at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not aimed at being “exciting” or being a performance.
Thus sacred chant is used to promote an atmosphere of silence which does not equate to a “lack of all sound” but instead promotes an atmosphere condusive of/to worship and Adoration.
It is a means of *directing our body and soul toward God Almighty, our Final *End.

Other forms of music are for outside of Mass. This is to preserve the sacredness of the liturgy and maintain its rightful place.

The purpose of liturgical music is to add greater participation of the people in the Mass, not to silence them and leave the Mass upto the various liturgical minsters.

Gregorian Chant is beautiful, in its place. But Sunday Mass in a parish, is more than people coming and closing their eyes in prayerful contemplation, while the Mass goes on around them. Its bringing them into the Mass, to be participants.

Jim

 

[VociMike]

The purpose of liturgical music is to add greater participation of the people in the Mass, not to silence them and leave the Mass upto the various liturgical minsters.

Gregorian Chant is beautiful, in its place. But Sunday Mass in a parish, is more than people coming and closing their eyes in prayerful contemplation, while the Mass goes on around them. Its bringing them into the Mass, to be participants.

Jim

Vatican II tells us quite explicitly the purpose of sacred music, and “greater participation of the people” is not in their definition. Rather, Vatican II says that the purpose of sacred music is “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Thank you for that post. I concur.

I am just so sick and tired of people wanting to “spice up” liturgical music. If you want guitars and drums at Mass, go to a Pentacostal Church. If you want up-beat hymns that “get you in the spirit” then go to one of those charismatic Episcopal Services. Such music is not appropriate for Roman Catholic liturgy.

I know this may sound harsh, but if you personally want to “change” Catholic liturgy to make it more “modern”, then, by golly, just convert. Just convert. Convert to another denomination that suits you.For what you ask is contrary to Rome: If Rome doesn’t do it, neither do we. Accept it.

Vatican II made the liturgy more modern, if thats how you want to express it. What you’re asking for is to return to something Vatican II tried to correct.

I grew up in pre-Vatican II. I went to Catholic School where we had to stay after school on Fridays, to practice Latin hymns in the Church, and we were not allowed to go home until we got it right.

At Mass, we school kids sang, the adults sat and watched and listened. Many said the Rosary, others nodded off. The altar boys mimicked the Latin they memorized, but their understanding of Latin was very little.

In those days, priest in the seminaries, had to study Latin intensely. The had to converse and write in Latin, so they were proficient in it. This was not the case for the average Catholic, who merely sat and listened to the Mass being said by the priest and the responses being reeled off by rote, by the altar boys.

What will happen with Pope Benedict’s return of the TLM, is that a few parishes will have it. The young priest celebrating, having a limited understanding of Latin, will merely mimic the words, like the altar boys of pre-Vatican II. Only the few older priest who are still alive, who had classic training in Latin, will be able to actually say the Mass with depth and understanding.

In all, this is not the Mass the early Christians celebrated. Their Mass was said in their language, whatever it may have been according to their circumstances.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Vatican II tells us quite explicitly the purpose of sacred music, and “greater participation of the people” is not in their definition. Rather, Vatican II says that the purpose of sacred music is “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful”.

The very beginning of the the Document on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II states that the purpose is to bring greater union of the people in the Mass.

INTRODUCTION

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

Bold, my emphasis

Also;

The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation

1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

Hope this helps!
Jim

 

[VociMike]

The very beginning of the the Document on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II states that the purpose is to bring greater union of the people in the Mass.

Bold, my emphasis

Jim

Sorry, but I don’t see how what you quoted translates to “The purpose of liturgical music is to add greater participation of the people in the Mass”, especially when Vatican II offers a very explicit definition which makes no mention of adding greater participation.

But we shouldn’t get derailed here, so I’m not going to comment any more about it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One does NOT have to ‘vocally’ participate in the Mass to participate fully. Prayer is prayer, whether it is silent, or spoken/sung.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Further, I take issue at, once again, Jim, your OPINION that Joe and Jane Average Catholic just sat, numb of mind, fingering ‘beads’, while an unintelligible gibberish of Latin surrounded them.

POPPYCOCK.

Once again, I am sure that in today’s ‘vernacular’ Mass, there are SOME Catholics who just ‘sit there’ and to whom even their own ‘native language’ is an unintelligible gibberish and that they let the priest, choir, and congregation do any verbal–or even any ‘silent’ prayer responses while they sit and daydream away.

But there are far more–and what’s more, those are the ones who are actively participating, no matter whether they vocally say a response or sing a hymn–who are paying full attention to what is being said and done.

And that is exactly what the ‘actively participating Catholics’ did back in the time of the Latin Mass. They either knew the responses and prayers from memory or from instruction, they listened to and added their silent ‘amens’ and their prayerful postures and their understanding–and yes they understood, to a far greater extent than many do today–of the REAL PRESENCE, and the SACRIFICE of the Mass.

I just get so gosh darned tired of the same old accusations, the same old 'this is what it was really like because this is what I FELT it was like" rehashings being presented as the NORM for that poor benighted ‘pre Vatican II’ Catholic.

And finally, Jim, while I’m sure your interpretation of what Vatican 2 meant by ‘active participation’ tallies with what many believed then and now–the interpretations which are backed up by the actual DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 2 (yes, I’ve read them all) which call for Latin responses throughout the Mass and Gregorian chant etc. with pride of place–indicates that ‘active participation’ could, and was, met not only by the ‘new rite’ but by the OLD as well. It was not ‘more speaking’ that was demanded as ‘active participation’ but being more MINDFUL–and many of us were just as mindful THEN as we are now.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Anything written after 1965 stinks.

Yep…or at least most of it!

Now, what kind of music do you find dull? If you are referring to the traditional kind of music then prepare to be bitten (yes, I do bite)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry, but I don’t see how what you quoted translates to “The purpose of liturgical music is to add greater participation of the people in the Mass”, especially when Vatican II offers a very explicit definition which makes no mention of adding greater participation.

But we shouldn’t get derailed here, so I’m not going to comment any more about it.

The purpose isn’t to silence them, which was my original responce.

The entirety of the Mass is for participation of the people, not just the ministers.

Jim

 

[mariyka]

This has been an interesting thread to me. As a Ukrainian Catholic, Byzantine rite, married to a Latin Rite Catholic School graduate, I’ve attended Divine Liturgies and Masses at many churches. One thing I have noticed is that in most of the Masses, the congregation lets the choir or the organ take the lead and barely open their mouths. The Eastern Rite does not have any musical instruments allowed, only the human voice is used. If no one sings, there is no music. It’s very motivating.

 

[Rabbititus]

I must admit that I’m not familiar with Episcopal/Anglican music and can only go by what others have told me. I’ve long been given the impression that they do Catholic-style worship better than most Catholics and have a better mix of traditional and contemporary music than most Catholic parishes. So it seems odd to me that some people in this thread have charactized Episcopal music as having drums, guitars, and a charismatic praise & worship bent. Is Episcopal music really so much more contemporary than typical Catholic music and is my impression of it being more traditional incorrect?

 

[chicago]

I must admit that I’m not familiar with Episcopal/Anglican music and can only go by what others have told me. I’ve long been given the impression that they do Catholic-style worship better than most Catholics and have a better mix of traditional and contemporary music than most Catholic parishes. So it seems odd to me that some people in this thread have charactized Episcopal music as having drums, guitars, and a charismatic praise & worship bent. Is Episcopal music really so much more contemporary than typical Catholic music and is my impression of it being more traditional incorrect?

Within the Anglican (Episcopal) Communion, there is high, mid, and low Church. High Church (sometimes called Anglo-Catholic) tends towards a more traditional bent. Mid would be a mix. Low would be more evangelical style worship. In this sense, one could almost say that it mimics the range of experience within the Catholic parishes, by and large.

 

[brotherhrolf]

There was a time back in the 80s when my cathedral choir was not allowed to sing in Latin. We relied heavily on our Anglican brethren. We sang all of the great sequences from Holy Week on straight from the 1940 Anglican hymnal including the Easter sequence. We used many of their anthems. They have many wonderful composers and I have no problem singing lines from the KJV like “yea the sparrow hath found her an house”. Lovely music.

But I also know that we Catholics have an even greater treasure house of music and I am happy that we have gone back to our own roots and sing the great sequences in Latin. I am happy that we can sing sacred motets in Latin. We routinely sing plainsong chant.

I grew up shortly before Vatican II. For some odd reason my experience with HMC was different from some who are my age and have posted. I was an altar boy and I sang in the children’s choir. Kid’s minds are sponges. Learning to sing Latin was not difficult for me. Am I enough of a renaissance person to be articulate in Latin? No. I took Spanish. Can’t speak Spanish either but I can read Spanish fairly fluently.

I have a profound sense of my heritage. My ancestors had to attend Mass out in the countryside and couldn’t sing lest it attract attention of the authorities. The baby was indeed thrown out with the bathwater in 1965. We need to find the baby.