Music involved in Worship

[Nita]

For singing specifically, do a Bible search on the word “singers”, “song”, “sing”.
Daniel gave a bunch of Scripture references - but if you do the search you’ll have all the passages right in front of you and can print them out ir you like. If you don’t have Bible software, here’s a site that allows you to do a search:

www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/about.html

Just click on “Simple Search”, type in your word, and click “Search”. I like this site better than my software (which only gives the phrase containing the word rather than the whole verse).

God bless,
Nita

 

[vz71]

Agreed.
The old testament is full of references to singing and instrument playing.
Unfortunately he simply writes all of this off as “old covenant” and does not address it any further.

However, this did open the door to something that at present has him pinned.

In blowing off the OT passages as “old covenant” he actually gave tacit approval that it is, in fact, musical instrument involved in worship.
I have asked him to provide evidence that the Early church changed this practice.

I am asking you to provide the evidence that the Early church changed the practice that was already in place.

We know from old testament writings that instruments were used in worship.
We know that Jesus and his disciples participated in this worship.

I am asking you to provide evidence that this all was changed.

We shall see what comes out of it.
At present he is ranting about proving a negative and unfair debate tactics.
In truth though, “old covenant” or not, the default for a practice is to continue unless something else changes this.
Knowing that the OT is full of musical instrument used in worship, there must be something specific to show otherwise.
This is a perfectly acceptable avenue in the debate.

 

[Delphinus85]

I am currently in a heated discussion with someone on another forum concerning Music used during Worship.

They have stated very clearly that music was not used in worship for for several centuries, and that it apparently is a new invention.
Specificly it was stated thus:

I find this highly suspicious, but need some concrete knowledge before challenging this.

Another thing about this…eventually (though he has not said in this quote) this will degrade into “musical instrument played alone with out vocal accompaniment.”

So if someone out there could give me some concrete knowledge of exactly such music used in worship throughout history (and the sources so I can read up on it myself) I would be much abliged.

Thanks all.

Music Major here, hopefully I can remember enough of my music history class to quash this.

First of all, chant was established very early in the first century. It was widespread when Pope Gregory (the Great) proclaimed it to be one of the best ways to worship, and this was later confirmed by Augustine who said “He who sings, prays twice.”

For nearly 1,500 years the church was the ONLY music. Sure, there were travelling bards, but but this wasn’t where music was developed and spread. It was in church. Choral antiphons, chant, and the music of the baroque period. There was even one point at which there was a whole conference called as to whether only chant should be used so people could understand (this was when early baroque music hit. Palestrina saved music for the church by making his many-lined melodies clear in language with his mass written specifically for the current pope. Sorry, but the name escapes me). Look at the major composers before and a few hundred years after the reformation. It’s pretty much all mass pieces. Beethoven, Mozart (even though he was NOT a christian), Palestrina, they ALL wrote for the churches because this is how everyone would hear it.

Now, it is possible the poster could have meant music that people sang along with. Then he would be right, you don’t ever see that until the reformation. Music up until the 1500’s in reformation churches and 1800 in catholic churches were ALWAYS sung by a church choir, about the equivalent of your local choral/symphony. It required this kind of skill to sing those songs. This was a main breaking point for Luther, as he craved more congregational involvement.

I can’t remmeber many things about history, but the RCC has been the MAIN if not the ONLY support for the arts in western culture over the course of at least 1,500 years. Music even goes back further. It says in scripture to “sing hymns, psalms, and spritual songs” so we know the early church did. We also know that they worshipped similar to how the Jews did, and we know that the book of Psalms was the church’s “hymnal” as it were. That’s why you see notes in it like “sung to the tune of”. And the book of psalms was used as early as King David.

 

[jkarp]

Music Major here, hopefully I can remember enough of my music history class to quash this.

First of all, chant was established very early in the first century. It was widespread when Pope Gregory (the Great) proclaimed it to be one of the best ways to worship, and this was later confirmed by Augustine who said “He who sings, prays twice.”

Pope St. Gregory also collected and codified the music; it is from this collection that we get the term “Gregorian Chant”

For nearly 1,500 years the church was the ONLY music. Sure, there were travelling bards, but but this wasn’t where music was developed and spread. It was in church. Choral antiphons, chant, and the music of the baroque period. There was even one point at which there was a whole conference called as to whether only chant should be used so people could understand (this was when early baroque music hit.

This was the Council of Trent (1570). The biggest musical refrom of this council was the limit placed upon the current abuse of the use of tropes and sequences that were being inserted in the Mass (making it extraordinarily long). Pope Pius V limited them to just 4: Victimae Pascali Laudes (sung on Easter), *Veni Sancte Spiritus *(sung on Pentecost), Lauda Sion (sung on the feast of Corpus Christi), and Dies Irae (sung as part of a Requiem Mass).

Palestrina saved music for the church by making his many-lined melodies clear in language with his mass written specifically for the current pope. Sorry, but the name escapes me).

Pope Marcellus (Missa Papae Marcelli).

Look at the major composers before and a few hundred years after the reformation. It’s pretty much all mass pieces. Beethoven, Mozart (even though he was NOT a christian), Palestrina, they ALL wrote for the churches because this is how everyone would hear it.

Don’t forget Bach (who I believe was Lutheran) and the Mass in B Minor which is regarded by many musicologists to be the pinnacle of western musical achievement.

Now, it is possible the poster could have meant music that people sang along with. Then he would be right, you don’t ever see that until the reformation. Music up until the 1500’s in reformation churches and 1800 in catholic churches were ALWAYS sung by a church choir, about the equivalent of your local choral/symphony. It required this kind of skill to sing those songs. This was a main breaking point for Luther, as he craved more congregational involvement.

You also have to remember that 90% of the people in Europe didn’t know how to read and so music wasn’t generally written down. The choir was utilized mainly because the congregation was uneducated and didn’t know what was happening during the Mass (let alone when or how to sing its parts).

I can’t remmeber many things about history, but the RCC has been the MAIN if not the ONLY support for the arts in western culture over the course of at least 1,500 years. Music even goes back further. It says in scripture to “sing hymns, psalms, and spritual songs” so we know the early church did. We also know that they worshipped similar to how the Jews did, and we know that the book of Psalms was the church’s “hymnal” as it were. That’s why you see notes in it like “sung to the tune of”. And the book of psalms was used as early as King David.

Because it is believed that King David wrote them.

 

[vz71]

At this point, it appears he is attempting to cite the lack of musical instrument being used as proof positive that musical instrument was outlawed.
He also is threatening to boycott the entire thread unless I answer for the apparent lack of instrument usage in worship for however many years previous to 1500.

I’m going to let him run with this for a few posts before calling him on the red herring that it is. For the lack of instrument usage in no way signals an outlawing of musical instrument. So this piece he is throwing out is really an aside to his original point, that musical instrument is outlawed in worship.
Letting him run with his red herring may have an even more hilarious effect when he realizes he is the only one running with the dead fish.