Papal Mass in DC (was it me or was the music crazy?)

[30miller]

Whenever I approach the choir director, and I try to do so very kindly and just correct them a little on what they were doing, they become very rude, insulting, and angry. I are not attacking them personally, in fact I am not attacking at all, I am just simply pointing out what is wrong with what they are doing.
Recently I confronted a choir director who was singing protestant hymns and she confessed to being a convert, but refused to listen. Then she proceeded to yell and say shut up when I had not raised my voice, or been rude in any way. Then she called the security guard and had me and my family escorted off of church property. I wrote a letter to the priest, but he did not respond.
I don’t know about y’all, but I am Catholic, and I am not going to sit still while they sing protestant or non-Catholic “hymns” at me
Sorry for being so long winded, but I am so tired of this I could just scream:bigyikes:

I agree with you completely, Margarite. And the way that choir director treated you is no surprise - they think the Mass is about them and who are you to question them, even when you had not raised your voice or been rude in any way.
I do the same questioning in my parish - only I have found it more fruitful to just go directly to my pastor with a polite and well-grounded email (and one email only at that - I don’t belabor the point with him). Though it is not always efficacious he has come through and stopped some of the most offensive infractions - e.g. when our choir director chose the Shaker hymn from our GIA hymnal (GIA being no different from the OCP offerings) " 'Tis the Gift to Be Simple". (For the uninitiated - the Shakers, non-Catholics, of course, believed that their Mother Ann in the 1700’s was the ACTUAL second coming of Christ - the female coming - and that Jesus was only the first coming of Christ - the male coming).

 

[Margarite]

She “confessed” to being a convert? Excuse me, but I thought we were told to evangelize by Jesus Christ. Is a convert somehow inferior to a cradle Catholic? My experience has been that converts usually know more about the teachings of the Church than Cradle Catholics. Our choir director is a convert and was even a Lutheran pastor at one time!

That is great that your choir director was a Lutheran and converted. I love converts, but what I don’t love is when they bring their protestant music and play it in a Catholic Church. They switched religions, they are now in the one true Church, and they still cling to their old church. That is what I objected to in this woman was that she refused to accept the fact that she had become Catholic and with the responsibility of making sure that the songs she sings are in line with Catholic teachings.

I guess you don’t consider being confrontational as being rude.

I went up and asked if I could point out a couple lines in the songs that weren’t in line with Church teaching and asked nicely that she not use those songs, and I suggested about four others that had the same themes, but nothing that was against Church teaching. I do not consider this rude in any way. I was very nice and never raised my voice even when she started yelling.

Yes, we have “helpful” people do this in our parish too. None of these people are ever in choir or part of Liturgy committee. The organ is too loud. The cantor is terrible. We should not sing songs in Spanish (for some reason, they never complain when we sing in Polish - our pastor is Polish, or when we sing in French or German. We should only sing in Latin. We shouldn’t sing at all. We sing too much, we don’t sing loud enough.

I was not asking her to change the way she sung, or the way the music was played, I was not in any way criticizing the way she sung, I only asked that she apply her wonderful talent to better or more appropriate music.

In our parish, the pastor is head of Liturgy committee, and the music is reviewed for appropriateness at the monthly meetings.

Well, I haven’t been to your parish so I cannot comment on your music.

Maybe he’s in on the conspiracy.

Now who is being rude.

Excuse me, but the purpose of music and singing is not directed “at” you. It is for the praise and worship of God. To sing is to pray twice. I gues you won’t be singing “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” or “Awake ye Sleeper” anymore.

My point which you misunderstood probably because I didn’t write it well, was that the music was not directed at God, but rather at me, and I think that Church music should be directed at God. But then again-- well I shouldn’t say that.

I think it’s awful that it got to the point of having you and your family removed off the Church grounds. Personally, I think you went to far but that is probably a different thread. Meeting the priest first would have been better. You are entitled to your opinion on music of course. I don’t have any issues with that,it’s when those with this personal taste try and force it on others. This seems to be what we are debating in here.

You weren’t there, so you can’t really say. And we have as much right to be in Church as any member of that choir. I belong to a choir at another parish and we would never become angry or have people removed from God’s house because we disagreed with them. That is wrong. And no, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of right and wrong. It is right to sing songs that praise God and raise a person’s thoughts to God and help a person understand the Truths of the Church, but it is wrong to sing songs that talk all about me and you and twist the teachings of the Church, or just plain deny the teachings of the Church. That is what I am talking about. It is the truth whether you or I believe it or not. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Joysong]

Anamchara:

The thing is, the writings in question pre-date our Holy Fathers pontificate. It is non-dogmatic teachings which are not binding. Now, I do feel we need to pay heed to such teachings and weigh them accordingly within our own prayerful conscience and of course with the guidance of our clerics. But we are spending a grave amount of time arguing over writings which do not hold the same weight as a papal encyclical or out right dogma. Joysong, correct me if I’m wrong here as I trust your opinion.

I like the way you expressed this, Anamchara. Card. Ratzinger wrote the book to express his personal reflections on liturgy, but some will elevate and equate the writing to Authority of his Office. If he, as Pope, truly feels strongly about his statements in the book, it would be a simple matter for him to issue a Motu Proprio as he did for the TLM and it would be a closed matter. But he has not done so, which speaks volumes about giving his former words a firm and clear directive. For instance, he could easily say there will be no music other than Gregorian chant in the liturgy. Period. But no, that was HIS personal opinion and taste and he is not imposing that directive on the entire Church.

When people take it to the level of: “I read it, so everyone is required to believe everything I now quote from them,” it steps over the bounds of religious freedom and prudence, since the re-quoter frequently takes it out of context to justify their own newfound appreciation for the author’s views.

What I sense though is the audacity to insist their opinion is right, to have the last word, and to win at all costs; hence, the constant repetition that isolates other members here in the process. There is no comparison with the detachment Jesus exercised in freedom and respect of the individual to embrace the Truth when He set forth his teachings. The Church abhors the practice of coercion.

 

[30miller]

They get their knickers in a twist over the OCP they seem to have trouble accepting that the Church has approved the OCP and as of yet nothing has been taken out that they think is inappropriate which causes them a great deal of angst. I’ll admit some of the songs don’t appeal to me and are over used but over all I don’t think there is anything wrong with OCP.

The Church’s “approval” of the OCP, as is characterized above, has another interesting modernist twist to it, of course. All the OCP (and GIA, for that matter) singsongbooks that I have seen carry the “approval of Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB” on the copyright page nowadays. No more imprimaturs or nihil obstats like used to appear in the old faithful hymnals. There is no explicit “approval” of this material by the Church. Traveling often and having 5 siblings and 18 nephews and nieces as well I get to at least between 10 to 15 different parishes a year. The only hymnal I see that carries an imprimatur is in my mother’s parish which still uses older hymnals from the 60’s (and maybe before). That is the only one where I find hymnals where an individual Bishop of my Church was not ashamed to put his name on. (Note - the Committee on the Liturgy of the USCCB carries exactly no authority of the Church whatsoever to “approve” anything except such as they choose for recommendation for the legitimate authority of the Bishops themselves to approve or not to approve - and no Bishop chooses to put his imprimatur on this horrid material. (That they’ll call “plausible deniability” later).

 

[qui_est_ce]

I went up and asked if I could point out a couple lines in the songs that weren’t in line with Church teaching and asked nicely that she not use those songs, and I suggested about four others that had the same themes, but nothing that was against Church teaching. I do not consider this rude in any way. I was very nice and never raised my voice even when she started yelling.

No matter how nice you were, she answers to the pastor, not to you. Your job is to be obedient to your pastor and your bishop. Sorry.

Well, I haven’t been to your parish so I cannot comment on your music.

My point is that everyone is a critic. It would be impossible to bend to every taste in the parish.

Now who is being rude.

me, sorry.

My point which you misunderstood probably because I didn’t write it well, was that the music was not directed at God, but rather at me, and I think that Church music should be directed at God. But then again-- well I shouldn’t say that.

Are you an authority over what is in their hearts? Is it your place to judge? It is the Pastor’s decision. If you disagree with the Pastor, you should go to the bishop.

I don’t know about y’all, but I am Catholic, and I am not going to sit still while they sing protestant or non-Catholic “hymns” at me

So you are saying that just because a song was written by a Protestant, it necessarily inappropriate to be song during a Catholic Liturgy, even if it contains no doctrinal error? I repeat, would you sing “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” or “Awake ye Sleeper?”

 

[30miller]

She “confessed” to being a convert? Excuse me, but I thought we were told to evangelize by Jesus Christ. Is a convert somehow inferior to a cradle Catholic? My experience has been that converts usually know more about the teachings of the Church than Cradle Catholics. Our choir director is a convert and was even a Lutheran pastor at one time! I guess you don’t consider being confrontational as being rude. Yes, we have “helpful” people do this in our parish too. None of these people are ever in choir or part of Liturgy committee. The organ is too loud. The cantor is terrible. We should not sing songs in Spanish (for some reason, they never complain when we sing in Polish - our pastor is Polish, or when we sing in French or German. We should only sing in Latin. We shouldn’t sing at all. We sing too much, we don’t sing loud enough. In our parish, the pastor is head of Liturgy committee, and the music is reviewed for appropriateness at the monthly meetings. Maybe he’s in on the conspiracy.
Excuse me, but the purpose of music and singing is not directed “at” you. It is for the praise and worship of God. To sing is to pray twice. I gues you won’t be singing “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” or “Awake ye Sleeper” anymore.

I wish you people would stop mischaracterizing St. Augustine’s quote - i.e. to sing is to pray twice. Augustine was explicitly talking about singing THE PRAYERS of the mass - which is explicitly NOT referring to a lot of the inane and sometimes explicitly non-Catholic musak that you are attempting to legitimize with his words.

 

[Margarite]

No matter how nice you were, she answers to the pastor, not to you. Your job is to be obedient to your pastor and your bishop. Sorry.

This isn’t a matter of obedience, the pastors in Vegas don’t meet with the choir directors, the choir directors meet once a year with the bishop and that is all the direction they get. Priests in Las Vegas are too busy to fight the choir directors. They have 10,000 family parishes and only 2 full time priests per parish. It is a matter of the Choir director not listening.

My point is that everyone is a critic. It would be impossible to bend to every taste in the parish.

This isn’t a matter of taste, but of right and wrong.

Are you an authority over what is in their hearts? Is it your place to judge?

I am not talking about their hearts or thoughts, but rather the words that came out of their mouths. The words I can judge.

So you are saying that just because a song was written by a Protestant, it necessarily inappropriate to be song during a Catholic Liturgy, even if it contains no doctrinal error? I repeat, would you sing “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” or “Awake ye Sleeper?”

I don’t care who wrote it, even if a rock star with no religious beliefs wrote it, but it was in line with Church teaching, I would be OK with it even if I didn’t like the tune. It is because it had protestant words that I objected.

 

[qui_est_ce]

**

Thank you for clarifying. Which songs were you objecting to, just for my fy? A lot of the stuff we sing I just can’t stand. But I offer it up. For example “The Song of the Body of Christ” and “One Bread One Body.” Very respectful and very orthodox, but pul EEZE!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wish you people would stop mischaracterizing St. Augustine’s quote - i.e. to sing is to pray twice. Augustine was explicitly talking about singing THE PRAYERS of the mass - which is explicitly NOT referring to a lot of the inane and sometimes explicitly non-Catholic musak that you are attempting to legitimize with his words.

Please point out where in my post I was referring to to anything but to sung Liturgical prayers? Where did I attempt to legitimize inane explicitly non-Catholic muzak? The only pieces of work I referenced were “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and “Sleepers Awake” (Wachet Auf) by J.S. Bach. Do you consider these peiced to be inane explicitly non-Catholic musak?

 

[30miller]

Thank you for clarifying. Which songs were you objecting to, just for my fy? A lot of the stuff we sing I just can’t stand. But I offer it up. For example “The Song of the Body of Christ” and “One Bread One Body.” Very respectful and very orthodox, but pul EEZE!

Exactly when did these icons of modernist music - David Haas and John Foley (one of the original 3-chord guitar-strumming seminarians of the 60’s called the St. Louis Jesuits) come to be put on the “very orthodox” side of the table? I think not.

 

[Margarite]

I am not ignoring you, I am just trying to remember because it was a couple months ago. I may have to ask my family before I can be sure. But I a Also dislike One Bread One Body. My main problem with 90% of modern music is that they say “I” or “Me” when they could easily replace these words with “He” or “God” or “Christ” or “Jesus” Such as in Strength for the Journey, besides being an annoying song that repeats itself too many times, it drums into people’s heads the I and not He look at this verse, then look how easy it would be to make it less about me and more about God and how God will help us and not the Choir director.
I know that it is sung from the point of God, but why not make it more respectful and put it from the point of view of a person on earth who is sinful and in need of help?

I will be, I will be,
I will be strength for the journey.
I will be, I will be,
I will be strength for the journey.

1. There is a road meant for you to travel.
   Narrow and steep is the shepherd’s way,
   and as you say, “Yes,”
   letting me guide you,
   I will be strength for the journey.

OR

HE will be, HE will be,
HE will be strength for the journey.
HE will be, HE will be,
HE will be strength for the journey.

1. There is a road meant for US to travel.
   Narrow and steep is the shepherd’s way,
   and as WE say, “Yes,”
   letting HIM guide US,
   HE will be strength for the journey.

 

[Joysong]

Margarite et al,

I think your comments are valid, but they are seriously off-topic. Why not start a new thread and hash it out there?

 

[30miller]

Please point out where in my post I was referring to to anything but to sung Liturgical prayers? Where did I attempt to legitimize inane explicitly non-Catholic muzak? The only pieces of work I referenced were “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and “Sleepers Awake” (Wachet Auf) by J.S. Bach. Do you consider these peiced to be inane explicitly non-Catholic musak?

ALL the music being discussed in this thread is exactly NOT what Augustine was referring to - the two you cite above as well. We are discussing the horrid musical display at the D.C. Papal mass - not any liturgical prayers that Pope Benedict may have sung. It gets very tiring hearing music “ministers” repeatedly and illegitimately quoting St. Augustine (i.e. to sing is to pray twice) as some sort of self-praise for themselves. And if you were referring to “sung Liturgical prayers” - please direct me to that post (as I have looked myself and cannot find any such thing) and I will be more than happy to apologize.

 

[Margarite]

Margarite et al,

I think your comments are valid, but they are seriously off-topic. Why not start a new thread and hash it out there?

Because I believe it to be on topic. We are discussing what is or isn’t good music so that we can say whether the DC mass music was horrid or beautiful. Thanks though, and if you are the OP and you ask me to stop, I will regretfully comply.

 

[MonFrere]

The musical selections certainly did not have that in mind. One can certainly approve of haing these songs, but, not in the manner in which they were presented. Had these pieces been done with an organ or a piano, in a much more subdued manner, they may have been tolerable.

Benedictgal,

There are some respected voices in the Church who say that the organ the preferred instrument because of its similarity in sound production to the human voice. The piano is looked upon very negatively. So, there are some people who are even to the right of you!

As a musician I think that sometimes an organ (or piano) is the absolute wrong instrument for certain selections. Pipe organs just can’t “do rhythm”. Though we disagree in the inclusion of multicultural music - to do music of another culture using pipe organ is really a confusion of cultures. The church doesn’t ask the churches of Africa to use the pipe organ. The ambiance of their masses is very different in Africa - as well as an American charismatic Mass, for that matter. And using European musical instruments in African music just doesn’t do justice to it. If the music is to be done at all it needs to be done true to what it is - true to its voice, true to its culture. Again, as I said before – I’m sure this has been part of the considerations of Papal Masses before, especially with the travels of John Paul II – if this music is really that egregious I’m sure the Vatican would have spoken far before this. I don’t think that’s an illogical conclusion.

MonFrere

 

[30miller]

Benedictgal,

There are some respected voices in the Church who say that the organ the preferred instrument because of its similarity in sound production to the human voice. The piano is looked upon very negatively. So, there are some people who are even to the right of you!

As a musician I think that sometimes an organ (or piano) is the absolute wrong instrument for certain selections. Pipe organs just can’t “do rhythm”. Though we disagree in the inclusion of multicultural music - to do music of another culture using pipe organ is really a confusion of cultures. The church doesn’t ask the churches of Africa to use the pipe organ. The ambiance of their masses is very different in Africa - as well as an American charismatic Mass, for that matter. And using European musical instruments in African music just doesn’t do justice to it. If the music is to be done at all it needs to be done true to what it is - true to its voice, true to its culture. Again, as I said before – I’m sure this has been part of the considerations of Papal Masses before, especially with the travels of John Paul II – if this music is really that egregious I’m sure the Vatican would have spoken far before this. I don’t think that’s an illogical conclusion.

MonFrere

Being a piano player myself I know that your observations about the piano are quite correct. Of course, your characterization of where Benedictgal may fall on your personal right-to-left “scale” was completely unnecessary.
And your treatise on instruments and cultures that follows is very interesting and says more than anything else that the Pope should find African music on his visit to Africa, Polish music on his visit to Poland, South American music on his visit to South America, etc., etc.,etc. - not presented (with improper instrumentation, as you point out) in the hodgepodge manner that it was at the D.C. Papal Mass.
Others have assured me that I did not really see (as I thought I did) the Pope check the stamps in his passport to see what country he was in (having been totally befuddled by the music ministry there).

 

[anamchara]

Because I believe it to be on topic. We are discussing what is or isn’t good music so that we can say whether the DC mass music was horrid or beautiful. Thanks though, and if you are the OP and you ask me to stop, I will regretfully comply.

I agree with Joysong. Let’s get back on topic. Did you like or not like the music at the Papal Mass in DC?

 

[30miller]

I agree with Joysong. Let’s get back on topic. Did you like or not like the music at the Papal Mass in DC?

I agree with Margarite - she is on topic.

 

[benedictgal]

Being a piano player myself I know that your observations about the piano are quite correct. Of course, your characterization of where Benedictgal may fall on your personal right-to-left “scale” was completely unnecessary.
And your treatise on instruments and cultures that follows is very interesting and says more than anything else that the Pope should find African music on his visit to Africa, Polish music on his visit to Poland, South American music on his visit to South America, etc., etc.,etc. - not presented (with improper instrumentation, as you point out) in the hodgepodge manner that it was at the D.C. Papal Mass.
Others have assured me that I did not really see (as I thought I did) the Pope check the stamps in his passport to see what country he was in (having been totally befuddled by the music ministry there).

That is quite true. Furthermore, there is a very important detail that the cultural enthusiasts have forgotten, and, this comes from Pope John Paul II, himself:

***6. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform - it is right to stress this point - must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.

In this regard St Pius X pointed out - using the term universal - a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[16]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.***

What those who advocate cultural diversity are forgetting is that the Church is universal in nature and in her form of worship. There is no such thing as a National Catholic Church, unless you are living in Communiist China. The music of the Church needs to have a universal character.

That is why these so-called cultural diversity celebrations really have no place in the Mass. They are better suited for a concert. At the Mass we worship and adore God, not ourselves.

 

[anamchara]

All the OCP (and GIA, for that matter) singsongbooks that I have seen carry the “approval of Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB” on the copyright page nowadays. No more imprimaturs or nihil obstats like used to appear in the old faithful hymnals. There is no explicit “approval” of this material by the Church.(Note - the Committee on the Liturgy of the USCCB carries exactly no authority of the Church whatsoever to “approve” anything except such as they choose for recommendation for the legitimate authority of the Bishops themselves to approve or not to approve - and no Bishop chooses to put his imprimatur on this horrid material. (That they’ll call “plausible deniability” later).

So, what you are telling me here is that USCCB is doing something disobedient allowing OCP? I’m just curious. Would you care to give me a source that seriously says the OCP is not allowed by the Vatican yet our American Bishops just do it anyway? If I follow your logic, your saying that the OCP is at fault because only the Bishops approval is on it. Correct me if I’m wrong.