L
Lepanto
Guest
Good point. Death metal (and other metal for that matter) is extremely fond of quoting scripture in the lyrics or using Christian imagry.
"Praise and Worship" music: is it acceptable as liturgical music for Mass?
- Status
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
lepanto
BTW, not everyone likes Gregorian chant.
Jim
Because along with Vatican II, full participation was its goal. Its easier and more conducive, for people to participate in their own language, than in Latin. Its that simple.
BTW, not everyone likes Gregorian chant.
Look around, its done throughout the Catholic world, so apparently the Church does embrace it. We are the Church, not a document.
Yeah, yeah, thats it. These people sat around and figured out ways they could shove this stuff down our throuts, and destroy the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit guides us, but not them. They’re all heretics. That must be it. Thanks for letting us know.
Jim
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
This attitude of yours explains so much. :nope:
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
Pope Pius X wrote in Tra Le Sollecitudini:
On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.
Pope Pius X wrote in Tra Le Sollecitudini:
On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.
J
Jakub
Guest
JMJcoder, did you expect anything different ? We are the Church groupies think everything post Vat II did away with those old backward traditions…
pax
james
pax
james
L
Lepanto
Guest
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
The term “full participation of the people” was taken way out of context by people after the council.
“full participation of the people” doesn’t mean the laity have to be doing some sort of activity in the pews for it to be so. It means the laity are to be praying the mass along with the priest and being aware of what is going on. Not hand holding and swaying and waving your hand in the air back and forth.
As for Gregorian chant, it is almost nonexistent in N.O. masses. What you have instead is liturgical dance(which is a violation BTW ), guitars and drums and people who think they are peter, paul and mary( for those who know who they are ).
The mission of evangelizing never stops. And by your statement evangelizing never happened until after the second Vatican council.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, remember, David’s dancing before the Ark of the Covenant was not a liturgical act nor was it done in the context of the OT understanding of worship. Furthermore, the Temple hadn’t even been built.We have used some of Angrisanos music and use alot of spirit and song ( oregon catholic press) music in our later Mass.
Those who criticize this or any other valid expression of praise and worship forget that the pipe organ was not accepted in churches initially due to the close resembance to the calliope used during the Roman Circuses.
Classical music was considered scandalous. It is culture oriented. If God is praised through this expression of music then AMEN.
God in the OT was praised with Dancing by David. With the trumpet and the tamborine. Not just a bunch of solemn faces.
I LOVE JESUS and I want him to know and I am going to sing Him a HAPPY CLAPPY song.
pax Christi
Crystal
David’s was an individual act of worship, and a spontaneous one, at that. Furthermore, remember that the Lord spent significant chunks of time detailing to Moses how, when and where He should be worshipped. So, in essence, the Lord, Himself, gave Ancient Israel the rudimentary version of what we could say was the first General Instruction for worship.
You also need to remember something else. If you want clappy, happy stuff, that’s okay for a retreat setting. However, in the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, things take on a different tone. There needs to be solemnity and sobriety. Now, solemnity and joy are not mutually exclusive nor do they contradict each other. Sobriety is something very important for us to have in our liturgies because it is not about us; rather, it is about God.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Jim, inasmuch as the Church didn’t exclude other forms of music, there is such a thing as “reading into” what the Second Vatican Council said as oppposed to reading the actual words of the documents. Furthermore, documents such as Musica Sacram and Pope John Paul II’s Chirograph on Sacred Music pretty much affirmed what Pope St. Pius X wrote about music. John Paul II believed that today’s form of liturgical music needs some purification. This was certainly substantiated by my often quoted section of the Lineamata used by the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist wherein they listed the music used at Youth Masses as an area of concern, a shadow.
Pope Benedict spoke very clearly in his statement that as far as liturgical music was concerned, “we cannot say that one song is as good as another.”
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
No, it means that the laity have active participation. We were all just praying along with the priest, before Vatican II. It wasn’t what the Mass was suppose to be and one of the primary reasons for Pope John XXIII calling Vatican II.
The fact that the Mass isn’t being said according to your taste, is the problem, not people singing praise and worship music.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
And much of what they wrote, had nothing if anything to do with Praise and Worship music.
You must keep in mind, the United States is a very tiny part of the Roman Catholic Church. Much of what Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger were addressing, had to do with Rock and Roll Masses, that were being done, especially in Italy. They were using Rolling Stone style music, as well as heavy metal music, at Masses. I have never seen this sort of music at Mass here in the States.
Praise and Worship music, is an entirely different style, than what Rome was criticizing.
Jim
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
People were not even doing that before VII. They were saying the rosary durring mass or some other devotion.
And that is NOT why the council was called.
Active participation is supposed to be about praying the mass along with the priest, singing the ordinary and/or other hymns.
Pope Pius XII even mentioned that to some extent.
the fact that the mass is done in bad taste is the problem.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Not necessarily, JIm. Have you thumbed though OCP’s Spirit and Song hymnal? The same stuff that is plugged on the late night TV commercials from the Time-Life Songs of Praise and Worship collection is exactly what is in that hymnal. “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High”, “Shine, Jesus, Shine” and “I Will Sing of Your Love Forever” aren’t exactly played on the organ. The musical instruments used are drums, electric guitars and bass guitars and keyboards and the songs are pretty much Praise and Worship pop music, something that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger eloquently addressed in The Spirit of the Liturgy. This genre is not so different from what the somewhat much older incarnation of the Rolling Stones is playing today. In fact, it sounds like something you’d be hearing at a Hannah Montana or Hillary Duff concert.
Plus, the lyrics emphasize more on the community and/or the individual as the actor as opposed to God. “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” and “I Could Sing of Your Love Forever” focus on what I am doing for the Lord as opposed to songs like the Attende Domine, wherein we implore God to be merciful on us poor sinners.
Incidentally, these praise and worship songs neglect one very important factor. They talk about how “good” we are without making note of the fact that we are sinners. It’s as though the notion of sin is totally foreign to the composers. “Our Father, We Have Wandered”, the aforementioned “Attended Domine” and the Kingsfold version of “At the Name of Jesus” render to God the worship that is due to HIm, but, they also remind us that we are sinners and in need of His mercy.
J
Jakub
Guest
Active participation not part of pre Vat II ?
Gee, My Sunday Missal used by me in 1959 etc clearly states participate actively by reciting the same prayers as the priest and reminds one that though you are a lay person you are also a lay priest…must be a typo
Guess some really need to study and review that old backward way…
pax
james
Gee, My Sunday Missal used by me in 1959 etc clearly states participate actively by reciting the same prayers as the priest and reminds one that though you are a lay person you are also a lay priest…must be a typo
Guess some really need to study and review that old backward way…
pax
james
B
benedictgal
Guest
To be quite frank with you, I think that whether or not the TLM or the NO was used, one still actively participated in the Mass. Remember, active participation does not mean that we have to be loud and proud and do everything, from taking up the collection to reading to serving as an EHMC or singing in the choir. One can most certainly actively participate in the Mass through prayerfully following along in silence (TLM) or by being faithful to the rubrics and texts of the Mass. Active participation means prayerful participation that comes from the recesses of the heart. I am just as active a participant in the Mass when I am in the pews, praying with my fellow pewmates as I am when I am proclaiming the readings.
The problem is that this phrase “active participation” has been skewed and misinterpreted to the point that we feel that we have to assign everyone a task in order for them to feel like they actually did something. This holds especially true for youth Masses, where you have these so-called “liturgical dancers” and the praise and worship music that emphasizes what I am doing for the Lord rather than what He has done and is doing for me.
T
tassitus
Guest
This may be true, but surely there are limits? We Catholics have such a vast tradition of ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL liturgical music at our disposal (ever hear of Palestrina?). Would any on this forum disagree? I think not.
Why then, oh WHY do I find myself singing a closing “hymn” at Mass that startles me in its triteness to such an extent that my eyes are forced to the bottom of the page in an attempt to fathom just which composer is responsible, only to learn that both text AND music were written by none other than a one Martin Luther?
Must we?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
From the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy;
Bold is my emphasis.
Its been 40 years since this document was written. The Church has not put a stop to Praise and Worship music, but in fact, approves and uses the OCP hymnals, throughout the United States.
Until such time, (if ever it comes) where the Bishops prohibit the songs that are found in the OCP or other approved hymnals, people who don’t like it, are just going to have to endure it, or find a parish that suits their taste.
Meanwhile, stop telling the rest of us, that we’re being irreverent at Mass, and are in violation of the Church’s mandates. We’re doing exactly what the Church has prayed for at Vatican II.
Jim
Bold is my emphasis.
There is nothing that needs further interpretation, as far as what constitutes, active participation. Active participation not only includes our silence during proper times in the liturgy, but also during times of praise and worship, which the hymns that are sung by the faithful are for. To ensure participation, it is necessary to provide music that people can participate in, not just listen to.
Its been 40 years since this document was written. The Church has not put a stop to Praise and Worship music, but in fact, approves and uses the OCP hymnals, throughout the United States.
Until such time, (if ever it comes) where the Bishops prohibit the songs that are found in the OCP or other approved hymnals, people who don’t like it, are just going to have to endure it, or find a parish that suits their taste.
Meanwhile, stop telling the rest of us, that we’re being irreverent at Mass, and are in violation of the Church’s mandates. We’re doing exactly what the Church has prayed for at Vatican II.
Jim
B
benedictgal
Guest
Jim, OCP doesn’t speak for the Church. In fact, there are many parishes that do not allow their hymnals to be used. Furthermore, I don’t think many of the local Ordinaries have a clue as to what is in those hymnals, especially Spirit and Song.
As I was thumbing through the Spirit and Song hymnal, I couldn’t find anything that indicated that it had been reviewed by either the Portland Diocese or the USCCB, for that matter. So, just because a publishing house has the word “Catholic” in its middle name doesn’t necessarily make it so. In fact, there are some Spanish hymns in the OCP arsenal that are laced with liberation theology that don’t even mention God by name (any sort of name or even Jesus, for that matter). Hombres Nuevos comes to mind. There are others that are downright Pentecostal (as in the Protestant ecclesial community) in nature that really don’t belong within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
And, no, I would not go so far as to say that praise and worship music is exactly doing what the Church has prayed for at Vatican II. What you have stated is your intepretation of the spirit of the Second Vatican Council and your are simply “reading into” the texts you have quoted and outlined in bold print.
The Second Vatican Council did not call for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be some sort of spiritual Woodstock nor did it want it to resemble that ghastly Coca Cola hand-holding, teaching the world to sing commercial. You would do well to re-read what you have posted and perhaps grab a copy of Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI. The Holy Father makes some very good observations regarding misinterpretations of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. I trust his observations more than anyone else’s. After all, he was actually there; we weren’t.
P
Phemie
Guest
Nowhere does the church say that the hymns must be sung by the faithful. As a matter of fact, the GIRM is clear that the only things the faithful need to sing are the dialogs and the acclamations and, if it is sung, the post-Communion hymn. Every other hymn and the Gloria can quite properly be sung by the choir alone.
- Status