"Praise and Worship" music: is it acceptable as liturgical music for Mass?

[VociMike]

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say on the subject (adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html)

Today, practically everyone can see through the primitive activism and the insipid pedagogic rationalism of such a position which is why it is now asserted so seldom. The fact that the schola and the choir can also contribute to the whole picture, is scarcely denied any more, even among those who erroneously interpret the council’s phrase about “active participation” as meaning external activism.
…
A recent author has stressed an important aspect of the question by speaking of highly developed forms which are not lacking in the liturgy as a feast of God, but which cannot be filled by the congregation as a whole. He reminds us that “the choir, in other words, is not related to a listening congregation as it is to a concert audience which allows something to be performed for it. Rather the choir is itself part of the congregation and sings for it as legitimate delegate.” 18 The concept of “delegation” is one of the basic categories of all Christian faith, and it applies to all levels of faith-filled reality, and precisely for this reason is also essential in the liturgical assembly. 19

The insight that we are dealing here with delegation, in fact resolves the apparent conflict of opposites. The choir acts on behalf of the others and includes them in the purpose of its own action. Through the singing of the choir, everyone can be conducted into the great liturgy of the communion of saints and thus into that interior prayer which pulls our hearts on high and permits us to join with the heavenly Jerusalem in a manner far beyond all earthly expectations.
…
The congregation gathered in one particular locality opens itself out to the Whole. It also represents those absent; it is united with those far away and those very near. And when in this congregation a choir exists, which can draw the congregation into the cosmic praise and into the wide open space of heaven and earth more strongly than the congregation’s own stammering is able to do, then precisely in that moment the delegated, representative function of the choir is especially appropriate and fitting.

Through the choir, a greater transparency toward the praise of angels is rendered possible and therefore a more profound interior participation in the singing, than would be possible in many places through one’s own crying and singing.

 

[VociMike]

The point is that how far is too far. Many who advocate P&W music at Mass usually say that it is appropriate and in accordance with the “spirit” of Vatican II. You say that these selections are not appropriate for Mass. The question many of us are trying to get answered is - Where is the line? How do we know? And who decides?

That’s exactly the question. On what basis can somebody deny any style of music in the liturgy, as long as the lyrics are suitable? And the answer that those who reject the guidance of the Church in this matter must logically arrive at, is that there is no basis to deny any style of music in the liturgy. But even they, most of them, are not comfortable with that result.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church has in fact said that hymns are the least important thing to sing. Much more important is the ordinary of the Mass. The Church has also said that when hymns are sung it is quite proper for the choir alone to sing them (except for the post-Communion hymn) so there is nothing that says that they have to be P&W so the folks can sing along.

The Church spends tons of money on organs, musician salaries, and hymnals. The idea that they don’t really think singing is an important part of the Mass, flies in the face of reality.

Jim

 

[VociMike]

The Church spends tons of money on organs, musician salaries, and hymnals. The idea that they don’t really think singing is an important part of the Mass, flies in the face of reality.

Jim

You misunderstood the point. It wasn’t about singing, but about what is sung.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JMJ_coder

Well, at least you somewhat acknowledge that union with Christ is necessary - that’s at least a start.

I never said union with Christ was not necessary. You merely jumped to that conclusion, because you’re following an agenda of your own. Next time, try not reading into what I post.

By the way, We Are Church is a group - and one that is extremely disobedient towards the Magisterium (and for charity’s sake, I’ll leave it at that.

I know nothing of this group, nor was I referring to anything about their postions.

Another jump to conclusions on your part.

The Church has always taught, the we the Church, are the body of Christ.

Even St. Teresa of Avila, a doctor of the Church, says in her prayer,

“Christ has no body on earth, but yours.”

Christ is head of the body the Church, which is her members.

So, to say, “We are the Church,” is perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You misunderstood the point. It wasn’t about singing, but about what is sung.

You misunderstand the point I was addressing, in that some have said that singing isn’t an important element in the Mass.

Its not necessary, but it adds to the Mass in a beautiful way, and the Church thinks its important enough, to spend lots of money and put lots of energy into it.

Jim

 

[Phemie]

You misunderstand the point I was addressing, in that some have said that singing isn’t an important element in the Mass.

Jim

If that’s what you think I said (it’s my post that you were quoting) you’d better read again. I said that the Church has set out the degree of importance of specific things that should be sung and the usual 4 hymns are far down the list and don’t necessarily have to involve the people in the pews.

 

[teme]

JMJ_coder

The Church has always taught, the we the Church, are the body of Christ.

Even St. Teresa of Avila, a doctor of the Church, says in her prayer,

“Christ has no body on earth, but yours.”

Christ is head of the body the Church, which is her members.

So, to say, “We are the Church,” is perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine.

Jim

We are the body of Christ, as the Church, with Christ as the head, as you say. It sounds like you are arguing that if enough of the body decides something is acceptable, then it is. Unfortunately, that’s flawed logic on principle, and using your own axiom.

My arms and legs don’t decide what I do, or where I go - I decide that as the head of my body. Christ decides how the Church is to move, and He did that in appointing Peter, and his successors chosen by the Holy Spirit. So you and I, as legs, can cramp, sweat, ache, and generally get upset, but Christ, our head, through the Magisterium, decides what to do about the complaints.

The fact that you, saints, doctors of the Church have stated that we as members of the Church are its body doesn’t mean that as its body, we decide what is best for it. In fact, when understood properly, that analogy shows quite clearly that we are to act in accord with the will of Christ, not our own desires of the flesh.

As many posts have shown, the Vatican has made the current position on this issue clear, so no matter how much we, the arms, legs, and chest of the Church try to change it, it’s not up to us. Our duty is to follow our head, Christ, in reverence and respect.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

teme

We are the body of Christ, as the Church, with Christ as the head, as you say. It sounds like you are arguing that if enough of the body decides something is acceptable, then it is. Unfortunately, that’s flawed logic on principle, and using your own axiom.

Nope, not saying anything more than what you have correctly stated, we are the body of Christ, as the Church, with Christ as head.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

teme

Nope, not saying anything more than what you have correctly stated, we are the body of Christ, as the Church, with Christ as head.

Jim

Jim, the problem is that as the body, we don’t decide anything or act on our own without the Head. Furthermore, Jesus conferred his authority to Peter, who is the visible head of the terrestial Church. So, if Peter sets norms and rubrics for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then we follow what he says. He does not have any authority other than what Christ conferred upon him, which is already pretty weighty.

The other thing that your argument tends to forget is that the Church is not a democracy. Protestant ecclesial communities can vote on what to do and who should serve. The Church does not have such a mechanism. We don’t act independently of the Head. We don’t act apart from Peter. This is especially true in the liturgy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

Jim, the problem is that as the body, we don’t decide anything or act on our own without the Head.

Never said we did.

Furthermore, Jesus conferred his authority to Peter, who is the visible head of the terrestial Church. So, if Peter sets norms and rubrics for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then we follow what he says. He does not have any authority other than what Christ conferred upon him, which is already pretty weighty.

Correct. The Holy See hasn’t sent out a prohibition against Praise and Worship music. Please, you don’t have to re-post articles on the subject again. We’re not going to agree on your interpretation, but then neither do the USCB’s agree with you.

The other thing that your argument tends to forget is that the Church is not a democracy.

I never even suggested such a thing.

Protestant ecclesial communities can vote on what to do and who should serve. The Church does not have such a mechanism. We don’t act independently of the Head. We don’t act apart from Peter. This is especially true in the liturgy

The USCCB, work in union with the Pope.

They said nothing about prohibiting Praise and Worship music, in their last assembly, to your disappointment.

Jim

 

[teme]

The USCCB, work in union with the Pope.

They said nothing about prohibiting Praise and Worship music, in their last assembly, to your disappointment.

Jim

I may be incorrect, so if so, please show me the documentation to correct me. But, I understand that the USCCB as an organization has no episcopal authority at all. It is an organization that helps guide bishops, and works as a group to request clarification or exceptions on specific items from the Vatican. Individual Bishops work in union with the Pope, but are under no obligation to follow any norms or recommendations from the USCCB. Am I incorrect?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I may be incorrect, so if so, please show me the documentation to correct me. But, I understand that the USCCB as an organization has no episcopal authority at all. It is an organization that helps guide bishops, and works as a group to request clarification or exceptions on specific items from the Vatican. Individual Bishops work in union with the Pope, but are under no obligation to follow any norms or recommendations from the USCCB. Am I incorrect?

I believe they do have some episcopal authority, but I’m not a canon lawyer.

Here read for yourself and see if you can tell.

usccb.org/whoweare.shtml

Jim

 

[Lepanto]

They said nothing about prohibiting Praise and Worship music, in their last assembly, to your disappointment.

Jim

Nor have they said anything about…

Polka

Death Metal

Reggae

Country & Western

Ska

Techno & Trance

Jazz

Easy Listening

Classic Rock

Alternative

Acid/Punk

Waltzes

…get it?

 

[benedictgal]

I believe they do have some episcopal authority, but I’m not a canon lawyer.

Here read for yourself and see if you can tell.

usccb.org/whoweare.shtml

Jim

There authority is somewhat limited as they can set the Holy Days of Obligation, vote up or down on translations of books for the liturgy and issue statements such as the one on voting. But, their authority is not broad-reaching like the Holy See.

Jim, you keep insisting that the Holy See has said nothing about praise and worship music, yet, the many documents that have been quoted here, while they don’t explicitly say praise and music, certainly imply it in their description of the genre.

In the Lineamata the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist used, the bishops complained about the music for the Youth Masses. As the proponents of Lifeteen vociferously attest, these songs are not Gregorian Chant in nature. They are the complete opposite and are mostly protestant praise and worship pieces. The bishops didn’t call it by name, but, once the title Youth Masses comes into play, it is almost always associated with praise and worship music. Furthermore, as Pope Benedict says in his oft-quoted excerpt from Sacramentum Caritatis, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Certainly, this applies to praise and worship music.

Furthermore, Pope John Paul II noted in his Chirograph on Sacred Music that:

1. On various occasions I too have recalled the precious role and great importance of music and song for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations[9]. I have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions.

…4. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “***not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. ***Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

These are some very serious words that hold very true, not only in 1901, when St. Pius X issued his document on Sacred Music, but in 2008, roughly seven years after Pope John Paul II issued his Chirograph on Sacred Music.

 

[agapewolf]

Furthermore, as Pope Benedict says in his oft-quoted excerpt from Sacramentum Caritatis, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. * Certainly, this applies to praise and worship music.*
.

and this is YOUR OPINION of what it is talking about

. I disagree.

And stop calling it “protestant” praise and worship. As I have said before, most of it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. A few do, and should not be used.

 

[benedictgal]

and this is YOUR OPINION of what it is talking about

. I disagree.

And stop calling it “protestant” praise and worship. As I have said before, most of it does not conflict with Catholic doctrine. A few do, and should not be used.

Agapewolf, I didn’t put those words in the Holy Father’s mouth or cause him to write them with a stroke of his pen. He’s consistently held to that opinion.

Furthermore, just because something is in the OCP Spirit and Song hymnal that doesn’t necessarily make it Catholic. A lot of the songs in that hymnal come from the “Songs of Worship” CD that Time/Life sells and are heard in evangelical Protestant ecclesial communities.

Incidentally, bias works both ways. One can also have a bias towards what is essential Protestant praise and worship music and not want to call it what it really is. Perhaps it would be helpful if you read both versions of the Spirit of the Liturgy, the one written by Pope Benedict and the one written by Rev. Msgr. Romano Guardini. Pope Benedict makes a very strong case against this type of music. He doesn’t have to call it by name, but, his description of the genre is pretty on target. And, his opinion does count because he is now the Pope.

 

[agapewolf]

That is exactly my point…he Does NOT say it is praise and worship, and I disagree that that is what he is talking about.

I am not talking about spirit and song songs. I’m talking about praise and worship music used at many youth masses. A few might be from that hymnal yes, but most (at least in the good youth masses) are not. It doesn’t matter that they are sold in time/life or not. It doesn’t matter that they are heard in other communities. That doesn’t make the songs protestant". The lyrics determine that, and most do not conflict with catholic doctrine.

I’ve read the stuff you keep suggesting, and posting …over and over…it has not proven your point. No need to post it again.

 

[VociMike]

and this is YOUR OPINION of what it is talking about

. I disagree.

So what do you think he is talking about? What types of music found in Catholic liturgies (obviously he’s not concerned with music not found in Catholic liturgies) would the pope be talking about here?

 

[agapewolf]

For starters, the stuff that people here sarcastically link to be the same as praise and worship, which is absolutely the opposite.

Iron maiden , megadeth for starters. Secular music. rap, and so on. These songs are not in any way in the same genre as praise and worship