Praise and Worship Music

[Windmill]

hartlenb,

I don’t want you to think you are being ganged-up on. I am praying for you and this conversation, not to change your mind, but to keep it cool and gentlemanly.

W

 

[Windmill]

P.S. on the clause about “all things being equal, Gregorian chant should be given pride of place,” it seems to make an exception to the norm. However, is it not the case that most parishes in this entire country don’t go near chant anymore? If it was a handful, then I could believe that these “exceptions to the traditional norm” could be justified. However, as is the case in many liturgical matters, the exception has become the norm (EMHC’s, Eucharistic Prayer III instead of EPI, communion in the hand, altar girls, deacons in dalmatics, Communion under both species, priest facing same direction as the people instead of towards the people, etc… )

Could it possibly be that we Americans are undoing the Council without our even knowing it?

 

[boppaid]

Just a quick question. I was trying to look this up, but couldn’t find anything on it. Did the apostles use Gregorian Chant during the early church services/masses?

 

[Windmill]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they used a form of chant as was common in Jewish days. Here is a good article on Gregorian chant on wikipedia that discusses that.

However, why is that relevant? Gregorian chant has organically developed out of the tradition of the Church. As many Popes have said, tradition is not the same as antiquarianism. We should not be seeking to turn the mustard tree back into a mustard seed, but rather, see how the tree has organically grown. I would opine that P&W music has no organic continuity with Catholicism’s liturgical tradition.

%between%

 

[Theodore]

I looked at some threads that are already in existance and couldn’t really find what I was looking for so here I am starting my own lol.
I understand that praise and worship music doesn’t really have a place in Mass but I was just curious as to why some people think that getting emotional over praise and worship music is bad? I read some threads and got the feeling that a lot of people think that getting emotional while listening to p&w was kinda not-catholic? i dont know if that makes much sense but I’m just curious because i LOVE LOVE LOVE my p&w radio stations and cds. i do tend to get emotional if one really touches on something that is going on in my life. Also if i’m feeling extremely close to God and i hear a song that is praising Him…it makes me a lil choked up and i just wanna praise Him all day long…i guess i dont see the bad in that? in this same question: i am a God-fearing woman, but I also find a deep DEEP happiness in my faith. i get excited about the Lord and wanna praise Him always…ive noticed that some people are very quiet about their worship and dont like to get overly or outwardly excited about their faith and im just curious if im like…wrong in doing so? P&W music helps me to get excited about my faith and i guess thats why im curious as to what everyone thinks. hope u can understand my questions./QUOT

During the Mass the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present, the memory of Calvary is renewed. It is also an act of worship to God, not an act to please our own senses. That doesn’t mean we can’t become emotional during our praise through song, after all our sinfulness and our longing for GOD can become very overwelming, it makes even the most hardened of sinners cry for mercy…

 

[boppaid]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they used a form of chant as was common in Jewish days. Here is a good article on Gregorian chant on wikipedia that discusses that.

However, why is that relevant? Gregorian chant has organically developed out of the tradition of the Church. As many Popes have said, tradition is not the same as antiquarianism. We should not be seeking to turn the mustard tree back into a mustard seed, but rather, see how the tree has organically grown. I would opine that P&W music has no organic continuity with Catholicism’s liturgical tradition.

%between%

Thanks for the answer. It was relevant for a couple of reasons. First, I was curious…because we were talking about Gregorian chant, weren’t we? Second, I wondered if we could add Gregorian Chant sometime after the very earliest church, why can’t we add P & W now?

 

[boppaid]

It is also an act of worship to God, not an act to please our own senses. That doesn’t mean we can’t become emotional during our praise through song, after all our sinfulness and our longing for GOD can become very overwelming, it makes even the most hardened of sinners cry for mercy…

How can praise and **worship **music not be worship to God? That makes no sense to me!

 

[VociMike]

Thanks for the answer. It was relevant for a couple of reasons. First, I was curious…because we were talking about Gregorian chant, weren’t we? Second, I wondered if we could add Gregorian Chant sometime after the very earliest church, why can’t we add P & W now?

Gregorian chant is the supreme model (Pope John Paul II) and permanent standard (Pope Benedict XVI) of Catholic liturgical music, against which all other compositions must be measured. That is the teaching of the Church. The problem with P&W is not that it is new; the problem is that, objectively, it just doesn’t measure up to the model, the standard.

I for one am all in favor of new compositions which do measure up. The treasure of Catholic sacred music, a treasure of inestimable value (Vatican II), needs continuous renewal.

 

[hartlenb]

hartlenb,

I don’t want you to think you are being ganged-up on. I am praying for you and this conversation, not to change your mind, but to keep it cool and gentlemanly.

W

No problem here. It’s all good.

I’ve read all your, and VociMike’s, posts, and in my opinion you have not presented any Church ruling or document that says P&W does not belong in the Mass (which was the statement made in the first post and I believe the crux of our discussions). The closest you come to this kind of definitive ruling is the Vatican II documents that says certain types of music should be given pride of place. In each case this statement is qualified with “all other things being equal” which clearly leaves the door open for other forms of music. For the same reason, the qualifier on pride of place doesn’t guarantee it’s use. I understand that you interpret the Vatican II documents to mean it should be used unequivocally, but if the Church wanted to guarantee its use why did they qualify the statement?

So unless I’ve missed the definitive ruling, I believe we are discussing whether or not we personally believe P&W belongs in the Mass. In this context, I’d be happy to try and answer your questions and challenges posed below, if that’s what you’d like me to do. You both spent considerable amount of time evaluating my thoughts and responding to my questions. I offer you the same in return (just not sure how to do it cleanly ).

Lastly Windmill, Turning Toward the Lord is on my reading list…

 

[VociMike]

No problem here. It’s all good.

I’ve read all your, and VociMike’s, posts, and in my opinion you have not presented any Church ruling or document that says P&W does not belong in the Mass (which was the statement made in the first post and I believe the crux of our discussions). The closest you come to this kind of definitive ruling is the Vatican II documents that says certain types of music should be given pride of place. In each case this statement is qualified with “all other things being equal” which clearly leaves the door open for other forms of music. For the same reason, the qualifier on pride of place doesn’t guarantee it’s use. I understand that you interpret the Vatican II documents to mean it should be used unequivocally, but if the Church wanted to guarantee its use why did they qualify the statement?

Just from my own perspective, the question “does music X belong in the Mass” is a rather useless question. Unless music X has heretical or immoral lyrics, it would be hard to answer a definitive NO.

The real question that needs to be asked is different. I would phrase it something like this: Given the vast heritage of Catholic sacred music (a treasure of inestimable value), and given the standards by which the Church tells us to judge that music, why would we deliberately choose music that does not measure up well to those standards? Why would we deliberately offer our second or third best if we have access to something better?

 

[Theodore]

Windmill, let me start by saying that I’m enjoying this exchange and that I respect your preference, opinions and passion. I appreciate the opportunity to deeply discuss our Faith. But I do disagree with many of your broad brush characterizations. As an example, personally, I PRAY the songs I sing… be they traditional hymns or contemporary P&W (Not sure about Gregorian chants as I’ve never attended mass where a chant was used). Also, who’s to say that the artists you’ve named won’t be remembered or that their songs won’t still be used in Mass in a 100 years?

Thanks for the reference to Vatican II’s position on music. I looked it up and you are correct that Vatican II does say "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30"
I’m assuming that as I’ve never heard a Gregorian chant in any mass I’ve attended in North America, that not all things were deemed to be equal and therefore other kinds of music have been included in the liturgical celebration.

I also believe that Vatican II makes no statements against P&W or any type of music, as it also states:
“But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.”
and
“In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. *For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, *as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.”
and
Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.

You’re concerned with Catholics taking the Liturgy “as something that we have a solemn obligation to pass on intact”. Is this before or after Vatican II? Times change and where the Church, in its authority, allows change is it not good?

As for pride and culture - Is it not up to the Bishops of the Church, within the authority granted to them, to model the Mass for their specific culture? Why is that prideful?/QUOTE

You hit the nail on the head when you said "other kinds of sacred music " so lets stick to the " SACRED " and keep any other type of music to where it belongs, and that is out side of Mass… As far as before and after Vatican II is concerned, it really has nothing to do with the Mass, because the Mass is and always will be a “True and proper Sacrifice” and to me trendy music is inappropriate when it comes to the “Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” If there is still any doubt, perhaps one might want to view a Papal Mass. Cheers, Theo…

 

[Windmill]

Or, another way to put it: why are we Americans looking for escape clauses?

If something is meant to be the norm or standard, why are we trying to not let it be the norm? I refer back to my post listing other examples of this. While there may be a provision *allowing *other types of music in extraordinary situations, is it not legalistic to avoid the spirit of the council in this regard (ie, doing what the texts clearly envision as happening, and not basing the liturgy on exceptions to the rule)?

I could compare “exceptions and norms” in other areas: I will use the Church’s teaching on NFP as an example. The Church says that a couple can use NFP to space children for serious reasons. NFP is not envisioned as a means for permanently avoiding children in the entire course of a normal couple’s marriage. Yes, disease, finances, emotional health, etc… may present extraordinary situations in individual couples, and for these reasons a couple may employ NFP as an extraordinary means of spacing children legitimately. However, what is understood is that the couples will try to remedy those impediments that prevent them from having another child so that they can return to normal child-bearing. It is sinful to tell yourself that money prevents us from having a child all the while not seeking to free up more resources for a new child (example: stop spending frivilously, get a better job, sell the beachhouse, don’t buy designer clothes). Yes, people get old and fertility (in women) disappears. Yes, sometimes people discren they have reached their limit and must space indefinitely. But the norm is to seek to be open to the norm and remove what stops you if possible.

Now, to music. The standard norm is Chant and polyphany. If you employ the clause "all things being equal" to justify your departure from the norm, then you must ask yourself: “What impedes us from observing the norm, and what can we do to remove that impediment?” If you are not asking yourself these questions, then are you living the spirit of the law, or are you quite intent on avoiding the norm?

 

[VociMike]

Or, another way to put it: why are we Americans looking for escape clauses?

Exactly. European heritage and 400 years of Catholicism would hardly seem to put us in the “exceptions” column.

Now, to music. The standard norm is Chant and polyphany. If you employ the clause "all things being equal" to justify your departure from the norm, then you must ask yourself: “What impedes us from observing the norm, and what can we do to remove that impediment?” If you are not asking yourself these questions, then are you living the spirit of the law, or are you quite intent on avoiding the norm?

Unfortunately, the phrase “other things being equal” is entirely meaningless in practice. Other things are never equal in any real-world discussion. Furthermore, I am not aware of any other useage of that phrase in Church documents, which would give us guidance as to its intended meaning.

What is interesting is that the following phrase says “But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations…” So if other things are not equal, the next best choice is clearly polyphony. Do people who play the “other things being equal” card to avoid Gregorian chant, do so in order to have polyphony instead? Do pigs fly?

We could have a thread about the intent of “all things being equal” phrase, but it seems like an honest reading would be something along the lines of “unless, on occasion, there is a very good reason to do otherwise”. This reading is entirely consistent with the preceding statement “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” Now, if one has one thing that is specially suited to a task, there must be a very good reason to, on occasion, use something that is objectively less well suited to that task. But what cannot be defended is to always and everywhere use something other that that which alone is singled out as “specially suited” to the task. And yet that’s what happens in most Masses throughout the world.

But OK, if we must have polyphony instead of chant, so be it.

 

[hartlenb]

Just from my own perspective, the question “does music X belong in the Mass” is a rather useless question. Unless music X has heretical or immoral lyrics, it would be hard to answer a definitive NO.

It would pretty much be impossible - wouldn’t it? And that is the crux of whether this is a discussion of personal opinion or of the Church’s teachings.

The real question that needs to be asked is different. I would phrase it something like this: Given the vast heritage of Catholic sacred music (a treasure of inestimable value), and given the standards by which the Church tells us to judge that music, why would we deliberately choose music that does not measure up well to those standards? Why would we deliberately offer our second or third best if we have access to something better?

In whose opinion? Again, I ask you to please show me where P&W has been evaluated by the Church and found to not measure up?

By the way I went looking at the reference you provided to Pope John Paul II’s thoughts on music. I found in his letter some text that I hadn’t seen before.

The Second Vatican Council recognizes it as “the song proper to the Roman Liturgy” to which it is necessary to reserve, all things being equal, first place in sung liturgical actions celebrated in the Latin language.

Very interesting that in his writing he has further qualified the use within liturgical actions celebrated in the Latin language. You can read it here. I can’t tell if it’s an accurate translation or not. Assuming it is, this may be why you don’t see chanting in NA.

 

[Theodore]

Or, another way to put it: why are we Americans looking for escape clauses?

If something is meant to be the norm or standard, why are we trying to not let it be the norm? I refer back to my post listing other examples of this. While there may be a provision *allowing *other types of music in extraordinary situations, is it not legalistic to avoid the spirit of the council in this regard (ie, doing what the texts clearly envision as happening, and not basing the liturgy on exceptions to the rule)?

I could compare “exceptions and norms” in other areas: I will use the Church’s teaching on NFP as an example. The Church says that a couple can use NFP to space children for serious reasons. NFP is not envisioned as a means for permanently avoiding children in the entire course of a normal couple’s marriage. Yes, disease, finances, emotional health, etc… may present extraordinary situations in individual couples, and for these reasons a couple may employ NFP as an extraordinary means of spacing children legitimately. However, what is understood is that the couples will try to remedy those impediments that prevent them from having another child so that they can return to normal child-bearing. It is sinful to tell yourself that money prevents us from having a child all the while not seeking to free up more resources for a new child (example: stop spending frivilously, get a better job, sell the beachhouse, don’t buy designer clothes). Yes, people get old and fertility (in women) disappears. Yes, sometimes people discren they have reached their limit and must space indefinitely. But the norm is to seek to be open to the norm and remove what stops you if possible.

Now, to music. The standard norm is Chant and polyphany. If you employ the clause "all things being equal" to justify your departure from the norm, then you must ask yourself: “What impedes us from observing the norm, and what can we do to remove that impediment?” If you are not asking yourself these questions, then are you living the spirit of the law, or are you quite intent on avoiding the norm?/QUOT

Yep ur right of course, in my mind there are different kinds of music… eg: Sacred, Rock , Pop, Classic, and so on, and so on. Who knows where it is going to stop… To me i’ll stick with the Sacred

 

[VociMike]

In whose opinion? Again, I ask you to please show me where P&W has been evaluated by the Church and found to not measure up?

By the same measure, please show me where it has been evaluated and has been found to measure up.

I can tell you that I have heard plenty of Church musicians who understand the standards of Catholic liturgical music who say that P&W does not measure up. Starting with the President of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, Valentino Miserachs Grau. And even, arguably, Cardinal Arinze, who “criticized the musical fashions found in many churches, which he characterized as ‘chaotic, excessively simplistic, and unsuitable for the liturgy.’”

By the way I went looking at the reference you provided to Pope John Paul II’s thoughts on music. I found in his letter some text that I hadn’t seen before.
Very interesting that in his writing he has further qualified the use within liturgical actions celebrated in the Latin language. You can read it here. I can’t tell if it’s an accurate translation or not. Assuming it is, this may be why you don’t see chanting in NA.

What’s “NA”?

Anyway, nobody is denying that “pride of place” (which applies to the Roman liturgy regardless of language) would entail more Gregorian chant in Latin-language liturgies of the Roman Rite than in vernacular liturgies of the Roman Rite. But that does not mean that there should not be any Gregorian chant in vernacular Masses. Musicam Sacram specifically says that mixing languages is acceptable: “…sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular”.

So there is a clear expectation that Gregorian chant should have a rather prominent place in liturgies in Latin, and that it should also have some place (not excluded) in liturgies in the vernacular. And that’s all that anybody is saying, as far as I can tell.

And if people aren’t using Gregorian chant in vernacular liturgies, then they should be using something of similar worth. And that doesn’t exist, by and large. One of the greatest unintended failures of the move to vernacular liturgy is that an entire treasury of truly glorious sacred music was cast out, and there was nothing equally worthy to replace it. And given the nature of modern culture and change, there never can be. No vernacular heritage of sacred music can possibly rise up to the standards of the Church’s Latin music, simply because the latter had the benefits of stability and universality, and the former has neither of those benefits. That is at least worth pondering.

 

[megangamble]

VociMike and Windwill,
I think a lot of what you are saying is coming from opinion, it is more than evident that you like Gregorian Chant and everything, but I think that you are being a lil biased about the questions. I’m not meaning any disrespect, but I think that the original question, which was made by me, was not asking whether or not Gregorian Chant should be taken out of The Mass but rather, what people’s opinions were on P&W music…which in all actuality…isn’t Gregorian Chant just that, PRAISE and WORSHIP music? I think what it all comes down to is all of these different types of music are giving thanks, praising, and glorifying GOD! Isn’t that the most important thing to look at in this whole discussion? No one is attacking GC or trying to get it removed from Mass…my parish doesn’t use it anyway as I stated before, but I think some people not really myself…think that P&W music should be included in PARTS of The Mass. When I first posted, I was asking about PW in a more general sense…because I listen to it in the car and at home. Just wondering how GC became the main focus in this thread when I didn’t mention it in my original question.

 

[VociMike]

VociMike and Windwill,
I think a lot of what you are saying is coming from opinion, it is more than evident that you like Gregorian Chant and everything, but I think that you are being a lil biased about the questions. I’m not meaning any disrespect, but I think that the original question, which was made by me, was not asking whether or not Gregorian Chant should be taken out of The Mass but rather, what people’s opinions were on P&W music…which in all actuality…isn’t Gregorian Chant just that, PRAISE and WORSHIP music? I think what it all comes down to is all of these different types of music are giving thanks, praising, and glorifying GOD! Isn’t that the most important thing to look at in this whole discussion? No one is attacking GC or trying to get it removed from Mass…my parish doesn’t use it anyway as I stated before, but I think some people not really myself…think that P&W music should be included in PARTS of The Mass. When I first posted, I was asking about PW in a more general sense…because I listen to it in the car and at home. Just wondering how GC became the main focus in this thread when I didn’t mention it in my original question.

I’m actually not sure how Gregorian chant got into this thread. I don’t think I introduced it, other than to point out that it is the standard by which other sacred music is to be judged (and that’s not my opinion, that is the teaching of the Church). I have also posted many quotes from Vatican II and from the last two popes, so I think the charge of “lots of opinion” is not at all justified.

As I said in my first reply, listen to all the P&W you want on your own time. But do yourself a favor and broaden your horizons at the same time by listening to the two types of music especially singled out for praise by Vatican II. You might come to like it.

 

[patches]

Even though I am not a mind-reader, I can assure you that the Pope will not remove all contemporary music, and all instruments other than the pipe organ. He will not do that because that is not the position of the Church.

But I sure hope he deals firmly with some of the worst musical excesses in order 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” (in the words of his blessed predecessor John Paul II)

I agree with the sentiment. It’s not fair to blame perfectly noble musical instruments for the noise some people make with them!
But a contemplative hymn played by a capable guitarist artistically accompanied by woodwinds and strings can be very good for congregational singing, contrary to what some say–I’ve personally seen it quite often. When I first heard about guitars and things becoming “instrumenta non grata,” I thought there had to be something that was not being interpreted quite right. (I had visions of a dejected John Michael Talbot shuffling out the church side door) I think what the Pope wants to excise is ham handed one-strum pop refugees on guitar leading rock ensembles. In the hands of people who “get it” regarding what appropriate music for mass is, a variety of instruments can work quite well.