Praise and Worship Music

[hartlenb]

I’ve never heard it said that “praise and worship music” doesn’t belong in the Catholic Mass.

That said, my two cents… Mass is a celebration. We are there to praise and worship. How this is accomplished within the liturgy is a matter of taste. Some may prefer traditional hymns. Others may prefer more contemporary songs. As long as it is for the Glory of God, isn’t it all good?

 

[Windmill]

One problem with saying “Mass is a celebration” is that we don’t understand the etimology of the word, so we import American, English presuppositions. “Celebrare” in Latin originally meant “to come together.” Only later did we artificially narrow the definition down to “To come together for a joyous purpose.” We should not forget that we are celebrating a sober reality: Christ has died and risen. The God of the Universe was slaughtered for our transgressions. Imagine that your own, dearly beloved father has taken the punishment of your crime and is put to death because of your wrongdoing. He is put to death in a horrible manner that makes even the strongest man cringe with fear. Then, he is miraculously brought back to life and comes to see you. Yes, you are thrilled that the curse of death is broken, but in the forefront of your mind is the fact that it should have been you, and he didn’t have to take your place. He loves you, and you are grateful for his sacrifice. All he asks is that you accept this gift and open your life to his grace.

What music conveys the solemnity that has characterized Catholic worship from time immemorial? What music speaks of the timelessness of the Faith that our fathers have died to preserve? What music mirrors the sober reality of the Holy Sacrifice that you are participating in?

 

[megangamble]

Everyone keeps talking about repetition in the P&W music and maybe I’m confused about what P&W music is. I am talking about music by like Toby Mac, Mary Mary, Michael W. Smith. Is this what everyone is talking about? Cuz the only repetition would be in the choruses and doesnt every song have a chorus…i mean usually? My Catholic university holds Praise and Worship nights for people who go there who aren’t Catholic and for people who are so we can all worship together and that’s what our Music Ministry Director refers to as P&W music too, I think. I dunno, maybe I’m mistaken.

 

[catechumen08]

Personally, I don’t think it’s wrong to be moved by music at Mass. I’m almost always very moved by the music at Mass, and it’s a part of the reason why I love going to Mass. Some feelings you can’t really express without music, in my opinion. I mean, it just adds whole another dimension to things. I don’t usually get emotional at Mass, but I certainly feel something deep inside when I hear moving P&W music; it’s very uplifting, indeed.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

 

[hartlenb]

What music conveys the solemnity that has characterized Catholic worship from time immemorial? What music speaks of the timelessness of the Faith that our fathers have died to preserve? What music mirrors the sober reality of the Holy Sacrifice that you are participating in?

To answer your questions, there are many songs, traditional and contemporary, that do honor Christ’s death. I also agree wholeheartedly with you that the Mass is a sacrifice. I am eternally grateful for what Christ did for me… I know that I could never earn this on my own, nor repay him.

Are you suggesting that the entire Mass needs to be solemn and somber? Isn’t that why we have liturgy & music directors; to make sure that the right tone is set for each part of the mass? When the Holy Spirit came to the disciples on Pentecost were they somber and solemn or did they proclaim the Word at the top of their voices?

I think too often Catholics focus only on the sacrifice. Are we at Mass to honor Christ’s sacrifice alone? Are we not asked to rejoice in the everlasting life that it purchased for us? To be moved by the Communion in Him that he offers us through the sacrifice? Is the act itself (the Sacrifice), more, less or just as important, than the outcome (everlasting life with the Father)?

This is my opinion only and I’m not arguing with your right to prefer a different style of music. To the best of my knowledge there is no doctrine on what type of music is allowed in the Mass. If I’m mistaken, please correct me.

 

[Windmill]

hartlenb,

You are right in that we must always view the Crucifixion in light of the Resurrection. If we didn’t, then there would be no justification for the virtue of Hope (or, IMHO, Love). However, I think that there is a critical distinction we must make between “solemnity” and “dowerness”. We are not to be morose or somber at Mass - what a depressing religion this would be if that were the case. However, there is a certain degree of formality that I think is being lost in this casual culture of America. If you look at generations past, Catholics have always looked at corporate worship as a serious obligation and privilege. To receive the thrice-holy God into your very being is not something to take lightly.

Certain music is appropriate for certain occasions. We would shudder if, at the State of the Union Address, the President would walk in while a band played pop music. As a Civil War army marches into battle, the flutist would be the first casuality if he started playing, “Jimmy Crack Corn, and I Don’t Care,”. Why? Because there is something to be said for ceremonials. There is an innate appropriateness of music in proportion to the gravity of the moment. You don’t use light-hearted music for important occasions. And, in the case of Mass, you don’t use campfire music or top-40’s style music to greet the Creator of the Universe as his sacrifice is re-presented on the altar for you to (humbly) partake of. It doesn’t mean you have to be beating your breast and covering yourself in ashes and sackcloth as you enter the nave, but what it does mean is that the music and language that is used should be dignified, solemn, and should raise your thoughts to higher things.

So much of the contemporary music is “up-beat” or jazzy. The problem with this rhythm-based music is that it charges your lower instincts and appeals to baser emotions. It doesn’t raise your thoughts to contemplation as much as it gives you an adrenaline rush. For example, I went to a Mass that resembled a Life Teen Mass. The guitarists were strummin’ away as the “cantor” yelled the lyrics into a microphone. The look on his sweaty face resembled Bruce Springsteen at a concert: furrowed brow and an intensely angry look. Why? Because he was getting worked up by the beat of the music. But that is not the type of music that you reserve for corporate worship, that’s what you listen to on the radio. It is, by definition, profane - it is “outside the Temple” since it is associated with everyday things. Arinze made clear that this is not appropriate for Mass.

Compare this with the music that Catholics have applied to Divine Worship over the centuries (and millenia): Gregorian chant, polyphany, pipe organ music (all of which Vatican II said should be given pride of place in the Liturgy). This type of music is ethereal and raises your thoughts to quiet contemplation and deeper penetration into the mystical reality unfolding before you at Mass.

Why is it hard for Catholics to look at the Liturgy as something that has been handed down to us, and that we have a solemn obligation to pass on intact? Why must we import our narrow cultural ideas onto a centuries-old rite with the arrogance that says, “Our culture is the best, and we will conform the Mass to it.”? Why can’t we step outside our pride and give credit to the musical scholars of ages past whose names still live on in music history? Instead, we give more credence to Rich Mullins, Steven Curtis Chapman, or Marty Haugen who will be completely unknown in 100 years.

I’m sorry about getting on a soap box, but I really feel that this is more than mere preference - it’s a fight against over-casualness in the Mass - the most sacred act a human can participate in this side of Heaven.

I’m not saying that people who sing P&W music are bad people, or that they intend to profane the Mass. Nor am I saying that P&W music is inherently *bad. *What I am saying is that the place for it is at the campfire or on the radio - not at Mass.

 

[hartlenb]

hartlenb,
Why is it hard for Catholics to look at the Liturgy as something that has been handed down to us, and that we have a solemn obligation to pass on intact? Why must we import our narrow cultural ideas onto a centuries-old rite with the arrogance that says, “Our culture is the best, and we will conform the Mass to it.”? Why can’t we step outside our pride and give credit to the musical scholars of ages past whose names still live on in music history? Instead, we give more credence to Rich Mullins, Steven Curtis Chapman, or Marty Haugen who will be completely unknown in 100 years.

What I am saying is that the place for it is at the campfire or on the radio - not at Mass.

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?

 

[Windmill]

Bryan,

Great discussion so far…thanks for the dialogue…

I’d recommend thsi short article before proceeding…I’m in the middle of seeing my dental patients and do not have much time to write…

nysun.com/article/35136

 

[Windmill]

actually, here’s the text…

By MALCOLM MOORE
The Daily Telegraph
June 27, 2006

ROME - Pope Benedict XVI has called for an end to electric guitars and modern music being played in church and demanded a return to traditional choirs and Gregorian chants.
The Catholic Church has been experimenting with new ways of holding Mass to try to attract more people. The recital of Mass set to guitars has grown in popularity in Italy; in Spain, Mass has been set to flamenco music, and in America, the Electric Prunes produced a “psychedelic” album called “Mass in F Minor.”
However, the use of guitars and tambourines has irked the pope, who loves classical music. “It is possible to modernize holy music,” he said at a concert conducted by the director of music at the Sistine Chapel, Domenico Bartolucci. "But it should not happen outside the traditional path of Gregorian chants or sacred polyphonic choral music."
His comments prompted the newspaper La Stampa to compare him with Pope Pius X, who denounced faddish classical and baroque compositions and reinstated Gregorian chants in 1903.
Benedict XVI’s supporters argue that the music played during Mass is a vital part of the communion between worshippers and God.

 

[megangamble]

So I understand that Gregorian Chant is part of The Church and everything but to be quite honest, it kinda gives me the willies. I don’t mean to offend anyone at all especially to those of you who love it, but I don’t know…it’s just not my cup of tea. I would much rather choral hymns which my parish has. But outside of Mass is more where my original question came from. I just read that some people think it’s manipulative and I was just curious as to what The Church said about it outside of Mass. I pretty much got my answer from what someone posted from the Vatican II Documents. It’s ok to listen to as long as it’s glorifying God basically, but it doesn’t neccessarily have a place in the Mass. Correct? Or did I read it wrong? lol**

 

[Windmill]

Meagan,

what’s manipulative?

As far as Gregorian chant being creepy, you make me giggle. I’ve never heard it put that way, but it makes sense, and here’s why.

Gregorian chant has no meter - IOW, it doesn’t follow a tempo. Our Western ears are trained to find regularity…a drum beat, a regular clap, a maraca, a pulse of some kind. Gregorian chant is different. It’s ethereal quality comes from the fact that it is music, but without a beat. While it can “feel” different, that is acutally one aspect of chant that makes it well-suited for worship. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims all see chanted dialog as “other-worldly”, and appropriate for worship (or meditation).

The trick is to not llok at chant through Western-colored lenses, but, rather, to see it as a form of praise that has stood the test of time throughout the centuries and nourished the souls of the majority of the saints.

Even then, if it is hard to bear, I wholeheartedly recommend polyphany. This, in my opinion, sounds more angelic…and it has meter.

 

[hartlenb]

Great discussion so far…thanks for the dialogue…

I’d recommend thsi short article before proceeding…
nysun.com/article/35136

Windmill, the article is over a year old so I’m not sure how relevant it is. IMHO; it would be unfortunate for our Church if Pope Benedict does plan to use his authority to impose chants and pipe organs… but he is the Pontiff. If he rules then we’ll follow. When you get a chance I’d still like to get your thoughts on the questions I posed earlier.

 

[VociMike]

Windmill, the article is over a year old so I’m not sure how relevant it is. IMHO; it would be unfortunate for our Church if Pope Benedict does plan to use his authority to impose chants and pipe organs… but he is the Pontiff. If he rules then we’ll follow.

Since you didn’t say “impose chants and pipe organs alone”, I’m wondering why it would be unfortunate for the pope to impose (but not alone) the music and instruments specifically called out in Vatican II as the supreme models and permanent standards? Why would it be unfortunate for the pope to impose the expressed desires of the Council Fathers?

 

[hartlenb]

Since you didn’t say “impose chants and pipe organs alone”, I’m wondering why it would be unfortunate for the pope to impose (but not alone) the music and instruments specifically called out in Vatican II as the supreme models and permanent standards? Why would it be unfortunate for the pope to impose the expressed desires of the Council Fathers?

I did read the article to mean chants and pipes alone because it said “Pope Benedict XVI has called for an end to electric guitars and modern music being played in church and demanded a return to traditional choirs and Gregorian chants.” and “… the use of guitars and tambourines has irked the pope, who loves classical music.”. As such I didn’t read this to mean that the Pope imposing the “the expressed desires of the Council Fathers” (assume you mean Vatican II?) which does in fact allow for other forms of music. The article said the Pope. No other references.

Why unfortunate? Because (as I said below) it is my opinion that contemporary music has a place in the Church and in the Mass. Removing it and limiting the Mass to chants and pipe organs alone would affect what I personally get out of the mass (as an example I don’t understand Latin chants:shrug: ). I’m guessing that others might feel the same way, but again this is just my opinion…

What the Pope commands, I will follow.

 

[VociMike]

I did read the article to mean chants and pipes alone because it said “Pope Benedict XVI has called for an end to electric guitars and modern music being played in church and demanded a return to traditional choirs and Gregorian chants.” and “… the use of guitars and tambourines has irked the pope, who loves classical music.”. As such I didn’t read this to mean that the Pope imposing the “the expressed desires of the Council Fathers” (assume you mean Vatican II?) which does in fact allow for other forms of music. The article said the Pope. No other references.

Why unfortunate? Because (as I said below) it is my opinion that contemporary music has a place in the Church and in the Mass. Removing it and limiting the Mass to chants and pipe organs alone would affect what I personally get out of the mass (as an example I don’t understand Latin chants:shrug: ). I’m guessing that others might feel the same way, but again this is just my opinion…

What the Pope commands, I will follow.

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)

 

[megangamble]

Meagan,

what’s manipulative?
QUOTE]

I think the people who were posting things like about P&W music being manipulative were referring to the feelings or emotions that it is “supposed” to invoke.
If you do a search on P&W music there are LOTS of threads about it and a lot of them have responses in them that convey that opinion.

 

[Windmill]

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.

I agree that it is nice to talk about serious things without resorting to namecalling. During the Enlightenment, the easiest way to discredit Christianity was to throw a bunch of Christians in a room together and watch the ensuing brawl over doctrine and practice. Gentlemanly debate is intellectually stimulating as well as edifying for the MBOC.

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

Amen! Keep on praying every time you sing a song, wherever you are.

(Not sure about Gregorian chants as I’ve never attended mass where a chant was used).

Unfortunately, many parishes have ignored the mandates of Vatican II that Gregorian chant be given pride of place. This “pride of place” is de jure in most parishes instead of de facto. They may tip their hat and say, “That’s the glorious standard, but we don’t do that here.” Okay, well, why not? If Vatican II said it should have pride of place, why can’t the average non-Catholic walk into your parish and see that it has pride of place? The burden is on the “dissenter” (I use that word in its strict sense, not in its charged, polemical sense) to show that chant is not to be the *actual *norm.

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?

Technically, I don’t have a crystal ball to tell the future, but if our generation’s music is like our generation’s architecture, it won’t last. Look at the drywall and cheap-o churches we have. They are soul-less warehouses. When they are falling apart (which will be in 20 years), Notre Dame in Paris will still be as beautiful as before. Our culture is into cheap, quick, and easy. I look at the music and see little talent compared to Palestrina and the Rennaissance composers who used their abilities to create complex motets of polyphonic grandeur. Those pieces will still be taught to pagans in piano and choir classes as the standard to meet. Why? Because it ellicits noble thoughts and inspires one to virtue. Drum-beat, rhythm-oriented songs take little to no talent. See for yourself how this type of genre has degenerated into the complete absence of melody and pure speaking and rhythm: RAP. Rap takes zero musical ability.

This is why I think Haugen, Haas, et al will be long forgotten when Catholics 100 years from now are celebrating Mass. Future Catholics will either be returning to the “musical treasury of the Church” or still trying to conform the Mass to their time and their region. It ends up stripping the Mass music of its timelessness, and, instead, making it a continually altered entity. Such a view does not do well to promote doctrinal continuity and tradition.

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 understand what you are saying, butI have to say, “Why was Gregorian chant acheivable before Vatican II?” If it is an impossible goal to reach, why was it not just a few decades ago? Is it more likely that “the people are incapable and unintelligent enough to grasp Gregorian chant”, or could it possibly be that it is not in accord with the 60’s “Spirit of Vatican II”, and therefore, nto on the agenda for liturgists? I ask that in all sincerity. Why is Gregorian all of a sudden “wrong” for parishes. You and I both know that it is not “wrong”, but would you say that it is treated as such?

As far as the clause, “all things being equal”, and in light of my immediately preceding comment, would this not be the perfect scapegoat clause for parishes bent on removing chant to cite as justification from the clear intention of the Council? Would it not fit the pattern of seeking extraordinary justification for an alternate agenda?

 

[Windmill]

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."andComposers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.

Indeed, but it is sacred music, which means that it is not something you hear at a rock concert, and something that follows the tradition of sacred music. It doesn’t simply mean, “something about God”. That. you can get at a Hallmark store, my friend.

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?

The Church calls for an “organic development” of the liturgy, not simply a change for change’s sake. How can one look at some of the guitar/bongo songs and see any continuity with ages past?

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?

The bishops are not prideful, per se. Nor are they given free reign to change the Mass. They are delegated specific duties in regards to specific areas of the Mass. And they are to respect the authority and standard the Council documents and the Holy See sets.

 

[Windmill]

Windmill, the article is over a year old so I’m not sure how relevant it is. IMHO

Just as relevant as the wonderful books Ratzinger wrote over 20 years ago on the liturgy. As I’ll bet you know, when Ratzinger assumed the papal throne, Ignatius Press saw a surge in Ratzinger book sales precisely because they contained his opinion on everything from the liturgy to doctrine…and Ratzinger is not given to sudden sways of opinion. They wanted to use these books as a barometer of which way the Pontiff would lead the Church during His reign.

If you want to read some really cool stuff, try Spirit of the Liturgy. I know, by suggesting a book, that I would be obligating you to a decent-sized read (should you decide to purchase the book), but this is probably his finest work on liturgy.

I would add that Ratzinger’s introductions to such books as “Turning Towards the Lord” and “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” are very telling signs of our Holy Father’s intent on reigning in some distractions from Vatican II.

I honestly believe that once TLM’s start popping up, parishes across the country will start importing more traditional elements back into the Novus Ordo Masses because there is a consonance with generations past…with tradition, and that is part of what we have lost.

 

[VociMike]

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.

Then, based upon what you have quoted, you should have been hearing polyphony instead. But I doubt that’s what you have been hearing iin place of Gregorian chant.

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 what are those needed qualities of true art in liturgical music? That is the big question, isn’t it? And the Church has provided the answers. And most modern compositions have ignored those qualities. And that’s the real problem.

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.”

This clearly has nothing to do with the situation in the United States, which has had a Catholic presence for 400 years.

and
Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.

Right. But those compositions must reflect the qualities and form mentioned above. Unfortunately, this passage seems to suggest that being “filled with the Christian spirit” is enough, although the Church clearly teaches otherwise.