Praise Music Used in The Catholic Church

[Milliardo]

My concern when I was Catholic about using Protestant songs, especially those from Evangelicals, is that it is a subtle way of bringing in Protestant notions into the Catholic Church. Sort of like a trojan horse–it may look benign, it might sound benign, but then looking at it deeper, it can do much damage. I have seen and heard a number of Catholic charismatic groups now teaching sola scriptura, though they may not know it as such. I have heard even a number of Catholic charismatic groups now give more importance to their praise and worship services than the Mass. It is an insidious way of destroying the Catholic Church, and it seems to be working.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have seen and heard a number of Catholic charismatic groups now teaching sola scriptura, though they may not know it as such. I have heard even a number of Catholic charismatic groups now give more importance to their praise and worship services than the Mass. It is an insidious way of destroying the Catholic Church, and it seems to be working.

I’ve seen and heard traditional Catholics give more importance to outward appearances, the language used at Mass, what people are wearing, and what style of music is happening - caring about these things more than souls, more than the Mass, more than charity, more than having a relationship with Christ. I’ve also have seen and heard traditional Catholics call bishops and priests modernist and decry Vatican II as not being a legitimate Council.

I’ve seen Orthodox do all of the above, plus give more importance to Mary than to Christ.

The sword of disobedience cuts both ways.

 

[Melchior_1]

That may be so but for about 2 thousand years there was no liturgical tradition of modern liturgical praise music in the Divine Liturgy.

Except with the Franciscans, whose founders Francis and Clare banned Gregorian Chant. They had to use something, right?

And at one point, the music was modern. The music that Mozart (the Mason) and Bach and Handel (the Protestants) were using was modern at the time, wasn’t it?

 

[Milliardo]

I’ve seen and heard traditional Catholics give more importance to outward appearances, the language used at Mass, what people are wearing, and what style of music is happening - caring about these things more than souls, more than the Mass, more than charity, more than having a relationship with Christ. I’ve also have seen and heard traditional Catholics call bishops and priests modernist and decry Vatican II as not being a legitimate Council.

I’ve seen Orthodox do all of the above, plus give more importance to Mary than to Christ.

The sword of disobedience cuts both ways.

Yes, it happens that there are those giving more importance to outward appearances, so it has to be balanced by an actual care and compassion for people. That being said, having Evangelical songs sung at Mass is an ingenious way of slowly turning the Catholic Church Protestant, and if not checked, might be the end result.

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, it happens that there are those giving more importance to outward appearances, so it has to be balanced by an actual care and compassion for people. That being said, having Evangelical songs sung at Mass is an ingenious way of slowly turning the Catholic Church Protestant, and if not checked, might be the end result.

You’re not showing much care and compassion here, considering you’re saying that charismatic Catholics are reducing the Church to being Protestants.

That being said, having an over reliance on the externals and the near-idolatry of Mary, if not checked, could result in the destruction of the Church.

It cuts both ways, Miliardo.

 

[EphelDuath]

Is it wrong to say that plainchant (i.e. Gregorian chant) is objectively more reverent in the vicinity of the Blessed Sacrament than “praise and worship music”? Pope St. Pius X thought so.

If not, then I think it’s fair to argue that any parish capable of having chant for Solemn Mass has a spiritual imperative to do so, except in the case of the ministry not being of the Roman rite, or some extraordinary reason.

In any case, traditional Catholic hymns like Ave Maria or Panis Angelicis are certainly infinitely more appropriate than bizarre pieces like “Lord of the Dance”…

 

[Melchior_1]

Is it wrong to say that plainchant (i.e. Gregorian chant) is objectively more reverent in the vicinity of the Blessed Sacrament than “praise and worship music”? Pope St. Pius X thought so.

Plainchant isn’t Gregorian chant.

Popes over the years have also gradually allowed more and more to be done, such as the inclusion of kettle drums. These things have evolved, and continue to evolve. Music isn’t doctrinal, we won’t go to Hell if the music is different.

 

[EphelDuath]

Gregorian chant is a type of plainchant, to my understanding. Correct me if I’m misusing the words.

I don’t think it’s a black and white matter, but assuredly we can say that Gregorian chant is both the most traditional and reverent form of liturgical music from the Roman rite. “Praise music” is a very, very recent innovation, and frequently (not always, I will admit) does not acknowledge the true sanctity of the Holy Mass and Blessed Sacrament.

You’re certainly not going to Hell for participating in a Mass with praise music, but the lessened atmosphere of holiness may affect you in subtler ways and perhaps does not foster piety as well as Gregorian chant or traditional hymns.

 

[OraLabora]

Plainchant isn’t Gregorian chant.

Popes over the years have also gradually allowed more and more to be done, such as the inclusion of kettle drums.

Correct, plainchant also includes Ambrosian chant, Mozarabic chant, Beneventan chant (defunct), plainchant in the vernacular, Sarum chant, Anglican chant.

Moreover I bet if you ask more than one traditionalist which Gregorian mass setting they prefer, they’ll answer “Mass VIII” (aka Mass of the Angels) which isn’t even Gregorian, it’s neo-Gregorian, and post-dates Gregorian chant by some 500 years or so.

I am very much in favour of Gregorian chant, I must admit a soft spot for it. It should be preserved, and it is. In Canada, there are at least two monasteries that use it daily (both Benedictine, men at St-Benoît-du-Lac, Quebec, and women at Ste-Marie-des-Deux-Montagnes just west of Montreal). There are also numerous groups promoting it. I sing in a schola in the archdiocese of Sherbrooke, and we rotate once a month to different parishes. Then of course there’s Solesmes in France where the scholarly study of old manuscripts takes place. Solesmes is mandated by the Vatican to study and preserve Gregorian chant.

I am a strong promoter of the use of Gregorian chant for the OF Mass as well as the Liturgy of the Hours. Our schola does both; we only sing at OF Masses (not because of some allergy to the EF… more because there aren’t any close by that aren’t SSPX).

However, we don’t impose, we propose

 

[QuestingKnight]

Might help if people asked: What is music at mass for? If it’s just to make the congregation feel good, then anything not actually horrible or heretical will do.

Some reasons to use chant:

The old Latin hymns have beautiful melodies. I speak as an ex-rocker trying to learn to play the organ. I note with interest that the Blessed Virgin Mary seems to get the best tunes.​

They’re tired and tested.​

They’re solemn. You can’t clap long to them. They have minor chords.​

‘Celebrate’ the mass doesn’t mean 365-Happiness. Martydom, crucifixion, Hell, Death, praising the Lord Of All requires something better than cheese.​

Some reasons not to use modern, easy, crowd-pleasers:

Banal lyrics, trite melodies.​

The tyranny of mere sentiment.​

 

[EphelDuath]

Then of course there’s Solesmes in France where the scholarly study of old manuscripts takes place. Solesmes is mandated by the Vatican to study and preserve Gregorian chant.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable on the matter, can you ask somebody at Solesmes why my Graduale Triplex has furious red ants on every page.

 

[Baelor]

You’re certainly not going to Hell for participating in a Mass with praise music, but the lessened atmosphere of holiness may affect you in subtler ways and perhaps does not foster piety as well as Gregorian chant or traditional hymns.

There is some flaw in this reasoning in that all hymns and forms of music were at some time innovative. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant (whether the chants be composed in the last 10 years or 500 years ago) as occupying the highest place in liturgical music (and the organ as the highest instrument). There is no reason that someone today could not compose a hymn as edifying as a “traditional” one. Indeed, all hymns at some point were modern.

 

[pnewton]

It is an insidious way of destroying the Catholic Church, and it seems to be working.

I don’t think the Catholic Church is in danger of destruction, especially not from music.

 

[pnewton]

That being said, having Evangelical songs sung at Mass is an ingenious way of slowly turning the Catholic Church Protestant, and if not checked, might be the end result.

As the theological basics are all Catholic, I would say it is more accurately turning Protestants Catholic. As St. Paul said, I am all things to all people. The Church calls it inculturation.

I do not know why this topic it is here, but the Catholic Charismatic movement is legitimate and recognized by the Catholic Church. When one is confronted with such a contradition between one’s own thoughts and the Church’s, it is best to defer to the Church.

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t think it’s a black and white matter, but assuredly we can say that Gregorian chant is both the most traditional and reverent form of liturgical music from the Roman rite.

Reverence is subjective. I think austere buildings are the most reverent, but that’s my subjective opinion.

“Praise music” is a very, very recent innovation,

No it isn’t. Again, Franciscans and other religious have been using hymns and praise-style music for a very long time.

You’re certainly not going to Hell for participating in a Mass with praise music, but the lessened atmosphere of holiness may affect you in subtler ways and perhaps does not foster piety as well as Gregorian chant or traditional hymns.

I could say the same for several items you are in favor of. Again, subjective.

 

[EphelDuath]

There is some flaw in this reasoning in that all hymns and forms of music were at some time innovative. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant (whether the chants be composed in the last 10 years or 500 years ago) as occupying the highest place in liturgical music (and the organ as the highest instrument). There is no reason that someone today could not compose a hymn as edifying as a “traditional” one. Indeed, all hymns at some point were modern.

Yes. Not all traditions are Apostolic Traditions that fall under the infallible Word of God. I recognize this. I am not arguing that we hold chant on a pedestal next to the Blessed Sacrament.

That being said, in the Latin rite, Gregorian chant has been for the majority of the Church’s history the preferred form of liturgical music. Other types of music, such as baroque and polyphonic Renaissance, have at times been the norm for the celebration of Holy Mass, but those have fallen away whilst chant has retained promotion by every Pope in the past hundred years.

I quote a scientist that frequently was dealt with the problem of responding to lunatics and their fringe theories. I am not saying you are the opposition in the same way, but if you would grant me some liberty to make a point:

“When two or more theories are in competition, it is common for one of them to be treated as the established position – the default option, as it were – and the others to be treated as challengers. A challenging theory is normally expected to bear the burden or onus of proof. In other words, advocates of the challenging theory are expected to provide highly convincing evidence and arguments before the theory can be taken seriously. To use a different metaphor, it is assumed that the established theory has jumped over a very high hurdle to gain its leading position and that any challenger must jump over an equally high hurdle before being in contention for the remainder of the race.”

Gregorian chant has proven to foster the reverence of its listeners towards the Holy Mass and Blessed Sacrament. “Praise music” has to jump a huge hurdle to prove it can do so in a comparable way as part of liturgy. It’s very easy for poorly catechized Catholics in the pews to think Mass is nothing more than a Christian rock concert with a few formalities; and there’s nothing wrong with Christian rock concerts, but Holy Mass is much, much more. And the reason we make sacred art, music and smells is to create reverence that all of the senses can perceive.

 

[OraLabora]

Since you seem to be knowledgeable on the matter, can you ask somebody at Solesmes why my Graduale Triplex has furious red ants on every page.

The Graduale Triplex is the Graduale Romanum with the addition of the neumes from the manuscripts of Laon (black), and St. Gall (red) above and below the staff.

 

[Baelor]

That being said, in the Latin rite, Gregorian chant has been for the majority of the Church’s history the preferred form of liturgical music.

No one is disputing this.

Gregorian chant has proven to foster the reverence of its listeners towards the Holy Mass and Blessed Sacrament.

No one is disputing this.

“Praise music” has to jump a huge hurdle to prove it can do so in a comparable way as part of liturgy.

No one is disputing this.

It’s very easy for poorly catechized Catholics in the pews to think Mass is nothing more than a Christian rock concert with a few formalities; and there’s nothing wrong with Christian rock concerts, but Holy Mass is much, much more. And the reason we make sacred art, music and smells is to create reverence that all of the senses can perceive.

No one is disputing this.

Please read about the Strawman Fallacy, of which you are extremely guilty. You are responding to points I never made.

The point remains that Gregorian chant was at some point innovative, and consequently the argument that new = bad or old = more reverent is clearly fallacious.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The point remains that Gregorian chant was at some point innovative, and consequently the argument that new = bad or old = more reverent is clearly fallacious.

I have personally tried to raise the argument from this paradigm time and time again vis-a-vis vestments, music, liturgy, etc.

Old does not necessarily mean good and new does not necessarily mean bad. Now, I’d definitely be prepared to argue that there is “more bad” in the liturgiovestomusical realm now than in the past, but certainly not everything produced in the last fifty or so years is bad. For example, it is really only since the modern era that we are able to produce very good copies of free or cheap music and consistent finely woven and dyed natural textiles for vestment use. Although all the silk/wool blends and chant in the world does not make up for a weird tye-dye polyester chasuble, yikes!

 

[OraLabora]

The point remains that Gregorian chant was at some point innovative, and consequently the argument that new = bad or old = more reverent is clearly fallacious.

It didn’t just appear, actually, so it was not “innovative” in the sense of, say a new technology being invented. It actually evolved rather slowly, with its most fertile period being the Carolingian era with roots in Gallican chant; it’s largely from France and superseded other forms of chant like Old Roman chant, and it’s probably the product of an evolution of and amalgam of different forms of ancient plainchant. Early chant tradition was passed on orally. Eventually it was written down as neumes, a free-form way of writing the chant (no staff).

What we know as “Gregorian chant” today was revived in the late 19th century after being moribund for a long time (or embellished into something that doesn’t resemble what it was or is now).

In fact we have no idea if the Gregorian chant we sing today sounds anything like the neumes that were found in ancient manuscripts. What is Gregorian chant today is what we think it sounded like, but we can never know for sure because the it’s a matter of interpretation of a form of recording that was not consistent (neumes of Laon, vs. St. Gall for instance).

So it really isn’t as simple as all that. However there is “innovation” of sorts in chant as research of ancient manuscripts does tinker with the melody. I can point out a few antiphons that were re-interpreted within about 2 years of each other by Solesmes, in two different modern antiphonaries.

It’s an actively evolving field of study, and as a result the interpretation of chant will continue to evolve.