B
Baelor
Guest
Thank you for your informative post. I did not mean to say that Gregorian chant appeared out of nowhere, but that it was not conferred by Jesus to Peter when he created the Church.
- Status
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think music is a matter of taste. No matter what types, each has it own specialty that brings about the emotion required for the occasion. Modern music is considered modern because it did not exist in ancient time. But then again, musical technology and instruments have much to do with it. Old classical music would be considered modern in its time when it was first introduced. Even King David worshipping God in his time was considered blasphemous. Time moves on and so is music. More importantly whether it serves its purpose in bringing people to the required level of the atmosphere of worship. And I think it does except that different people have different choices and likes.
As for expression of joy, reverence and solemn, there is a time for everything during the mass. It is alright to be more lively during the thanksgiving hymn after the Holy Communion in recognition of that occasion. Similarly during the other part the mass we can have our dispositions accordingly. We cannot simply generalize just because the music is not of our taste or that we do not agree with people who are more open and extrovert in their personal expression.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No, of course not, it’s just the form of chant that managed to “survive” somehow (along with Ambrosian chant, and to a small extent, Mozarabic chant). That’s for the Roman church. The other 22 sui juris Churches have their own musical tradition, and in the Roman church, Gregorian is not the only tradition and in fact it was quite out of favour for a few hundred years (or at least it had morphed into something completely different and totally frivolous and denatured).
It’s revival in fact, as the main chant of the Western Church, is quite recent; for the Mass, it was largely under Pius X with his 1908 publication of the Vatican Edition of the Roman Gradual, which was the final product of the chant wars (mostly in Solesmes) during the 19th century, concerning different ways of interpreting chant.
The recent history of Gregorian chant makes quite interesting reading in fact. Lots of big egos involved (yes monks sometimes do have egos). Again, we have no idea if Gregorian chant of the Carolingian era (and to some extent the Ambrosian era, St. Ambrose gave us most of the early hymns for the Divine Office) really sounded like the Gregorian chant we’ve been using since the late 19th century.
But it’s what survived chant darwinism
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I never said you argued any of those things, those were my arguments for why “praise music” is liturgically inferior to Gregorian chant; to even be put on equal grounding, much less be better, it has to jump a huge hurdle.
I never argued that chant is better JUST BECAUSE it’s older
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Considering that the Eucharist was celebrated since the time of the Apostles, the Gregorian chant is quite a new tradition by that standard. And look how well accepted it is today. But there are pretty many Catholics worldwide who are not even familiar let alone know how to do it. Yet their celebration and participation in the Eucharist is no less profound and in what it set to achieve.
M
mburn16
Guest
I’ve always found it odd that music composed between 1000 and 1700 years after the Death of Christ is treated to be the only acceptable music for Catholic worship. As for GIA and Marty Haugen: They have some good ones. I’m a big fan of “up from the waters” and “Stand firm”. personal opinion.
But I think this highlights a different issue: Why do Catholics have so little place for praise? Maybe the eucharist and praise are incompatible. So why don’t we have wednesday, or saturday afternoon, or sunday afternoon praise services?
But I think this highlights a different issue: Why do Catholics have so little place for praise? Maybe the eucharist and praise are incompatible. So why don’t we have wednesday, or saturday afternoon, or sunday afternoon praise services?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Because it wouldn’t be mortal sin to miss that, so it would probably be somewhat empty.
I don’t know why that matters though, I once attended a Charismatic Catholic sing-and-praise meeting. It was only about two dozen people but it was quite spiritual and a good experience for me.
S
superamazingman
Guest
I’m not opposed to modern music. It’s low-quality modern music that drives me nuts. Here’s lots of good modern music that is suitable for the liturgy, and follows the ethos of the church for liturgical music.
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eJo-9MFwD6I
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FUn7RtpLBEA
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JOjaaaZfkkQ
In the time of Bach and Mozart and the compositon of chant, there was low quality music too. The only difference is that none of it has survived. Likewise, do you think even a few of haugen or Haas pieces will survive over 100 years? I certainly don’t. It’s nothing amazing. Why not use music that HAS stood the test of time, that is much more high quality?
S
superamazingman
Guest
Well there’s at least two reasons:
- Chant and sacred polyphony is the music the church has said is most suited for the liturgy. Is THAT a good enough reason? Why would you find that odd?
- Maybe it’s that no music composed in the last 50 years has come close in quality. Do you really think we’ll be singing hass in 100 years? 200? 1000? There’s a reason chant, victoria, and palestrina are regarded so highly. Their music was so brilliant that people saw fit to preserve it.
M
mburn16
Guest
“Because it wouldn’t be mortal sin to miss that, so it would probably be somewhat empty.”
You think that is the only reason people go to church? There are enough people to fill catechism, bible study, etc. …I’m sure we could find people to fill livelier worship. Probably even some new commers to the church.
Praise and evangelicalism on the part of lay people are two things missing from the church that I think hold it back. These things should be brought to be incorporated into Catholic life. They don’t need to replace anything, but they should be included.
You think that is the only reason people go to church? There are enough people to fill catechism, bible study, etc. …I’m sure we could find people to fill livelier worship. Probably even some new commers to the church.
Praise and evangelicalism on the part of lay people are two things missing from the church that I think hold it back. These things should be brought to be incorporated into Catholic life. They don’t need to replace anything, but they should be included.
C
catholictiger
Guest
old thread bump why did this happen?
P
pnewton
Guest
It is less than two months old. Someone decided to post on it.
P
pnewton
Guest
Your first reason is sound, but your second is subjective. “Quality” is a matter of taste regardless of how many think their opinion on quality music to be objective truth. Yes, I think we will keep some of the best music of today. The Church always has. That is why there is so much to choose from. My own favorite period is 19th - Early 20th century hymns. We kept the best of that period.
C
catholictiger
Guest
I know you just rarely see old threads like this get bumped oh well.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Look, no objection from me. Whatever one wants to do to foster their faith and others is fine by me. I just don’t think “praise music” is appropriate for Holy Mass if it can be supplanted with chant or traditional hymns.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
THANK YOU! GREAT IDEA! I’ve been saying this for a long time. I probably wouldn’t attend, but this seems much more appropriate.
S
superamazingman
Guest
Yes! Exactly! I love p&w, but I also love the church’s teaching on liturgical music, and simply put, P&W is not compatible with the liturgy. However, as people always say quoting the psalms, outside the liturgy, make a joyful noise! Do what you want! Praise him with it all!
C
clem456
Guest
I am interested in the nuts and bolts argument for why chant is better. What does it mean that it is “better”. We have this split in our parish right now. The split is actually between traditional modern, and prasie and worship with drums and guitars etc…I never said you argued any of those things, those were my arguments for why “praise music” is liturgically inferior to Gregorian chant; to even be put on equal grounding, much less be better, it has to jump a huge hurdle.
I never argued that chant is better JUST BECAUSE it’s older
S
superamazingman
Guest
I’m not sure this aspect of it has been as clearly spoken of in church documents, but here’s several reasons (most of these also apply to polyphony, the second place music in the roman rite):
-It’s not beat-driven, therefore, it is symbolically timeless, just as heaven is
-It’s speech driven (you may have heard it said that you should “sing it like you speak it,” which for the most part, is true), which puts the words of God before the melody it is sung to
O
OraLabora
Guest
“Better” as music is subjective and largely a matter of taste. “Better” as content and words, is objectively true. Virtually the entire corpus of Gregorian chant is the Word, mostly psalm but also other scripture verses. A few pieces are traditional i.e not scriptural (Ave Maria for instance and some Marian antiphons), but very few, in the Mass. In the Divine Office, only the hymns and a handful antiphons are not from scripture. The antiphons and responsories are almost entirely scriptural. The chant was made to draw attention to the Word and to sustain it, not overwhelm it (at least if properly sung). The hymns, most of which are older than Gregorian chant (dating back to St. Ambrose, which is why St. Benedict called the hymn the “Ambrosian” in his famous Rule), were designed to be short lessons in theology.
Modern hymns tend to be original compositions, not scriptural. That’s not wrong, per se, but it explains why the Church says that pride of place goes to Gregorian chant, and why there’s a movement to create simple English Propers… because the Propers are scriptural, and for powerful content in the Mass, they’re awfully hard to beat, and the lack of ability in Latin should not be an obstacle to assimilating the Propers. I therefore think that, after Gregorian chant, vernacular sung propers would be an awfully close second best.
I think objectively we can say that scriptural is superior to non-scriptural.
- Status