Purpose of Music at Mass

[YoungTradCath]

Again, you’re taking me completely out of context and I never said any of the above.

What I am saying is that we have do have to embrace all the 2000 years, but we can’t freeze it at the year 1960.

Ah, so now modern music is relativism.

When classical music was introduced into the Mass (hello Mozart and the like), it would have been strikingly different than the past. Somehow though, we managed to integrate that so that it would now be considered to be traditional.

No, we can’t freeze it at the year 1960. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a decent person who thinks that what we commonly think of as “modern music” is real art. There is modern music that fully embraces and builds upon the music of the past. But is so rare compared to the treacly drivel that is commonly though of as “modern music.” There is nothing wrong with writing new music. Go for it! However, music that is “innovative” and “new” just to be innovative and new has rarely succeeded at actually being a continuation of the great music of the past. To build upon the music of the past doesn’t mean simply giving a nice nod to it and ignoring it otherwise, it means actually building upon it. There are some modern composers who embrace this ideology fully, and they get my praise. However, most modern composers, at least in the “Catholic” world, basically reject it.

 

[pnewton]

From Sing to the Lord:

Obedient to Christ and to the Church, we gather in liturgical assembly, week after week. As our predecessors did, we find ourselves “singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in [our] hearts to God.”

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

Read the first chapter to see the purpose of music at Mass.

As to the type of music, the very nature of discussion threads like this bring one point clear that is hard to debate. Namely, different music affects people differently. I would never advocate a free for all, but I think the very universality of the people of God speaks to both a need for diversity, and a need for unity. Thus, we have the staple food of Gregorian Chant, by which I do not mean that it should be the most used. Rather, all should at least have some exposure to it so that can know this treasure of the Church. But eve as far back as St. Paul, we have an indication that diversity is desirable. If any decision needs to be made locally, it is the choice of music, as only locally can the choice be pastoral as well as liturgical.

For me, I like to meet the needs of all as much as I can. My own preference is for hymns, though I like all. There are few exceptions to music that other people like that I simply can not bring myself to do, (Gather Us In, Sing a New Church, for example.)

 

[Vico]

Hi,

I think one of the purposes of the music at mass is to help us express our worship to God. I think part of that is done by using music that affects us and makes us “feel” more awe-struck or more joyful, which helps us praise God.

I guess I think God doesn’t really have a preference in music, so what we really have to offer is our heartfelt joy and praise. And we pick the music that helps us feel those things.

I think Gregorian chant for example helps us contemplate God. I don’t think it’s God’s favorite music, I think its good music to help people pray.

Is this wrong?

Neil

We give glory to God. The expression of that is through beauty. We do experience pleasure in the perception and expression of that beauty, the very beauty itself if a creation of God, as well as the expression which is glorious. It is all made possible by God and with our cooperation expresses our love of God.

 

[Tridentinum]

I never said to extend that philosophy. I meant accessible the same way that Vatican II wanted to make the Mass more accessible by allowing it in the vernacular. Some people would also consider the vernacular to be “casual” as you put it. So just because you consider something to be “casual” doesn’t mean it’s un-Catholic.

Wanting music ‘modern’ and ‘non-traditional’ in order for it to be ‘accessible’ and not ‘alienate’ un-catechized Catholics is extending that philosophy.

 

[markomalley]

I think that many of the posters are taking an extremely narrow view of music in the Mass. Your are really pushing things to claim that the only appropriate music is chant, and that hymns are not to be sung, but rather, the Mass itself is to be sung. The hymns ARE part of the Mass prayer, and by singing them, we ARE singing/praying the Mass.

I would like to encourage everyone to please read Paragraphs 1156 - 1158 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It is obvious from these paragraphs that the Holy Mass is not limited to chant and antiphons.

I don’t know if some of you realize how discontented and unhappy you sound. I get the feeling that some of you never find a Mass that is suitable. I’m sorry for you.

So I guess, according to you, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is wrong.

And I guess, too, according to you, that Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (which was referenced by the CCC) was wrong.

1. 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.

1. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

And I’m sure you feel sorry for me because I don’t care for liturgical dancers during Mass; don’t like the celebrant making up his own prayers and substituting those words for what is in the text, don’t like it when Father, in the spirit of Vatican II (not that it has anything to do with the Acts of Vatican II), for ecumenical reasons, allows female Episcopal and Methodist clergy in the sanctuary during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and so on. (thanks be to God, our current pastor does not allow that kind of garbage any more…)

Fortunately, Cat, I can find a suitable Mass. With gas prices like they are these days, it’s a bit far to travel every week, but I do manage to get to a suitable Mass about once a month.

But I do appreciate your empathy.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Getting back to the purpose of the music, would it be fair to sum it up this way:

Proponents of chant and classical music believe that the effort put into performing difficult quality music is an act of worship, but,

Proponents of modern music feel that the music’s purpose is to help a person feel awe, respect and love for God, which are feelings that make the act of worship legitimate rather than mechanical.

 

[markomalley]

Getting back to the purpose of the music, would it be fair to sum it up this way:

Proponents of chant and classical music believe that the effort put into performing difficult quality music is an act of worship, but,

Proponents of modern music feel that the music’s purpose is to help a person feel awe, respect and love for God, which are feelings that make the act of worship legitimate rather than mechanical.

I am a proponent of chant and polyphany…

The purpose of chant is to draw people into the paschal mystery. To so move them to fully participate in the sacerdotal act occurring in the sanctuary during the sacrifice of the Mass. That is the purpose of chant, the purpose of sacred silence, the purpose of the postures, and everything else.

At least IMHO.

I feel that modern music tends to banalize the whole Eucharistic sacrifice. In other words, it tends to bring the worship down to our level rather than to elevate us to the heavens.

IMHO, the need to express oneself as an end is counter to the purpose of the Mass. Sure, it is really good for a “praise service”, but I think it trivializes the Mass and makes it more of a community supper rather than what it actually is.

Remember that in the OT, the passover was not just the seder…it was also the sacrifice of that lamb.

Again, IMHO.

 

[liturgyluver]

So I guess, according to you, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is wrong.

And I guess, too, according to you, that Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (which was referenced by the CCC) was wrong.

1. 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.

1. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

All Cat said in her post was that Gregorian chant is not the only music allowed at the mass - and your extract above simply confirms this. Yes I love chant and attend a mass where propers are chanted in Latin once a month, but I also like traditional hymns and congregational settings, both of which are allowed.

 

[Cat]

So I guess, according to you, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is wrong.

No, of course not. The GIRM does NOT say that chant and antiphons are the only options for Mass.

And I guess, too, according to you, that Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (which was referenced by the CCC) was wrong.

No, of course not. I had that passage open as I was composing my post, and I decided not to reference it because so many of the posters on CAF believe that Vatican II was a pastoral council and therefore had no authority.

1. 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.

1. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

The paragraphs that you quoted from SC make it obvious that other styles of music besides chant are allowed in the Mass.

And I’m sure you feel sorry for me because I don’t care for liturgical dancers during Mass;

Why would you assume that I feel this way because I am trying to make the point that the church documents allow other styles of music, along with hymns, in the Mass? Since when is it “modernism” to want to see the Church documents correctly interpreted and implemented?

Liturgical dance is NOT allowed in Catholic Masses in the United States. I’ve seen it once in a Catholic Mass up in Minnesota, and I was aware at the time that I was witnessing liturgical abuse.

As for whether I personally like or dislike dance in Mass, that’s irrelevant. I submit and obey the Church, whether or not the “rules” please me personally. (For what it’s worth, I have always disliked “dance” in any Christian church gathering. I was raised in a Baptist church, and dancing of any kind was forbidden. So I still have a hard time with Dancing with the Stars, let alone dancing in church.)

don’t like the celebrant making up his own prayers and substituting those words for what is in the text,

Again, why are you putting words in my mouth? I believe, as a good, conservative Catholic, that the priests and others in the Mass should stick with the rubrics and not improvise. That’s what Holy Mother Church asks us to do, and it is not our place to deliberately disobey and try to improve upon Holy Mother Church.

The Masses in my diocese are liturgically-correct, and our dear bishop expects the parishes to disseminate a conservative and orthodox catechesis. I have personally seen what happens when a priest tries to “improvise”–within a week, he is corrected by the bishop and the Mass returns to the rubrics.

don’t like it when Father, in the spirit of Vatican II (not that it has anything to do with the Acts of Vatican II), for ecumenical reasons, allows female Episcopal and Methodist clergy in the sanctuary during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and so on. (thanks be to God, our current pastor does not allow that kind of garbage any more…)

Yes, thanks be to God.

Again, you are making some pretty wild assumptions about me just because I want to see the Church documents correctly interpreted, and perfectly allowable music included in the Mass.

My husband and I actually LEFT a Protestant church when a woman Senior Pastor was installed.

We are completely opposed to women in the pulpit in ANY Christian tradition, Catholic or Protestant.

This is one reason we became Catholic–because we feel that the Catholic Church teaching on women clergy is correct.

Fortunately, Cat, I can find a suitable Mass. With gas prices like they are these days, it’s a bit far to travel every week, but I do manage to get to a suitable Mass about once a month.

Yes, thankfully, so can we. Our parish, which offers beautiful and correct OF Masses, is right down the block. And if we wished to drive about 2 miles, we could attend the TLM at the Oratory every day and several times on weekends.

I hope you can see from this post that I am not your enemy.

I just want to make sure that extremists do not over-interpret the Church documents and demonize beautiful music, including much “modern” music, that IS allowed in the Mass. This is hurtful and divisive for the Church. I feel sorry for people who find fault in every Mass just because the music isn’t all chant. We need to accept that the rubrics allow for many different variations in the OF Mass, and learn to make peace with Masses that are not according to our personal preferences.

 

[Cat]

All Cat said in her post was that Gregorian chant is not the only music allowed at the mass - and your extract above simply confirms this. Yes I love chant and attend a mass where propers are chanted in Latin once a month, but I also like traditional hymns and congregational settings, both of which are allowed.

Thank you. That’s truly all I said.

I’m a little upset that simply by referencing the Catechism and expressing sorrow for those who do not abide by the Catechism’s teachings, that I am being labelled as a liberal Catholic who wants to see women in the pulpit or dancing down the aisles.

All the personal opinions on this thread are interesting, and in some cases, a little disturbing, but shouldn’t we Catholics get our answers to our questions from our Church, in this case, our Church’s Catechism, rather than debating our personal opinions and citing quotes out of context from various Church documents to prove that our opinions are “right” and others are “wrong”?

The answer to the OP’s question is clearly stated in the Catechism in the paragraphs that I referenced. These paragraphs are beautiful and uplifting to read and meditate upon–they lift us out of our little world and give us a glimpse of heaven. I hope that everyone will read them today.

 

[ProVobis]

Liturgical dance is NOT allowed in Catholic Masses in the United States.

But I thought it was allowed in some cultures. Even Cardinal Arinze has stated so. If the Archdiocese of Chicago allows 24 vernaculars (for 24 different cultures) to be used for the Mass, I’m sure some can make a case for using liturgical dance (or Polka Masses or Ravi Shankar music, for that matter) legitimately inside those Masses in Chicago.

 

[dochawk]

I also like when the priests in the OF mass chant the preface. I wish they would chant the whole thing.

That is actually preferred and encouraged under the new directives.

The trick is finding a priest wh has been trained to do so . . .

Plead with your local Byzantine print to offer classes?

 

[ProVobis]

I grew up on the Haugen-Haas stuff and I know everyone thinks it’s awful. I notice now most parishes have moved away from it and are singing old hymns now, which I guess is an improvement. But I have to admit, as bad some folks think the folky stuff was, it was at least singable. I feel like now, the hymns are quite hard and no one sings.

Maybe one day we will have 80s nostalgia Masses

Maybe by indult?

 

[Cat]

But I thought it was allowed in some cultures. Even Cardinal Arinze has stated so. If the Archdiocese of Chicago allows 24 vernaculars (for 24 different cultures) to be used for the Mass, I’m sure some can make a case for using liturgical dance (or Polka Masses or Ravi Shankar music, for that matter) legitimately inside those Masses in Chicago.

You’re probably right.

But I know it’s not allowed in Catholic Masses that are “American,” not ethnic.

 

[curlycool89]

No, we can’t freeze it at the year 1960. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a decent person who thinks that what we commonly think of as “modern music” is real art. There is modern music that fully embraces and builds upon the music of the past. But is so rare compared to the treacly drivel that is commonly though of as “modern music.”

The above just needs to be followed by an “in my opinion” for clarification purposes.

There is nothing wrong with writing new music. Go for it! However, music that is “innovative” and “new” just to be innovative and new has rarely succeeded at actually being a continuation of the great music of the past.

That is true. Change for the sake of change is not always good.

To build upon the music of the past doesn’t mean simply giving a nice nod to it and ignoring it otherwise, it means actually building upon it. There are some modern composers who embrace this ideology fully, and they get my praise. However, most modern composers, at least in the “Catholic” world, basically reject it.

I’m assuming you’ll now scan for us a copy of your PhD in Music (or related subject) to show us that you are actually an expert in this and not just some anonymous person on the internet who holds a very strong opinion (you know, as opposed to the other 1,000,000 people on the internet who also hold strong opinions).

Wanting music ‘modern’ and ‘non-traditional’ in order for it to be ‘accessible’ and not ‘alienate’ un-catechized Catholics is extending that philosophy.

So, what is your definition of “modern” and “non-traditional”? And please make it something more than “stuff I don’t like”.

And I’m sure you feel sorry for me because I don’t care for liturgical dancers during Mass; don’t like the celebrant making up his own prayers and substituting those words for what is in the text, don’t like it when Father, in the spirit of Vatican II (not that it has anything to do with the Acts of Vatican II), for ecumenical reasons, allows female Episcopal and Methodist clergy in the sanctuary during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and so on. (thanks be to God, our current pastor does not allow that kind of garbage any more…)

Fortunately, Cat, I can find a suitable Mass. With gas prices like they are these days, it’s a bit far to travel every week, but I do manage to get to a suitable Mass about once a month.

But I do appreciate your empathy.

Dude, stop it with the ad hominems. Cat said none of the above, you are putting words in Cat’s mouth that Cat didn’t say. Again, that’s called attacking a straw-man.

You know what, I really have no problem with chant, I just want people to be clear that other options are also ok. What I really want to know though is why certain people who seem to be “pro-chant” (I hate putting people into camps, but this is easier for time) can’t seem to make an argument without accusing the other person of being a borderline-heretic! Seriously people, show some charity. We’re all on the same team.

 

[Ancient1]

Many things are “allowed” - musically and otherwise. That does not make them preferential.

 

[ProVobis]

Many things are “allowed” - musically and otherwise. That does not make them preferential.

You’re exactly right. Vatican II expressed its will: liturgy in Latin, Gregorian chant, organ, people participating in Latin, etc. It also allowed the bishops to determine their limits in their countries. No one person or culture can be singled out for the complete abandonment of Vatican II’s wishes.

 

[curlycool89]

Many things are “allowed” - musically and otherwise. That does not make them preferential.

And just because something is preferential doesn’t mean that other legitimate options are automatically excluded.

Nor does preferential mean “do this under pain of mortal sin”, which seems to be the preference of a number of people here.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am a proponent of chant and polyphany…

The purpose of chant is to draw people into the paschal mystery. To so move them to fully participate in the sacerdotal act occurring in the sanctuary during the sacrifice of the Mass. That is the purpose of chant, the purpose of sacred silence, the purpose of the postures, and everything else.

Thanks for enunciating that aspect so clearly.

I think there’s also an idea behind some posts that the music is a work of art offered to God and that we shouldn’t offer Him anything less than the best that we have to offer. Since pop and folk music aren’t considered good art, they’re not good enough to offer to God.

Does anyone agree with that?

 

[Sarabande]

I think there’s also an idea behind some posts that the music is a work of art offered to God and that we shouldn’t offer Him anything less than the best that we have to offer. Since pop and folk music aren’t considered good art, they’re not good enough to offer to God.

Does anyone agree with that?

I’ve been following this thread from the beginning, but I haven’t had the opportunity to take real time to respond (rather than just quick jottings of thoughts) as I find this an interesting discussion.

To just focus on your comment, my thoughts on this are mixed. For me I would absolutely agree that the best that can be offered to God should be used. On a personal level, because of my own musical training, depth of studies and continual studies, as well as the high standards that I set on myself, I have had a very hard time accepting anything less than what I know I can offer as my best to God, whether at mass or in other realms of musical “performance”. I have eventually been able to accept my best for that moment in time which I am rendering the music, but I still beat myself up if I don’t do as well as I’d like because I personally believe I am insulting the gift given to me. My abilities would NOT have been there without God’s grace, love and guidance either in prayer or with the people He brought to me in my life to help, encourage and mentor me. So, for me, singing pop and folk music would not be considered my best to give to Him at mass or in other venues. At the same time, I don’t think all classical music is appropriate for mass either. Some of it can sound too secular, rather than sacred… even the religious works. The instruments used or the way the singers use their voices can lend to that. So, even if some classical music is considered more on the “high art” side and have even been composed specifically for liturgy, it is NOT necessarily appropriate for liturgy.

In one way, I believe that if a parish has the people (and the means in some instances) with good musical training, it should fully take advantage of what those musicians can give and not turn them away, which I’ve seen too often. But if a parish does not have that and there is no one to help teach chant or other forms of music which are considered “high art”, then how am I to say that what that parish is giving is not their complete best? That is, technically, the best which can be given by the people of that parish at their masses. It’s their highest form of art offered and I can’t imagine God being insulted by that.

(Continued)