Purpose of Music at Mass

[Deo_Gratias42]

Gregorian Chant IS prayer. I will repeat myself again. We are not supposed to sing AT Mass, but we are supposed to sing THE Mass. Every Mass has antiphons that are supposed to be sung, unless for grave reason it is not possible to sing the antiphons.

For what it’s worth, singing and clapping at Mass doesn’t get me worked up. It makes me feel physical pain.

 

[nickybr38]

Gregorian Chant IS prayer. I will repeat myself again. We are not supposed to sing AT Mass, but we are supposed to sing THE Mass. Every Mass has antiphons that are supposed to be sung, unless for grave reason it is not possible to sing the antiphons.

For what it’s worth, singing and clapping at Mass doesn’t get me worked up. It makes me feel physical pain.

Sometimes I love to sing and clap. I admit it helps me experience joy… but to me the Mass isn’t joyful, necessarily. It’s a sacrifice, not a dance party. :\

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Gregorian Chant IS prayer. I will repeat myself again. We are not supposed to sing AT Mass, but we are supposed to sing THE Mass.

What? Do you mean we’re not supposed to have any hymns at all, and the only singing is the entrance antiphon, the psalm, etc?

 

[YoungTradCath]

What? Do you mean we’re not supposed to have any hymns at all, and the only singing is the entrance antiphon, the psalm, etc?

The simple answer is that the Propers are the mass, and everything else is, at the most, a substitute for it. Propers are prayers in and of themselves, while most “hymns” aren’t.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

What? Do you mean we’re not supposed to have any hymns at all, and the only singing is the entrance antiphon, the psalm, etc?

Exactly!

If you ever attend an EF High Mass you will notice this is more prevalent, though sometimes there’s a hymn for the processional and recessional, or just the recessional.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Exactly!

If you ever attend an EF High Mass you will notice this is more prevalent, though sometimes there’s a hymn for the processional and recessional, or just the recessional.

I’ve been to one of those before and I really enjoyed listening to the mass being chanted. I’ll spice things up in this thread by saying that “the performance of the choir was quite entertaining”. Sorry but it’s true. It was also a very prayerful experience. I also like when the priests in the OF mass chant the preface. I wish they would chant the whole thing.

I’ve had that kind of experience while singing hymns too though.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’ve been to one of those before and I really enjoyed listening to the mass being chanted. I’ll spice things up in this thread by saying that “the performance of the choir was quite entertaining”. Sorry but it’s true. It was also a very prayerful experience. I also like when the priests in the OF mass chant the preface. I wish they would chant the whole thing.

I’ve had that kind of experience while singing hymns too though.

When I was growing up in the 90s, the majority of priests did chant the entire Mass. I’m not sure what happened to that.

 

[curlycool89]

The simple answer is that the Propers are the mass, and everything else is, at the most, a substitute for it. Propers are prayers in and of themselves, while most “hymns” aren’t.

Actually, it seems to be the other way around. This is from the Canadian GIRM:
GIRM 48:

This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of Canada the Entrance Chant may be chosen from among the following: the antiphon with its
Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex, or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, and whose text has been approved by the Conference of Bishops of Canada.
If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).

The GIRM seems to suggest that a hymn is equal to an entrance psalm, and is the preferred choice to the entrance antiphon (that is, that the antiphon is a fall-back).

Exactly!

False. See the GIRM I quote above.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually, it seems to be the other way around. This is from the Canadian GIRM:

The GIRM seems to suggest that a hymn is equal to an entrance psalm, and is the preferred choice to the entrance antiphon (that is, that the antiphon is a fall-back).

False. See the GIRM I quote above.

The way Roman documents that illustrate options are written is that the first clause is the most preferred option, the second clause is the second-most preferred option, etc. In fact, in the US GIRM, the clauses are instead numbered, giving even more weight to this.

The “antiphon given in the Missal” is a different antiphon from the one in the Roman Gradual. The Roman Gradual antiphon is the preferred song in a sung mass. If there is no singing, then the antiphon from the Missal is read.

The antiphons from the Missal are different from those in the Gradual; the ones in the Gradual are more complicated, because they are intended to only ever be sung, while the ones in the Missal are intended to be read.

 

[Kerry77]

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

 

[Tridentinum]

That’s your opinion. I find that making the music modern mades it accessible. It can have the effect of bring people more into the Mass and more into that prayerful tone.

For some people, yes more traditional things like chant may bring them more into the Mass, but for a lot more people it’s going to alienate them and push them away. They may not be well catechized Catholics, but they are still Catholics, and just writing them off because they don’t “get it” is not an acceptable approach.

I really regret saying this, but I have seen too many replies that are similar. Who cares what they think about Catholic music and Catholic tradition? I’m sick of seeing Catholic identity ripped to shreds to accommodate people who would only want to go to Mass if it was a concert. This philosophy seems to be quite common. ‘Water down the Dogmas’ so heretics and dissidents feel more at home; de-emphasise the Blessed Virgin Mary to make protestants feel more at home; cease teaching important parts of the faith like Heaven and Hell and Judgement so that the ‘feel good warm and fuzzies’ crowd isn’t offended, etc.

We need to re-claim our Catholic identity and lowering our standards of ‘sacred music’ does not help.

 

[mburn16]

“We need to re-claim our Catholic identity”

…and we have many great, old (and some new) hymns that are a part of that identity.

 

[markomalley]

What? Do you mean we’re not supposed to have any hymns at all, and the only singing is the entrance antiphon, the psalm, etc?

Not true.

There is one acceptable spot for a hymn: after the congregation has received communion.

From the 2011 GIRM:

1. When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.

The entrance chant is a chant, not a hymn:

1. This **chant **is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

The offertory chant:

1. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory Chant (cf. no. 37 b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance Chant (cf. no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the Offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.

The communion chant:

1. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86) approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.

There is no provision for a “recessional” chant or hymn.

Me, being a minimalist, would think that it would be more appropriate to be silent. But, on the other hand, a hymn is not explicitly ruled out there either.

In summary, no, a chant is not the only option. An antiphon or an antiphon with its corresponding psalm are also appropriate.

But “Building the City of God” is, as of the implementation of the 2011 GIRM, officially a LITURGICAL ABUSE!!! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Hope the above helps clarify things for you.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I really regret saying this, but I have seen too many replies that are similar. Who cares what they think about Catholic music and Catholic tradition? I’m sick of seeing Catholic identity ripped to shreds to accommodate people who would only want to go to Mass if it was a concert. This philosophy seems to be quite common. ‘Water down the Dogmas’ so heretics and dissidents feel more at home; de-emphasise the Blessed Virgin Mary to make protestants feel more at home; cease teaching important parts of the faith like Heaven and Hell and Judgement so that the ‘feel good warm and fuzzies’ crowd isn’t offended, etc.

We need to re-claim our Catholic identity and lowering our standards of ‘sacred music’ does not help.

Exactly! It’s so sad today that you actually have to shop for a Catholic church that embraces and profoundly screams its Catholic identity and heritage with pride.

 

[curlycool89]

The way Roman documents that illustrate options are written is that the first clause is the most preferred option, the second clause is the second-most preferred option, etc. In fact, in the US GIRM, the clauses are instead numbered, giving even more weight to this.

Well, I wasn’t looking at the US GIRM. The Canadian GIRM states “may be chosen from among the following”, which anyone who can read english would say would be followed by equal options unless otherwise noted (like when you go to a restaurant it says you may have one of the following: fries, soup, or salad).

Unless you can cite something for me that says this is how you interpret documents, I’ll consider that your personal opinion.

The “antiphon given in the Missal” is a different antiphon from the one in the Roman Gradual. The Roman Gradual antiphon is the preferred song in a sung mass. If there is no singing, then the antiphon from the Missal is read.

I was trying to say that. I should have specified which antiphon I was talking about at the end

I really regret saying this, but I have seen too many replies that are similar. Who cares what they think about Catholic music and Catholic tradition? I’m sick of seeing Catholic identity ripped to shreds to accommodate people who would only want to go to Mass if it was a concert. This philosophy seems to be quite common. ‘Water down the Dogmas’ so heretics and dissidents feel more at home; de-emphasise the Blessed Virgin Mary to make protestants feel more at home; cease teaching important parts of the faith like Heaven and Hell and Judgement so that the ‘feel good warm and fuzzies’ crowd isn’t offended, etc.

We need to re-claim our Catholic identity and lowering our standards of ‘sacred music’ does not help.

Stop attacking a straw-man. I never said or implied anything you said above.

Why is it that all you’re doing is going to the other extreme? There are plenty of good Catholic hymns (you may not like them, but that doesn’t make them heretical) that express Catholicism and are easier to sing for a congregation. Example: Immaculate Mary, it’s in the hymnal, and we’ve sung it before.

Exactly! It’s so sad today that you actually have to shop for a Catholic church that embraces and profoundly screams its Catholic identity and heritage with pride.

Let me translate for you:

“I have to look around for a parish that I consider to be Catholic enough according to my strict traditional definition of Catholicism” (you have “trad” in your name, that’s where I’m taking it from).

 

[YoungTradCath]

Let me translate for you:

“I have to look around for a parish that I consider to be Catholic enough according to my strict traditional definition of Catholicism” (you have “trad” in your name, that’s where I’m taking it from).

I’m not sure how people somehow deduce that Catholic identity and heritage is determined by forty out of 2,000 years of history. That’s contrived and manufactured, probably in order to make everyone feel good and fuzzy about stuff. I’m sorry to tell you, but the definition of Catholicism is no different now than it was 100 years ago. Catholic identity is inseparable from tradition, and I find it questionable that people want to try to change it to fit a “modern world.”

There is nothing wrong with hymns necessarily, but when they are so strikingly different from music in the past, we have to ask ourselves if our motivations are prudent and if we are doing what we are doing out of sheer, unbridled emotion not rooted in thought. Oh, relativism.

 

[Cat]

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.

 

[Tridentinum]

Stop attacking a straw-man. I never said or implied anything you said above.

Why is it that all you’re doing is going to the other extreme? There are plenty of good Catholic hymns (you may not like them, but that doesn’t make them heretical) that express Catholicism and are easier to sing for a congregation. Example: Immaculate Mary, it’s in the hymnal, and we’ve sung it before.

Firstly, I was not attacking a straw man. I was criticizing the philosophy that you were implying when you said “That’s your opinion. I find that making the music modern mades it accessible. It can have the effect of bring people more into the Mass and more into that prayerful tone”, and giving examples of that same philosophy being applied in other areas.

You said “For some people, yes more traditional things like chant may bring them more into the Mass, but for a lot more people it’s going to alienate them and push them away. They may not be well catechized Catholics, but they are still Catholics, and just writing them off because they don’t “get it” is not an acceptable approach”, implying that we should have low standards of Sacred Music that has Catholic identity in order to not alienate non-Catechized Catholics.

Secondly, ‘Immaculate Mary’ is not ‘modern’ music. It is a traditional Catholic hymn.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Singing and chanting is actually the right way to do Liturgy. It is the norm, not the option.

 

[curlycool89]

I’m not sure how people somehow deduce that Catholic identity and heritage is determined by forty out of 2,000 years of history. That’s contrived and manufactured, probably in order to make everyone feel good and fuzzy about stuff. I’m sorry to tell you, but the definition of Catholicism is no different now than it was 100 years ago. Catholic identity is inseparable from tradition, and I find it questionable that people want to try to change it to fit a “modern world.”

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.

There is nothing wrong with hymns necessarily, but when they are so strikingly different from music in the past, we have to ask ourselves if our motivations are prudent and if we are doing what we are doing out of sheer, unbridled emotion not rooted in thought. Oh, relativism.

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.

Firstly, I was not attacking a straw man. I was criticizing the philosophy that you were implying when you said “That’s your opinion. I find that making the music modern mades it accessible. It can have the effect of bring people more into the Mass and more into that prayerful tone”, and giving examples of that same philosophy being applied in other areas.

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.