Question for Lifeteen supporters

[benedictgal]

You have yet to prove that contemporary music, either all or specific compositions, can not pass said guidelines. Citing a document without establishing a negative relationship between the guidelines contained therein and the music in question does not constitute a proof.

Actually, it does. It explains what the particular guidelines are and how such genre is not fit to “cross the threshold” as Pope Paul VI noted. I have indeed established the negative relationship. Again, the burden of proof now falls on those who claim that this type of music is suitable.

Furthermore, scripture was cited as justification for this kind of music. Just because it is noted in the Old Testament, that is not to say that we are bound to it. The sacrifice of bullocks, lambs and turtle doves is mentioned. Does that mean that we have to do that today? Of course not. Eating pork is forbidden in the Old Testament. Are we bound to that today? If that were the case, it would put some really fine BBQ establishments out of business.

The Church is the New Israel. The Sacrifice of the True Lamb of God is what we witness at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is any of that reflected in CCM? No. CCM does not have a concept of the sacrificial worship of the Church. It does not have the concept that we are there at Calvary at every Mass, just as present at the Crucifixion as the Blessed Mother, Sts. John and Mary Magdalene were. Nor does it take into account that the True Worship of the Church consists in both the Word and the Sacrifice. This particular genre is Protestant in nature. It is more performance driven because Protestant services center on the Word, a lot of singing, and a lot of preaching, but, no sacrifice. We have both the Word and the Sacrifice. Lex orandi, lex credendi. We pray as we believe. The music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has to reflect that.

Does CCM also take into account (and are the teens even taught this) that at every Mass, we are joined and surrounded by a cloud of unseen witnesses and that the Church is not only made up of the warm bodies in the pews? The Church Triumphant (the saints in heaven) and the Church Suffering (the souls in purgatory) are united with us (the Church Militant). So, it is not just about us, it is about the entire Church. Most of this genre is just about the individual relationship with Jesus, while ignoring the Corporate, the Body of Christ, and that Body is also made up of the unseen faithful as well as the seen.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Which documents have you read? Have you read Musicam Sacram, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, the Motu Propio of St. Pius X, or the letter that Pope John Paul II wrote to mark that Motu Propio’s centennary? These documents give a clear picture of what should be used and what should not be used.

Yes, I have read these documents, and agree with them 100%. None of them excludes contemporary christian music.

Gregorian Chant is not entertaining.

Personally, I find it very entertaining and uplifting. What is entertaining to one person may not be entertaining to another.

Remember, too, that we are not a sola scriputa Church. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. Furthermore, we are also based on Sacred Tradition. Gregorian Chant, which takes its form from the chants of Ancient Israel, is the Sacred Music proper to the New Israel, that is to say, the Church.

It is true that we are not a sola scriptura church. However, Sacred Scripture is the Word and God, and the standard by which all Church teaching will be measured. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit against issuing any teaching that contradicts Sacred Scripture.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I have read these documents, and agree with them 100%. None of them excludes contemporary christian music.

Personally, I find it very entertaining and uplifting. What is entertaining to one person may not be entertaining to another.

It is true that we are not a sola scriptura church. However, Sacred Scripture is the Word and God, and the standard by which all Church teaching will be measured. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit against issuing any teaching that contradicts Sacred Scripture.

You have yet to establish that the documents allow for this kind of genre. You have yet to point out in the documents that this is indeed true. And, you have not answered my question. If such a genre were permitted, why would the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist call the music used at Youth Masses a shadow? Why would the Holy Father, in his Apostolic Exhortation, which is more than a personal opinion, but a bonafide Church document, specifically state that one song is not as good as another as far as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned?

Evidently, Pope John Paul II and the Church do not find Gregorian merely entertaining. As Pope John Paul II noted:

. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

Thus, Gregorian Chant has a very long history, dating back to the Church Fathers, as Pope John Paul noted.

Tradition is also the standard by which all Church teaching is measured, not just Scripture. Tradition exitsed before Scripture. Remember that the Gospels were not committed to writing until about the year 50. St. Paul did not start writing his Epistles until a few years earlier. Remember, too, that he urged the communities to hold fast to the Traditions they were taught.

 

[Michael_Welter]

That is a bit of a stretch. However, we were one Church at that time. Furthermore, Gregorian Chant finds its roots in the chanting of the psalms by Ancient Israel.

Actually, all music finds it’s roots in ancient music.

Contemporary Christian Music is Protestant, by nature.

That’s simply not true. The are many, many contemporary Catholic composers producing music today. Not all of this music is suitable for Mass, but some of it is.

You have yet to provide any authoritative document of the Holy See to prove your point.

I have twice quoted Sacred Scripture, the greatest Church document of all.

Even if the most modern of songs were to be incorporated into the Mass, it must still pass the guidelines set forth in the documents of the Holy See.

Agreed. In fact, I think you and I are closer together than you may think. Yes, even CCM must meet the guidelines set forth by the Church in order to be used at Mass. Many of today’s Catholic composers are producing music for Mass that is rubbish. However, there is a significant body of contemporary music that does meet the guidelines set forth by the Church.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Tradition is also the standard by which all Church teaching is measured, not just Scripture. Tradition exitsed before Scripture. Remember that the Gospels were not committed to writing until about the year 50. St. Paul did not start writing his Epistles until a few years earlier. Remember, too, that he urged the communities to hold fast to the Traditions they were taught.

Most of Scripture was written thousands of years before St. Paul wrote his epistles.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, all music finds it’s roots in ancient music.

That’s simply not true. The are many, many contemporary Catholic composers producing music today. Not all of this music is suitable for Mass, but some of it is.

I have twice quoted Sacred Scripture, the greatest Church document of all.

Agreed. In fact, I think you and I are closer together than you may think. Yes, even CCM must meet the guidelines set forth by the Church in order to be used at Mass. Many of today’s Catholic composers are producing music for Mass that is rubbish. However, there is a significant body of contemporary music that does meet the guidelines set forth by the Church.

However, the scriptural passage that you quoted is not geared at all toward the discussion. It is constantly used by folks who support this particular genre. As I noted earlier, just because something is found in the Old Testament, we are not bound by it.

Furthermore, David was not referring to the cultic worship of Ancient Israel, which had a very structured form of liturgy not unlike what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is. The Lord did not spend too little time with Moses dictating just how He should be worshipped. The rituals purifications, the vestures of the priest, the solemnity of the sacrifice prefigure the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This was a very solemn act that Ancient Israel, and God, for that matter, took very seriously. Any infraction on the part of Ancient Israel was not tolerated by God, as evidenced by Aaron’s sons and Dathan.

The Church’s two pillars are Scripture and Tradition. One is just as important as the other. That is what separates us from the Protestants.

Furthermore, even if some of the CCM composers were Catholic, that does not automatically mean that such music should be used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You conceded that point.

However, as I have said repeatedly, if CCM were not problematic, why would the Synod Fathers have an issue with the music used at Youth Masses? This is not merely personal opinion. This was a serious topic addressed during the Synod. You have yet to address that point.

 

[benedictgal]

Most of Scripture was written thousands of years before St. Paul wrote his epistles.

Yes, but, it was not officially assembled by the Church. until about the 4th century. In other words, the Church existed long before what we know now as the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.

Furthermore, again, we have to examine the context on which the particular psalm was written. It was not written as part of the cultic worship of Israel. The cultic worship of Israel included the chanting of prayers. There is no indication that what was mentioned in the psalm you used to justify your argument was used in the sacrificial portion.

 

[Leopard]

Actually, it does. It explains what the particular guidelines are and how such genre is not fit to “cross the threshold” as Pope Paul VI noted. I have indeed established the negative relationship. Again, the burden of proof now falls on those who claim that this type of music is suitable…

The keyword “threshold” does not appear in the document you linked to, so I can not verify your claim. Please provide another link to the correct document, or an exact quote of the paragraph(s) referred to in this document. It’s late and I don’t feel like digging through all 18 pages right now. Thank you.

 

[Michael_Welter]

However, the scriptural passage that you quoted is not geared at all toward the discussion. It is constantly used by folks who support this particular genre. As I noted earlier, just because something is found in the Old Testament, we are not bound by it.

All Scripture is the Word of God, even the Old Testament.

However, as I have said repeatedly, if CCM were not problematic, why would the Synod Fathers have an issue with the music used at Youth Masses? This is not merely personal opinion. This was a serious topic addressed during the Synod. You have yet to address that point.

The Bishops have not banned all CCM. I will readily admit that some music used at Mass is not appropriate for Mass. But I stand by my previous statement. As long as a song meets the guidelines set down by the Church, it may be used at Mass. I think we agree on this point.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Yes, but, it was not officially assembled by the Church. until about the 4th century. In other words, the Church existed long before what we know now as the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.

The Word of God was the Word of God even before the Church declared it so.

Furthermore, again, we have to examine the context on which the particular psalm was written. It was not written as part of the cultic worship of Israel. The cultic worship of Israel included the chanting of prayers. There is no indication that what was mentioned in the psalm you used to justify your argument was used in the sacrificial portion.

True, but at the same time, God did not say, “Sing a new song unto the Lord, except in your highest form of worship.”

 

[benedictgal]

The keyword “threshold” does not appear in the document you linked to, so I can not verify your claim. Please provide another link to the correct document, or an exact quote of the paragraph(s) referred to in this document. It’s late and I don’t feel like digging through all 18 pages right now. Thank you.

This is from the Chirograph on Sacred Music that Pope John Paul II wrote. He quotes Pope Paul VI:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

If you can read Italian, this is the text of the remarks of Pope Paul VI where he makes the direct reference to the threshold.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760920_xxii-congresso-santa-cecilia_it.html

I need to read the text slowly, as my Italian is somewhat limited and it is late. I will print it out in a few hours to give you a rough translation as there does not exist an English version of the speech.

 

[benedictgal]

The Word of God was the Word of God even before the Church declared it so.

True, but at the same time, God did not say, “Sing a new song unto the Lord, except in your highest form of worship.”

Tradition also comes from the inspiration of God. You are right that God did not say “Sing a new song unto the Lord”; David wrote that.

Furthermore, St. Peter was given the power to bind and loose. Thus, the Church, through the Petrine Ministry of the Pope, exercised her authority to declare what was to be included in the Canon of Scripture and what was to be set aside. Thus, she did, through the workings of the Holy Spirit, declare what was truly Scripture and what was not. To not recognize that the Church does indeed have the authority to declare what is and what is not the Word of God would be akin to Protestantism. Remember, the Protestants extracted what the Church declared as the Word of God when they trimmed the books of the Bible. Would your argument then justify what the Protestants did? After all, they, too, said that the Word of God was the Word of God before the Church could declare it.

As I said, I have yet to see you cite the authoritative documents of the Holy See that would make your case.

You have yet to address the concerns listed by the Synod Fathers and the Holy Father’s response fo those concerns.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Tradition also comes from the inspiration of God. You are right that God did not say “Sing a new song unto the Lord”; David wrote that.

David wrote it, but it is the Word of God.

As I said, I have yet to see you cite the authoritative documents of the Holy See that would make your case.

Scripture is an authoritative document from the Holy See. However, you have yet to quote an authoritative document stating your case that all CCM should be avoided in the Mass.

It’s late, and I have enjoyed discussing this with you. But now, I need to get some sleep. Have a blessed night, my friend.

 

[benedictgal]

All Scripture is the Word of God, even the Old Testament.

The Bishops have not banned all CCM. I will readily admit that some music used at Mass is not appropriate for Mass. But I stand by my previous statement. As long as a song meets the guidelines set down by the Church, it may be used at Mass. I think we agree on this point.

The bishops have not made a clear-cut statement regarding the use of CCM because when they were working on Sing to the Lord, the document that was supposed to bring the United States into compliance, the text was hijacked by both the Federation for Diocesan Liturgical Commissions and the National Pastoral Musicians. These were some of what appeared in a powerpoint presentation that was on the USCCB website (but later pulled down):

An indistinct treatment of the ecclesial context of Catholic beliefs and magisterial teachings?

Do the texts give insufficient emphasis to God’s initiative in the world with a corresponding overemphasis on human action?

Is there a sufficient recognition of the transforming effects of grace?

The committee also took a sampling of the 20 most popular songs. This is what they found:

Names for God: The first question asked in examining the songs was what names they used to refer to God. Here a full range of biblical titles were used, though “Father” was used only 10% of the time.

Trinitarian structure? None of the songs referred to the three persons of the Blessed Trinity or utilized a “Trinitarian structure.”

Is there a sufficient attention to the Trinity and to the Trinitarian structure of Catholic beliefs and teachings? Do our liturgical songs fail at times to present the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian faith? Does the language used in referring to the Persons of the Trinity contribute at times to a lack of clarity? Is there a reluctance to use “Father” for the first person of the Blessed Trinity? Is the relationship between Jesus and the Father stressed sufficiently? Are there times when the word “God” is placed in a sentence where one would expect to find “Father” or “God the Father” since the reference is precisely to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity?

Is there an obscured presentation of the centrality of Christ in salvation history and an insufficient emphasis on the divinity of Christ? Do our liturgical songs present Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of God’s plan for our salvation? Is the indispensable place of the incarnation in the plan of salvation sufficiently presented? Is Jesus the Savior often overshadowed by Jesus the teacher, model, friend, and brother? Is there an appropriate balance? Is there an imbalance in our emphasis on the humanity or divinity of Jesus Christ? At times, can we detect a negative undertone in speaking of the divine nature of Christ, as if divinity is equated with being “distant and unreal.”

Here is the criteria that was supposed to have been set forth:

Individual songs should be consonant with Catholic teaching and free from theological error

The repertoire of liturgical songs in any given setting should not manifest a collective bias against Catholic theological elements.

When the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship surveyed the songs out there today, this is what they found:

Christological? Only 35% of the songs referred to Christ.

Emphasizes Individual or Larger Church? 55% of the songs emphasized the individual believer, 35% emphasized concerns of the larger Church, while 10% were centered exclusively on praise of God.

It also conducted a sampling of theological critiques of individual songs:

The Day of Pentecost Arrives
Verse 3: Our inhibitions make us die to you and to our friends.
Aren’t some inhibitions actually good, enabling us to live for God and our friends?

Let all Mortal Flesh
The first and third verses of this hymn have been altered to eliminate apparently archaic language and in inclusive the text. The original text said: Christ our God to earth decsendeth and As the Light of light descendeth—present tenses. These, however, have been changed to past tenses[descended] to eliminate the archaic language, causing the loss of the critically important notion of Christ’s continuous coming among us, especially in the Holy Eucharist.

Sing Praise to Our Creator
The original text spoke of being “baptized into his grace,” but was changed for the sake of vertical inclusively to: “baptized in living grace.” What does this mean?

Unfortunately, the lobbying efforts worked and the document lost a good deal of its teeth. In the end. the document did not get the necessary votes of the Latin-Rite bishops that are required to send it to the Holy See for the necessary recogitio. What we have is only a teaching document with no teeth to it. Thus, it is not binding since it does not have the recognitio of the Holy See.

I was blessed enough to attend the Gateway Liturgical Conference whwen I was in St. Louis, MO, last November. After Archbishop Malcolm Rannjith, the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, delivered the keynote address, I was able to ask him a question off-stage. I told him about the concerns that I had with the poor quality of music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially the P&W genre. He was familiar with this and shared my concerns. He told me that there will be a forthcoming document from the Holy See to address these issues. Even though Rome does not act swiftly, he told me that it will come out this (2009) year.

 

[benedictgal]

David wrote it, but it is the Word of God.

Scripture is an authoritative document from the Holy See. However, you have yet to quote an authoritative document stating your case that all CCM should be avoided in the Mass.

It’s late, and I have enjoyed discussing this with you. But now, I need to get some sleep. Have a blessed night, my friend.

David wrote this in praise of God, but, he was not a man-plume. Nonetheless, the argument that you are using does not work because, again, David was not referring to cultic worship. The two are altogether very different. What he wrote about was outside of the sphere of the cultic, sacrificial and priestly worship of Ancient Israel.

A lot of people use this to justify the strange thingis that go on in the Mass, not realizing that this is very different from the cultic form of worship of Ancient Israel, which was structured and solemn, not unlike our Mass. If someone from Ancient Israel were to find himself in the New Israel, that is to say, the Church, he would actually recognize a lot of things such as the vesture (even though the chasuble has its Roman origins, but, the general idea comes from the Levitical priesthood), the ablutions, the incense, the vessels, the prayers and even the Sacrificial element. But, the chanting would be most familiar because this was the prayer of Ancient Israel, sans cymbols, tamborines and drums.

Other folks use David’s dancing as justification for liturgical dance. But, as the Congregation for Divine Worship notes, there is no tradition in the Western (Latin) Church for dancing. Thus even the CDWDS does not consider the Davidic reference to be justification for liturgical dance.

It’s been nice sparring with you. I am up late with an ill Boston Terrier and Dachshund. They are asleep now, so I can rest. I have to get up in five hours.

 

[Cat]

benedictgirl, there are an awful lot of church musicians who read the same documents you do and come to completely different conclusions about contemporary Christian music. Are you right and ALL of them are wrong?

I read those documents before I ever heard of CAF or you. I was thrilled because they obviously endorsed the use of contemporary music in the Mass. Call me stupid, but I simply do not see what you see in these documents. You have a very narrow interpretation of these documents, and I think that most Catholic musicians in most parishes would utterly disagree with you.

Of course, you might truly be the only correct musician in the United States. Well, God will make things right if that’s the case and eventually bring His Church into line with your interpretation.

But I think it’s more likely that YOU are incorrect and all these other church musicians are correct, that the Church documents allow many styles of music in the Mass, and that the “holiness” of the music is up to the Bishop and priests of any given diocese.

I feel bad for you. You are bound to find fault with most music used in most Masses in the U.S., and you can’t grasp the point of view of others and understand that they find many different hymns and styles of music holy and faith-filled, just as you (and Pope Benedict XVI) find certain styles and hymns holy and faith-filled. It is sad that on this earth in the U.S. you are so seldom going to find a Mass that you actually approve of.

I prefer to revel in the Mass in whatever form it is prayed, and to enjoy ALL the styles of music, sing lustfully ALL the hymns and other music (although I have been singing the ENGLISH translation of the Latin hymns when they are done–hope that’s OK), and to worship the Lord through whatever Mass music the priest and his staff choose to offer.

There are plenty of people in the congregation who will willingly point out any “abuses” or “irreverences” in any given Mass. I will gladly allow them to do this work.

Again, you have not answered my question, but I understand that you have been busy defending yourself against Michael Welter and Leopard.

My point is, that YOU or any layman is NOT in charge of approving music for the Holy Mass or deciding which music has “a sense of faith.” That is the responsibility of the bishop. In many cases, the bishop delegates this task to a trusted invidual (or perhaps a committee), and THEY are given the authority.

Certainly laypeople can disagree. But they are NOT in the position to reject the authoritative decisions of these appointed ones.

You have spoken many times of a conference that you attended, a bishop that you spoke with, and hinted that certain “announcements” would soon be forthcoming. If and when these “announcements” do come forth, I’m betting my new piano (my husband bought me a Yamaha upright with his bonus check!) that they will allow for a lot more styles of music and hymns and composers than you’ve ever dreamed of.

I cannot imagine the bishops in the U.S. throwing out hymnals that have been in use for many decades and stating that they are “inappropriate for Mass.” They tried that once before when they got rid of the Latin Mass, and people are still reeling over it.

Don’t you see? If they throw out all of those hymns, they will essentially be telling Catholics in the U.S. that for 40 years, they’ve been singing drivel in the Mass and failing to honor God. That’s a pretty broad stroke. I think a lot of Catholics, including priests and religious, will feel rather devastated to learn this. They will wonder why the Holy Spirit didn’t reveal it a whole lot earlier and stop them from singing bad stuff. This will cause them to doubt many teachings of the Church and to wonder when the word will come down that certain other teachings are “wrong.” (Just like Vatican II.)

I suspect that the announcement will take a much more moderate approach, and merely reiterate the directive to try to include more chant (not just Gregorian) and more Latin in the Mass so that the Catholic Church can retain its heritage and honor its history.

 

[Cat]

For all of you who are shocked, horrified, saddened, etc. by the statement that some teens would stop attending Mass if not for the Life Teen Mass…

…I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of posts, over the last few years, over in the Traditional Section, from Catholics who bewail and berate the OF Mass and claim that they have STOPPED ATTENDING MASS rather than attend these irreverent OF Masses.

They drive many miles to attend a TLM (that’s fine, if they have the money for gas). Or they attend schismatic Masses or even sedevacantist (spelling?) groups.

It’s OK for them to have these extreme preferences in Mass, but not for teens?

Please stop criticizing the young people. If you knew anything about teenagers, you would know that one characteristic of the teen years is a tendency to see everything as “black and white, with no gray areas.”

Also, have a care for their souls. The Vatican has NOT forbidden Life Teen Masses–far from it. If teenagers prefer to attend these Masses while they are teenagers, what business is it of yours? The Graces of the Holy Mass are theirs at a Life Teen Mass as much as if they were attending the highest TLM.

Put yourself in the shoes of the parents of teenagers–how heartbreaking when their teens lose interest in the Church and Jesus. And how wonderful when their teens are willing to attend Life Teen Mass instead of staying home or attending a Protestant fellowship or getting involved in sinful activities.

Perhaps you raised “good teenagers” who understood the Holy Mass and loved the Old Ways. Well, that’s wonderful and you should definitely count your blessings. But lots of really good, solid, Catholic parents are praying through tears and pleading with the Blessed Mother that their teens will survive their teen years and somehow make it to heaven instead of going to hell on a handsled.

When you rescue someone from death, you don’t worry about how pretty the rescue looks, or whether you rescued them “correctly.” You just reach out a hand and snatch them back to life. IMO, that’s what Life Teen does for some teenagers–a true James 5 action. Who are YOU to criticize the work of the Holy Spirit?

Honestly, I’m betting that some of you would have condemned St. Francis for creating the creche at Christmas because it was “different than the traditional form of the Mass.”

 

[Adonis33]

For all of you who are shocked, horrified, saddened, etc. by the statement that some teens would stop attending Mass if not for the Life Teen Mass…

…I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of posts, over the last few years, over in the Traditional Section, from Catholics who bewail and berate the OF Mass and claim that they have STOPPED ATTENDING MASS rather than attend these irreverent OF Masses.

They drive many miles to attend a TLM (that’s fine, if they have the money for gas). Or they attend schismatic Masses or even sedevacantist (spelling?) groups.

It’s OK for them to have these extreme preferences in Mass, but not for teens?

Please stop criticizing the young people. If you knew anything about teenagers, you would know that one characteristic of the teen years is a tendency to see everything as “black and white, with no gray areas.”

Also, have a care for their souls. The Vatican has NOT forbidden Life Teen Masses–far from it. If teenagers prefer to attend these Masses while they are teenagers, what business is it of yours? The Graces of the Holy Mass are theirs at a Life Teen Mass as much as if they were attending the highest TLM.

Put yourself in the shoes of the parents of teenagers–how heartbreaking when their teens lose interest in the Church and Jesus. And how wonderful when their teens are willing to attend Life Teen Mass instead of staying home or attending a Protestant fellowship or getting involved in sinful activities.

Perhaps you raised “good teenagers” who understood the Holy Mass and loved the Old Ways. Well, that’s wonderful and you should definitely count your blessings. But lots of really good, solid, Catholic parents are praying through tears and pleading with the Blessed Mother that their teens will survive their teen years and somehow make it to heaven instead of going to hell on a handsled.

When you rescue someone from death, you don’t worry about how pretty the rescue looks, or whether you rescued them “correctly.” You just reach out a hand and snatch them back to life. IMO, that’s what Life Teen does for some teenagers–a true James 5 action. Who are YOU to criticize the work of the Holy Spirit?

Honestly, I’m betting that some of you would have condemned St. Francis for creating the creche at Christmas because it was “different than the traditional form of the Mass.”

What some people feel about the OF has absolutley no bearing on this discussion.

I do not like Lefeteen - having been to many of their masses (out of necessity). If that is whay they like - then that is what they like.

However - whenever I hear somebody state “they would not go to Mass if not for Lifeteen” that either means their faith is weak - and they are going to mass for the wrong reason - or that particular Lifeteen program is a failure.

 

[kage_ar]

If someone decides to stop attending Mass because they cannot hear the language spoken that they like - be it Latin or English or Portuguese - or because they can’t hear CCM songs, I pray for a conversion for that person. They have put their faith in the externals, not in God and His Church.

A holy Priest, the proper matter, form and intent and Mass is heaven on earth. Mass with no music is still glorious.

As a convert, I simply cannot understand why some Catholics think that music that was not written for, about or with knowledge of Mass is okay for Mass.

Worship is about more than emotional music.

 

[shannyk]

Having attended a couple of CCM/Life Teen masses, here is an example of songs that have no business in Mass that I have heard during Mass:

Our God is an Awesome God
Trading My Sorrows
The Heart of Worship
The Happy Song

Even something like Sanctuary - it is so “I” “Me” focused, that it is iffy for use in Mass.

Seriously? They are singing these songs at MASS???

Where are the adults that are supposed to know better?