Question for Lifeteen supporters

[benedictgal]

First of all, since Cat’s post was quite too long, I will address what she noted.

Have any of you who support this genre read all of the documents of the Holy See, not the ones proposed by the USCCB, which carry no recognito from the Holy See and thus are only recommendations and not policy? Had the authoritative documents of the Holy See, dating back to Pope St. Pius X?

Pope St. Pius X noted that music needed to be purified. Pope John Paul II reiterated that same message 100 years later. Two years later, the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist raised the concerns about music used at Youth Masses. If things were on the up and up, such concerns would not have had to be noted.

As for the conference I attended, it was not some ordinary prelate who spoke to me; rather, it was the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the second-highest ranking official of that Curial Office of the Holy See. In fact, the text of the speech that he delivered during that Conference backs up the problems that we are having with the Mass. I privately asked him a follow-up question regarding the state of music and how it fits with his remarks, given the fact that some genres have gone downhill. He understood my concerns and told me that a document from Rome would be forthcoming.

Furthermore, if you were to have taken the time to read the initial powerpoint that the USCCB put out regarding music, you will find that the Conference did, in fact, find a lot of problems with the state of music today. Unfortunately, two groups, the FDLC and the NPM decided to maintain the status quo and managed to get a watered down document passed that did not even get enough votes to gain the necessary recognito from the Holy See (this would have given it teeth).

Thus, the standards are there, but, I do not believe that some will be ready for the reality check when it comes from Rome.

While the Vatican has not forbidden LifeTeen Masses, it has had the group clean up the Mass. The rock-party atmosphere was supposed to have ended (this probably should have stretched into the genre) and the kids were not supposed to gather around the altar. But, as these threads have attested, that apparently is still happening, despite what Rome has said.

 

[jmcrae]

The majority of CCM songs could be mistaken for popular love songs - and while the words “Jesus is my boyfriend” don’t actually appear in the lyrics, the sense of this idea is strongly present - and seems to be at least a secondary cause of why our young men are not merely drifting away from the Church, but are actually running away. (Can you blame them?)

I think that more Gregorian chant, and even if it were sung in Latin, would bring in the boys, because in my experience, boys are naturally drawn to tradition - look at the games they play - Knights Cavalier, Cities and Empires, Cajetan, and the like.

 

[benedictgal]

The majority of CCM songs could be mistaken for popular love songs - and while the words “Jesus is my boyfriend” don’t actually appear in the lyrics, the sense of this idea is strongly present - and seems to be at least a secondary cause of why our young men are not merely drifting away from the Church, but are actually running away. (Can you blame them?)

I think that more Gregorian chant, and even if it were sung in Latin, would bring in the boys, because in my experience, boys are naturally drawn to tradition - look at the games they play - Knights Cavalier, Cities and Empires, Cajetan, and the like.

You do have a good point.

It reminds me of that episode of South Park where the boys were trying to be a Christian Rock band. They got the idea that if they just substituted words for Jesus, it would be enough. I don’t watch South Park much, but, a priest friend of mine does and we both kind of laughed.

Furthermore, if I can go back to the issue that was raised about criteria, I believe that had the bishops held fast to the original version of Sing to the Lord, what was in the poiwer point would certainly have made a bigger impact. Incidentally, when the USCCB reviewed a sampling of songs, they used the criteria that I mentioned in my very early morning post.

 

[kage_ar]

The majority of CCM songs could be mistaken for popular love songs - and while the words “Jesus is my boyfriend” don’t actually appear in the lyrics, the sense of this idea is strongly present - and seems to be at least a secondary cause of why our young men are not merely drifting away from the Church, but are actually running away. (Can you blame them?)

.

At the birth of CCM, the 70’s and early 80’s, it was very popular to take secular love songs, toss in a couple of references to “Lord” or “Jesus” and sing it at church.

I know I sang “You Light Up My Life” in protestant services more times than I can count.

One of the most memorable was when I heard…

Lionel Richey “Truly” (I’m truly, truly in love with you Lord…)

Funny that CCM has not really changed since 1984, yet, it is considered “new” and kewl and in and trendy by some

 

[Leopard]

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

“…4. 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…”

Thank you.

This quote does indeed establish the qualities that liturgical music must possess (holiness as reference point, sense of prayer, dignity, beauty, etc.). It does not however, prove that any other forms of music or specific musical compositions can not or do not possess those qualities in any manner that Gregorian Chant does possess them. For that matter, this quote does not prove that Gregorian Chant possesses these required qualities either.

No relationship between the music in question and the guidelines in question has yet been proven. All we still have at this point are opinions.

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you.

This quote does indeed establish the qualities that liturgical music must possess (holiness as reference point, sense of prayer, dignity, beauty, etc.). It does not however, prove that any other forms of music or specific musical compositions can not or do not possess those qualities in any manner that Gregorian Chant does possess them. For that matter, this quote does not prove that Gregorian Chant possesses these required qualities either.

No relationship between the music in question and the guidelines in question has yet been proven. All we still have at this point are opinions.

Did you not read what I had posted very early this morning from the USCCB where they took a sampling of some songs and found some serious deficiencies?

The USCCB took as its starting point, Liturgiam Authenticam, the same document that is currently the driving force behind the new translation of the Roman Missal. Part and parcel of this was a serious discussion on the state of liturgical music.

You have yet to address the matter of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist where the bishops, themselves, listed as a finding and a shadow, their concerns with the music used at Youth Masses. That should give you a big indication that there is a problem with this particular Genre. Furthermore, the Holy Father, writing in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff, acknowledged this issue in Sacramentum Caritatis in words not disimilar to what he used in the quote from the OP. Sacramentum Caritatis is an official document of the Holy See and not the Holy Father’s personal opinion.

 

[Leopard]

Did you not read what I had posted very early this morning from the USCCB where they took a sampling of some songs and found some serious deficiencies?..

I don’t doubt it. If these deficiencies are due to lyrics, this should be easy enough to determine. But I am still talking about music, not lyrics. The quoted guidelines still do not prove that that contemporary music does meet the qualifications for liturgical use. They do not establish what tempos are obligatory or forbidden. They do not establish what range the notes must fall within or must not fall within. They do not define what patterns of modulation may or may not be used, and why or why not. General principles are expressed, such as that Liturgical music must be dignified and beautiful, but these terms are not objectively defined.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t doubt it. If these deficiencies are due to lyrics, this should be easy enough to determine. But I am still talking about music, not lyrics. The quoted guidelines still do not prove that that contemporary music does meet the qualifications for liturgical use. They do not establish what tempos are obligatory or forbidden. They do not establish what range the notes must fall within or must not fall within. They do not define what patterns of modulation may or may not be used, and why or why not. General principles are expressed, such as that Liturgical music must be dignified and beautiful, but these terms are not objectively defined.

Dignified and beautiful mean that it should not be toe-tapping. Unfortunately, that is what I have witnessed when this type of music is used. “I Will Choose Christ” was performed during last Sunday’s Mass and the choir was tapping feet to the beat. This is not dignified nor beautiful and it certainly is not appropriate to use during the Lenten season.

I think that you should read the Motu Propio written by Pope St. Pius X that got this whole ball rolling. He tackled both opera and the theatrical genre. Opera is a style of music that is performace based and driven. The theatrical genre is also performance driven. Both of these crept into the liturgy during this time and he had to take steps to purify the music.

One hundred years later, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the problem has begun to creep into the Church once more. This was further acknowledged in the Instrumentum Laboris that the Fathers of the 2005 Synod used and the response that Pope Benedict XVI gave them, both of which I have posted in this thread.

 

[Leopard]

Dignified and beautiful mean that it should not be toe-tapping…

So a discordant cacophony is dignified and beautiful as long as it is not toe-tapping?

Your opinion may or may not be correct. Unfortunately we may never be able to know without further definite clarification from the Church, as I am not aware of any current liturgical documents which address the issue of toes, tapping or otherwise. Even if your opinion is correct, it merely raises the further question as to what defines toe-tapping as a musical quality. I whould not be surprised to learn that some people consider Gregorian Chant to be toe-tapping.

 

[benedictgal]

So a discordant cacophony is dignified and beautiful as long as it is not toe-tapping?

Your opinion may or may not be correct. Unfortunately we may never be able to know without further definite clarification from the Church, as I am not aware of any current liturgical documents which address the issue of toes, tapping or otherwise. Even if your opinion is correct, it merely raises the further question as to what defines toe-tapping as a musical quality. I whould not be surprised to learn that some people consider Gregorian Chant to be toe-tapping.

With all due respect, one should not be trite. Have you read the Motu Propio of Pope St. Pius X? He is not just looking at lyrics, but, at instruments as well.

Here is what he wrote:

VI. Organ and instruments
15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

1. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.

1. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.

1. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.

1. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

1. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the placeprovided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

1. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession.

Here are his prinicples on Sacred Music:

I General principles

1. Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.

1. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.

It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.

It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.

But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.

Here is something else that he notes:

Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.

1. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.

So, if you were to fast forward to 106 years after this document was written, you will find that the same problems persist, only opera and theater have been repleased by soft pop (CCM).

 

[Leopard]

With all due respect, one should not be trite…

I was not being trite. I was pointing out a logical conclusion of your definition of dignified and beautiful.

 

[benedictgal]

I was not being trite. I was pointing out a logical conclusion of your definition of dignified and beautiful.

Here is the beginning of the Motu Propio:

Among the cares of the pastoral office, not only of this Supreme Chair, which We, though unworthy, occupy through the inscrutable dispositions of Providence, but of every local church, a leading one is without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices. Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise – the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music. And indeed, whether it is owing to the very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself, or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time, or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art, or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained within the right limits, or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, prescribed by the end for which art is admitted to the service of public worship and which is set forth very clearly in the ecclesiastical Canons, in the Ordinances of the General and Provincial Councils, in the prescriptions which have at various times emanated from the Sacred Roman Congregations, and from Our Predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs.

Here is where the Holy Father starts to define the issue of beauty and decorum.