Rock Music at Mass

[Adonis33]

You have already made one mistake in questioning your pastor. Did you go through six + years of seminary? No you didn’t. Moving on. Soft rock and jazz and cultural praise songs are completely acceptable. Heavy metal and rap and music of this sort are out o the question.

What a wonderful way to handle an objection. “Oh yeah? Well I went to a seminary for over six years - so there!”

Where did you get the idea that soft rock and jazz are acceptable? Why not grunge? Or country?

 

[ethelzguy]

We tread on dangerous ground when we decide that statements made by Pontiffs (some deceased, some canonized and one who is a classically-trained musician) are mere opinions, even if their writings are official documents of the Church, as in the case of the Motu Propio on Sacred Music and Sacramentum Caritatis.

It is equally dangerous to assume that every statement is exclusionary and prohibitive beyond the statement itself.

The documents state preferences. They are not an exclusionary list. “Preference” is not “Mandatory”.

 

[Joe_5859]

Have you not read Pope St. Pius’ Motu Propio on Sacred Music. He pretty much had to clean up the musical condition of the Church at the beginning of the 20th century. Some 100 years later, Pope John Paul II said that, in essence, nothing has changed. In fact, he reminded us that liturgical music needs to be purified.

Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI ratified that when he noted in Sacramentum Caritatis that one song is not as good as another as far as the liturgy is concerned.

Benedictgal, I admit I have not read that particular document. I take it you are referring to the passages you excerpted in your later post?

First, I want to say that I agree 100% with what you are saying regarding the need to reform liturgical music. I would love to get away from using OCP/GIA folk music at Mass (or whatever song is popular on the local CCM station). I absolutely agree with Pius X, JP II, Benedict, and all that they are saying should be taken very seriously.

That being said, I question the effectiveness of the OP going to his pastor “armed” with these documents in the hopes of getting this type of music thrown out. First of all, taking a confrontational approach is an immediate turn-off to a priest. Unless the priest is extraordinarily humble, if you go up to him pointing to encyclicals (or this or that statement) and saying he needs to change the music style to conform to the rubrics, he’s probably going to tune you out and dismiss any and all future criticism out-of-hand. Second, the documents speak of caution in choosing music, but no where does it specifically say “Guitars may not be used,” “Drums may not be used,” etc. All the priest has to do is point that out and it makes it even easier for him to dismiss the OP’s concerns.

It seems to me that it would be the wrong approach and would probably only hurt the OP’s chances of making a change rather than help them. Of course, he knows his priest and their relationship better than I do, so it would be up to him to decide what approach would be best.

 

[Joe_5859]

What a wonderful way to handle an objection. “Oh yeah? Well I went to a seminary for over six years - so there!”

Where did you get the idea that soft rock and jazz are acceptable? Why not grunge? Or country?

To be fair, I don’t think SHF was referring to himself as having gone through 6 years of seminary, but rather to the OP’s parish priest (who would have gone through all that seminary in order to become a priest).

 

[nightwalker]

To be fair, I don’t think SHF was referring to himself as having gone through 6 years of seminary, but rather to the OP’s parish priest (who would have gone through all that seminary in order to become a priest).

I don’t think any one thinks he has, but many of us have had experiences with priests with this attitude.

Given that SHF is intending to pursue ordination, some are expressing concern that this attitude may survive or even be worsened in the course of formation. We need priests who are servants: of God, of the Liturgy, and of the people (in that order, IMHO).

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

To be fair, I don’t think SHF was referring to himself as having gone through 6 years of seminary, but rather to the OP’s parish priest (who would have gone through all that seminary in order to become a priest).

Hi Joe,

Even it SHF is referring to the Parish Priest, any parishioner would be turned off by that response.

But I definitely agree with your other post.

That being said, I question the effectiveness of the OP going to his pastor “armed” with these documents in the hopes of getting this type of music thrown out.

It seems to me that it would be the wrong approach and would probably only hurt the OP’s chances of making a change rather than help them. Of course, he knows his priest and their relationship better than I do, so it would be up to him to decide what approach would be best.

Since the actual instructions leave many options, and really leave it to the Pastor, since the Bishop usually does not interfere, the best approach would seem to be to just mention dissatisfaction with the music to the Pastor.

If many others also object, or if Mass attendence (or collection amount) drops, changes will be made. If not, there’s not much else to do.

A letter to the Bishop is not a good way to go, if a person plans on staying in the parish.

Lux

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think any one thinks he has, but many of us have had experiences with priests with this attitude.

Given that SHF is intending to pursue ordination, some are expressing concern that this attitude may survive or even be worsened in the course of formation. We need priests who are servants: of God, of the Liturgy, and of the people (in that order, IMHO).

Perhaps I misunderstood Adonis’ post. If so, I apologize.

Hi Joe,

Even it SHF is referring to the Parish Priest, any parishioner would be turned off by that response.

Very true. But it’s something for us lay people to keep in mind if we are approaching a priest. Even if doesn’t say it, the priest might be thinking such things, especially when approached by someone with Church documents in tow and a combative attitude. (“Look, I went through six years of seminary. I think I know what I’m doing!”)

Of course, there are ways to bring up Church documents in a more diplomatic, non-confrontational manner. The OP would have to figure out for himself if he could do that or if his priest would be receptive to it.

 

[SMHW]

Evidently, as far back as April 2008, Pope Benedict had expressed some issues regarding the music for WYD, as evidenced in an excerpt from this article in an Australian newspaper: Quote:
But Tracey Rowland, author of a recently published book about the Pope titled Ratzinger’s Faith, said ***Benedict was totally opposed to what he called “utility” music in the liturgy. ***

*** “Pope Benedict believes it’s unacceptable to use pop music as a carrot to get people to go to church,” she said. He was critical of rock music outside the mass as well, she said***.

Not to get too far off track, but I’m trying to understand the Pope’s thinking here. (At least as Tracey Rowland interprets it)… Does the Pope have a problem with rock music in general? Or just religious rock music?

I wish to momentarily focus on such music used outside of a liturgical setting. It would follow that if Pope Benedict objects to (Christian?) rock in general that he would find it particularly abhorrent during the Mass or other liturgies.

 

[VociMike]

It is equally dangerous to assume that every statement is exclusionary and prohibitive beyond the statement itself.

The documents state preferences. They are not an exclusionary list. “Preference” is not “Mandatory”.

A few simple questions: Do you acknowledge that the Church has declared a permanent standard and supreme model for her liturgical music? And do you acknowledge that some music used in liturgies approaches this standard more than other music used in liturgies, and that the music not approaching the standard is less worthy for use in the liturgy?

Finally, do you think parishes that are mostly using music that does not approach this standard should make an effort to use more music which does more closely approach this standard?

 

[Aramis]

This is absurd. Rock music is not a “local culture.” I wonder if you would feel the same if you attended Mass that featured rap and hip hop?

Mass is a time for prayer, penance, and the Sacrifice of Our Lord. If you want to go hear KISS, then go to a KISS concert.

I swear to goodness, I’ll never be able to understand how some can call themselves Catholic and stand for such nonsense. To say that something “is merely his opinion” in regards to the Pope’s comments about the liturgy of the Mass smacks of defiance. Rock music is no more conducive to prayer than polka, rap or jazz. Learn a little about your religion, huh?

Rap and Hip-Hop are far closer to church chant musically than is Rock.

And, having heard a tone-deaf monotone roman priest try to sing the canon of the mass… suffice it to say it was, effectively, rapping rather than singing.

Canon Law, as posted on the Vatican Web Site, and the GIRM for North America as promulgated by the USCCB and approved by Rome, both allow wide discretion in the musical forms to be used.

Pride of place (that is, recognition that it is the best form) is for Gregorian chant. Not organs, nor choirs in 4-8 part Bach-style chorales… simple Gregorian plainchant is the “best form”. But the use of other forms is allowed, as is the lack of music, to enable the church to draw others in.

I’ve seen “rock masses” where the music was reverent, and the mass done within the norms of the GIRM.

The missed lines, that’s an issue of professionalism and/or lack of practice, most of the time.

The Gloria, for reference, is OFTEN variant, even under pre-V II usage. There are dozens of variations, all approved by one bishop or another. It is not, however, required at all masses, even. (Sundays and Holydays, yes. See the GIRM, #53) And it’s not “just two lines”, either.

Gloria in exceslis Deo. Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te. Gratiam agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam. Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe. Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris,. Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis… Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis. Quoniam tu solus Sanctus. Tu solus Dominus. To solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe. Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris… Amen.
(copied from fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html)

Many choral versions repeat phrases within, and many from the 1700’s are in 4 part imitative polyphony.

The Gloria has ALSO become a common form of civil entertainment… I’ve sung more Latin Gloria editions in School than at church… (3 in HS, 4 in college, 2 in church, plus 5 english versions in church.)

The requisite singing of the people is a MINIMUM of one line, with the rest being sung by any and or all of The priest, the choir, and the people.

 

[benedictgal]

Not to get too far off track, but I’m trying to understand the Pope’s thinking here. (At least as Tracey Rowland interprets it)… Does the Pope have a problem with rock music in general? Or just religious rock music?

I wish to momentarily focus on such music used outside of a liturgical setting. It would follow that if Pope Benedict objects to (Christian?) rock in general that he would find it particularly abhorrent during the Mass or other liturgies.

Yes, he does. If you’ve read Spirit of the Liturgy, yoiu wiill find that he has devoted some words to the issue.

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. "Rock", on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.

This is not the first time he’s made that statement. He also panned Bob Dylan as well.

 

[ethelzguy]

Do you acknowledge that the Church has declared a permanent standard and supreme model for her liturgical music?

Another example of what I’ve been describing. While the Church has spoken of some forms of music as being “desirable”, I don’t see the term “supreme model” indicated anywhere in Church documents.

There are those, however, who choose to manipulate Church documents in an attempt to portray their personal tastes as being “supreme”, or some other form of absolute Church statement against things that don’t suit their personal tastes.

Cafeteria Elitism at its best.

 

[benedictgal]

Another example of what I’ve been describing. While the Church has spoken of some forms of music as being “desirable”, I don’t see the term “supreme model” indicated anywhere in Church documents.

There are those, however, who choose to manipulate Church documents in an attempt to portray their personal tastes as being “supreme”, or some other form of absolute Church statement against things that don’t suit their personal tastes.

Cafeteria Elitism at its best.

Actuallly, the documents indicate that the default music of the Church remains Gregorian Chant. This was ratified by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. If one is going to make the “elitist” charge, then, you would have to also apply it to the documents.

 

[ethelzguy]

Actuallly, the documents indicate that the default music of the Church remains Gregorian Chant. This was ratified by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. If one is going to make the “elitist” charge, then, you would have to also apply it to the documents.

The “elitism” charge is applied to those who arrogantly proclaim their preferred form or style to be superior to any other form, regardless of what is considered “default” as you put it. I have made no commentary on the veracity of the documents, or the Popes who authored them.

Nice try though.

Maybe you could show us all, where Church documents proclaim that Glory and Praise and Gather hymnals, accoustic and electric guitars, drums and tambourines, or electronic keyboards are prohibited?

Better yet, I’d settle for documentation that they are “undesireable”.

Clear statements, please. No extrapolated interpretations of the same cut and paste stuff that you’ve posted at least 17 times.

 

[benedictgal]

The “elitism” charge is applied to those who arrogantly proclaim their preferred form or style to be superior to any other form, regardless of what is considered “default” as you put it. I have made no commentary on the veracity of the documents, or the Popes who authored them.

Nice try though.

Maybe you could show us all, where Church documents proclaim that Glory and Praise and Gather hymnals, accoustic and electric guitars, drums and tambourines, or electronic keyboards are prohibited?

Better yet, I’d settle for documentation that they are “undesireable”.

Clear statements, please. No extrapolated interpretations of the same cut and paste stuff that you’ve posted at least 17 times.

Actually, I have repeatedly posted both the Motu Propio from Pope St. PIus X, the Chirograph on Sacred Music by Pope John Paul II and Sacramentum Caritatis from Pope Benedict XVI. You, yourself, have complained that I am repeatedly posting these items. However, they are valid documents of the Church. Inasmuch as you comoplain about my posting them, here is the quote from Sacramentum Caritatis:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

Furthermore, here is the Chirograph on Sacred Music, written by Pope John Paul II in 2003:

Here is the quote:

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.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. ***In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”***14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

Even Pope Paul VI, the Pontiff who concluded the Second Vatican Council, also spoke quite clearly when he said that not every form of music is fit to cross the threhold of the liturgy. Their own words give a clear indication of what does and what does not constitute sacred music.

 

[The_Smiter]

As the OP of this thread, I did not mean to open such a can of worms. I am sorry if my post came off as confrontational. It was not my intent. I am a 30 year plus member of the Knights of Columbus and take the defense of our clergy very seriously.

Perhaps the word “ammunition” might have been misleading, but I was only trying to describe and ask for things that I might use to educate myself and go to my parish priest with so that I could speak to him knowledgeably about the matter rather than just being seen as venting my opinion.

One of the greatest things about the Church is that it is so very basic and yet very complex at the same time. Music is not my passion and forte, but I am desirous of seeing it incorporated into the liturgy in an appropriate way. I grew up with the guitar Masses of the 70s and found them to very much to my liking and very reverent with respect to the music. But the idea that any kind of music is acceptable at Mass seems inherently ludicrous. The Mass is also my comfort away from all of the allowances of the world in which I have to operate on a daily basis. I can listen to rock music (and am subjected to all types of music as a high school teacher!) or any other kind of music any time. I can of course also choose to listen to sacred music, which I do as well. But the Mass should be a place that respects the Real Presence, and I am not sure that the tempo of the music, clapping, and gusto with which the musicians approach the playing of percussion instruments necessarily shows such respect.

I am not a prude and am not against change of any kind nor do I have a desire to simply have everyone revert to attending TLM. But music of this kind, when included in the liturgy, seems to provide a slippery slope on which many other changes that are even less reverent might be placed. Whether music is culturally relative, little “t” or big “T” tradition, or spelled out specifically by Papal decree, there are some things that just do not pass the smell test with respect to their inclusion in the Mass.

I think my biggest concern in the post was advice on how to approach my parish priest knowledgeably in order to engage him in dialogue. I believe that I can question the wisdom of administrative and even liturgical decisions made by my pastor while still being respectful. Too often it seems that when parisihioners experience changes with which they might feel uncomfortable and might disagree, they leave the parish and simply find another where they feel more at ease or welcome. This seems to be the attitude of most of the people who are concerned over the recent changes. I was simply trying to find a way that I might be able to suggest to my priest a different route for having people feel included in the process. It seemed odd that with the recent formation of his pastoral council that no one in the entire parish was aware of the change in musical styles until Sunday morning. Sometimes we all make decisions that are in hindsight ones we might not have made or might have executed in a different fashion upon further reflection or counsel. I was simply attempting to see if I might be a person who could provide some cohesion rather than discord in this matter.

For those of you who responded charitably and provided resources to peruse, I thank you - I have been busy reading. Others whose responses seemed less so - no worries. Perhaps I should begin using some smilies to convey a bit more of my intent as my words were not sufficient in this post. But the quasi-attacks on my intent or state of mind were not productive and are actually one of the reasons I do not post on this forum on a regular basis. Ad hominem responses seem to be evolving as more frequent kinds of reactions to the issues people ask and propose on this site.

I will continue to lurk and gain the wisdom I have from the hundreds of posts I have read over the last year and do seriously thank all of you who responded to this post.

I will return with the outcome of my eventual conversation with my priest and hope that you find the result - whatever the outcome - informative and useful for all of our continuing journeys in the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, to the OP, be glad you had good sounding music.

The past week, while I was on vacation, my wife and myself got to attend the 4:30PM Mass on Saturday, at our home parish, which we usually don’t get to attend.

The music, mostly older traditional hymns, was pathetic and so poorly done, that you would pray for a replacement of any style.

There was absolutely nothing uplifting or praise worthy in the music. No one sang except the organist and her husband and they were lousy.

If a non-Catholic decided to check out this Mass, to see what a Catholic service was like, they would’ve walked out and never returned.

In fact, this Mass would be better served with no music than what we had.

Jim

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Maybe you could show us all, where Church documents proclaim that Glory and Praise and Gather hymnals, accoustic and electric guitars, drums and tambourines, or electronic keyboards are prohibited?

Better yet, I’d settle for documentation that they are “undesireable”.

Clear statements, please. No extrapolated interpretations of the same cut and paste stuff that you’ve posted at least 17 times.

I agree. I would no more want contemporary Church music to disappear than chant. Chant only would not encourage singing by the congregation, which is indeed desirable.
GIRM

The Importance of Singing

1. The Christian faithful who gather together as one to await the Lord’s coming are instructed by the Apostle Paul to sing together psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (cf. Col 3:16). Singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (cf. Acts 2:46). Thus Saint Augustine says rightly, "Singing is for one who loves."48 There is also the ancient proverb: “One who sings well prays twice.”

1. Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass, with due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly. Although it is not always necessary (e.g., in weekday Masses) to sing all the texts that are of themselves meant to be sung, every care should be taken that singing by the ministers and the people is not absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and on holy days of obligation.

Lux

 

[VociMike]

I agree. I would no more want contemporary Church music to disappear than chant. Chant only would not encourage singing by the congregation, which is indeed desirable.

While I’m not pushing for “chant only” (nobody is, so in that sense it’s a strawman), I wonder if you have anything to back up your assertion. The strongest congregational singing I’ve ever heard has been people singing a Gregorian chant Ordinary. And not just once but week after week. I’ll admit it took me by surprise.

So be careful about what you think you know.

 

[vincitverita]

I have read through all of the posts (thus far) on this thread, and respect both sides of this discussion but the one common theme I’ve noticed is that it basically boils down to preference (including ‘benedictgals’ whose preference is aligned with many of the Popes including our current one and I appreciate her sharing her Liturgical knowledge with us) yet I still I am inclined to think of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. What I mean by that, is some of us prefer the host to be a wafer others prefer a more bread like substance but once it is consecrated it is our Lord. Should it not be the same with the musical form? If it is offered up in worship for the ultimate Sacrifce of Our Lord. Does the external “genre” matter if the internal gesture is honoring Christ? The Original Poster of this thread came back and said " I grew up with the guitar Masses of the 70s and found them to very much to my liking and very reverent with respect to the music" but I’m sure many people were barking about this issue then as well but here we are 30 years later and “most” are accustomed to this form. He mentions the percussion and hand-clapping of the newer music. Would he turn away “The Little Drummer Boy” too. Christ always talked about his (and ours) Father’s House. I for one think it’s big enough for us all.