Rock Music at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Smiter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I also noticed that early on in this thread there were many people quick to jump on “Sacred Heart Fan” and quickly dismiss or dispute his viewpoint. I was a bit disheartened at the tone many of my fellow Catholics took with a young man who by clicking on the link at the bottom of his post I discovered was 13 years old and has such devotion at this age to already be contemplating the vocations of Priesthood. Whether you agree or disagree with his statements I hope we would all give this young man the “encouragement” needed to continue growing in his faith. I say Good Luck and God Bless you ‘SHF’ on your journey and that may you inspire many more of our youth to listen to the call of vocations.
 
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…
When the Church teaches that there is a supreme model and permanent standard of Catholic liturgical music, and that the more a composition approachs that standard the more sacred and liturgical it becomes, and the more out of harmony a composition is with that supreme model the less worthy it is for use in the liturgy, I don’t see how anybody can honestly claim that it all boils down to preference. That’s just flat-out incorrect.
 
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:

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

Here is the quote:

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.
Again, Benedictgal, you cut and paste quotes that do not prove your position. They are very open-ended statements, subject to interpretation.

You have yet to demonstrate that any given instrument or hymn that you have regularly spoken to be inappropriate to the Mass to actually be decried by Church documents.
 
When the Church teaches that there is a supreme model and permanent standard of Catholic liturgical music, and that the more a composition approachs that standard the more sacred and liturgical it becomes, and the more out of harmony a composition is with that supreme model the less worthy it is for use in the liturgy, I don’t see how anybody can honestly claim that it all boils down to preference. That’s just flat-out incorrect.
Please direct me to Church documents that utilize the phrases “supreme model” and “permanent standard” with reference to Catholic liturgical music.

Thanks! 🙂
 
Please direct me to Church documents that utilize the phrases “supreme model” and “permanent standard” with reference to Catholic liturgical music.
I don’t know about “permanent standard” as a quote, but here is “supreme model”, from 1903 and 2003. These are documents you’ve seen quoted here before. 😉

From Pope St. Pius X’s 1903 Tra le Sollecitudini, nn. 3-4:These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel.
And then from Pope John Paul II’s 2003 Chirograph on the above document, nn. 7, 12: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” it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin. 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”. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy. …

With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.

I would also point out that Pope St. Pius X had this intention when he wrote TLS in 1903:We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all.
 
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. 🙂
I can only speak from my experience. Your post was quite rude, since you do not know my experience.

My parish does not join in chant, but do participate in more contemporary hymns.

Lux
 
I don’t know about “permanent standard” as a quote, but here is “supreme model”, from 1903 and 2003. These are documents you’ve seen quoted here before. 😉
…ad nausium… No one has yet posted anything other than “preference”
and no one on the side of more culturalization and contemporary has claimed this was the only choice.

Please post something more prohibitive, if you wish to condemn.

Lux
 
I don’t know about “permanent standard” as a quote, but here is “supreme model”, from 1903 and 2003. These are documents you’ve seen quoted here before. ;)

Cut out by Me (Sarabande)
Thanks for re-posting these. Not that most people would only want chant for mass as we have such a wonderful long-standing tradition of sacred music throughout the centuries, but it’s obvious that this form is held so reverently and with such high esteem it does seem that in many ways it would be our duty and responsibility to live up to it as well as we can. Throughout the centuries this has been done. Later compositions grew organically out this, refining pieces if they weren’t as closely “in harmony” with the “supreme model”, or ceasing to be used in liturgy altogether. We’re at a point now that for a while too much was allowed in. It’s nothing new. There has always been things like this happening, but there was more control of it, so it was nipped in the bud, sooner. I feel that based on what was published in 2003 and how the Church has been handling things now, they are now working to reign things in.

I know in my diocese, the parishes aren’t as wild in their music choices as they were when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s. And many more priests in this area are beginning to become reaquainted or beginning to fall in love with our rich heritage of music. I’ve been seeing more parishes working to get better music programs in order to use chant and the other long-lived motets and polyphony. Just this past weekend, a pastor who looked to be in his 40s asked me if I knew of professional singers to start a professional quartet in order to sing more traditional motets, polyphony and chant at their 10:00 masses. My parish has been doing music like this with a volunteer choir for 40+ years. A TLM parish near me also has a choir that does this made up of professional singers. Other parishes of volunteer choirs are also working hard to get it going. It’s not large, but it is really catching on. And the important thing, too, is that I’ve seen that more of our seminarians are really appreciating it. They are the next generation of priests, so I believe things are changing. I think our archbishop has set a good example as I’ve seen this change gradually since he came to our city about 5 years ago.
 
…ad nausium… No one has yet posted anything other than “preference”
and no one on the side of more culturalization and contemporary has claimed this was the only choice.

Please post something more prohibitive, if you wish to condemn.

Lux
I don’t think these were used to condemn. At least to me, they are indicators as to what the Church would like to see happen universally and it being our responsibility to try to heed it as best as possible. Otherwise, why would the Church even bother to publish these? I doubt they write them just so they won’t be taken seriously. I know in the late 19th century there had been a bad time in some sacred music - a lot of saccharine and goop. (As I mentioned in my previous post what’s happening now is nothing new.) I’m not sure if that is one of the reasons why the 1903 document was proclaimed, but it could have been a reminder to the composers of what they should be trying to attain in terms of sacred music. Perhaps that is also one of the reasons for Pope John Paul II to make a more relevent and recent document.
 
I don’t think these were used to condemn. At least to me, they are indicators as to what the Church would like to see happen universally and it being our responsibility to try to heed it as best as possible. Otherwise, why would the Church even bother to publish these? I doubt they write them just so they won’t be taken seriously. I know in the late 19th century there had been a bad time in some sacred music - a lot of saccharine and goop. (As I mentioned in my previous post what’s happening now is nothing new.) I’m not sure if that is one of the reasons why the 1903 document was proclaimed, but it could have been a reminder to the composers of what they should be trying to attain in terms of sacred music. Perhaps that is also one of the reasons for Pope John Paul II to make a more relevent and recent document.
Yes, but the OP wished to address what was happening at the Parish. Perhaps OP will let us know how this is going.

Let’s not overkill.

Lux
 
Please direct me to Church documents that utilize the phrases “supreme model” and “permanent standard” with reference to Catholic liturgical music.
The pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, used the pharase “permanent standard”.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_sotlmusic_jun06.asp

And as pope he wrote “I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the song proper to the Roman liturgy.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
 
Frankly, I think the Tiber Swim Team should go jump in the lake.👍

Such pompous, arrogance, I have not heard. In one of the responses, the swimmer wondered by this person didn’t learn to pray in every situation, noisy, chaotic, what have you. I don’t think when we go to Mass and church to pray, that we need to be subjected to the bar-room environment.:mad:
 
…ad nausium… No one has yet posted anything other than “preference”
and no one on the side of more culturalization and contemporary has claimed this was the only choice.

Please post something more prohibitive, if you wish to condemn.

Lux
That’s a strange attitude to take. The Church sets out clear standards for what is more worthy and what is less worthy, and you respond asking for something more prohibitive.

What would be so horrible about just emphasizing more of the music that the Church thinks is more worthy?
 
That’s a strange attitude to take. The Church sets out clear standards for what is more worthy and what is less worthy, and you respond asking for something more prohibitive.

What would be so horrible about just emphasizing more of the music that the Church thinks is more worthy?
Nothing, but this was not the situation presented.

Lux
 
Possibly, depending upon how you ask.

This however, I consider rude
So be careful about what you think you know. 🙂
Why do you think I put a smiley there? Precisely so it wouldn’t come across as confrontational. I did everything in my power to make my comment light-hearted, and you were still offended. Oh well…
 
Why do you think I put a smiley there? Precisely so it wouldn’t come across as confrontational. I did everything in my power to make my comment light-hearted, and you were still offended. Oh well…
Obviously you didn’t—Why did you think you needed a smiley?

Possibly because your response was rude?
 
…ad nausium… No one has yet posted anything other than “preference” and no one on the side of more culturalization and contemporary has claimed this was the only choice. Please post something more prohibitive, if you wish to condemn.
Excuse me, but I was simply doing what ethelzguy requested. No more, no less.
 
Frankly, I think the Tiber Swim Team should go jump in the lake.👍

Such pompous, arrogance, I have not heard. In one of the responses, the swimmer wondered by this person didn’t learn to pray in every situation, noisy, chaotic, what have you. I don’t think when we go to Mass and church to pray, that we need to be subjected to the bar-room environment.:mad:
This is exactly the attitude which leads others to object to your preferences. There are many forms of worship. I do hope you are able to worship in a parish which suits your preference, but this does not make other forms wrong—just different.

Lux
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top