Rock Music at Mass

[japhy]

and here are the options from the GIRM (already posted, but obviously some still are not familiar with them)

I would expect most of the people in this thread who are encouraged the use of Gregorian chant are pretty familiar with the GIRM.

Here are the four options for the entrance, from the GIRM you quoted:

1. 
   *]the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
   *]the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual;
   *]a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;
   *]a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
   
   So why, in (let’s say) 90% of parishes in the United States, are options 1, 2, and 3 constantly neglected? The one used the overwhelming majority of the time is the last option, #4, a suitable hymn. It is chosen over the proper liturgical text/song of the Mass, the Introit.
   
   Do you know why the third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete Sunday? Or why the fourth Sunday of Lent is called Laetare Sunday? Do you know where Rorate Sunday gets its name?

 

[VociMike]

I would expect most of the people in this thread who are encouraged the use of Gregorian chant are pretty familiar with the GIRM.

Here are the four options for the entrance, from the GIRM you quoted:

1. 
   *]the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
   *]the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual;
   *]a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;
   *]a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
   
   So why, in (let’s say) 90% of parishes in the United States, are options 1, 2, and 3 constantly neglected? The one used the overwhelming majority of the time is the last option, #4, a suitable hymn. It is chosen over the proper liturgical text/song of the Mass, the Introit.

1. 
   Why, in other words, is the ideal of singing the texts of the Mass rejected in favor of singing at Mass? Dunno…
   
   Actually I think I do know. It’s hard to write Propers for every Sunday and Feast Day, much less every day of the year. It’s so much easier to just plug in hymns. The musical forms we have in those 90% (probably closer to 99%) of parishes is the result of people taking the path of least resistance following Vatican II. Like it or not, it’s a simple fact that the desire to use vernacular music resulted in most Catholics the world over singing at Mass rather than the ideal of singing the Mass.
   
   What each vernacular language community should have done is to make whatever effort necessary to produce vernacular chants of the Propers. But nobody did that. Why the heck not, we have a right to ask.
   

   Do you know why the third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete Sunday? Or why the fourth Sunday of Lent is called Laetare Sunday? Do you know where Rorate Sunday gets its name?

   Indeed…

 

[japhy]

Why, in other words, is the ideal of singing the texts of the Mass rejected in favor of singing at Mass? … Like it or not, it’s a simple fact that the desire to use vernacular music resulted in most Catholics the world over singing at Mass rather than the ideal of singing the Mass.

And the problem is worse than that. Some parishes opt to substitute the ENGLISH ORDINARY of the Mass with illicit replacements… like singing “We remember how you loved us, to your death, …” at the Memorial Acclamation. Why? Because they (think they) can.

It’s hard to write Propers for every Sunday and Feast Day, much less every day of the year.

They’re already there in Latin… and it’s not hard (or is it, USCCB?) to translate the Latin so the congregation knows what the choir is singing. (Yes, you heard me right, the congregation can listen to the choir… it’s called participation!) If the post-conciliar Church weren’t so scared of missalettes or “worship guides” or whatever you want to call them, the faithful could easily know what the Latin being sung during the Mass means! My 1961 Daily Missal tells me as much.

 

[VociMike]

They’re (the Propers are) already there in Latin… and it’s not hard (or is it, USCCB?) to translate the Latin so the congregation knows what the choir is singing. (Yes, you heard me right, the congregation can listen to the choir… it’s called participation!) If the post-conciliar Church weren’t so scared of missalettes or “worship guides” or whatever you want to call them, the faithful could easily know what the Latin being sung during the Mass means! My 1961 Daily Missal tells me as much.

All they’d have to do is copy out the translations from the Gregorian Missal. Even I could do that. But what I meant to say was that it’s hard to set every Proper text to music. It’s probably close to 2000 texts.

BTW, Fr. Samuel Weber OSB is working on a project to write English Proper chants - good for him! Here’s a sample of his work I found online.

execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/blogsample07.pdf

 

[Sarabande]

Many Catholics would be surprised, I bet, to learn that every celebration of the Mass has a proper song (chant, that is) for the entrance, offertory, and Communion processions! If only they could be sung and heard…

It was apparently heard and sung very recently at an anniversary mass of a priest who is our new director for the office of worship of our diocese. He had all the propers for the entire mass with only one hymn sung at the recessional. It was very new for almost all of the people who made up the choir and most likely for those who attended the mass. There has been some buzz (good and bad from various sides) about what this will mean for our diocese in the future.

 

[Cat]

I think the reason why many parishes don’t do a lot of the stuff that some of you are suggesting is that it’s hard enough to find a keyboardist or guitarist and just one cantor, and many of these volunteers (sometimes hired) do not know the kind of music you are talking about and do not READ music to be able to learn it without a good music director to teach them. And if the parish HAD a good music director, they would probably have more musicians and cantors, but most parishes do NOT have a music director. It’s wicked expensive, and most parishes have to pay the light bills first.

I play piano, and I am one of two pianists that this particular parish hires. (I charge a rate that is so far below scale that I don’t tell other pianists–I would probably get beat up.)

The parish also use a guitarist for Masses where there is no keyboardist. (He’s very good–classical/folk, with an acoustic guitar).

They have about ten people who are willing to cantor. That’s it.

There are quite a few Masses where they have no musician, and the cantor leads the Masses acapella. There are only a few cantors who have the courage and the ability to do this. Simple hymns and simple responses make it a lot easier for these brave souls.

There are also quite a few Sundays where they have no cantor. That happened this Sunday, and to make matters worse, there was a visiting priest. Thankfully my husband was attending that Mass because we had plans immediately after the Mass. When my husband walked through the door (five minutes before the Mass started!), I asked him to cantor, and he agreed. He’s not very loud, but at least it was someone standing up there and announcing the hymns and leading the responses. I do not sing, and when there is no cantor, I have to jump up and down and go from piano to mike at platform and announce the hymns–this is really not too pretty.

I also attend a large, wealthy parish (around 7000 people) that does have a music director. But even this parish has problems sometimes getting musicians and cantors. Just because people are rich doesn’t mean that they can sing, read music, or play the pipe organ.

I live in a city of about 150,000, BTW, so we are not in Podunksville, U.S.A. Musicians are just hard to find, and musicians who know anything at all about what some of you are talking about (I don’t) are even harder to find.

I often think the Vatican should make an exception and allow for the cloning of pipe organists. They could raise them in the Vatican and train them from babyhood in all the ancient music of the Church, and groom them to come to the U.S.A. and play the organ in all the parishes where the people don’t like pianos and guitars and Haugen and Haas.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I would expect most of the people in this thread who are encouraged the use of Gregorian chant are pretty familiar with the GIRM.

Yes, but they feel they are free to interpretate it personally

Here are the four options for the entrance, from the GIRM you quoted:

1. 
   *]the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
   *]the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual;
   *]a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;
   *]a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

1. 
   

   So why, in (let’s say) 90% of parishes in the United States, are options 1, 2, and 3 constantly neglected? The one used the overwhelming majority of the time is the last option, #4, a suitable hymn. It is chosen over the proper liturgical text/song of the Mass, the Introit.

   You would need to ask those who do the choosing. We often sing the responsorial psalm, which is the Sunday psalm, and always some psalm, never a hymn at that point.
   
   Actually we do chant the Benedictus when we pray morning prayer for tenebrae. We use a simple chant, which is easy to teach—one note with the last note up on odd lines, and down up on even lines. We manage, and it even sounds pretty good by the time we get to Holy Saturday.
   

   Do you know why the third Sunday of Advent is called Gaudete Sunday? Or why the fourth Sunday of Lent is called Laetare Sunday? Do you know where Rorate Sunday gets its name?

   Yes, yes, & yes. Years ago we were given the hint (lent- Laetare)
   Regina coeli, laetare, alleluia:
   Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia.
   Resurrexit sicut dixit, alleluia.
   Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.
   
   V. Gaude et laetare, Virgo Maria, Alleluia,
   
   R. Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia.
   
   Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi Cat,

You did sum it up nicely. Also no one is saying chant should not be used. We are just giving the OP suggestions on how to approach his pastor.

I doubt an armload of documents and a superior attitude will do any good.

Lux

 

[japhy]

You would need to ask those who do the choosing. We often sing the responsorial psalm, which is the Sunday psalm, and always some psalm, never a hymn at that point.

What? This is the entrance we’re talking about, not the song after the First Reading. I’ve never heard the Responsorial Psalm used at the beginning of Mass; my parish uses hymns from the “Breaking Bread” hymnal exclusively. I’d be most puzzled if they transplanted the Responsorial Psalm (which is, by nature, a response to the First Reading) to the beginning of Mass, before the First Reading!

Actually we do chant the Benedictus when we pray morning prayer for tenebrae. We use a simple chant, which is easy to teach—one note with the last note up on odd lines, and down up on even lines. We manage, and it even sounds pretty good by the time we get to Holy Saturday.

I applaud your parish for that. That is unheard of at my parish. Plain-chant such as that is not outside anyone’s ability… it’s just never even considered as an option. The closest we get to it is when the cantor is singing the Responsorial Psalm; some times, the setting they use has the verses done in a chant-like manner.

(This is also excluding the very rare appearance of a sung English Ordinary, that happens at Easter and Christmas, if we’re lucky.)

The only times I’ve sung chant at Mass is Ubi caritas a couple times, an English translation of Creator alme siderum (“Creator of the stars of night”), and an English translation of Corde natus ex parentis (“Of the Father’s Love Begotten”)… that’s all I can think of right now.

Yes, yes, & yes. Years ago we were given the hint (lent- Laetare)

You’ve quoted the Marian antiphon for the season of Easter, no? That’s a great prayer, but it’s not what gives the three Sundays I mentioned their names.

The introit (entrance antiphon) for Gaudete Sunday is Phil. 4:4-5: Gaudete in Domino semper: iterum dico, gaudete…

The introit for Rorate Sunday (the fourth Sunday of Advent) is Is. 45:8: Rorate caeli desuper, et nubes pluant iustum…

The introit for Laetare Sunday is Is. 66:10-11: Laetare Ierusalem : et conventum facite omnes…

Nowadays, there is no real reason for these Sundays to have these names, because we don’t begin Mass by singing (or hearing sung) “Rejoice in the Lord always…” or “Drop down, dews from heaven…” or “Rejoice Jerusalem…” Sundays have lost this identity they once had because they have been virtually separated from their proper chants.

 

[ethelzguy]

Interestingly enough, no one from the other camp has been able to quote any documentation from the Holy See advocating their standpoint. In fact, what has been quoted from the Holy See stands in opposition to their viewpoints.

Here is the section from the Instrumentum Laboris, the working document for the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist:

This isn’t just someone’s personal opinion; this statement comes from the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist. It is also fairly consistent with all of the other documentation that has been posted.

One individual posted something from the GIRM regarding singing. No one is saying that we shouldn’t sing. It’s the content and style of the music that is the issue here.

Your cut and paste debate is really rather boring. You have yet to show where the music you so abhor is “discouraged”, “restricted”, or “prohibited” anywhere in a Church document.

You continue to apply your personal opinion to documents that are cleary open-ended and in places, even vague.

Please stop proffering you personal opinions as absolute Church teaching. You may very well be leading others astray in their faith.

 

[ethelzguy]

What we have seen here is what we always see when the subject of sacred music comes up. One side calls for working to move closer to the ideal, an ideal clearly laid out by the Church. ** And the other side says if it’s not absolutely, positively, completely, entirely prohibited, we’re going to keep doing it,** and besides it’s all just a matter of personal preference anyway. They certainly have a strong resistance to thinking with the mind of the Church in this matter, the sensus Ecclesiae, which John Paul II said is essential in producing new compositions that are truly worthy for the liturgy.

[Edited] I have yet to see where any specific instrument, hymn, or hymnal has been decreed to be “undesireable” in a Church document.

The documents are very open to interpretation.

These repeated claims that anything but Gregorian Chant and pipe organs are unsuitable for Mass is nothing more than self-righteous traditionalist propaganda.

 

[VociMike]

These repeated claims that anything but Gregorian Chant and pipe organs are unsuitable for Mass is nothing more than self-righteous traditionalist propaganda.

“Repeated claims”!?! I defy you to show a single post in this thread where this position has been put forth. Talk about exaggeration!

And if any “traditionalist” did put for such a claim (repeatedly! ), I would be the first to challenge it, and I would use these same Church documents to do so. And I know the other promoters of the ideals of sacred music as put forth by the Church would join me in challenging such a claim.

 

[japhy]

[Edited]
Well, not that it’s relevant today, with Vatican II loosening its restrictions towards instruments and musical forms, but 100 years ago, pianos were forbidden, along with “noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells, and the like” (TLS, n. 19). Music in the “theatrical style” was also deemed as “less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship” and “diametrically opposed to Gregorian chant … and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music.” (TLS, n. 6) But like I said, the Church is open to more forms of music and more instruments… so long as they are appropriate to and meet the needs of the liturgy.

The documents are very open to interpretation.

But they must be closed to all interpretations, otherwise why would the Church have ever said anything on the matter?

These repeated claims that anything but Gregorian Chant and pipe organs are unsuitable for Mass is nothing more than self-righteous traditionalist propaganda.

Who here is making those claims? The Church teaches that unaccompanied Gregorian chant is the best (cf. TLS, n. 15). The Church teaches that Gregorian chant is the supreme model for sacred music, and is the music proper to the Roman Rite (as was mentioned earlier). Polyphony is a close second. All other types (in whatever ranking they may have) are to be judged by the standard of chant, or rather, by the three qualities which make chant the best.

I have never said nothing else is unsuitable for Mass; who here has been saying this? [Edited]

 

[Sarabande]

I think the reason why many parishes don’t do a lot of the stuff that some of you are suggesting is that it’s hard enough to find a keyboardist or guitarist and just one cantor, and many of these volunteers (sometimes hired) do not know the kind of music you are talking about and do not READ music to be able to learn it without a good music director to teach them. And if the parish HAD a good music director, they would probably have more musicians and cantors, but most parishes do NOT have a music director. It’s wicked expensive, and most parishes have to pay the light bills first.

Hi Cat. I think you make a good point. We have talked about this before. It is one of the reasons. I come from a much larger area than you (1,517,550 to be exact - at least in 2000 - and that’s just the city, not the surrounding areas) that I can see why I’ve been seeing more parishes in my area working to re-implement this music.

Where I’m from, it wasn’t a problem of finding musicians. They are all over the place. The problem was getting musicians to want to be part of the liturgical music program in Catholic Churches. Many of my colleagues have incredible positions at Protestant churches in which they already do the music. Their music programs have been in place for decades and they are paid fairly well - at least for a musician. Most musicians who only make a living as a musicians just can’t afford to take a pay cut to work in a Catholic parish. Another reason that good musicians didn’t give a Catholic parish a second thought was that many of the pastors during the last few decades didn’t want the organists and music directors to pull out the Palestrina, the chant, the Tallis, Faure, the plethora of incredible organ works, etc. I was only a little child in the 80s, but my older colleagues told me that many of their gifted Catholic organists eventually found jobs in other denominations. They never left the Church - just found new jobs. And for many it wasn’t this snobbery that people are sometimes quick to jump on. It can be spiritually heartwrenching for musicians when they can’t play and even sometimes forbidden to play the music that they studied and were trained to play for mass.

Thus came another problem of no one teaching the younger generation proper musical training and no model to follow since most musicians were gone and some who had some training just didn’t have the capacity or the knowledge to really teach it. Then the churches grew a reputation of being literally the laughing stock of church musicians - not in the Catholic community, but within the entire network of church musicians of all denominations. Some Catholic musicians who were trained very well stayed on, kept their mouths shut and did their best to keep the tradition of good musicianship and heritage of Catholic music alive in their parishes - some to their detriment and health.

Now, at least in my area, things are beginning to turn around, but it is going to be very slow. I’m a patient person and I hope some of my other colleagues will be patient as well.

They have about ten people who are willing to cantor. That’s it.

That is actually a good number of cantors. Many parishes don’t have that.

I also attend a large, wealthy parish (around 7000 people) that does have a music director. But even this parish has problems sometimes getting musicians and cantors. Just because people are rich doesn’t mean that they can sing, read music, or play the pipe organ.

I don’t know this parish, but I think that if it is a well-off parish, then they may need to try to entice a professional to come in. At a number of well-off parishes in my area, they hire the musicians and some even have hired cantors - and even hired vocal quartets.
The music programs are decent if not very good.

BUT I know that most people don’t come from areas that have over a million in population. So, I think the next best thing is to find ways to send whoever they have willing to do the church music to workshops or classes. The parishes need to make an investment for the long run. Well-off parishes need to figure out a financial plan for a paid musician. Smaller, less well-off parishes (even well-off ones) should see about implementing a program for budding musicians in the parish. When they are ready, they can play for their parish masses. My organist friend grew up with a great music program in the 1960s. They had a large group of students who took organ and piano lessons. After school they’d all fight as to who would practice on their parish organ first. Their teacher was a sister, but she was an excellent classical musician. Some played the organ for their masses. A few of these kids went on to study further and became professional musicians - one of which is my organist friend who is probably one of the best in the city and that’s saying a lot. It wasn’t a wealthy parish - just a parish of middle to lower-middle class, Irish Catholic families for the most part. What they had was someone who influenced and encouraged them. She and the priests of this parish who obviously appreciated the heritage of Catholic music, continued the legacy within those children.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Smiter,

It seems in the 50+ posts since your second post, no one directly responded to it. So I wanted to make sure you still felt included in your own thread. :grouphug:

I apologize if any of my posts came off as confrontational or accusatory. That wasn’t my intent. I didn’t think you were trying to be confrontational, but I just wanted to make the point that it is something to be aware of, depending upon what type of relationship you currently have with your priest. Of course, I don’t know you, your priest, nor what type of relationship currently exists between you. Perhaps much of my advice was simply stating the obvious, but I always feel that’s a good thing to do, just in case.

That’s the way it goes with “advice threads”. You often get more than you bargained for. In such threads, I usually try to toss out a perspective that hasn’t been touched on yet. I figure, if it applies to your situation, great. If not, then you can just skip over it with no hard feelings.

Beyond anything else, the fact that no one in your parish was aware of this change until the day of, I think, certainly gives you a starting point with which to talk to your priest. That he didn’t share this information with the parish council or anyone else is cause for a legitimate complaint. Of course, as the pastor, it’s not as though he reports to the parish council. But it seems bad form to make such a drastic change without telling anyone. Surely there’s a friendly way to inform him of that fact.

 

[VociMike]

…Polyphony is a close second.

I just wanted to add that the Church also makes very clear why sacred polyphony is especially esteemed. This is because it sets the actual texts of the Mass to music (singing the Mass, not singing at Mass), and because it is “true art” as the Church calls for.

This is not rocket science. It’s really simple stuff. Set the actual texts of the Mass to music that is true art, and you are doing what the Church asks. And the liturgy (and the people) deserve nothing less.

 

[onetimeposter]

I can say first and foremostly that the fact that the Responsorial was not what it should have been and lines from the Gloria and Agnus Dei were ommitted, it can be considered liturgically incorrect.

When it comes to “rock” music at Mass, this is what it boils down to: the Church has made it clear that liturgical music is to create a prayerful atmosphere that compliments the solemnity of the rituals(like Mass) being performed. I personally DO NOT think that having electrical guitars and drums and what have you compliments in any way the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I LOVE rock music. But not inside a church. This should immediately be brought up with your pastor, and if you get no where with him, contact your local bishop. When John Paul II was pope, a bishop might have got by with allowing something like this. But not with Pope Benedict XVI. Oh no. Bishops know His Holiness well enough by now to know that things like this need to be attended to or else Rome will be P.O.

Drums in a Church, during Mass…I really like that.

 

[benedictgal]

Your cut and paste debate is really rather boring. You have yet to show where the music you so abhor is “discouraged”, “restricted”, or “prohibited” anywhere in a Church document.

You continue to apply your personal opinion to documents that are cleary open-ended and in places, even vague.

Please stop proffering you personal opinions as absolute Church teaching. You may very well be leading others astray in their faith.

Then, perhaps you would care to post authoritative documentation form the Holy See that would support your stance. The words of the popes are very clear on the issue of Sacred music. The problem is that the spirit of rebellion and creativity that existed in the 1960s keeps rearing its ugly head. The younger generation actually appreciates genuine, sacred music, while the aging flower children of the 1960s, the ones who were responsible for this mess in music in the first place, continue to rebel and insist that the spirit of Vatican II is more important than what the documents actually said.

 

[onetimeposter]

The problem is that the spirit of rebellion

Wasn’t Jesus a rebel who bucked trends and challenged the authoritative religious rites of the day?

 

[benedictgal]

Wasn’t Jesus a rebel who bucked trends and challenged the authoritative religious rites of the day?

That’s the History Channel’s point of view, not the Church’s. If you recall, Jesus said that He didn’t come to abolish the law, not even the slightest piece of the letter of the law.

The point is that the documents indicate what constitutes sacred music. The popes have consistently affirmed and re-affirmed this notion. But, as Jesus, Himself said, there are those with ears who listen, but still not understand.

The sad truth is that publishing houses like OCP that continue to shove the banal and the trite and market it as sacred music (making this junk especially palpable to poor parishes by offering deep discounts and grants) don’t seem to have ever read what the authoritative Church documents actually say about music. Just becuase something has Catholic in the middle of its name doesn’t necessarily make it so.