The spirit of the … (insert freely as you wish)I agree with LighthouseRon and Truthfulreign.
I’m sorry Benedictgal, but your arguments break down by your own quotes from the GIRM and common sense. You may know the law, but you have no clue about the “SPIRIT” of the law. Anytime people are excluded in any task because they don’t have the politically correct instrument or idea than I see a problem with that.
This kind of thinking makes God’s people run away, People did not run away from Jesus. Jesus was inclusive. You are exclusive of any idea that conflicts with your interpretation.
Please balance your great knowledge with the Holy Spirit and then you will see fruit from you labor…but not until then …
God Bless You All
Actually, all three of you do not see the point of what the GIRM states. There are Masses that feature settings written by Mozart and others where orchestral percussion (timpani) is used. What all of three of you seem to be ignoring is the key phrase in all of this from Musicam Sacram:I agree with LighthouseRon and Truthfulreign.
I’m sorry Benedictgal, but your arguments break down by your own quotes from the GIRM and common sense. You may know the law, but you have no clue about the “SPIRIT” of the law. Anytime people are excluded in any task because they don’t have the politically correct instrument or idea than I see a problem with that.
This kind of thinking makes God’s people run away, People did not run away from Jesus. Jesus was inclusive. You are exclusive of any idea that conflicts with your interpretation.
Please balance your great knowledge with the Holy Spirit and then you will see fruit from you labor…but not until then …
God Bless You All
The GIRM should not be read in isolation. That is something that three of you are doing. Drum kits and electric guitars are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only.
- In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.44
With all due respect, you are deflecting from the real issue here. Pope John Paul II wrote about his concerns regarding the lack of quality of music for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This has nothing to do with Tony Melendez.So Pope John Paul II was wrong to kiss the feet of the armless guitar player. I see now. John Paul II was a heretic! Imagine that. I’m sorry for you, but may God bless you.
I will pray that Jesus will forgive me for playing my guitar at mass for more than 35 years and please… Lord… forgive Pope John Paul II for encouraging us in the sinful pursuits of playing evil secular instruments at mass.
May the peace of Christ be with You,
FINE
My emotions are not in play here. I see the whole picture from many years of experience. Soon I will be gone and anything I have accomplished in music and liturgy will only live in people that knew me.With all due respect, you are deflecting from the real issue here. Pope John Paul II wrote about his concerns regarding the lack of quality of music for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This has nothing to do with Tony Melendez.
These are the points that, as I read your posts, you seem to ignore. Instead, you choose to deflect and try to turn this into another issue. Have you read any of the authoritative documents of the Church or, are you going by what you feel to be right? I believe that this is a valid question to ask.
It is not about what makes us feel good or what makes the youth feel good. It is about respecting the parameters of what the Church considers genuinely sacred music.
Again, I pose the question to you: why did the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist air their concerns about the music that goes on at Youth Masses? Why did Pope John Paul II, two years earlier, state that not everything is fit for use for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Why did Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, speak out against the use of the genres of pop and rock in the Mass and reiterate these in Sacramentum Caritatis?
These questions are not about you. A lot of times, as I have seen it in these threads, folks will not answer these questions and try to turn them into something personal. I challenge you to step back, divorce emotions from this, and carefully examine the questions I have asked and look at them honestly, instead of deflecting the issue.
Both you and Iblessem refuse to read the other authoritative documents of the Church, including the writings of the Holy Father and the concerns of the Fathers of the Synod on the Eucharist.I see no point in continuing the discussion. It comes down to the interpretation really. Benegal’s opinion is that guitars are never suitable for anything but secular music. I (along with many others including my priest, archbishop, and the GIRM) don’t agree. None of us are going to change. Arguing the point any further is pointless.
God Bless.
Posters on this forum are not…I repeat “NOT” representing the official Catholic Churches teaching nor representing the official church teaching no matter how many documents they claim to interpret…Please look to your local pastor and Bishop to learn the truth in your respectful diocese.Both you and Iblessem refuse to read the other authoritative documents of the Church, including the writings of the Holy Father and the concerns of the Fathers of the Synod on the Eucharist.
The GIRM is meant to be read in tandem with documents such as Musicam Sacram, the Motu Propio of Pope St. Pius X, the Chirograph on Sacred Music written by Pope John Paul II and the writings of Pope Benedict XVI.
Again, both of you are deflecting from the real issue here. Furthermore, I stated “electric” guitar and drum kits. You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. It is sad that both of you, as I read your posts, refuse to go any further than the GIRM and read what else the Church has to say.
If things werre as you claim they are, why, then, did the Fathers of the Synod on the Eucharist, a great deal of them being bishops, raise the red flag about music used at Youth Masses? I doubt that they would have brought this concern up had the documents of the Church been followed. Why did Pope Benedict XVI issue his follow-up statement where he noted in Sacramentum Caritatis that “certainly, we cannot say (as far as music used in the Mass is concerned) that one song is as good as another”?.
These are questions that both of you have yet to answer. Withdrawing and deflecting will not make this discussion go away. Others will raise this point later on, whether in this forum, or in a more concrete form.
I imagine you have never been to a LIFETEEN Mass and do not speak from knowledge, but only by speculation and hear say.Both you and TruthfulReign, however, fail to answer my question and the question of the Synod Fathers as to why they considered music used at Youth Masses particularly problematic. These Synod Fathers are bishops from all over the world. They did not pull this concern out of the clear blue sky. They have experienced these types of liturgies and found them problematic, so much so that they considered them a shadow to the Mass.
Again, I believe that we are not doing the young people any favors by not exposing them to genuine sacred music. We are just merely giving them more of the same feel-good, little substance music that they already listen to in the secular world.
Again, you are deflecting from the dicsussion. I have served on my diocesan liturgical commission. I am not a mere armchair liturgy person. Furthermore, the documents of the Church have provided us with the answers. Unfortuantely, there are those who persist in ignoring them.Posters on this forum are not…I repeat “NOT” representing the official Catholic Churches teaching nor representing the official church teaching no matter how many documents they claim to interpret…Please look to your local pastor and Bishop to learn the truth in your respectful diocese.
God Bless you ALL!!!
Actually, I did attend one LifeTeen Mass and it was a very bad experience. The music was not in keeping with the Church’s intent. Furthermore, you must re-read my posts. I have never recommended David Haas. It was David Hurd. His setting is based on Gregorian chant, something that is in keeping with what the Church looks for in sacred music.I imagine you have never been to a LIFETEEN Mass and do not speak from knowledge, but only by speculation and hear say.
There were concerns by the Synod Fathers, the biggest item was the responsorial psalm and the paraphrasing of text. This has been addressed in teachings. There was also another concern about popular Christian music that did apply to the teaching of the Catholic faith and have been addressed to view the music carefully and submit permissions within our Archdioceses for proper use.
I do not take the LIFETEEN text above any documentation that the Holy See addresses, however they take these documents to further teach us to be obedient to the Church.
And while you may believe that all that is done at these Mass’ is hold hands and clap and do not understand the suffering of the Mass, this is not the case.
I ask what makes the words on the page of a piece of music written by man more substantial than the next. Is something written 500 years ago more substantial than something written 200 years, 100 years , 50 years or even today?
You had suggested a Mass piece written by David Haas, why is his music more sacred compared to something written by a Spirit and Song composer? Why is his music more substantial and less “superficial”?
And you say not to take it personally…but how can I not when you have called me, my parish, my brothers and sister’s in Christ, and what I have dedicated my life to, superficial, unsubstantial not understanding of sacrifice. Not once have I taken the low road and assumed I knew anything about what you are, what your parish is, and you’re opinion of music.
a lack of understanding is a poison and the Mass is not about the music.
The Synod Fathers were quite clear in their concern. Note, too, that they stated that it is “important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer.” I doubt that they were talking about the organ. They were referring to electric guitars and drum kits, the kind of music that you would hear at a secular concert. While they do not explicitly state this, this is the kind of music that is used at Youth Masses. By your own admission, you use these instruments.In other responses some lamented the poor quality of translations of liturgical texts and many musical texts in current languages, maintaining that they lacked beauty and were sometimes theologically unclear, thereby contributing to a weakening of Church teaching and to a misunderstanding of prayer. **A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. **Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy.
Surely, you cannot say with a straight face that most, if not all, of the music that LifeTeen uses is similar to what the kids hear on the radio: rock and pop. Even the LIfeTeen manuals state that these should be used for the Mass. How do you reconcile that with what the former Cardinal Ratzinger wrote? Or, are you also going to find fault with his words?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.
That some music is not rock’n’roll does not mean it is not secular.My emotions are not in play here. I see the whole picture from many years of experience. Soon I will be gone and anything I have accomplished in music and liturgy will only live in people that knew me.
But, You completely miss the point. We are not playing ROCK at mass. Again, We are not playing ROCK & ROLL at mass. We are using guitars, bass guitars, mandolins, voices in harmony and sacred music to praise our lord…our pipe organ is MIA.
My 1971 Gibson J200 guitar is the best instrument around. I also have a new Martin DC Aura which can sound better than any instrument in praising our Lord at Mass. I am not a snob about it because I have the money to purchase the best for Jesus. IT IS NOT ROCK & ROLL just because of the instrument. My guitar can sound better than any pipe organ given the song played. The pipe organ can sound better than my vintage gibson or state of the art martin guitar given the song. We are praising God, just the same…not rocking out!
Why do you make judgments based on instruments? You deflect all questions based on the documents, yet you cannot make those documents reflect your preferences in instruments. It just isn’t there no matter how hard you try.
A child drinks mother’s milk, then some soft food, and eventually RIB_EYE steaks.
You want all to eat RIB EYE all the time…let me serve the children some soft food and when they are ready for your RIB EYE…they will come to you. Don’t condemn us because we aren’t at the peak of adulthood…enjoy the fact that you are at the end…I serve the least of my brothers and sisters…and that is what I love. When they are ready for your music…I’m sure they will love it and appreciate those of us who taught them to enjoy praise.
Best post I’ve read on this thread. I’ve stayed away from commenting, because I’ve been told that my posts are less than charitable. Apparently this is an issue that makes people very defensive.I see two distinct “camps” here.
In the one camp are those who insist on trying to justify **their **choice of music, the music their groups find “suitable”, and the instruments that are acceptable to **their **peers or to certain segments of Mass attendees.
In the other camp are those who are trying to explain, or just simply offer, what the Catholic Church has used for centuries… and what the Catholic Church offers in the way of instruction in the current age.
The distinctions are glaring.
.
This seems to apply to both camps, the way I have been reading this thread. The most recentdocuments do not specify prohibitions against instruments by name. There is a reason for this. We should not try to go further than the Church does and name instruments, except for the what we determine for our use in light of the guidelines the Church has given. Such things are to be decidely locally, by the bishop or his designee.In the one camp are those who insist on trying to justify **their **choice of music, the music their groups find “suitable”, and the instruments that are acceptable to **their **peers or to certain segments of Mass attendees.
Actually, the CDWDS specifically stated that this decision should not be left up to the individual dioceses:This seems to apply to both camps, the way I have been reading this thread. The most recentdocuments do not specify prohibitions against instruments by name. There is a reason for this. We should not try to go further than the Church does and name instruments, except for the what we determine for our use in light of the guidelines the Church has given. Such things are to be decidely locally, by the bishop or his designee.
The USCCB was supposed to have been truly specific, as the letter from the CDWDS indicates. Since there is absence of specificity, then, the universal law must be applied. Whatever is stated in the American adaptation of the GIRM is not specific, even though the CDWDS noted that it should have been. This ambiguity is part of the problem because it leads to a lot of confusion.What is said here may be understood to apply to nn. 301, 304, 326, 329, 339, 343, and the portion of n. 393 referring to approved musical instruments. In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses. In the absence of any particular legislation on such a matter, specifications contained in the universal law maintain their full force. In other words, the Conference of Bishops may name specific materials or instruments as suitable in addition to those universally deemed so, but in the absence of such specification, only the “traditional” materials or those otherwise specified in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani are to be regarded as approved.
As this has not happened, and until it does, someone must make decisions. Who should that be. Bloggers and commentators? Subsidiarity is always the default position. As you note with* Sing to the Lord*, a USCCB decision is not official without papal approval.Actually, the CDWDS specifically stated that this decision should not be left up to the individual dioceses:
But, there actually is somewhat of a smoking gun, if you will, to all of this. Recall that the CDWDS noted that:As this has not happened, and until it does, someone must make decisions. Who should that be. Bloggers and commentators? Subsidiarity is always the default position. As you note with* Sing to the Lord*, a USCCB decision is not official without papal approval.
If a majority of the USCCB bans guitars, I would be most surprised indeed.
Thus, they would have to default to Musicam Sacram, since it is also universal law. There is also the Latin version of the GIRM, but, I have to wait for a priest friend of mine to get done celebrating Mass so that he could translate that section for me.In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses. In the absence of any particular legislation on such a matter, specifications contained in the universal law maintain their full force.
Exactly, which does not name guitars. That is my point. When lay men and women start naming instruments for others which should be forbidden, they are going beyond Musicam Sacram. It is one thing to encourage familiarity with the Church’s teaching for musicians. It is another to go beyond what the Church teaches and start naming instruments.Thus, they would have to default to Musicam Sacram, since it is also universal law. There is also the Latin version of the GIRM, but, I have to wait for a priest friend of mine to get done celebrating Mass so that he could translate that section for me.
However, the Church does give us a clue, a very solid clue:Exactly, which does not name guitars. That is my point. When lay men and women start naming instruments for others which should be forbidden, they are going beyond Musicam Sacram. It is one thing to encourage familiarity with the Church’s teaching for musicians. It is another to go beyond what the Church teaches and start naming instruments.
I do not think that anyone can say, with a straight face, that electric guitars and drum kits’ main usage is not secular. That is the huge clue here. These are instruments whose common usage is for secular music only. I don’t think it’s a stretch to state that the Holy See ever envisioned that these kind of instruments would worm their way into the Mass. Unfortunately, a lot of this is due to a misinterpretation of what the documents that resulted from the Council actually said.
- In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.44