SPLIT: Musical instruments at Mass

[agapewolf]

Agape, it all sounds the same. You can only put makeup on a sow so many times. The sow can have a whole rainbow of lipsticks, but, in the final analysis, she is still going to look the same. The same concept holds true for P&W music. It is still the pop/soft rock genre. You were the one who said that "genre was netural’. It is not . P&W is merely pop/soft rock masquerading as something religious. It is not suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass nor are the instruments used for it.

But, my question is sitll valid. If the Synod Fathers held your opiinion, then, why would they have raised the issue and why did they specifically refer to Youth Masses? Or, are you trying to tell me that your band is now using the organ and chanting?

These are valid questions. You came in to post about genre. I am asking you a question, a question that you have yet to answer. It is also a fair question.

I’m not playing this game.

Genres are neutral. You’ve argued “no they aren’t” , but not substantiated that claim. You don’t get to make up that objective reality. It’s not yours to own. I however, have used musical terms to explain the difference, you just say “they sound the same”

For the 3rd time, do not group me in the other discussion. DO NOT. I’m not in that discussion. I made ONE POINT.
Sorry, its going nowhere.

 

[benedictgal]

I like to think that the music helps deliver the message, and if different kinds of music allow the message to reach a greater number of people, that’s wonderful. the danger is when the music overwhelms the message. My husbands church has to services, once is traditional with a booming pipe organ or piano and choir…sometimes with flutes, strings, or brass.They usually sing and play a half hour before and up to a half hour after the service. On Easter and Palm Sunday it’s almost like going to see the symphony. The other has only one acoustic guitar. Both are lovely, but they draw very different crowds. From time to time we’ll also have special music that is always a delight and usually a surprise.

Welcome to the forums. I do not know if you are Catholic since your profile does not indicate such.

The Church does have her standards of music. Please note what Pope St. Pius X wrote back in 1903:

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

Now, look at what the venerable Pope John Paul II wrote 100 years later:

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.

This is what, as I read the posts here, the proponents of the usage of the electric guitar, electric bass guitar and drum kit fail to realize. The Church certainly makes allowances for new Sacred Musuic, however, not everything is fit to cross the threshold for usage in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Genre plays a huge role. As Pope John Paul II wrote, “not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.” Granted, immediately after the Second Vatican Council, there was a misguided period of experimentation that ran the gamut from folk songs to soft pop. This is what prompted the late Pope Paul VI to make his threshold remarks, which Pope John Paul II quoted. Unfortunately, and lamentably, there are those, especially the publishing houses, who refuse to admit that the time for experimentation is over and we need to put the Sacred back into the music used at Mass. This includes using instruments that are suitable for the solemnity, dignity and majesty befitting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not playing this game.

Genres are neutral. You’ve argued “no they aren’t” , but not substantiated that claim. You don’t get to make up that objective reality. It’s not yours to own. I however, have used musical terms to explain the difference, you just say “they sound the same”

For the 3rd time, do not group me in the other discussion. DO NOT. I’m not in that discussion. I made ONE POINT.
Sorry, its going nowhere.

Again, genres are not neutral. If they were, then why would the venerable Pope John Paul II have made this statement:

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.

While he does not use the word “genre” outright, that is what he is, in essence, trying ot say. With all due respect, you are the one who is playing games here, agapawolf. Genre is part of the problem. Whether you choose to admit it or not, P&W is a genre, one that closely resembles pop/soft rock,only with religious undertones.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Actually, Kevin, Musicam Sacram is not an encyclical. It is an authoritative, legislative document that governs music in the liturgy. It never ceases to amaze me that, with all due respect, there are those who stubbornly maintain that electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits are suitable for sacred music when their primarily association is with secular music.

Again, these instruments are used for the rock, pop, Tejano, jazz, country, metal, R&B, rap and hip-hop genre. None of these qualifies as sacred music. All of these genres are secular.

What happens if we don’t abide by the dictum of Musicam Sacram?

If they are not to be permitted past the doors of the Church of course these instruments are going to be associated with secular music.
If they were played during Holy Mass I would immediately recognize they were not thrashing out death metal. Perhaps it would have something to do with the tune.

 

[chriso]

Wow… so when Rome publishes their response and more clearly define how they wish for us to proceed with regards to music and I see the subject matter experts names listed in the footnotes and appendicies for judging any and all music and determining if it be sacred or not, and which instruments are allowed… I’ll be able to say I read it here first… outstanding!!!

 

[benedictgal]

What happens if we don’t abide by the dictum of Musicam Sacram?

If they are not to be permitted past the doors of the Church of course these instruments are going to be associated with secular music.
If they were played during Holy Mass I would immediately recognize they were not thrashing out death metal. Perhaps it would have something to do with the tune.

You’re playing the straw man card, with all due resepct, Kevin. You are also, as I read your statements, ignoring what the document states and what the Popes have written. Musicam Sacram was promulgated by the former Congregation for Sacred Rites, now known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, under the reign of the late Pope Paul VI. He also stated that not every form of music was fit to cross the threshold.

Since you are adamant in your support of these instruments, please find documentation from the Holy See that allows these to be used. Please cite authoritative documentation granting LifeTeen or any other movement an indult to use these instruments. And, if these are supposedly allowed, why would the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist complain about the music used at Youth Masses? You have yet to answer any of these questions.

 

[benedictgal]

Wow… so when Rome publishes their response and more clearly define how they wish for us to proceed with regards to music and I see the subject matter experts names listed in the footnotes and appendicies for judging any and all music and determining if it be sacred or not, and which instruments are allowed… I’ll be able to say I read it here first… outstanding!!!

There is no need for sarcasm, chriso. It seems as though when folks cannot cite any authoritative documents nor writings of the Pontiffs to back up their assertions, they resort to sarcasm.

I challenge you to find an authoritative document of the Holy See that supports your viewpoint. It’s the same challenge that I made to KEVIN WILCOX. I also pose the same question to you, one that both of you have not answered. If these instruments are allowed, as both of you claim (without any documentation to back up this claim), why was it that the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist classified the music used at Youth Masses as one of the shadows plaguing the Mass? Why did Pope Benedict, in his response to these concerns state that “certainly one song is not as good as another” insofar as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned?

You ridicule me for providing you with footnotes and citations and yet, neither you nor the other proponents of these instruments have provided documentation from the Holy See indicating that they should be used. All you have done is resort to sarcasm and ridicule.

 

[benedictgal]

In his book, A New Song for the Lord, Pope Benedict XVI discusses the problems of music as it is used in the Mass today. There will be some, I am certain, who will dismiss what he wrote, but, he addresses the issues of genre. While he does not use the term directly, he discusses the types of music and how these are not suitable for the Mass. While he does not specifically mention instruments by name, when reading his statement, it becomes painfully obvious that only instruments that can be classified in the particular genre he writes against are electric guitars, drum kits and electric bass guitars.

We experience the profane return of this type today in rock and pop music, the festivals of which are an anti-culture of the same orientation — the pleasure of destruction, the abolition of everyday barriers, and the illusion of liberation from the ego in the wild ecstasy of noise and masses. It is a question of redemptive practices whose form of redemption is related to drugs and thoroughly opposed to the Christian faith in redemption. The conflict that Plato argued out between Dionysian and Apollonian music is not ours, for Apollo is not Christ. But the question he posed concerns us in a most important way.

Music has become today the decisive vehicle of a counter-religion and thus the scene of the discernment of spirits in a form that we could not have suspected a generation ago. Because rock music seeks redemption by way of liberation from the personality and its responsibility, it takes, in one respect, a very precise position in the anarchical ideas of freedom which predominate today in a more unconcealed way in the West than in the East. But precisely for that reason, it is thoroughly opposed to the Christian notion of redemption and of freedom as its exact contradiction. Not for aesthetic reasons, not from reactionary obstinacy, not from historical immobility, but because of its very nature music of this type must be excluded from the Church.

When folks originally read this section, they thought that he was making a sweeping criticism of rock music. However, even 20 years ago, when this address was delivered, there was already some infiltration of this particular genre into the Mass. What Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote back then and what Pope Benedict XVI holds now has not changed.

 

[chriso]

There is no need for sarcasm, chriso. It seems as though when folks cannot cite any authoritative documents nor writings of the Pontiffs to back up their assertions, they resort to sarcasm.

I challenge you to find an authoritative document of the Holy See that supports your viewpoint. It’s the same challenge that I made to KEVIN WILCOX. I also pose the same question to you, one that both of you have not answered. If these instruments are allowed, as both of you claim (without any documentation to back up this claim), why was it that the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist classified the music used at Youth Masses as one of the shadows plaguing the Mass? Why did Pope Benedict, in his response to these concerns state that “certainly one song is not as good as another” insofar as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned?

You ridicule me for providing you with footnotes and citations and yet, neither you nor the other proponents of these instruments have provided documentation from the Holy See indicating that they should be used. All you have done is resort to sarcasm and ridicule.

Your kidding right? Like I said, its not sarcasm, its a response proportional to your myriad of qouthes followed by your interpretations of them, like you have any more right to do so tahn anyone else here. Or your subsequently changing them to match your personal point of view. I havnt ridiculed you for providing footnotes and citations, I’ve only pointed out the dishonesty in your changing them to suit your purpose. Like I said, I’m more than happy to wait upon the final word from Rome, I challenge you to commit to that… in a spirit of humility and faith, lets agree to disagree, and admit that neither one of us can know for certainty what Rome and the Bishops will instruct us here shortly. (Unless you really do believe you have some sort of crystal ball to truly be the one and only authority to interpret for Rome to us “little people”?) I’ve not yet said even once that Rome has approved anything, yet you claim they specifically have outlawed some certain instruments because you happen to dislike them. That is misleading. The rigid, literal interpretation of writings has often resulted in misleading of the masses. And in splits such as occured in the Protestant reformation. Remember, Christ himself said rather than get all wrapped up in the Law (or letter of it) that we ought to “Love one Another”… not… change the words of the Pope to fit your purposes and use that to mislead the flock.

 

[benedictgal]

Your kidding right? Like I said, its not sarcasm, its a response proportional to your myriad of qouthes followed by your interpretations of them, like you have any more right to do so tahn anyone else here. Or your subsequently changing them to match your personal point of view. I havnt ridiculed you for providing footnotes and citations, I’ve only pointed out the dishonesty in your changing them to suit your purpose. Like I said, I’m more than happy to wait upon the final word from Rome, I challenge you to commit to that… in a spirit of humility and faith, lets agree to disagree, and admit that neither one of us can know for certainty what Rome and the Bishops will instruct us here shortly. (Unless you really do believe you have some sort of crystal ball to truly be the one and only authority to interpret for Rome to us “little people”?) I’ve not yet said even once that Rome has approved anything, yet you claim they specifically have outlawed some certain instruments because you happen to dislike them. That is misleading. The rigid, literal interpretation of writings has often resulted in misleading of the masses. And in splits such as occured in the Protestant reformation. Remember, Christ himself said rather than get all wrapped up in the Law (or letter of it) that we ought to “Love one Another”… not… change the words of the Pope to fit your purposes and use that to mislead the flock.

Actually, chriso, it’s not an issue of being wrapped up in the law. Jesus never questioned the norms and rubrics for the sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel. After all, His own Father dictated them. Thus, your argument, as I see it, has no merit. Again, when folks cannot cite documentation to back up their assertions, they will deflect and resort to other things rather than to answer the question at hand.

Furthermore, you continually dismiss what I have quoted, but, you have yet to provide anything authoritative to support your assertions. You have yet to also answer my questions. Instead, you resort to deflection.

The documents of the Church are read in tandem with what the Pontiffs have written. When St. Thomas Aquinas was making his various theological arguments, he based them on what the Church Fathers had stated along with the supporting commentary from the Pontiffs. He did not read things in a vacuum, as, I think, you are doing. Musicam Sacram states that instruments that are used primarily for the secular are not to be admitted into the liturgy. The Pontiffs have talked about genre. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist noted their concerns about the music used at Youth Masses. It does not take too much logic to see that there is a strong connection.

Rather than insult people, I would respectfully suggest that you read the documents, the footnotes and the writings of the Popes. You might actually find them edifying, enlightening and educational.

 

[Melchior_1]

This thread certainly has exploded in posts sense the last time I posted in it.

As I mentioned in another thread; Life Teen was in contact with the CDWDS for two years and worked with them to ensure that everything (including the use of contemporary music) conformed to the GIRM. This means that the CDWDS was fine with Life Teen using contemporary instruments/music during their Masses. Sadly, not all youth movements are proactive/reactive like contacting Rome about these things, which resulted in come concerns. I find this the likely reason why it was referenced in the Synod.

Like has often been the case over the last 2000 years, some times Rome needs to step in and spell stuff out for us. Seems as if this is one of those times, hence why the GIRM is being looked at again.

Is there any word on when we can expect to hear any news from Rome about this?

 

[benedictgal]

This thread certainly has exploded in posts sense the last time I posted in it.

As I mentioned in another thread; Life Teen was in contact with the CDWDS for two years and worked with them to ensure that everything (including the use of contemporary music) conformed to the GIRM. This means that the CDWDS was fine with Life Teen using contemporary instruments/music during their Masses. Sadly, not all youth movements are proactive/reactive like contacting Rome about these things, which resulted in come concerns. I find this the likely reason why it was referenced in the Synod.

Like has often been the case over the last 2000 years, some times Rome needs to step in and spell stuff out for us. Seems as if this is one of those times, hence why the GIRM is being looked at again.

Is there any word on when we can expect to hear any news from Rome about this?

However, Melchior_, do you have written documentation from the CDWDS, something with a protocol number that supports your statement? I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty; however, for the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist to specifically name the music at Youth Masses as a problem indicates to me that there are some serious issues involved with the genre used. Musicam Sacram, the supporting footnotes and the statements by the Popes, inclusive of Benedict XVI, all seem to be singing the same song. Even the venerable Pope John Paul II, the founder of WYD, stated that today’s music stood in need of purification.

Would it be that detrimental to the youth to teach them the authentic Sacred Music of the Church and leave the PW stuff for LifeNight? In a sense, as I see it, to not even teach them genuine Sacred Music for the Mass is to deny them participation in something that the Church has been using for centuries.

 

[Melchior_1]

However, Melchior_, do you have written documentation from the CDWDS, something with a protocol number that supports your statement? I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty; however, for the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist to specifically name the music at Youth Masses as a problem indicates to me that there are some serious issues involved with the genre used. Musicam Sacram, the supporting footnotes and the statements by the Popes, inclusive of Benedict XVI, all seem to be singing the same song. Even the venerable Pope John Paul II, the founder of WYD, stated that today’s music stood in need of purification.

Would it be that detrimental to the youth to teach them the authentic Sacred Music of the Church and leave the PW stuff for LifeNight? In a sense, as I see it, to not even teach them genuine Sacred Music for the Mass is to deny them participation in something that the Church has been using for centuries.

Sadly, I have no protocol number. The discussions were well reported though, in addition to the communication that went out via Life Teen’s head office (posted in the other thread). If the consultations and communication did not occur, obviously there would have been highly negative reports coming out regarding the issue. As I stated before, if the CWDWS had issues with it they would have mentioned it then (along with everything else they wanted to change).

Would it be detrimental? Of course not. But that would only be if we didn’t expose them to these things already. The assumption is (and I’m not directing this at you benedictgal, this is more of a general comment) that Life Teen does nothing to promote Sacred Music or anything involving the history of the Church. That couldn’t be further from the truth, as we educate them in the rich history of the Catholic Church through several ways. Mass is just one portion of the Life Teen program, after all.

One thing I want to make perfectly clear is that Life Teen is 100% faithful to Papal Authority and Rome. When the document came out in 2004 to conform to the GIRM, all were told to conform by the head offices of Life Teen, and were told explicitly. Not all parishes did, which in turn makes the organization as a whole look bad. This of course falls on the local leaders to be faithful to Rome and to obey as we are called to. I can also assure you (and everyone) that because of this, Life Teen would have received permission to continue what they do from the appropriate people in Rome , and will continue to do so for their activities regardless of the outcome of this situation. It’s not lip-service when they say they are loyal and serve the Magisterium, as is evidenced as by them being in contact with the CWDWS. At this point we need to look at Documents vs Church Authority granting permission.

I just pray and hope that all parishes with youth programs can be like that, because obviously as of 2005 they weren’t.

As for the issue at hand, I can see both sides to this. Obviously I’m quite partial to a certain side, but I can understand and emphasize with the other. Like I said earlier, we’ll likely only see a resolution for this once the GIRM gets finalized up.

Any ideas when we’ll get that update?

 

[benedictgal]

Sadly, I have no protocol number. The discussions were well reported though, in addition to the communication that went out via Life Teen’s head office (posted in the other thread). If the consultations and communication did not occur, obviously there would have been highly negative reports coming out regarding the issue. As I stated before, if the CWDWS had issues with it they would have mentioned it then (along with everything else they wanted to change).

Would it be detrimental? Of course not. But that would only be if we didn’t expose them to these things already. The assumption is (and I’m not directing this at you benedictgal, this is more of a general comment) that Life Teen does nothing to promote Sacred Music or anything involving the history of the Church. That couldn’t be further from the truth, as we educate them in the rich history of the Catholic Church through several ways. Mass is just one portion of the Life Teen program, after all.

One thing I want to make perfectly clear is that Life Teen is 100% faithful to Papal Authority and Rome. When the document came out in 2004 to conform to the GIRM, all were told to conform by the head offices of Life Teen, and were told explicitly. Not all parishes did, which in turn makes the organization as a whole look bad. This of course falls on the local leaders to be faithful to Rome and to obey as we are called to. I can also assure you (and everyone) that because of this, Life Teen would have received permission to continue what they do from the appropriate people in Rome , and will continue to do so for their activities regardless of the outcome of this situation. It’s not lip-service when they say they are loyal and serve the Magisterium, as is evidenced as by them being in contact with the CWDWS. At this point we need to look at Documents vs Church Authority granting permission.

I just pray and hope that all parishes with youth programs can be like that, because obviously as of 2005 they weren’t.

As for the issue at hand, I can see both sides to this. Obviously I’m quite partial to a certain side, but I can understand and emphasize with the other. Like I said earlier, we’ll likely only see a resolution for this once the GIRM gets finalized up.

Any ideas when we’ll get that update?

While the GIRM is the primary regulatory document governing the liturgy, it is not the only one. It acts in tandem with Redemptionis Sacramentum, with Musicam Sacram and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. The GIRM is not what is being changed; it is the translation of the prayers of the Mass. Therein lies the confusion.

We are still under Musicam Sacram. That document has not been abrogated. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes references to music in the Mass. Here it states that:

57.] It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

While it is the only reference by name to sacred music, that should be an indicator that all has not been as it should be. RS came out in 2004 in response to issues that had already been festering for quite some time. The Venerable Pope John Paul II had already alluded to such a document when he wrote his encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

The one document that will come from Rome is the directory of sacred music. The USCCB sent in its directory back in 2006, but, Rome has not approved it. In fact, they are closely examining what that directory contains, looking at everything from texts to genre.

Now, it is not the movement that I am criticizing. You have your approval. It is the manner in which the Mass is treated that is cause for concern. The Neocatechumenal Way has its Apostolic Charter. But, this was only granted after they were forced to clean up the abuses that they had in their celebration of the Mass. To be an approved movement is one thing, but, to treat the Mass as the personal property of the ecclesial group is quite another.

I have seen the LifeTeen planning guides. Nowhere do they even suggest using genuine Sacred Music. It is mostly P&W and that is all. Withholding genuine, true sacred music from the youth does them a huge disservice. It does not allow them to experience the essence of the Church’s magnifcent treasury of sacred hymns that she has used for centuries. These hymns are rich in the faith and have melodies that are simple enough to sing. They are, perhaps, even more relevent to the Faith of the Church than the P&W, which, by its nature, is Protestant.

 

[michaeldaniels]

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia
Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy

Sacred Congregation for Rites - September 3, 1958

C. Sacred instrumental music.

1. Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules derived from the principles stated above (no.60) are to strictly observed:

a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;
b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;
c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.

1. The local Ordinary, with the aid of his diocesan commission on sacred music, should see to it that these rules on the use of instruments during the sacred liturgy are faithfully observed. If need be, they should not hesitate to issue special instructions in this regard as required by local conditions, and approved customs.

D. Musical instruments, and mechanical devices.

1. Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions.

 

[Melchior_1]

While the GIRM is the primary regulatory document governing the liturgy, it is not the only one. It acts in tandem with Redemptionis Sacramentum, with Musicam Sacram and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. The GIRM is not what is being changed; it is the translation of the prayers of the Mass. Therein lies the confusion.

We are still under Musicam Sacram. That document has not been abrogated. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes references to music in the Mass. Here it states that:

While it is the only reference by name to sacred music, that should be an indicator that all has not been as it should be. RS came out in 2004 in response to issues that had already been festering for quite some time. The Venerable Pope John Paul II had already alluded to such a document when he wrote his encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

The one document that will come from Rome is the directory of sacred music. The USCCB sent in its directory back in 2006, but, Rome has not approved it. In fact, they are closely examining what that directory contains, looking at everything from texts to genre.

Now, it is not the movement that I am criticizing. You have your approval. It is the manner in which the Mass is treated that is cause for concern. The Neocatechumenal Way has its Apostolic Charter. But, this was only granted after they were forced to clean up the abuses that they had in their celebration of the Mass. To be an approved movement is one thing, but, to treat the Mass as the personal property of the ecclesial group is quite another.

I have seen the LifeTeen planning guides. Nowhere do they even suggest using genuine Sacred Music. It is mostly P&W and that is all. Withholding genuine, true sacred music from the youth does them a huge disservice. It does not allow them to experience the essence of the Church’s magnifcent treasury of sacred hymns that she has used for centuries. These hymns are rich in the faith and have melodies that are simple enough to sing. They are, perhaps, even more relevent to the Faith of the Church than the P&W, which, by its nature, is Protestant.

So the is not likely settle the discussion of contemporary instruments during Mass?

I agree it’s a cause of concern, you won’t hear me debate that point. I expressed in the Life Teen thread over at the Traditional Catholics board that I used to be **very **concerned. But I have trust in my Bishops and in Rome, and if the approval was given the approval was given. People on either side of this discussion cannot deny the sincerity and devotion that Life Teen has towards the Leadership of the Church and in Rome. And to this day, it makes me glad the organization that I’m affiliated with went all the way to Rome to make sure they were on the up-and-up. As for why having a Youth Mass, the details on LT’s web site seem fairly solid and, once again, is all vetted through the Bishop.

To add a new twist to this discussion; something of interest is I believe there are exceptions for culture items, such as in Africa and South America. I’m not saying I would take up this argument, but some would say for our culture that contemporary music could be seen in the same light. We are no longer as tied to Europe as we once were (in the case of the States literally; they are a Republic). I’m not saying I support such an argument, but I’m saying one might make it.

There’s a lot of things those Life Night guidelines don’t suggest, which is why there are times we will modify them accordingly. Some of the kids have been in the program since Grade 7, all the way to Grade 12. The program lasts for a Four Year Cycle (if you do it “by the book”), so there’s going to be some repeats…which is why we change things up every so often to ensure they’re getting new perspectives on things. It also depends on the community. Earlier in the year we were working on the Corporal Works of Mercy and the importance of the justification of salvation through Faith & Works. Right now we’re trying to push the idea of formation because we can see it’s an issue. Myself, I’m obviously going to integrate Franciscan values regardless of whats going on because that happens to be my affinity.

The conversations you and I have had has had an impact on me because it has made me re-evaluate how often we talk to the kids about these kinds of things. Do we do so? Yes. Do we do it often enough? It’s something to pray and discern. We’ve got a lot on our plates, but if it’s the Lord’s Will then we’ll make it happen. Once more, I appreciate the dialogue. I do find this informative, and I’m glad you take the time to write out your posts. People can come in this thread and see our discussions (if you count the other thread) and see both sides expressed in a reasonable manner, which is excellent.

As for what I see potentially happening; Rome will produce documentation outlining what their preference would be, however discretion would be up to the local Archbishops (as is the case in several things already).

And about dialogue. Mike, do me a favor please. Next time actually add something to the conversation instead of copying and pasting something we’ve all read already. That we’ve read several times. It makes you come across as insensitive and a troll, and isn’t likely to bring people to your side of things.

 

[Bold_Sexton]

Welcome to the forums. I do not know if you are Catholic since your profile does not indicate such.

The Church does have her standards of music. Please note what Pope St. Pius X wrote back in 1903:

Now, look at what the venerable Pope John Paul II wrote 100 years later:

This is what, as I read the posts here, the proponents of the usage of the electric guitar, electric bass guitar and drum kit fail to realize. The Church certainly makes allowances for new Sacred Musuic, however, not everything is fit to cross the threshold for usage in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Genre plays a huge role. As Pope John Paul II wrote, “not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.” Granted, immediately after the Second Vatican Council, there was a misguided period of experimentation that ran the gamut from folk songs to soft pop. This is what prompted the late Pope Paul VI to make his threshold remarks, which Pope John Paul II quoted. Unfortunately, and lamentably, there are those, especially the publishing houses, who refuse to admit that the time for experimentation is over and we need to put the Sacred back into the music used at Mass. This includes using instruments that are suitable for the solemnity, dignity and majesty befitting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

My DH is Lutheran, they love their hymns and music and seem very happy to adopt various styles at times, but I never feel they overwhelm the message. Now, they do have a “Family Night” which is more of a fellowship thing and not overly religious where the musicians do have some fun and do things that often amaze me and even make me laugh, but like I said. They are not looking to make those events a praise and worship type of atmosphere.

I think we should remember that Silent Night, one of the greatest of hymns, was written for a single acoustic guitar. And, that “A Mighty FOrtress is our God” follows the beer hall music the laity was listening to at the time.

 

[Tepeyac]

1. Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions.

That’s the heart of the disagreement, isn’t it? Whether or not certain instruments are **only **suitable for secular music, and if that’s by “common acception” or not. I don’t think there will ever be an agreement there until the Vatican or the U.S. bishops come up with an explicit, current list.

 

[Cat]

I’m curious.

Those of you who say that Praise and Worship music sounds “secular”–

How much Praise and Worship music have you actually listened to LIVE in a church setting?

I grew up playing piano, trained in the classics by a church pianist/organist (pipe organ).

I also grew up in a Baptist church which regularly used Praise and Worship music in the worship services. (It was called “Gospel” when I was growing up–same idea.)

So I know music.

Absolutely no way does live (in church) Praise and Worship music even vaguely resemble pop or rock music.

Now if you’ve listened to Praise and Worship music only via recording, then I can see your point and somewhat agree with you. When you hear all the insrumentation and the drum machine and the reverb–of course it sounds just like pop, rock, jazz, and possibly even a little soul, funk, and/or R and B.

But what you hear produced by the professionals in the studio is a whole lot different than what the faithful Christians sing in their church family accompanied by a live piano, live organ, or live small band/orchestra. There is absolutely no similiarity between family music and the studio stuff.

Of course, some local churches will use “tracks” for their Praise and Worship music, and this makes the music resemble secular pop or light rock. When we were still in the Protestant church, my husband and I objected often to the use of tracks in congregational singing. It seemed very fake to us–it WAS very fake, because the musicians weren’t there with us. We were following the track, instead of the musicians accompanying the singers.

But many churches try to use live musicians for their Praise and Worship time, and IMO, the music produced by Christians in church settings is sublime, reverent, and beautiful, and nothing at all, absolutely nothing, like secular music.

So I suggest that those who wish to compare Praise and Worship to “secular,” should please study it for a reasonable period of time (not just one random visit) in its church context before drawing any conclusions.

 

[agapewolf]

:

I have seen the LifeTeen planning guides. Nowhere do they even suggest using genuine Sacred Music. It is mostly P&W and that is all. Withholding genuine, true sacred music from the youth does them a huge disservice. It does not allow them to experience the essence of the Church’s magnifcent treasury of sacred hymns that she has used for centuries. These hymns are rich in the faith and have melodies that are simple enough to sing. They are, perhaps, even more relevent to the Faith of the Church than the P&W, which, by its nature, is Protestant.

Well apparently you haven’t read the lifeteen planning guides.
There’s a lot of always/never statements going on here. You have not done your research here, and are making false accusations…

In just a casual flipping through my 4 lit planners I have available at home (the ones that match the current cycle as I do my planning away from my office) , I found this within 3 minutes. Almost every week has what you define as “sacred music”. Please watch your absolute statements.

From the lifeteen liturgy planner: St. Cecelia’s Corner pg 44 May 13, 2007
Today’s main “key word” for the liturgy is tradition. There are many great resources available where you can get suggestions for traditional pieces. If they work with teens, use them. Traditional music is not bad, but needs to be, like any other type of music, done well. There are traditional pieces that are very beautiful that if done in the right manner can effectively touch teens… Please do not remove this tradition from our church…

Song suggestion from 3 years ago
June 3, 2007 pg 68
Holy Holy Holy

p 127 St. Cecelia’s corner: June 6, 2004 Trinity Sunday
“Holy Holy Holy” is an old hymn, but a classic as well. Don’t be afraid to sing this hymn with your teens. Keep it simple, you don’t have to be too creative with this one, let the song play itself. …

Song suggestions: current liturgical planner
Easter:
. p 21 Jesus Christ is risen today
Joyful Joyful

June 27, 2010
P 98 All Creatures of our God and King