Stop Complaing about Music in Church.

[Brendan]

Not only that, but these lyrics seem to forget that the Mass is a sacrifice. They always portray it as only a meal.

And, on top of that, Christ called MANY to the table, not ALL

Matt 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

So I suppose the priest is more correct than Jim

 

[paramedicgirl]

And, on top of that, Christ called MANY to the table, not ALL

Matt 26

So I suppose the priest is more correct than Jim

That makes me think of this verse:

2 Matthew 22
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

You don’t suppose He was warning us about choosing sacred music, do you?

 

[kitkatty]

My question is why must people put so much effort in to producing bad music. Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler (and cheaper) if every church that does not have a proper choir just stuck to an organist and the people singing Catholic hymns? Why spend money on cantors and music directors to present a bunch of Protestant songs?

God Bless

That is what is done in the the local parish here, we are in a rural area and are actually a mission from another parish. It works well except some of the selections I don`t personally care for but we also sing many traditional Catholic hymns.

 

[kitkatty]

" Is the author arrogant and disdainful because he does not hold your view?"

Fix, no, that’s not it at all.

I play piano for a 100 year-old Italian parish. Many of the people in the parish are elderly, definitely pre-Vatican II.

I’ve seen pictures of their choir–60 people at one point, mainly men. The people have told me magnificent stories about a fantastic musical heritage in the parish.

I’ve been told over and over again by these dear elderly people that they prefer contemporary music in the Mass.

One elderly gentleman kisses me every week (his wife is right there!) and says thank you for the music.

This is the parish I mentioned that wants to hire a music director (their director quit when he turned 80; he couldn’t walk up the stairs to get into the choir loft).

The pastor of that parish told me that they want a music director who not only knows and loves the “old” music, but also the “new” music.

The impression I received from the article you posted is that if the gentleman who wrote the article were hired, he would come into this parish and toss into the trash all the music that these elderly people dearly love.

He would label their favorite songs “sappy, feminist, confusing, heretical, irreverent, secular humanist.”

Because a friend of mine plays organ for all their funerals, (and there are MANY–once they had 14 in a single week)–I happen to know that at almost every funeral, “On Eagle’s Wings” is played. It has become almost a tradition in that parish.

But the gentleman who wrote the article would tell these dear old people that they can’t be sung to their eternal rest with this “drippingly saccharine” hymn.

The reason the gentleman in this article keeps losing jobs is that he isn’t demonstrating Christian love and charity to the people in the parishes where he is hired to SERVE.

When someone says, “I love that song!” and he says, “That song is 'drippingly saccharine,” an insult has been delivered to the song-lover.

Even though the gentleman means the “music,’ the song-lover doesn’t hear it that way. What he/she hears is, “YOU are a fool becase you actually like (gag) that drippingly saccharine” hymn.”

The other thing that people hear is, “Your priest must be a total numbskull to allow such awful music in the Mass.”

That’s not very nice. Actually, it’s mean and arrogant.

I feel this way when people insult “Gather Us In.” This song made me cry the first time I ever heard it because I thought it was so beautiful, uplifting, cheerful, yet solemn.

My husband and I had been ousted from our Protestant church, and this song made me remember that God wants to “gather us in to His Church.” It made me WANT to become Catholic.

I actually wrote all the words down on a napkin and carried it around with me for weeks and read it as encouragement.

But then I read comments like the one in the article: “We sing the words “gather us in” seven times, extolling the virtues of “we”…”

What this says to me is that I am stupid, undiscerning, self-centered, unspiritual, and musically inept.

I hear the gentleman calling me a fool, even if that is not his intent.

Jesus said that if we call someone a fool, we are in danger of hell-fire.

Another song that I absolutely love is “Here I Am, Lord.” This was the song that was playing at the Rite of Election at our Cathedral. One of my heroes, Bishop Thomas Doran, was waiting at the front of the Cathedral to welcome the thousand of us who were coming into the Church that year, and the whole time, the organist (pipe organ) and Cathedral Choir were playing and singing “Here I Am, Lord.”

According to the gentleman who wrote the article, “Here I Am, Lord” is self-centered, empty, sentimental, no reverence, etc."

Look up Bishop Thomas Doran. You’ll find that he’s one of the CHAMPIONS of correct liturgy in the Mass.

Is HE “self-centered, empty, sentimental, irreverent, etc.” because he allows “Here I Am, Lord” to be sung at the Rite of Election? And is he a fool because the theme song on his weekly radio show is “Gather Us In?”

Fix, the gentleman who wrote that article will never, ever find a parish to serve in until he puts PEOPLE ahead of rules.

Our Lord Jesus Christ never put rules and regulations ahead of people. He even broke the Sabbath to heal. LOVE is the most important thing, not “liturgy.”

Liturgy is very important, we should pray as we believe. Yes love and reverence to our God is the most important and primary thing., our liturgy and liturgical hymns should reflect that.

 

[az_4_faith]

Cat, you hit the nail on the head.

These are SONGS, not HYMNS. Songs are great, I like songs. I sing songs often.

However, at Church, we sing HYMNS, Praise to God.

We don’t go to sing songs.

Hey, Brendan, I agree wholeheartedly. While many Christians songs are beautiful and enjoyable, not all songs, even very nice ones, are appropriate to be used as hymns for worship of God during Mass. Sometimes musicians confuse the two. I know I’ve worked with musicians who have.

How about that ol’ standby “Anthem”

“We are called, we are chosen
to be Christ to one another . . .”

Boy, oh boy that song used to make me cringe. Thanks be to God it’s been buried at our Parish.

Wait’ll we get to heaven, the music there is gonna blow us away.
(Either that or “Anthem” will be playing at Peter’s Gate and I’ll have a spiritual coronary -wouldn’t that be funny.)

 

[VociMike]

Nah, we’re just arguing over your interpretation of the church documents.

Which alleged interpretation is that? This should be good. Tell us how we misinterpret Vatican II’s call for Gregorian chant to hold pride of place. Tell us how we misinterpret the council’s singling out of sacred polyphony as also being especially suitable. Tell us how we misinterpret John Paul II’s re-statement that sacred music is more suitable as it follows Gregorian chant in flow and form, and less suitable as it deviates from that flow and form. Tell us how we misinterpret Benedict XVI’s recent declaration, in league with the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant is to be the song proper to the Roman liturgy.

If what you say is correct, the hymnals which we use in church, which are approved by the Bishops, would not be allowed, because they have many of the hymns folks in here complain about, i.e. “Gather us In.”

What does this have to do with anything? What does this have to do with the fact that the Church has laid out explicit guidelines for what good liturgical music should be, and that recent popes have explicitly pointed out that much music in the Church today does not live up to those guidelines? Hey, maybe that’s just their interpretation of their own documents.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Which alleged interpretation is that? This should be good. Tell us how we misinterpret Vatican II’s call for Gregorian chant to hold pride of place. Tell us how we misinterpret the council’s singling out of sacred polyphony as also being especially suitable. Tell us how we misinterpret John Paul II’s re-statement that sacred music is more suitable as it follows Gregorian chant in flow and form, and less suitable as it deviates from that flow and form.

What does this have to do with anything? What does this have to do with the fact that the Church has laid out explicit guidelines for what good liturgical music should be, and that recent popes have explicitly pointed out that much music in the Church today does not live up to those guidelines? Hey, maybe that’s just their interpretation of their own documents.

Cardinal Arinze spoke about music in the Church. He said:

Regarding “music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church’s precious heritage,” he said. “It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere.”

“The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a liturgical music commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference.”

“People don’t come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need. When they want entertainment, they know where to go – parish hall, theater, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view,” added the cardinal, 73, who this year celebrated the 40th anniversary of his episcopal ordination.

There’s more, but we’re only allowed to post three paragraphs here. Do yourself a favour and read what the Cardinal says.

 

[VAC]

However, “the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music,” the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops’ conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

That’s a paragraph you didn’t have room for in your post.

The misinterpretation comes when people seem to interepret that Gregorian chant is to be played to the exclusion of all else, and that all else is garbage and that does not belong at mass.

This is my interpretation of the misinterpertations I’ve interperted from reading the interpretations of others.

PS: You’d be surprised at some of the reasons people come to mass…

 

[Joysong]

VAC:

The misinterpretation comes when people seem to interepret that Gregorian chant is to be played to the exclusion of all else, and that all else is garbage and that does not belong at mass.

How true, and how unfortunate that some are only able to apply their understanding “selectively.”

Also omitted from Paramedicgirl’s quote is an eye-opener found at the bottom of the document, one which most traditionalists would prefer stays in the closet.

Contrary to what many think, he said, even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.

 

[fix]

" Is the author arrogant and disdainful because he does not hold your view?"

Fix, no, that’s not it at all.

I play piano for a 100 year-old Italian parish. Many of the people in the parish are elderly, definitely pre-Vatican II.

I’ve seen pictures of their choir–60 people at one point, mainly men. The people have told me magnificent stories about a fantastic musical heritage in the parish.

I’ve been told over and over again by these dear elderly people that they prefer contemporary music in the Mass.

Their preference is not the sole factor to be evaluated. Does their preference match the mind of the church?

The impression I received from the article you posted is that if the gentleman who wrote the article were hired, he would come into this parish and toss into the trash all the music that these elderly people dearly love.

Well, if the music dearly loved is improper it ought to be tossed. We worship God as He desires not as we desire.

He would label their favorite songs “sappy, feminist, confusing, heretical, irreverent, secular humanist.”

Maybe it is those things. If it is not then I agree with you.

Because a friend of mine plays organ for all their funerals, (and there are MANY–once they had 14 in a single week)–I happen to know that at almost every funeral, “On Eagle’s Wings” is played. It has become almost a tradition in that parish.

I am no musical expert but simply playing any particular song over and over does not make it proper for the mass. Where does the criteria of Rome fit in to your evaluation?

**

The reason the gentleman in this article keeps losing jobs is that he isn’t demonstrating Christian love and charity to the people in the parishes where he is hired to SERVE.

**

That is a strong position to take. I do not feel qualified to state he is not demonstrating Christian love. He may hold a different opinion but that does not make him unloving.

When someone says, “I love that song!” and he says, “That song is 'drippingly saccharine,” an insult has been delivered to the song-lover.

Insult? That one likes some song does not mean the song is not drippy. Why can’t someone like some song and that song be syrupy?

Even though the gentleman means the “music,’ the song-lover doesn’t hear it that way. What he/she hears is, “YOU are a fool becase you actually like (gag) that drippingly saccharine” hymn.”

You mean the hearer may be overly sensitive? You do not like his tone, ok. But, does that tone mean the meat of the argument is wrong?

My husband and I had been ousted from our Protestant church, and this song made me remember that God wants to “gather us in to His Church.” It made me WANT to become Catholic.

OK, but what about those good folks who are put off by such songs? Does their sensibility not deserve a thought? What about the Church? Does Rome not derserve to be followed?

Jesus said that if we call someone a fool, we are in danger of hell-fire.

In all kindness I must say that your comments hear seem to be what you accuse him of. I do not want to be impolite or mean to you, but I want to make my point too.

Look up Bishop Thomas Doran. You’ll find that he’s one of the CHAMPIONS of correct liturgy in the Mass.

I have seen him and heard him. That some song was played does not mean he endorses it. Perhaps he does or does not but that it was played does not prove it is good.

Fix, the gentleman who wrote that article will never, ever find a parish to serve in until he puts PEOPLE ahead of rules.

This is troubling? What rules? You mean to neglect Rome to appease people?

Our Lord Jesus Christ never put rules and regulations ahead of people. He even broke the Sabbath to heal. LOVE is the most important thing, not “liturgy.”

Again I am troubled. The mass does not belong to you or me. Folks who desire improper music have no right to that in the mass. The debate is what is proper.

 

[Brendan]

Also omitted from Paramedicgirl’s quote is an eye-opener found at the bottom of the document, one which most traditionalists would prefer stays in the closet.

Even ‘Traditionalists’ don’t consider an accidental garbling of the words to be an abuse, but rather an honest mistake.

Now if the priest DELIBERATLY changed the words he was supposed to say, that would be an abuse.

I have yet to see proof that such an event happened with anything approaching regularity in the Tridentine Mass, or even in the Latin NO.

Some English NO Massess I’ve been to,

 

[babydoc]

I am a church musician and try to appreciate what is good in all musical styles. I don’t prefer (understatement of the yr Haugen et. al, but I do my best to maintain high standards of musicality when I sing his songs. The OP has much wisdom is encouraging us to live 'in omnibus caritas"

I do have one pet peeve, though – the politically correct castration of any potentially masculine words or pronouns. Many time it alters the meaning of biblical texts. As a woman, I feel insulted that hymn writers (personym writers??) think I am so fragile and unintelligent that I don’t realize that “mankind” refers to us females as well.

The one that really got to me happened this week. I was singing “For All the Saints” and got to the lyrics “O Blessed Communion, FAMILY Divine”. I was rather slow on the uptake early in the morning, so I said, “why did they change the classic text which read FELLOWSHIP divine??” Then I realized the horrid male implications of FELLOW-ship
This is just going too far – even our separated bretheren (sibling-en?) know that fellowship is a fine Christian word.

 

[fix]

Even ‘Traditionalists’ don’t consider an accidental garbling of the words to be an abuse, but rather an honest mistake.

Now if the priest DELIBERATLY changed the words he was supposed to say, that would be an abuse.

I have yet to see proof that such an event happened with anything approaching regularity in the Tridentine Mass, or even in the Latin NO.

Some English NO Massess I’ve been to,

Not only that any abuse “back then” that I hear about cannot trump what we see today including clown masses and dancers in skimpy clothes.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
However, “the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music,” the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops’ conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

That’s a paragraph you didn’t have room for in your post.

The misinterpretation comes when people seem to interepret that Gregorian chant is to be played to the exclusion of all else, and that all else is garbage and that does not belong at mass.

This is my interpretation of the misinterpertations I’ve interperted from reading the interpretations of others.

PS: You’d be surprised at some of the reasons people come to mass…

---

What you included above—can be further clarifed by what Pope Benedict says below. Not all music that pleases and/or makes people “feel good”—is appropriate for our Mass. We run into problems when the focus is changed from that of the true meaning of our Mass----to the human.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#Ars_celebrandi

Liturgical song

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

 

[VociMike]

That’s a paragraph you didn’t have room for in your post.

The misinterpretation comes when people seem to interepret that Gregorian chant is to be played to the exclusion of all else, and that all else is garbage and that does not belong at mass.

This is my interpretation of the misinterpertations I’ve interperted from reading the interpretations of others.

I have to say I’ve never actually seen this claimed. I’ve seen it claimed that it was claimed, but I’ve never heard somebody say that only Gregorian chant should be used, and that everything else was garbage. Surely it is not a prevalent view, if it exists at all. In fact, I expect that the vast majority of people who want more adherence to the Church dictates on music would shoot down such a claim in an instant. I know I would, and I have heard others in the “traditional music” camp explicitly deny that such is the position of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

It could be argued that we really ought not sing HYMNS at Mass, either if we are to keep to the true spirit of the idealized Liturgical preferences.

No, it harkens back to what the Apostles did at the Last Supper,

Mk 14:25-26

Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

And, if Christ was following the Sedar customs, this would have been Psalm 114, Chanted.

 

[VAC]

I have to say I’ve never actually seen this claimed. I’ve seen it claimed that it was claimed, but I’ve never heard somebody say that only Gregorian chant should be used, and that everything else was garbage. Surely it is not a prevalent view, if it exists at all. In fact, I expect that the vast majority of people who want more adherence to the Church dictates on music would shoot down such a claim in an instant. I know I would, and I have heard others in the “traditional music” camp explicitly deny that such is the position of the Church.

It’s not the position of the Church, but it appears to be the opinion of many who post on these threads who use the position of the church to back up their opinions, (in my opinion)

 

[VAC]

No, it harkens back to what the Apostles did at the Last Supper,

Mk 14:25-26

And, if Christ was following the Sedar customs, this would have been Psalm 114, Chanted.

I’ve been to a Seder every year for the past 24, and there is plenty of singing, most of it joyous

 

[THutch04]

The one that really got to me happened this week. I was singing “For All the Saints” and got to the lyrics “O Blessed Communion, FAMILY Divine”. I was rather slow on the uptake early in the morning, so I said, “why did they change the classic text which read FELLOWSHIP divine??” Then I realized the horrid male implications of FELLOW-ship
This is just going too far – even our separated bretheren (sibling-en?) know that fellowship is a fine Christian word.

You’re kidding, right??? Somebody didn’t seriously think that FELLOWSHIP wasn’t inclusive enough did they? To be honest I don’t think I would’ve ever even considered that…

 

[Cat]

May I ask if those of you who hate the music in your parishes have:

1. Talked to the Liturgical Director or Music Director?
2. Talked to the pastor?
3. Talked to the Liturgical Director (person in charge of abuses) in your diocese?
4. Written or talked with your Bishop?
5. Written or talked with someone at the Vatican?

What were the results of your queries?

Thank you.