E
ethelzguy
Guest
God has specifically instructed the Catholic Church what music to use for praise and worship?
- Status
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Source(s) please?
V
VociMike
Guest
Who said anything about praise and worship? I thought we were speaking about music in the liturgy.
Anyway, where do you think the teachings of the Church come from? Where do you think the teachings of Vatican II come from? If they do not originate from God then we’re in the wrong religion.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Music isn’t part of “praise and worship”? oops
V
VociMike
Guest
“Praise and worship” is a much larger category than “Catholic liturgical music”. Plenty of music that is not suitable for Catholic liturgy is suitable for other instances of praise and worship. Intentionally or not you had shifted the goalposts with your phrasing.Music isn’t part of “praise and worship”? oops
S
Sarabande
Guest
Actually, chant was used in the earliest forms of worship for the Jews. They might have used the cymbal, lyres, etc. for praising Yahweh outside of their worship, but for their prayers and worship it was chant. Practically all of their prayers were chanted and still are. Because Jesus was a Jew, He probably knew all of his chants just like many Jews today learn. Besides chastising the pharisees for their hypocrisy and over-heedance to laws, He never seemed to belittle other practices of His faith. (I’ve sat many times observing my former voice teacher prepare the children of the synogogue for their bat and bar mitzvahs. Chant and Hebrew is extremely important.)
I’ve mentioned this before - I’m not a proponent of chant-only masses. I believe we have such a wonderful abundance of sacred music repertoire that has stood the test of time and have been deemed worthy for the liturgy. But understand the special “pride and place” that chant has. Because chant has been held in such high esteem by the Church for so many centuries, and even because chant gives us a connection to the faith that Jesus and His ancestors had, it makes it even that much more special.
I also disagree with the idea that different age groups have to sing and play “age-appropriate” music. That’s assuming that every person in each age group thinks the same way, and it assumes that the Church is trying to market to fill the seats. As a professional musician who has trained since the age of four, that is a very foreign and stagnating concept.
It has been discussed here and there have been many ideas on how this can be achieved on this thread and various others, but I think what is more important is to try to achieve the utmost in quality and expectation of the standard set by the Church. It’s not about the genre music, but more of how any music being composed today and in the past have done its best to live up to the standard. In the past throughout the centuries, all music when written for liturgy was refined so that it can be acceptable. When it wasn’t acceptable (it might have taken a few months and even a few decades) the Church banned it until it was refined enough to be accepted.
And it’s important to instill all of this into the coming generations instead of trying to negate it. The Jewish faith instills the importance of chant and their language of prayer - Hebrew into their young. It doesn’t seem to be so difficult for them and I suspect it wouldn’t be so difficult for Catholics too if we did that with our chant and Latin. We can definitely still do music from various centuries and still sing in the venacular if the music calls for it. We can even do Praise and Worship music for outside of the liturgy if people are inspired by it. But we should be taking it as our responsibility to live up to what the Church continues to reiterate that chant and polyphony (whether in Latin or venacular) does hold high esteem in our liturgy.
I’ve mentioned this before - I’m not a proponent of chant-only masses. I believe we have such a wonderful abundance of sacred music repertoire that has stood the test of time and have been deemed worthy for the liturgy. But understand the special “pride and place” that chant has. Because chant has been held in such high esteem by the Church for so many centuries, and even because chant gives us a connection to the faith that Jesus and His ancestors had, it makes it even that much more special.
I also disagree with the idea that different age groups have to sing and play “age-appropriate” music. That’s assuming that every person in each age group thinks the same way, and it assumes that the Church is trying to market to fill the seats. As a professional musician who has trained since the age of four, that is a very foreign and stagnating concept.
It has been discussed here and there have been many ideas on how this can be achieved on this thread and various others, but I think what is more important is to try to achieve the utmost in quality and expectation of the standard set by the Church. It’s not about the genre music, but more of how any music being composed today and in the past have done its best to live up to the standard. In the past throughout the centuries, all music when written for liturgy was refined so that it can be acceptable. When it wasn’t acceptable (it might have taken a few months and even a few decades) the Church banned it until it was refined enough to be accepted.
And it’s important to instill all of this into the coming generations instead of trying to negate it. The Jewish faith instills the importance of chant and their language of prayer - Hebrew into their young. It doesn’t seem to be so difficult for them and I suspect it wouldn’t be so difficult for Catholics too if we did that with our chant and Latin. We can definitely still do music from various centuries and still sing in the venacular if the music calls for it. We can even do Praise and Worship music for outside of the liturgy if people are inspired by it. But we should be taking it as our responsibility to live up to what the Church continues to reiterate that chant and polyphony (whether in Latin or venacular) does hold high esteem in our liturgy.
J
japhy
Guest
We don’t have a “separate liturgy”. We have such a thing as “children’s liturgy of the word” and Eucharistic Prayers specifically for Masses with children, but those are not completely separate Mass liturgies.Well, we do have a seperate liturgy for Children’s Mass, no?
And why are children the lucky ones (and now teens, with LifeTeen)? Where’s the SeniorSpirit Mass?
R
Rabbititus
Guest
I’m glad you brought this up - when I was a teenager I didn’t like Christian rock or “praise & worship” music (thought it was corny and really rather lame compared to “real” rock music). Sometimes while sitting bored at mass I would read the copyright information for the hymns and discovered that, as a general rule, I preferred the hymns written in the 19th Century… particularly ones that were translations of older Latin hymns.
I don’t deny that other teenagers might have preferred rock music - but a lot probably don’t. A lot probably like traditional music too, even if all the secular music they listen to is rock. People of all ages have different musical preferences.
Also, I don’t get why no attention is ever paid to the Jubilate Deo chants - I honesty don’t see why we can’t have different musical styles but still have Gregorian chant as the baseline standard. Catholic kids should have to learn the Jubilate Deo ordinary and pater noster, and parishes should use them at least once in a while.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Thank goodness, that the Holy See, while noting what is “preferred”, had the wisdom to grant priests and bishops the ability to be flexible as they deem appropriate.
J
jjschlueter23
Guest
While Gregorian chant may be preferred by church, it doesn’t mean that other styles of liturgical music are wrong.
Are we supposed to go into Africa (where the Church is booming btw) and tell them that, “Nope, sorry, you can’t dance because we didn’t do it in Rome. Oh yeah. And those drums, they’ve got to go. They don’t fit our ‘preferred’ definition of music.” Be my guest. Try it. I’ll watch you get laughed out. Ethelzguy was right, thank goodness we had enough wisdom to give the bishops the power to do something.
Are we supposed to go into Africa (where the Church is booming btw) and tell them that, “Nope, sorry, you can’t dance because we didn’t do it in Rome. Oh yeah. And those drums, they’ve got to go. They don’t fit our ‘preferred’ definition of music.” Be my guest. Try it. I’ll watch you get laughed out. Ethelzguy was right, thank goodness we had enough wisdom to give the bishops the power to do something.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Gee, then, why would the Holy Father have made this statement in Sacramentum Caritatis:
Furthermore, this was written in response to the issue of the music used for Youth Masses, which the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist found very problematic.
Now, regarding the issue of inculturation, Pope John Paul II skillfully tackled this one when he wrote that:
So much for your argument on the issue of Africa.
Nonetheless, everything else that Pope John Paul noted in this section most definitely applies to the issue of music used at these so-called Teen Masses.
The Church does not give carte blanche to every kind of music. Those who have that opinion, I respectfully submit, misinterpret what the documents of the Holy See and what the writings of the Supreme Pontiffs say.
C
Cat
Guest
The Church does not give carte blanche to every kind of music. But it certainly allows a lot more freedom in music than some people insist.
And no matter what you say, the music of OCP and the music that is used in Life Teen DOES have the stamp of approval of the bishops, so I do wish that you would stop insisting that this music is irreverent or inappropriate. It isn’t seemly to insist that you know more than the bishops.
You may not like it personally, but a lot of us DO like this kind of music and we’re very tired of reading the tirades against it insisting that it is dumbed down or amelodic or even un-Catholic and that it is inappropriate for Mass and irreverent for the Blessed Sacrament. This is an insult to us, our priests, and our bishops, especially when the very documents you quote do not actually denounce the musical styles that you decry.
I’m not just speakng for myself, I’m speaking for the hundreds of people in our parish that pack out the church building for Life Teen every Sunday night. And I’m also speaking for the people who truly love the 70s songs that are in the OCP hymnal–and there are a LOT of people who would make that claim that are not accounted for here on CAF. Many people are not online and have no idea that all this arguing is going on. They only know what they like and what their priest uses in his Mass. Think of all these people, please. I would venture to say that they are in the HUGE majority of Catholics in the U.S.
Of course, being in the majority doesn’t make us all right. Maybe YOU are correct, and our music is dog-poo that offends the very heart of Jesus and His Blessed Mother. If and when HMC declares that such songs and styles cannot be used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we will submit.
But in the meantime, we will enjoy these songs and grow closer to the Lord and each other as we sing and listen to them.
Considering the passion with which you argue against various musical styles, specific hymns, and publishing houses, I do hope that you are taking all of your complaints to the proper people in the Catholic Church who actually have the power to implement your suggestions. I assume that you are writing letters to people in high places, and involved with the liturgy commission (or whatever it’s called) in YOUR diocese in order to see the changes happen that you insist need to happen because of your interpretation of the various documents. I personally see no point in coming here and denouncing as “irreverent” the music that so many of us in the U.S. love and that our bishops encourage and approve of. This, IMO, undermines respect and trust in our U.S. bishops–that’s the LAST thing we need in the U.S. I think that it is a much more serious sin to undermine the leadership of the Church than it is to sing “On Eagles Wings.”
J
japhy
Guest
Not all music is appropriate for the liturgy. Chant is the best, followed by polyphony; all other forms of music must be evaluated based on three criteria (as found in Tra le Sollecitudini). This doesn’t mean that if the music isn’t chant or polyphony, it’s wrong or forbidden, but it means it must be carefully evaluated. No one here is saying that only chant and polyphony should be permitted, but we are saying that the criteria of the Church need to be employed.
Orthodoxy of faith is not related to the amount of dancing and cultural music in the liturgy.
:bowdown2:
V
VociMike
Guest
OK, and where can we find the exact breakdown? Every time anybody brings up the criteria listed in Church documents they get attacked. So how, exactly, does one discern what music the Church does not give carte blanche to? That would be a good start.
Dog-poo? You actually wrote dog-poo?
Anyway, I think your comment sums up the real issue quite nicely. You wrote about “our” music. So on the one hand there is the music held up as the ideal by the Church (with the reasons behind that preference clearly stated), and on the other hand there is “our” music. And as far as I can tell, nobody has any interest in objectively evaluating the liturgical suitability of “our” music according to the standards given by the Church. Everybody is willing to agree that, yes, somewhere out there there is probably some unsuitable music, but don’t you dare try and judge “our” music and determine that it is less worthy than anything else. Don’t you dare apply the standards of the Church to “our” music.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Of course, we all KNOW that judging the standards of Catholicism is reserved to the traditionalist crowd.
V
VociMike
Guest
OK, you’re being sarcastic. I’ve noticed you do that a lot. So be it. Now follow up your rolling eyes with a serious non-traditionalist analysis of the suitability of “teen” music according to the standards of the Church. If you don’t like the traditionalist analysis, offer one of your own.Of course, we all KNOW that judging the standards of Catholicism is reserved to the traditionalist crowd.
Is it holy, endowed with a holy sincerity of form?
Is it true art?
Is it universal, in time and in space?
Does it set the actual texts of the Mass, as opposed to other texts?
Is it pervaded by the spirit which gave rise to Gregorian chant, its composers profoundly immersed in the sensus Ecclesiae?
“A composition for Church is sacred and liturgical insofar as it approaches Gregorian melody in flow, in inspiration, and in flavor, and so much less is it worthy of the temple insomuch as it is recognized as departing from that supreme model”. Evidently, this does not mean copying Gregorian chant, but rather seeing to it that new compositions be pervaded by the same spirit that gave rise to and so molded that chant. Only an artist profoundly immersed in the sensus Ecclesiae may try to perceive and translate into melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.
- John Paul II
S
snhs
Guest
Freedom within the guidelines set out. Far too often the music used by groups like LT not only fails to meet the criteria but flies in the face of it.
Which Bishops? And what approval have they given it? Just what do you think that approval means? Is it simply a statement that its free from doctrinal error or has this Bishop or his delegate sat down and listened to all of the tunes to judge them in accord with the Church’s expectations of what Music is suitable for the Mass?
It also isn’t seemly for Bishops to neglect to follow the leadership of the Church.
I was under the impression that the Catholic Church was universal, why are you trying to turn this into a them and us mentality? If you want the Mass to be the best we can make it then you should be able to justify the music you obviously consider appropriate for Mass in accord with the criteria set by the Church. Your failure to do so does your position no favours.
You like it, fine. Now explain why it is suitable for use in the Mass. Not by talking about how much you or these other people you speak about like it, not be justifying it as a pew packing measure nor as some sort of nostalgia for a misspent youth but by the criteria the Church has set. Namely explain why it is holy and why it is art, and thats not even taking into account whether its universal or a setting of the texts of Mass.
Oh, what martyrdom you are willing to endure for the faith, sacrificing the songs of the seventies if and only if the Church decides to explicitly ban them from Mass. What more do you want from them than the guidelines we already have? Benedictgal has outlined the position from several Popes, multiple Conferences and Cardinals and still you persist while failing to back up your position with anything other than what ‘our’ wants are. Do you seriously expect the Vatican or one of its Congregations to approve every song before it can be used, or would you expect an edict along the lines of ‘no praise and worship music is suitable for use in Mass’? Of course that wouldn’t solve anything because they’d just invent a new genre or blanket term to keep all the old favourites anyway.
Just what power do you think local Bishops have over us? I’ve got to tell you if the Bishop of Rome teaches one thing and the Bishop of wherever teaches something at odds with it then I can tell you right now which one I’m most likely to go by. Similarly the documents which have been referred to carry more weight than the view or statements of the local ordinary. A far more serious sin would be willfully disregarding the teachings and rules set by the Church, a fact you should perhaps bear in mind.
J
Joysong
Guest
I think this part of JPII’s statement is critical to understanding his message – i.e., that the ‘same spirit’ pervades all music, the spirit of reverence and awe. This may not always take the form of solemn chant, and to expect that form to the exclusion of all others is unrealistic and not conducive to everyone’s spirituality, IMO. We seek the ‘common good’ of the many who are of differing ages, temperments, and spiritual growth.
In another thread I just read this morning, the poster commented that St. Teresa of Avila danced before the Blessed Sacrament with castanets. Having read her Life, I remember the incident well, and her spirit was so full of the joy of Our Lord that she went into ecstacy.
There are many celebrations that call for exhuberant joy, such as during Eastertide, where melodic alleluias and hosannas lift our hearts in a joyful ‘reverence and awe.’ True, there are a number of hymns that are insipid, but we trust that in God’s time and through His inspiration to our bishops who approve these hymnals, they will be eliminated. As long as they are presently approved, however, we are not wrong in singing them. The best attitude is to keep one’s attention focused interiorly on adoration. If that devotion is present, we can give glory to God in any circumstance, as St. Paul reminds us.
For the most part, I have seen hymnals that have more than sufficient selections that are of noble excellence for worship; therefore, it is a good practice to lift up our clergy and music ministers in prayer that God will inspire them to choose music that is well suited for both the season and the readings.
J
japhy
Guest
That is not at all what Pope John Paul II said. He does not say that the same spirit pervades all music, but rather that a particular spirit “gave rise to and so molded” Gregorian chant, and that spirit is the one which must pervade new compositions. He has not come right out and said that the spirit which gave rise to rock music is the same spirit that gave rise to chant.
- Status