That is easily answered. Because the "lowest common denominator is a mathematical concept that has no really meaning in music. What we must do is give our best to God. We may not agree on what this means. It does little to foster dialogue if I were to define what is your best in terms of what is my best, or any other sort of begging the question, like “lowest common denominator”. That way lies rhetoric without substance.We are Catholics and have a higher expectation of our worship because it is a Sacrament. Why then go for the lowest common denominator in music?
uncharitableIt seems to me that some folks just like to complain.
from Wikipedia: " ‘Lowest common denominator’ " is often used as a figure of speech meaning the the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility or opinion among a group of people …(it) conveys the sense of degrading by eliminating anything not common to all."That is easily answered. Because the "lowest common denominator is a mathematical concept that has no really meaning in music. What we must do is give our best to God. We may not agree on what this means. It does little to foster dialogue if I were to define what is your best in terms of what is my best, or any other sort of begging the question, like “lowest common denominator”. That way lies rhetoric without substance.
Well, P., at least as far as your ecumenical music approach to Mass is concerned (which you call “evangelical”), here are some quotes to ponder by a few question-begging Vicars of Christ:That is easily answered. Because the "lowest common denominator is a mathematical concept that has no really meaning in music. What we must do is give our best to God. We may not agree on what this means. It does little to foster dialogue if I were to define what is your best in terms of what is my best, or any other sort of begging the question, like “lowest common denominator”. That way lies rhetoric without substance.
Sarika, can you please describe how your parish is actually bringing the more traditional music, specifically Gregorian chant, back to your Masses, and also, can you describe your role in this process?Well, P., at least as far as your ecumenical music approach to Mass is concerned (which you call “evangelical”), here are some quotes to ponder by a few question-begging Vicars of Christ:
John Paul II:
“We would agree that attainment of Christian unity can never be the result of masking differences or searching for some LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR acceptable to all.”
(from the Address of His Holiness John Paul II to the President of the Lutheran World Federation).
When Pope Benedict XVI visited the U.S. in 2008, he said that the American freedom that has allowed the Faith to flourish can also “subtly reduce religious belief TO A LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.”
It is this same principle that I think the phrase was used by the poster. It represents a type of bare bones religious minimalism.
Yes, you’re right. Allow me to rephrase my sentence. I suppose there are a variety of opinions concerning this subject.uncharitable
The second half of your previous post which I found confusing is quoted as “I think one thing leads to another. Make the Mass more people oriented. Get the women and kids involved. Then start with the sentimental music.” Perhaps most readers can infer exactly what you mean. In fact, I think I can infer what you mean, too, but I was hoping I was wrong about your inference. So, just to be clear, I think you’re saying that the modern Mass is too oriented towards the community and has lost the object of its focus, that women and children should not be involved in the Mass to the degree that the present liturgy allows them to be, and that we should not be surprised at this since the music that is often used during the liturgy is sentimental and not appropriate for serious worship. Now, that’s what I think you’re saying, though I admit that I could be wrong. Since you haven’t been kind enough to explain your meaning to me, I apologize before hand if I have misinterpreted your post.I’m not bothering to directly answer “Are you saying that [insert exaggeration here]…”- style replies any more. I think most readers can infer exactly what I mean from what I said. It’s plain enough.
Watering it down and sugaring it up and being easy going on the audience might work in show-business but I don’t think its suitable for a sacred rite.