B
Bluegoat
Guest
I liked the Hula Cats version linked to on the site. And with a choir of cats, rodent control would be no problem!
- Status
I
ibkc
Guest
That is not what I said. I wasn’t addressing her. I was addressing your suggestion that because some evangelical converts have been raised to view chant as something demonic, that congregations with evangelical converts should be shielded from chant. Since chant is such an important part of the history and tradition of the church, it is an extreme disservice to everyone to shove it aside because some people might be afraid of it or uncomfortable with it at first. Does this stop at chant? What else are we to shove into a locked drawer because it make make some convert uncomfortable? Intercessionary prayer? Crucifixes? Making the sign of the cross? Praying the rosary? All of these things are as much a part of Catholic identity as chant.
Well, then, all the more reasons for every parish to utilize chant often enough that everyone can at least get used to it. It doesn’t mean everyone has to love it.
Irrelevant. The mass is not supposed to be entertainment. We’re not there to “enjoy” it.
So they never learn to identify chant for what it is, and to learn to not be afraid of it? This, to me, is exactly the wrong approach. When you have a convert who has been in the church for more than five years, asserting that she does not recognize chant as liturgical and that she still thinks of it as occult - that, to me, is a big problem.
I really doubt St. Paul was saying to ignore the pesky little things that converts might find upsetting. The point here is to gently expose people to the genuine traditions of the church. Having them sing “On Eagle’s Wings” week after week doesn’t do that.
I believe you are not understanding this correctly, but I’ll leave it to others to deal with that.
That’s not an argument I ever made. We have no control over whether any individual loves the music or not and that is beside the point anyway. What we CAN do is make sure every convert understands what the sacred music of the Church really is and why it is important. We do not want converts sitting in the pews for years thinking that chant is devilish, demonic, occult or anything of the sort.
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
Praise God! A person that is intelligent at last! This is a sick thought and thread. God never made anything misical wrong if used in a proper fashion. God created all things! Love of Christ Nancy
C
CTA1967
Guest
I’ve actually enjoyed this thread. It’s given me an opportunity to do a bit of research on the actual history of instruments in the Church, instead of just taking the word of people who claim the organ is the only legitimate instrument ever used in the history of the liturgy.
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
S
Sarabande
Guest
This interesting part in Benedict’s lecture called “Church Music, a Spiritual and Intellectual Discipline” actually talks about how organ became so important and integral for the liturgy. It took the idea that when the organ played, the “entire universe resounded” although there was also more to it as explained in the excerpt and especially in the rest of the lecture. The entire work, in it of itself, is very interesting and one that should be read well and not scanned through - like most writings of intellectuals - otherwise it can be misinterpreted. (His mind is way above mind and most others, I think.)
Here is the entire lecture:
musicasacra.com/theological-problems/
And here is the thread that discusses it. I think it is appropos to what is being discussed here in terms of proper liturgical music and instruments.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=360606
Here is the entire lecture:
musicasacra.com/theological-problems/
And here is the thread that discusses it. I think it is appropos to what is being discussed here in terms of proper liturgical music and instruments.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=360606
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No one said that people should be left to think it is demonic. I don’t think that is very likely to happen in any normal situation.
But it seems to me the point of music in the Mass is being missed. Just as it is not about entertainment, or exactly enjoyment, it is not about becoming cultured or even about maintaining a historical function. It isn’t even primarily about unity. The purpose of the music is always to support the liturgy.
If the music distracts or diminishes the effect of the liturgy for a majority or substantial number of people in the congregation, it is no longer fulfilling it’s function. Under such circumstances, a said Mass would be preferablel even to the greatest choir singing Palestrina.
What music will support the liturgy as opposed to diminishing it can’t help but relate to the people who are participating in the liturgy and hearing the music. Sensitive and timely education may make a big difference, especially on the level of intellect. It may well even affect one’s emotional response, but there are often limits to how far that can go. Mature individuals who differ from the norm as to what works for them personally usually seem to learn to deal with it, perhaps by attending a Mass without music.
But playing music that does not support the liturgy for a given congregation, just because it is “traditional”, seems to be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
C
CTA1967
Guest
Hi Sarabande, that looks like an interesting read, although it is a bit over my head.
Could you share your opinion on how it relates to the Musicam Sacram excerpt we keep arguing over?
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
To authoritive, My mother usto say don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill!
C
CTA1967
Guest
Hi benedictgal, I re-read this post, and I am rather confused at what you’re getting at. If bowed strings, plucked strings, woodwinds, brasswinds, keyboards, percussion, etc. should be forbidden, then doesn’t that exclude virtually every instrument except the organ? If that’s the case, why in the world would a Church document need to mention that the “common opinion” decides which instruments are purely secular? If the organ is the only instrument that can be sacred, then most of the section on musical instruments in Musicam Sacram is insanely redundant and a waste of space. Which I find hard to believe.
By the way, if you happen to read this post first, please go back to page 19 where I cite how the Church has allowed non-organ instruments such as strings, winds, brass, and some percussion in previous centuries.
Oh, and I hope I don’t come across as sounding frustrated with you or anyone in this thread. This is an interesting topic, and I’m glad we can discuss it here on CAF.
I
ibkc
Guest
We are not protestants who twist in the wind and follow our every impulse. There is no “liturgy for a given congregation.” There is one holy sacrifice of the mass and there is music which supports it and music which does not. The mass is supposed to be solemn and reverent. It is not supposed to be chirpy, happy nor is it supposed to be about the congregation. Chant supports the liturgy in all situations. I am not saying that chant is the ONLY music which supports the liturgy, but I am saying that the suggestion that there are times when it does not - that suggestion is just flat-out wrong.
As to the topic at hand (I realized I jumped in this without even saying what I think about that
)I am not one who is 100% against guitars used in mass, IF played with humility and in a spirit of subservience to what is going on in the liturgy. Just this weekend we attended a parish in a beach town we were visiting, and I witnessed guitar being played like this, to my great pleasure. The musician was very skilled and his playing was not only not a distraction or inappropriate, it was like he wasn’t even there - not because he couldn’t be heard but because the music he was playing and the way he was playing it was obviously carefully and prayerfully considered. The musicians and music director of that parish certainly understood that it isn’t all about them and what they enjoy, but what is best for the mass.Unfortunately, that’s the only mass I’ve attended that used the guitar that I can say that about.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I didn’t say that their was a liturgy for a given congregation, in the sense that there is somehow a different liturgy for each congreation. But any time a congregation goes to mass, they have a separate experience of the liturgy, not only from other times they have attended, but from other people attending. Even two people attending at the same place and time might have quite a different perception. One, who has never been to a Christian Church before, and is sitting behind someone in a large hat, might perceive little of the content and just be confused, or bored. The other person might find the opposite. That is not the fault of the people involved, or those who are responsible for liturgy, it’s just a result of being human. What happens at any particular celebration of the Mass can affect the congregation, the individuals, that happen to be there. That is why the physical trappings are paid attention to at all.
When you say that the mass is meant to be solemn and reverent, I would certainly agree, (although I would not always rule out happy - the Gloria includes the idea of supreme happiness and fulfillment I would say, at least that is my experience of it.) But you cannot say that it should be solemn and reverent, and then say it is “not about the congregation.” Well, if the music and other physical adjuncts to the liturgy are not working to instill solemnity and in reverence in the congregation, who is it that is meant to be solemn and reverent?
I am not sure what you are meaning when you say supports the liturgy, because it does not seem to be what I mean, and I can’t see what you are trying to get at. You say it always supports the liturgy. So, you mean it always works to give the right kind of solemnity and reverence? Since you say the response of the congregation is not an issue, I do not understand how you are assessing that to be the case? Do you mean it is reverent according to God, or some abstract measure?
I would say it supports the liturgy if it works toward helping that particular group of people sense the true meaning of the Mass. If it actively causes difficulty even after a period of adjustment, then it does not support, but undermines it. I do not think it is possible to say there could never be an individual person for whom chant was a difficulty, nor could one say it could never be true of a congregation.
But perhaps one of the relavent documents that are being discussed says that chant is always appropriate in every situation, or that it always supports the liturgy in a positive way? None sticks out in my mind, but I may have missed something.
C
Cat
Guest
I think it’s a question of education. A little education goes a long way towards making people feel comfortable. Those of you who are steeped in love of tradition and liturgy would do well to admit that many Catholics are not like you, and they need to be wooed, not battered.
You can bluster and shove documents at people and accuse them of being “Protestant” and insist that the Mass is not something to be enjoyed. And they will respond, “So do YOU enjoy traditional liturgical music in Mass?” And if you say, “Yes”…well, why is it OK for YOU to enjoy the Mass, but not everyone else?"
Of course it’s OK to “enjoy” the Mass. There is a big difference between enjoying an entertainment piece and enjoying the Mass. Back when I was still Protestant, and my husband and I were attending Mass, we enjoyed it immensely, even though it was about as far from “entertainment” as you can get.
My parents-in-law have been involved with Assemblies of God most of their lives, but they “enjoy” the Mass, not because it’s entertaining, but because the Word of God is preached, and they “enjoy” the true Word of God. (BTW, folks, my father-in-law asked my husband about the Autumn Bible study that our parish is offering–a study of the Book of Revelation! My FIL plans to attend, since he is retired and has his days free. He sounds really interested! I’m pretty thrilled that our family seems to be drawing towards the Catholic Church rather than away from it!)
Back to education Perhaps when a Latin piece is sung, include the translation. The Missallettes used in our parish do this, and it’s side by side, so that you can sing (quietly, without disturbing others) the English versions. If there is no translation, then pass out song sheets before the Mass, like they do at our Life Teen Mass.
Everyone who knows Latin and loves it has to keep in mind that most of us don’t know it and don’t really love it. (My Latin teacher in high school had blue hair and talked so slow that most of us fell asleep at some point during her classes. She was very sweet and loving, so she didn’t get mad at us for sleeping.) So help us out a little, OK? Thanks.
And if Gregorian chant will be used during Mass, then post the translation in the bulletin, and also a little summary of how Gregorian chant came to be and why it has such significance in Catholic Mass. In my parish, the bulletins are handed out AFTER the Mass (and I like this because I don’t like to see people reading their bulletins during the Mass). However, the priest could ask the ushers before Mass begins to pass out translations of the chants used, and they could be a separate from the bulletins. OR Catholic parishes could learn from the megachurches and post the translations on overheads–this would be a tremendous help to keep people focused on anything not in English.
For that matter, there is no reason why Father could not use a minute or two of his homily to review the history of certain hymns, chants, etc. with the congregation and remind them of the rich musical heritage of the Catholic Church.
Another thing that I think any parish could do is hold classes–probably only one evening for a few hours would be sufficient for an Intro Class–for all the musicians and those interested in liturgical music. The Music Director (if he/she is qualified) or someone who is qualified could walk the attendees through some of the highlights in the history of liturgical music, and review some of the traditional music of the Church for those who have never heard it before in a church setting.
EDUCATION is the way to eliminate ignorance. I think that education, combined with a GRADUAL introduction of various traditional liturgical styles and pieces, would go a long way toward preventing resentment, confusion, and conflict, and helping all the modern-music lovers like me (and many others) to become assimilated into “traditional music” and to learn to love and yes, enjoy it.
You can bluster and shove documents at people and accuse them of being “Protestant” and insist that the Mass is not something to be enjoyed. And they will respond, “So do YOU enjoy traditional liturgical music in Mass?” And if you say, “Yes”…well, why is it OK for YOU to enjoy the Mass, but not everyone else?"
Of course it’s OK to “enjoy” the Mass. There is a big difference between enjoying an entertainment piece and enjoying the Mass. Back when I was still Protestant, and my husband and I were attending Mass, we enjoyed it immensely, even though it was about as far from “entertainment” as you can get.
My parents-in-law have been involved with Assemblies of God most of their lives, but they “enjoy” the Mass, not because it’s entertaining, but because the Word of God is preached, and they “enjoy” the true Word of God. (BTW, folks, my father-in-law asked my husband about the Autumn Bible study that our parish is offering–a study of the Book of Revelation! My FIL plans to attend, since he is retired and has his days free. He sounds really interested! I’m pretty thrilled that our family seems to be drawing towards the Catholic Church rather than away from it!)
Back to education Perhaps when a Latin piece is sung, include the translation. The Missallettes used in our parish do this, and it’s side by side, so that you can sing (quietly, without disturbing others) the English versions. If there is no translation, then pass out song sheets before the Mass, like they do at our Life Teen Mass.
Everyone who knows Latin and loves it has to keep in mind that most of us don’t know it and don’t really love it. (My Latin teacher in high school had blue hair and talked so slow that most of us fell asleep at some point during her classes. She was very sweet and loving, so she didn’t get mad at us for sleeping.) So help us out a little, OK? Thanks.
And if Gregorian chant will be used during Mass, then post the translation in the bulletin, and also a little summary of how Gregorian chant came to be and why it has such significance in Catholic Mass. In my parish, the bulletins are handed out AFTER the Mass (and I like this because I don’t like to see people reading their bulletins during the Mass). However, the priest could ask the ushers before Mass begins to pass out translations of the chants used, and they could be a separate from the bulletins. OR Catholic parishes could learn from the megachurches and post the translations on overheads–this would be a tremendous help to keep people focused on anything not in English.
For that matter, there is no reason why Father could not use a minute or two of his homily to review the history of certain hymns, chants, etc. with the congregation and remind them of the rich musical heritage of the Catholic Church.
Another thing that I think any parish could do is hold classes–probably only one evening for a few hours would be sufficient for an Intro Class–for all the musicians and those interested in liturgical music. The Music Director (if he/she is qualified) or someone who is qualified could walk the attendees through some of the highlights in the history of liturgical music, and review some of the traditional music of the Church for those who have never heard it before in a church setting.
EDUCATION is the way to eliminate ignorance. I think that education, combined with a GRADUAL introduction of various traditional liturgical styles and pieces, would go a long way toward preventing resentment, confusion, and conflict, and helping all the modern-music lovers like me (and many others) to become assimilated into “traditional music” and to learn to love and yes, enjoy it.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Ha! One of my Latin professors fell asleep during a class, mid-sentence. Everyone just waited a bit and then quietly left.
This is a good idea. My church one had an evening lecture about the relationship between early-mid-late-medieval/Renaissance music and architecture. The lecturer was quite knowledgeable and had lots of slides of buildings, particularly religious ones, and there were lots of musical examples. It was very interesting to see the similarities in the structure of the buildings and the music through time and also geographically.
It was very well attended, having been advertised at the local theological school and universities as well.
F
FrancisB
Guest
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the opinion that matters is not the people’s. It is the bishops (he’s the authority in his area). And the bishop is still bound to tradition and in obedience to the will of Rome. That is, whenever there is a question as to what should be done, the bishop should make the decision, but still the bishop does not have the right to overrule the decrees of popes, even dead ones. Only the pope or a council could do that, and they haven’t yet.
F
FrancisB
Guest
That is very clear; I’m sorry I misunderstood you. That said, you need to understand what we’ve been saying. I’m not asking you to believe me because I said something on the forum. I’m asking you to read the documents that the Vatican has issued and see for yourself. I’m asking you to understand that a motu proprio from 1903 that has never been abrogated is still, therefore, in full effect. I’m asking you to understand that being faithful to the church is a matter of being faithful to its source: Jesus, and to his vicar on earth, the pope. I’m not asking anyone to be disobedient to their priest or their bishop, even if these authorities accept things that the Church Universal does not. Obedience is a virtue at all levels. That said, no matter how many priests decide to allow guitars or other secular instruments in church, that will not make it correct. Plenty of priests in my diocese are vastly out of line with the rubrics of the mass and change things ad hoc. The bishop does not correct them. That doesn’t make this practice correct. I certainly wouldn’t walk up to them and start a fight, or try to correct them mid-service, but I have written letters reminding the clergy of the obligation to follow the rubrics with quotes from the GIRM and such. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t even matter how many bishops are okay with guitars, pianos, kazoos, or banjos, unless and until they gather together at an ecumenical council to change the standard ruling on the matter. The bishops and priests do not have the right to be disobedient to the papacy. My suspicion, however, is that they are mostly just uninformed and mean to do the right thing, but don’t always know all the rules. They’ve got so much on their plates sometimes, especially in the US where we don’t have enough priests. Sometimes it is best to bring the documents to their attention. The average priest may not have read them; I don’t know how much music they teach in seminary school.
F
FrancisB
Guest
This is a questionable statement. As I said before, can anyone show any evidence of the guitar being used in mass before 1970 other than for Silent Night (Stille Nacht)? One good story, which included extenuating circumstances and one priest, does not make the practice normal or valid. It’s a beautiful song; I will take nothing away from it. That doesn’t mean it’s pat of the tradition of the Roman Rite to use guitars. I have seen no other evidence except one good story. Let’s talk about tradition now, not a single anecdote from a priest who was well meaning, but seems to have been breaking the dictates of the time-- again because the organ was broken.
C
CTA1967
Guest
I’m still not sure about that. Musicam Sacram sounds a lot like something that replaced Pope St. Pius X’s statement. I mean, are all the rules condemning and allowing trombones and such from previous centuries still in effect?
F
FrancisB
Guest
Nancy, if you are going to engage in a civilised debate on the forums, I would appreciate it if you would use facts rather than just idioms to make your points. You criticise me and others and support people who are in favour of guitar music, but you never say why. It seems to me that you and many others have mistaken their opinions as a valid measure of what should happen at mass. Mass is not a form of entertainment, and it doesn’t actually matter if anyone in the building likes the music. The music is not to make you feel better or to entertain you. The music–and the whole mass–is not about you or any other person in the congregation. It is an act of worship. The music proper to the mass is the words of the mass being sung. That is why chant must have pride of place: because it is the mass text sung. The music is part of the prayer and the aesthetic of sacred music has nothing to do with the popular music of the culture. Sacred is sacred; it is a prayer. If you like the guitarist and the singers and the songs that you use at mass, that’s great. They should have a devotional evening every so often where everyone that loves that music can get together and sing it and enjoy it. That is good and holy. The music of the mass, however, is to be of a different kind, the kind that mystically searches for the sacred through an utter abandonment of the values of secular music of any type. That is why chant and polyphony are so splendid for the task: they are meditative and call to mind the ancient worship of the Lord God in the temple as well as the worship of the Holy Trinity in the early church. It is a music of tradition and a music of transcendent worship, not one of passion and opinion. What you want to hear doesn’t matter; what I want to hear doesn’t matter. What matters is the church’s Sacred Tradition, which includes chant.To authoritive, My mother usto say don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill!
F
FrancisB
Guest
On this point, Cat, I agree with you. The change must be gradual so as not to alienate the congregation, and education is certainly a major component of that. The frustrating thing that those of us who have come to appreciate the tradition face is that too many people think that we like chant and they like contemporary music and these are just preferences and people can like what they want. When we try to show them anything else, they argue. I didn’t listen to chant as an infant. I didn’t hear it first until I was 13 or so, and it took time and study to appreciate it and to learn to love it. I didn’t love it because of the aesthetics; I was given the tradition and I learnt to love it because it was my patrimony, the patrimony of our church. I find it offensive when people argue about it, though. There is simply no ground to stand on. The thing about education is that it needs to do more than simply show the path to what is right; it needs to correct what is wrong. The starting point of this is the wrong-founded idea that we should sing music at mass that we like. This is the antithesis of the truth: we should learn to like the music that is proper to the mass.
- Status