Why shouldn't praise and worship music be in the Mass?

[VociMike]

I once wrote up a Liturgical Examination of Conscience. Never did anything with it. I’ll offer it here for consideration. It has footnotes to Church documents from which all of the quoted texts came, but they didn’t seem to cut and paste - hmm.

Liturgical Music Examination of Conscience

In 2003 Pope John Paul II called the Christian community to an examination of conscience with the following words: “…it is necessary to constantly discover and live the beauty of prayer and of the liturgy. One must pray to God not only with theologically precise formulas, but also in a beautiful and dignified way. In this connection, the Christian community must make an examination of conscience so that the beauty of music and song will return increasingly to the liturgy. It is necessary to purify worship of deformations, of careless forms of expression, of ill-prepared music and texts, which are not very suited to the grandeur of the act being celebrated.”
– Give Praise Through the Beauty of Music, 2003

What follows is a guide to undertaking this examination of conscience with respect to liturgical music.

1. Do the music and musicians chosen demonstrate a commitment that “great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of [sacred] music…”
2. Are the texts (lyrics) of the pieces in full conformity with Catholic doctrine? Are they “drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources” ? Do the texts maintain the proper point of view for inclusion in the liturgy?
3. Does the music follow the guidelines in determining which parts have preference in being sung (ref. Musicam Sacram and the GIRM )?
4. Do the music and musicians selected show “due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly”?
5. Has the pronouncement that “all other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place” been given suitable deference? Is each of the musical compositions “sacred and liturgical insofar as it approaches Gregorian melody in flow, in inspiration, and in flavor,” or is any composition “so much less…worthy of the temple insomuch as it is recognized as departing from that supreme model” ? Does each composition “in some way grow organically from forms that already exist” ?
6. Has the pronouncement that “it is fitting that [the people] know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin” been given suitable deference? For those parts in the vernacular, do the musical texts of the Ordinary and any other parts of the liturgy use the approved liturgical translations without deviation or addition?
7. Does the musical leadership fulfill the requirement that “the musical aspect of liturgical celebrations, then, can be left neither to improvisation nor to the will of individuals, but must rely on well-organized direction with respect to norms and competencies, which is the meaningful fruit of adequate liturgical formation” ?
8. Is the “pipe organ…held in high esteem” as declared by the Church? Is each other proposed instrument “suitable for sacred use [and] in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” ? Are those “instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only…altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions” ?
   [*]Is the music chosen with due consideration for the “necessity to purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated” ? Does it “avoid, at the same time, whatever concession to levity or to superficiality” ? Does it reject “repertoire that cannot enter into the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the liturgy” ? Is it “as respectful of the liturgical spirit as of the true values of art” ? Has every effort been made to “prevent anything profane and foreign to divine worship from entering into sacred music along with genuine progress, and perverting it” ? Does all the music and song “always possess the qualities befitting their place: grandeur yet simplicity, solemnity and majesty; the least possible unworthiness of the absolute transcendence of God” ?
   

None of this is opinion. It is all taken from Church documents.

 

[AngelRose81]

I don’t think there is an absolute answer to this, though if anyone happens to care about the opinion of the Pope anymore, the current one cannot stand this stuff. It is called taste, you see.

:clapping: :yup: :clapping:

I totally agree with the Pope! I also think that praise & worship songs have their place in certain settings, such as a youth service or charismatic prayer service and the like, but IMHO, not at Mass, even one led by the youth. One of the reasons I left the Protestant church was because it seemed as if this was all that was sung anymore and I just simply didn’t like it. I love regular hymns and they just make me feel more reverent and in the right state of mind. Just my :twocents:

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

:clapping: :yup: :clapping:

I totally agree with the Pope! I also think that praise & worship songs have their place in certain settings, such as a youth service or charismatic prayer service and the like, but IMHO, not at Mass, even one led by the youth. One of the reasons I left the Protestant church was because it seemed as if this was all that was sung anymore and I just simply didn’t like it. I love regular hymns and they just make me feel more reverent and in the right state of mind. Just my :twocents:

Pax tecum!

I have a friend who just came into the Church this Easter and he had something similar to say. He said that one thing he loved about the Catholic Church was its musical tradition instead of a bunch of rock songs.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Cygnus X1, as you’ve noticed, there’s a whole lot of opinion being offered up in this thread, but little fact. The truth is that the Church does not condemn, ban, or otherwise restrict the use of contemporary praise and worship music in the Mass. Yes, the songs must be in full agreement with Catholic teaching, and they must lead us in worship of God. Beyond that, it’s a matter of taste. Some people prefer Gregorian Chant at Mass. Others prefer traditional choral music. I prefer contemporary praise and worhip music, as long as the songs are chose appropriatly, and are performed well.

While I love Gregorian Chant, I cannot participate in it, so, for me, attending a mass that used Gregorian Chant would be like attending a concert. I would would listen, and enjoy, but not participate. Fortunately, our God, and His Church, is big enough to reach out to the needs of a diverse population.

Thanks, Michael. That’s what I figured, and I agree. I guess that in this particular community, such a question would engender a certain response, which it has. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; it’s just the nature of those who post in these forums.

And I’ll say it again: I in no way think ALL P&W music should be used. “Just because you can . . . doesn’t mean you SHOULD!”

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Have you ever read Tra le Sollecitudini (Pope St. Pius X), or Sacrosanctum Concilium (Pope Paul VI)?

Neither. Links?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Pax vobiscum.

Jesus is not the object of worship in the Mass. This is one of the reasons that songs that focus on Him sound “too protestant.” The Mass is a sacrifice offered to God the Father and to the Trinity, through Jesus, our High Priest. To focus too directly on Jesus seems to miss the point in a deep way.
The Liturgy is the “primary and indispensable” way that we conform to Christ. (Cf. Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 14.) When Jesus taught us to pray, He addressed the prayer to “Our Father.” When we imitate Christ we should not over-focus on Him – though all prayer is addressed to the Trinity through Christ.
One of the imbalances which marks many forms of “Protestantism” as heresy is its over-focus on worshiping Jesus, out of His context as Son and Second Person of the Trinity. This leaves people who act on these theories in a “person to person” relationship with Jesus (or their idea of Him) rather than in imitation of Christ. To be “in Christ” we address ourselves to God the Father and to the Holy Trinity. This is what Jesus did and taught us to do by example.
Another aspect of this issue is the fact of the Mystical Body of Christ. If we are “in Christ” then we are united with Jesus in an important way; we identify with Him. Songs which focus on Him, therefore, often effectively focus on us.
Spiritus Sanctus nobiscum.
John Hiner

John-
I never thought of it that way, thank you!

 

[frommi]

Likewise John…songs that focus on us also focus on Jesus…in many cases…

Anyway…

Something I was going to mention is that one of the issues I have with a lot of the P&W music is simply that it is tough to follow for a congregation…repeats…half verses…etc.

I do like it, but only some of it really ‘works’ in a liturgical setting.

 

[slewi]

I would also point out that the ideal for liturgical music is that the music is to be in service of the text. That is, the text is primary. Thus we see that chant and polyphony is by and large unmetrical. It doesn’t have a fixed beat and a constantly repeating structure, because the music is built around the text. With a strong fixed beat and repeating structure, on the other hand, the words must be built around the music. Thus the words must be trimmed, pared, stretched, twisted to fit onto the skeleton of the music. This goes against the ideal for liturgical music, making the text secondary to the music.

I would just like to say, excellent point. When I mentioned something similar (but not as well thought out) to my Haagen/Haas loving music director, he responded; “we’re not sola scriptura here.” So, that would seem to me to be the prevailing opinion of these Haagen/Haas folks. Makes me ill…

 

[VociMike]

I would just like to say, excellent point. When I mentioned something similar (but not as well thought out) to my Haagen/Haas loving music director, he responded; “we’re not sola scriptura here.” So, that would seem to me to be the prevailing opinion of these Haagen/Haas folks. Makes me ill…

What he should have said is that “we’re not Vatican II here,” since Vatican II states “The texts intended to be sung…should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.” Notice, not merely the ideas, but the texts.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Neither. Links?

Tra le Sollecitudini:
adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html

Sacrosanctum Concilium:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Tra le Sollecitudini focuses on Sacred Music, while Sacrosanctum Concilium’s focus extends even outside of the liturgy.

Musicam Sacram would be another one beneficial to read.
adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html

 

[fix]

While I love Gregorian Chant, I cannot participate in it, so, for me, attending a mass that used Gregorian Chant would be like attending a concert. I would would listen, and enjoy, but not participate. Fortunately, our God, and His Church, is big enough to reach out to the needs of a diverse population.

Here is what the Pope said very recently:

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).
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

This call for Gregorian chant is not new. For all the talk about diversity I have yet to hear G. C. at any mass in which I participated. So, for all the talk about diversity where is the place for G. C.? It seems parishes have plenty of happy-clappy protestant style music. When will diversity include what Rome has asked for?

 

[VociMike]

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 as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy.
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

And even this translation is (suspiciously) weak and misleading. What the pope really said is “I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the song proper to the Roman liturgy.”

He used the same latin word (cantus) here as he used in the paragraph heading, which is translated as “Liturgical song”. Furthermore, in all the other translations on the Vatican site (German, Spanish, French, Italian, Portugese), the word used is identical in both instances (and in the other half-dozen instances in the paragraph as well). Only in the English is it changed in the second instance (while being translated as “song” in every other instance as well).

The pope is not asking here that if one uses chant in the Roman rite, it should be Gregorian chant. That would be a trivial statement, and would not even apply to 99.9% of liturgical music in the Roman rite. Why would he even bother to include such a trivial request? He is asking that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the music (song) proper to the Roman rite.

Check the Latin original and see for yourself.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Are you suggesting that Gregorian Chant should be the only music used at Mass?

 

[VociMike]

Are you suggesting that Gregorian Chant should be the only music used at Mass?

What I am doing is repeating the Pope’s call that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the proper song of the Roman rite. That’s all. That’s enough. Since the Church does not call for Gregorian chant to be the only music used in the Roman rite, neither do I.

 

[Michael_Welter]

What I am doing is repeating the Pope’s call that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the proper song of the Roman rite. That’s all. That’s enough. Since the Church does not call for Gregorian chant to be the only music used in the Roman rite, neither do I.

OK, but the Pope also states that this is his desire. He doesn’t make it a mandate, nor does he attempt to impose his desire on the whole Church. As I stated previously, the Church has not banned any particular style of music, as long as it meets the Church’s musical guidelines.

 

[VociMike]

OK, but the Pope also states that this is his desire. He doesn’t make it a mandate, nor does he attempt to impose his desire on the whole Church. As I stated previously, the Church has not banned any particular style of music, as long as it meets the Church’s musical guidelines.

You are verging on the disingenuous here. He desires, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers. That is, the pope and the bishops united desire. This is not an expression of personal preference. This is the Church speaking. This is what the Church desires, today, in 2007.

 

[E.E.N.S]

OK, but the Pope also states that this is his desire. He doesn’t make it a mandate, nor does he attempt to impose his desire on the whole Church. As I stated previously, the Church has not banned any particular style of music, as long as it meets the Church’s musical guidelines.

I agree with VociMike’s comment, but I would like to add that when the Church says (officially) that Gregorian chant is the norm for the Roman Rite of the Mass and when 99.9% of the churches ignore that 99.9% of the time, I would say that constitutes an abuse and no longer “meets the Church’s musical guidelines”. If parishes and music ministers were following the guidelines of the Church those percentages would be the otherway around.

 

[E.E.N.S]

…As I stated previously, the Church has not banned any particular style of music, as long as it meets the Church’s musical guidelines.

Also, I thought I would like to add this from Tra le Sollecitudini:

VI. Organ and instruments
15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

1. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.
2. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.
3. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.
4. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
5. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the placeprovided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.
6. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Tra le Sollecitudini:
adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html

Sacrosanctum Concilium:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Tra le Sollecitudini focuses on Sacred Music, while Sacrosanctum Concilium’s focus extends even outside of the liturgy.

Musicam Sacram would be another one beneficial to read.
adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html

I appreciate you providing these, and consider myself enlightened! I especially note this from Musicam Sacram:

1. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

So I guess I’m coming around on my prior thoughts about P&W.

Of course this begs the question: Does it seem that Musicam Sacram gives all sorts of license to hymn composition, and could it have been seen as overturning Tra le Sollecitudini and Sacrosanctum Concilium? That’s how I read it. And it would explain volumes how we got to where we are with liturgical music.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Of course this begs the question: Does it seem that Musicam Sacram gives all sorts of license to hymn composition, and could it have been seen as overturning Tra le Sollecitudini and Sacrosanctum Concilium? That’s how I read it. And it would explain volumes how we got to where we are with liturgical music.

And that is my point. The laity have no authority to interpret Church teachings, and yet that is what we are attempting to do here. The Church, over the centuries, has issued many, many documents on the Liturgy. This wealth of information can be used to make any point we wish to make, because some of it overturns, or further clarifies, earlier documents. Therefore, we must leave it up to our Bishops to instruct us on Church teaching. Our Bishops in the US have allowed the use of P&W music in the Liturgy.