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

[JimR-OCDS]

This quote does not say that only Gregorian chant or other old Eurocentric music is the only appropriate liturgical music, but that appears to be the interpretation that you and some others have given it. It says the music should have the same “spirit” which leaves a range of interpretation. It is not dogma.

Since none of you speak with infallibility in your interpretations of the writings, I believe the rest of us who don’t agree can feel free to read and discern the meaning of writings for ourselves. I think there is an element of pride in thinking that we have the only correct reading of something.

I wonder if everyone arguing here even realizes how much some of these arguments about music that someone does not feel meets their interpretation of the rules can push away people who could be Catholic?

I cannot tell you how many times I have been questioned about my “white man’s” church pushing “white man’s” music and values. It is hard to evangelize and explain how we are a universal church while watching people try to pound down everyone until we only use the European music that they desire in the type of mass that they desire. The church did not begin in Europe and quite frankly the majority of us in it today are not of European roots. Jesus didn’t have Gregorian chant in His culture and I doubt He will keep us out of Heaven for singing something else in praise of Him. Music changed after Jesus went to Heaven and chant was one phase of that evolution which has continued for many more centuries.

I’m seriously glad that I didn’t stumble onto these forums until after I converted or I might have run the other way. At the very least I might have avoided the Latin rite of the church altogether in favor of another rite. I think we might all be surprised to find out just how many non-Catholics are lurking in these forums and forming their view of our church.

I know its hard for many Catholics to accept, but the majority population of the Catholic Church, live in 2nd and 3rd world nations. The developed countries of Europe the US and Canada, only make up 1/3 of the Catholic population and this portion is shrinking.

Jim

 

[E.E.N.S]

This quote does not say that only Gregorian chant or other old Eurocentric music is the only appropriate liturgical music, but that appears to be the interpretation that you and some others have given it. It says the music should have the same “spirit” which leaves a range of interpretation. It is not dogma.

Since none of you speak with infallibility in your interpretations of the writings, I believe the rest of us who don’t agree can feel free to read and discern the meaning of writings for ourselves. I think there is an element of pride in thinking that we have the only correct reading of something.

So what would your interpretation for this quote be?

“The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”.

---

Side Note: I don’t see anyone saying that Gregorian Chant is supposed to be the ONLY music for the liturgy, however I do see several people saying that Gregorian Chant is the proper music for the liturgy (in the Latin Church) and that it should have pride of place, (oddly enough, this is EXACTLY what the Church teaches).

 

[E.E.N.S]

I know its hard for many Catholics to accept, but the majority population of the Catholic Church, live in 2nd and 3rd world nations. The developed countries of Europe the US and Canada, only make up 1/3 of the Catholic population and this portion is shrinking.

Jim

Gee, and not only that but how many people actually speak Latin as their native tongue anymore? Man, what is the Church thinking!? She really needs to get with the times!

Give me a break.

 

[VociMike]

This quote does not say that only Gregorian chant or other old Eurocentric music is the only appropriate liturgical music, but that appears to be the interpretation that you and some others have given it.

For the billionth time, I have never said what you suggest I have said. I defy you to show where I have made the interpretation that you attribute to me.

It says the music should have the same “spirit” which leaves a range of interpretation. It is not dogma.

It also says, in detail: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”.

Claiming this is not dogma is simply a way to ignore legitimate Catholic teaching. Either you accept the authority of the Church and the popes to teach, or you reject that authority. Which is it?

Since none of you speak with infallibility in your interpretations of the writings, I believe the rest of us who don’t agree can feel free to read and discern the meaning of writings for ourselves. I think there is an element of pride in thinking that we have the only correct reading of something.

Are you suggesting that, according to the standards laid out by the Church, today’s sacred music is “more” or “less” worthy than, say, the music of the middle ages or Renaissance? If that music was (for arguments’ sake) a 10, what would you rate the music composed in the past 40 years? A 9? A 5? A 2? A 15?

I wonder if everyone arguing here even realizes how much some of these arguments about music that someone does not feel meets their interpretation of the rules can push away people who could be Catholic?

As I have demonstrated with quotes, even the popes don’t like the current music of the Church. They call much of it ugly, distasteful, uninspired and unworthy, Are you going to deny their interpretations as well?

I cannot tell you how many times I have been questioned about my “white man’s” church pushing “white man’s” music and values. It is hard to evangelize and explain how we are a universal church while watching people try to pound down everyone until we only use the European music that they desire in the type of mass that they desire. The church did not begin in Europe and quite frankly the majority of us in it today are not of European roots. Jesus didn’t have Gregorian chant in His culture and I doubt He will keep us out of Heaven for singing something else in praise of Him. Music changed after Jesus went to Heaven and chant was one phase of that evolution which has continued for many more centuries.

You don’t sound like you have a clue about the development of sacred music in the Church. It is not “European” music. The sacred music of the Church derived from Jewish chant, and it followed the Church wherever she spread. The music of the Eastern Church is certainly not “European”, but it does meet the qualifications that the Church has set out, quite unlike most of the music written in the past 40 years. If people in other cultures don’t like the music that the Church holds up as examples, let them write good sacred music for their cultures that has suitable form, grandeur and holiness. Put up or shut up is the answer to complaints about Gregorian chant and polyphony being “white man’s music”.

So stop playing the PC guilt card, because we ain’t buying it. If anything, the ligurgical music dreck that America and Europe has spread throughout the Church since Vatican II is where the guilt should lie.

I’m seriously glad that I didn’t stumble onto these forums until after I converted or I might have run the other way. At the very least I might have avoided the Latin rite of the church altogether in favor of another rite. I think we might all be surprised to find out just how many non-Catholics are lurking in these forums and forming their view of our church.

You would have found that the other rites had much better music, because they resisted much better the “popularization” disaster that the Latin rite has suffered from so much in recent decades.

Truly, I cannot fathom this resistance to writing the sacred music that the Church calls for. There is something highly disordered and disobedient about it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Church says:

-Gregorian Chant is the proper music for the liturgy of the Latin Church.

-Other music may be used, but “the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. (Pope John Paul II)

An observation:

-99.9% of all Masses today lack Gregorian Chant alltogether.

-If we were following the guidelines that the Church has put forth the numbers would look very, very different. (In fact 99% of Masses would have Gregorian Chant at least for the ordinaries most of the time.)

---

For those of you who say that your liturgies are being celebrated in complete compliance and fidelity with the Church’s guidelines and yet little to none of your music is Gregorian Chant, then to you I say you are incorrect, as if your Masses were being celebrated in compliance and fidelity to the Church’s desires and guidelines then you would have more Gregorian Chant than you would have “other music” as per the Church’s teaching Gregorian Chant is the norm when it comes to liturgical music in the Latin Church.

 

[ReConverted]

For the billionth time, I have never said what you suggest I have said. I defy you to show where I have made the interpretation that you attribute to me.

It also says, in detail: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”.

Claiming this is not dogma is simply a way to ignore legitimate Catholic teaching. Either you accept the authority of the Church and the popes to teach, or you reject that authority. Which is it?

Are you suggesting that, according to the standards laid out by the Church, today’s sacred music is “more” or “less” worthy than, say, the music of the middle ages or Renaissance? If that music was (for arguments’ sake) a 10, what would you rate the music composed in the past 40 years? A 9? A 5? A 2? A 15?

As I have demonstrated with quotes, even the popes don’t like the current music of the Church. They call much of it ugly, distasteful, uninspired and unworthy, Are you going to deny their interpretations as well?

You don’t sound like you have a clue about the development of sacred music in the Church. It is not “European” music. The sacred music of the Church derived from Jewish chant, and it followed the Church wherever she spread. The music of the Eastern Church is certainly not “European”, but it does meet the qualifications that the Church has set out, quite unlike most of the music written in the past 40 years. If people in other cultures don’t like the music that the Church holds up as examples, let them write good sacred music for their cultures that has suitable form, grandeur and holiness. Put up or shut up is the answer to complaints about Gregorian chant and polyphony being “white man’s music”.

So stop playing the PC guilt card, because we ain’t buying it. If anything, the ligurgical music dreck that America and Europe has spread throughout the Church since Vatican II is where the guilt should lie.

You would have found that the other rites had much better music, because they resisted much better the “popularization” disaster that the Latin rite has suffered from so much in recent decades.

---

Truly, I cannot fathom this resistance to writing the sacred music that the Church calls for. There is something highly disordered and disobedient about it.***

Preach it brother! AMEN!

 

[ReConverted]

I think you will find that there are a few excellent P&W Catholic musicians out there, especially Matt Maher’s stuff. So if you like to listen to P&W outside of Mass I would recommend his stuff. I personally like his two first albums better than the last one that came out (1st - The End and the Beginning, 2nd-Welcome to Life, 3rd - Overflow) mattmahermusic.com/

Having said that I agree with you on music for liturgy.

Thanks for the info and God bless you!

 

[Cat]

May I suggest, with fear and much trembling, that one reason why there is resistance to writing “chant” music for Church today is that no one will buy it.

A full-time musician has to make a living. He/she writes chants, no publisher will accept them. He/she writes contemporary hymns, praise and worship choruses, solos, or musical theater for the church (especially youth and children), and not only do publishers want them, but performing artists want them. A song-writer who manages to get a professional touring singer/group to do their song is going to make a little money. Not a lot, but enough that he/she might be able to avoid working a night-shift at McDonalds.

I assume that the reason the publisher doesn’t want the chant is that there is no demand for it in churches.

I would even venture to say that those who use chant on a regular basis in their churches possibly use ancient chant or chant that has been in the public domain for decades, rather than purchasing new hymnals with new chants.

I’m not sure if my suggestion has any merit. Perhaps a publisher would be willing to post and tell us what they are willing to publish in their hymnals and missals.

 

[ReConverted]

This is absolutely correct (Imagine that, I’m agreeing with you ). I read this years ago in a book on liturgical music, and, as a musician, have lived by it. However, I can’t find the book anymore. Can you point me to a book, or document, that spells this out? I know some other musicians that should read this.

Hey Michael! Are you performing in the I.E. anytime soon? Please let me know. Greetings from the mountain!

 

[Cat]

And may I suggest another reason why “chant” isn’t being written?

Perhaps some songwriters think that they ARE writing chant.

After all, many of them have a musical background, too, and they’ve studied the forms of chant. Perhaps they ARE writing chant, but the listener doesn’t interpret it as chant.

Who’s right?

 

[ReConverted]

I think you will find that there are a few excellent P&W Catholic musicians out there, especially Matt Maher’s stuff. So if you like to listen to P&W outside of Mass I would recommend his stuff. I personally like his two first albums better than the last one that came out (1st - The End and the Beginning, 2nd-Welcome to Life, 3rd - Overflow) mattmahermusic.com/

Having said that I agree with you on music for liturgy.

I just checked out some of Matt’s music. VERY good. I didn’t detect any cheese or schlock, only talent…thanks much!

 

[agapewolf]

So now you possibly understand we were talking about different things. That is what you were calling garbage last night.

 

[E.E.N.S]

And may I suggest another reason why “chant” isn’t being written?

Perhaps some songwriters think that they ARE writing chant.

After all, many of them have a musical background, too, and they’ve studied the forms of chant. Perhaps they ARE writing chant, but the listener doesn’t interpret it as chant.

Who’s right?

Do these “who’s” even exist?

 

[ReConverted]

So now you possibly understand we were talking about different things. That is what you were calling garbage last night.

No, I like that stuff.

I’m talking about the banal stuff. Please don’t tell me what I mean. Thank you.

 

[ReConverted]

So now you possibly understand we were talking about different things. That is what you were calling garbage last night.

Matt Maher sounds very good. Far better than the dreck most parishes are subjected to!

That music is out of place in the Mass, though.

 

[JButky]

May I suggest, with fear and much trembling, that one reason why there is resistance to writing “chant” music for Church today is that no one will buy it.

There is no resistance to composers writing music based on chant in the course of natural evolution. They are out there and people buy it.

A full-time musician has to make a living. He/she writes chants, no publisher will accept them. He/she writes contemporary hymns, praise and worship choruses, solos, or musical theater for the church (especially youth and children), and not only do publishers want them, but performing artists want them. A song-writer who manages to get a professional touring singer/group to do their song is going to make a little money. Not a lot, but enough that he/she might be able to avoid working a night-shift at McDonalds.

I have to ask…what exactly does that have to do with writing music suitable for liturgy? The music for Mass is not promulgated to a consensus based on capitalism. There are many here that agree that P/W music is fine in it’s proper context, but less or not at all suitable for usage at Mass. No one is suggesting that this music disappear and has a proper context for usage. Just not in the Mass for many reasons already specified.

I assume that the reason the publisher doesn’t want the chant is that there is no demand for it in churches.

The majority of publishers are out there to make money and are not affiliated with the Church (with the possible exception of Solesmes as far as affiliations go.)

I would even venture to say that those who use chant on a regular basis in their churches possibly use ancient chant or chant that has been in the public domain for decades, rather than purchasing new hymnals with new chants.

Two different things here and this is probably where much of the confusion has come from. The Mass IS chant when done properly. Composers for centuries have evolved styles and that continues today. P/W music is based on secular pop/rock which does not have it’s roots in chant…That’s the difference…

Joe B

 

[VociMike]

May I suggest, with fear and much trembling, that one reason why there is resistance to writing “chant” music for Church today is that no one will buy it.

A full-time musician has to make a living. He/she writes chants, no publisher will accept them. He/she writes contemporary hymns, praise and worship choruses, solos, or musical theater for the church (especially youth and children), and not only do publishers want them, but performing artists want them. A song-writer who manages to get a professional touring singer/group to do their song is going to make a little money. Not a lot, but enough that he/she might be able to avoid working a night-shift at McDonalds.

Your comments bring up the whole question of whether the mass-market music publishing paradigm even makes sense for liturgical music. The Church doesn’t need a constant deluge of new music, which is what the m-m paradigm is built around, but she does need a steady flow (I’m tempted to say a trickle) of good and suitable music. It’s no good if the faithful are constantly being told they need to learn new pieces of music. There is a music-introduction rate that works, and for most parishes I think that working rate is rather slow. People need time to adopt music and make it their own.

I assume that the reason the publisher doesn’t want the chant is that there is no demand for it in churches.

Well certainly there is little demand because there is no supply, and there is no supply because there is little demand. This was an inevitable result of switching overnight to the vernacular, and people simply needed to bite the bullet and write in one generation a semblance of the music in the vernacular that the Church wrote over a millenia and more in Latin. Not an easy task, which is partly why it hasn’t happened - has barely even begun. Whatever one thinks of Mass in the vernacular, it has been a disaster for quality sacred music. There’s just not enough talent on the planet to write quality music quickly, in all the vernacular languages. And when that music was not forthcoming, less worthy music filled the vacuum and looks to remain there for generations.

I would even venture to say that those who use chant on a regular basis in their churches possibly use ancient chant or chant that has been in the public domain for decades, rather than purchasing new hymnals with new chants.

That’s true of Latin, but there is very little good vernacular chant using the approved translations (much Anglican chant is good to very good, but it’s not the approved translations - it’s quite a bit better, usually). So as far as vernacular chant and derivatives, the field is wide open.

I’m not sure if my suggestion has any merit. Perhaps a publisher would be willing to post and tell us what they are willing to publish in their hymnals and missals.

Your comments definitely raise some subjects that need to be addressed. The problems of producing vernacular music of the form and quality that the Church calls for are rather daunting. And with each new “improved” approved translation, the cycle has to start all over again.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Your comments bring up the whole question of whether the mass-market music publishing paradigm even makes sense for liturgical music. The Church doesn’t need a constant deluge of new music, which is what the m-m paradigm is built around, but she does need a steady flow (I’m tempted to say a trickle) of good and suitable music. It’s no good if the faithful are constantly being told they need to learn new pieces of music. There is a music-introduction rate that works, and for most parishes I think that working rate is rather slow. People need time to adopt music and make it their own.

Well certainly there is little demand because there is no supply, and there is no supply because there is little demand. This was an inevitable result of switching overnight to the vernacular, and people simply needed to bite the bullet and write in one generation a semblance of the music in the vernacular that the Church wrote over a millenia and more in Latin. Not an easy task, which is partly why it hasn’t happened - has barely even begun. Whatever one thinks of Mass in the vernacular, it has been a disaster for quality sacred music. There’s just not enough talent on the planet to write quality music quickly, in all the vernacular languages. And when that music was not forthcoming, less worthy music filled the vacuum and looks to remain there for generations.

That’s true of Latin, but there is very little good vernacular chant using the approved translations (much Anglican chant is good to very good, but it’s not the approved translations - it’s quite a bit better, usually). So as far as vernacular chant and derivatives, the field is wide open.

Your comments definitely raise some subjects that need to be addressed. The problems of producing vernacular music of the form and quality that the Church calls for are rather daunting. And with each new “improved” approved translation, the cycle has to start all over again.

Which raises another interesting point, that the Church never intended for a complete switch to the vernacular, in fact what was called for was for the readings and the prayers of the faithful to be in the vernacular and the rest (especially the chant) was to remain in the Latin.

 

[VociMike]

BTW, a friend just sent me this clip. I had to smile at the “we’re gonna change the world!” innocence of it. It’s particularly interesting to see all the contrasts between “past” and “present”.

youtube.com/watch?v=a-S3K6wXYpg

 

[Cygnus_X1]

They crank out the most horrible DRECK! How in God’s name did anyone approve that garbage?

I take EXTREME offense to this comment. I know a couple of the composers personally…and I know their hearts, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that the music was written as a prayer from their heart. (inspired by the divine). How dare you call it garbage.

Suitable for mass? thats a different question. Your comment is uncalled for.

Crisis appears to concur with ReConverted:

The Hidden Hand Behind Bad Catholic Music

Too much to quote; just read the whole thing.