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

[bear06]

I have to ask…what exactly does that have to do with writing music suitable for liturgy?

All they have to do is make sure that their composition approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour Gregorian melodic form! It’s so easy when the Church spells it out. This has been reiterated by the last two popes. Why is it that people want to fight it?

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

 

[bear06]

Crisis appears to concur with ReConverted:

The Hidden Hand Behind Bad Catholic Music

Too much to quote; just read the whole thing.

Thanks for the article. I still have to crack up when I think of songs like “City of God”. Let us build the city of God (up). May our tears be turned into dancing (down). Uh, I’d like the white horse with the blue saddle.

 

[RWMorris]

As a church musician, I think there is nothing wrong with a LITTLE P/W music, but I think our congregations are better served with good traditional hymns with doctrine in them or with plainsong or gregorian chant. I onnly use P/W during communion to help people worship more personally. I find most P/W music to be “me-based” rather than worshipping God and singing about our great doctrines. Just my two cents…

 

[bear06]

I onnly use P/W during communion to help people worship more personally.

I don’t have anything against most of these songs but I feel, too, that they are more suited for personal use.

 

[Sarabande]

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?

That might be the case for some, although I would say, as a musician, that many of the music written by those songwriters is not in a form of chant.

 

[Cat]

Just a request–I wish that rather than tossing the term P and W music or “vernacular” or “CCM” around, we could select ONE modern song and analyze it. Those who think it’s “trash” could present their arguments, and those who think it’s “good” could present their arguments.

Do you all really just hate all CCM? Do you even bother to listen if the song was written later than the 5th Century? I get the feeling that some of you close your hearts and minds the second you hear a gospel pianist like me sit down to play for Mass. I’m sorry. Should I just quit now? There really aren’t very many pianists or organists who are playing for our Masses in our city, but if my music is “trash,” would it be better for the Church if I stopped playing?

I really like “City of God.” I guess I’m just a child at heart, but I like the song. JMO, and I’m not demanding that everyone else like it. But it makes me feel stupid when people make clever criticisms about it that I don’t understand. I feel like I have toilet paper stuck to my shoe, and everyone’s laughing at me, but no one will tell me why. With all due respect, that’s what I call “bullying.”

I don’t like this “us” vs. “them” mentality at all. I’m almost afraid to go to Mass now, wondering if some of you are sitting next to me fuming at every “new” song and murmuring under your breath whenever I play a Sandi Patty song for a prelude.

These “music wars” were what we faced all the time in the Protestant church. It sucked to high heaven there, and it sucks just as bad in the Catholic church. In the evangelical church, my husband and I eventually got to the point where we sat in the lobby until the “music” was over. (I’ve read about other Protestants who do the same thing.) We can’t and WON’T do this in the Catholic Church. But I have the feeling that some of you do it psychologically when the music doesn’t suit your idea of what “reverent” is.

 

[Sarabande]

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.

Or is the publisher dictating to the Church what we should like? Sort of like the rest of what capitalism does? But you are probably right in some respect. I don’t know much about the music publishing industry, although know a little about book publishing since my father-in-law was an editor-in-chief for some major publishing firms. If it is the same as book publishing, demand or contracts with writers can definitely be a reason.

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.

We do a bit of both, although more of the ancient and time-honoured ones since not many people today compose anything in that style. A decent plainsong setting that we’ve done at our low masses is David Hurd’s “New Plainsong”. It was written in 1985. The congregation sings it well, but it took a couple of masses for them to learn it. Once they knew it, they sang it well. But that’s the case in singing any kind of chant/plainsong.
Durufle (I know not this century, but early 20th) did an incredible setting using the old “Agnus Dei” chant in his “Requiem” for the Agnus Dei movement. It is GORGEOUS!!!
Harold Boatrite (20th and 21st century) composes some really beautiful sacred music in the style of chant and polyphony. He has some really heady music, but sublime music as well. He’s an extremely devout convert to Catholicism. You can hear his “Ave Maria” here. materecclesiae.org/
I’ve heard his music done at mass as well as in concerts and had one of his pieces played during our wedding.

 

[Sarabande]

Just a request–I wish that rather than tossing the term P and W music or “vernacular” or “CCM” around, we could select ONE modern song and analyze it. Those who think it’s “trash” could present their arguments, and those who think it’s “good” could present their arguments.

That would be interesting, especially if we try to be as objective as possible. Although, if one says they think a certain piece of music like “City of God” is wonderful or is a piece of garbage, that’s ok. Just provide reasons to back up your subjective or objective opinion, since some people might think either way based on the composition writing rather than just liking the rhythm or melody. We’d just have to make sure all of us had the sheet music to analyze.

Or wouldn’t it be cool if we set the music composition up as the person or thing being judged by juries or masterclasses like in college or conservatory? It can be analyzed cooly and since it’s just an object, it can’t have its feelings hurt like a musician being critiqued in front of all his/her colleagues and classmates during a masterclass. (We certainly have to build a very tough skin in this field. Ha!)

 

[JButky]

Do you all really just hate all CCM? Do you even bother to listen if the song was written later than the 5th Century?

(incidently the line drawn between CCM and the 5th century 'tis a wee bit silly )

There are lots of things I like and lots of things I don’t like. Then there is stuff that is appropriate for Mass which has nothing to do with either of those likes or dislikes… People think that if they like it, or it makes them feel good or has prayerful meaning to them it can be used at Mass. That is not what the Church teaches however. Active Participation does not always mean singing, which is what most of that criteria is used to falsely justify itself. Active participation is being involved in the Mass itself and not getting lost in a musical aspect being used. At that point it becomes a distraction. The closer music mimics the liturgical action the more appropriate it is. That is why chant and sacred polyphony is taught to be so important as the basis for liturgical music.

When ever someone comes up to me and expresses a compliment on the music, I take it as a personal failure and need to correct myself and them. I am getting somewhere when people express to me that the Mass was powerful to them and thank me for leading them to experience that…THAT should be the compliment every music director should hope and strive for. We need to use our talents to get out of the way…you know …“He must increase…I must decrease…”

I really like “City of God.” I guess I’m just a child at heart, but I like the song. JMO, and I’m not demanding that everyone else like it.

And that fine and there’s nothing wrong with that either. Forcing everyone else to like it is not the issue either. Using it for Mass is. These likes and dislikes need to be parsed out when discerning suitable music for Mass. The P/ W crowd IS intent on forcing this style of music on the Mass and so far, the criteria used is that it’s prayerful and has meaning and is attractive to certain types or demographics. (The Church doesn’t list that as criteria however.) Those traits are more likely to be found in an R+D product session of a corporation trying to sell something. The Church doesn’t need that because the Church is Truth.

Traditional hymns and liturgical music is not forced on anyone because it is part of an evolution of music as fostered by the Church from a common ancestry. It is that same ancestry that the Church teaches to use as a model even today. I don’t have to convince anyone to like it. It already IS a part of the Church Tradition. And music that follows that same pattern will continue to be added to that Tradition. Personal likes and dislikes mean nothing compared to Truth.

Joe B

 

[LumenGentium]

who said it shouldn’t? and do you agree or disagree?

if the musicians aren’t excellent no matter genre or generation the music itself comes from, then its best not to have any music at all.

music is a matter of PERSONAL TASTES AND PREFERENCES. i’ve heard really lousy gregorian chant and lousy contemporary music at mass…i don’t like lousy performance. that’s the bottom line. if the musicians aren’t as good as the top 40 on the radio then it doesn’t matter what music they choose its going to sound lousy.

 

[palmas85]

I don’t really see much of a need for music at all in the Mass to tell the truth. If there is going to be any, I say just use hymns or prayers. No need for anything else at all.

 

[Guitar]

I haven’t read through the entire 15 pages of this, so I apologise if this has already been said …

Seems to me one difference between Mass and say an Anglican liturgy or a “platform ministry” service is that in those services, hymns/songs are their in their own right, so to speak. “And now the congregation will stand to sing Hymn Number XXX”. Or the band on the platform does a set of P&W numbers in between readings/sermons/prayers. At Mass, hymns take place during processions (entrance, exit, offertory, communion). These are integral parts of the Mass; the hymns or songs or psalms or music going on at the time are not. The character of the music therefore has to allow for the fact that the hymn itself is not the sole focus of the moment.

Most P&W music I’ve heard (and admittedly, that’s not a lot as I tend not to like it much as a matter of taste) is far more suitable to the kind of liturgy where the music stands in its own right.

 

[E.E.N.S]

who said it shouldn’t? and do you agree or disagree?

if the musicians aren’t excellent no matter genre or generation the music itself comes from, then its best not to have any music at all.

music is a matter of PERSONAL TASTES AND PREFERENCES. i’ve heard really lousy gregorian chant and lousy contemporary music at mass…i don’t like lousy performance. that’s the bottom line. if the musicians aren’t as good as the top 40 on the radio then it doesn’t matter what music they choose its going to sound lousy.

The Church says otherwise. She says that Gregorian Chant is the music proper for the Latin Rite (of which most of us are).

If music in the Liturgy was a matter of personal taste and preferences, then what’s to stop the people from using Megadeth - if that’s what the majority wants to hear?

 

[Michael_Welter]

The Church says otherwise. She says that Gregorian Chant is the music proper for the Latin Rite (of which most of us are).

If music in the Liturgy was a matter of personal taste and preferences, then what’s to stop the people from using Megadeth - if that’s what the majority wants to hear?

Just to be clear, the Church has never banned contemporary music in the Mass, and never will. That would be a violation of the Word of God (Sing a New song unto the Lord).

 

[E.E.N.S]

Just to be clear, the Church has never banned contemporary music in the Mass, and never will. That would be a violation of the Word of God (Sing a New song unto the Lord).

I was addressing that the music proper to the liturgy goes beyond “personal taste and preference”…also we would want to define “contemporary” as well, because there have been plenty of music, as well as musical instruments, that have been banned from the Liturgy.

Two different points, related, but different.

 

[ncjohn]

The Church says otherwise. She says that Gregorian Chant is the music proper for the Latin Rite (of which most of us are).

That statement is continually misquoted. The actual statement, from Musicam Sacram, the implementation document is this:

1. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:

(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.[34] Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.

(b) “It is also desirable that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in smaller churches.”[36]

(c) Other musical settings, written for one or more voices, be they taken from the traditional heritage or from new works, should be held in honor, encouraged and used as the occasion demands.[36]

1. Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages.

You are correct, for liturgies celebrated in Latin. But as noted, while taking into consideration the “pastoral usefulness” pastors should consider whether “…parts of the heritage of acred music…could also be conveniently used”, there is no mandate for them or for Gregorian Chant in particular in a vernacular Mass. Paragraph (c) also makes clear that using “new works” is also fully acceptable.

Another passage, which I’d have to dig out, also emphasizes that there is nothing wrong with using contemporary music.

 

[E.E.N.S]

That statement is continually misquoted. The actual statement, from Musicam Sacram, the implementation document is this:

1. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:

(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.[34] Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.

(b) “It is also desirable that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in smaller churches.”[36]

(c) Other musical settings, written for one or more voices, be they taken from the traditional heritage or from new works, should be held in honor, encouraged and used as the occasion demands.[36]

1. Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages.

You are correct, for liturgies celebrated in Latin. But as noted, while taking into consideration the “pastoral usefulness” pastors should consider whether “…parts of the heritage of acred music…could also be conveniently used”, there is no mandate for them or for Gregorian Chant in particular in a vernacular Mass. Paragraph (c) also makes clear that using “new works” is also fully acceptable.

Another passage, which I’d have to dig out, also emphasizes that there is nothing wrong with using contemporary music.

That is true and I did not intend otherwise, however the Church makes it clear that there are boundries and it is not merely an individual’s personal taste and preference. That is what I said in the last two posts as well. Perhaps I am not making myself clear.

 

[VociMike]

That statement is continually misquoted. The actual statement, from Musicam Sacram, the implementation document is this:

1. In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin:

(a) Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal.[34] Its melodies, contained in the “typical” editions, should be used, to the extent that this is possible.

The original statement is from Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

Notice, no restriction to liturgies celebrated in Latin.

Furthermore, in Sacramentum Caritatis just this year, Pope Benedict XVI and the Synod Fathers re-affirmed the more general statement (the one without any “celebrated in Latin” restriction):

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 song proper to the Roman liturgy.

So the “celebrated in Latin” addition in Musicam Sacram is simply not found in the will of the Council, or in the current authoritative understanding of the will of the Council.

 

[ncjohn]

That is true and I did not intend otherwise, however the Church makes it clear that there are boundries and it is not merely an individual’s personal taste and preference. That is what I said in the last two posts as well. Perhaps I am not making myself clear.

Your statement that “The Church says otherwise. She says that Gregorian Chant is the music proper for the Latin Rite.” was clear. It was that I was addressing.

 

[ncjohn]

The original statement is from Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

Notice, no restriction to liturgies celebrated in Latin.

Furthermore, in Sacramentum Caritatis just this year, Pope Benedict XVI and the Synod Fathers re-affirmed the more general statement (the one without any “celebrated in Latin” restriction):

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 song proper to the Roman liturgy.

So the “celebrated in Latin” addition in Musicam Sacram is simply not found in the will of the Council, or in the current authoritative understanding of the will of the Council.

Even within SC it was a “pride of place” statement, all things being equal. It was not any kind of blanket statement that Gregorian Chant was the only proper music as is so often implied, and was stated in the post I quoted.

Further, SC specifically refererences that a commission was to be set up to determine the implementation. *Musicam Sacram *is the result of that process, with the specifics of the implementation. There is no reason to suspect that it does not reflect the wishes of the Council since it was in fact ratified and implemented within short order of the Council.

I’ll have to look further at the recent document, not having read it yet, to see what context that statement might be made in. “Suitably esteemed and employed” would not seem to imply any kind of exclusive mandate, but as I said, I’ll need to look at the document further.