Rather than create a straw man–that I think that anything after 1750 is an abomination–why not address my first sentences? Do you disagree with this?Sorry, no. I don’t agree with this, at least to the extent that “young people will think ______”. I have a great number of friends, many of them God-loving Christians, who would want nothing to do with Latin or Gregorian chant. They would be bored within ten minutes and you wouldn’t see them again. The fact is that there is a significant contingent of young people for whom praise music and a culturally-adapted faith is a strong appeal, for better or worse.
Just because a lot of people on here think that anything developed after 1750 is an abomination, and that the only way to celebrate an appropriate Catholic mass is with Latin, ad orientem, chant, and a fiddleback does not mean that view can be painted over the general population.
Of course, there was good music written after 1750. But think about it this way. Vatican II calls our treasury of sacred music in the church a “inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.”Sorry, no. I don’t agree with this, at least to the extent that “young people will think ______”. I have a great number of friends, many of them God-loving Christians, who would want nothing to do with Latin or Gregorian chant. They would be bored within ten minutes and you wouldn’t see them again. The fact is that there is a significant contingent of young people for whom praise music and a culturally-adapted faith is a strong appeal, for better or worse. Just because a lot of people on here think that anything developed after 1750 is an abomination, and that the only way to celebrate an appropriate Catholic mass is with Latin, ad orientem, chant, and a fiddleback does not mean that view can be painted over the general population.
Keep three things in mind: Vatican II reiterated that latin and chant SHOULD be the norm, and it said nothing about reorienting our altars.Just because a lot of people on here think that anything developed after 1750 is an abomination, and that the only way to celebrate an appropriate Catholic mass is with Latin, ad orientem, chant, and a fiddleback does not mean that view can be painted over the general population.
And also try worshiping in the ways his church has seen fit to give to us.Rather than create a straw man–that I think that anything after 1750 is an abomination–why not address my first sentences? Do you disagree with this?
Are you really open to anything? Try “reverence” and forget “relevance.” Try centering your worship on Jesus Christ.
Are you teaching them?And also try worshiping in the ways his church has seen fit to give to us.
Think about it this way: even if you could do all those different kinds of music at Mass, why wouldn’t you want to use the music that the church holds up as ideal, gregorian chant? The church has reiterated over and over that the people should know how to sing it, but yet, no one is teaching them, on a mass scale.
The website in your link is done by a high school senior.Of course, there was good music written after 1750. But think about it this way. Vatican II calls our treasury of sacred music in the church a “inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.”
Is it not a bit prideful to think that the music we sing, all written in the past 60 years or so is up to par with that? There is a reason we don’t have music from hundreds of other composers who also lived during palestrina’s lifetime, because he was the best. But yet all the music we play hasn’t stood that test of time, so we should be careful that the new music we are playing fits into that model of sacred music.
No one is saying that new music doesn’t have a place in the Mass. But new music foreign to the musical traditions of the Roman Rite doesn’t.
A blogger put together this list of music that is brand new (all written after 2005). This is the kind of modern music we need: that which fits within the musical structure and framework of the traditions of the Roman Rite. I’ve linked to this post before, but it’s a great example of good NEW music that I will again:
blog.yankehome.com/index.php/love-contemporary-music-mass/
Keep three things in mind: Vatican II reiterated that latin and chant SHOULD be the norm, and it said nothing about reorienting our altars.
So regardless of our general population thinks, the norm should be a good amount of chant, and a good amount of latin. And yes, we should “paint” that view over the general population with a technique called “catehesis.” It’s what you do when people don’t understand church teaching. You don’t cater to them. You catechise.
Cat, it can be said in all truth that the undermining of the authority of the Popes and the teachings of the Church throughout the centuries on sacred music has “undermined their authority”. And it actually did lead to disillusionment and real attrition from the Church. The division has already occured, and some are trying, through catechesis (I’m thinking of Bishops Sample, Olmsted and Cardinal Burke), to mend the breach by reforming the music used in Mass.If our bishop and priests allow (and encourage) the use of “contemporary music” in the Mass, then we should be very careful not to undermine their authority by criticizing their decisions in public. This is the kind of thing that can lead to disillusionment with the Church and possibly even attrition from the Church, as people develop a feeling of distrust of the priest and his authority. The New Testament condemns those who are involved in creating division in the Church.
That’s really a non-excuse. Any musician can respond “and with your spirit” or “amen” on a straight tone, and sing psalm tone propers for the Mass, for example, these:If there is no one in the parish who is capable of teaching/singing/playing/directing/paying for the kind of music you personally desire, even if that music IS the “preferred music of the Church” then it makes no sense to demand something that is not possible and bang your head against the wall when you can’t have that kind of music. All you’ll get is a headache, and many people will be turned off to “the preferred music of the Church” by the attitude that bangs heads rather than does work. Why not stop griping and starting doing the work to try to make “preferred music” possible instead of railing against the music that is possible?
if you ask me, he wasn’t trying to say that’s what all parishes have to sing, he was simply trying to point out some of the more beautiful examples.As far as having someone with the expertise to teach the music proposed by superamazingman in his links, you may be right, but I think he was just trying to make a point. But it doesn’t take much expertise at all to follow along with the very simple chant parts in the missal for the ordinary of the Mass (at least some parts), and it isn’t any harder to sing regular hymns (it’s actually easier) than a lot of the “contemporary” stuff.
Yes, more than once a week, thank you very much.Are you teaching them?