Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Thou art "right on" -- I recently stopped playing bass and guitar in my (prot) church's worship band because I became convinced, convicted actually, that such worship is not how God would have it.
One thing, philosophically, that drives the concept of "accommodation" in worship is the belief that form and content can be split; that we can keep the "content" of our religion but present it in a "form" that's congenial, accessible. Thus, evangelical churches use bass, guitar, drums, etc etc and think they're still presenting the gospel. Not so, however; to say lex orandi lex credendi (et ergo lex vivendi) is to say form and content are closely related, if not identical.
Excellent post, Jeffery, and great work! By work, I mean, this conversation. For the New Liturgical Movement to gain ground today, I think there needs to be dialogue with and, indeed, catechesis to, the many who mistakingly think that praise and worship music is valid for the Sacred Liturgy. In my experience, these are not bad people. Nor are most of them dissenters or people who hate the Church. In my experience, many are people who love the Church and the Holy Father- and even the Mass- and do not truly understand the Church's teaching about Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy.
I really think that the Holy Spirit can use the experience of Praise and Worship music in Catholic Churches today as a stepping stone to the recovery of Sacred Music. "Praise and Worship" music is a whole lot better than the silly, mundane, and terrible music of the 70's, 80's, and 90's found in the Glory and Praise hymnals. With the Praise and Worship movement, there is a move to worship God and not our selves. At least what is sung is music to God often using Scripture. If only, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we can help these people to understand Divine Worship in the Catholic Church and the Sacred Music that is Her own. Great work!
Excellent article!!
One word omission needs to be corrected:
You said.."It must be sacred music, holy and set apart. It should turn our hearts upwards. It should be merely accompaniment or mood music"
I hope you meant to say "It should NOT be merely accompaniment or mood music".
I too am perplexed at the insistence of Praise Music advocates that this is the most appropriate music for worship. Interestingly, there are two parishes in my Diocese where the new Pastors have requested help from the Diocesan Music Committee in "reigning in" the Praise Bands in their parishes.
Typo fixed.
That was an excellent post; I have long worried that my discomfort with some contemporary music in liturgical settings was only the effect of my taste, but you've given me a direction to explore its justification.
Thank you for this post. This is a project that I'm trying to undertake at my parish...This explains a lot of my thoughts as I've learned about the role of Sacred Music in the Liturgy.
Nice job, Jeffrey. I like the reference to the golden calf. My only suggestion is that you must counter arguments that traditional hymnody was new music at one time (mid 19th century) and even chant and polyphony were modern at one time. I think the Pope's call for modern music to be rooted in chant is the great qualifier here. In the end the real teaching that needs to happen involves transferring the "lift" that people get from Mass from the music to the Eucharist.
moconnor, this is a special problem for evangelical traditions. They believe that their only choice is 19th cent hymnody v. modern praise music. Catholics have a way out of this dilemma.
One of the more vocal critics of the CCM and CGM (Contemporary Christian Music and Church Growth Movement) is Paul Proctor who for some years now has been writing from a purely Protestant perspective on the great damage the singing of "praise and worship" music has done to the spiritual lives of many Christians.
The name of his series of articles on this is entitled, "A New Song." Here's the link to the first article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pau...r/
proctor31.htm
I found it very enlightening reading, even though he's writing from the perspective of a Protestant.
Guys, I have a serious question:
I am definitely "reform of the reform" minded when it comes to worship, but I find that I constantly lack any objective argument to make on why some sacred music is better than others.
And I have found Jeffrey's piece wholly unconvincing. He's preaching to the choir, and he knows it.
I had this argument with the Deacon at my parish just last week. He argued FOR "praise and worship" music, even incorporating music from films like "Godspell" on the grounds that this music DOES make the people feel uplifted, and transcendant.
It's hard to argue against that. Why are Gregorian chant and Renaissance polyphony INHERENTLY superior to worship than "praise and worship" songs? I personally FEEL that they are, but can I honestly make an objective argument over the FEELINGS of others?
I fear we're in a losing battle here. The only valid argument I see for promoting the reform of the reform movement is tradition for tradition's sake, the conservative philosophy behind the hermaneutic of continuity, and because, quite frankly, THE CHURCH SAYS SO: the Church says Gregorian chant and polyphony should have pride of place.
I just don't see how these philosophical arguments don't just end up being "Such-and-such music is more sacred because I say so!"
Someone, PLEASE refute me! I beg you!
"really think that the Holy Spirit can use the experience of Praise and Worship music in Catholic Churches today as a stepping stone to the recovery of Sacred Music. "Praise and Worship" music is a whole lot better than the silly, mundane, and terrible music of the 70's, 80's, and 90's found in the Glory and Praise hymnals. With the Praise and Worship movement, there is a move to worship God and not our selves. At least what is sung is music to God often using Scripture. If only, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we can help these people to understand Divine Worship in the Catholic Church and the Sacred Music that is Her own. Great work!"
Personally, I find "Praise and Worship" music offensive and distasteful because I know it comes 95% from the bible-based Protestant Fundamentalist/Pentecostolist/Evangelical heritage which has no place in the Catholic Church.
In places where I have seen it, either in person, or watching on TV it is often times hokey Hillbilly tunes (a la "The Gaither Gospel Hour") on cable TV, or Fundamentalist Sunday service music.
All is inappropriate in a Catholic Church.
When I was in Mexico last Eastertime, I went to both the Latin Tridentine Mass, as well as an ordinary parish. The parish music could easilly have been mistaken for a Latino Pentecostolist Church , so many of which infest many urban centers. I stood outside one Latino Pentecostolist Church in Philadelphia earlier this year, waiting for a friend and was shocked by the noise. You could hear it down the block. It was "Praise and Worship" music. It sounded sick.
I've also see it in Catholic parishes.
Seems like since Vatican II, Catholic Church in general, and parishes in particular having discarded our own ancient traditions have been grasping for everything else to try as substitutes. When the answer to our crisis has been right under our noses....Gregorian Chant and Catholic musical traditional hymns.
Invariably all the other substitutes ends in failure, and thousands of souls sometimes leave the Church as a result.
Time people wake up, and restore the traditions of the Church both liturgically and musically instead of grasping at everything else as substitutes.
If you have to substitute, alittle Greek Orthodox hymns and tradition would have been nice.....not the subsititutes we have gotten....stuff which sounds like Sunday service at a clapboard Baptist or Prntecostolist Church in Appalacia or on "Walton's Mountain".
I'm preaching to the choir? I certainly didn't intend to do that. I really attempted to come to terms with what the P&W people say.
The comboxer demands to know what makes music sacred. PX formulated three marks 1) holiness, 2) universality, and 3) beauty of forms. On this, see http://www.newliturgicalmovement...cred-
music.html
I am very glad you wrote this article. I have never liked guitars and P&W music in church, but unfortunately most parishes regularly use guitars and praise and worship type music. For a long time I thought I could handle it and just suffer through it, but recently I have realized it is hurting me spiritually and preventing spiritual growth and even weakened my desire to go to Mass.
During this season of Advent I was reminded how hurt I was last year when my current parish wouldn't even play traditional Christmas music/carols. Because of that memory I have been on masstimes.org hunting for another local parish which hopefully offers a reverent liturgy (and esp. no P&W music).
This article I read today has confirmed my choice to find another parish.
Thank you for your comments Kenjiro!
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said.
Praise and Worship style music is a Protestant invention, built around how Protestants worship (no Mass setting), and designed specifically to appeal to the current trends in the secular music world (eg "Christian" MTV). Unfortunately, "music directors" in Catholic parishes have been taught/influenced by Protestant music (either by radio or by Protestant friends/converts) and without a firm foundation in music themselves they have sought to unknowingly impose this style of music on their parishes.
Worse yet, many Catholic parish "councils" have fallen prey to the Protestant "sales and marketing" schemes of shifting worship styles to appeal to a specific crowd, and thus letting the pop culture steer the ship. As a result, the parishes have hurt and alienated those Catholics who really care about the faith, in favor of chasing a crowd that wont sit still and will leave the faith at the drop of a hat once they get "bored."
While I whole-heartedly agree that P&W is not suitable for Mass, it is my understanding that it originated in Catholic parishes. Am I mistaken?
Let me make an attempt to refute EricG, as he was begging us above.
In his sermon for Christmas Midnight Mass 2007, Pope Benedict included this thought:
"Christ ... came to restore beauty and dignity to creation, to the universe: this is what began at Christmas and makes the angels rejoice.... It is in this context that the Fathers [of the Church] interpret the song of the angels on that holy night: it is an expression of joy over the fact that the height and the depth, Heaven and Earth, are once more united; that man is again united to God. According to the Fathers, part of the angels’ Christmas song is the fact that now angels and men can sing together and in this way the beauty of the universe is expressed in the beauty of the song of praise. Liturgical song – still according to the Fathers – possesses its own peculiar dignity through the fact that it is sung together with the celestial choirs. It is the encounter with Jesus Christ that makes us capable of hearing the song of the angels, thus creating the real music that fades away when we lose this singing-with and hearing-with."
Can anyone doubt that the heritage of the Church's chant, preserved through two millenia, is that 'song of the angels'? Can anyone doubt that with the fading-away of that music from our parishes, we can no longer sing with the angels?
I will bet you, dollars get you donuts, that Papa Benny will say something liturgically profound in his Christmas Midnight Mass for this year of 2008. He will have a worldwide audience for it, and the dulcet tones of Cardinal Foley to bring it to us in the Anglosphere. I think we should keep our ears open for this one.
EricG,
First, step back from the ledge...careful, easy. OK. Now relax, sit down.
Second: have you read Spirit of the Liturgy by B16/Ratzinger?
Third: I'm a protestant maybe becoming Catholic, played in a worship band, now becoming a traddie of sorts; I've got so much to say to you, I don't know where to begin; go to my website and leave your address and I'll be in touch. But basically...
Fourth, there are standards given (in various ways) in Scripture and Tradition that delimit what is fitting and appropriate for the worship of God. And when you write "this music DOES make the people feel uplifted, and transcend[e]nt", it seems to me you've betrayed the fundamental issue: worship is directed towards God first, and only secondarily to us. To me, P&W is like candy -- it feels good in the short term, but you can't live on it and it's deleterious to health in the long term. Basically, it sounds to me like this deacon has a very pragmatic view of things, and pragmatism is the Americanist philosophy, not good Catholic philosophy,
PMcGrath,
What an excellent point! Thank you!
Excellent posts from Nick and Kenjiro. The original article by Jeffrey was also thought provoking.
I think the reason behind the move towards 'praise and worship' music is because some Catholics have lost their sense of the Eucharist as a propitiary sacrifice - the sacramental representation of the sacrifice of the Cross.
Much of the 'P and W' music is totally inappropriate for a sacramental celebration in a Catholic church.
Much of it is lifted verbatim or heavily influenced by music in Protestant churches or Bible halls.
Gregorian Chant and polyphony are appropriate because they
1 have the marks of sacred music ;
2 With their words are a carrier of the Catholic faith ;
3 Its rhythm is a aid to contemplation in a world which is geared towards activism;
4 It forms a community both di and synchronically - within our own time and across time to other ages. It helps express and form the Church united in faith and sacramental worship across the ages.
This is done by a common liturgical and musical tradition. Handing on the Faith is what the Church is about. As Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky once wrote- 'Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church'.
Kenjiro,
Just because you say that you find P&W music offensive and distasteful doesn't refute the objective facts of the point I'm trying to make. Whereas the music of the 70's, 80's and 90's can objectively be observed to be centered upon the community and the words made up by someone, the more contemporary P&W music can objectively be observed to be centered upon God and use the words of Sacred Scripture.
I did not say that I did not find it offensive or distasteful. My point is that it would seem the Lord could more easily bring someone to understand the Church's Sacred Music and the correct and appropriate celebration of the Sacred Liturgy coming from a background of music that is centered upon God (with a desire to WORSHIP Him) more than a background of music that is centered upon man-and the community (with a desire to celebrate itself and having no understanding of worship).
You are correct- we do not need any substitute. We should worship Almighty God using the Church's Sacred Music. That's my point. We need to catechize the many who do not understand and are not using the Church's sacred treasury of chant. This is the task of all of us involved in the work of the New Liturgical Movement.
As a former Wiccan, I hear "simple, repetitive, participatory" and think of Neopagan liturgical chant, and wonder why Catholics would want to do that (maybe Alexander Hislop of _The Two Babylons_ was right!) Lutherans can sing without P & W music. If Catholics don't participate, it's because there's so much in the music that discourages it. I sang some twaddle by Marty Haugen yesterday that had a half-beat pickup jumping an octave to the generally-highest note of the song -- and then going up a step! This is just bad compositional technique for the given purposes.
If I repent of my drinking wenching youth, why would I want to worship to the soundtrack to it?
I'm supprised that no one has discussed the fact that the human voice is the musical instrument that we've been given by God to praise him par excellance. This is one element that fits both chant and polyphony. The organ was only allowed later because of its close proximity to the human voice and as a way to support the chanting. Christians of ancient times were radical in their rejection of any form of music that could even mistakenly be understood as pagan. This meant, no instruments whatsoever. The idea of the sacrality of the piece is central, not only in terms of the words (coming chiefly from the scriptures and the liturgy) but also in its melody. The melody should be condusive to reflective prayer and not entertainment. I think tradition has unanimously approved of Gregorian Chant as fitting this mode exactly. Polyphony is a very close second. But the furthur away music gets from Gregorian Chant the further away it gets from the sacred. The problem that I'm running into as a pastor in a rural area, is that many of the muscisians that "play" for mass can't read music. What I am trying to do now is teach myself how to play the organ so that I can help them learn new pieces. Breatheren I seek your prayers.
I happen to have been raised Pentecostal and have a great apreciation for the most part of "Praise and Worship" music in any ecclesial commuion.
I would simply point out that the many melodies of what are now considered "sacred hymns" were born in the bars of Medieval society. We've always been there and always will - we dwell in a human society.
"People are not musically capable of singing complicated parts, he argued, particularly not in dead languages, so it is necessary that the music be very simple and repetitive, just a few phrases, he argued."
Yes they are!
James, what you say is really more of an urban legend than truth. Not one chant in the Roman Gradual originated as a drinking song, that I can tell you with certainty. Of course the few English hymns for which it is true, the association today is decidedly sacred, regardless of origin. The associations of P&W are decidedly secular, so your point has no merit even to the tiny extent it contains a grain of truth.
Greetings,
How do you respond when people bring up Psalm 150 and the various instruments used biblically to worship God? They are discussing this article on an evangelical site called Carm. They claim it is all just a matter of taste and scripture would allow many instruments.
TP, this is a Biblical literalism that the early Christians never accepted. That's a historical fact. Neither did the Jewish tradition in the context of the temple.
The previous Psalm says that saints have a double-edge sword in their hands that they use to bind kings with fetters and nobles with iron shackles. Must we take that literally also? That we will know saints because they carry double-edge swords and fit nobles with shackles?
"While I whole-heartedly agree that P&W is not suitable for Mass, it is my understanding that it originated in Catholic parishes. Am I mistaken?
Fr. Christopher "
To Fr. Christopher:
Yes. P & W music began as early as the 1780's during a period in the USA Protestant experience called "The Great Awakening", a period of supposed religious revivalism and false spirituality that swept across the new nation of the USA, but was centered largely in the Appalachian areas, Southern states as far south as N. Carolina, and West to terrirories and new states of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Many groups of the Baptist and Pentecostolist traditions came into being during this period...as did the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and various "spiritualist" cults and movements. Most did not last more than 75-100 years. The Shakers, founded by Mother Ann Lee in the early 1780's as a celibate Protestant community in their own villages ( at their height, 6,000+ members in 19 communes or villages across New England, New York, and as far West as Kentucky,populated by Shaker celebate "brothers and sisters")and which were very much influenced by "spiritualism" later in their history, extactic dancing, and lound P & W hymns already was dying out by 1880.
"The Great Awakening" gave birth to many distinct Pentecostolist and fundamental "bible-based" Protestant groups (some extinct, some still extant), but all characteristic of the P & W music found in Catholic Churches today.
So P & W music in no way began in the Catholic Church, nor in Catholic parishes. It was a develpment of misplaced religious fervour and spirituality in strict Protestant groups, and which was maintained by several waves of enthusiasm and spirituality from 1780's right up until just before the Civil War.
The kind of "backwoods" populist, Pentecostolist/fundamentalist Christianinty and the P & W music that went with it began to be looked at as primitive, undereducated, and "hillbilly" by the turn of the 20th century, and was largely shunned by most Protestant Main Line Churches. They were even ashamed of it, largely because of the undereducated, poor, and "backwoods" people who clung to it.
It started to die out, and survived only in pockets and rural parts of the South and Mid-West.
Most unfortunatly, it had a revival at the end of the 1960's, when the young people of the time began searching for solid values and expression, and really had a renaissance when Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1981. He packed his cabinet with these "Christians", and George W. Bush was an even more ardent disiple and exponent of "born-again" fundamentalist Christianity.
As with fundamentalist Christianity as a whole since 1981,
P & W music had a renaissance and greatly expanded from it's Protestant base into Catholic communities (starting first with Charismatic Catholics), and then into the parish in general.
So now, unfortunatly, P & W music is deeply rooted in many Catholic music and liturgical agendas. It will take some time to remove it and its influence.
Though some might find it to be good "Christian music", it's history is fundamentally anti-Catholic, and for that reason (among many others), it is not appropriate in Catholic Churches.
Would Jeffrey or someone else kindly tell me the name of JPII's pastoral letter of 1998 so I can read through it? Thank you.
I largely agree with all of this, but the consistent "hillbilly" remarks are deeply offensive. Please bear this is mind.
--an Appalachian "hillbilly"
I guess we should ask ourselves why Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that Gregorian Chant has pride of place? Perhaps, because, unlike any other form of sacred music it is in a most comprehensive way integral to the structure and integrity of the Roman Mass and has been for centuries. To use a crude expression, the Mass and Chant go together like ham and eggs. Tom
I have read the article, and read many of the comments above... I can't help but feel like many of the arguments in favour of traditional chant are rooted in personal taste, and solidified by bible verse-hunting. I don't claim you are heretics or blasphemers... just dedicated to your taste in music, and good at finding reasons to support that taste. The common thread among those believing P&W doesn't belong in Mass is that they don't like the music: it hurts their ears. It makes me take the arguments with a grain of salt, as the saying goes.
Yes, there is bad P&W, music that is not taken from Scripture. Absolutely, it is a mistake to use it in Mass, or in worship elsewhere. That does not mean ALL of it is void of good, biblical content.
Here is where I stand, as a lover of both traditional Mass hymns and praise and worship: as long as they are true to the gospel and the teaching of the Church, they each will bring *some* people towards God, and push *some* away.
I work with youth, and do you want to know how many of them avoid Mass "because of the music?" Too many to count, and that is tragic. If a musical style can resonate inside them AND teach them truth AND is rooted in biblical text and bring them back through the door of the Church... the Eucharist will turn their hearts once they get there, and they will come to know God more intimately. If that style is praise and worship, so be it.
The problem is youth don't know the Eucharist, and the worst thing we can do is make them turn away before they even get through the door because they hear "bad" music.
I'd rather a few adults grit their teeth because they don't like the musical style than a few youth never know God because they felt like the Church isn't relevant to who they are. And the first step there is allowing the youth to connect with the Church, some way, some how. I say let it be music. And I have seen the results, first hand.
Praise and worship doesn't cause people to be spiritually empty... the breakdown of the family does. The acceptance of wealth over Love does. The inability of many truly holy Church leaders (with the exception of the late JP II) to speak directly to a generation of youth that demands to know "WHY?" rather then dutifully repeat "Yes sir," does. Don't blame the musical style of praise and worship for the failings of all of us who allow the mystery of the Eucharist to go unknown to the vast majority of youth. And please, please don't turn them farther away by telling them their music is terrible. Guide praise and worship to be meet the expectations and true merit of traditional chant... don't pull it down and separate the flock.
I'll keep listening to whatever music God speaks to me through.
Well P&W/Contemporary is the staple of Newman Centers everywhere. I am convinced that most people in the 20's think that P&W, Haugen, Haas, StL Jesuits, etc are the accepted "tunes" for Mass. I find it so sad that these students are missing out on the awesome musical patrimony of the Church. It's the difference between eating a Happy Meal and savoring an Edwardian feast. Maybe the vapid nature of these college Masses is the reason why a some young people latch onto the TLM.
I think Jeffrey is right to criticize those who say that parishoners must be able to sing in order to participate. Maybe one way to stop music as didactic filler would be to end the requirement that all novus ordo Sunday Masses contain some sung content. That way, more people can regain a sense of quiet in the Mass.
I hope Pope Benedict chips away at some of the didacticism that's weiging down the NO.
Jeffry, this is a fascinating topic. Thank you for writing this essay.
I think there is another angle that is worth exploring: the psychological. I know that to some extent this puts the focus back onto "us" rather than God, but isn't it worth considering? How does chant and polyphony create a different mindset (even in the subconscious) to praise and worship music? Does praise and worship music colour our perception of God? His transcendance? etc. Just something to think about...
First:
“[…] People these days have discovered something important about community prayer”.
And then:
[…] “Hence, worship in postmodern times must become a vehicle for this individual expression”.
So, is modern music to pray in community or is a vehicle for “individual expression”?
Just another thought here...
Maybe praise and worship music does have a place, but it is not in the Church. Is it a reasonable alternative to "pop" music that is played on the radio? Would it be possible to use this music to promote spiritual values in popular culture?
Two comments... First and foremost your parise-band musician is arguing from a false premise:
"They have found that being directly involved in producing the music that goes along with community worship is a critical part of what makes them feel part of the praise."
In my experience that applies almost exclusively to the praise-band members themselves. The rest of the congregation either sings along half-heartedly - mostly out of politeness - or doesn't sing at all.
Which brings us to my second point, made so eloquently by Jeffery Quick's comment. The music is, with a few exceptions, awkward and nearly unsingable. Seeming to relish weird changes in key and cadence - just because. By comparison, most other music - secular or religious - is comortable and comforting to sing.
At the Mass, an infinite and loving divine Trinity makes present again the excruciating pain of its atonement of human nature to itself. As far as God's perception is concerned, Christ is still hanging on the cross with thorns in his scalp, a vent in his ribcage, and nails driven into his extremities -- and on top of this bodily pain, Complete Awareness of every sin ever committed, and to be committed, by suffering human nature. We know that God-Christ conquered this, transcending this, but the Mass is the representation of this supreme sacrifice in Eternity, for all eternity.
I think a huge missing piece of this discussion is the blatant fact that at some point in time, every single song ever used in the liturgy was "Contemporary Christian Music". Every song and chant was, at some or another, radical. To condemn a song, melody, or style for being "too cultured", "too secular", or "not true to early Christianity" would be to reject it all.
Likewise, every instrument used in the liturgy to play music, whether an organ, a piano, or a guitar, was at one point in time revolutionary.
The first Christians didn't sing the majority of the melodies used in every parish. Does this mean we should abandon them? No! The diverse history of melodies and styles throughout the ages is what breathes life into the music of the liturgy. We are truly united as the communion of saints throughout all of history as we sing the songs of our Fathers, past and present.
Also, I completely agree with Scott. So many here complain about what sounds good to them, or whether or not certain music or style is appropriate to sing to God. Instead, maybe we should qualify the music by this: Does it transform people into loving God more and loving others more? If the answer is yes, then everything else is peripheral. You are denying a generation of people from becoming one with the Christ because your eardrums are lightly singed.
This is an important discussion because clearly P&W music and traditional chant/polyphony are growing in their usage at Mass while the folk and easy-listening styles are receding.
At my parish I have an adult choir and youth choir that both sing chant, a wide range of choral music, and congregational hymns. There has been an ever-present push on me and the pastor to have P&W music at one Mass a month which led to a special Mass led by teen musicians (which eventually was phased out). It was both a blessing and a nightmare. A blessing in the sense that I got to know and work with some wonderful kids when I wouldn't have otherwise. A nightmare in how obviously incongruous this music was with the celebration of the rites and how much of a production it was.
Also, in contradiction to those who would say P&W music is more populist and accessible, I could not disagree more. Where with a choral group I would welcome 100 committed amateurs with limited experiences (and could get them making good music together in a few rehearsals, if only chant ordinaries or unison hymns) P&W music is only successful with a select group of very good musicians... two guitars max, a bass, drums, a keyboard, and 2 or 3 singers max. It is actually most exclusive.
One final point... I have found that it is the parents of the teens that are most pushy when it comes to implementing this type of music at Mass. While the teens love to listen to it, utilize it at youth group meetings and Festivals of Praise, in my experience they realize and comment on how it just doesn't seem to be best for the liturgy.
There are two points I would like to make.
1.)I think there needs to be some distinction made between the music that is in most parishes now, legitement "praise and worship", and the nature of Chant. Specifically speaking from a youth's and youth ministires perspective. I'm 19 fyi.
There are very few parishes, at least in my diocese, who actually apply on a consistent basis the use of Chant, wether in english or latin. I would venture to guess that it is the same in most other diocese across America. So we can't count it out before it is reintroduced on a large scale. That being said, I want to ask "what are people, especially teens, really looking for?". My answer: movement. Kids want a truley religious experiance. They want to be drawn in by the music, but ultimantly what they, what we all, want is an encounter with the Lord in the Eucharist. THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! So now I ask a second question "What style of liturgical music is the most effective at creating an enviroment to allow that encounter?" Answer: Chant. When we consume the host at Mass we are encountering a person, specifically Jesus Christ. Now when you want to get to know someone do choose a particularly noisy place? No, public mabye, like a party or a resturante, but ultimatly when we love someone and they love us, we seem to natuarally seek quite, contemplative places for conversation, as well as physical intamacy. All the more should be the understanding in Mass, and communion, our most intament moment with the Lord and the best moment for conversation (aka prayer) and the physical intamcy of consuming Him as He consumes us. Chant (english or latin) is silence's sister, and provides heartly soil for a real encounter with the Tree of Life. Plus, it has to be taught! Of course people are going to be confused if new settings just drop in out of no where. This is where the need of pastoral leadership and authority comes into play. It is up to the pastor to decide what type of Chant, how much, and how to introduce it are up to Him. I would also add that a pastor can't feed His flock without thier interaction. It would be interesting to exam the health of Parish communites and compare it to the litugical settings that are used. Not that one produces the other, but healthy families tend to have at least generally similar tastes.
2.)In defence of the Charasmatic Movement...it rocks! While I am in no way in support of a contemporary 'praise and worship' for Mass, I can say that it has had a marvolous effect on my spritual life outside of the Holy Sacrifice and that it is a great tool of evangalization. Yes, evangalization! I attend a prayer meeting thursday nights on a local college campus that is sponsered and run by a Catholic (Magisterium lovin Eucharist adorin) organization, that is entirly, through and through Charasmatic and well wonderful. I understand that I am now fully speaking from my own experiance, but isn't that the point? Throughout the past two thousand years the Church has provided and extreme varity of devotional and faith sharing expericances. We need to continue that tradition on both ends of the spiritual specturum (the contemplative and charasmatic). Outside of Mass we have the right to chose and discover how the Lord has built us to praise him and in fact we have a responsibility to do so. We must help young people to do the same (and I know that I am still young)so we must provide both. That being said, that flexability within the tenents of the faith outside of the Mass is much broader than from within. While there is flexability the Church's norms are much more strict for the celebration of the Sarements, as they should be. We must not take personally the norms that are being suggested by the two thousand years of experiance, and the guidance of the Holy Spirt within the Church.
In my opinion, Charasmatic prayer is a tool for evangalization and contemplative prayer for interior transformation, and all prayer is an encounter with and conversion toward Jesus Christ. The Mass challenges us to go forth, but it also challenges us to encounter. We must adopt that same spirit for the music and attidtude with which we celebrate and experiance the Mass.
To quote Scott above: "The common thread among those believing P&W doesn't belong in Mass is that they don't like the music ...
I'm afraid Scott is incorrect.
It's not a matter of "not liking the music." It's a matter of the music itself -- apart from whatever Biblical language it may be spliced to -- is intrinsically unworthy of liturgical use, because the music itself is based on entertainment values.
What's the root document for music for the entire New Liturgical Movement? Pius X's Tra le sollecitudini, of course. And what did he forthrightly condemn in that? The "theatrical style" in music that was invading the Church at the time (1904). And what was the "theatrical style"? He meant opera. And this at the peak of the glories of Italian opera -- Verdi had just died, and Puccini was still composing.
To repeat: Music that is based on entertainment values -- whether it is grand opera or 'praise and worship' -- is intrinsically unworthy of liturgical use.
Scott: A thought exercise: what if you were to do this:
1. Go to a chant intensive.
2. Get 40 copies of The Parish Book of Chant for your kids.
3. Start a Teen Schola.
You'd have a very different, more Catholic, bunch of kids, that's for sure.
If I could find 40 kids who would sing like that with me and love God with all their hearts and voices, it would be a wonderful, wonderful miracle. I would be very happy.
But here is the thing: I am equally happy when I have 40 kids singing a true, heartfelt, scripture-drenched praise and worship song with me or anyone else. Does the singing six year old prefer that he is singing one way or the other? At that age, probably not. What he/she does care about is the community of singers he/she is part of, the praise and love given by his/her parents, and hopefully, most importantly, the knowledge that God loves him/her for trying.
The music ministry I have led at Mass is never a rock show. It isn't for entertainment, and it isn't all one-sided. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament calls for the most reverent music possible, and many times none at all. Beautiful praise and worship songs can blend into the most beautiful of a capella chants, seeming to echo for eternity! Being an open tool for the Holy Spirit is the most important music talent of all!
All I am saying is chasing praise and worship out of the Church is going to do more to make you seem like an obtuse "old-timer" to youth than the trustworthy guide to Jesus and the Church that we are supposed to be.
Chants and traditional music are perfect for the most reverent of moments... but children have fun too, and if we are supposed to come to Jesus as little children, would not we sometimes come to him with shouts of joy and tamberines? Would he not join us in our celebration?
Paul
Well said, and your analogy to lovers is apt and of (many centuries) long standing.
Chant is not all ethereal contemplation of course, and each chant (introit, kyrie, gradual, alleluia, etc.) has a particular character related to function and other considerations. That said, chant does sound rather even-tempered overall, and that's by design. It expresses the emotional pitch at which the greatest number of us can come together to experience the kind of intimacy with Christ you describe.
What is so unsettling about contemporary and P&W Masses are their extravagant lurches from one mood to another. The Kyrie (if it exists at all)? Minor chords. Token sadness. Then ... GLORIA! Happy happy! Clap your hands! Then ... the Reading, blah blah blah. Then some sort of ditty for the psalm we're all supposed to sing; the cantor gets to warble mostly. Whatever. Then more monotone reading. Then ... ALLELUIA! Bang some more! Yippee!
And so it goes, often in completely different musical styles and associations. Never a moment's rest. Never a sense of coherence. Never a chance to feel prayerful -- no, just relentless oscillation between goading and posturing. Intimacy? Not a chance. Many of us stay *after* the Mass if we want to pray.
The fact is this: the intimacy any of us have in the Eucharist exists only by virtue of sacrifice. Is it ever wise to lose sight of that? This one fact ought to make every one of us, regardless of where we are in life, pause and take off our sandals. What music is most respectful of these realities?
The Church has thought this through.
Scott
All I am saying is chasing praise and worship out of the Church is going to do more to make you seem like an obtuse "old-timer" to youth than the trustworthy guide to Jesus and the Church that we are supposed to be.
If this is all you are saying, it is offensive, presumptuous, and wrong, and the experience that posters here have with young people flatly contradicts it. I have myself been approached by young college students touched by the intense piety of chant and asked how they could learn more. My own children (aged 8 and younger) hum chant melodies. I have yet to meet a young person who has not used the word "holy" to describe the sound of sacred polyphony.
The statement you have made above is simply not true. You are protesting too much.
I apologize if you took my comment the wrong way. I don't mean that the chants are what makes you or I appear like old-timers. What does is when you or I flat out won't accept praise and worship in our churches when it can affect people in ways that chants can not. And vice versa... which brings me to a point...
All of this dialogue seems to point to one fact that seems to be missing from those that don't care for praise and worship: each style of music has a different purpose, different strengths and weaknesses, and each can be profoundly moving in the setting of the Mass.
I don't deny that polyphony sounds holy. I wish you would hear me out on this... I would like to infuse more of it into our churches... but NOT by means of vilifying praise and worship.
Education is what you should be pursuing, not abolition. The mass seems disjointed? Teach your readers how to bring out the life that is suffused into the Gospels and read the scripture properly. Music seems grating and loud? Teach the subtleties of knowing when to pull back on your choir/band and let the Holy Spirit work through the silence or the chanting. Church seems stuffy and unapproachable from so much polyphonic music? Teach how to sing as one unity around an instrument and breath a sense of familiarity into a song.
The concerns I am reading in these comments don't look like arguments against praise and worship. They look like arguments against ignorance, and I join you in that. I just hate to see a valid expression of praise thrown to the curb and bearing the term "scapegoat."
I really think that the Holy Spirit can use the experience of Praise and Worship music in Catholic Churches today as a stepping stone to the recovery of Sacred Music.
How will that happen? God can bring good out of evil, but you're not persuading me.
Does the singing six year old prefer that he is singing one way or the other? At that age, probably not.
We don't trust the judgment of six-year-olds in lots of things. It's not just important that they are lifted up in or enjoy the moment, their sensibilities are being formed for the future.
What I hear P&W people saying is that this music makes them feel good about themselves and their religion. So it has always been with revivalist, emotionally-laden song. It inspires a crush-like dream state of something or other. There are 19th century religious songs that do the same, but they are not appropriate for liturgy. Note how bound up P&W music is with the people who write and perform this music - almost a personality cult at work here. This is telling us something: the ego is not being buried on behalf of a higher purpose. This might be fine with pop music and it might even be fine with pop religious music, but does it have a place in ritual? I can see no basis for this at all. The boost that it gives is short lived and shallow. The church needs to challenge young people with music that is more intelligent, more substantial, more embedded in the ritual, more transcendent (transcendent even of themselves and their generation) and of more lasting value.
Gotcher points, Jeffrey, but guitars, pianos 'n' basses do not necessarily Praise and Worship music make....
for the balance:
http://musicgiftofgod.blogspot.com/
We would not have to resort to using P&W as a carrot to get young people to Mass if we hadn't let that sort of smoke seep into the Sanctuary in the first place.
Let us look to how the liturgy (in both East and West) had been celebrated for centuries and then ask if tacking P&W on to such liturgy is anything but laughable. I'm trying to imagine the Introit or the Trisagion being hammered out with electric guitars and a trap set...
It is like that Protestant pastor said in the article reference, no one had to explicitly tell future generations not to hold "service" (Mass in our case) out in the middle of an intersection. Some things were always considered obvious. However, as Church history shows us, no matter how obvious something seems someone will come along and question it at some point.
Furthermore, this whole notion that making some tune soaked in Scripture thus makes it liturgically worthy smacks of the rationalistic flavor of Jansenism which looked to remove all non-Scriptural sequences and Mass parts from Mass on that same pretense. If this is true, pertinent selections from Old and New Testament could be set to Yoko Ono "music" and declared superior to something like the Dies Irae on the basis that the "new" music is "scriptural" while the Dies Irae is some Medieval accretion.
Oy. It took me an hour, but, I read every comment and article in this post.
There is so much subjective content and character labeling in this Combox..., I almost need a new blog to respond meaningfully. (I dont even want to know what a "backwoods" populist is and hope I am never accused of calling a human being that!)
All I can concisely respond with is:
How can anyone not like Matt Maher?
Love,
-Dave
PS. I love Chant as well as CCM, Jeffrey.
Scripture set to a modern beat doesn't work in the sacred liturgy. I was the priest for a funeral liturgy where the musican playing for the family was given the ok by the pastor (I was only an associate). Mass was well pretty much a pleasent prayerful experience until the communion hymn: Sure it was scriptural but its melody ripped me out of the sanctuary and into an old chevy with the radio playing, "For every season, turn, turn, turn. There is a reason turn, turn, turn..." Although this scipture passage is actually an option for a requium mass and it would be wonderful to hear it sung as a hymn, a pop melody or anything smacking of entertainment is not appropriate. We need to ask ourselves, "What are we actually trying to accomplish with liturgical music?" Entertainment or Prayer? Somthing that lifts our mind to the heavens or plops us down in a 78 Chevy?
I don't think I've ever heard what's being referred to as "praise & worship" in a liturgical setting, I've just barely skimmed over the comments thread, and I'm writing this off the top of my head without thinking it through in much detail, so I apologize if this is redundant or uninteresting or irrelevant! with that disclaimer...
"It is not necessary to debunk postmodernism as such to observe that its critique doesn't actually touch liturgy as such."
but it does affect everyone present. rather, we believe and affirm that we're participating in the prayer of the universal church, but our experience of liturgy is inescapably conditioned by postmodernity.
I have the impression that what draws a lot of people (not all) to "praise & worship" or to traditional latin chant or to contemporary taizé-like music is at root the same: a subjective, intimate experience of authenticity in prayer. that desire, very much characteristic of the (post)modern self, can clearly be problematic, but I'm not convinced that it needs to (or even that it can) be rejected altogether. moreover, I suspect that it can be just as problematic when affixed to traditional music as to newer styles. so I'm not so sure that we can establish a clear division between popular musical styles focused on self-expression and older musical styles focused on the eternal. I realise that the usual arguments from either side tend to support that division, but that usually just leaves me frustrated.
I'm not sure that I'm making much of an argument one way or the other, it's just a thought that struck me reading jeffrey's post. mostly I guess I'm saying people ought to read more of charles taylor?
Dave,
I very much enjoy Matt Maher's music, he is a talented prayerful musician, no doubt about it, but his music is not appropriate for the Mass. I enjoyed Paul's comments above, I think he reflects truly the thoughts of many young Catholics who know the Catholic tradition of music (sadly many are ignorant of it, but my experience has been once they discover it they just know that it is right for liturgy). I don't think we should criticize P&W, P&W can serve an evangelistic purpose, however what we should criticize is it's use in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass as it is completely unbefitting of Calvary and of transcendent contemplation of our God.
There have been many great posts made in the comments section of this post about the objective truth that chant is the most fitting music for the Roman Liturgy. It has developed out of the Judaic chant that Jesus would have sang at synagogue. It has been developed and prayed by years and years of saints and religious who breathed this every day of their lives.
To discard this tradition for a music that has its roots in emotional protestantism is irreverent and silly.
So if you want to have youth festivals, etc while using P&W music please do so. However keep it out of Mass.
Teach the youth about the holy traditions of the Catholic Church. They will fall in love with it, because what the youth are looking for is authenticity and there is nothing more authentic than Gregorian Chant in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass there is nothing more heavenly on earth.
FYI, I am a 27 year old male who was raised in the founding parish of Lifeteen. St. Timothy in Mesa, Arizona the former home parish of Matt Maher and Tom Booth. I was at the retreat when Paul George and Matt Maher wrote the song "Wonderful to Me."
As I discovered the teachings of the Church about the Liturgy and Music I realized that I needed to leave St Timothy. I am now a registered parishioner of Mater Misericoridae http://www.phoenixlatinmass.org and there have been many other young people who were raised in Lifeteen who have also joined my parish as they went further into their faith. I think that you will find many instances like this throughout the country.
Sadly many of the older generations assume that the youth can not handle the radical and awesome beauty of the Catholic Church in all her teachings and her traditions. That is further from the truth, the youth are starving for radical beauty and truth which the Church has to give unfortunately they are being cheated of it.
Bring it all back and you will be shocked at the youth response.
Thank you for the thoughtful article.
Once upon a time I presented "boom chang" music, as one elder choir member once described P&W music to me. The vernacular Liturgy needs time to develop a strong body of vernacular chant. Yes, there is the Anglican Chant. C'mon, we can be original. The work by many associated or recommended by this site (e.g., Chabanel) to render in English the sung text of the Mass is not only admirable but an essential part of the organic process of repertoire development. Will future generations appreciate the work of such organizations - yes, indeed. Praise God for the work going on to renew the renewal.
The guitar stuff has to go. As we recover our identity as a chanting Church, I'm confident we'll see, along with the New Evangelization, a renaissance of beautiful music in the vernacular as musicians develop and express their expertise and offer their artistry in service to the mission of the Church. The Church would do well to commission the best among us to render in song the vernacular, whether it be chant or polyphonic settings. You can say what you like about rascals and scoundrels of yesteryear, but the Renaissance clergy had an eye and ear for beauty. Isn't it time, now that we have translations in had, to begin thinking about hosting a competition to promote excellent settings of the Mass in the vernacular?
Like any bad habit, the only way we'll be free of the boom-chang stuff is if we learn a new habit to replace formerly disordered tastes in music. Here's to chant and sacred polyphony of the sublimest kind. The human voice is all we need.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned what strikes me as a universal feature of P&W: the vocal style adopted by singers to sing this music is ego-centric and erotic in its inflection. Try to sing it with a straight voice as a monk might use and the music falls apart. This is a very telling point.
A profound and very true post. Silence and meditation is what this stressed world needs.
And Jeffrey, it is true - contemporary music can be egocentric and erotic, though not necessarily so. However, I think it is very telling that P&W bands are invariably put up at the front of the church, and many singers do their utmost to draw attention to themselves and their own voices by the style of their singing. Contrast that with the traditional practice of placing the musicians and singers in the back of the church, out of sight of the congregation (at least in parish churches). In this way the music is quite anonymous and even makes it possible to fantasise that it is other-worldly, that it descends from the angels in Heaven.
We need to urgently re-discover this practice! It might even be possible to force this through by directive, just as the Vatican has succeeded in getting people to accept the sacrality of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) by prompt order.
Perhaps when the bands are banished to the back of the Church people will discover how ridiculous they are.
One can have liturgical music that is simple and repetitive, yet dignified and inspiring, and without importing the values of the world inherent in use of pop culture music. Witness the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in all its magnificence. The regular parts are repeated week after week, not just by the choir but by the people also. The words are familiar and the music is prayerful and inspiring. Also, it connects with an ancient musical tradition as our mod pop music fails to do. I know because I attend a Ukranian Greek Catholic parish.
graeme
a subjective, intimate experience of authenticity in prayer. that desire, very much characteristic of the (post)modern self
I doubt it.
Scott - Thank you for beginning to clarify your thoughts.
You write "Education is what you should be pursuing, not abolition."
It would seem to me that this article and the comments are exactly that - education.
Jeffrey's article describes a discussion he had with a praise band member and the explanation that band member had for modern church music. EricG's comment indicated a conversation with a deacon who seemed to give a similar explanation. The contrary 'meme' expressed by those persons is out there and is ascendant, for now.
My personal experience with implementation of the goals of the New Liturgical Movement is that I (Joe Layman) can't "abolish" anything. The most I can hope to do is pray and work to educate the band members, deacons, priests, etc. that pertain to my parish and diocese.
This blog, article and the comments are educational because they provide citations to papal and council documents - as well as relevant parts of scripture and tradition, generally - that may help me and other similarly situated persons in presenting the Church's true teaching concerning sacred music to those who are in the positions that actually implement parish music on a regular basis.
Scott, In my 40 years of experience, I have found that teens and young adults when exposed to chant absolutely love it and make it their own. One 12 year old boy commented to me he couldn't believe that the Church would have abandoned chant for glory and praise style music. Moreover, I have found it is the juvenile delinquents in their 50s and 60s (particularly priests and their camp followers) that push this style of music always claiming that the kids want it. Yah, the kids in their 50s and 60s. I guess they never grew up. Tom
For those who have no idea what P&W is, here is a good sample http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q...h?v=q9yrlYk-
Bao
@ Carl:
Permit me to direct you to the "bookshelf", which I've assembled for the music program at my parish:
http://www.allsaintschurch.com/d...m/
PID=1.17.5.32
Scroll down and you'll find a list of Papal writings including a translation of Tra le sollecitudine and what I believe is the letter referred to as JPII's from 1998, although I think they've mistated the date, it was 2003.
BTW, the name of the letter from JPII is entitled, "Moved By a Lively Desire."
Jeffrey
You're kidding, right? Take away the words, and you have a secular musical form designed to elicit a certain kind of physical catharsis. The form itself produces tension and releases it, making it a kind of short-term high followed by expiation. How exactly is this "holiness of form"?
I would think that the Church's statement in Sacro Sanctum Concilium stating that Chant and the organ have pride of place would be objective reason enough to say that P&W is not the ideal by any means.
A different kind of Praise and Worship music is sung in my parish.
It is a predominently African American parish and we have a wonderful gospel choir that can sing traditional songs as well as gospel. Here is the kind of praise music we sing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P...h?
v=Py7ehvxaJoE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p...h?
v=phBXe4RN3t8
m.a., IMHO this is so much better than other P&W. has a realness to it and makes it inspirational. In some ways, many ways, it is fantastic!
Still not appropriate for Mass of course.
M.D., I made the point earlier about Sacrosanctum Concilium.Unfortunately, there are still many musical directors and pastors who invoke the "spirit of Vatican II" when it suits their purposes while ignoring the letter of Vatican II. Tom
Jeffrey, we have sung both of these gospel songs a capella or with piano. We have no guitars or drums. As far as I am concerned, these worship and praise songs are prayers. We have used them as offertory songs and for meditation. Of course, our choir is small; about 16 members, but we have soprano, alto, tenor, baritone and bass voices. African American congregations respond to music differently than other congregations. Over the course of 30 years, we have learned hundreds of songs like these by heart.
African American congregations respond to music differently than other congregations.
How so?
I'd rather a few adults grit their teeth because they don't like the musical style than a few youth never know God because they felt like the Church isn't relevant to who they are.
It isn't the Church's job to be "relevant" to anyone. The Holy Mass is not our Mass, it's God's Mass.
And the youth don't know God, because their parents' never introduced them to Him.
You want to do praise music to attract youth, do it our of the context of the Mass with preaching, song and praise. But reserve God's Mass for God.
Devil's advocate question: If P & W should be avoided because it is too "contemporary", should we not avoid orchestra Masses, many of which were based on the popular music of the time?
I think we musicians should stop being condescending and patronizing to African-American Catholics by deciding which style of music suits them. I've been to TLMs where many were in attendence and fully participating. Also Bishop Perry of Chicago is African-American and celebrates the TLM every week. Lastly, Paul VI when he was in Africa commented that he had never heard Credo III chanted as beautifully as he did there. Tom
"Classical" pieces were not "popular" music in the same sense. Regardless, this type of music can be said to be more closely aligned to chant and polyphony. The further music gets away from chant, the further it gets away from being sacred music. P&W is about as far away from chant as you can get, I suppose stuff like rap or outright rock would be even further away. It is not as if everything must be old, there is nothing wrong with developing new sacred music-but it must be sacred!
I too think this about African-American Catholics (not to mention Hispanics and other ethnic minorities) and the supposed "inculturation" foisted upon them. My Mexican friends tell me that in many places down in Mexico, the Mass is a far cry from the "Spanish Masses" we have up here.
Inculturation should be a process of Christianization, not accomodation to the secular cultures of a given group. In the missions staffed by traditional groups like the FSSP or the ICRSS, guess what kind of liturgy they have? The TLM, no "African Mass" or "Spanish Mass" and the people really pick up on it. It seems that it is only progressive liturgists and the people they infect that think that Catholic liturgy and chant is incompatable with anyone other than Europeans.
"should we not avoid orchestra Masses, many of which were based on the popular music of the time?"
We probably should think twice before programming any that were...
The Council of Trent banned parody masses and while some polyphonic parody masses remain popular (or as popular as these things get) as concert pieces, I don't think I've ever heard of one being performed liturgically in the time I've been paying attention to such things.
Pes, gospel music is deep in the psyche of African Americans, coming forward from the days of slavery when there was no way to express their love of God from their hearts and souls except through the old spirituals... and in the present day, this love is expressed through the gospel music. Even Jeffrey recognized the difference between the music of the Marty Haugans of the world and Richard Smallwood's beautiful and meaningful music.
There ARE Catholic African American composers who have composed sacred music in the form of Masses. We use portions of their Masses during our liturgies. Look for music by Leon Roberts, Grayson Warren Brown, Fr. Clarence Rivers and Roger Holliman, etc.
m.a., I think you need to acknowledge that African-American Catholics, are just as diverse in their musical tastes as anyone else. How else do you explain Bishop Perry's strong support and love of the TLM? I'm Irish, but I would find it highly offensive if music for Mass were patterned off of Irish ditties. I think the point of this article is that there is sacred music appropriate for the Mass and other forms of music, sacral in nature, which are are fine and useful outside of Mass. TOM
I don't think that m.a. is suggesting that every African American wants to hear Gospel music at Mass. What I do think he's saying is that Gospel-style music resonates more with some African Americans than any other type, especially in the context of worship. Even within the Gospel-style genre there are many subsets of style, performace, and mood.
I was raised in a predominantly African American congregation in the Pentecostal tradition, and was involved in the music program as a pianist for many years. I am now Catholic, and have been for a while, but I still find myself missing some of that music, music that said what your heart wanted to but couldn't.
For many people, Gospel music IS transcendent, much more so than chants or polyphony. We are socialized to respond to music in different ways.
It's one thing to know academically what is required, but it's quite something else to know it in one's emotions, in one's soul, and no amount of reading or exposure to something can totally unseat that.
Chant, as the Church has said, is universal in its ability to lift mind and soul upward. This is not a subjective issue, because then this whole discussion is just one of taste in which anything is as good as anything else.
I would agree that subjectively, Gospel music can certainly be prayerful. Then use it at devotions or as a hymn (when those are appropriate, which should not be too often). There are many songs and music types I find have "spoken to me" or can be seen as prayerful in one way or another but are simply not appropriate for Mass. That does not mean they are bad, just not right for the Sanctuary.
CatholicCulture's weekly email links to a story that may be of interest to anyone who has managed to read all these comments: http://www.catholicculture.org/c...cfm?
recnum=8485
m.a.
Look for music by Leon Roberts, Grayson Warren Brown, Fr. Clarence Rivers and Roger Holliman, etc.
Thanks m.a., I will.
http://
aliveandyoung.blogspot.co...uzak.html#links
Thank you for a profoundly edifying and thoughtful article. I especially like the point made by John Paul II in that liturgy is in many ways meant to be counter cultural. Thank you very very much.
It was the Praise and worship music that drove me away from Evanglical movement to the Catholic Church. I have found some of the simple chants that we used in our Communion services in the Methodist church to be easier to sing than rock music is. I love rock music especially, Pink Flyod and Led Zepplin, but I felt that church music should be something more. There is so much commericalism in Evangical music that just creates rock music that talks about God. My first experiance with chant was at a Greek Orthodox Church Liturgy. I love singing at Mass and I am always sad when there is not a lot of singing. Sometimes I miss the Methodist church because at least we would sing passionately at every service. I applade the current movement in bringing in more chant. It is easy to pick up and sing because it is like speaking. Also it helps us to pronouce Latin.
just some thoughts
Personally, I think that this topic that divides the body, and honestly, shouldn't worship through music be something that unifies the body?
I mean, who are we to say what worship music God finds acceptable. The Bible never states that we need to worship God in a certain way or that there is one acceptable way to worship God. And believe or not people in the Old Testament did use instruments.
Lets look at 2 Chronicles 7. Solomon has finished praying, and Solomon, along with the Israelites, were about to dedicate this new temple to God. And after Solomon offered sacrifices to the Lord, the people started worshiping. In 2 Chronicles 7:6, it states:
"The priests stood at their posts, and the Levites also, with the instruments of music to the LORD, which King David had made for giving praise to the LORD--"for His lovingkindness is everlasting"--whenever he gave praise by their means, while the priests on the other side blew trumpets; and all Israel was standing." (2 Cronicles 7:6, NASB)
We see the people here using instruments as a way of worshiping God. We are told that David made instruments for the purpose of praising God.
We see it again through Isaiah 38:20 were King Hezekiah writes after he has recovered from his illness:
"The LORD will surely save me; So we will play my songs on stringed instruments, All the days of our life at the house of the LORD." (NASB)
Instruments giving worship to God, again in a corporate setting, as it is recorded that "we," not I but "we will play my songs on the stringed instruments." My songs also could indicate that Hezekiah wrote these songs.
We again see David and all the house of Israel worshiping with instruments in 2 Samuel 6:5:
"Meanwhile, David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets and cymbals." (NASB)
Notice all the instruments used to praise God in the Old Testament:
1)Trumpets
2)Stringed Instruments
3)Lyres
4)Harps
5)Tambourines
6)Castanets - (Type of Percussion Instrument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castanets)
7)Cymbals
Notice that most of these instruments were mentioned in the Psalm 150:
"Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD!" (NASB)
Psalm 150 correlates with the other passages listed. It was wasn't limiting worship any way at all. What we do know is that these instruments were used to worship God during Old Testament times. It probable that the the instruments listed within the Psalm 150 show that this written to the people of that time. However, the meaning of this passage applies to all Christians, which is the worship and praise God. It states to praise God in His sanctuary and in His mighty expanse: meaning we should worship God wherever we are(v.1). Praise Him for what He does, and how great He is(v.2). And praise Him through music(v.3-5), and praise Him period(v.6).
Let me finish this post with a quote from Christian author Robert Webber, from his book "Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture of Old and New." He has written many books on worship, and I suggest that you check them out.
Worship is broken down to three categories: Content, Structure, and Style.
Content - "“The primary factor in worship concerns not the structure, nor the style, but the content. (Webber, 149)"
"For worship to be biblical and Christian, the story of God’s redemption and salvation must be its content. Otherwise it ceases to be Christian worship. For it is the content of worship—the Gospel—that makes worship uniquely and distinctly Christian."
Structure - How we do it. The order of the service, how it is designed.
Style - "The style of worship is subject to considerable variety. This is because worshiping styles are rooted in the ever-changing kaleidoscope of human culture. There is no one style of worship that is suitable for all people always and everywhere. Instead, the style of worship will differ according to time and place relative to the changing patterns of culture. (Webber)”
"Style is not now, nor has ever been, a matter of biblical tradition. Whether our worship is formal, informal, or a combination of both, the style of worship depends on taste. Because the style of worship is the window to the church . . . we must allow our style to reflect who we are as a people. The Christian world is composed of many varieties of people; some worship best in a high liturgical style; some worship best in the contemporary setting of a chorus band. Others’ tastes lie somewhere on the spectrum between the two. No one style is normative for all churches. (Webber)”
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I was raised in the Catholic church, and I didn't really enjoy any musical aspect of it. I know a lot of people do, but I didn't. I felt dead spiritually, and didn't care about my faith. When I got into high school, my family started going to a contemporary church, and I remember one of the things that I enjoyed most was the music. The main reason I enjoyed it was because for some reason, I felt it was easier for me to worship God through contemporary songs. I'm not trying to say that traditional music/styles are bad or should go away or not be used. I think that a person should pick the worship style that best helps that person worship God. I believe that God didn't define the way we had to worship him because he wants us to come worship Him because we want to. Both styles are great for worshiping God, and I am confident God hears the praises of both.
THE FACT THAT WE ARE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT IS LUNACY!
If you take ten seconds and stop demonizing protestants because of petty differences we will fall as a nation. Did you hear about the state legislature in Connecticut? They tried to take the power to make financial decisions in parishes away from priests and bishops. They instead intend to place the parish under the rule of a board.
This is the stepping stone to losing religious freedom. Eventually, this board will gain more power, and eventually the power to mandate that the Catholic Church allow gay marriage.
This is a much more serious problem than what kind of music we listen to during mass. We need to come together, Catholic, Protestant Jewish whatever and stand on the foundation of faith.
BTW: My mom is protestant and says the Nicene Creed is the same stuff she was raised on in a protestant church. These are the important things!
I'm sorry there was a typo in my previous post.
If we do not stop demonizing protestants over petty differences we will fall as a nation.
I was overcome with emotion while typing this post. But I stand by my argument.
By the way, during his visit to the US Pope Benedict XVI listened to P&W artists Toby Mac and Third Day, neither of which I believe is Catholic.
http://pope2008.typepad.com/webl...ac-
perform.html
11 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
