With the changes to the Mass less than a year away, it seems like a good time to address a topic that’s been bothering me for quite a while.
They’re called the liturgy wars, and they are as ridiculous as their name.
Latin vs. English. Organ vs. piano. Piano vs. guitar. Chant/hymn vs. “folk/contemporary.” Contemporary vs. Life Teen/praise & worship. The most visible battle lines in this war are drawn over music, and since music is my ministry, that is where I want to focus.
The liturgy documents state that “pride of place” belongs to chant, and that the organ is to be “held in high esteem.” They don’t say there’s no room for other instruments and genres at the Eucharistic table. There’s a good reason for this: The liturgy is for everyone, from every background, tradition and ethnicity imaginable. The documents are written to be inclusive. They provide options at every turn in order to reflect the spectacular diversity of the Church. We aren’t asked to conform to a single artistic aesthetic, because God works in all ages and all styles, and no one musical aesthetic can possibly reach everyone. (This post, though written for a non-Catholic church, makes this point well. )
There’s an unfortunate human tendency to take one’s personal musical preferences—a wholly subjective measure—and try to set them up as an objective ideal. I get it from members of my contemporary group, who turn their noses up at chant and organ, and I get it from so-called “traditional” Catholics online and in the parish, who use words like “fitting” and “dignified” to imply that contemporary musicians’ gifts are unwelcome in the liturgy.
This is simply wrong. Music and liturgy have the power to bring people together—as long as we don’t try to set up our own personal preferences as absolute truths by which everyone must live.
Early in my tenure as full-time liturgy/music director at our church, a woman told me that we shouldn’t use any music written after the death of Mozart, because everything written after 1791 is emotionally manipulative.
Aside from the gross ignorance of music history (music, by its very nature, is emotionally evocative; only the aesthetic changes as the ages pass), I have one overwhelming objection to this argument. Namely, it implies that the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring people at some point in history. How can you put God in such a tiny box?
I’m a contemporary musician, but I’m not here to argue that we replace chant and hymnody. They are beautiful, powerful forms of music, which I know and love after earning two degrees in flute performance.
I do, however, take issue with the assertion that guitars, drums and contemporary music have no place in the liturgy—because they, too, have beauty and power. In my son’s first four months of attending school Masses (at which they sing a wide variety of music), exactly two songs touched him enough that he came home singing them: Awesome God and On That Holy Mountain. You can’t deny the power of contemporary music to change hearts, just because it’s not your cup of tea.
In my 25 years serving as a Church musician, I’ve often felt that I have to prove that my love for contemporary idioms doesn’t automatically make me a cafeteria Catholic, a theological liberal. Those who are “faithful to the magisterium” cover a wide range of interests, charisms, and political philosophies—those who love the history of the Latin Mass as well as those who prefer the accessibility of English; those of liberal political leanings as well as conservative; working moms as well as stay-at-home; guitar players and contemporary composers (such as myself) as well as those who respond best to older forms of music.
There is room in our parishes—and in our hearts—for all styles and genres. The universality of the Church demands no less.
*
Ten pieces of music from across the ages that move me to worship:
- Pange Lingua
- Magnum Mysterium
- Ave Verum Corpus
- For the Beauty of the Earth
- All Creatures Of Our God and King
- I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say
- I Will Not Die
- God, You Search Me And You Know Me
- We Will Serve the Lord
- I See You
Kathleen Basi can be found writing at www.kathleenbasi.com.
This is an emotional response. However, it is not factual. The ‘liturgy’, if there is one, in Protestant churches varies because these churches spring up every day and have no central beliefs. They form from individual preferences and /or individual disagreements.
The Catholic Church is not like that. There may be a few differing Rites based on religious orders and geographical divisions however, there is a set way for celebrating any of these Rites. For 1960 years, they were celebrated basically the same. Many still are. The Latin Rite however, has suffered the injection of many novelties.
I think you will be hard pressed to find writings, documents, guidelines, or instruction from Church history that support your thesis.
To offer one example: For 1960 years, the liturgy *did* undergo change. It began in Aramaic (probably); it moved to Greek (definitely), and was celebrated in different parts of the world in very different manners. The liturgy spent literally centuries developing into the form you claim has been used for 1960 years. The Creed wasn’t formally accepted until 1014, the Council of Trent in the 1500s made more changes. In fact, one of the major liturgical controversies of the Council of Trent was whether or not polyphony should be allowed at all–in part because composers were remaking popular secular music for use in the liturgy.
Obviously this debate has been around a lot longer than 1960.
And I hope this answers the following commenter as well. I’m well aware that there is a bias in favor of chant and organ in the Church documents. But they don’t rule out other forms.
You need to do some serious research on sacred music and the Mass.
As someone who adores the more traditional liturgical music, I couldn’t agree more
Being inclusive is so much more than just offering a seat.
Kristen recently posted..Slow Cooker Butternut Squash Soup
I agree with you entirely. I wrote a nice post hypothesizing why chant has never been monophonic yet that’s the way people insist that is preformed and with organ only. If we’re going to understand the way something should be preformed, we need to know how it was performed historically.
Music is all about the display of culture. Would it be wrong to not allow a traditional African-American Catholic Church to not also include Negro Spirituals? I think so. There’s nothing “sacrilegious” about it either. Similarly, young people have grown up with a different culture of music so what’s wrong with a praise band?
I think a problem I would have is if people started using music from say U2 as worship music because that’s not what their music is intended for. But as I said, if it’s intended for worship than that should be fine.
Chant is great, but just like there are different rites, there should be a variety of music available for use.
I can see where you are coming from, but I cannot agree. The difference in the mood of the congregation is palpable when sacred music is used during the Mass. Our parish alternates between traditional and contemporary weekly. I can honestly say that there is nothing more distracting than a cymbal crash during Mass. I feel like I’m in listening to a lounge act instead of being in a holy space.
Guitar can be used beautifully. I heard the most elegant accompaniment to Ave Maria on the guitar just the other day. It reminded me of a harp. But rock star-esque strumming on an electric? Distracting.
I have three small children. On the contemporary days, it’s difficult to keep them in their seats. They’re trying to get up and dance in the pews. On the days with traditional music, they sit quietly and listen.
You can even hear it in the congregation. Traditional hymns are sung robustly. The contemporary ones are listened to politely. What’s that quote about “when you sing, you pray twice?” I can’t understand why music directors continue to push a style on a congregation that obviously prefers something different.
Michelle recently posted..The Daily Board
This is undoubtedly all true in some places, but I can counter by saying that at our parish, the congregation sings robustly under these conditions:
1. The music is led well
2. The music is familiar
They sing Immaculate Mary and Holy God we Praise Thy Name and raise the roof. But they also raise the roof on Rory Cooney’s Canticle of the Turning, for example. And they sing wretchedly when unfamiliar hymns or chants are thrown at them. You are expressing a differing aesthetic from mine, but we both illustrate the same point: that musical style is as varied as the people who listen to, sing and lead it. What I can’t udnerstand is why certain groups are bound and determined to deny the Spirit at work in styles they don’t find personally edifying.
I guess the last thing I’d say is about the kids. I have 3 little ones and we want them to pay attention and get involved in the Mass as much as they can at their cognitive level. That doesn’t mean sitting still, necessarily. King David danced before the Lord. If the kids are responding to contemporary music by being inspired to move, I just don’t see that as entirely a bad thing. I understand we don’t want a church full of people shouting Amen’s and dancing around like some of the services you see depicted on TV. Maybe your kids are just fidgeting, and not being inspired. I don’t know. But the thing I love about our parish is that whatever kind of music is being sung, the church is absolutely filled with fidgeting and voices of children. It shows that we are a living church, a growing church that welcomes children, who, let’s face it, show their enthusiasm for everything in life by loud noises and dancing. I can’t help but think that God rejoices when a child dances in church.
Kathleen, you are correct. My frustration comes in when faced with music that a congregation obviously does not want and I can see how that applies to both sides of the spectrum.
Michelle recently posted..The Daily Board
Great article, Kate. I’ve been saying the same thing for years: who are we to tell God what music to listen to? I also bring this up: if liturgical musicians don’t offer every Mass a variety of music styles to try to reach varied musical tastes, then I would question exactly who they are serving. If music is used to help us move closer to God, then that music has to speak to all of us, regardless of our musical tastes. I don’t go to a Mass for a concert of my favorite music, but I do hope that the entire worship experience – including a challenging homily and music that’s done well regardless of style – will inspire me to go out into the world and try to make it a better place.
I do agree with Kathleen’s post. I think what is important to remember is that what one person finds distracting may touch the person sitting next to them. What one finds sacred, another may find dated. So often, when parishes are surveyed about music, it is found that the music is too contemporary, too traditional, too loud, too soft, too much organ, too little and so on. This is why it is important to have a mix of styles.
Personally, I am not a fan of having labeled Masses. I prefer Masses that have a blend of styles. After all, if you have a couple where one only loves hymns and one only loves contemporary, are the two spouses never to go to Mass together? Should they alternate weekends where only one feels welcome? In the parishes that I have been at that offered well balanced mixes of styles (where the congregation was well led, but not overpowered by the musicians), the people did sing all styles well.
Is my way the right way? Maybe for my parish, but not necessarily for yours. Every parish is different and there are more factors involved than just the selections. How are they being led? How are they being taught? Is the choir too loud? Is the contemporary piece being “performed” or are the people truly being invited to join in?
OK, this is from the musician who has little theological knowledge, but loves to play at church (just a warning) — First, there’s this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQ419HNt0U where Pope JPII had a private audience with a breakdancer from Poland and blessed the young dancer afterwords. I couldn’t find the news article that ran with this story, but I recall the Pope telling the dancer he had a wonderful gift from God and should share it with everyone.
Not that I’m advocating for breakdancing in church during Mass, but the world is filled with all different kinds of people. This argument leads to a larger one — specifically — exactly WHAT IS going on at Mass — are we trying to come closer to God? Is God sharing his gifts with us? Is the Mass about us? Is the Mass about God? Do certain types of music hurt or help the Mass?
I don’t believe there is a single answer to any of these questions. We have some people who are brought closer to God during Mass by certain types of music and some by no music at all. We have some parts of Mass that might benefit in some eyes from loud, fast music with LOTS of “frills” and other parts that wouldn’t. God speaks to everyone in different ways, why wouldn’t he speak to everyone in different types of music and/or languages?
When I hear from high school students who want to talk to me to learn how to improvise and play the piano at church because they like to hear our contemporary group when we play hard and fast, that’s one more investment in the church’s future. But I also hear from people who love it when we sing a traditional hymn a capella and then the acoustics in the church carry the music on their own terms. Both of these opinions are very important.
It is important for musicians and music leaders to know their congregation and the styles that work best. Even as a musician in a “contemporary” group, we still occasionally do a cappella pieces, sing parts of the Mass in Latin and “tone it down” at times. We’ll never please every person in the pew, but by having a variety of styles, we can reach many more people than by limiting to one particular style.
What bothers me is when someone tries to say a particular style, language, day of the week (you get the picture) is BETTER than something else. Different, yes, Better? I beg to differ and will then proceed to breakdance down the aisle.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” – Nietzsche
Isn’t music all relative? If we were back in the days of Mozart, would the music known now as “classical” be considered “contemporary” compared to Gregorian chants since that was the earliest musical setting?
I am not well educated on musical history nor am I an expert on sacred music but I grew up attending mass with traditional hymns and experienced more contemporary styles when I entered my teens. Though the traditional hymns move me more on an emotional level, I can’t help but smile everytime I see a little child clapping and dancing to a contemporary song during mass. As a young mother, I can only pray that my child learns to associate happiness with mass from a young age and continue to look forward to that sacred hour.
I know any number of young people (or boomers, for that matter) who find Mozart and Palestrina to be just as distracting–if contemporary music leaves some feeling like they are in a lounge, high Classical and Renaissance (and their through-history-to-now counterparts) music leave many others feeling like they are in a concert hall. If the litmus is “how the music makes ME feel,” it’s going to be hard to have any kind of real or substantial dialogue across age groups and cultures.
Unless one wants to argue that white, affluent, Anglo-European culture is more inherently “Catholic” than any other, and that all other cultures should aspire to be like us. For therein lies dangerous ground.
–Jenn
who loves Mozart and Palestrina and finds it kind of funny that this debate has been going on since the time of Josquin, or maybe before…
I agree with much of what Kathleen has written. Recently, my husband has been leading the music at our Lifeteen Mass. Until then, this was not our choice of Masses to attend, but we felt that he had some ideas which would tone down the “rock concert” atmosphere. Right now, the ensemble consists of two acoustic guitars, two male voices, a female voice and drummer who mainly plays either a djembe, or a drumset which is behind a clear petition to keep the drums from overpowering. No electric guitars, or bass players. Although, we are hoping to add a keyboard soon. The choice of songs are generally upbeat for the entrance and recessional, and more meditative for the actual Mass. I think we have reached a good compromise with using contemporaty music, but leaving out some of the elements that can make some feel it is less than sacred.
On a slighlty different note, as one who prefers more traditional hymns at Mass, I am always dismayed when our choir, with its many beautuful , operatic voices… and organ… chooses to sing contemporary songs that just don’t suit the types of voices in the loft. To me, that is more detracting from the Mass than a contemporary ensemble, singing contemporary music as it was meant to be played.
Just my humble, and admittedly non-researched opinion.
ChrisV recently posted..Easy Dollar Store Craft
Thank you! In a day where I have to search hard to find an article (conservative or liberal) that isn’t tearing down the Church or each other, I appreciate your article. It gives me hope that in the coming days with all the changes to the liturgy, that we can focus on praising God as a community and not criticizing each other for our means of doing it.
“If we uncritically adapt everything in the liturgy to current trends, if we allow secular influences into the liturgy uncritically, if we toss out our liturgical traditions without consideration of their value, we risk emptying our liturgy of depth, beauty, holiness, and evangelical fervor. But on the other hand, if we retreat into our liturgical past, affirm only tradition but not renewal, and reject the art, architecture, music, speech, and customs of the people of our day, we risk making the liturgy irrelevant to many people in today’s world. The liturgy must not become a museum appealing to the few with a cultured taste for that sort of thing. It should be a home for the great masses of people, beckoning and welcoming all sorts of people back to their heavenly father. The liturgy must not become an escape from the real world; it should be the world at its most real, redeemed and sanctified by God.”
Anthony Ruff, OSB puts liturgical reform and “Gaudium et Spes” side by side, and comes to this most agreeable conclusion. GIA Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1
Amen!
Colleen recently posted..Sabbath Moments – Gods Loving Mercy
I think this article would have been better written had the author read and studied the Vatican documents on the Liturgy. Drums are not permitted in the United States Church. However they are permitted in the Church in Africa. Why? Yes, because of culture. The U.S. Bishops have never applied for a dispensation to have drums at the Liturgy, and yet, they’re still here. Why do we feel that “things are allowable” when we’ve never formally sought for that permission? Yes, music invokes the mood, but Liturgy has to be based on something more than emotion, right? It’s a shame that musical abuses happen in the Liturgy. Its more of a shame that those in positions of authority (both from employment and experience as shown here) continue to promote an agenda based on what’s preferable.
Oh, and for the record, “pride of place” doesn’t just mean your “personal preference”. I don’t know too many people that walk around humming Palestrina or plainchant, do you? There’s a profound theological reason for the rites and ordinances of the Church. Those who seek to point out the divisions in the Church based on genres are usually prodigaled pretty far from what the Church intends in her Sacred Liturgy. And of course, that’s my opinion based on my reading and interpretation of the Vatican Documents…
PattyinCT recently posted..Pro Life Quiz
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve read next to nothing (meaning only a slew of blog posts) about music and the liturgy, but I agree with you. I wrote about a couple of my experiences with music in the liturgy http://rannthisthat.blogspot.com/2008/11/be-not-afraid.html
I’ll also say that I see much more of a push for the Latin mass from those too young to have experienced it as the norm than from those who did, and my guess is that the Latin masses they’ve been to lately were not typical of those of the pre-Vatican II era. In short, those said today are generally attended by those who want to be there, and who have gone out of their way to do so. That is a totally different crowd than the average crowd in the average church on an average Sunday.
I think that when you learn what the Mass is and it’s purpose you won’t have this problem.
“The liturgy is for everyone, from every background, tradition and ethnicity imaginable.”
This statement is bogus and least in your understanding of it. The Liturgy is a gift to the Church from Almighty God. It is not yours or anyone elses.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with clapping hands and swaying to the music. It is about a propitiatory Sacrifice to Almight God, no more and no less. Nothing that is a distraction to our interior dispostion should be allowed nor is it.
Contemperorary music is often used at our parish Sunday Masses where the school children are responsible for the liturgy. It is not the music I object to (though I do prefer traditional music) but the applause everyone feels compelled to burst into afterwards. It always feels like a performance and not like we are worshipping God. I’ve never heard anyone clapping and congratulating themselves when the traditional hymns are sung. An entirely different mood is created.
After saying this, I do not refuse to sing the contemporary hymns (like some I know) because the music is directed to God and I don’t suppose He is groaning away wishing we’d offered Him something better.
Here is a great video…Very informative…With documentation to back it up…On Liturgy and Music…Check it out!
PattyinCT recently posted..Pro Life Quiz
Your post, while I found it interesting, I am also not entirely agreeing with it.
My background is convoluted, but to sum up, I grew up Catholic in a “modern” parish, wandered into atheism, discovered being a happy-clappy protestant, and eventually found my way home to the Church as an adult.
My biggest problem with “modern” music (other than the drums, I’m much happier if there’s no drums, I hate feeling like I’m at a rock concert) is that it brings me back to that happy-clappy period in my life. I find very little depth to the spirituality of the music, and lots of surface emotion. There are exceptions, of course: some of my favourite songs are written by Landry in the past 3 or 4 decades (is that “contemporary”?), but to me the Mass is not the time nor the place to indulge in that sort of self-gratification.
The Mass itself should be the focus, and that tendency to allow the subtle protestantization of what is true and sacred will eventually subvert our uniquely Catholic culture. I think that is really what the “Liturgy Wars” is about for many, is the holding on to what is known to be good and true and right.
And for the record, I am one of those “young people” who actively seek TLM and traditional parishes. I do it because in our push forward, we have lost some of where we come from. I didn’t even really realize that Mass changed drastically in the 60′s until recently! I am curious about where we come from in much the same way that I am curious about my own family history and cultures. It’s only in understanding where we come from can we know where we’re going.
Liturgy documents? OK, brace yourself:
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 116-7: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as distinctive of the Roman liturgy; therefore, other OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. BUT OTHER KINDS OF SACRED MUSIC, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, provided they accord with the spirit of liturgical service, in the way laid down in art. 30.”
Emphasis mine. What does article 30 say? “To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions.”
Nothing about instruments or styles allowed and not allowed. The GIRM refers to “lawfully allowed” instruments, but doesn’t list what they are—because the Church is diverse.
Sing to the Lord 41: “The primary role of the organist, other instrumentalists, or instrumental ensemble is to lead and sustain the singing of the assembly and of the choir, cantor, and psalmist, without dominating or overpowering them.” Yes, contemporary instruments can and do sometimes get overpowering. So do organs. Not a prohibition.
58. “Liturgical music must always be chosen and sung ‘with due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly.’” [reference to GIRM 40].
70. “Factors such as the age, spiritual heritage, and cultural and ethnic background of a given liturgical assembly must be considered.”
Thus making it clear that the liturgy *is* about the people celebrating it as well as about God. And if you spin out the implications, it follows that we must reflect the diversity of the Body of Christ—as I said in the original post.
71. “…liturgical musicians will find guidance in music from the Church’s treasury of sacred music, which is of inestimable value and which past generations have found suitable for worship. THEY ALSO SHOULD STRIVE TO PROMOTE A FRUITFUL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE MODERN WORLD.” Emphasis mine.
In speaking of instruments, it lauds the organ at some length, but then includes this note in 89-90: “From the days when the Ark of the Covenant was accompanied in procession by cymbals, harps, lyres and trumpets, God’s people have, in various periods, used a variety of musical instruments to sing his praise. Each of these instruments, born of the culture and the traditions of a particular people, has given voice to a wide variety of forms and styles through which Christ’s faithful continue to join their voices to his perfect song of praise upon the cross. Many other instruments also enrich the celebration of the Liturgy, such as wind, stringed, or percussion instruments ‘according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.’”
I assume that the statement about drums being allowed in Africa and not America is based on this quote about longstanding local usage. But I would argue that drums, fiddles, guitars, etc. have been in our folk and popular music for too long to say this doesn’t apply to us. You may feel otherwise, but that is a reflection of our differing interpretations and backgrounds, not Church teaching.
Church documents are always written to reflect a spectrum of possibilities: We in Rome prefer A, but options B, C and D are acceptable as well.
1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are definitely on my top ten list as well!
And I also adore this one, by the famous Mr. Haugen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQqJF-2ijhg 
I haven’t read all the comments but I say, AMEN to your post, Kathleen!
el-e-e recently posted..Help me save dinner
Psalm 150 says it all.
I am a “cradle Catholic”, having grown up with Latin Mass and living through the excitement, confusion, and yes, frustrations as a result of the reforms by Vatican II. It always amazes me how people can misconstrue the documents and inject their own biased interpretations. I had to laugh at the statement that drums were not allowed in the liturgy–until I thought about the probable thousands who have been alienated from their Mother Church by such ignorance. Come on, people! We have so many blessings and so many resources these days to make a beautiful tapestry of music in our modern liturgies. As a long-time pastoral musician and director, I have concluded that the standards of applying the musical, liturgical, and pastoral judgements will serve us all very well. As musicians who lead, we must balance our history with the relevance of today and we must help those with whom we come in contact understand that we, though many (and diverse in our cultures, likes, dislikes, etc.) are ONE Body in Christ.
I don’t believe there’s anything intrinsically wrong with guitars, drums, cymbals, etc. I suppose I object to any music in Mass which tends toward performance, and distracts from the Mass itself.
Mass is never about performance & audience; and most of the music that veers into distracting performance is contemporary music by a ratio of say, 100 to 1.
IMNSHO.
Christian recently posted..Blinder Than Blind
Great article, Kathleen. I totally agree. Thanks for writing it. I recently wrote a post about how I am so tired of the arguments we Catholics seem to be engaging in. We need to celebrate our differences and remember what we have in common – Who do we belong to? We belong to Jesus Christ. Let’s keep our eyes on Him.
Colleen recently posted..Sabbath Moments – Gods Loving Mercy
Great blog! Superb posts from all views! My two cents: I’ve been playing guitar for 35 years at Mass, including in seminary where I got my M.Div and studied Liturgy and Scripture. We just started a liturgy committee for the first time ever at my new parish, and conducted a survey. The results were fascinating. At the 4pm Mass where the average age was 72, the people preferred guitar and drums over organ by a 2:1 ratio. There were even multiple requests for traditional songs to be played on guitar. ALL the requests for faster, livelier music came from people over the age of 60. Church teaching tells us that our musical style has to be informed by age, culture, ethnicity and local custom, while at the same time striving to incorporate rich elements of our musical heritage as a universal Church.
That being said, it is time we let go of monatsicized, europeanized liturgical style and moved on. Beautiful stuff but now should be relegated to special concerts. It is frankly an embarassment and a disgrace to turn on Christian radio and find that modern Catholic composers are pretty much nonexistent in the world of musical evangelization. Why? Catholic liturgical musical style has been out-dated, stodgy, and basically held hostage by a pharisaical resistance to anything new or contemporary. The problem is not at the level of Church teaching or rubrics, but at the level of parish and diocesan leadership. In my 35 years I have encountered such elitism and selective adherence to rubrics it makes my head spin. I just had a 25 year music director/organist tell me we could not sing the whole psalm because the GIRM forbade substitution of hymns for psalms. It took me 15 minutes to finally explain that if a song incorporated the full, accurate text of the psalm, it was the psalm, not a hymn.
This leads me to evangelism. Because of this clinging to an anachronistic body of musical styles, evangelism has been hindered badly. Our participation in the Eucharist is supposed to fortify us to go out into the world and save souls. Music is a deep expression of faith and therefore a valid and important form of evangelism. If we hinder the development and use of newer, culturally relevent music in our Eucharistic worhsip, we are hindering our own ability to evangelize. In the US Bishops’ document “Sing to the Lord,” there is one mention of evangelism…they recommend organ recitals for evangelism. Period. What a disgrace. Rather than resist things like electric guitars or modern styles, their should be an active enagement of these styles to help them conform to suitable liturgical expression and to lead to evangelism. We completely miss the meaning of the Eucharist if we see it as an end in itself, as too many do. It is a living, breathing, transforming reality into which we are privileged to enter, so that we can in turn allow our transformation to extend outward to others.
“The liturgy documents state that “pride of place” belongs to chant, and that the organ is to be “held in high esteem.” They don’t say there’s no room for other instruments and genres at the Eucharistic table.”
No, they do not. But they do condemn secular music at Mass. Please see http://www.adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html which says:
“62. Musical instruments can be very useful in sacred celebrations, whether they accompany the singing or whether they are played as solo instruments.
“The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lift up men’s minds to God and higher things.
“The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.”43
63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.”
You said this:
“In my son’s first four months of attending school Masses (at which they sing a wide variety of music), exactly two songs touched him enough that he came home singing them: Awesome God and On That Holy Mountain. You can’t deny the power of contemporary music to change hearts, just because it’s not your cup of tea.”
First of all, both of those hymns (particularly the first one) are certainly in a purely secular style (and are therefore prohibited according the Musicam Sacram).
Second of all… yes, they may be “touching” and they may indeed change hearts and provide emotional experiences and consolations – which are certainly good things. But that’s not why you participate in the liturgy. You go to Mass to worship God – not to get an experience. You do not go to Mass, or to any liturgical and prayerful celebration, to bring people together. This is the mindset behind many advocates of contemporary music at Mass, which is a total misunderstanding of the Mass itself! You go to Mass to worship God, not to “get something out of it”. Rather, you give something – your worship.
Instruments like the guitar and drums – when played in a secular style – should be prohibited from use at Mass according to the Church documents.
Pope Pius XII says in his encyclical –
“59. Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane nothing clamorous or strident and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place. Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power. ”
It becomes a conflict between traditional sacred music, and modern secular music. Liturgists in favor of contemporary secular music at Mass really reject the ancient and incredible beauty of sacred chant and polyphony – a beauty which is objectively higher than most modern contemporary music, and is much more fitting for the worship of God.
The then Cardinal Ratzinger says in his book “The Ratzinger Report”:
“…many liturgists have thrust this treasure aside, calling it ‘esoteric’ and treating it slightingly in the name of an ‘intelligibility for all and at every moment, which ought to characterize the post-conciliar liturgy’. Thus instead of ‘church music’ – which is banished to cathedrals for special occasions- we only have ‘utility music’, songs, easily melodies and catchy tunes.”
Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict XVI have all continued to affirm since the Second Vatican Council that the closer the music at Mass is to sacred Gregorian chant (at least for the Roman rite), the more fitting it is for Mass.
Personally, I’ll just stick with what the Church and the Popes say….
James’ quotations do not preclude genres other than traditional polyphony, organ, and chant. Considering chant and organ a “higher” music with a “place of pride” no more precludes chant than calling the priesthood a “higher calling” precludes people from marrying.
The Magesterium says in Musican Sacram that the addition of other instruments into the liturgy is to be allowed/discerned by the local authority, which in our case is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and diocesan bishops. In the USCCB’s document “Sing to the Lord”, they repeatedly admit other music genres into the liturgy. Just one of the many passages is as follows:
“The Church has safeguarded and celebrated these expressions for centuries. In our own day, she continues to desire to bring forth the new with the old. The Church joyfully urges composers and text writers to draw upon their special genius so that she can continue to augment the treasure house of sacred musical art.
“The Church never ceases to find new ways to sing her love for God each new day. The Sacred Liturgy itself, in its actions and prayers, best makes known the forms in which compositions will continue to evolve. No matter what the genre of music, liturgical beauty emanates directly from that mystery and is passed through the talents of composers to emerge in music of the assembled People of God.
“In the years immediately following the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, especially because of the introduction of vernacular language, composers and publishers worked to provide a new repertoire of music for indigenous language(s). In subsequent decades, this effort has matured, and a body of worthy vernacular liturgical music continues to develop, even though much of the early music has fallen into disuse. Today, as they continue to serve the Church at prayer, composers are encouraged to concentrate on craftsmanship and artistic excellence in all musical genres.”
My quotations do not preclude chant, organ, and polyphony. Correct. I myself do not preclude them. However, they do set a limit on things. The Popes since Vatican II have all affirmed that Gregorian chant is the heart and essence and MODEL of liturgical music for the Roman rite. That is – the less like the model the music is, the less fitting it is for the liturgy. Chant and the organ is held in such high esteem because they are the very models of liturgical music for our rite.
This doesn’t mean that other instruments and other forms of music are altogether to be precluded from Mass. But it doesn’t advocate the use of music in contemporary and secular styles. Historically, the Church has always had a problem with “secular” music at Mass – even if at the time, it was stuff from Mozart and Beethoven and Handel.
When you go to Mass, you shouldn’t hear pop music, music that sounds like Broadway, rock, etc. You should hear music that is clearly identifiable as sacred, which has its model in Gregorian chant.
We don’t have to limit the music used at Mass strictly to chant and polyphony – there is, and really should be, room for legitimate variety. But there are limits to what sort of music and what instruments are appropriate and fitting for the liturgy.
I think a lot of modern music that’s being used at Mass, though it may provide emotional experiences, really doesn’t work towards what Mass should be – the adoration of God. We’re supposed to be elevated in our worship. The other sorts of music really don’t incline you vertically, as horizontally if you see what I mean. It makes your soul run along the ground, instead of elevating it into the heavens.
I’m sorry, I meant in that first sentence “My quotations do not preclude music besides chant, organ, and polyphony.”
Please watch this video http://www.musicfortheliturgy.org/video/sacred_vs_secular.htm