'hymns'

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1365635' date='Aug 21 2007, 12:20 PM']You can talk to them til you are blue in the face. Because of radio, TV, and now the internet people EXPECT catchy tunes. The trick is to find singable good hymns to replace the " me generation" hymns currently out there. Until we can do that, I fear the battle is in their favor.
Our best best is to get people [b]writing[/b] good singable hymns. We have a whole board of artists here, maybe they will be the first to step up to the challenge [ big hint!][/quote]
I've started some ideas. But they're more traditional like in focus and not catchy, but I haven't been propagating any new ideas... I just haven't been focusing, though now I think I should get into it. I think it take some devotion and time to be inspired with some good lyrics. I should go to adoration more often, because that's where I start getting ideas.


... Oh look, I started rambling

[Totus Tuus]

These songs really bother me, too, so I've been grateful to read the comments concerning the issue. I generally close my hymnal as soon as one of these songs starts. I know that's anti-participatory but I think it's better for my blood not to boil in Mass than to skimp out on a song.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1364151' date='Aug 20 2007, 07:53 AM']Thanks It's so frustrating sometimes. Some people think that as long as something sounds nice, then it's wonderful and should be used for Mass. It's crazy...[/quote]
that's the problem. what sounds nice is not always theologically correct i have the same types of people here. it is very sad. i will pray for you!

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1365616' date='Aug 21 2007, 06:06 PM']Thankfully, I've never heard anyone sing 'The Lord of the Dance' at Mass. I think our priest would go mad. I've only ever heard kids sing 'Here I Am Lord'-none of the main choirs sing it.[/quote]

I love [i]Here I Am, Lord[/i]. Have done since I was a small child. Now I can look at it and say, "The theology in it isn't bad. Those lines about the 'Lord of wind and flame', followed immediately by the reference to the poor and lame - it shows me the littleness of man alongside the greatness of God. And yet He loves us." When I was a little girl I couldn't have articulated it like that, but that understanding of the hymn has always been present to me.

I don't like the 'I am the Bread of Life' hymn that somebody quoted from, because that doesn't make any sense and gives the wrong idea about the Eucharist. I can't even work out what it's supposed to mean. But not all 'I' hymns are like that. Some of them (e.g. "I have called you by your name; you are Mine") are close paraphrases of Scripture.

A lot of psalms are written in the first person. The psalmists were divinely inspired, it is true, but I don't take infallibility and inspiration to mean word-by-word dictation from above. Were they wrong to use that technique?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1365118' date='Aug 20 2007, 10:39 PM']Let us bring the gifts that differ
And, in splendid, varied ways,
Sing a new Church into being,
One in faith and love and praise[/quote]

I hate that hymn. It's the worst hymn ever. The theology is completely screwy and it has no real meaning.

Anyway...

"I am the Bread of Life" isn't so bad, in my opinion. I'm one who is generally against songs where the choir takes on God's voice, but the psalms, which are the quintessential hymns of the Church, very often have parts where God is speaking to His people. I think sacred music is fine in doing that, but I'd rather the choir sing such a song while the congregation hears and meditates on it...that way the congregation is still hearing the words of God to them. I'm not sure how that jives with the liturgical documents because I'm not a liturgist, but it seems fine to me. If anyone can show me where the documents are against it, I'll humbly bow to that.

Anyway, most other such songs are filled with fluffy theology and/or shouldn't be sung by the congregation.

[Noel's angel]

The thing is, I think it's better to sing solid hymns, not hymns where people are thinking 'well, I think it's okay to sing that'.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Noel's angel

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1376308' date='Sep 2 2007, 01:45 PM']The thing is, I think it's better to sing solid hymns, not hymns where people are thinking 'well, I think it's okay to sing that'.[/quote]
Point taken.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1376288' date='Sep 2 2007, 12:40 PM']the psalms, which are the quintessential hymns of the Church, very often have parts where God is speaking to His people. I think sacred music is fine in doing that, but I'd rather the choir sing such a song while the congregation hears and meditates on it...that way the congregation is still hearing the words of God to them.[/quote]

That is a really good point.

[uruviel]

I've seen various types of protestant hymns before in Catholic Church's. Some are completely contradictory, and some are just flat out protestant. I try to ignore them, obviously I don't sing along with them and I try to tell Jesus sorry for having that hymn in there. Most of the time I can tone the words out. But singing during Mass as a way of adoration is wonderful, I don't believe that's questionable at all. As long as you aren't too distracted with your singing.

[jeffpugh]

Well, being my parish choir, I can tell you it is work. There is a degree of concentration it takes to sing, but also keep in mind, though you must concentrate on Jesus, there must be a level of consciousness focused on singing. Besides, real sacred music counts as prayer as well. Be mindful of that.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Augustine called singing 'praying twice'.

[Noel's angel]

I don't think he meant tree-hugger's hymns...Praying something like 'The Lord of the Dance' twice is two times too many imo

[farglefeezlebut]

There's a difference between theologically dubious hymns and hymns that just aren't very reverent music. There are lots of "Happy clappy" hymns which I wouldn't think of as appropriate for Mass but which are good to sing at other times.

I'd put "Lord of the dance" in that category. There is nothing wrong with it theologically.

[Noel's angel]

Jesus didn't cure people by dancing though, did He? It's just a creepy song. I admit, the tune is catchy, but Jesus didn't run around dancing everywhere. I don't recall Jesus telling anyone he was the Lord of the dance.

I've never heard this at Mass, thankfully.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Noel's angel

[missionseeker]

I think I posted this somewhere here before but:

here is really only one aesthetic requirement that music at Mass must meet: that it be beautiful. This is because, as Pope Benedict XVI says, beauty “enables us to experience the presence of God.”


Here one may say "but beauty is subjective." I answer: not quite. Beauty is defined as by Webster's dictionary as "the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit." Yet again one might say, “what exalts individual minds or spirits is subjective.” I answer: not true.


That which is the highest Good is God. The ultimate goal of every man is (or should be) to reach the greatest Good. Man cannot reach Good without goodness; man's spirit cannot be lifted to the highest Good by something that is not good. Because of the nature of “good” something cannot be good and not lift man's spirit to God, even if man does not realize that his spirit is being lifted. This is why beauty is not subjective. But, because of sin, beauty can be perverted but still seem beautiful. A prime example of this is human sexuality. I am not saying that human sexuality is beauty perverted. Human sexuality is wondrously beautiful when it is not used in a perverted fashion. It fulfills the requirement of lifting the soul to God. But when a man (or a woman) uses his sexuality in any way other than that which was intended, it no longer lifts his soul; in fact, it drags his soul away from God, yet, it still can be mistakenly perceived as good.


The same is true of music. St. Augustine said, “Music, that is the science or the sense of proper modulation, is likewise given by God's generosity to mortals having rational souls in order to lead them to higher things." Beautiful music lifts the soul to God. Here I could go on for pages about how some music is not beautiful and does not lift man's soul. In fact, I have done so before (in a paper for Dr. Urbanczyk) but it is not immediately pertinent to this, so I will resist the temptation. You have been spared.


Since the Mass is the highest form of worship, should an effort not be made by musicians (whether they have been trained or not) to provide the most beautiful music they can? And since beauty is not entirely subjective, should they not make an effort to train themselves (and others) to be able to determine whether music is beautiful or not?



Music at Mass should not be haphazardly put together. Music at Mass should not be chosen on the basis of “I like this” but on the basis of how beautiful it is. This analysis is not based solely on the composition of the music, but also on the lyrics, the composition and the lyrics combined (a song of exultation should not sound like a dirge), and the presentation. While musicians should most certainly not think of the Mass as their performance, they should be aware of the sound of their music and able to judge whether or not it is beautiful. A choir should not present music that is not as beautiful as they can make it. Or music that they cannot make beautifully. Beautifully does not mean perfectly. But it does mean that careful attention has to be paid so that it does not sound ugly.


Music that is not beautiful detracts from the grandeur of the Mass. If music is detracting from the grandeur of the Mass then it is ineffective, and sometimes, deleterious to the soul.



www.ceciliaschola.org has link to sacred music objectives and documents and quotes from high up peoples.