Praise And Worship

[jeffpugh]

Wow. Lots happens when I'm away from the computer for about 12 hours. (Mental note, need to have less of a life. ) Anyways, I am glad there is much discussion on this still. It's getting a bit hot, but I it makes it interesting. How about I propose a thought experiment though, for those who may have trouble understanding what is meant by the musical aesthetics:

Imagine that two masses were celebrated with the same crowd of various people, but with the different types of music here. One mass would be the guitar/cheesy keyboard music (maybe with some drums) and the other mass would have the traditional music. For this experiment, I will limit the music to only chant and polyphony (a Capella). Here are the catches though: the music will be sung without the words (God forbid we divorce the lyrics from the music ). Instead of words, maybe the syllable "ah" will be used instead, in order to keep with solemnity ("La" has too much emphasis, and will take away from the implied source of the main beat in the written music). Also, the ordinaries and the scriptures will not be sung, but said (though there is music in a "contemporary" and "traditional" setting). Think about this situation? How would the musical types sound in the celebration of the mass? What is accentuated in both types of music? Now, if you don't know what polyphony is, you can look some up on the internet. I'd try going to www.cpdl.org and search the wiki for Palestrina and see if there are midi files or something to accompany the sheet music (or if you have Sibellius or Finale, they have files for those programs too. If you don't have Finale, you can get a free version from their website. It's a really "lite" version of their commercial package).

Anyways, I hope that helps a bit. Hopefully I haven't left any loose ends.
God Bless everyone, and keep it cool. Thanks again for your responses.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1412689' date='Nov 1 2007, 12:25 PM']And really the only defense that anyone has offered to the contrary is "People like it". Well sorry folks but that just ain't a good enough argument[/quote]

have you been reading people's argument about people who are FOR praise and worship????

dude, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT that the only defense for P&W is "people like it"

DUDE, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!? LOL you're totally selectively listening.. dude do you have a.d.d.?? hahaha i am just kidding. but i dont get why you're shrugging off well thought out arguments for P&W and just saying the only defense is "people like it"

i hope you know that you make people feel like they are wasting their time, because if they give their heart into their answers adn that's all you get out of them, then dude, nevermind this whole discussion...

peace homefry
miko

[scardella]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1412753' date='Nov 1 2007, 03:16 PM']Imagine that two masses were celebrated with the same crowd of various people, but with the different types of music here. One mass would be the guitar/[s]cheesy[/s] keyboard music (maybe with some drums) and the other mass would have the traditional music. For this experiment, I will limit the music to only chant and polyphony (a Capella). Here are the catches though: the music will be sung without the words (God forbid we divorce the lyrics from the music ). Instead of words, maybe the syllable "ah" will be used instead, in order to keep with solemnity ("La" has too much emphasis, and will take away from the implied source of the main beat in the written music). Also, the ordinaries and the scriptures will not be sung, but said (though there is music in a "contemporary" and "traditional" setting). Think about this situation? How would the musical types sound in the celebration of the mass? What is accentuated in both types of music?[/quote]

I think I'd have to hear it to really make an accurate judgment of my reaction, but I think I'd be perfectly fine with either. I've heard some really good guitar accompaniments that really help me focus.

I think part of the problem is that music is very subjective (not entirely, though) and y'all seem to be treating it as this completely objective sort of cut and dried thing.

As an aside: However it may horrify all involved, I'd love to hear chant w/ some guitar in the background or P&W in Latin. Also, I appreciate some chant/polyphony every now and again, but it just doesn't suit me as a day-in day-out sort of thing.

Edited November 1, 2007 by scardella

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='scardella' post='1412775' date='Nov 1 2007, 03:29 PM']As an aside: However it may horrify all involved, I'd love to hear chant w/ some guitar in the background or P&W in Latin. Also, I appreciate some chant/polyphony every now and again, but it just doesn't suit me as a day-in day-out sort of thing.[/quote]

Am I the only one who remembers Cam's superb posts on guitars in Liturgy?

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Sammy Blaze' post='1412620' date='Nov 1 2007, 01:09 AM']Hello all,

This is in response to Lord Philip's original premises

I'm new to this conversation and alas, I'm a lowly Philosophy undergrad, and psy. grad student, so that may mean my comments/questions have no theological significance...

To keep it real, in laymens terms (hopefully) I'm just trying to get a jist for the main points of the debate, I'll try to make some points in favor of P&W
(Please correct me if I misunderstand the basic premises/arguments against P&W)

A general consensus is: The preferred, possibly the best form of music for the Roman Liturgy is Gregorian Chant, the exceptions being other forms of "Sacred Music" in "certain Polyphony" that "correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action" aka do not detract from the proper nature of the liturgy (maybe).

It is my understanding that Polyphony, is music arranged for multiple melodic voices and or instruments i.e. most of Baroque style music or a more contemporary example, possibly "Prince of Peace"

There is a constant debate as to which some forms of music are inherently contrary to qualities of Christianity. For those against P&W in mass, Church documents are taken to mean that instruments such as guitars are so involved in secular forms of music, or even inherently secular that it is impossible/inappropriate/ an abuse for them to be included in liturgy.

The argument is not about "the words (of P&W), but the objective aesthetics of the music"
=
by it's very composition, structure, and quality of it's instruments, contemporary Praise and Worship music is not suited for Mass, or some may even argue, just "bad" music...

What makes music "Sacred?" <---Like to hear input

The meaning of a song "corresponding to the spirit of the liturgical action" is a debate in itself. I would love to see phatmassers/the church's response to this phrase.

Are there some instruments which are inherently secular, or unsuited to glorify God?
This falls along the lines of the Catholic Metal and Catholic Hip-Hop debate

Also, how do people feel about cultural diversity in the Latin Rite throughout the world? <---love to hear input, some could argue the CP&W is cultural....

It would appear not all music forms are suitable for mass. I.E. death metal. I think this point is not debatable (some may disagree). At an extreme we can see that music is not neutral and may be linked to virtue and vice (debatable to some). however the farther we travel from the extreme, I feel neutrality may come into play. (alas, the remnants of modernity....philosophy jab, nevermind)
To maintain perspective, we are talking about music that is primarily acoustic guitar, piano, violin, flute, and possibly drum driven.
If we play out your original argument, one could assume that such instruments are linked to vice....

I think I disagree with what you think (not really an argument, seems more like a rant at times) P&W music embodies...that entire paragraph almost makes me want to feel offended lol. I question the validity of stating that there is no virtue in contemporary praise and worship music...we can also discuss later your interpretation of St. Augustine's "he who sings prays twice" since there is no mention (at least in the specific quote) of instrumentation....

I must remind you that the "Britney-Spears-listening, club hopping morons who do not know any better and who do not understand anything better..." are those who will benefit the most from proper catechesis, and the power of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass i.e. need to be evangelized, and brought to the faith... there is a need to be culturally relevant, if you view music as a cultural issue...

I'm sorry, I may have opened a can of worms, and I have to go to bed, I'm a stressed grad student haha....

For the Record, I love Chant and ancient forms of liturgical music, but It was a love I developed with a maturing faith, I feel there is a need ministerially for praise & worship in mass, and I feel the language of church documents is in some ways open-ended purposefully to allow for relevant and practical uses of music forms depending on culture, context, situation....in short, God moves.

I know I left a few holes in my questioning (it's not really an argument), and I may respond, although I am very busy at the current moment.... and Lord Philip, I hope anything I stated is not taken to be uncharitable, that is the last thing I intended, great, sound points by the way (maybe not all of them haha)

I look forward to any responses,

AMDG!
~S.[/quote]


Sammy,

[b]Thank you so much.[/b] You brought forth relevant analyses and objections. Let me say that this is the first time I have EVER had anyone respond (from the other side of this issue) in a relevant manner to my comments. No ad hominem, no circular arguments, no spewing hatred or misunderstanding. Thank you also for your charitable attitude. Believe it or not, I do try to maintain this, but it is difficult to stay away from generalizations and hasty judgments when people refuse to dialogue in a rational manner.

Let us jump right into the matter, then. I hope to learn from this exchange and this is how I will approach it.

"It is my understanding that Polyphony, is music arranged for multiple melodic voices and or instruments i.e. most of Baroque style music..."

This is in fact the technical definition of polyphony. Another term could be "counterpoint". Yet allow me to interject at this point. Polyphony can be understood in two ways when it is mentioned. It can mean merely the technical term which you stated: multiple melodic voices. Yet when one approaches it less from a technical perspective and more of a music history/philosophy perspective, it means a lot more than simply its technical definition. It is referring to a very specific genre of music which is not necessarily ancient or modern, but can be both.

An analogy of this would be something like jazz. Technically, jazz is little more than classical music with a wider tolerance for voices (and dissonance) in its homophonic structure (in layman's terms...it adds more notes in its chords for added richness and complexity) and a wider array of rhythms. But when the word "jazz" is mentioned it evokes a lot more than that technical definition. Great masters like Dave Brubeck, Victor Feldman and Miles Davis sitting in a steamy dark night club, sweat dripping down their faces, playing their hearts out and bringing their audience to heights of musical pleasure comes to the mind.

In the same way "polyphony", [b]especially[/b] when juxtaposed with Gregorian Chant (defined as the norm, no less), evokes something very specific which goes beyond the technical definition. Here we have great masters like Palestrina, Thomas Tallis, Josquin Desprez and J.S. Bach (the King of counterpoint). So when we see such a statement in this authoritative document, we see a clear norm being established which is very specific.

Let me bring this down out of the clouds for a moment. These Church documents, though they are not meant to be negative (in that they would be attacking some form of music) but rather positive (in that they are rather speaking in [b]support[/b] of certain forms of music), are nevertheless addressing a problem that has arisen in liturgical music. The problem is not a mere technicality; for the Church to come down on us for technicalities would be pedantic and would needlessly put people off from the authority God has established in the Roman Church. A technicality can easily be changed, but it does not address the problem. Going from a homophonic popular music style to a polyphonic (technical meaning here) one would not address the problem.

So in short, especially when one considers the context of this statement (both the immediate context and the wider context of the document), this statement is not as "liberating" as some would make it out to be. Just because it says that, though it is the norm, Gregorian Chant is not the only sort of music that is acceptable for the Mass, we are not to take this as meaning that the doors are flung open to any sort of fancy the age might have. This is especially true since it mentions "polyphony" which as I have said references a very specific genre of music quite distant from the musical form of "praise and worship'.

"For those against P&W in mass, Church documents are taken to mean that instruments such as guitars are so involved in secular forms of music, or even inherently secular that it is impossible/inappropriate/ an abuse for them to be included in liturgy."

This is true of many people on my side, but I must confess that I am not one of these people (I think I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts). I see NO reason why a guitar cannot be used in a manner that is consistent with the solemnity of the Mass. That does not mean that ANYTHING is acceptable from a guitar any more than ANYTHING is acceptable from a violin. To be honest, I have heard music on violins (which was even "classical" music) which would be even more horrific than death metal at Mass. A blanket condemnation of an instrument would be an issue of timbre which is a very specific aesthetic and one concerning which I have not heard good arguments from either side.

I will say, though, that the Church has spoken on this issue:

"...those instruments which are, [b]by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only[/b], are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions."
[i]Musicam Sacram Article 63[/i]

It seems to me that certain guitars (electric mostly) and the drum set as it is used for jazz and rock and roll are by this statement excluded from the Mass. It is my duty only to obey even though I might not take my argument as far as [i]Musicam Sacram[/i] does.

For your comments on "what makes music sacred?" I recommend reading more of [i]Musicam Sacram[/i] where it lays down how the Church views this matter. While it does remain slightly general, it very clearly singles out traditional sacred music forms as normative and fitting for the solemn dignity of the Mass.

"At an extreme we can see that music is not neutral and may be linked to virtue and vice (debatable to some). however the farther we travel from the extreme, I feel neutrality may come into play. (alas, the remnants of modernity....philosophy jab, never mind)
To maintain perspective, we are talking about music that is primarily acoustic guitar, piano, violin, flute, and possibly drum driven.
If we play out your original argument, one could assume that such instruments are linked to vice.... "

Okay, here we come to some meat. This is [i]exactly[/i] what I have been waiting to hear from the other side because THIS is the big objection that could be raised to my argument. It is a compelling hypothesis, and if proved true, would most certainly undermine the major premise of my argument (those philosophy classes are really paying off!) which would be to effectively pull the rug from under my feet. Well done, sir.

What I am referring to specifically is this: "the farther we travel from the extreme, I feel neutrality may come into play.” This hypothesis is pitted against my hypothesis which states the opposite: that ‘praise and worship’ music is not neutral and that it in fact embodies principles which, while not as extreme and evil as that of death-metal, are nonetheless incompatible with the holiness, the solemnity, and the sacred nature of the Mass.

This brings us to one of the fundamental axioms of all artistic criticism (not just that of music), that there is no form, no aesthetic that is neutral in terms of meaning. This axiom is laid down by the fact that art is a product of human tradition, culture, thought, prejudice, and belief. Form is always communicative, [b]even on levels that may be unknown even by the creator of a specific piece of art[/b] (we will come back to this point in a moment).

Yet you may object at this point in the argument and say, “I do not deny this. What I meant by neutrality was not neutrality of any meaning whatsoever, but neutrality in terms of “good” and “bad” which would make it a non-issue in terms of whether it is appropriate or not for the Mass.”

This is where I will bring in evidence from the point I just made: art is a product of human tradition, culture, thought, prejudice, and belief AND form is always communicative even on levels that may be unknown even by the creator of a specific piece of art. It can be empirically shown that the musical forms that the ‘praise and worship’ genre employs were birthed in places and circumstances foreign and contrary to the Church and all the Church stands for.

Yet this is not enough for me, nor I imagine for you. Empirical evidence is just that: evidence. Evidence is not proof. I do believe it should be cause for thought, though. A [b]full[/b] proof for the connection between these forms of music and the principles which are contrary to the solemnity of the Mass is far beyond the scope of this post, so all I can do is provide little snapshots.

The reason why proof is needed is because (as I have indicated), the presence of these principles contrary to the nature of the Mass is necessarily invisible to those who are in the midst of the culture in which this music is present. An analogy would be a typical representation of a person of African descent in a work of art from the southern United States in the early 20th century. One would see obvious signs of racism and gross stereotype. The overly gigantic lips, the small head, and the character acting like a monkey are disgusting to us, and rightly so. But if you went to talk to the artist in that time to point out those aesthetics and the racism inherent in them, that person would probably not know what you are talking about. That person would tell you he does not have a racist bone in his body, and even that the painting is just in good fun.

The early 20th century southern artist would be incapable of understanding the righteous protester’s objections because to him those aesthetics are completely neutral when it comes to racial tension. A madman (I am not asserting that ‘praise and worship’ music advocates are crazy, I am just using an example) never knows that he is a madman. He thinks he is the only sane one.

So my proof is made difficult because I have to ask the audience to step out of the spirit of the times that so efficiently blinds us from the error behind our values. May I ask that you, as a student of philosophy, would do this with me, a fellow student?

Ironically, at this point I have to leave behind my rigid intellectual form because we are entering an arena far too abstract to lay down in a few pages of text. Please allow me to quote Jack Black who summarized rock n’ roll in the following manner:

“Rock n’ Roll is about stickin’ it to the man.”

To get into the details of why exactly this is (that is, that rock n’ roll music is anti-authoritarian and incarnates rebellion) would take me into areas that would sound very subjective. I mean the coarseness of the music, its high volume, its repetitiveness and its almost care-free “screw you”-ness. I believe, and even someone as unsophisticated as Jack Black believes, that this is an inherent, objective aspect of that music. That is what gives it its power and its appeal to young people. Is it an accident that Rock n’ Roll can at every point in its history be linked to rebellion in one form or another?

Naturally, rebellion against evil is a good thing, but [i]rebellion[/i], in its own nature, is a bad thing. Any Catholic can agree to this. Any Catholic can also agree that rebellion is a foreign and unnatural imposition on the setting of the Mass.

Another way of approaching the aesthetics is to ask what, say, Britney Spears’ music is [i]for[/i]. Is it [i]for[/i] prayer? Is it for fostering virtue? Is it for encouraging charity and hope? Is it for reminding people of something that exists outside themselves? No indeed. It is not for any of those things. In fact, it is for the opposite of all those things.

Britney Spears’ music (and all which is like it and which tries to copy it) is for satiating selfish and Godless desires that focus in on oneself. This is the opposite of prayer and of virtue. It is for addressing, encouraging and fostering lust. This is the opposite of charity. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The fact that it feeds these depravities I our society shows that it embodies them.

Two more things must be said here about the neutrality argument.

The first one is a question: how “close” do you feel ‘praise and worship’ music is to neutrality (between death-metal and neutrality)? Why do you feel this way?

The second thing to be said will assume that ‘praise and worship’ music is in fact neutral. If it is neutral, how does it conform with the Church’s following statement?

[quote]“[The music must] correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and…foster the participation of all the faithful.”[/quote]

This says that the music must [b]not[/b] be neutral in this respect, but must indeed embody positive goodness. So even a proof of neutrality does not meet the Church’s requirements for music that is appropriate for the Mass.

“I must remind you that the ‘Britney-Spears-listening, club hopping morons who do not know any better and who do not understand anything better...’ are those who will benefit the most from proper catechesis.”

We must be very careful to distinguish outreach to the lost from worship. They are two completely different things, and to blur the edges between them is dangerous. As I said in a previous post, I am in full support of using ‘praise and worship’ music for evangelization of the lost.

“…there is a need to be culturally relevant, if you view music as a cultural issue.”

For evangelization and even for catechesis of those in a state of grace, yes. But a desire for “relevance” is one that is contrary to the pure motive of worship. This is because “relevance” focuses on ourselves, our friends, and our culture (certainly not bad things in themselves); worship is about focusing on God, and we must do it on his terms which have been laid out in the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church which have been consistent (not necessarily the same, but consistent) from the first century through the 21st.

“For the Record, I love Chant and ancient forms of liturgical music, but It was a love I developed with a maturing faith…”

I sympathize with this; I honestly do. But as I said in another post, the character of the Catholic Church is to show the common people not merely people and things that looked just like themselves, but rather archetypes. By archetypes I mean saints, the Blessed Mother, and the Lord himself. In the arena of music, they should be shown “what the Catholic Church is made of”, so to speak.

This concludes my overly long winded response. I would love to hear how you might respond to some of these ideas.

God bless,

Philip

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1412699' date='Nov 1 2007, 11:11 AM']Is EVERYTHING protestant wrong?[/quote]


I have to agree with Norseman, here. The issue does not break down to Catholic vs. Protestant polemics (though in modern Evangelical America it might appear to be like this). It breaks down to other things.

Church teaching is clear that Protestantism holds fast to a great wealth of the true faith, and that they are in truth mystically united with us in our faith. So where there is no outright contradiction of Church teaching, one should be open to the Protestant's yearning for God which sometimes really looks so much like ours.

J.S. Bach was the greatest of all Church musicians (in the opinion of more than one Catholic), and was a Lutheran. Yet his Mass in B Minor is one of the most towering achievements not only of music, but of a Mass setting.

God bless,

Philip

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412804' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:46 PM']Am I the only one who remembers Cam's superb posts on guitars in Liturgy?[/quote]
Wow, and this is coming from a "rad trad"... 'aight, bump/link us up, Tyler!

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1412818' date='Nov 1 2007, 06:12 PM']Sammy,

[b]Thank you so much.[/b] You brought forth relevant analyses and objections. Let me say that this is the first time I have EVER had anyone respond (from the other side of this issue) in a relevant manner to my comments. No ad hominem, no circular arguments, no spewing hatred or misunderstanding. Thank you also for your charitable attitude. Believe it or not, I do try to maintain this, but it is difficult to stay away from generalizations and hasty judgments when people refuse to dialogue in a rational manner.

Let us jump right into the matter, then. I hope to learn from this exchange and this is how I will approach it.

"It is my understanding that Polyphony, is music arranged for multiple melodic voices and or instruments i.e. most of Baroque style music..."

This is in fact the technical definition of polyphony. Another term could be "counterpoint". Yet allow me to interject at this point. Polyphony can be understood in two ways when it is mentioned. It can mean merely the technical term which you stated: multiple melodic voices. Yet when one approaches it less from a technical perspective and more of a music history/philosophy perspective, it means a lot more than simply its technical definition. It is referring to a very specific genre of music which is not necessarily ancient or modern, but can be both.

An analogy of this would be something like jazz. Technically, jazz is little more than classical music with a wider tolerance for voices (and dissonance) in its homophonic structure (in layman's terms...it adds more notes in its chords for added richness and complexity) and a wider array of rhythms. But when the word "jazz" is mentioned it evokes a lot more than that technical definition. Great masters like Dave Brubeck, Victor Feldman and Miles Davis sitting in a steamy dark night club, sweat dripping down their faces, playing their hearts out and bringing their audience to heights of musical pleasure comes to the mind.

In the same way "polyphony", [b]especially[/b] when juxtaposed with Gregorian Chant (defined as the norm, no less), evokes something very specific which goes beyond the technical definition. Here we have great masters like Palestrina, Thomas Tallis, Josquin Desprez and J.S. Bach (the King of counterpoint). So when we see such a statement in this authoritative document, we see a clear norm being established which is very specific.

Let me bring this down out of the clouds for a moment. These Church documents, though they are not meant to be negative (in that they would be attacking some form of music) but rather positive (in that they are rather speaking in [b]support[/b] of certain forms of music), are nevertheless addressing a problem that has arisen in liturgical music. The problem is not a mere technicality; for the Church to come down on us for technicalities would be pedantic and would needlessly put people off from the authority God has established in the Roman Church. A technicality can easily be changed, but it does not address the problem. Going from a homophonic popular music style to a polyphonic (technical meaning here) one would not address the problem.

So in short, especially when one considers the context of this statement (both the immediate context and the wider context of the document), this statement is not as "liberating" as some would make it out to be. Just because it says that, though it is the norm, Gregorian Chant is not the only sort of music that is acceptable for the Mass, we are not to take this as meaning that the doors are flung open to any sort of fancy the age might have. This is especially true since it mentions "polyphony" which as I have said references a very specific genre of music quite distant from the musical form of "praise and worship'.

"For those against P&W in mass, Church documents are taken to mean that instruments such as guitars are so involved in secular forms of music, or even inherently secular that it is impossible/inappropriate/ an abuse for them to be included in liturgy."

This is true of many people on my side, but I must confess that I am not one of these people (I think I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts). I see NO reason why a guitar cannot be used in a manner that is consistent with the solemnity of the Mass. That does not mean that ANYTHING is acceptable from a guitar any more than ANYTHING is acceptable from a violin. To be honest, I have heard music on violins (which was even "classical" music) which would be even more horrific than death metal at Mass. A blanket condemnation of an instrument would be an issue of timbre which is a very specific aesthetic and one concerning which I have not heard good arguments from either side.

I will say, though, that the Church has spoken on this issue:

"...those instruments which are, [b]by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only[/b], are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions."
[i]Musicam Sacram Article 63[/i]

It seems to me that certain guitars (electric mostly) and the drum set as it is used for jazz and rock and roll are by this statement excluded from the Mass. It is my duty only to obey even though I might not take my argument as far as [i]Musicam Sacram[/i] does.

For your comments on "what makes music sacred?" I recommend reading more of [i]Musicam Sacram[/i] where it lays down how the Church views this matter. While it does remain slightly general, it very clearly singles out traditional sacred music forms as normative and fitting for the solemn dignity of the Mass.

"At an extreme we can see that music is not neutral and may be linked to virtue and vice (debatable to some). however the farther we travel from the extreme, I feel neutrality may come into play. (alas, the remnants of modernity....philosophy jab, never mind)
To maintain perspective, we are talking about music that is primarily acoustic guitar, piano, violin, flute, and possibly drum driven.
If we play out your original argument, one could assume that such instruments are linked to vice.... "

Okay, here we come to some meat. This is [i]exactly[/i] what I have been waiting to hear from the other side because THIS is the big objection that could be raised to my argument. It is a compelling hypothesis, and if proved true, would most certainly undermine the major premise of my argument (those philosophy classes are really paying off!) which would be to effectively pull the rug from under my feet. Well done, sir.

What I am referring to specifically is this: "the farther we travel from the extreme, I feel neutrality may come into play.” This hypothesis is pitted against my hypothesis which states the opposite: that ‘praise and worship’ music is not neutral and that it in fact embodies principles which, while not as extreme and evil as that of death-metal, are nonetheless incompatible with the holiness, the solemnity, and the sacred nature of the Mass.

This brings us to one of the fundamental axioms of all artistic criticism (not just that of music), that there is no form, no aesthetic that is neutral in terms of meaning. This axiom is laid down by the fact that art is a product of human tradition, culture, thought, prejudice, and belief. Form is always communicative, [b]even on levels that may be unknown even by the creator of a specific piece of art[/b] (we will come back to this point in a moment).

Yet you may object at this point in the argument and say, “I do not deny this. What I meant by neutrality was not neutrality of any meaning whatsoever, but neutrality in terms of “good” and “bad” which would make it a non-issue in terms of whether it is appropriate or not for the Mass.”

This is where I will bring in evidence from the point I just made: art is a product of human tradition, culture, thought, prejudice, and belief AND form is always communicative even on levels that may be unknown even by the creator of a specific piece of art. It can be empirically shown that the musical forms that the ‘praise and worship’ genre employs were birthed in places and circumstances foreign and contrary to the Church and all the Church stands for.

Yet this is not enough for me, nor I imagine for you. Empirical evidence is just that: evidence. Evidence is not proof. I do believe it should be cause for thought, though. A [b]full[/b] proof for the connection between these forms of music and the principles which are contrary to the solemnity of the Mass is far beyond the scope of this post, so all I can do is provide little snapshots.

The reason why proof is needed is because (as I have indicated), the presence of these principles contrary to the nature of the Mass is necessarily invisible to those who are in the midst of the culture in which this music is present. An analogy would be a typical representation of a person of African descent in a work of art from the southern United States in the early 20th century. One would see obvious signs of racism and gross stereotype. The overly gigantic lips, the small head, and the character acting like a monkey are disgusting to us, and rightly so. But if you went to talk to the artist in that time to point out those aesthetics and the racism inherent in them, that person would probably not know what you are talking about. That person would tell you he does not have a racist bone in his body, and even that the painting is just in good fun.

The early 20th century southern artist would be incapable of understanding the righteous protester’s objections because to him those aesthetics are completely neutral when it comes to racial tension. A madman (I am not asserting that ‘praise and worship’ music advocates are crazy, I am just using an example) never knows that he is a madman. He thinks he is the only sane one.

So my proof is made difficult because I have to ask the audience to step out of the spirit of the times that so efficiently blinds us from the error behind our values. May I ask that you, as a student of philosophy, would do this with me, a fellow student?

Ironically, at this point I have to leave behind my rigid intellectual form because we are entering an arena far too abstract to lay down in a few pages of text. Please allow me to quote Jack Black who summarized rock n’ roll in the following manner:

“Rock n’ Roll is about stickin’ it to the man.”

To get into the details of why exactly this is (that is, that rock n’ roll music is anti-authoritarian and incarnates rebellion) would take me into areas that would sound very subjective. I mean the coarseness of the music, its high volume, its repetitiveness and its almost care-free “screw you”-ness. I believe, and even someone as unsophisticated as Jack Black believes, that this is an inherent, objective aspect of that music. That is what gives it its power and its appeal to young people. Is it an accident that Rock n’ Roll can at every point in its history be linked to rebellion in one form or another?

Naturally, rebellion against evil is a good thing, but [i]rebellion[/i], in its own nature, is a bad thing. Any Catholic can agree to this. Any Catholic can also agree that rebellion is a foreign and unnatural imposition on the setting of the Mass.

Another way of approaching the aesthetics is to ask what, say, Britney Spears’ music is [i]for[/i]. Is it [i]for[/i] prayer? Is it for fostering virtue? Is it for encouraging charity and hope? Is it for reminding people of something that exists outside themselves? No indeed. It is not for any of those things. In fact, it is for the opposite of all those things.

Britney Spears’ music (and all which is like it and which tries to copy it) is for satiating selfish and Godless desires that focus in on oneself. This is the opposite of prayer and of virtue. It is for addressing, encouraging and fostering lust. This is the opposite of charity. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The fact that it feeds these depravities I our society shows that it embodies them.

Two more things must be said here about the neutrality argument.

The first one is a question: how “close” do you feel ‘praise and worship’ music is to neutrality (between death-metal and neutrality)? Why do you feel this way?

The second thing to be said will assume that ‘praise and worship’ music is in fact neutral. If it is neutral, how does it conform with the Church’s following statement?
This says that the music must [b]not[/b] be neutral in this respect, but must indeed embody positive goodness. So even a proof of neutrality does not meet the Church’s requirements for music that is appropriate for the Mass.

“I must remind you that the ‘Britney-Spears-listening, club hopping morons who do not know any better and who do not understand anything better...’ are those who will benefit the most from proper catechesis.”

We must be very careful to distinguish outreach to the lost from worship. They are two completely different things, and to blur the edges between them is dangerous. As I said in a previous post, I am in full support of using ‘praise and worship’ music for evangelization of the lost.

“…there is a need to be culturally relevant, if you view music as a cultural issue.”

For evangelization and even for catechesis of those in a state of grace, yes. But a desire for “relevance” is one that is contrary to the pure motive of worship. This is because “relevance” focuses on ourselves, our friends, and our culture (certainly not bad things in themselves); worship is about focusing on God, and we must do it on his terms which have been laid out in the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church which have been consistent (not necessarily the same, but consistent) from the first century through the 21st.

“For the Record, I love Chant and ancient forms of liturgical music, but It was a love I developed with a maturing faith…”

I sympathize with this; I honestly do. But as I said in another post, the character of the Catholic Church is to show the common people not merely people and things that looked just like themselves, but rather archetypes. By archetypes I mean saints, the Blessed Mother, and the Lord himself. In the arena of music, they should be shown “what the Catholic Church is made of”, so to speak.

This concludes my overly long winded response. I would love to hear how you might respond to some of these ideas.

God bless,

Philip[/quote]
This is your most long winded but the best yet. I thank Sammy Blaze for fleshing out some of the goodness here too. I noticed a bit of Chesterton influence in this post, which warmed my heart. Specifically though, the whole thing about making music relevant taking away from worship is so true, and it might be an underlying argument for my work... who knows, I have yet to get down to sorting this stuff out.

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1412830' date='Nov 1 2007, 06:34 PM']I have to agree with Norseman, here. The issue does not break down to Catholic vs. Protestant polemics (though in modern Evangelical America it might appear to be like this). It breaks down to other things.

Church teaching is clear that Protestantism holds fast to a great wealth of the true faith, and that they are in truth mystically united with us in our faith. So where there is no outright contradiction of Church teaching, one should be open to the Protestant's yearning for God which sometimes really looks so much like ours.

J.S. Bach was the greatest of all Church musicians (in the opinion of more than one Catholic), and was a Lutheran. Yet his Mass in B Minor is one of the most towering achievements not only of music, but of a Mass setting.

God bless,

Philip[/quote]
Well, my first initial reaction to Norseman was the inside joke "only stuff that isn't Catholic!". Keep in mind, nothing good that protestants have didn't not come from the Holy Catholic Church (too many negatives... am I speaking for the Church here? I hope so )

Aight, thanks for all this again. God bless.

[scardella]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412804' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:46 PM']Am I the only one who remembers Cam's superb posts on guitars in Liturgy?[/quote]

Superb? When he would only give circular arguments in responding to how to judge the secularity of a given instrument? Where he cited documents that didn't give any way to figure out whether a given instrument is appropriate or not, and then had the gall to say that it was somehow plain as day? Given what the Church documents say, there's plenty of room for interpretive judgement on a more granular level.

I'm sorry, although he may be learned, his argumentation was completely lacking.

Edited November 2, 2007 by scardella

[Jaime]

[quote name='scardella' post='1412697' date='Nov 1 2007, 12:56 PM']Why would the fact that it [b]may[/b] be written by a protestant make it automatically inappropriate for Mass?[/quote]

If it is written for the protestant faith, then it is inappropriate for Mass


[quote name='Norseman82' post='1412699' date='Nov 1 2007, 01:11 PM']Is EVERYTHING protestant wrong?[/quote]

Turn it around. What that is protestant is appropriate for Mass? Very very little.

Am I saying that protestants are horrible people that are destined for hell? No. I'm saying that music that is written for the protestant faith can be good and joyful. But that doesn't make it liturgical.

Oh and as far as JS Bach is concerned, He was WORKING FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. So he was mindful of what he was writing because he was paid to do so. If a talented protestant starting writing liturgical compositions, I would have no problem with it.

Again, IF ITS WRITTEN FROM A PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVE it is inappropriate for mass


[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412804' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:46 PM']Am I the only one who remembers Cam's superb posts on guitars in Liturgy?[/quote]

Yes and I remember soundly thumping my beloved Camster on said thread. I'm not against guitar at Mass. I play guitar at Mass. I'm against inappropriate music at Mass.

[rkwright]

I can’t believe I read this whole thread…

No seriously, why is there so much debate around this; this seems to be an open shut case. The documents are out there; they’ve said what is appropriate, end of story I would think…
To start things off…
From Instruction on Scared Music in the Liturgy Musicam Sacram
[quote]11. The real solemnity of a liturgical service, it should be kept in mind, depends not on a more ornate musical style or more ceremonial splendor but on a worthy and reverent celebration. This means respect for the integrity of the rites, that is, carrying out each of the parts in keeping with its proper character. More ornate styles of singing and greater ceremonial splendor are obviously sometimes desirable, when they are possible. But it would be in conflict with the genuine solemnity of a liturgical service if such things were to cause any element of the service to be omitted, altered, or performed improperly.[/quote]

There is much debate around some of the words being used. I don’t have a background in philosophy, but a quick look to the documents finds that that they define nearly every one of the terms we’re debating about!

From De Musica Sacra
[quote]4. "Sacred music" includes the following: a) Gregorian chant; b) sacred polyphony; c) modern sacred music; d) sacred organ music; e) hymns; and f) religious music.

51. Hymns ought to be highly encouraged, and fostered, for this form of music does much to imbue the Christian with a deep religious spirit, and to raise the thoughts of the faithful to the truths of our faith.
Hymns have their own part to play in all the festive solemnities of Christian life, whether public or of a more personal nature; they also find their part in the daily labors of the Christian. But they attain their ideal usefulness in all private devotions, whether conducted outside or inside the church. At times their use is even permitted during liturgical functions, in accord with the directions given above in paragraphs 13-15.
52. If hymns are to attain their purpose, their texts "must conform to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, plainly stating, and explaining it. The vocabulary should be simple, and free of dramatic, and meaningless verbiage. Their tunes, however brief, and easy, should evince a religious dignity and propriety" (Musicæ sacræ disciplina (AAS 48 [1956] 20). Local Ordinaries should carefully see that these ideals are observed.[/quote]

Sounds like the gather hymns to me…

And as far as our Praise and Worship goes…

[quote]10. Religious music is any music which, either by the intention of the composer or by the subject or purpose of the composition, serves to arouse devotion, and religious sentiments. Such music "is an effective aid to religion" (Musicæ sacræ disciplina, idem.). But since it was not intended for divine worship, and was composed in a free style, it is not to be used during liturgical ceremonies.
54. The type of music which inspires its hearers with religious sentiments, and even devotion, and yet, because of its special character cannot be used in liturgical functions, is nevertheless worthy of high esteem, and ought to be cultivated in its proper time. This music justly merits, therefore, the title "religious music".
55. The proper places for the performance of such music are concert halls, theaters, or auditoriums, but not the church, which is consecrated to the worship of God.
However, if none of these places are available, and the local Ordinary judges that a concert of religious music might be advantageous for the spiritual welfare of the faithful, he may permit a concert of this kind to be held in a church, provided the following provisions are observed:[/quote]

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems pretty plainly obvious that P&W falls in this category, and cannot be used in liturgical functions.

Lord Phillip, I must admit that I don’t fully understand all of your arguments; but again I wonder, are they even necessary? I’m not sure the Church even thinks so...
From Musicae Sacrae Disciplina

[quote]21. Certainly no one will be astonished that the Church is so vigilant and careful about sacred music. It is not a case of drawing up laws of aesthetics or technical rules that apply to the subject of music. It is the intention of the Church, however, to protect sacred music against anything that might lessen its dignity, since it is called upon to take part in something as important as divine worship.[/quote]

Why even get into the mess of figuring out the ‘neutrality’ of P&W (I have to admit I’ve had a little phil. and logic courses, but you guys totally lost me on this point) The church has already defined this type of music and where it lies.

Edited November 2, 2007 by rkwright

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1412673' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:19 AM']and neither do many "Catholic" composers that have songs in many of our current hymnals. [/quote]


True.

[scardella]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1413104' date='Nov 2 2007, 01:21 AM']From De Musica Sacra
Sounds like the gather hymns to me…

And as far as our Praise and Worship goes…
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems pretty plainly obvious that P&W falls in this category, and cannot be used in liturgical functions.

Lord Phillip, I must admit that I don’t fully understand all of your arguments; but again I wonder, are they even necessary? I’m not sure the Church even thinks so...
From Musicae Sacrae Disciplina
Why even get into the mess of figuring out the ‘neutrality’ of P&W (I have to admit I’ve had a little phil. and logic courses, but you guys totally lost me on this point) The church has already defined this type of music and where it lies.[/quote]

rk,

I disagree. I believe that P&W (insofar as it is in conformity with Catholic teaching) fits DMS 51 and 52 as well as, or better than, most of the stuff in the Gather hymnal. As a matter of fact, I think quite a number of the songs in it were written by protestants. However, contemporary Christian music (as distinct from P&W) is characterized by DMS 10, 54-55. To illustrate the difference, I [b]don't[/b] think that something like DC Talk's "Jesus Freak" would be appropriate. In contrast, I'd say something like Third Day's "Your Love Oh Lord (Psalm 36)" would be highly appropriate. I'm not quite sure how to explain the difference, but it's there, and there's a distinct difference in character to them.

And I don't know what this mess about neutrality is.

[Norseman82]

I have to admit, I don't understand the difference between "freestyle" and what isn't, except in swimming.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1413069' date='Nov 2 2007, 12:10 AM']If it is written for the protestant faith, then it is inappropriate for Mass
Turn it around. What that is protestant is appropriate for Mass? Very very little.[/quote]

EXCELLENT! Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.

First, my statement was aimed at any sentiment of "protestant=bad". Remember, we probably agree with protestants on 80-90% of doctrine - so, for example, if a protestant wrote a song praising the Trinitry and it did not have anything that was against Catholic doctrine in it, and could be played on an organ or "a capella", what would be inappropriate about that? That was what I was getting at.

Now, let's discuss some concrete examples:

a) Third Day has a song "Creed" which is their rendition of the Apostles Creed. In it they replace "one holy catholic and apostolic church" with "one holy church". Since it deletes two marks of the church, obviously it is not appropriate for Mass.

b) Many of you have heard the song "Come, Now is the Time to Worship". If not, here are the lyrics:

[url="http://www.lyricsdownload.com/phillips-craig-and-dean-come-now-is-the-time-to-worship-lyrics.html"]http://www.lyricsdownload.com/phillips-cra...hip-lyrics.html[/url]

[i]Based on the lyrics[/i], what would be inappropriate about using that as a processional hymn?

[dUSt]

<begin rant> First of all, I'm against all bad music being used in the mass. I'd rather attend a mass with no music at all than attend a mass with off-beat instruments and singers who hurt my ears. It's a disgrace to have bad music in the mass and completely unfair to every single parishioner in that congregation who is trying to focus. </end rant>

[b]My stance[/b]
With that said, I'm against praise and worship music being used in the mass. My reason is simple. [b]It's too worldly.[/b] I can't think of any legitimate argument I could make [b]for[/b] p&w that would allow me to exlude myself from also making that exact same argument for rock being used in the mass, or hip-hop, or heavy metal, etc, etc. It's a natural progression.

[b]The "all music was contemporary at some point" argument.[/b]
What about the argument that Gregorian Chant was at one time contemporary? But was it at any time worldy? I don't think so. What about the organ? That was contemporary and wordly, was it not? I don't know. Who cares. The point is that it is not wordly now, and probably not considered worldy at the time that it was embraced by the church.

[b]So what is "worldly"?[/b]
I have a formula. Look at the top 100 billboard charts. That is what is wordly. Find out and tally up all the instruments used in those bands/groups. If the instrument in question is associated or used by over 50% of those said groups, that will be considered a "wordly" instrument. Also, any instrument invented within the past 50 years will be considered "worldly". No worldly instruments should be used in the mass.

Also, all singers should be subjected to an anonymous vocal test, screened by a random focus group of at least 10 people. If it is determined that over 50% of those people relate the voice of the singer to Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Cindy Lauper or Foghat, that singer should be considered "worldly".

[b]Conclusion[/b]
Seriously, the mass should be holy, reverent, and have a good amount of silence in it. All too often, p&w seems to want to fill up every second of every mass with noise.

I want to leave this world when I enter a church. I don't want to be reminded of it. To all of the prasie and worship advocates... I beg of you, stop trying to bring the world into the mass, and let me [b]please[/b] retain one of the only escapes I have left from this world. Is it too much to ask for that one hour a week?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1413199' date='Nov 2 2007, 10:03 AM']<begin rant> First of all, I'm against all bad music being used in the mass. I'd rather attend a mass with no music at all than attend a mass with off-beat instruments and singers who hurt my ears. It's a disgrace to have bad music in the mass and completely unfair to every single parishioner in that congregation who is trying to focus. </end rant>[/quote]