C.f.r.

[qfnol31]

I only judge their private Masses and music. Very traditional! Actually, if you get a chance, go to a first Mass of one of the friars!

[popestpiusx]

Polyphony is fine. Rock is disordered and has no place in the liturgy. This is basically what we have been debating in this thread. So I would have to say that I agree with you, Tony. Although I am fine with other forms of music (like hymns) so long as they meet the constant standard of the Church as explicated by St. Pius X, Pius XII, and even (as the quote I posted a few days ago indicates) the Vatican II document on the liturgy: Sacrosanctam Conciliam.

[BLAZEr]

can you say, in your own words, and in less than 500 why Rock is disordered? thanks.

[popestpiusx]

less than 500? Such harsh regulations you would impose on me .

[popestpiusx]

Ok, first I am not talking about taste or preference. This has nothing to do with what kind of music I like (an irrelevant point). My opinion is useless. In fact, I could turn this question around and ask "Why has the Church always been very strict with what music is permitted for liturgical use? It pertains to the very nature of music. It has an effect on man. It rouses the passions. This is an obvious point that no one would deny. Go to a sporting event. Before it starts the players almost always listen to music. What kind of music? Typically, it's Metallica or whatever. Some heavy Metal/Hard Rock/Rap group. Why? Because that music stirs the passions. It gets the blood flowing. It fires them up. It even makes them almost "angry". In other words, it has an actual physical effect. All music does this in some way, for better or worse. Music, in some sense speaks directly to our souls. It can dispose us to certain activities. This is part 1. I'll finish this later. Do you agree so far?

[popestpiusx]

I'm not sure how much more I will post tonight. I have some writing to do about John Milton and Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (author of the funeral oration of Queen Henriette-Marie, and "History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches").

[BLAZEr]

I agree whole heartedly with your premise: That music stirs the passions.

I would not agree with your assertion, which seems to me like an opinion, that rock music necessarily gets people 'angry.' More so, I would also suggest that it's been a while since you've heard Rock music, if Metallica is the band you think people are playing before sporting events.

How old are you?

Along with that, I would also suggest that most of the music used during the liturgy, even at "teen" masses is not particularly "hard" rock. Usually the electic guitars and bass guitars and key boards are used in a way that does not necessarily "fire up" the crowd.

Have you ever heard Refiner's Fire played during mass? Or maybe Open the Eyes of My Heart? This songs are hardly of the "Metallica" variety.

[popestpiusx]

That post is not complete. That is why I said "This is part 1".

[BLAZEr]

yeah I read that. It seems like some long drawn out attempt at elencheus . . . but maybe not, I guess you would be asking me questions.

[popestpiusx]

In addition, at this point I am talking about rock music in general, not even its use in the liturgy. I trying to establish principles upon which to argue my points, principles which I am hoping we agree. Whether it is Metallica or eminem, or whoever the latest drugged up nutcase millionaire is makes me little difference. The principles will be the same. For the record, kids do still listen to Metallica before sporting events. I help coach high school wrestling (at least up until three years ago when I moved) and the wrestlers still very much like and listen to Metallica. But like I said, that is irrelevant.

[popestpiusx]

Here is some more to chew on, though not in my words. It is from here:

[url="http://www.musicreform.com/facs/art/jul972a.html"]http://www.musicreform.com/facs/art/jul972a.html[/url]

As the breakdown of Christian morality has continued unfettered for many decades, it is curious to note the changes in music style that have occurred along with it. Christian culture, with its emphasis on the harmony of creation under God, gave us a certain kind of music. We can trace that music and its development for the past 1,000 years. For us today, however, that music has been based on the "tempered" scales, (major and minor) that music students around the world struggle to master. Before the "tempered" scales, music, mainly in the control of the churches, gave us a different kind of music, a music that is still today recognized as a legacy of the Christian church.

Western music, certainly until the time of Bach, was also governed by rules, just as language today is still governed by rules. There was order and relationship within the music, governed not only by rules of harmony (which notes sound best when played or sung together) but rules of melodic composition. These rules allowed children of young ages to write music, just as a knowledge of English grammar allows children to write compositions in English. They might not be great compositions, but they nevertheless communicate because the rules of language are followed. So, too, with music. Children could write compositions that might not be great musical composition, but certainly were acceptable within the framework of age and experience of the composer.

This music, however, also combined the elements of music in particular ways. A gross use of rhythm was considered vulgar. It's not that rhythm was left out, but it was combined with the other elements in ways that placed a more important role on the other elements, melody in particular. Musicians were also expected to make a judicious choice of instruments for their compositions. A wrong selection of instruments for an orchestral composition could make the piece sound bizarre.

Over the past two centuries or more, this has changed. Man, in his revolt against the Christian God, has done whatever is necessary to have music state the obvious: no God, no order; no order, no harmony. This was also reflected in a gradual abandonment of melody and its imposed rules for composition. This is the state of much contemporary music: a series of disjointed sounds with neither melodic nor harmonic relationship.

These abandoned elements placed a priority on the intellect and aesthetic judgement. Just as good prose requires a judicious use of words and phrases, so, too, good music requires a careful choice of the sounds and an ordering of their relationship. Polyphonic (many voices) music requires a mastery of the rules of harmony and melodic writing in order to be successful. It is the priority of order and relationship -- and intellectual challenge at its deepest level -- that sets early Western music apart. For Christianity, of all the religions, emphasizes the intellect and its priority over other aspects of man's nature, such as emotion. It is not so much a matter of intellect versus psychology but rather the emotional and psychological aspects of man's nature were to be controlled by the intellect or "right reason" which, in turn, was to be governed by an understanding of God's Word. Thus, Johann Josef Fux, the great 18th century writer on the art of fugue said, "Since God is the highest perfection, the harmony composed for his praise should follow the strictest rules that perfection can claim, as far as human imperfection can realize them."(3)

Thus, as man untied himself from a belief in God, so too, he untied himself from the rational and linked himself with the emotional. Now he would be ruled by what he "felt" was right, not what his intellect, after serious study and reflection dictated to him. "If it feels good, do it." became a slogan of the modern era and is the logical result of the establishment of the priority of the psychological aspects of man's nature over the mind.

[popestpiusx]

More from the same article. It is directly relevant:

To state these things, however, is to make no great statement about music. Many people understand these things. That is why, for example, the music that is to be found in the local club, hotel, or disco, is music that emphasizes rhythm. Imagine, if you can, a disco playing the great cantatas of Bach. Is this the kind of music that accompanies the activities associated with discos? Strip bars would highlight this issue more, which is why strip bars and discos play the kind of music they do: it is the kind of music that lends itself to the other activities that go on in these places. These are not state secrets. These facts are known to anyone who takes a few minutes to ask himself why it is that particular things are always found together.

What is surprising, however, is the propensity of so many churches to introduce the kind of music that is found in strip bars and discos. While it may be maintained that the music has religious words attached to it, and sometimes it is even the words of Scripture themselves, this does not properly address the issue. We still need to ask ourselves the question: Which is the better way for the Christian mind to utilise the elements of music?

Even many churches that decry Christian "rock" music have succumbed to the acceptance of the modern form of church music, reflected in the use of music that has a reliance on rhythm as the strongest ingredient of all the elements. This is why when the band gets rolling and the people start hand-clapping, the bodies begin to sway -- just as they do down the road in the discos and the strip joints. Swaying bodies and strong rhythm go hand in hand. So, too, do swaying male and female bodies and an unhealthy sexuality. Which just might help to explain why a number of leaders in churches that utilise rhythmic music have ended up in adulterous relationships. I am not saying that the music is the only explanation here, but I am suggesting that the music can help and encourage certain attitudes, even wrong ones if we select the wrong music. "Disordered music," argues E. Michael Jones, "leads to disordered lives. . . ."(4)

Making the local church relevant to our times is the argument used to adopt the kind of music of popular culture. And popular culture surely cannot be called Christian in many aspects. To attempt to baptize pop culture with religious words is either an act of ignorance, or a tacit acceptance of pop culture itself. Which is why some folk don't want to change the music. It is not as if the music of pop culture has to be used. No one is forcing people to use it. But there is hardly a church in existence that is seeking alternatives in music style.

To return to the hymns of the previous generation is not going to be the answer. While this music had softer rhythm than the music of contemporary culture being used in the church, it also reflected an abandonment of the intellect with its simple melodies and boring harmony. An over use of the tonic, sub-dominant, and dominant harmonies -- again another sign of contemporary music -- is not the mark of an overly intelligent music. These are the harmonies that are learnt in the early grades, and many, perhaps most of the churches' contemporary hymns, harmonically speaking, have not got past junior school.

Music in the church has adopted the familiar. In its efforts to make church music easily sung it has adopted familiar music structures and ideas, just as is happening with the adoption of the contemporary music styles into the church. But it is the familiarity of the style that gives the point away: music does not obtain familiarity once a week in church. Music is familiar because it is heard all the time. Familiarity comes hearing to the radio, watching television, listening to the CD or tape player.

Mankind needs a music that will take him beyond himself and his narrow, self-centred view of life. It is the church's task to provide this music, something it is not doing at the moment. To achieve this, it is not necessary to tell the Sunday night drummer to pick up his drum and beat it. It may be necessary to tell the drummers of this world that rhythm isn't everything -- and, if necessary, replace their drumsticks with a feather. But it will be essential for the Christian church to develop its own kind of music. A music that will stir the minds and the hearts of the people. To do this, it will be, by definition, unpopular music. This does not mean it should be bad music. Since it will be the church's efforts to change culture, it will not be familiar to those outside the church.

What contemporary church music needs is not to copy the style of the pagan culture surrounding it: rather it needs to be stimulated by the use of imagination that reflects a Christian culture -- even though that culture does not exist at present. For it will be development of a new wave of Christian music (amongst other things) that will bring about a new culture. If music can be used to assist in the suppression of pagan riots as it has in the past, then it can be used in the subjugation of the pagan to Christ once again.

[BLAZEr]

500 words!

[popestpiusx]

I know I know I know. But you said my words had to be under 500 words, not someone elses :pipe:.

[BLAZEr]

Rock and Roll is the Devil!

Ummm, isn't that a protestant position?