popestpiusx Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Do some prots believe it? Yes. Do they take it to far? Some do, yes. Does that make rock and roll good or acceptable liturgical music? NO! Some prots believe in God. Does that make it a protestant position? Some prots believe in the Real Presence. Is it therefore a protestant position? Nay! The question is, blazer, what do you have to defend your position with. I have given you ample evidence, both from the Church and from the principles of sound philosophy, to support my position. I haven't got much in return. I'm not saying that people should never listen to Rock or that it is a sin to listen to it. I am saying that it is absolutely unfitting for the liturgy. It does not produce the spiritual dispositions proper to the Mass. This is a major problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 (edited) What are this authors qualifications to critique music? "Swaying bodies and strong rhythm go hand in hand. So, too, do swaying male and female bodies and an unhealthy sexuality." I object to this notion that swaying to the music is going to result in adulturous relationships. Edited April 6, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 He is referring to a certain type of swaying that goes along naturally with certain kinds of sensuous (or disproportionately rhythmic) music. There are certain bodily actions (or natural bodily reactions) to different types of music. This at least should be obvious. Or is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 3 2004, 02:32 PM'] I must have missed something. The fact that the Holy Father allows something (unthinkable ever before in Church History) does not mean I have to suddenly embrace what the Church has always forbidden. Does the assertion that rock bands in sanctuary are not conducive to sanctity make me schismatic?? You people ganging up on me here (which doesn’t bother me in the slightest) have yet to address the facts that I quoted earlier. I quoted St. Pius X. That wasn’t good enough for you. So I quoted Vatican II. Still not good enough. In fact, one person even openly disagreed with what was quoted (something that would have spawned a warning had I done it). The only thing that one can conclude is that you people have no real argument, but rather are guilty of what you have accused me of: measuring the rest of the world according to the standard of himself. You are like this stuff, ergo it is good. Who’s standard is that? Your own! I have not one time told you what my personal opinions are in this regard. I will if you want to know, but they are irrelevant to the argument. The Church has officially promulgated certain standards. These, and not one’s preferences or opinions, are the standard by which all (within the genus of what we are discussing) is to be judged. You disagree? Take it to the Church. She taught the stuff, not me. How schismatic of me to think such things. And to you Mr. Sigga, your post does not even merit a response. However, a few things do need to be pointed out. You posted the following “but why in the H are you even a Roman Catholic? There are lots of little schismatic groups around that would love every little thing you have ever said on Pm. If one whole-heartedly believes the Pope is a nut and the Roman Catholic priesthood is a hoot, why lie to oneself and not just leave?” What in the hell are you talking about? Show me where I said the Pope is a nut. Show me where I have stated that the Roman Catholic Priesthood is a hoot. I don’t even know what you mean by “hoot.” Why the hell am I Catholic? Because the Church is the Fullness of Truth. Because she has an unbroken line of teaching 2000 years old. Because, unlike every religion and sect in the world apart from the Catholic Church, her teachings are not subject to personal preferences or opinions. Her truth is absolute and unchanging. Because she was instituted by Christ and because outside of her there is no salvation. Pretty schismatic, huh? You go on to say: “I love the Pope and the priesthood and V2 so naturally I would identify as a Roman Catholic. This isn't 1950 or 1850 and the Church is ALIVE in Christ TODAY in 2004 preaching to the masses and evangelizing sinners.” Can you explain how this in some way is contrary to anything I have said? Have I said that I do not love the Pope the priesthood or Vatican II? Pointing out issues where they may be legitimately pointed out does not indicate a lack of love. In fact, it indicates a more complete love. If I though my father was doing something that was dangerous to him or his soul and I said nothing could I actually claim to love him? No, of course not. Secondly, I am well aware of what year it is and that the Church is Alive etc. That is the whole point of my being Catholic and defending the Church. If she was dead, the whole thing would have been a lie and there would be nothing to defend. Also, for the record, I am the one who quoted from the Vatican II document on the liturgy. Not you. It seems to have been conveniently ignored. I am being accused of hating Vatican II, yet I am the one using the Council documents to bolster my argument. Am I the only one that sees the irony there? You state further: “If you want to go to the indult Latin Mass, fine then just go, but the Council is over and done with - just say a "Glory Be" and get over it.” Yes, you are right, the Council is over. I will certainly say a Glory Be for that. Imagine the costs of running a council for forty years. No, it is definitely better for the Church that they ended it in 1965. And I will go to the indult Latin Mass, happily, as is my right according to the Holy Father. And for all you who jumped on the bandwagon, well... God Bless You All!! [/quote] I'm not much of a Pm groupie anymore, but please allow me to respond after a few days... I pray everything you say is true, but your multitude of semi-schismatic threads that keep getting posted to the back alley speak otherwise. What am I to think of the topics constantly downing the Church as it is in the 21st Century and the Popes after 1960? I don't know you personally and all I know about you is what you put on this board and the majority of it underminds Vatican II and the Popes of this Council, so I assume that you agree 100% with it. If you still explain that you believe otherwise, please don't post that kind of weirdo stuff anymore. I hope and pray that you can accept the decisions of Pope John Paul II and jump into the New Evangelization of the Church because this sinful and evil world we live in really needs all the loyal and orthodox Catholic Christians that it can get! God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 6 2004, 12:35 AM'] Do some prots believe it? Yes. Do they take it to far? Some do, yes. Does that make rock and roll good or acceptable liturgical music? NO! Some prots believe in God. Does that make it a protestant position? Some prots believe in the Real Presence. Is it therefore a protestant position? Nay! The question is, blazer, what do you have to defend your position with. I have given you ample evidence, both from the Church and from the principles of sound philosophy, to support my position. I haven't got much in return. I'm not saying that people should never listen to Rock or that it is a sin to listen to it. I am saying that it is absolutely unfitting for the liturgy. It does not produce the spiritual dispositions proper to the Mass. This is a major problem. [/quote] I think you overstate what you have given us. I still have not seen you demonstrate why "rock and roll" is a form of music that is necessarily innapropriate to the liturgy. I have not seen you offer any evidence that what Fr. Stan or any Youth Mass does is "Metallica" type Rock and Roll. In fact, I haven't seen you do anything. Show me the money. Maybe you can put an argument together rather than quote some long article I don't bother to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 6 2004, 12:35 AM'] Some prots believe in God. Does that make it a protestant position? Some prots believe in the Real Presence. Is it therefore a protestant position? Nay! [/quote] Did you ever take logic? Because what you are claiming does not compute. The Real Presence is a Catholic Position. That protestants believe it means that they subscribe to a CATHOLIC position. That there is a God is a position common to many many religions. That Catholics and Protestans subscribe to this position does not make it Catholic or Protestant. That Rock and Roll is evil is NOT a Catholic Position. It is a protestant position. That a Catholic subscribes to this position does not cease to make it a Protestant position. And, see, it's little things like 'Nay' that drive me nuts. Umm, do you seriously talk like that in real life? And if you do, do people look at you funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 6 2004, 11:43 AM'] He is referring to a certain type of swaying that goes along naturally with certain kinds of sensuous (or disproportionately rhythmic) music. There are certain bodily actions (or natural bodily reactions) to different types of music. This at least should be obvious. Or is it not? [/quote] So if the music moves my soul and I sway with the music I am wrong? Guess you have never been to a Mass with a spanish or black congregation, or sang in a choir. You must figure God doesn't have rhythm. There is nothing wrong with Church music that moves you body AND soul. God did not create a dichotomy between the two. God can be praised in so many beautiful ways. So stop trying to limit people to your narrow definition. Latin chant and old hymns are beautiful, but not the total extent of praising God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 What do the Vatican II documents on the liturgy have to say on this? Oh, thats right. Latin is to be maintained and cherished. Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place, and (wait for it...) the organ is the ideal instrument for the western rites. Yeah, I can see why all of us who are faithful to Vatican II want to sing "Refiners Fire" or "I the Lord of Sea and Sky" or "Ashes" or "Ride on King Jesus" (a song actually sung in my parish last week!). Look, I was a protestant for almost 30 years. I know that people can genuinely worship God singing all sorts of songs, with all sorts of instruments but the question is what is appropriate for Catholic worship. If I thought that the Assemblies of God church had it right, I would have joined them, not the Catholic church. Again, (in case anyones forgotten) I attend a NO mass. I am not a "traditionalist" I support and follow Vatican II. I rep the Pope. Etc. Please no flames. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 I am not suggesting Praise and Worship music, and I said nothing about not using an organ. Gregorian chant is wonderful but not the ONLY church music available. No document says that is all we can use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Ok one at a time here: Mr. Sigga, let me post this again because it didn't resonate the first time: "You go on to say: “I love the Pope and the priesthood and V2 so naturally I would identify as a Roman Catholic. This isn't 1950 or 1850 and the Church is ALIVE in Christ TODAY in 2004 preaching to the masses and evangelizing sinners.” Can you explain how this in some way is contrary to anything I have said? Have I said that I do not love the Pope the priesthood or Vatican II? Pointing out issues where they may be legitimately pointed out does not indicate a lack of love. In fact, it indicates a more complete love. If I though my father was doing something that was dangerous to him or his soul and I said nothing could I actually claim to love him? No, of course not. Secondly, I am well aware of what year it is and that the Church is Alive etc. That is the whole point of my being Catholic and defending the Church. If she was dead, the whole thing would have been a lie and there would be nothing to defend. Also, for the record, I am the one who quoted from the Vatican II document on the liturgy. Not you. It seems to have been conveniently ignored. I am being accused of hating Vatican II, yet I am the one using the Council documents to bolster my argument. Am I the only one that sees the irony there?" Finally, I do not have to jump and shout with joy at every word the Holy Father utters in order to be a loyal son of the Church. There is room for legitimate debate on many of these issues. Music, of all things, is one of them. I'm still amazed that I am being accused of hating Vatican II when I am the one using Vatican II to support my argument. This is just to much fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Now to my good friend Mr. BlazeR. If you don't bother to read the article, that is not my problem. Some topics require more than a couple lines typed in haste. You want the argument, I gave it. Rock (and rap for that matter) is disordered. It is disjointed music. It distorts the order proper to music. That is not to say that I don't like it or anything else (I'm not giving my opinions on music), but that is to say that it is not fitting for liturgical use which should be harmonious and beautiful. Despite popular opinion, these two terms are not a mater of opinion. There are objective norms that govern the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. You want the case against Rock, read the article. If you choose to ignore it, I can't help that. Does Fr. Stan sing rock at Mass? Yes, I have seen it twice. I'm not sure what evidence you want. A video? Signed testimony by the 800 teens that were there? Or how about the 700 old(er) people who were at the first one and who were appalled by that carp. You haven't seen me do anything huh? Posting Vat. II and Pius X on proper liturgical music isn't doing anything? Who needs to assent to the Church here? To your second post: Yes I took logic. The point of what I said is to expose a gaping hole in your logic. There are numerous things that prots and Catholics hold as true. That does not make these things protestant teachings, as you correctly pointed out. But here is the hole. The rest of your argument is a vicious circle or perhaps a straw man: "That Rock and Roll is evil is NOT a Catholic Position. It is a protestant position. That a Catholic subscribes to this position does not cease to make it a Protestant position." You have not established that "Rock and Roll is evil" is a "protestant position". You have only asserted it as true. Are there prots who say that? Yes. Does that make it a prot position? No, as was proven above, that similarities in belief do not imply the belief belongs to one or other group. One must prove that the origin of the argument is with that group, which you have not done. I have given ample evidence, going back to Plato and Aristotle, and continuing down through the ages of Catholic scholarship, that lend credence to my position, which by the way is not that Rock and Roll is evil, but that it is not fitting for liturgical use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 By the way Blazer, I use nay occasionally in writting, just for fun. Bust mostly when singing Irish drinking songs, which is even more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Cmom, Of course, it is not the only music we can use, but it would be nice to use once in a while. I'm just asking for some of my spiritual inheritance. It seems that we can only have the Indult mass, or vapid modern music. Isn't there a balance to be struck here, somewhere? I like attending the NO mass at my home parish, but really and truly, the music is not great... peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Last but not least, my other good friend: CMOM, You ask "What are this authors qualifications to critique music?" Here is his bio: Reverend Basil Nortz, O.R.C., is a priest in the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. He graduated from Christendom College in 1986 with a B.A. in theology. His seminary studies were at the Insitutum Sapientiae in Anápolis, Brazil. It was at Anápolis that he was ordained to the priesthood in 1995. After ordination he assisted at Assumption Grotto parish in Detroit and gave retreats around the United States. He is currently studying for a licentiate in theology in Rome." The last part is not actually tue as he has already been awarded his licentiate. You state: "There is nothing wrong with Church music that moves you body AND soul. God did not create a dichotomy between the two. God can be praised in so many beautiful ways. So stop trying to limit people to your narrow definition. Latin chant and old hymns are beautiful, but not the total extent of praising God." The fact that there is no dichotomy between body and soul is exactly why rock and rap should not be used at Mass. One affects the other. It is inevitable. Rock does so in such a way that is detremental to the peace and harmony of the Mass. Chant (and proper hymn) effect the person in such a way as to draw them closer to God. I'm not limiting people to anything other than what the Church herself has done for 20 Centuries. I have not said that the only thing we can use is Gregorian Chant. There are other forms of music that are acceptable (by the Church's standard), but Rock is not one of them for all the reason outlined above and in the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theologian in Training Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 On the issue of music, you might check out Fr. Scalia's article [url="http://www.adoremus.org/399Scalia.html"]Ritus Narcissus[/url] God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now