Sacred Music Vs. Secular Music In The Mass

[BigJon16]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h84VIltm8-M[/media]



I always thought that this would be the perfect song for use in Mass. But I guess some would say that it not "sacred" enough. I dont think it would fit as a communion song, but as a song of preparation.




And how could a song like this take away from the glory of the Eucharist?



If anything, it would help those who do not usually pray before recieving the Eucharist to prepare, just by singing the lyrics.

[kujo]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1308080084' post='2253722']

And how could a song like this take away from the glory of the Eucharist?

If anything, it would help those who do not usually pray before recieving the Eucharist to prepare, just by singing the lyrics.
[/quote]

Because the guitar isn't a sacred-enough instrument for Jesus.

[MIKolbe]

here's a napkin... some sarcasm dripped on your shirt...

[MithLuin]

Just for NO.....

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6UyutBR0Cc[/media]

The name of the song is 'Sacred.' Therefore, it must be sacred music

I actually love this song and this band. But of course, the appropriate setting is a concert (in real life or in a video game....)



Okay, okay....maybe these would be better:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsgwfliQoqg]In Christ Alone[/url] by Newsboys

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cAvqByM1Fk]Blessed Be the Name of the Lord[/url] by Tree 63

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twuLr5rQmp0]He Reigns[/url] by Newsboys


Obviously, those are 'professional' versions rather than liturgical settings. They would have to be adapted for use by a choir. You know, like this:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr5Y63bDNNg[/media]

or [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbAtSP-CFQg]Seek Ye First[/url]

But seriously, decide what instruments you want to use, what type of music is appropriate, and then either write or adapt appropriate music for the liturgy. No one minds this other stuff existing...it's a question of whether or not it has a place in the mass. Music is an [i]extremely[/i] touchy subject, and as any music director can tell you...any changes will face serious resistance, as any song likely held special meaning to [i]someone[/i] and there are a wide variety of musical tastes and opinions. So....good luck with any changes and reforms!

[Noel's angel]

I've been looking through different compositions for the new mass settings and most of them are absolutely awful. I think some Catholic somwhere in the world would please do a good job of it. The number of recordings that have contained drums, cymbals, piano etc. has been scary.

A question: Where is the line drawn between a nice Catholic song and a hymn suitable for liturgical use?

[MIKolbe]

Nihil did a masterful job of cut and paste here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113386&view=findpost&p=2253427


i think the 'lines' are there...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1308081946' post='2253732']
Nihil did a masterful job of cut and paste here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113386&view=findpost&p=2253427


i think the 'lines' are there...
[/quote]
The work I do for you people... I'm glad *someone* appreciates it. I think I had to click about ten freakin' buttons to get that page up.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308079470' post='2253718']
How about a death-metal Mass setting? Maybe some people feel really prayerful through death metal. It can be done reverently too- it's about the words, not the music or the instrumentation.

ETA: I might have said jazz or polka- those would be higher on my list of mockery for liturgical music, but God help us those already exist.
[/quote]

I lol'd at this.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308084211' post='2253742']
I lol'd at this.
[/quote]
I live only to serve.

[Luigi]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308075304' post='2253689']
Interpretation, yes. Vatican II called for more participation of the congregation, and it turns out the congregation wasn't exactly trained to be a schola choir. So...what to do about that?

1. Hire a cantor



2. Choose songs people can sing



Source: [url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html]Musicam sacram, 1967[/url]

This was an elaboration of the general point about the participation of the faithful in [url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html]the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1963[/url]:



The mandate was that the people should be singing. Obviously, your average churchgoer is not prepared to chant in Latin in multiple parts -- that generally requires a choir. So, the choice is to simplify the sacred music, or adapt it, and in most cases, people went for hymns that everyone could learn to sing fairly easily. The 'contemporary' music that has been written for the liturgy also is typically easy to learn and sing. Praise and worship music doesn't take much training at all to pick up, as it is typically highly repetitive.

It is easy to see how this is not quite in line with giving Gregorian chant pride of place, but it [i]does[/i] fulfill the basic mandate to get people singing.

So, as you surmised, it was an interpretation issue.
[/quote]


Thank you.

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1308081946' post='2253732']
Nihil did a masterful job of cut and paste here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113386&view=findpost&p=2253427


i think the 'lines' are there...
[/quote]

Thanks, but I have read it a few times before

My point is, if we take (for example) a hymn that is deemed suitable and play it on guitar, does the presence of the guitar make it less liturgically acceptable? If so, why? (Remember, I'm kind of 'anti-guitar' for personal reasons). Can a guitar ever be made suitable for liturgical use, and if not, why not exclude its use completely, as they did with the piano?

[BigJon16]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1308080974' post='2253728']
Because the guitar isn't a sacred-enough instrument for Jesus.
[/quote]


hahahahahaha.


And Kudos to your Avatar picture!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308086466' post='2253752']
My point is, if we take (for example) a hymn that is deemed suitable and play it on guitar, does the presence of the guitar make it less liturgically acceptable? If so, why? (Remember, I'm kind of 'anti-guitar' for personal reasons). Can a guitar ever be made suitable for liturgical use, and if not, why not exclude its use completely, as they did with the piano?
[/quote]
Well the farther away we get from the objective standard of Gregorian chant, the less suitable it is for sacred use. That's all it comes down to. We've been given the yardstick already.

[Noel's angel]

How far is too far? I know all the quotes we all like to throw out there but I find people in general will take a mile when given an inch, so if we say that other forms of sacred music are suitable for liturgical use (obviously Gregorian chant has pride of place) and we don't give them any concrete indication of exactly what we mean by that, we end up with all sorts being sung. There's too much room for personal interpretation of what exactly is suitable for liturgical use.

[MithLuin]

Cardinal Arinze did not exclude the use of the guitar, though he did not seem to consider it the optimal choice of instrument for the liturgy, either. Not every Catholic church in the world has (or can have) a pipe organ. In some places...you take what you can get instrument-wise. So...sometimes that will be a guitar. Or a tamborine. Or a harmonica.

And, you know, sometimes a cappella is nice, too.....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308087586' post='2253762']
How far is too far? I know all the quotes we all like to throw out there but I find people in general will take a mile when given an inch, so if we say that other forms of sacred music are suitable for liturgical use (obviously Gregorian chant has pride of place) and we don't give them any concrete indication of exactly what we mean by that, we end up with all sorts being sung. There's too much room for personal interpretation of what exactly is suitable for liturgical use.
[/quote]
The interpretations are stretched to ridiculous degrees. To actually read the documents, there are principles laid down that establish exactly what makes sacred music suitable for the liturgy. We need to follow these principles, with the first of all being the primacy of Gregorian chant.
I feel that it has to be emphasized that it's not so subjective a subject as people think. There are objective standards.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308087858' post='2253763']
Cardinal Arinze did not exclude the use of the guitar, though he did not seem to consider it the optimal choice of instrument for the liturgy, either. Not every Catholic church in the world has (or can have) a pipe organ. In some places...you take what you can get instrument-wise. So...sometimes that will be a guitar. Or a tamborine. Or a harmonica.

And, you know, sometimes a cappella is nice, too.....
[/quote]
A cappella is always nice. The human voice is the greatest of sacred instruments. The reason the organ is so well suited for the liturgy is that it is the instrument that most closely emulates the human voice.

[Noel's angel]

I thought the cello was closest to emulating the human voice?

[MithLuin]

Yes, though Sax and Violin can also be contenders for that honor. I was just pointing out that in the absence of any instrument at all, you can still have sacred music, since the key component is the SINGING.

From your other thread:

[quote]Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Lo­gos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the [i]sursum corda,[/i] the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that [i]logike latreia[/i] (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)… [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 151][/quote]

Anything formless or a result of sensuality or meant to intoxicate would [i]not[/i] be appropriate styles of music for the sacred liturgy. If it lifts up the heart and leads you to Jesus...you're on the right track.

Edited June 14, 2011 by MithLuin

[Noel's angel]

The thing is, the documents don't seem to state EXACTLY what makes a hymn suitable for liturgical use. They say Gregorian chant is the supreme form of liturgical music and that other forms may also be acceptable, provided they are 'animated by a spirit of devotion, and piety' (to use one example), but who decides which hymns fit the bill? Isn't that left largely up to personal interpretation. I know from debates with so-called liturgical music 'experts' that even those who have studied the documents can vary widely on what they believe they mean. One such person actually rejected Gregorian chant as the supreme model of liturgical music, and quoted (albeit poorly) a number of documents, that would have seemed to have backed up his point, to those hadn't read the documents for themselves.