Praise And Worship

[Excelsior1027]

Some of the elements in these arguments are waaay over my head, so what I say will probably be a lot less sophisticated, haha; but I've been on both sides of this debate. I've sung at a "Teen Mass" before, I'm part of a youth evangelization group that goes around doing things like confirmation retreats, and we use praise and worship music. I'm also from a parish where we use very traditional music and hymns, and I wish there were more parishes throughout the country that used more traditional music.

Anyway, my thought on this subject was this; I think a few of you have commented on the fact that more traditional music like that from Bach and other composers have been written in a spirit of prayer and in a very Catholic culture. However, the vast majority of the praise and worship music we're speaking of here is not Catholic, and was not written with a Catholic spirituality or in light of the great solemnness of the Mass. Looking at it from this angle, would it be appropriate to use it in the Mass?

Just my two cents.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='scardella' post='1411573' date='Oct 30 2007, 02:06 PM']I think praise and worship type music is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I think many of them beat the heck out of more traditionally styled church music. I think if I hear "Now Thank We All Our God" one more time, I'm gonna barf.

You seem very dismissive of the textual content... why is that? Would you rather a hymn expressing the great oneness of humanity with the world to the tune of Mozart's Requiem than, say... "Holy is the Lord"?

To me, it seems like the ability of the congregation to participate is directly proportional to how simple the music is. It seems like your argument is saying that simple=shallow. I disagree with that.[/quote]

"In fact, I think many of them beat the heck out of more traditionally styled church music. I think if I hear "Now Thank We All Our God" one more time, I'm gonna barf."

There are good examples and bad examples of any kind of music. Your observation here adds nothing to the discussion. If I hear one more logical fallacy used to support 'praise and worship' music at Mass, I am going to barf.

"You seem very dismissive of the textual content... why is that? Would you rather a hymn expressing the great oneness of humanity with the world to the tune of Mozart's Requiem than, say... "Holy is the Lord"?"

I am "dismissive" of textual content because I am conforming to the rules of logical debate. I have already spelled out this matter in detail: 'praise and worship' music can have good lyrics, so-so lyrics, and bad lyrics. This makes it a variable. When making an argument one must find the elements that do not vary, and one must hold the variables constant. [b]As I said before[/b] just throwing around examples of songs that have good lyrics and others that have bad lyrics is not an argument. Furthermore, I am making an argument about the aesthetics of music; to rave about lyrics would be to digress from my argument and would be to insert Red Herrings all over the place.

"To me, it seems like the ability of the congregation to participate is directly proportional to how simple the music is."

First we are ignoring what "worship" is. Worship is not something that causes nice feelings in the worshipers; Worship is something that is designed to be fitting for God himself, and is then offered to God himself.

"It seems like your argument is saying that simple=shallow. I disagree with that."

Straw man fallacy. I never said this, I never insinuated it, I never thought this nor have I ever supported this in any of my statements. I never said that 'praise and worship' music's shallowness comes from its simplicity. Perhaps it is simple-mindedness, but not aesthetic simplicity. Gregorian Chant is about as simple as one can get, and I am guessing you know that I am not opposed to Gregorian Chant.

Your statements did not at all address anything that I have said in my posts. I would like to know how you would answer the points that I bring up instead of reading misrepresentations of my arguments and appeals to your taste for evidence.

God bless,

Philip

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1411610' date='Oct 30 2007, 03:12 PM']Some of the elements in these arguments are waaay over my head, so what I say will probably be a lot less sophisticated, haha; but I've been on both sides of this debate. I've sung at a "Teen Mass" before, I'm part of a youth evangelization group that goes around doing things like confirmation retreats, and we use praise and worship music. I'm also from a parish where we use very traditional music and hymns, and I wish there were more parishes throughout the country that used more traditional music.

Anyway, my thought on this subject was this; I think a few of you have commented on the fact that more traditional music like that from Bach and other composers have been written in a spirit of prayer and in a very Catholic culture. However, the vast majority of the praise and worship music we're speaking of here is not Catholic, and was not written with a Catholic spirituality or in light of the great solemnness of the Mass. Looking at it from this angle, would it be appropriate to use it in the Mass?

Just my two cents. [/quote]


Excelsior,

You make an excellent point here, and if your style could be called "a lack of sophitication", it only helped in make your point (which is a strikingly clear point) clearer.

Let me be the first to make the distinction between outreach and worship. As a tool for outreach to youth, I think 'praise and worship' music is perfectly acceptable. Yet I would add that I would expect youth to be taught (alongside their 'praise and worship') greater things and be reared to eat meat instead of just milk.

God bless,

Philip

[kafka]

Jeff,

I dont quite understand what you are asking, but I like your idea about reintroducing the more traditional sacred music.

[Jaime]

SMM

Here's some stuff that I don't think anyone has addressed (if they did, I missed it)

Oh and let me preface with saying that I did youth ministry for 10 years. I used tons of P & W music with the kids. Never ever ever at mass.

It can be all summed up as "its not liturgical" and here are the reasons why

1. Liturgical music will have scriptural references. Very little of P & W is directly scriptural. Much of it is how one feels about God

2. Liturgical music is communal. It is focused on the 'we". Much of P & W is focused on the personal relationship.

3. And I can't stress this one enough. No mass is ever supposed to be focused on the event or group. No mass ever. Not a wedding, funeral, baptism, youth mass, etc. never ever ever. The primary focus is always the Eucharist. And all should be welcome to that celebration.

Why is this? Because when we go to mass, we are going to mass (literally) with all the people who went to mass before us. We are going to (literally) the Last Supper. Every time

And of course there is no P & W music that is focused on the Eucharist.

I can't tell you how many brides were po'ed because I wouldn't play a particular song at "her" wedding. But the fact remains the same. It is about the Eucharist. Anything else that is happening is a distant second.

[jeffpugh]

Thanks so much everybody for this. Phillip, I enjoy your arguments because it has a technicality that I can relate to, though I think we'd have to put our heads together to make it a little more simpler if I am to translate your speculations to my group (I know it's not going to be easy).

hot stuff, I also thank you for that great insight. It really hits the nail on the head, and I was wondering if I could use that list when it comes down to debating w/ my friends?
Heh, maybe I should get all my youth ministry pals here on Phatmass.

Maybe I'll bring it up at the next meeting when I list my sources

[Norseman82]

I say that we examine the appropriateness of each song on a case-by-case basis.

And I believe it was our own Fr. Cappie that said in another thread something to the effect that even Gregorian Chant was contemporary at at one time.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1411687' date='Oct 30 2007, 05:28 PM']I say that we examine the appropriateness of each song on a case-by-case basis.

And I believe it was our own Fr. Cappie that said in another thread something to the effect that even Gregorian Chant was contemporary at at one time.[/quote]

This is not an argument about the time in which something was written, it is an argument about musical aesthetics and their philosophical and theological implications. Please read my posts thoroughly if you want to hear the other side.

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, I see that many people make generalizations about music in the liturgy and frankly don't even seem to look at the right stuff. I'm glad I put up this topic now. I it's become more clear to me what my objective is, and what I'm aiming to say. But the next question is, will people get it?

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

philip

i have a question. let's say you attend a mass that so happened to have some contemporary praise and worship music during the mass. whether its the entrance song or whatever. i honestly have no idea how that wuold happen in real life, but thank God for hypotheticals...

but lets say you attended one of these masses. would it bother you that people are so engaged in the mass with these contemporary songs in the background or being sung?

like would you sorta have a glance around the room and tell yourself "God, why are they doing this... i am so disgusted?"

i am trying to gauge your reaction to this scenario...

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='MIKO' post='1411855' date='Oct 30 2007, 11:21 PM']philip

i have a question. let's say you attend a mass that so happened to have some contemporary praise and worship music during the mass. whether its the entrance song or whatever. i honestly have no idea how that wuold happen in real life, but thank God for hypotheticals...

but lets say you attended one of these masses. would it bother you that people are so engaged in the mass with these contemporary songs in the background or being sung?

like would you sorta have a glance around the room and tell yourself "God, why are they doing this... i am so disgusted?"

i am trying to gauge your reaction to this scenario...[/quote]

Ad hominem. This is a logical fallacy. You are attempting to make the argument about me instead of about real arguments.

I will not answer you until you respond to what I have carefully laid down in previous posts.

Your sarcasm is very unbecoming.

Do you think it does not matter what kind of music is played during the Mass? Are you prepared to go to Church and find death-metal Masses? If the kind of music does not matter, then why not have death-metal Masses? Death-metal really speaks to some people. It makes them feel really good (heck, I even admitted that I find it interesting). Death-metal Masses will really attract many young people who otherwise would not dream of attending Church: a whole segment of society will be reached. How about Hillbilly Masses? Why not pull out the old banjo, stick a piece of straw in your mouth and get ready for a Ho Down? WHY NOT?

Catholic Hippies for Free Love in the Mass Presents: THE ALL NEW 60s AND 70s THEMED MASS [b]FEATURING[/b] LED ZEPPLIN, THE ALMAN BROTHERS, JAMES STUART, THE BEEGEES AND CHER. Jam with the Body of Christ!

Sorry...got a little sarcastic myself.

I am serious about you responding to my serious arguments, though.

God bless,

Philip

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1411872' date='Oct 31 2007, 01:52 AM']Ad hominem. This is a logical fallacy. You are attempting to make the argument about me instead of about real arguments.

I will not answer you until you respond to what I have carefully laid down in previous posts.

Your sarcasm is very unbecoming.

Do you think it does not matter what kind of music is played during the Mass? Are you prepared to go to Church and find death-metal Masses? If the kind of music does not matter, then why not have death-metal Masses? Death-metal really speaks to some people. It makes them feel really good (heck, I even admitted that I find it interesting). Death-metal Masses will really attract many young people who otherwise would not dream of attending Church: a whole segment of society will be reached. How about Hillbilly Masses? Why not pull out the old banjo, stick a piece of straw in your mouth and get ready for a Ho Down? WHY NOT?

Catholic Hippies for Free Love in the Mass Presents: THE ALL NEW 60s AND 70s THEMED MASS [b]FEATURING[/b] LED ZEPPLIN, THE ALMAN BROTHERS, JAMES STUART, THE BEEGEES AND CHER. Jam with the Body of Christ!

Sorry...got a little sarcastic myself.

I am serious about you responding to my serious arguments, though.

God bless,

Philip[/quote]


WOW DUDE. are you serious??
1) there was no sarcasm in my question at all...
2) i really was sincere in what i am trying to get at...
3) you did not start this thread, PLEASE STOP CONTROLLING THE TONE OF IT
4) wat the heck are you talking about "unbecoming?"

i really did have alot of respect for you, whether i do disagree with your thoughts or not (of course i havent even stated that if you actually read my first post...) wow dude, you're on the defensive right away...

seriously, you do have extremely valid points...and i understand where you are coming from...
but when did this thread of which you did not even start have to be discussed in YOUR WAY, in YOUR TONE... (e.g. answer my questions first, address my comments first)

i have no idea who you are, i don't know you... but it's like i think you find your little victories here and there by "winning debates..." you've put off everyone who has either disagreed with you so far and have relished everyone who has totally sweated your comments. (e.g. feel free to refer them to me...) bro - LOL.

dude... u can take this advice for what it's worth... but

relax, hang out with some friends, have a beer (or soda if you dont prefer alcohol) and enjoy life... you take things way way too seriously...


God bless you
miko

[scardella]

First of all, this being a public phorum, you're gonna find people completely unskilled in formal debate wanting to add their $.02. I'm one of them and I'm ok with that. Just don't brush off my comments just because they don't follow your rules of debating.

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1411613' date='Oct 30 2007, 05:14 PM']"To me, it seems like the ability of the congregation to participate is directly proportional to how simple the music is."

First we are ignoring what "worship" is. Worship is not something that causes nice feelings in the worshipers; Worship is something that is designed to be fitting for God himself, and is then offered to God himself.[/quote]

Last I checked, the music is supposed to facilitate full, conscious and active participation of the Mass (cf the GIRM). If the congregation is presented with Church music where they become simply an audience to the music, then the music is subverting the Mass. Frankly, in my experience, Praise and Worship has assisted that entering into the Mass, aesthetics or no. BTW, the lyrics DO play a part in that.

I agree that P&W as a name is a misnomer, but it's convenient because that's what it's popularly known as. That does not invalidate the music.

[quote]"It seems like your argument is saying that simple=shallow. I disagree with that."

Straw man fallacy. I never said this, I never insinuated it, I never thought this nor have I ever supported this in any of my statements. I never said that 'praise and worship' music's shallowness comes from its simplicity. Perhaps it is simple-mindedness, but not aesthetic simplicity. Gregorian Chant is about as simple as one can get, and I am guessing you know that I am not opposed to Gregorian Chant.[/quote]

I'm just trying to see what your particular issue is with the music. I was trying to restate what I thought you said. Apparently I was mistaken.

[scardella]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1411675' date='Oct 30 2007, 07:13 PM']It can be all summed up as "its not liturgical" and here are the reasons why

1. Liturgical music will have scriptural references. Very little of P & W is directly scriptural. Much of it is how one feels about God[/quote]

Not all liturgical music has direct scriptural references. I've seen quite a bit of scriptural references (a few even named directly after the psalm they're taken from). Now, I'm making a distinction here between contemporary Christian music and p&w.

[quote]2. Liturgical music is communal. It is focused on the 'we". Much of P & W is focused on the personal relationship.[/quote]

I'd have to look into this.

[quote]3. And I can't stress this one enough. No mass is ever supposed to be focused on the event or group. No mass ever. Not a wedding, funeral, baptism, youth mass, etc. never ever ever. The primary focus is always the Eucharist. And all should be welcome to that celebration.

Why is this? Because when we go to mass, we are going to mass (literally) with all the people who went to mass before us. We are going to (literally) the Last Supper. Every time[/quote]

Totally agree.

[quote]And of course there is no P & W music that is focused on the Eucharist.[/quote]

There isn't a whole lot that is explicitly Eucharistic, but there is some. There ARE Catholic artists out there making P&W, you know. Plus, I've heard some songs where just changing 2-3 words focuses it razor-sharp on the Eucharist...

[Jaime]

[quote]Not all liturgical music has direct scriptural references.[/quote]

For example?

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='MIKO' post='1411880' date='Oct 31 2007, 12:37 AM']WOW DUDE. are you serious??
1) there was no sarcasm in my question at all...
2) i really was sincere in what i am trying to get at...
3) you did not start this thread, PLEASE STOP CONTROLLING THE TONE OF IT
4) wat the heck are you talking about "unbecoming?"

i really did have alot of respect for you, whether i do disagree with your thoughts or not (of course i havent even stated that if you actually read my first post...) wow dude, you're on the defensive right away...

seriously, you do have extremely valid points...and i understand where you are coming from...
but when did this thread of which you did not even start have to be discussed in YOUR WAY, in YOUR TONE... (e.g. answer my questions first, address my comments first)

i have no idea who you are, i don't know you... but it's like i think you find your little victories here and there by "winning debates..." you've put off everyone who has either disagreed with you so far and have relished everyone who has totally sweated your comments. (e.g. feel free to refer them to me...) bro - LOL.

dude... u can take this advice for what it's worth... but

relax, hang out with some friends, have a beer (or soda if you dont prefer alcohol) and enjoy life... you take things way way too seriously...
God bless you
miko[/quote]

I had LOTS of fun writing that last post to you, so I am not sure what you mean by me being up-tight.

I am not sure what you mean by "tone". There are two ways of thinking, clearly and unclearly. All I am asking is that we remain on topic and approach the question in a rational and consistent manner. The fact you object to this is shocking to me. Your questions were completely irrelevant, whether you were supporting me or not.

No sarcasm? Are you sure about that? Then how could I possibly interpret the following sentence otherwise:

"i honestly have no idea how that wuold happen in real life, but thank God for hypotheticals..." (sic)

The only way this could be taken as a serious statement would be if there were no Churches using 'praise and worship' music. Unfortunately this is a rampant problem all over the world, and I think you know that. The only solution left: sarcasm.

"i have no idea who you are, i don't know you... but it's like i think you find your little victories here and there by 'winning debates...' you've put off everyone who has either disagreed with you so far and have relished everyone who has totally sweated your comments. (e.g. feel free to refer them to me...) bro - LOL."

This is once again ad hominem and is unacceptable. Furthermore, how dare you judge my motives in debate. Evidently you think I am some kid who is obsessed with rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. On the contrary, sir, I am DEAD SERIOUS about this debate. Smile and shrug this off if you will, but I am watching the ancient faith that I love, that the saints and martyrs have loved, being taken over by mindless, individualistic, hippie, Britney Spears fanatics and turning the Church into a dance club. I tell you this honestly, if my life would be the only price to restore the glory and solemnity of the liturgy, I would give it gladly. I take liturgy that seriously.

I love relaxing. I love beer (particularly IPA, just love the intense malty-bitter combination, goes particularly well with a nice well marbled grilled steak). Do not presume to be able to judge me, sir. I take my proverbial "chill pill" often enough.

I will once again ask that if you want to dialogue with me, please answer my questions and stop trying to make this about my character. You are undermining your own case by consistently falling into the ad hominem fallacy.

"seriously, you do have extremely valid points...and i understand where you are coming from..."

I am very glad to hear this. Do you want to discuss any of them? I am all for real dialogue.

God bless,

Philip

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1412000' date='Oct 31 2007, 01:31 PM']I had LOTS of fun writing that last post to you, so I am not sure what you mean by me being up-tight.[/quote]


[quote name='Lord Phillip' post='1412000' date='Oct 31 2007, 01:31 PM']I am not sure what you mean by "tone". There are two ways of thinking, clearly and unclearly. All I am asking is that we remain on topic and approach the question in a rational and consistent manner. The fact you object to this is shocking to me. Your questions were completely irrelevant, whether you were supporting me or not.

No sarcasm? Are you sure about that? Then how could I possibly interpret the following sentence otherwise:

"i honestly have no idea how that wuold happen in real life, but thank God for hypotheticals..." (sic)

The only way this could be taken as a serious statement would be if there were no Churches using 'praise and worship' music. Unfortunately this is a rampant problem all over the world, and I think you know that. The only solution left: sarcasm.

"i have no idea who you are, i don't know you... but it's like i think you find your little victories here and there by 'winning debates...' you've put off everyone who has either disagreed with you so far and have relished everyone who has totally sweated your comments. (e.g. feel free to refer them to me...) bro - LOL."

This is once again ad hominem and is unacceptable. Furthermore, how dare you judge my motives in debate. Evidently you think I am some kid who is obsessed with rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. On the contrary, sir, I am DEAD SERIOUS about this debate. Smile and shrug this off if you will, but I am watching the ancient faith that I love, that the saints and martyrs have loved, being taken over by mindless, individualistic, hippie, Britney Spears fanatics and turning the Church into a dance club. I tell you this honestly, if my life would be the only price to restore the glory and solemnity of the liturgy, I would give it gladly. I take liturgy that seriously.

I love relaxing. I love beer (particularly IPA, just love the intense malty-bitter combination, goes particularly well with a nice well marbled grilled steak). Do not presume to be able to judge me, sir. I take my proverbial "chill pill" often enough.

I will once again ask that if you want to dialogue with me, please answer my questions and stop trying to make this about my character. You are undermining your own case by consistently falling into the ad hominem fallacy.

"seriously, you do have extremely valid points...and i understand where you are coming from..."

I am very glad to hear this. Do you want to discuss any of them? I am all for real dialogue.

God bless,

Philip[/quote]

i thoroughly enjoyed this post. i have no debate skills and don't pretend i do. I'm just enjoying watching you demolish competition.

btw, your next couple of posts were just as helpful. people here have the same arguments everyone i know has, and you are providing answers just as a need them. stick around.

Edited October 31, 2007 by aalpha1989

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='scardella' post='1411940' date='Oct 31 2007, 08:44 AM']First of all, this being a public phorum, you're gonna find people completely unskilled in formal debate wanting to add their $.02. I'm one of them and I'm ok with that. Just don't brush off my comments just because they don't follow your rules of debating.
Last I checked, the music is supposed to facilitate full, conscious and active participation of the Mass (cf the GIRM). If the congregation is presented with Church music where they become simply an audience to the music, then the music is subverting the Mass. Frankly, in my experience, Praise and Worship has assisted that entering into the Mass, aesthetics or no. BTW, the lyrics DO play a part in that.

I agree that P&W as a name is a misnomer, but it's convenient because that's what it's popularly known as. That does not invalidate the music.
I'm just trying to see what your particular issue is with the music. I was trying to restate what I thought you said. Apparently I was mistaken.[/quote]

"First of all, this being a public phorum, you're gonna find people completely unskilled in formal debate wanting to add their $.02. I'm one of them and I'm ok with that. Just don't brush off my comments just because they don't follow your rules of debating."

At least you are humble =D

But I take serious issue with your assumptions here. You are divorcing the idea of proper debate from one being able to make valid points. In other words, you feel you do not need to be logical to make a point. The rules of debate are there to protect people from veering off into untruths and making statements that are unfounded. For you to simply ignore the opposition's points not only does damage to your side, but shows an unwillingness on your part to explore the truth of the matter: you want to keep it all about your own impressions (which you freely admit to be the basis of your statements) and forget about all that has been said before. If you were the first to speak, I would make my points only after addressing all that you have said.

"your rules of debating."

I did not make up these rules. I am submitting my passions (which are to rip and tear and destroy the Britney Spears influence in the Church) to principles of reason which has been laid down by men and women much greater and more eminent than I. These rules are not here to bind us, but to free us from thinking poorly about the world, humanity, and God. You would do well to submit yourself too.

"If the congregation is presented with Church music where they become simply an audience to the music, then the music is subverting the Mass."

This is the same sort of thing with the lyrics. BOTH 'praise and worship' music and great master works of classical music can be "subverting to the Mass" by making the congregation an audience, so it is pointless to discuss. It is not an issue to this debate (which seems to be something you have a serious problem understanding).

"BTW, the lyrics DO play a part in that."

I do not understand how you could be having so much difficulty with this issue. I am NOT saying that, in the end, lyrics do not matter. All that I am saying is that lyrics are not material to this debate which is about the kind of music to be allowed during the Mass. Do you understand my meaning? To hold a variable (varying ranges of quality of lyrics in 'praise and worship' music) constant is necessary to have a proper discussion of an issue. If I do not hold this constant, then all I will hear from my opponents is "BUT THE LYRICS ARE SO GOOD, LOL". If you do not understand me, please let me know so I can explain again.

"Last I checked, the music is supposed to facilitate full, conscious and active participation of the Mass."

Bravo (or perhaps Brava?). THIS is the heart of the debate. I am very glad you brought this up.

What I am saying is that there are objective elements in any kind of music. My proof for this was the whole extreme death-metal Mass example. Death metal objectively embodies hatred, rage, lust, gluttony, and all the things I have already said. 'Praise and worship' music, in the nature of the aesthetics (once again, not necessarily the lyrics), DO NOT EMBODY CHRISTIAN VIRTUES OF CHARITY, HOPE, COURAGE, FAITH, TEMPERANCE, and all that things I have already said. IN FACT, they embody individualism, self-idolatry, simple-mindedness, anti-authoritarian rebellion, and most of all shallowness. This of course is impossible for someone immersed in the times to discern. It requires one to step outside their immediate context and to look as objectively as one can at the issue. Read any elementary work of the musicology of popular music to help you in this.

Ancient forms of Church music, on the other hand, OBJECTIVELY embody a posture of prayer, meditation, self-denial, submission, courage, hope, charity, faith, temperance and a host of other things. Not all ancient music is suitable. There are some beautiful English renaissance songs that are delightful to listen to, but do not belong in the Mass. They embody aesthetics that are not even bad, but they are attempting to do something entirely different.

This is me simply restating all that I said earlier. Your question has already been answered. Now would you please address the issues brought up?

SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY POINTS....IS THERE NO ONE WHO CAN DIALOGUE WITH THEM? PLEASE! IF I AM WRONG PLEASE SHOW ME!

God bless,

Philip

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1412003' date='Oct 31 2007, 01:43 PM']
i thoroughly enjoyed this post. i have no debate skills and don't pretend i do. I'm just enjoying watching you demolish competition.

btw, your next couple of posts were just as helpful. people here have the same arguments everyone i know has, and you are providing answers just as a need them. stick around.[/quote]

"demolish the competition"

i dont even think philip intends to do that at all.

unless that's philip's point of argument which would totally smell of elderberries...
i think he is educating and or sharing his opinion with us all here...

it's comments like "demolish the competition" from my fellow Catholic brethren that i would be embarrassed to introduce to my Protestant brothers and sisters in explaining or defending our faith...

dude, if what Philip is sharing with me and the rest of us sheds some light on it and God is glorified let that be the focal point of this whole discussion.

well i didnt also want to steer away from the discussion and focus on your demolish comment, i just thought it stood out like a sore thumb.

anyways,. praise and worship. hmmm, i dont know what to say, i grew up in a Catholic Charismatic Community which is like praise and worship on steroids right haha. we would praise in tongues during the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament...

i cannot deny that people gave their hearts to God and poured out their praises and i would not speculate it was all about the touchy feely part that you deem praise and worship to be... i dunno... let's discuss more!

[inDEED]

Miko & Scardella - I completely agree with your assertions.

I am ALL FOR having contemporary Praise & Worship music (ie: Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, Matt Redman, Delirious?, etc.) in the Mass. I am also ALL FOR having traditional music in the Mass.

Either way - it's the same Eucharist & the same Mass.

It's all a matter of preference.

I praise God that He has created so much diversity in our music that we can praise him in so many different ways - with OR without an organ.