On The Topic Of Liturgy: Praise & Worship

[Noel's angel]

Liturgical music is liturgical music and the wealth of wonderful music already held within the Church should be used at ALL Masses. Now, it would be wonderful if young people were encouraged to compose beautiful liturgical music, so that we could have 'contemporary-tradition'. But unfortunately, Catholics are drawing from their Protestant counter-parts and introducing what I would regard as unworthy music into the Liturgy.
We have enough beautiful Catholic hymns to do us...why use anything else?

Growth should only take place organically, and shouldn't deviate from the original essence.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Noel's angel

[salterrae]

JM + JT

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel some sort of biased coming from a lot of the posts going against pretty much all kinds of what has been called "Praise and Worship" music. You all seem to be so attached to the kind of music that has been used for so long - which I see nothing wrong with - but you take it as far to say that that all other kinds are "unworthy music [for] the Liturgy."

I am not saying that we should throw out the old music for this newer kind, but it seems as though you're saying that if it isn't in the Hymn books it shouldn't be used.

Why does praise have to be only with violins or acapelo? Quiet and soothing? Where's the happiness and joy during the Sunday celebration of the Resurrection?

And I do understand that sometimes this familiar music can sort of take away the focus from the Sacrifice to this familiarity, but, if the right kind of music with the right lyrics is chosen it will remind those participating that the focus IS on the Sacrifice, the Lord, prayer, etc etc.

[Noel's angel]

I never said all contemporary music was unworthy. If you can find beautiful (in the true sense of beauty), liturgical music (in the true sense of liturgical), by all means use it. But, from what I have heard in my years of choir, there are far more modern hymns that shouldn't be brought near a church, than beautiful hymns.

In matters of Liturgical music, I always turn to Pope Benedict for guidance:

"There is light music which does not wish to say anything but only to break up the burden of silence. There is rationalistic music in which the tones serve only rational constructions but in which no real penetration of spirit and sensibility results. One would have to include many sterile catechism songs and modern hymns constructed under commission here.

The music that corresponds to the liturgy of the incarnate Christ raised up on the cross lives from another, greater and broader synthesis of spirit, intuition, and sensuous sound. One can say that Western music, from Gregorian chant through the cathedral music and the great polyphony, through the renaissance and baroque music up until Bruckner and beyond, has come from the inner wealth of this synthesis and developed it in the fullness of its possibilities."

“In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.”

[Guest KevinSymonds]

The so-called 'P&W' genre is completely inappropriate for the Roman Liturgy. There is no Magisterial document that says otherwise but there are documents that point to Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony.

I have also heard an argument along the lines of, "There is no Magisterial document specifying P&W music is wrong for the Mass".

Such is bad logic.

It is much like the rubrics in the Roman Missal. They are there for reason. For instance, just because the rubrics don't say we [i]can't[/i] raise our hands at Mass does not mean we [i]can[/i].

Say the [b][color="#000000"]black[/color][/b], do the [b][color="#FF0000"]red[/color][/b].

It's just that simple. Why must people feel this need to innovate the Liturgy? It is a sin to tinker with it!

Peace!
-KJS