Replies

This has all been an interesting discussion, but what I object to are those who have preferences that they try to impose on others as "holy" or God-given or the "right way" to do it.

Fact is, Jesus worshipped in the manner of the time. In other words, He was being contemporary. Say what you will about worship in the synagog at the time of Christ, it was obviously not the way King Saul, and King David after him, worshipped (they way they worshipped, or praised Jehovah, was almost pentacostal).

And that's my point...there is absolutely nothing wrong with contemporary worship and praise, and nothing inherently right with medieval, or even later classical, music, chanting, singing, toning or whatever.

I'm not a big classical buff, and while I enjoy it at times, I have never utilized it in either my devotional time, worship or praise time.

I doubt that in Heaven we will be praising God in the stolid, stiff, unenthusiastic manner that worship services are carried on in church today. If so, I would expect God to be a little more than put off. He just might say, forget it.

This has all been an interesting discussion, but what I object to are those who have preferences that they try to impose on others as "holy" or God-given or the "right way" to do it.

*Then, you oppose Divinely-Constituted Authority.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

*IOW, if the Pope says, "Crashing cymbals are out and chant is in," then who am I to oppose his authority?

I don't read anywhere in Scripture where I (or you) was given the Keys

You don't seem to get the thrust of B-16/s comments. THE MODEL for sacred music (not the same as hymnody) is Gregorian Chant. No amount of 'we're better because we're now' claptrap or false logic can get around that fact. As to hymnody, it also has two purposes: to praise God and raise the minds/hearts of the faithful to God. (Unlike sacred music, hymnody does not necessarily utilize text of the Mass nor directly from the OT/NT.) But hymns MUST be 'sing-able.' Many of the newer ones are not--at least by the typical congregant. Without "singability," what's the point of the stupid hymn? ALL of this music must also fit into the general framework of "sacred time/sacred space" (to which we could add "sacred language", by the way--whether English or Latin.) Therefore, what music does NOT connote sacrality is music which is simply inappropriate for Mass. Recall that VatII's specific phrase was that 'music is pars integralis of the Mass---(an integral part.) Thus, the only excuse for using music which does NOT meet the general norms outlined above is that the Mass is not sacred. Maybe that's your take--but please, don't impose your silly and un-substantial views on us. Thanks!