Replies

It seems to me that a liturgy can be so out of date that it is an impediment to real worship. The Protestant churches have been having a transition to modern musical styles from the great hymns of the 1800’s and early 1900’s . . . traditionalists and older congregants like the old hymns because the words are so theologically sound and meaningful and the younger church members want music that they enjoy. When you freeze music for 100’s of years though, in my opinion, it becomes at best an acquired taste and at worst a form of worship that no longer leads to actual worship but just rote repetition . . .

It seems to me that a liturgy can be so out of date that it is an impediment to real worship.

I agree - and the new Missal (issued 1969) was just such an out of date liturgy by about 1970.

The point is not about old/new music - it's about proper and fitting music. Plainchant is not out of date because it has never been "in date", its timelessness is an essential part of it. I've attended Mass where Arvo Paert's Berliner Messe was sung as the Ordinary - this music was written around 1990 - modern music can be good.

There is a common misconception about the place of music in Catholic worship. This is not just limited to Protestants; Catholics too, today, do not understand the role of music in the liturgy.

Unfortunately, in the rush to replace Latin with the vernacular in the Mass, Catholics were cut off from their musical heritage. The need of instant music in English after Vatican II led to the adoption of singing hymns at the Mass, first old Protestant tunes then newly composed ones. However, if you were to study the liturgy you would find that where we have introduced these hymns (the Entrance, Offertory, Communion) should actually be a sung Psalm with Antiphon. Additionally, the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) should also be sung. In all these places the words take precedence over the music which leads to a different musical style than in hymns were the meter leads the music. Furthermore, none of these are an independent pieces acting as a musical interlude as do hymns is a Protestant service. Thus the creation of Gregorian chant which is proper to the Roman liturgy. Different music for different purposes.

When you freeze music for 100’s of years though, in my opinion, it becomes at best an acquired taste and at worst a form of worship that no longer leads to actual worship but just rote repetition . . .

Music during Mass is suppose to bring you outside the world not place you at a "bar" or "social dance." That being said I think there is a place for praise and worship music but it ought not to be during Mass. Lots of so called modern songs (motets), have been written that are worthy for Mass and in English if that is the Language of your choice.

The reality, sadly, is that you should have no problem finding a Mass to suit your musical and language tastes while those who search for a better musical liturgy i.e., more than IV, V, I chords, will most likely have to travel great distances. It's about substance; hot dogs as opposed to prime rib. Nothing wrong with hot dogs at the ball game. Nothing wrong with praise and worship music (as long as the words are not heretical), and this music is a part of Benediction, prayer service, etc. It is popular piety and there is nothing wrong with popular piety in its place.

At Mass we should be offering to God our best. Praise and worship may be nice to listen to but it isn't the best. For instance, you could offer God Andy Warhol over Raphael, but why?

When you freeze music for 100’s of years though, in my opinion, it becomes at best an acquired taste and at worst a form of worship that no longer leads to actual worship but just rote repetition

I disagree completely.

I would argue that this music can be appreciated immediately.

On the other hand, acquiring a taste for garbage like this would take a lifetime.