I wonder what emotions this "liturgical music," by young (presumably) Catholics, elicits.
Oh, and the liturgical dancing, too! And a certain bishop showing up to say how happy he always is to be there.
Music & happy emotions, a conference table altar, and use of the word "God," apparently = Liturgical or Sacred music.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ5psqapYxg&feature=youtu.be

( If you aren't in the mood to see what entire dioceses might consider "sacred" music, at their Religious Ed Conference.. then I encourage you to not watch. )

It should also not be considered representative of Catholicism or our views on God. "God thought, and thought, and thought..." *facepalm*

10,000 Reasons is a perfect example of what could only be considered "sacro-pop" at best. (otherwise termed "praise music).

It is wholly... and I do mean wholly secular in style, even if the lyrics are tropes of scripture passages. This type of music simply has no place at mass. I'm sorry but it doesn't. This type of music is SO FAR from what Holy Mother Church actually calls for... the proof? It uses instruments that were expressly forbidden by previous popes and the energy/emotion is so at odds with chant, the supreme standard by which all others must be judged. You could swap the lyrics out to anything else and you wouldn't get the slightest whiff of sacredness about it because it is a fundamentally secular style of music. In more technical terms: the structure and fabric of the music itself is profane, even if the text is sacred.

This all sounds rigid, I realize. I'm not saying that this music should not exist! Only that it should not be employed at mass. This is great for devotional music; particularly if you enjoy pop music but want to hear things more edifying. This is cleaning the kitchen, driving the car, going for a jog music. Not Communion music.

One can never mistake authentic gregorian chant for anything other than what it is: sacred music.* These praise and worship songs, on the other hand, categorically fail the same simple test.

(*I use plainchant as the example since it is THE gold standard literally legislated by HMC. Other music like Renaissance motets and other music of that ilk pass a similar test, however.)

I liken the sentiment of P&W music to “candy music”. It is nice in its own right, but as stated above not suitable for the Temple of the Lord. It has the emotional structure in it to move the spirit emotionally upon hearing it, but will leave you bereft of anything other than the moment. There are so many other forms of acceptable Psalms, Hymns, Canticles, Antiphons, etc. that are already approved for use during service, I don’t understand the notion of why we have to bring in the profane and raise it above the sacred. Pop, country, rock and all their derivatives have their place but not during the sacred offering of the cross. Maybe I’m just an old fashioned young buck, but I find more meaning in the thoughtful art produced ages ago, stuff that took time to think about in its construction, than the sentimental chords and progressions that try to evoke emotion, rather than intellectual delight...

Just my opinion.

When will OCP get the memo, or when will Archbishop Sample change OCP's direction?

Listen to what OCP is promoting as a music choice for 3rd Sunday of OT in a couple weeks:
https://www.ocp.org/en-us/songs/88436/in-the-beginning

From the blog:
https://www.ocp.org/en-us/blog/entry/3rd-sunday-in-ordinary-time-year-b-jan-24-2021-word-of-god-sunday

If that song were played at Mass, I'd walk out in disgust and I'd give the pastor an earful, maybe not even before I'd calmed down.

No Longer Slaves by Bethel

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-bethel-church-movement/

For goodness’ sake. Please stop using stuff from Bethel. That place is a “den of thieves” and a cancerous cult. My cousin is currently at their School of Supernatural Ministry, paying thousands a semester to somehow learn the “spiritual gifts” of healing and prophecy and exorcism, which baffles me because as an Evangelical, surely he’s read the account in Acts of Simon Magus, who St. Peter struck blind for trying to purchase Peter’s ability to do miracles.

Check this out. It’s the Glory Cloud!!!! God’s glory descending on their great auditorium, because God digs their music so much. https://youtu.be/lvJMPccZR2Y
Or....as the few sober-minded persons present reported: feathers and gold glitter dumped in front of fans, to put on a show for the sheep.

More than a few big evangelical churches also won’t play their music...they’re that out there, and shouldn’t be supported, even through music royalties.

You know what my teen kids listen to these days? Lo fi, like Bernie Sanders mixed with a Lo Fi beat. Maybe we can have someone read the Bible, add Lo Fi beat, and voila - some Mass music that'll appeal to the kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6qy_9E0rY

Or K-pop - - how about a K-pop Mass setting? Is anyone working on that?

Yes, I'm being silly and sarcastic, of course!


Click on the youtube link for a taste of "lo fi".
Or here's a wikipedia definition of Lo-fi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo-fi_music

K-pop is the highly produced pop music style from South Korea. It has become well-known across the world in the past 5 or so years. Of course it is not suitable for Mass, I need the purple text option.

If one pop style of music is good for Mass, why not all pop styles? Or why not a rap, hip-hop Mass?

many of us know that OCP has gone all-in with P&W in what it promotes from its catalogue

OCP has their own slate of composers that they are trying to promote in competition with mainstream P&W from CCLI. They are sorta kinda trying to make OCP homebaked P&W, but also sorta kinda not really. In reality they have their own style, which is a slightly more contemporary version of what used to make money for them, manufactured by the same composers. To anyone in the teen/college/young adult market, the vast majority of what OCP is making sounds like a second rate version of what was popular in the 80s and 90s. Basically, OCP has a perverse incentive to not make real praise and worship because the older people who are used to buying from them like the stuff that sounds old.

People in my age bracket who like this genre listen to Matt Maher, Hillsong, Bethel, Chris Tomlin, Casting Crowns, Matt Redman, Pat Barrett/Housefires and the rest of the CCLI slate of composers. Hardly anyone listens to anything from OCP. And, OCP puts hardly any of this music in their hymnals.

If you throw almost any of what OCP calls praise and worship at the teen/college/young adult market, your credibility with them will be over instantly.

No one can say for certain what ALL young people want.

I'm definitely not trying to say that ALL young people want a certain liturgical style.

I am however trying to say that all or nearly all young people do not want the style of the LA Congress. I think you would have to search long and hard to find a young Catholic who thinks liturgical dance is a good idea.

And I'm a bit frustrated with the trope of associating P&W with liturgical dance, as I personally view these as culturally and ideologically opposed to each other.

People in my age bracket who like this genre listen to Matt Maher, Hillsong, Bethel, Chris Tomlin, Casting Crowns, Matt Redman, Pat Barrett/Housefires and the rest of the CCLI slate of composers. Hardly anyone listens to anything from OCP. And, OCP puts hardly any of this music in their hymnals.

I'm sorry, but what is your "age bracket?"
ALL of the artists mentioned sound like the "Christian music" that people might listen to at home (not I, as I'm not into casual P&W listening either), but should never expect to hear AT Mass.

I remember a friend who really enjoyed David Crowder Band. I specifically remembering thinking "Forever and ever etc" was pretty decent, as far as "Christian" music goes... and I guess maybe that kind of music is played in protestant churches. And it you like it, listen to it at home.
The style and "emotion" of it & those other groups mentioned just doesn't belong at Mass.

And while I think that college students look like middle-school-aged children, I'm still pretty sure I fall into the "young adult" category if I were to seek out such a parish "ministry" or social group.

10,000 Reasons is a perfect example of what could only be considered "sacro-pop" at best. (otherwise termed "praise music).

It is wholly... and I do mean wholly secular in style, even if the lyrics are tropes of scripture passages. This type of music simply has no place at mass. I'm sorry but it doesn't. This type of music is SO FAR from what Holy Mother Church actually calls for... the proof? It uses instruments that were expressly forbidden by previous popes

I really disagree that instrumentation is what determines the fundamental character of a song. 10,000 Reasons is using a hymn form that is very similar to the one used by Be Thou My Vision. 10,000 Reasons is a great song that works well regardless of instrumentation. You can play it on the organ or sing it acapella. While I've never done it on an organ for a congregation, I've thought about it and I've definitely played it on my parish's organ and it sounds quite good. Here's an acapella example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWUbgeD6pMI&ab_channel=DavidWesley

As to the ban on the piano in Tra Le Sollicitudini, I don't think it can credibly be argued that said ban is still in force. Musicam Sacram is a higher authority document, and paragraph 62 gives the authority to local Bishop's conferences to approve instruments for the liturgy:

62. Musical instruments can be very useful in sacred celebrations, whether they accompany the singing or whether they are played as solo instruments.

"The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lift up men's minds to God and higher things.

"The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."

While I'm not an expert on USCCB documentation, I can't imagine that the prevalence of piano and guitar in our liturgies have happened in spite of the approval of the USCCB.

@jclangfo Thanks for that a capella 10,000 Reasons. It's not what this 82 year-old wants but I could hear the words instead of them being obscured by twanging and strumming. I could take communion to that sound.

As for the a cappella version of 10,000 reasons, I concede that it is both lovely and well done for what it is. But it is still secular in style. There is nothing (besides lyrics) that differentiates it from any ballad by *NSYNC or any other boy band. Simple harmonies, repeated refrains, bridges, etc. Ironically, what makes it seem more appropriate for church is the fact that the secular instrumentation is missing and that it’s been rendered in a style suspiciously close to a hymn without the same harmonic or contrapuntal interest.

Serviam puts forth some arguments I find compelling.

I was practicing Songs of Thankfulness and Praise (SALZBURG) today. With rigorously theological poetry like that available, why do people want stuff like 10,000 reasons.
Also other stuff I’ve played recently, like the proper NO vespers hymns Why Impius Herold Shouldst Thou Fear and Of the Father’s Love Begotten (for Epiphany and Jan 1 respectively).

= antithetical to the Catholic faith in every case, or just most of the time?

There's like, an entire Vatican II document on ecumenism
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I don't think the examples of ecumenical songwriting I've sent have heretical or even questionable lyrics, a phenomenon that I strangely encounter more often in products advertised as Catholic hymnals than I find from Protestant composers like Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin (who to my knowledge don't have any songs with problematic lyrics)

The term "ecumenical" is used by Protestants to mean "The Catholic Church surrenders". Our watered-down "eucharistic hymns" and the downright heretical ones were (at first, promoted as ecumenical.

People doing ecumenism wrong isn't a good argument against doing ecumenism. I'd encourage you to look at the lyrics of songs written by Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin, and in particular the songs where Matt Maher has co-written with them, and see if you can identify anything that amounts to surrender or or heresy. On the contrary, you'll find that most of their songs have superior lyrics to OCP/GIA.

I listened specifically to the Matt Maher "Christ is Risen," (I've never heard of the guy, otherwise, but at least I have an example should anyone bring him up, in the future) you suggested. There's nothing about it that makes it appropriate for liturgical use - especially not for use at Mass, but I can't think of any other liturgical use for it, either.

What is it about that song that makes you want to use it at Mass?

Also, isn't there a decent difference between a song that includes scriptural quotes, and a piece of Sacred music, obviously composed to be a part of Mass, rather than a musical diversion?

I’d rather Sing to the Mountains because it’s obviously unsuitable for the liturgy, and will cause change to happen faster, while the Maher song, being more meditative, can be perceived as more reverent and will be adopted by a younger generation in preference to real sacred music.

And I base this on both the boomer demographical solution and conversations I have had with P&W fans

Is it too much to ask that some people consider that music they find unsuitable for the liturgy in an ideal world or at their own parishes where they work or worship could be considered training wheels or a component of a bridge to their ideal vision for liturgy in the typical parish?

Honestly, unless we find ways to bridge the gap between the CMAA vision and the OCP/GIA reality in over 9/10 of America's parishes, there won't be any progress.

If you don't already, I recommend taking time during the pandemic when nearly every parish is streaming Masses to spy and survey what is going on musically at parishes in your diocese and in the U.S. Yes, it will be depressing and make you cringe. But then ask yourself, "How do we encourage and move such communities to be willing to sing sacred music and to get better musicians?"

Leaders don't merely say what an ideal is and critique what doesn't measure up. Leaders forge a path from the lesser reality to the ideal; they inspire people to desire the ideal, and they are pleased to do what's possible as well as they can instead of lamenting what cannot be done due to constraints in circumstances.

Mark,

Honestly, unless we find ways to bridge the gap between the CMAA vision and the OCP/GIA reality in over 9/10 of America's parishes, there won't be any progress.

I'm going to let the CMAA speak for itself, but your comment assumes that the CMAA version of things is just one among many perfectly acceptable versions. What I understand of the CMAA version is this: the Church puts forward directives, and it's our task to provide the means to achieve those objectives, not argue about whether they're good objectives.

The Amoris Laetitia version of parochial music planning, according to which "mercy" and "accompaniment" is shown to every form of abuse, deformation, and blasphemy and no respect is permitted for what the Church actually teaches.... doesn't get progress.

My understanding is that liturgical music is not about emotion, and it certainly should never be emotionally manipulative. I'm sure others know exact quotations better than I do.

Yes, it's a mistake to assume that sacred music has no emotion. What it does not have is subjective emotion - that is, we are left to contemplate whatever the music represents on its own, rather than it telling us what we should feel. We sing about Jesus's resurrection, not how happy Jesus's resurrection makes us feel, because the latter is self-evident and the former is what is truly important.

just putting spiritually seductive lyrics to emotionally seductive music.

I liken the sentiment of P&W music to “candy music”. It is nice in its own right, but as stated above not suitable for the Temple of the Lord. It has the emotional structure in it to move the spirit emotionally upon hearing it, but will leave you bereft of anything other than the moment.

sentimental chords and progressions that try to evoke emotion, rather than intellectual delight

The style and "emotion" of it & those other groups mentioned just doesn't belong at Mass.

This type of music is SO FAR from what Holy Mother Church actually calls for... the proof? It uses instruments that were expressly forbidden by previous popes and the energy/emotion is so at odds with chant, the supreme standard by which all others must be judged.

I find all these criticisms of the emotion in Praise and Worship surprising and probably not helpful to the case against it's use.

As I've said before, good liturgical music should have its emotional structure and the truth of its lyrics aligned. Can anyone on here seriously claim that liturgical music ought to lack emotion altogether? "Were You There?" and "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today" both have a very strong emotional character, one sorrowful for Good Friday and one joyful for Easter Sunday.

We sing texts to music, instead of simply reading them, because they unite our entire person to the truth of them - both our intellect and our emotions.

What's up with this inference that chant has no emotion? If true, I think this would be a statement that chant is not very good at being music if people typically feel nothing upon hearing it. That said, I don't think that is a factual claim about chant. So many people on this board prefer chant at Mass in large part due to what they feel upon hearing it. Lots of people on here say that chant feels reverent or sacred or something else along those lines. If chant has no emotion, where is that feeling coming from?

Some of the comments quoted above don't exactly say that praise and worship is wrong for having emotion, but rather that there is something wrong with the emotion in it. I have no idea what this means and question whether it's possible to make an objective claim based on the structure of the music - that is to say, I don't think you can do any better than saying that the emotion present in the genre is of a form contrary to your personal taste. Certainly, praise and worship has a problem with there being lots of songs with vacuous lyrics whose musical emotional structure has no meaningful lyrics associated with them. Such songs should not be used. That said, I believe that all the songs I posted above have strong texts that people should feel emotion upon considering the truths contained in them, and that the music helps people to feel these emotions.

If there is something wrong with the emotion in praise and worship intrinsic to the music and not simply an artifact of some songs having vacuous lyrics, I'd like to hear what that is. I have no idea how the emotion in praise and worship could be "at odds with chant." And I'm not sure what "emotionally seductive" means. I don't think objective criteria exist for being "emotionally seductive." It would seem to me that one person's "emotionally seductive" song is another person's song that really spoke to their soul.

The "emotionally seductive" comment was made in reference to Restless, a song with this text:

And I am restless I'm restless
'Til I rest in You 'til I rest in You
I am restless so restless
'Til I rest in You 'til I rest in You
Oh God

While I'm sure someone will criticize that for being repetitive, I personally find these lyrics convicting and every time I play this song, I'm reminded about how I need to put God first and stop trying to find happiness from the things of this world. I've been playing this song with the various congregations I've served ever since it came out and it is basically universally well received.

Based on what criteria might "Restless" be emotionally seductive but not "Were You There" or "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"?

In its monotonous repetition, Christ is Risen could serve as a parody of a litany, couldn't it?

Does the repetition of "Alleluia" in "Jesus Chris Is Risen Today" make it a parody of a litany? I don't think so, and think that we should be careful about setting impossible standards that will end up discarding much of the music preferred by those of a more traditional persuasion. In fact, complaining about repetition will render many of the Psalms not good enough for us to sing.

Edited to add: I don't believe in this false dichotomy between emotion and intellectual delight. I'm not a very emotional person, so I find intellectual delight in music much more easily than I find emotion. The primary delight I experience from praise and worship is intellectual. There are many praise and worship songs with wonderful texts that really make me think and pray about their meaning.

To everyone saying that we need to sing Gregorian chant as a matter of obedience to the law, that simply doesn't comport with my reading of the law, which I've done very carefully over a period of many years.

Starting with Sacrosanctum Concilium:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

this allows "other kinds of sacred music." If they intended to allow chant and polyphony only, this text would read quite differently.

And Musicam Sacram states:

61. Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas, will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working.

Here Vatican II explicitly encourages "those regions that possess a musical tradition of their own" to develop their own sacred music and goes so far as to state that this development should consider the "popular songs" of the people.

And when Sacrocanctum Concilium gives Gregorian Chant the pride of place, it says that with the modifier "other things being equal." What might make other things not be equal? The USCCB in Sing to the Lord states:

73. The “pride of place” given to Gregorian chant by the Second Vatican Council is modified by the important phrase “other things being equal.” These “other things” are the important liturgical and pastoral concerns facing every bishop, pastor, and liturgical musician. In considering the use of the treasures of chant, pastors and liturgical musicians should take care that the congregation is able to participate in the Liturgy with song. They should be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual milieu of their communities, in order to build up the Church in unity and peace.

It seems to me quite clear that the Church allows and encourages the creation of sacred music from the music that culturally belongs to each people, and in scenarios where people have a musical culture of their own, that this is in fact the best music to use.

How many people here would tell the the music directors in Africa, where the Catholic Church is growing the fastest, that they should replace the music they are using that respects African traditions with Gregorian Chant? And how many of you would go tell your local Spanish language Masses, which in my experience almost always have very folk-esque music with the guitar as the primary instrument, that they should switch immediately to 100% Gregorian chant? And can you maintain your intellectual consistency while saying to an English-language parish that they but not the others need to switch to 100% Gregorian chant?

2/ a true community should have para-liturgies and other devotions

Thank you for raising the properly intelligent idea that "Liturgy" isn't exhausted by "Mass". I make a distinction between (on the one hand) the Public Worship of the Church and (on the other) Private Devotions.

I am very much in agreement with the importance of having para-liturgies and other devotions. I direct two choirs, one of which plays for Mass on Sunday, and the other of which plays for an adoration event on Friday nights called Exalt. For Exalt, we have an hour of adoration. We play an entrance song, O Salutaris, then three meditation songs, then have about 20 minutes of silence, then play 3 more meditation songs, then Tantum Ergo, then benediction, then a closing song.

A third problem is that the performance of P&W music, often requiring a worship band in the style of a rock ensemble, directs attention to the performers in a way that makes them the focus, not the sacred liturgical action. Nowhere is this more plain to me than during so-called XLT "Adoration". For those who don't know what XLT is, it's Exposition and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament while P&W music is performed. At every XLT that I have witnessed, the musicians upstaged the Eucharist and made it impossible to adore because they didn't shut up and their music was obviously more important to them than the exposed Blessed Sacrament, no matter how much they pretended otherwise. I think XLT is an excuse for P&W musicians to perform for a captive audience under the pretense of Adoration. It's like Catholics who want to play and sing Hillsong music said, "Hey, we can play the music we love just like the Evangelicals do but make it Catholic by performing the music while the Eucharist is exposed." It's terribly difficult for P&W in the context of liturgy to avoid appearing like a concert. P&W in pure concert settings is one thing; at Mass or at Adoration, it requires restraint in order not to upstage worship, and I don't know that it can succeed at doing that because of the rock-concert instrument ensemble required and the reliance on lead singers as the focus of the performance. How do you avoid P&W Masses being de facto concerts interrupted by the prayers of the Mass?

Exalt and XLT are the same thing. Apparently there are some bad XLTs out there. I'm sorry the ensemble is acting like that. An ensemble directing attention to themselves over the Eucharist has no business being in the position they hold.

You can avoid them being de-facto concerts by:
-having conservative instrumentation. In my ensemble, we have only me on piano or organ, and then sometimes an acoustic guitar player.
-picking songs that truly move the mind and heart to God, rather than rock ballads that create a performance
-having the members of the ensemble recognize that this is a prayer and not a performance and conduct themselves in a spirit of prayer
-play from a choir loft, such as my ensemble does

Here is my setlist from my last Exalt, during the season of Advent, before the semester ended:

Everlasting God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP2nz6PG8KM
O Salutaris
All Who Are Thirsty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWRDjX02pU&ab_channel=VineyardWorshipUK&Ireland
Even So Come https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTb0LsRRTQ
Breath Of Heaven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8_475FKJWQ

Hark, A Thrilling Voice Is Sounding! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZnabxcayqc
You'll Come https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_wYS6BPclg&ab_channel=HillsongWorship
Hope Is Dawning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQcGvf3doso
Adoration (Tantum Ergo) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW5MF274trc
O Come O Come Emmanuel

Jclangfo,

I'm going to assume that you misunderstood what I meant when I wrote

monotonous repetition

Repetition isn't, in itself, a bad thing. I didn't claim it was previously, I'm not claiming it in this post. Repetition isn't always monotonous, either. Anyone who prays the rosary engages in a form a repetitious prayer. The problem is the monotonous repetition.


While you were busy quoting all those passages earlier, did you come across one which spoke of the reformer's goal of removing all un-necessary repetition? It's the 2nd Vatican Council and the Consilium who want no avoidable repetition. Accordingly, they reduced a 9-fold Kyrie to a 6 fold Kyrie, made the Kyrie optional anyway, reduced the Domine non sum dignus from many times to one, and abolished the 2nd (and 3rd?) confiteor. These weren't un-necessary or useless repetitions, but they had to be left on the cutting floor anyway.

I answered Corinne's question about when it might be used: as a parody of a litany--- for a litany is repetitious, but not monotonous.