This sentence has the same logical content as the original, I've just swapped Gregorian Chant for praise and worship. Presumably no one here would agree with this statement. I think that any style of music can be made a false idol of, but that doesn't mean that said music can't also be used for good.

It's intrinsic to the character of music that it produces emotion. The important moral category is whether this emotion becomes and end of itself or is used to point people towards an encounter with God.

As an aside, throwing cheap shots at bad praise and worship is equally as unfair as throwing cheap shots at bad Gregorian chant.

Praise and worship at adoration should be more like this, with Pope Francis and Matt Maher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZa6spYqHsA&ab_channel=ThejasSebastian

I have some complaints about the lead singer but the song choices are decent and the band is pretty together

their services resemble a rock concert infinitely more than they do any form of liturgy.

Seems like every year the song, "Mary Did You Know," rears its head. Would you call that P&W? I called it heretical.

But let me venture a proxy: an idiom of singing where omitting accompaniment would leave the music at a very significant loss is an idiom that has problems in Catholic liturgy.

you can't really grapple with why the Catholic Church has continued in its liturgical legislation to give chant pride of place

Furthermore, as I've pointed out in previous discussion, this message board is full of people who love the mass settings and other liturgical music of Bach and Mozart. I'm curious how many people on this board are willing to be consistent enough with their stated principles to condemn the use of all this music for being secular.

I think this is a false dichotomy. I think that good liturgical music of any genre succeeds in meeting both of these objectives.

Please do not use OCP as an example of Catholic music. It is a money-making enterprise and is almost in the category of "he that should not be named."

and on the eighth day, G-d created Auto-Tune.

Good point, never-the-less. Much of that music is not "singable" for amateurs

An aside: When we're speaking of the 'personalist' element in contemporary music, does that include the technical side as well as the emotional side? Because what I've noticed in singing from the WLP recently is just how virtuosic a lot of the entries are. The irregular rhythms, the word underlay changing from verse to verse, a lot of non-intuitive jumps - it's not that the music itself is bad per se, they just don't make sense as congregational pieces. (I'm probably bringing nothing new to the table here.)

For those who don't know or can't imagine what P&W music at adoration is like, click here:
https://youtu.be/IXXDUQWhv5M?t=3047

Steubenville, Lifeteen, etc

your music has created an atmosphere conducive to their meditation.

For a real example to consider and evaluate, this is the most recent release from OCP in the P&W genre, or what it considers to be P&W. The "artist" is a guy whom OCP is really, really pushing hard trying to make him their in-house Matt Maher:

That's why P&W in many circumstances would not be a good choice for music at Mass. Under some pastoral circumstances its use could be justified, but I think only as a temporary concession while the barge is steered in a different direction.

it ought to be maintained as a concession while being slowly retired.

You can't suddenly eliminate the music that people know and love at Mass without alienating and upsetting a significant number of people.

Even then, the pastor may be transferred before you accomplish much.

An aside: When we're speaking of the 'personalist' element in contemporary music, does that include the technical side as well as the emotional side? Because what I've noticed in singing from the WLP recently is just how virtuosic a lot of the entries are. The irregular rhythms, the word underlay changing from verse to verse, a lot of non-intuitive jumps - it's not that the music itself is bad per se, they just don't make sense as congregational pieces. (I'm probably bringing nothing new to the table here.)

This is indeed problematic. In their defense, they are presented in a way that is typically in accord with traditional hymnody (musically speaking; something that can't be said for P&W). But there is some merit to your observation, certainly. There is a fine degree of separation however; these other works are readily adapted to their new task in a way that isn't at odd with the larger tradition of hymnody. P&W music cannot claim the same. Stylistically it imitates secular music, is played on instruments which, if we wish to be technical, are only suited to secular music and were banned by Pius X (although this is no longer observed), and cannot be dressed up in any way that makes it seem like any form of well-established liturgical music.

As for the latter half of this observation regarding Bach & Mozart, their liturgical music was conceived as liturgical music. It happened to be orchestral, so it bears obvious similarities to their other work. I'm not sure how it could not when one employs a full orchestra to make the grandest musical offering possible. But in the sense of Gebrauchsmusik, it is liturgical music—so conceived—from the get-go. You'll also note that they didn't write music using street bands as ensembles. It was high-art music, not common-man music.

When I write music for Mass, I don't expect it to also pull double-duty on the radio as easy-listening music once the pews are empty. I also try not to write pedestrian music (read: quotidian in style and essence; 'pedestrian' is not intended as a derogatory term). Is it the same in P&W culture? I don't think it is.

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."

high-art music, not common-man music

A standard I would propose instead - that works of music have a teleos, and that the teleos need to be that it is designed to be liturgical music and designed for worship of God.

With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.

Absent a ban from the USCCB on the instruments commonly used in praise and worship, I think it is going to be difficult to definitively claim they are not appropriate for the liturgy, particularly when they are in common use throughout the country. Certainly the USCCB is not ignorant that the piano and guitar are commonly played liturgically.

While I understand your thought, I would argue that it is contrary to the teachings of the church. The first would be from Vatican II which said that chant had "pride of place." This means that we should do chant unless it is not possible (Ex: a particular piece is too difficult for the singers, but a lot of the propers have simplified versions).

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.

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.

119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.

119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.

Does this justify foregoing normal liturgical music in favor of music that imitates all the secular music on the radio in America? We haven't been a missionary territory for 250 years and our literacy rate is extremely high, even in the lowest strata of society. This would seem to indicate to me that no concession needs to continue to be made on this front.

In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life.

In mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life.

If the "post-Christian secular West" is mission territory right now, that's the result of attempted collaboration with it -- that is, not being sufficiently authentic and insistent on what it means to be Catholic.

insistent on what it means to be Catholic

Using more secular idioms in an attempt to draw the secular world away from secularism is exactly what we're NOT supposed to do.

119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.

4. It is to be hoped that pastors of souls, musicians and the faithful will gladly accept these norms and put them into practice, uniting their efforts to attain the true purpose of sacred music, "which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful."

(a) By sacred music is understood that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form.

(b) The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.

Sacred music also carries out another task, that of bringing together Christian history: in the liturgy, Gregorian chant, polyphony, popular music and contemporary music resonate. It is as though, in that moment, there were all the past and present generations praising God, each with its own sensitivity. Not only that, but sacred music – and music in general – creates bridges, brings people closer, even the most distant; it knows no barriers of nationality, ethnicity, or skin colour, but involves everyone in a higher language, and always manages to bring together people and groups even from very different backgrounds. Religious music shortens distances, even between those brothers and sisters who sometimes do not feel they are close. For this reason, in each parish the singing group is a group where one encounters availability and mutual help.https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

Does this justify foregoing normal liturgical music in favor of music that imitates all the secular music on the radio in America?

This person loves country and hates rap, this person loves classic rock and hates everything else, this person loves K-pop and hates country, etc.
That is one big reason that the music at church shouldn't sound like anything commercial or of a popular genre.

4b: Sub nomine musicae sacrae hic veniunt: cantus gregorianus, polyphonia sacra antiqua et moderna in suis diversis generibus, musica sacra pro organo et aliis admissis instrumentis, et cantus popularis sacer seu liturgicus et religiosus.

51. Popular religious song is to be highly recommended and promoted. By means of it, in fact, Christian life is filled with religious spirit and the minds of the faithful are elevated. Popular religious song has a place in all the solemnities of Christian life, whether in public or in the family, and even during the labors of daily life; but it has an even nobler part to play in all the .. pious exercises" performed inside and outside the church; and it is sometimes admitted in liturgical functions themselves, according to the norms set down in numbers 13-15.
52. So that popular religious songs may then accomplish their purpose, "it is necessary that they fully conform to the doctrine of the Catholic Faith, that they expound and explain it rightly, that they use simple language and simple melodies, that they be free of ostentatious and inane superfluity of words, and finally, even if they are short and catchy, that they contain a religious dignity and seriousness." (Musicae sacrae disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 20.) The Ordinary must watch with care that these prescriptions be observed.
53. All those who are interested in the subject are urged to collect the popular religious songs, even the most ancient, which have been written or passed down by word of mouth, and to publish them for the use of the faithful, subject to the approval of the Ordinaries of places.

First, Contemporary, I want to thank you for quoting church documents. It's clear that you have given this substantially more thought than the average worship leader (my impression, at any rate, is that many church musicians—contemporary or otherwise—haven't actually thought about this stuff all that much... I think the members of this forum are the exception rather than the rule). I appreciate you making appeals to legitimate sources rather than using the frustrating arguments that stem from mere opinions on aesthetics.

Clearly, the sort of issues we had in the 60s with priests not believing the teachings of the Church (even the real presence), and and a strategy of not stating any doctrinal teaching that might even possibly be unpopular, created major problems.

Sadly, I do not believe this to be merely a thing of the past. A previous associate pastor at the parish where I grew up once quipped, "you mean you actually believe in that cookie worship?" To my knowledge, this man is still in active ministry.

I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that contemporary music can't communicate the faith; the question is rather whether or not it has the qualities intrinsic to sacred music properly suited to the temple, and more to the point: corporate worship. This is why last week I was pressing the point that contemporary worship music is inherently secular in style (even you call it "contemporary").

An important distinction: There are two types of contemporary Christian music:
1. "Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)" - this is 90% of what gets played on Christian radio stations. It is basically Christian pop, and sometimes Christian Country or Christian Rock, or Christian whatever style of secular music is popular. Basically none of this is liturgically appropriate, and for the record, hardly anyone plays any of this stuff liturgically.
2. "Praise and Worship Music" or "Worship Music" - most of this music does not get played on the radio, although radio airplay does occur sometimes. Praise and worship music is written to be sung by congregations at church and to sound sacred.

The problem is, for the average person, there is no distinction. This, to me, is a bit like quibbling over which species of counterpoint a renaissance work employs. To the average person—musician even—it simply doesn't matter.

groups that try and lead worship music are often rag-tag groups of parishioners who are not formally musically trained, or only minimally so, and they typically have little-to-no theological or liturgical training. What does this mean? It means that they then try and sing this music in the style of #1. (More often than not, they want to sing #1, not just imitate it.) I have been to multiple churches and masses where these groups "perform". (I use this term deliberately.) Invariably there are guitars, drums, bass guitars playing through amps, and all the rest. Their frame of reference is that 90% you decry, so almost invariably, that becomes the music of the temple.

Invariably there are guitars, drums, bass guitars playing through amps, and all the rest.

I don't accept the premise that praise and worship music is secular in style. I agree that it has similar ingredients to some secular genres, but there are important differences that make praise and worship a distinct genre from any secular style.

Yet, to the general population, these rhythms are pretty intuitive.

sources can be quoted inaccurately or with the desire to give an air of credibility which the citer doesn't deserve based on how he used the source.

I simply fail to understand how this can be. It sounds exactly the same as secular ballads. The melodies are similar. The instrumentation is similar. The vocal styles are similar. The structure of the music (verses, refrains, vamps 2/3 of the way through, etc.) is the same. The manner of playing the instruments is the same (guitar strumming is identical. drumming is identical. etc.). The ONLY discernible difference is the subject matter of the text. That's it.

I'll grant that there are codified tropes to P&W music (they all start comically the same, half of them are in the same key, and you can often swap out one set of lyrics for another because the chord progressions are so simple and repetitive that they sound remarkably similar), but they are not different in essence from the secular style they imitate. It really is that simple. Perhaps you perceive it to be particularly religious since it is the primary form of music making that you do at church; but that just colors your perception of it from within.

From without, I'm telling you—and I haven't the faintest doubt that others here will back me up on this—this music strikes the ear as no different than anything else on the radio. For heaven's sake: listen to the beginning of the "better is one day" again. It is not only contemporary music, it's borderline rock.

So here I (B7sus) am to (E) worship here I am to (B/D#) bow down
Here I am to (E/G#) say that You’re my (A) God

I'll grant that there are codified tropes to P&W music (they all start comically the same, half of them are in the same key, and you can often swap out one set of lyrics for another because the chord progressions are so simple and repetitive that they sound remarkably similar)

JPII flat out said that the more music is inline with Gregorian chant, the more fit it is for the temple, and the further out of harmony it is, the less worthy of the temple it becomes. Full stop. Imitating secular music with guitars and drums and all the rest that comes with it is quite far from imitating gregorian chant. There's simply no wiggle room here. There just isn't.

If we give any credence to JPII's remarks about music savoring of Gregorian chant, there's just no getting around some glaring issues here.

12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34]. In this perspective, in my Letter to Artists I wrote: "How many sacred works have been composed through the centuries by people deeply imbued with the sense of mystery! The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God"

(This isn't a caricature; I've seen this with my own eyes on more than one occasion.)

The comparison of fog machines and incense makes me think we lack an basic understanding of sacrificial religion.

I think fog machines are kind of silly, but it seems like it serves a similar role for them that incense serves for us.

I was trying to follow, without prejudice, but this is where you lost me.

I laughed.