Can you tell the difference b/t Sacred & Secular Music?
July 13, 2010 by tlelyo
Filed under Featured, Latest Posts, Videos, Worship Articles
I found this while suffering the internet. Overall, I like it in that I think it gives solid information regarding music in the liturgy. The one question I have is: what exactly does this ministry define as “secular” music. While I agree that purely “secular” music the likes of which are heard on the Billboard top 100 or on Broadway should not be introduced into the liturgy, I firmly believe there is space in the liturgy for contemporary christian music that may take a similar musical form of “secular” music but has “baptized” this genre to give rise to something different and in it’s own right “sacred.” I hope this will be the beginning of further discussion regarding appropriate music in the liturgy – especially as the documents of the Church on the liturgy seem to leave this “space” for “popular religious music” that conforms to specific criteria for the liturgy, that I am referring to.
Related posts:
- John Paul II on the centenary of the Motu Proprio “TRA LE SOLLECITUDINI’ on SACRED MUSIC I just got done reading this document by John Paul...
- What is liturgy? In the Spring of 2009 I took a graduate class...
- Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (Section I(a) Participation) Following “Why we worship” is a short section entitled, “Participation”. ...
- Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (Section I – Why We Worship?) Over the next few blog posts I would like to...
- Glorify God by your life: Evangelization & the Renewal of the Liturgy Archbishop Chaput reflects on questions of evangelization and the renewal...
I definitely agree that Gregorian Chant has a higher rank so to speak as far as sacred music and that there are some songs and musical styles that are not acceptable at the mass or in worship. However I don’t see where certain instruments would be not allowed to be a part of the liturgy. All throughout the OT instruments of every kind are used to praise God. Lyres, timbrels, cymbals, harps… David was the biggest advocate of that! I looked through the other youtube videos that they have posted and the website for ccwatershed to try and get a better understanding of what they are about and they say that music that elicits emotion is not acceptable in mass. This is nonsensical to me as God created our emotions as a tool to help us praise Him! There are definitely times when we must overcome our emotions and push through to give praise to The Almighty, but if music moves us to an emotional state that helps our prayer, such as a mood of repentance, joy, or excitement so as to spread the Gospel and declare the victory that He has won for us, then what then keeps it from being liturgically proper?
Our prayer, our worship music, comes from an overflow of the heart in the Spirit of God. If the music is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, then how could it be excluded from worship? Also, why would songs with a “driving rhythm” not be suitable for mass?
Hi,
I read your post, and I may be able to help identify what you are looking for to make the distinctions you are alluding to.
…throughout the OT instruments of every kind are used to praise God.Lyres, timbrels, cymbals, harps… David was the biggest advocate of that!
Is there a place in the OT which ways that these instruments are to be used in liturgical temple worship? Or, are these private devotions?
When we talk about liturgical praise, the Church has a liturgy for that, it’s called the liturgy of the hours. When we talk about worship, the church has a liturgy for that as well; this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Praise and worship–for Catholics–are two separate and distinct things. In the Catholic mind, worship implies offering of a sacrifice.
…they say that music that elicits emotion is not acceptable in mass. This is nonsensical to me as God created our emotions as a tool to help us praise Him!
Are you able to quote a church document advising that liturgical music should elicit emotion as an aim or goal?
Regarding the “driving rhythm” criterion. The simplest explanation is this: Either the text is made to fit the melody, or the melody is made to fit the text. If we are singing scripture, why would we place the melody in primary place over scripture? This is the genius of Psalm tones. They are flexible, they fit a wide variety of texts, and most importantly, they give primacy of place to the text, rather than shoehorn the text into a set rhythm.
If you’d rather watch a video instead–which frequently appeals to me–this may be what you’re looking for. http://vimeo.com/12123237
Cheers,
Mark
Mark, thank you so much for your post! This is what the CW Blog is all about. I have to admit over the past few weeks as a result of my research I’ve come to understand many things regarding the dialogue b/t those who advocate for chant and those who advocate for something else, and your post brought out a few distinctions I’d like to make:
1) With regards to OT praise, the liturgy of the church refers to the entire public worship of the church through the priesthood of Christ for the salvation of the world. I’d like to clarify that the liturgy of the hours is not a private devotion, but rather a real act of public worship involving the entire church.
I do agree tht we need to distinguish between public and private devotions for that check out our interview with Fr Scott Ardinger under the media>audio section. I am also trying to figure out the context of Davids praise calling upon the lute and harp etc. If you have any OT texts that singles this out ad private devotion please let me know, bc I have not found a text implying either private or temple worship. (I haven’t started looking I’ve been catching up on church docs instead)
2). I’d like to clarify that regarding emotions, they are never to be seen as an aim or goal, and so when Rick comments about eliciting emotion he is not seeing emotion as the “telos” of worship as it were. In fact, I’ve heard many people respond to chant with intense emotion, this idea of being lifted up into the heavenly liturgy and feeling overwhelmed with humility or joy as a result of the beauty of chant. I would say that I have had a similar experience both with chant, but also in the context of liturgical music accompanied by modern instrumentation.
3) In terms of rhytmn this is where the biggest distinction needs to be made and it wasn’t until a few days ago that I recognized this. The liturgy is full of prescribed texts. Not just te readings but responses antiphons etc. That being said I agree 100% that these texts need to be respected and chant does this par excellence. HOWEVER when people discuss modern instrumentation I believe the intent is becoming and should be regarding those spaces in the liturgy where the text has mote freedom to be interpreters via modern instrumention ie the opening and closing song, pehaps the song during the prep of gifts and even although I’d say it’d be an exception: the communion song ( to be honest I don’t think there’s many good comm songs around today). My point is this: in all her documents of the
liturgy (at least the few I have read) as well as Ratzingers Spirit of the Liturgy the Churh always leaves room for modern compositions. While I agree these compositions have been subpar for the last few decades I pray the CW Blog will begin to showcase better modern worship music that can be apprpriated to the liturgy. ( Although te list is certainly short). I firmy believe in the goodness of modern Christian worship music, however I think we as Catholics need
to devote more time to studying it and understanding it so as to be able to use it well in both our public and private acts of praise. Which is the aim of the blog.
Hi tlelyo,
Thanks for your reply.
Did you watch the video? This is probably the better way to demonstrate the principle we’re talking about. The problem in essence is: association.
If a piece of music has it’s words removed, and it sounds like something you’d hear on a top 40 radio station, a dance, a party, a baseball game… etc. It is by definition: profane (that is secular, not set apart as sacred). Thus, it is not fitting for public worship. This does not mean that contemporary works are excluded. It does mean that contemporary is not a justification to mimic primarily secular genres. There are some great works from Kevin Allen that are beautiful, and less than ten years old. This would undoubtedly qualify as contemporary.
As a pedantic exercise, this demonstrates the limitations of adapting a secular form to the liturgy:
If I Judge
If I judge then I am right,
I am right, I am right
If I judge then I am right,
for Pops and me are tight.
Text: ©2010 Adam Wood; based on Jn 8:16
Tune: MARY’S LAMB; Lowell Mason, 1792-1872
The above example shows that even though you put scripture to an existing melody, this melody (or genre) evokes the original lyrics (or setting), and disrupts the mind of the faithful.
This is why the polka masses are such a problem. I went to some as a kid. When you think of polka, what comes to mind? A party, dancing, beer, loud talking, carrying-on and having a good ol’ time. If we take scripture and set it to a polka beat, will this polka setting help the singer contemplate the words being sung, and the sacred space it’s being sung in? Or, will it be an obstacle?
The video talks about how St. Phillip Niri dealt with this issue of having secular forms of music, and disrupting the minds of the faithful at Mass.
In the day of St. Phillip Niri, contemporary church music was Palestrina. This was music that was a distinct genre that was set apart to be separate from secular music. However, there were many contemporary styles and genres which were creeping into the liturgy, and disrupting the faithful. The line between the sacred and secular was being blurred, and St. Phillip observed the problems it was causing.
Hey Mark thanks so much for the stimulating conversation. I must emphasize again that I completely agree with everything you are saying as it is the appropriate response to those who want to bring in “secular” music in the sense of polka, heavy metal, hip hop, & theatrical etc into the liturgy.
What I pray the CW Blog will do is convey to worship leaders throughout the Church that the Western Church is growing into a new form of “sacred music” that has taken the musical forms of “rock”, “pop”, and the like and transformed it into something greater. I’m not talking about taking tunes like “Mary had a little lamb” and adding Jesus words to it. What I am talking about is composing a song of worship that is designed to glorify God and aid in the sanctification of man using “modern” genres of music.
This is something I don’t think ANYONE is talking about today. And so those who are set against “secular” music (and rightly so given the secular music of a slew of 1960-1990 catholic composers who have found their ways into the hymnals) see ALL forms of “contemporary Christian worship” as “profane”.
There is a third option here:
a) You have the Gregorian Form, which holds pride of place and to which all other forms must be measured against.
b) You have BAD modern Christian music that has been in the Church since the 2nd Vatican Council
c) You have APPROPRIATE and prayerful Modern Worship Music that primarily fits private devotional settings HOWEVER, a small number of these songs can be appropriated to the liturgy, and in the future I pray the blog will begin draw more attention to these particular songs.
And so, I’d like to reiterate, I agree with what you are saying as it pertains to the past 40 years of modern “secular” music, and most of modern Christian music as it has simply taken taken “radio hits” and applied Jesus lyrics. (Which in itself is not a bad thing, but belongs on the radio). However, I don’t think the vast majority of musicians in the Church understand the “what” and the “how” of a new “breed” of worship leaders, and worship music that, in my opinion, does everything Gregorian Chant does as it is outlined in the liturgical documents of the Church. I believe the next few posts of the CW Blog will have to be dedicated to unpacking these select few songs and explaining them
God bless!
A couple of thoughts on the things that Mark has brought up…
In terms of the idea of evoking emotion in music, I think you’re asking the wrong question. The primary goal of liturgical music isn’t simply to stir up emotions, but at the same time, it seems fairly obvious to say that genuinely good liturgical music, which authentically praises God, -should- stir up our emotions… So while it isn’t the primary goal, the excitement of the emotions during worship is not by any means a bad thing, so long as it’s for the right reasons.
The primary goal of music, in the context of the liturgy, is “… making prayer more pleasing, promoting unity of minds, or conferring greater solemnity on the sacred rites. The church, indeed, approves of all forms of true art which have the requisite qualities, and admits them into divine worship.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium). There is nothing inherently wrong with focusing on fitting the words of prayers to rhythm or melody, so long as the intent is to enhance the congregation’s ability to pray those words, rather than to make a showy musical production out of it… Take, as a negative example, Jesse Manibusan’s rendition of the Gloria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS6lhDQXgK8) … The song takes an inappropriate level of “creative license” with the text of the prayer, has far too many musical frills and too “bouncy” of a rhythm, and is for many reasons inappropriate to be used at mass.
And while he’s certainly responsible for a great number of liturgical trainwreck songs, David Haas’ Gloria from the Mass of Light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNsKic0vmw) is an example of something contemporary that suits the Mass well. With the exception of a small tweak to the beginning of the prayer to make it suitable to sing as a refrain, the words remain faithful to the prayer at hand, so that the Congregation is primarily praying the proper words of the prayer, not a composer’s artsy adaptation of it. The instrumentation is contemporary, using drums, guitars, and so on, but rather than being gimmicky and bouncy and simply trying to find a good, dance-worthy beat, the rhythm and melody are meant to convey power, grandeur, and a certain healthy kind of drama that’s appropriate to a great angelic hymn of praise to God.
My point is that there is “good” contemporary music using drums, guitars, piano, and so on, and there is “bad” contemporary music, as I highlighted above. But let’s not forget that not ALL chanted music is perfectly suited to the liturgy, either. While I do love Gregorian Chant, and often listen to it in my personal prayer time, many arrangements are very melodically complex and difficult to follow, which makes it hard for the rest of the congregation to follow along with, and impedes their ability to participate in the singing of the Liturgy. The question of liturgical appropriateness is less about the particular genre of music, and more about what it does to move the congregation toward singing, praying, and contemplating the words of the great prayer that is the Mass.
Hi,
I’m glad to read what you’ve said. You are approaching this with more reverence than most anyone I’ve been in contact when talking about these issues. You are to be commended.
There are a couple of points I’d like to ask about..
What I am talking about is composing a song of worship that is designed to glorify God and aid in the sanctification of man using “modern” genres of music.
I can’t think of an example of something that is “modern” that is not also “secular” in form. That’s an obstacle for me. Do you have an example of something modern that does not at the same time have secular rhythmic or melodic form?
This is something I don’t think ANYONE is talking about today.
From the looks of what OCP is preparing to sell when the new translation of the liturgy is implemented, I’d say we’re going to get pretty much more of the same.
http://www.ocp.org/newmasssettings/newsettings
One of the observations that I’ve read and made myself is that when we try to be “contemporary” it is in constant need of being replaced and updated. You’ll have a generation of people who grew up with what was “contemporary” during their formative years. This generation will then want to sing it for the rest of their lives. Subsequent generations will rightfully find these setting “dated.” This creates a situation of what have called “Hymn Wars” between different generations. It also creates a situation where what is sung to be left to personal taste as the primary criterion. Think about how often “Onward Christian Soldiers” is sung these days. This hymn is closely associated with a particular time, place, and culture. It’s dated.
And so those who are set against “secular” music (and rightly so given the secular music of a slew of 1960-1990 catholic composers who have found their ways into the hymnals) see ALL forms of “contemporary Christian worship” as “profane”.
The term profane in this usage is not meant to be derogatory. It’s synonymous with secular in this context. Sacred simply means, something that is completely and deliberately separated from the secular and put into the service of the sacred. By definition, secular and sacred are mutually exclusive.
I can only speak for myself, but I am not against having music which resembles secular forms at worship because it is in bad taste (c.1965-1990), but simply because it is secular. Some of the documents in the video say essentially this.
One of the purposes of the liturgy is to get us out of our self-centeredness, out of our temporal mindset, away from things of this world, and toward Our Lord, heaven, and eternity. We are just pilgrims here. Heaven is our real home. Contemporary music which alludes to secular cultural forms does not assist in orienting away from this world and toward God.
Contemporary music for the liturgy that would not be associated with secular forms music would (or could) be fitting for the liturgy. This music would assist us in detachment regarding this world. As I have alluded to earlier, I struggle to know what that would look or sound like.
I think that you have some forms in mind, but I don’t know what they’d be like.
I think we posted our messages fairly close to one another, so I’m not sure if you got to read my post and the two small examples I provided. I’d like to take a different angle on this one, though…
You, as is the case with many other people, place a lot of emphasis on the idea that music should not resemble, in any way, secular music, and that only forms of music that are totally & uniquely Catholic (a la the Gregorian Chant) or compositions that are of similar style, should be permitted. I don’t think it’s quite right to say that we shouldn’t admit something for use in the liturgy if it will remind us of something profane & secular.
Even the vaunted organ, as beautiful as it is when played by a skilled organist, is played just as often in baseball parks, hockey arenas, and even used in many secular music genres, particularly metal. Now, you could say that the organ was used in the Church long before it was used by rock bands or baseball stadiums, but what about the Latin language itself?
While Latin has, for generations upon generations, been the traditional tongue of the Church, let’s not forget that the Latin language was used to venerate Zeus and Aphrodite and Neptune long before anyone ever spoke Latin in praise of Christ. Had the Church truly wanted to use a language that was more uniquely and permanently tied to the worship of God, we would have established a tradition of celebrating our liturgies in Hebrew, the original language of the first people of God, rather than Latin, the language of the idolatrous Roman cult.
The Church has a long tradition of taking what is already present in the world, and what is used for secular things, and transforming them into something sacred. Look at how many pagan holidays were, over time, transformed from the veneration of false Gods to commemorations of Christ and His Church… Look at how contemporary artistic styles in painting and sculpture across the centuries have been used to portray holy things… I think music is no different. The Church can, and should, I think, see it as a good thing to take instruments or certain musical forms (within reason… there’s no saving that Jesse Manibusan Gloria), and transform them from something ordinary and worldly into something genuinely useful for the worship of God.
Hi Ryan,
I think we’re confusing two different things: Medium and form.
What you’ve written above talks about adapting media. I’ve been talking about adopting secular forms, and declaring them suitable for liturgy. These are two different discussion threads really.
We can take certain media (language, musical instruments, paint, marble, wood) and orient it to God for use in the liturgy. Some media, can’t be oriented to God. This isn’t just li’l ol’ me. This is Vatican II saying this.
MUSICAM SACRAM:
Those instruments, which my common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and popular devotions. (emphasis mine)
It’s unusual to find an outright prohibition in documents which direction and instruction on church music. Why do you suppose that the sole criterion stated here is secular?
You are right, instruments can be made suitable for liturgical use. Some cannot. What is the test? Is it for secular use? If it is closely tied to secular use and form, it’s prohibited. The operative word is secular.
You’re right, the organ, and Latin are not exclusively sacred, they can be employed in a secular way, (There is a Latin translation of Dr. Seuss’ books) and also in a sacred way. The organ can be played in the manner of a hockey game, or in the manner for mass. If I try to accompany Gregorian Chant on the organ when it’s set like I’m playing a song from the Doors, it won’t work. It’s the form that makes the crucial difference.
An easy test is to play a melody proposed for use at Mass on an instrument–playing for people who have never heard it before, with no words. Ask the question: “Does this sound like prayer?” Those people who say “no” will not be aided by the piece in praying at Mass.
How else can we know if an instrument can be adapted?
From (1:09) of the video:
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.
JPII even mentions in the passage above that is doesn’t have to mimic Gregorian Chant to be the sole criterion for suitability. Before that he does say, (and quote Pius X) that is the “supreme model”. Compositions should have its “movement, inspiration and savour [approach] the Gregorian melodic form.”
If chant is so important (the “supreme model”) and is mentioned more in papal documents after Vatican II than from 1900 to 1965, shouldn’t this be what we immerse ourselves in first? This is what is to inspire new compositions. I don’t know of any other way of knowing how to measure the suitability than by becoming intimately aware of the standard.
Ryan, I’ve not met you. So, I don’t know how you’d answer the question of suitability. However, most people I’ve met and talked with measure the suitability of liturgical music with the criterion: “I like it” instead of “It helps me pray”, or “It helps me enter more deeply into the Mass.” Perhaps this is another sort of “gut check” to check suitability.
Thanks for reading all the way through my hot air.
-Mark
Sorry, MUSICAM SACRAM was in 1967, after Vatican II.
Mark,
First I would like to thank you for continuing this discussion. I haven’t responded until now because Tom and Ryan have done it for me, and with better expression than I could have.
Tom and I were actually discussing last week how there does seem to be a genera emerging that is unique to worship music. Though it may have some influence from secular music, it is it’s own category and one can tell by hearing it that it is indeed worship. I’m sorry to say that we couldn’t quite put into words a definition for it. I can assure you that it is not the music that you might hear from your average contemporary church band that is not prayerful. This new breed of music uses the instrumentation to support the words themselves in a distinctively prayerful way and is more focused on the prayer than how the music sounds and is not concerned with a catchy tune.
With respect to the instruments I have a hard time picking ones that would be definite exclusions from the liturgy. Obviously a turn-table would be completely inappropriate. However, instruments such as electric/acoustic guitar, bass, and drums have all become more and more common in liturgical celebrations; granted not all are used properly or tastefully in a lot of cases. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have attended the world youth day conferences and celebrated masses where those instruments are used. If they have not denounced them in those cases then would it follow that they would be considered acceptable for liturgical use? Just like the organ, they would have to be used properly to be acceptable. What are your thoughts?