So…Lemme Talk About Mass Music

It’s probably fair to say that one of the most radical changes in the last fifty years has been the music used during Mass. Most typical parishes nowadays have a lame “gathering song”, a vanilla “offertory hymn”, a “Communion song” about “breaking bread” and “sharing the cup of blessing”, and finally, a “song of sending forth”. In Masses for gatherings of youth, we’ll usually find a praise and worship band, or if nothing else, a lot of acoustic guitars and emotional songs. Then in traditionalist circles, we’ll find either chant or some old, reverent hymns. This last category is a rare bird, though. Most of the time, the music heard at Mass is unoffensive, non-theological, very community-oriented, and thought of as a direct fruit of Vatican II.

Now, I tend to be a pill (by the standards of many) when it comes to the question of what music should be used in Mass. I’m staunchly anti-Praise & Worship where the Mass is concerned, and I also dislike nothing more than the above-mentioned community hymns by the likes of Dan Schutte, David Haas, and Marty Haugen. But the question is, why am I against it? Can’t people worship God however they want? Can’t people sing whatever music they feel connects them to Our Lord? If it would get teenagers (and by the way, I am one) to go to Mass, would Praise and Worship really be that bad? These questions, my friends, are what I shall attempt to answer right now.

Objection 1: We Should Be Able to Worship God However We Want

The thing wrong with this argument is that it is using the word “worship” as an arbitrary form of praise given to God, one that’s kinda blurry and simply needs to end in acknowledging the greatness of the Lord. And while there’s some truth to that, the Mass is not “worship” in that way. Protestants have worship when they get together and read the Scriptures and have songs, the man kneeling next to his bed is worshiping while he recites his evening prayers. But that’s not all that goes on at Mass. Yes, the first reason for which Mass is offered is the adoration of God. But this adoration is not subjective worship like prayer. This adoration is done in a concrete, most perfect way, a way that is within the context of another act. What is this act? It is the act of giving God the only offering totally and completely acceptable to Him: the infinite offering of God Himself. It is so perfect an act of adoration, so beyond what we would think of ourselves, that God Himself had to institute it during His Last Supper on Holy Thursday. And because God was the One Who had to give it to us, that means God is the One Who determines how it’s done, rather than us.

Further proof that God is the director of liturgical acts comes from the fact that He Himself had to proscribe even finite sacrifices in the Old Testament. Remember how, in Exodus, Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh to ask him for a time of freedom, so that God’s people could offer Him sacrifices in the wilderness. Pharaoh asks why they can’t just offer God their sacrifices without leaving, and they reply, “We must take a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God, as He commands us” (Ex. 8:27). Pharaoh keeps trying to make deals with them, and they say, “until we get there we will not know what we are to use to worship the Lord” (10:26). They can’t just do whatever they feel like, they have to do what God wants. If this was the case with their finite offerings, how much more would it be the case with that infinite offering that is the Mass?

Objection 2: It Should Be Allowed In Mass Because It Might Bring People Such as Teens Closer to God

Well first of all, considering that I’m a 16-year-old myself, this obviously isn’t universally the case. But that’s not the point. I’m going to talk here specifically about Praise and Worship, since I don’t know any teens inspired by Schutte, Haas, or Haugen. However much Praise and Worship might make Mass exciting for a teen–even, for a time, inflamed with enthusiasm for Our Lord–it does so purely within the realm of subjectivity, at the cost of obscuring what the Mass actually is. As I said above, the Mass is objective. Praise and Worship turns the Mass into a play of pleasant emotions, when in actuality, the thing going on at the altar is far from “pleasant”. “Good”, sure, but not pleasant. You have to realize, when the priest says the words of consecration elevates the Eucharist, you’re observing far more than you’d think. Under the veils of bread and wine, you are looking at the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity stretched out upon the Cross, scourged, beaten, suffering intensely, DYING for you. I’d like to repeat that:

Your senses may not grasp it, but at Mass you are observing your Creator, Lord, and God being willfully destroyed, due to YOUR OWN SINS (and mine). It might sound harsh, but is it untrue? It’s not the time to sing upbeat, emotional music that takes away that reality of the Mass, and changes that objective thing into something shaped by our own tastes. It’s a time to say, “Thank You, O Lord, for the gift of the Mass as You have given it to us. In gratitude for Your sacrifice I will put myself aside to adore You within the liturgy as You please”.

If we’re talking upbeat music, then that makes the music the focus of the Mass, rather than Our Lord on the altar. And this next part is important: I’d even say this is the case if we have solemn, operatic music. Any music that makes itself and not God the center of attention has no place in Mass.

Finally, music is not just something added to the liturgy for the sake of enhanced effect, and a lot of folks don’t know that. Liturgical music properly speaking should be an extension of the liturgical texts themselves, which is why there are pre-composed “Entrance Chants” and “Offertory Chants” and “Communion Antiphons” in the missal for every Mass of the year. It is the thought of the Church that these would be sung, not the random four hymns every week. The random four hymns is an exception. The norm is to chant the Propers of the day, which are connected with the Mass of the day, and don’t just add to it to sound nice, but are truly a part of the Mass itself. It’s quite odd, therefore, that most parishes choose four hymns all the time instead of the set-in-stone, actual liturgical texts the Church has given us.

On the Question of Haas-Haugen-and-Schutte-style Music

As I said at the beginning of this post, the problem with modern “community-style” hymns is that they make the Mass purely into a fraternal social gathering. But again, the Mass is not just the community getting together to worship God arbitrarily. It is a concrete offering made to Him on His own terms, and He is to be the focus. Thus, hymns that are a celebration of ourselves are quite a problem. They totally distort the character of the Mass into what Pope Emeritus Benedict called “the self-enclosed circle”. With this type of music, God is worshiped in our own way, and thus, it’s not really God being worshiped at all, but our perception of God. When we worship our perception of God rather than the true God, we end up worshiping ourselves.

It’s time parishes do a deep-cleaning where music is concerned.

 

The Lord bless and keep you this Holy Week.

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “So…Lemme Talk About Mass Music”

  1. First point you made: “as an arbitrary form of praise given to God, one that’s kinda blurry and simply needs to end in acknowledging the greatness of the Lord.” Where did you get this definition? I agree with what you’ve said about the mass, as would any truly practicing Catholic, but I fail to see how you’ve made any point at all regarding praise and worship music. Yes God defines how, but does this mean he excludes praise and worship? I’d like to have actual proof of that, as in church documents.

    “However much Praise and Worship might make Mass exciting for a teen–even, for a time, inflamed with enthusiasm for Our Lord–it does so purely within the realm of subjectivity, at the cost of obscuring what the Mass actually is.” Honestly this can be a valid argument, yes this *can* happen And I don’t really like the argument people give about praise and worship making the mass ”more interesting”, those people fail to see the real point in this music. But that sentence, and this one: ” I said above, the Mass is objective. Praise and Worship turns the Mass into a play of pleasant emotions, when in actuality, the thing going on at the altar is far from “pleasant”. “Good”, sure, but not pleasant. “, really prove you don’t understand fully what you are arguing against.

    As a layman(woman if you wish) I’ve been to Latin masses, masses in Mexico, St. Lucia, Ecuador and the Philippines, I’ve also been to many masses that use praise and worship.
    Would you not agree that as St. Augustine says, singing is praying twice? You said: “Finally, music is not just something added to the liturgy for the sake of enhanced effect, and a lot of folks don’t know that. Liturgical music properly speaking should be an extension of the liturgical texts themselves,” Again I get the impression you don’t really understand what you argue against. Have you ever listened to praise and worship music? And not the stuff on K-Love, I mean some of it is good, but I hate that station. lol Praise and worship songs are psalms, or based off of the Gospels. Praise and Worship music, just like any other hymns at mass are not there for ”enhanced effect”. They are used to help us pray, to give us new words to what the readings and psalm has said in the mass.

    For myself, praise and worship is a form of prayer integrated within the Great Prayer. I pray through the readings, thanking him, asking him to help me understand what he wants to teach me that day. I pray through the exquisite prayers the priest prays. And I pray when I sing to him.

    ” It’s not the time to sing upbeat, emotional music that takes away that reality of the Mass, and changes that objective thing into something shaped by our own tastes” Unless you’ve gone to a mass where people don’t know what they’re doing, this doesn’t happen. Praise and Worship musicians should (and for the most part do) chose their music wisely. Using appropriate songs for appropriate music. And yes i am a praise and worship musician. It does not take away AT ALL. But only helps us on our way to entering more deeply into the mass.

    Last of all why bother being a stickler about liturgy when we can’t even get people to mass? If people are doing what’s ok, (not wrong), then I think we as Catholics should take things step-by-step. And the obvious first steps would be bring people back to mass. And then we can start working on how to perfect our celebration of the Mass.

    God Bless.

    Like

    1. Hi there! Thank you for your comment, and I’ll hopefully have time to reply to you properly later today, but one thing: you’ll notice this post is a year old, and although there really haven’t been many posts on this blog since this one (since I actually ended up deleting many of them….lol), I really have avoided being a “stickler about the liturgy”, at least externally, because I’ve found my powers don’t lie in liturgical arguments. That belongs to thinkers better than I (the Pope Emeritus or the people at the New Liturgical Movement blog, for example). So while that’s not to say I disavow what I’ve written here, it does mean that the arguments I made here are not really at the forefront of my mind these days and I wouldn’t think, like I would have a year ago, that they’re the best arguments one could come up with. Again, I leave that for better minds nowadays.

      But yes, I hope to give you a proper reply soon. I just want you to be aware, lest you think that Mass celebration is a primary interest of mine based off a bunch of older posts, that I have moved on from that in a public realm like this and have gone back to my more…theological….roots. :)

      PS: Thank you for giving me 58 views! Much appreciated.

      Like

    2. Alright, as I said, I’m now going to reply in earnest. I’d like to address the last part of your comment first: you say, “…why bother being a stickler about liturgy when we can’t even get people to mass? If people are doing what’s ok, (not wrong), then I think we as Catholics should take things step-by-step. And the obvious first steps would be bring people back to mass. And then we can start working on how to perfect our celebration of the Mass”.

      The Holy Father Emeritus held exactly the opposite view (and as you’ll gather, I hold this same one). Rather than “Get people to come to Mass, then worry about the ‘finer details’ in celebration”, Pope Benedict’s view was that the only way people would come to Mass is if we put more stock into those ‘finer details’ and make the Mass something worth taking seriously. He said in his 1998 biography (while still Cardinal Ratzinger), “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy”. This is also a primary theme in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy – how liturgical externals are really important for the well-being of Catholics and the evangelization of non-Catholics (I don’t have the book here to quote; someone is borrowing it, but if you’ve read it or get the chance to read it, you’ll see what I’m talking about). I can’t go into too much depth with this argument without the space of a whole blog post, but if you want a more in-depth explanation that attempts to prove the point, let me know. You could see the importance the Holy Father attached to externals by things he did throughout his pontificate: restoring the pre-Vatican II altar setup of a crucifix in the middle with three candles on each side, the recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer in Latin, offering Mass ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel (something which Pope Francis did this year, interestingly), using older and finer vestments, both for himself and for other clerics at his Masses (especially near the end of his Pontificate), and many other things.

      Now, to return to your first point. Where did I get the definition of worship that you quote? Well, think a moment. It was in reply to the claim used by so many that we should be able to worship God as we ourselves please (again, an idea heavily criticized in the Spirit of the Liturgy; I’d be willing to bet a lot of my ideas originated from there). I was saying that that is what those people are thinking of, or at least seem to be thinking of, when using the word “worship”. And are the majority of them not doing so? After all, I feel like most people who want to worship God “as they please” are not, in fact, thinking of the Mass as the sacrifice of the Cross made present on the altar of the church, through the instrument of the ordained priest. Could you honestly say that if people thought of the Mass by that definition (which is the correct definition, you’ll agree), they would stand by the claim that we should be able to worship God however we want? I think most of them would be moved to drop down on bended knee. The actual definition of the Mass, at least to me, is heavily conducive to reverence, not just internally but externally. Thinking of the Cross brings to mind, to me at the very least, a desire to mend what is broken and repent of sin. That’s certainly more specific than just “doing it however we want”. What’s the point in my saying all of this? 1) Those who want the Mass to be done however they want aren’t thinking of the specific nature of the Mass, and are just thinking of it as “worship”—worship in more general way than “the sacrifice of the Cross made present here below”; 2) if they were thinking of the Mass by its official definition, they would be moved to worship in a certain way, not just as they want. That was a long answer to the question of “Where did I get that definition from?”, but I want to make sure I thoroughly address your question and my reason for making said definition.

      Again moving forward, do any Church documents ban praise and worship? No, there is no Church document specifically saying, “Praise and Worship is forbidden in the celebration of the liturgy”. You won’t find that, you’re right. However, there are a good many statements from the Vatican’s documents on the matter which seem to suggest that Praise and Worship is out of place in the Mass.

      Sacramentum Caritatis, published by Pope Benedict (who also showed a certain disapproval of P&W in The Spirit of the Liturgy) said the following: “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131)”. Bearing in mind all that is contained in that statement, as well as his stance on “popular” types of music in The Spirit of the Liturgy (which is very negative), I think it’s fair to assume that when he wrote Sacramentum Caritatis, he had Praise and Worship in mind among the types of music he said ought to be avoided. Is this an infallible statement? No. But you asked for a Church document, and there is one.

      Then, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal doesn’t “forbid” Praise and Worship either. However, GIRM 41 says this (quoting directly from Vatican II): “All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.”

      Notwithstanding the fact that Gregorian chant and polyphony are almost never given “pride of place”, if heard at all outside Masses in the Extraordinary Form and Papal Masses, is it really likely that the same document that encourages such a form of music as Gregorian chant would turn around and then say everything is good if you want Praise and Worship? Even if you have no problem with the latter form of music, you’ll at least agree that it and Gregorian chant/polyphony are very different from each other. Is it really likely that the same document which encourages such music as that would be given equal permission to Praise and Worship? I don’t think so, but I’ll have to let you decide.

      In 2003, Blessed John Paul II made repeated reference to the liturgical music principles put forth by Pope St. Pius X (which would exclude anything like Praise and Worship), and said these very interesting 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” (CHIROGRAPH OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CENTENARY OF THE MOTU PROPRIO “TRA LE SOLLECITUDINI’ ON SACRED MUSIC). Now, does Praise and Worship do this? Again, I leave you to decide.

      But even with regard to modern music, John Paul II said (in the same document): “[it is admissible into the liturgy as] long as it respects both the liturgical spirit and the true values of this art form”, and further down: “Care must be taken, however, to ensure that instruments are suitable for sacred use, that they are fitting for the dignity of the Church and can accompany the singing of the faithful and serve to edify them.” Quoting Vatican II, he also pointed out that the instrument which should be given pride of place is the pipe organ—an instrument very unlike those used in praise and worship. And finally, he says, “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”. And given that all these documents, from Pius X to Vatican II to Pope Benedict, express particular affinity for chant and similar music as that, is it really likely that the sensus Ecclesiae includes Praise and Worship?

      I trust you will understand if I stop here for now. This has been very long. And honestly, I don’t really expect to change your mind. If anyone does, God will. I just want to answer your objections. I can hopefully conclude my reply tomorrow.

      God bless, for now.

      Like

      1. First comment you made, I’m thankful that you took the time to explain that too me…But I don’t really agree. I know damn me to hell for not agreeing with the Pope! lol Actually…its not so much that I disagree, it’s just that I believe (as my four years as a missionary has shown me) that everyone is converted in different ways. Every person is unique. obviously some are converted by liturgy. And I give you props for being a good witness in the area.

        “And are the majority of them not doing so?” Absolutely not. You are arguing the exception.
        “After all, I feel like most people who want to worship God “as they please” are not, in fact, thinking of the Mass as the sacrifice of the Cross made present on the altar of the church, through the instrument of the ordained priest.” That is actually a great point, but like I said you seem to think this is the majority, and that is wrong.

        “However, there are a good many statements from the Vatican’s documents on the matter which seem to suggest that Praise and Worship is out of place in the Mass” I’d like to (now) go and read the documents. Thanks. :)

        “Is it really likely that the same document which encourages such music as that would be given equal permission to Praise and Worship? I don’t think so, but I’ll have to let you decide” I think so but whatever.

        ”Now, does Praise and Worship do this?” I’m not sure I understand this…Really in all that you’ve said and quoted I just see that Praise and Worship and all music should follow certain rules to help Catholics in the mass.

        “If anyone does, God will.” That’s obnoxious, I think we are both old enough to not use comments like this.

        Again thanks for responding.

        Like

      2. I would like to give my apologies right now for saying something obnoxious, before any misunderstanding can fester. I suppose that was unnecessary and I am sorry.

        Like

    3. Please do pardon the time it’s taken to continue this response. I was busy yesterday and the day before and only now was able to get around to finishing—or attempting to finish—a reply to your first comment. So, with that said…

      “Would you not agree that as St. Augustine says, singing is praying twice?”

      No, I wouldn’t, actually, because it’s doubtful he even said that! ;) You’ll sometimes hear that it was “He who sings *well* prays twice” (and this does have different connotations), yet even this version can’t be certainly attributed to Augustine. The most certainly attributable quote we have similar to this from the man is “cantare amantis est” – “to sing is for those who love”. True, “to sing is for those who love” does give a suitable enough defense of Praise and Worship, but to answer your question, no, I don’t agree that singing is praying twice.

      After quoting my thing about “music in the liturgy not being something just added for enhanced effect”, you said, “Again I get the impression you don’t really understand what you argue against.”

      With respect, while I may not understand what I’m arguing against, I don’t think you understand what I’m arguing for—look at what I wrote next: “…which is why there are pre-composed ‘Entrance Chants’ and ‘Offertory Chants’ and ‘Communion Antiphons’ in the missal for every Mass of the year. It is the thought of the Church that these would be sung, not the random four hymns every week. The random four hymns is an exception. The norm is to chant the Propers of the day, which are connected with the Mass of the day, and don’t just add to it to sound nice, but are truly a part of the Mass itself.”

      I’m saying here that there shouldn’t even be hymns as the primary source of music, Praise and Worship or otherwise, if they come at the expense of the actual musical texts of the Mass itself (though they can certainly be used to supplement those texts). My statement was not about Praise and Worship particularly, which seems to be the impression I’ve given. I’m actually having trouble now finding the specific paragraph of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that says “Mass propers = normal, while hymns = allowed, but exception to the rule”. Nevertheless, something interesting on that note can be found here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/a-citation-concerning-the-use-of-hymns-at-mass/ (The Consilium, just so you’re aware, was the committee involved with “crafting” the Novus Ordo Mass after Vatican II).

      “Have you ever listened to Praise and Worship?”

      Of course I have. I’ve been to plenty of Masses that used it, I used to like it, both in Mass and just to listen to, and one sister of mine listens to it quite a bit. Now, if you want to send me an example of ideal Praise and Worship, in the event that I’m truly mistaken about it, go ahead and I’ll make a judgement on that. But I wouldn’t argue against something I don’t have any experience with.

      I’m gonna need to chew on the last part of the comment for a longer time before replying, because I’m having trouble clearly expressing what I think in that regard and it would end up leading into different arguments than those at hand.

      God bless you, and thank you for starting this conversation. From my perspective or yours, it is valuable to talk about.

      Like

      1. “No, I wouldn’t, actually, because it’s doubtful he even said that! ;) You’ll sometimes hear that it was “He who sings *well* prays twice” (and this does have different connotations), yet even this version can’t be certainly attributed to Augustine. The most certainly attributable quote we have similar to this from the man is “cantare amantis est” – “to sing is for those who love”. True, “to sing is for those who love” does give a suitable enough defense of Praise and Worship, but to answer your question, no, I don’t agree that singing is praying twice.”

        Interesting article I read after googling the quote. :D http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/02/st-augustine-he-who-sings-prays-twice/

        This isn’t an argument against what you said, I just thought it was interesting. :)

        Like

      2. “Please do pardon the time it’s taken to continue this response. I was busy yesterday and the day before and only now was able to get around to finishing—or attempting to finish—a reply to your first comment. So, with that said…”

        I’l never forgive you, I demand instant responses. jk! (Sorry I couldn’t help myself) :D It’s fine. I wasn’t worried.

        “I’m saying here that there shouldn’t even be hymns as the primary source of music, Praise and Worship or otherwise, if they come at the expense of the actual musical texts of the Mass itself (though they can certainly be used to supplement those texts). My statement was not about Praise and Worship particularly, which seems to be the impression I’ve given. I’m actually having trouble now finding the specific paragraph of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that says “Mass propers = normal, while hymns = allowed, but exception to the rule”. Nevertheless, something interesting on that note can be found here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/a-citation-concerning-the-use-of-hymns-at-mass/ (The Consilium, just so you’re aware, was the committee involved with “crafting” the Novus Ordo Mass after Vatican II).”

        Actually I did catch that part, I get that you are talking about hymns as well as P&W. ” if they come at the expense of the actual musical texts of the Mass itself” Would you mind going into greater detail about this, ’cause I’m not sure if I understand this correctly.

        “Of course I have. I’ve been to plenty of Masses that used it, I used to like it, both in Mass and just to listen to, and one sister of mine listens to it quite a bit. Now, if you want to send me an example of ideal Praise and Worship, in event that I’m truly mistaken about it, go ahead and I’ll make a judgement on that. But I wouldn’t argue against something I don’t have any experience with.”

        That’s awesome! I’m so glad to finally meet someone who argues this and knows what they’re talking about. Most kids I talk have never listened to it, and give the frustratingly stupid response that they never will. :P
        Though I must admit I’m confused by what you mean, “ideal P&W”?

        Like

      3. The ideal Praise and Worship thing was referencing what you said after asking if I had ever listened to Praise and Worship. Cause you had said, “Not the stuff on K-Love…Praise and Worship songs are psalms, or based off of the Gospels…..”

        It seemed like that comment was saying, “The type of stuff on K-Love isn’t what good Praise and Worship is. *Real* P&W is …..”. And while I have indeed heard more than the stuff on K-Love, I guess I was asking if there was some form of Praise and Worship that I hadn’t heard, which, if I had heard it, would change my mind on the subject.

        And with all due respect to people who would “refuse to listen” to Praise and Worship and yet insist it’s bad…That’s….it’s just foolish! lol You can’t just argue against something you know nothing about.

        Like

      4. ‘” if they come at the expense of the actual musical texts of the Mass itself” Would you mind going into greater detail about this, ’cause I’m not sure if I understand this correctly.’

        Terrrrribly late response (my apologies), but do you mean you’re not familiar with the musical texts I’m referring to? If so that’s quite understandable, because they’re almost never used anywhere outside of Papal Masses and very traditional parishes. Anyway, you know how at a common Sunday Mass there will be four hymns? One for the entrance procession, one during the offertory, one during Communion, and one when the priest and servers recess out?

        Well basically, those hymns are substitutes for chanted texts (usually from Scripture) which follow the Mass of the day. In an ideal world, these chants are what you’d be hearing either instead of or alongside the four hymns you’re familiar with. They’re known as propers because they are “proper” to the specific day.

        The “Introit” of the day would be chanted where the “Processional Hymn” usually is, the Gradual would be sung instead of the responsorial psalm (Pope Benedict did this; Pope Francis may), the Sequence precedes the Alleluia, the Alleluia is the same as usual, the Offertory chant is sung at the Offertory (imagine that!) instead of a hymn, and the Communion chant is sung at Communion instead of a hymn.

        Like

      5. “And while I have indeed heard more than the stuff on K-Love, I guess I was asking if there was some form of Praise and Worship that I hadn’t heard, which, if I had heard it, would change my mind on the subject.”

        I’m still not sure what you’re thinking of when you say some other form of P&W, but the music that I use is a lot of United Pursuit (not Hillsong United, though some of their songs are good), Bethel, Jeremy Riddle, and Brian Derkson. Though my personal favorite is United Persuit, because they don’t sound like a ”band”, their style is just simple guitars, singers and a drum.

        ” And with all due respect to people who would “refuse to listen” to Praise and Worship and yet insist it’s bad…That’s….it’s just foolish! lol You can’t just argue against something you know nothing about.” Exactly!

        Like

  2. “I would like to give my apologies right now for saying something obnoxious, before any misunderstanding can fester. I suppose that was unnecessary and I am sorry” No worries, I just wanted to stop things before it could get worse. I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot that kinda stuff and I probably jumped to conclusion. I’ll forgive you if you forgive me. :)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s