Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
I suspected too that liturgy was an issue, especially after they reinstated Fessio but the liturgy wasn't listed among what his duties would be.
I suppose that "conservatives" go along with P&W music at least sometimes b/c they've fallen for the erroneous idea that it's a tool for teaching and evangelization, and sadly, they don't see it as any more than that.
"I've never understood the 'conservative' brand of charismatic Catholicism that you find here and there in the Catholic world..."
You too? I remember my first Mass at the chapel at Steubenville. The Gloria was ending, and at the "big finish," people around me started mumbling incoherently. They probably thought they were speaking in tongues. I was looking for the nearest exit.
Please don't try to tell me there was anything "Catholic" about that.
"It doesn't require a vast amount of spiritual enlightenment or intellectual understanding to comprehend this" -- but it does require some understanding of Tradition and Church history. Moreover, one can easily be impressed by the amount of emotional response that accompanies charismatic liturgies, confusing it with a deepening of faith.
That said, there is no reason why people like Dana should not write songs and sing them. They just don't belong in the Mass. Our life has become so impoverished that we often think every expression of faith or enthusiasm for God needs a place in the liturgy, when these (while not appropriate ot the liturgy) need to find their place in other areas of life, outside the church building.
I wonder if what we are seeing is a split between traditional catholicism and Catholic fundamentalism which is deeply aligned with the evangelical christian movement (complete with the mega-church as entertainment view of worship)
I think its a good reminder that the reform of the reform movement isnt a "conservative" movement and that terms such as liberal and conservative may no longer have any meaning.
A priest at Steubenville, during a talk, told our group that if we couldn't raise our hands and dance around at Mass then the Holy Spirit is not working within us. Huh? That was the last time I took youth there for a conference.
High Church on doctrine, Low Church on liturgy. Interesting and why Sacramentum Caritatis is so important to the life of the Church . If this type of Catholic is truly faithful to the Holy See, I cannot comprehend how they could simply disregard the precepts set forth in the Exhortation, particularly with regards to Latin and Chant. Is the Cafeteria Closed? Tom
There does not appear to be any Catholic University that is traditional. Is there any interest by anyone who reads this in working to establish one in Archbishop Burke's diocese? There is a great need, and with four children 10 and under it is certainly appealing to us.
As a former evangelical, allow me to be the first to say that Catholic Praise and Worship, quite frankly, SUCKS when compared to Protestant versions. Is it not enough that we are denied our liturgical heritage, that we also must sit through the equivalent of a cover band that is a poor imitation of the real deal?
I didn't become Catholic so I could be forced to sit through inane ripoffs of what the Evangelical megachurch down the road did 3 YEARS ago...
As a game, I've asked myself at such churches "Would I prefer to sit through this or a Haus/Haugen motiff?" (Saying "I would prefer Palestrina" is understandable but not an option in most parishes where one plays this game) ;-)
It will definatily be interesting to see if the Charismatics will bend their will to the Church, they always claim to love the holy Father, I guess they forgot to read what he says. If they want to raise some hands, do it outside of Mass...
One of the founders of the Charismatic Movement in the US is an atheist today. Tom
This problem is rooted at heart in an idea that would divorce doctrine and liturgy and thus turns the liturgy into someting absolutely subjective -- and thus either entirely self-definable by the community (or individual in question), or something on the periphery not truly mattering in the grand scheme of things.
The reality of course is that liturgy and doctrine are fundamentally linked and as such, it is not something entirely subjective. This is not only defined by theology but also by liturgical law.
This particular problem touches a variety of different people, from the charismatic priest or faithful who wish to become masters over "their" liturgy by "moving with the Spirit", to the Catholic apologist who, while rock solid in their doctrinal points as far as they go, do not yet think the liturgical question particularly matters so long as the Blessed Sacrament is confected and error is not preached.
There is a common failure here, and its ultimately one which doesn't give the liturgy its proper due and respect.
Okay, this will perhaps get me in trouble...but here is a quick "stereotypical" observation of charasmatic Catholic friends. Most charasmatics are not into reading or studying the Church's teachings. They tend to be more emotional than intellectual or academic, even if they have University degrees. As with all things there is always an exception but I have noticed this over the years especially since at one point I "experimented" with the charismatic stuff. My personal opinion is that charismatics are converted to Christ but not totally converted to His Church. Of course, feel free to disagree.
I think it bears saying that the persons involved in liturgy at a college are young. And some allowance should be made for the need of young people to be able to express feelings within the Church--and possibly even within the Liturgy.
Kids have an intensity of feeling. The Church has to meet them at some time on that level. (The Liturgy might not be optimal.)
OK, so the Charismatic movement is not helpful liturgically. But, they should be commended for teaching and spreading their 'high-Church doctrine' And I have heard some Charismatics say quite explicitly that they don't think the Mass is the place for Charismatic practices, but rather prayer services outside of Mass: when Mass begins, away go the guitars. Lets give credit where it is due and avoid blanket condemnations.
I repeatedly make this same point to friends--that one cannot (and should not) divorce orthodoxy from tradition. The response I often get is, "if it's orthodox, what difference does it make?" I.e., that it's erroneous to debate the "form" such orthodoxy takes (meaning "charismatic" et al. is all fine and good).
Do others encounter this as well? How do you respond? I say, in my limited understanding of things, that denying the role of tradition denies that orthodoxy its fullest and most complete expression: it becomes learned and accepted, but not lived in its fullest.
I have found that Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, has condensed the role of tradition and the liturgy very well in this talk he gave and an Una Voce conference....
http://uvcr.catholicam.org/mp3s/
...nandLiturgy.mp3
It's free, so pass it on.
Brian 1 and 2 I have to say AMEN! I grew up in a mix of traditional Methodistism and Evangelism.
Kathy speaking as a youth most people my age tend to find Evanglical Music to be corny. If they wanted to go to a rock concert then they would go to a good one! Although opinion has been changing in the last few years because Christian rock has been improving. Some of it has even gotten on the secular pop charts. However most people, unless they have grown up with it, will find evangle music to be corny. The reason is that we don't want to be treated like idiots. We can appriciate chant and other high culture stuff if people will just give a us a chance.
Sorry just my 2 cents.
Kathy, I think there's more emotion and feeling in well-rendered Gregorian Chant than with Haugen-Haas. I was in college in the early 1970s and on occasion Chant or polphony was done, and it was a very moving and spiritual experience in contrast to the "flavor of the month" hymn being pedaled at the time. Tom
"[H]ere is a quick "stereotypical" observation of charismatic Catholic friends. Most charismatics are not into reading or studying the Church's teachings..."
Enough of them are not "reading or studying the Church's teachings" regarding the liturgy, or I wouldn't have stumbled into a tongue-fest at Steubenville. I don't say that all of them do that. I'm saying that at that time, in that place, a place that is known as a haven for it, that is what happened.
People at Ave Maria aren't imagining anything either. There is history, there is fact, there is DATA!!!
The proof in the pudding is in the eating.
By the way, that was not a "blanket condemnation." It was specific to time, place, and sequence of events.
With regard to David Alexander and Deborah's comments, I have to say that both are right to some degree. The first parish I belonged to after being received into the Church ten years ago was a charismatic parish. I did not like the charismaticism so much (including the speaking in tongues after the great amen, but I am considerably more agnostic than Mr. Alexander about whether they were indeed speaking in tongues--I don't know how to assess it), but I also was never pressured into raising hands and all the stuff that goes with it. My prayer group in the parish was very much interested in the life of the mind of the Church. On the other hand, other charismatic groups I've encountered since then have matched the description of being converted to Christ, but not quite to his Church. Many of them tow a somewhat different theological line more in line with the Anglican N. T. Wright and others--good, but not exactly Catholic.
One interesting phenomenon that I have run into, particularly in my first parish, was the prospect of maturing charismatics becoming more interested in traditional liturgy. For them, charismatic worship was a sort of "kindergarten" for adult liturgical life. Has anyone else encountered this?
TJM:
I have heard this charge about one of the founders of the Charismatic Movement becoming an atheist before. But never any facts given. I am not doubting you but could you give names and/or sources. Thanks.
PS:Anyone out there aware of a solid Catholic critique of the current charismatic practice of "speaking in tongues"?
I'm not really speaking from a vacuum of experience. In my experience in campus ministry, people preferred, really preferred, the Gather hymnal to more traditional forms. Piano to organ. Guitar and piano combination--they liked that.
How I suffered.
At Catholic U there are two weekly options for Adoration (at least there were a couple of years ago.) The "Praise and Worship" model was packed. The quiet service was much, much less well-attended. Now that's partly social, partly whatever. But, I do believe it's partly the music.
And if I ever hear "Shout to the Lord" again I will throw something.
If it's got a beat, if it engages the emotions, people can feel it more easily. It's more ACCESSIBLE. Chant is attractive in its own right but it doesn't have a beat. It's quite foreign and its logic is different. Chant's logic is the Church's logic, but will the kids really come for that? In my experience--maybe not.
"Chant is attractive in its own right but it doesn't have a beat."
Don't forget, you can't dance to it either.
I don't doubt your experience at one particular campus, but go to an Old Latin Mass sometime, and see how many young people there are compared to the old. Not just young married couples, but the very age group in your example. Yes, there is a segment of college students who are into that rockin' Steubenville sound, but I would not be surprised to discover them in the minority.
Nor would I be surprised that many of the guys that go, are there to meet "hot Catholic chicks," or so one of them actually told me.
Not that I get around to college campuses these days, so much as talk to those who do.
I'm just saying what I've seen (and which you haven't, I guess). Now whether it's a good formative influence, I don't know. Or whether there might be a difference among campuses. But that's what I've seen.
It's funny, this musical taste business. I know a Latinist, a very cultured person, with an enviable philosophical-theological background, who just LOVES to sing Haugen-Hass.
The problem, Kathy, is that such music has no basis in the sacred tradition of the Church. I think that is the nut of the entire discussion, whatever manifestation of the debate we are talking about, music or otherwise. In that sense, how is such "praise and worship" music any less the "hermeneutic of rupture" than, say, liturgical dance?
As a general matter, I think it's a disingenuous argument to say people these days don't respond to chant when (a) people these days have rarely heard it and (b) likely were never taught it in the first place.
Finally, another general point is in order: liturgy and liturgical development are not measured by our individual preferences or popularity.
"It doesn't require a vast amount of spiritual enlightenment or intellectual understanding to comprehend this."
What it requires is a sense for authentic culture - and culture without the "pop" in front of it has fallen off Western Civilization's radar. It is providential that we have a Pope who is keenly aware of this.
No, not exactly. But in actual practice the ends are manifold: giving glory to God is of course #1. But giving people a beginning point for personal prayer is not the "nothing" that people sometimes want it to be. And that is what praise and worship music often does. Especially in these special populations, you gotta meet people where they are. It's a matter of discernment and it's not easy to make the choices that are necessary.
(Sorry, I was responding to this comment: liturgy and liturgical development are not measured by our individual preferences or popularity.
But that doesn't answer the question as to why chant cannot be that "beginning point for personal prayer." Especially in light of the fact that chant has all but been removed from the minds of Catholics. We are making a false evaluation between something that was forced down our throats (P & W) and something that was wholesale removed from the realm of possibility.
As for "catering" liturgy to our personal preferences, I'd say that's one of the fundamental errors of the past 40 years: this notion that liturgy is somehow "our's" by our own construction, to do as we see fit.
I'm in no way defending the Catholic "charismatic" movement, but please: let's define our terms. What do we mean when we say "charismatic?" Being charismatic does not necessarily make one "pentecostal." (One who speaks in tongues, btw, would be more properly labelled as a pentecostal, whether they particularly care for all of the baggage that that brings or not). On the flip-side, one can be charismatic and NOT be pentecostal. Was Padre Pio charismatic? Most definitely. Was he pentecostal? I doubt it.
I hope that others have also made the distinction between Catholic charismatics and Catholic "pentecostals."
Veritas, chant cannot be the beginning point precisely because "chant has all but been removed from the minds of Catholics."
I know, I know, I err on the side of incrementalism. But how do you make people cross a bridge that they can't even see yet? You walk them over so they can see it. How do you do that with music? Just pull a switch-out?
Kathy, young, committed Catholics appear to prefer Latin and chant more than their "doubleknit dinosaur" elders. I see evidence all the time at the Masses I attend. And when you search the internet, the fastest growing orders with the youngest novices and postulants are those that are committed to Catholic tradition and traditional practices, like chanting the office in Latin. Take a gander at the other "reform" orders and you'll find their lucky if they have a novice under the age of 40 if any at all. Perhaps because these young people appreciate that chant is indigenous to the Roman Litury in contrast to the "four hymn sandwich" we experience in most parishes today. The power and majesty of the Roman Mass is found in the chanting of the Mass (either Latin or vernacular. Tom
ps Actually, the chant Tantum Ergo kind of does have a "beat" if rendered properly.
Kathy:
I would say this this:
You tap into that spiritual hunger that drove them to the foot of that bridge in the first place! :)
David Deavel,
"....charismatic worship was a sort of "kindergarten" for adult liturgical life. Has anyone else encountered this?"
Yes, I have noticed this as well - a process of developing toward maturity perhaps. One comparison I've thought of was that it's like being in love where in the beginning the emotions are high and somewhat shallow then over time the love grows deeper and more profound towards that person. Analogous of the emotional feelings when first knowing and loving God and then eventually deepening that love by wishing to learn more about how to better love and serve Him through His Church - most importantly, worshiping Him in the Sacred Liturgy.
All in all I don't see a problem if some Catholics are more charismatic at prayer meetings. Some people are simply more emotional, some more intellectual, etc. The problem is when ultimately everything is led only by emotions and what gives a high emotional fix, including the Sacred Liturgy. Rather both the heart(emotional) and the intellect need to be considered which is what is seen and experienced in the Church's traditional and proper Liturgy.
TJM, there is this interesting fact about the young today. The LEADERS of tomorrow (the Religious, seminarians and very fervent laypeople) often (but not always, and not forever) prefer the traditional forms.
But the huge population of less fervent Catholics do not. They're ordinarily very guitar-and-piano oriented and would experience a huge vacuum in their contact with the Church if we just switched out all the music they're used to.
So we can cater to the choir or to the less fervent, or to both.
I say, both.
Kathy,
I say we try it first, then draw our conclusions. Who knows, maybe if we did try making that switch, those less fervent Catholics would become more fervent. It seems these days, on average at least, we are very much in the vacuum already.
Kathy, first of all, I am a Church musician with 40 + years experience and have seen the trends over the decades since Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you feed people tripe then that's what they'll know and become comfortable with. However, if you feed them from the rich Treasury of Church traditional music you will find they like it very, very much. The best Chant singers I have are people under the age of 15. We have liturgical "progressives" in my parish (aka doubleknit dinosaurs) who warned that the "young people" would be turned off by chant. As is usual in these matters they are wrong and projecting their puerile views of the liturgy on others. Tom
As long as we are being anecdotal... like many people my age, I grew up on 'pop music' but to be more specific my tastes ran towards punk rock -- the faster and louder the better! Because of this, P&W music NEVER spoke to me or attracted me to the church: it seemed to me to be precisly the sort of crap I was trying to get away from. If anything it repelled me, making church just like high school (this btw, is one other reason why the massive peace-fests seen at youth masses are bad: it brings high school popularity contests into the sanctuary.)
However, when I was in college and first heard the Sanctus and Agnus Dei chanted in Latin I was hooked. It was like nothing I had heard before. Coming home for vacations, returning to my P&W parish was always a whiplash and a let down.
So what my point: lets not assume that kids listening to pop only want to hear that at church. They may simply bear it not knowing that there are any other options. I'm not saying that anythign should be banned, but that we shouldn't jump to conclusions what works.
TJM, Excellent!
Kathy,
I understand where you are coming from and the same logic is often used by proponents of the Lifeteen style of liturgy. (It is also a logic often used to not address abuses like people gathering in the sanctuary for the same reasons.)
The fundamental problem is that here again the link between liturgy/liturgical practice and formation/doctrine is not being adequately acknowledged and respected I would propose. In the end, the liturgy becomes do-it-yourself and subjectivized. This approach itself teaches a strong, but incorrect, message about the liturgy of the Church -- which is neither subjective nor do-it-yourself.
If we allow that approach, whatever our pragmatic reasons might be, we do end up with a distortion. The liturgy isn't merely a way of individual or communal self-expression; it is the expression of the Church.
The temptation is to lessen this by considering what we feel might attract certain people. But then, what is the cost of so doing? In the end, is it like the parable of the seed sown on shallow ground, which is likely only to temporarily root before shrivelling up and dying when the sentiments have passed on and the fads have changed?
We need to form our children, our young people and ourselves in the solid foundation of liturgy and doctrine that the Church provides. That will be our surety, and this truly prepares them for their life.
Parents can't expect to feed their children all candy and cola and then suddenly expect that they should shift over into red meat and red wine.
(By the way folks; let's keep the discussion on the up and up, which for the most part we have. Avoid the deragatories and discuss and debate the issues.)
We aren't disputing about ends. We're disputing about means.
College is not a normal situation, pastorally. It is not the sort of place where one can begin religious formation, as you can in Catholic schools or parishes. You get them when they're formed already. What are they used to? Where do you go from there?
I know people getting their Master's degrees in theology, self-described "orthodox" and conservative people, who honestly think that the music of the current piano-guitar ensemble is quote unquote Traditional. Where do you go from there?
Brian 2, I'm glad for you. But do you think the majority of your peers feel the same way?
Shawn, you expressed what a lot of us believe to be the true purpose of liturgy extremely well. I look forward to NLM every day. Regards, Tom
Allow me the first to say this on this board: Charismatic praise and worship music and Gregorian Chant can complement each other exceptionally well. I've done it myself. The key is to find the right praise and worship songs--the ones that correspond to the antiphons of the liturgy, to the seasons of the church calendar, to the proper tones and doctrines properly conveyed in liturgy. And not to overplay songs.
If there is any further doubt, remember that the very first Catholic Charismatic experience was birthed at a Duquesne University retreat, after a weekend of chanting the Veni Sancte Spiritus.
I have had no experience with charismatics, but will only make the following observation from what I've seen here in St. Louis:
Our auxiliary Bishop, Robert Herman, is a very holy man. He's often overshadowed by Archbishop Burke (for obvious reasons), but Bishop Herman is also a lover of tradition. He is also in charge of the pastoral needs of the charismatic movement in St. Louis. Before he became an auxiliary bishop, he said many Life Teen Masses.
This same Bishop has celebrated TWO Pontifical High Masses in St. Louis in the last year. He was ordained in 1964, just before the '65 missal came in, and he said quite recently that he thought it was a huge mistake to ban the Old Rite. When he celebrated his first Pontifical High Mass last year, during the Homily the first thing he said was how this was the first time he had celebrated that rite of the mass in 42 years, and that it brought back so many wonderful memories for him. And yet this same Bishop also has a lot of experience with the charismatics, and ministers to their needs.
My only point in this is that things like this may not always be as black-and-white as they appear.
I'll also add that to this day, Bishop Herman is the only bishop I have ever heard preach about the evils of contraception during a homily (and it was in the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, for a Sunday Novus Ordo Mass.)
The Charismatic Movement is fine as an adjunct to Catholic spirituality, however, as sometimes has been the case, it should not replace or supplant traditional forms of Catholic worship and spirituality. I have the same philosophical problem with integrating Charismatic forms of worship into the Mass as I do with other attempts to make our public worship "relevant" to a particular group (i.e., clown Masses, Polka Masses, Dignity Masses . All of these interject forms alien to the traditional Roman Mass and they tend to further balkanize the liturgy.What should be the sacrament of unity becomes the sacrament of disunity. Tom
Here's where Tom's a little off... if the lyrics match that of the antiphons, and if the tones of the songs are appropriate, then it is not an adjunct to liturgy, but truly enhances the liturgy.
Kathy,
The means and the ends are quite proximate to each other; there is a circular relationship of sorts.
The liturgical formation of the Church is not something limited to this or that scenario, but not found in another scenario. There are indeed different scenarios; Cathedrals, monasteries, outdoor liturgies; shrine churches; city parishes; rural parishes, etc. But these are all to be unified by the same spirit of the liturgy.
As Amy Welborn very aptly pointed out recently, we must distinguish between the public liturgy of the Church and private prayer as well. What applies in private prayer meetings may not apply in the liturgy and vice versa.
Further, my point is not whether someone could have something other than chant or polyphony in the liturgy. Of course they could -- provided they grow organically from our received liturgical forms and tradition and do not supplant that which deserves pride of place. (For example, some use of Taize sounding chants may be a good complement to Gregorian, etc.)
The liturgy is the formal expression of the Church's Faith; it is the public worship of the Church. As such, there is a higher accountability and standard to which people must account. There is a criteria for what is and isn't appropriate for the liturgy, and what may or may not be done.
Nick, if your last post is referring to me I'm not sure what you're alluding to because if one is speaking (or singing) in tongues you are not expressing any discernable lyrics that I'm aware of. Tom
ThomasMore,
I don't indeed think it is black and white, and I would hope that no one is suggesting that charismatics are "bad people" somehow; that isn't the case, and many of them do love Christ a very great deal.
But at the same time, there are significant principles at stake here that must be looked at fairly honestly and recognized for their importance.
I do see some serious problems with the charismatic approach to the liturgy, and with some of them, even to the Magsterium. The temptation to rely upon emotional responses that can be present is truly problematic.
To me, the ideal charismatic would be simply a variant upon a Catholic devoted to the rosary, or another to Divine Mercy, etc. Basically they worship in accordance with the Church in a hermeneutic of continuity; they look to the Magisterium; to the Church as Mother and Teacher and form themselves according to it. And then they pursue their private devotional life in that context, just like a rosary or Marian group does, or a Divine Mercy group. I would say the same about Lifeteen as well.
This is the approach we should all take. That is the true liberty and diversity that can be experienced in the Church. Different charisms, different spiritualities, but the same Faith and the same spirit of the liturgy (which is tied to its forms.)
Shawn, I'm not a relativist about the liturgy. There are better and worse forms. Absolutely.
But, if (as I believe) in addition to the straightforward matter of forms, there are two other values to be upheld, namely, receptivity and continuity, we have to take those into account.
If someone who is devout and sinere, to the point of sacrificing part of a career to study theology for two years, perceives certain faulty and inadequate forms as "traditional," what are they saying? They are saying that these forms are what they grew up with. They are what they received, and they are what has been known before.
An immediate re-education program will give them the objectively better forms, but we risk destroying the more subjectively experienced values of continuity and receptivity.
Strangely, it will seem as though it is in that case "up to us" to choose what forms are better.
The basic point I'd like to make is that very little in our current situation is ideal. Insisting upon the immediate realization of the ideal (as TJM does) has ramifications that are actually working against the full realization of the ideal, which contains all three of these aspects: correct forms, continuity, and receptivity.
Shawn,
I absolutely agree with everything you say. My only point was that it would be wrong to suppose that all charismatics are opposed to liturgical tradition. I'm all for the reform of the reform, and wouldn't go within fifty miles of a charistmatic mass unless I absolutely had to. I fully agree that their approach to liturgy is seriously flawed, as far as I can tell.
I'm w/ Brian 2 regarding the rockers who like chant. (Don't forget, Jeff, I get credit for coining the phrase Garage Chant. :-)
My circle of musician friends who are Catholic, who play rock or jazz or write for film and TV, prefer Traditional Sounding Church Music. Why? The simple answer is because it sounds authentic. Thus, it is fitting and suitable to the liturgy.
That's why we're all at the TLM or the Byzantine church and repeatedly turn down offers to play guitar on Sunday at the local parish when the organist is out of town. Though the 30 pieces of silver is often tempting :-)
Charismatics are a dying breed. We used to have big (5,000 people at a time) Charismatic conventions in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. No more. There used to be Charismatic healing Masses all over the place....no more. Actually, Thank God for this decline of CHarismatics. They adopted so mcuh from grassroots fundamentalist American Pentacostal Protestantism that there was a real danger to loose a true "CATHOLIC" identity.
As an example,My aunt, who visited us from Tokyo one Summer, was appaled when She went to Mass at our parish in the early 1980's and it was mostly a charismatic Mass. We didn't know it at the time, but one day She called the rest of our family in Japan from our house, and asked them to pray for us, because She thought the Mass She had seen was a Protestant service and we had all become Baptists!
The problem at Ave Maria is more complex than simply liturgical, it is an issue of governance - namely the governance of the Ave Maria Foundation and entities operates in ways that clearly violate Catholic Social Teaching. For more on this see:
http://avewatch.org/
Tony C, I hope you are still reading. "Garage Chant" is indeed your phrase but you have been robbed of your place in history. When the proofs came back from CRISIS on that piece, we put in your name and the blog on which you made that comment, citing you properly. We thought that they made the change. When the article actually came out, it wasn't there. They said that they had to cut for space. Truly, I felt terrible about this. Odd sense of guilt ever since! Well, it's Lent so it's good that it is out in the open. You did indeed coin the phrase garage chant - and more than a phrase, it is a movement.
Dear Matthew,
Let me "explicate" Tom (TJM)'s statement , "One of the founders of the Charismatic Movement in the US is an atheist today [and also a homosexual activist]."
Among the founders of the Catholic charismatic movement in the US were two professors at Duquesne University, William Storey and Ralph Kiefer, who were the first to be "baptized in the Spirit" by Pentecostal ministers at a 1969 ecumenical prayer service. The two professors began to "speak in tongues" and exhibit other charismatic characteristics such as "being slain in the spirit." They in turn began to "baptize" other Catholics with the same results, or Catholics sought that "baptism" from such Protestant ministers at similar ecumenical services (again with the same "manifestations of the Spirit)--thus, the origin of the Catholic charismatic movement.
Prof. Storey later got a position at the University of Notre Dame, teaching Church history and liturgy, writing prayer books, and continuing his role in the movement. As time went on he became less involved with it and even mildly critical of some of its extremes (such as the exhibitionism of the public manifestation of some of the gifts of the Spirit).
In a 1984 interview with E. Michael Jones, then editor of Fidelity magazine, Prof. Storey made what he thought was an "off he record" comment that he had become an atheist, which gave him a "better perspective" in his teaching of Church history and liturgy. E. Michael Jones accepted the statement as "on the record" and included it in the published article.
Some time thereafter Prof. Storey announced that he was homosexual and had taken up residence with his male "partner." Also, he was part of the movement at Notre Dame to force the University to grant complete and official recognition to homosexuals, which the University has not yet done, although capitulating to many other concessions to them. in 1986 he took early retirement, because he claimed that the then Theology Dept. chairman, Fr. Richard McBrien (yes, the liberal Fr. McBrien!) limited his teaching to 12 graduate students per semester, because he did not like Storey's atheism and homosexuality. In his retirement Prof. Storey revised some of his earlier prayer books and wrote new ones! They published by "midstream" Catholic publishers and well received by "midstream" Catholic book reviewers, although his collection of "Prayers for Gays and Lesbians" (published by the "midstream" Crossrods Books) created some controversy but was welcomed in gay and liberal "Catholic" circles.
Kathy,
First, let me be clear: I didn't personally accuse you of being a relativist; what I was doing was critiquing certain ideas and then stating what I see to be the implications/first principles of those ideas.
"But, if (as I believe) in addition to the straightforward matter of forms, there are two other values to be upheld, namely, receptivity and continuity, we have to take those into account."
This criteria can apply, but it isn't absolute. Receptivity doesn't trump particular things. We look at receptivity in the light of the liberty we have. We don't create and self-define that liberty.
"The basic point I'd like to make is that very little in our current situation is ideal. Insisting upon the immediate realization of the ideal (as TJM does) has ramifications that are actually working against the full realization of the ideal, which contains all three of these aspects: correct forms, continuity, and receptivity."
The key point which I have made is this: one doesn't abandon the established norms, laws and traditions of the Church simply because we feel it might be better received if we so did. We have no more liberty this way than we do in a matter of Faith or Morals. That is not up to us. This doesn't mean implementing all ideals at once of course, but if there is a mid-ground, it will be a mid-ground not independently defined by the people in the pews, or the priest at the altar, but by the Church and her liturgical books. This is our starting point today.
This means, for example, that it is never acceptable that teens should go around the altar in the sanctuary, even though some may feel they are "receptive" to that; nor that we might change established rubrics or texts because, "because the Spirit so moves" one. These are never acceptable and they are not left up to us.
In terms of receptivity, we don't take it upon ourselves to have mastery over the liturgy; rather we catechize, we form them as the Church would have them liturgically formed.
Receptivity is about conversion ultimately. Ultimately, while we all have preferences, liturgy is not about our personal preferences; its about something objectively beyond us and outside of us to which we must conform. Religion never does well when we reverse this relationship.
As a Charistmatic Seminarian (of which there are many, indeed the parish with the largest representation here is quite charismatic), I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
My main point is that it is completely possible to blend chant, polyphany, AND good (i.e. not Haas, etc.) contemporary music in a single liturgy. This would seem to be the mind of the Church since she encourages pride of place for chant and polyphany and at the same time encourages the use of contemporary styles of music (see Musicam Sacram). Naturaly that doesn't mean that just anything goes as some would have it, but it seems different from the line you are taking.
On a side note, I don't see a significant difference between charistmatics lifting their hands and people crossing themselves when not called for in the GIRM as has been going on for a long time. It does not seem that Rome intends the r
same level of rigidity that you do.
Be that as it may, saying 'Charismatics are just emotional and don't care what the Church is saying' isn't going to win any of them over. Many of us very much do care. Those that don't require education. Because of their love for Jesus they will certainly come to see your points about the beauty that the Mass requires. Mother Church seems to say to us 'be traditional and charismatic' so you needn't make it an either/or.
And how do we discern what is "good" contemporary music?
Pope John Paul II said in
On Sacred Music (2003):
12. With regard to liturgical music compositions, I make my own the "general law" that Saint Pius X formulated in these terms: "A composition for Church is sacred and liturgical insofar as it approaches Gregorian melody in flow, in inspiration, and in flavor, and so much less is it worthy of the temple insomuch as it is recognized as departing from that supreme model". Evidently, this does not mean copying Gregorian chant, but rather seeing to it that new compositions be pervaded by the same spirit that gave rise to and so molded that chant.
Allan,
First, if you read my earlier comments, you'll see that I didn't say you couldn't blend chant, polyphony and the contemporary. What I did say was that contemporary music must be developed in a way that the Church has defined: as flowing organically from the tradition. This is what the Council called for.
Unfortunately, I've found many charismatics I've known, watched, listened to, etc. who do tend to look at following liturgical law in the way you've described it here in speaking of how you perceive my attitude: that of rigidity.
That I could make the qualifications I have in my previous messages and yet still have me accused of this when simply speaking of a hermeneutic of continuity, the teaching of the Church and the Popes with respect to the integrity of the rite (even while allowing where there is a certain legitimate diversity) to me is telling of the very problem I am trying to speak of! Perhaps you said it in frustration, but it is something that I think needs to be examined in how you've responded to me here.
That being said, I didn't really directly comment on such a specific matter as you raised, so why judge me upon it? What I commented upon was the principle of fidelity to the liturgical books generally. Both on the part of the sacred ministers in their "ars celebrandi" and also in general upon the attitude we take to these things.
Those with a great familiarity with this site will know that this point of concern isn't even specific to charismatic liturgies but is a general problem faced in standard parishes in many parts of the world.
My concern isn't who adopts what spirituality. If someone wishes to adopt the private prayer life of a charismatic spirituality, or a Benedictine, that is not my concern. My concern is that the liturgy of the Church be treated as the Church would have it be, regardless of group.
I didn't make this into an either/or. So it would be good if you'd read my statements as I wrote them before putting such words into my mouth.
That being said, I am forthright and won't shy away from the fact that I have definite concerns with the charismatic movement as I've seen it practiced within the context of the sacred liturgy primarily.
This doesn't make me opposed to the "movement of the Spirit," (I'm not suggesting you've said this) it makes me concerned that the best guide we have to the Holy Spirit, Holy Mother Church, might be forgotten at times in this equation by some individuals, in preference rather for an experience, sensation or feeling.
Are all charismatics guity of doing this? I daresay no. I have known a few who have precisely tried to take the approach you speak of and are associated with Fr. Bob Bedard's "Companions of the Cross" (whose book I have read by the way).
cont'd...
(cont'd)
If anything, the fact that there is disappointment expressed with the approach of the significant group in the charismatic movement I am identifying is because precisely of our acknowledgement that there are many good people in that movement who love Christ and the Church.
As such, the manner of concern and disappointment is rooted in that recognition of that which is very good and laudable, and not rather as it would be expressed with those who intentionally wish to trivialize the Faith and our most basic, cherished doctrines.
It's not out of malice. It's out of a desire to try to bring this up for our brethren and to try to get this pillar added to the spiritual arsenal. Perhaps someone like yourself is one such person that can help make that happen.
In my former parish choir (I have recently moved to another parish music position in another city) there was a married couple who were very active in the charismatic movement. Both were and are very respectful and supportive of the Church's liturgical tradition, including Latin chant and polyphony. I do not think it is wise to label people according to certain ecclesial postures. A truly Catholic spirit gives people credit for being independently thinking individuals.
Matthew writes;
"PS:Anyone out there aware of a solid Catholic critique of the current charismatic practice of "speaking in tongues"?"
Yes, from the original charismatic himself.
1 Corinthians, Chapter 14
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
1...rinthians14.htm
That is about as Catholic as it gets, and about as authoritative as it gets.
LJ...
That is not a criticism of "speaking in tongues." If anything, it is a cautious endorsement.
Which is exactly the stance of the hierachy today.
I just pray that one day the bigotry against charismatics, a movement accepted by the hierarchy, would be eradicated from traditional sites. Both need each other.
Nick, speaking generally of the thread, there is a difference between bigotry and critique. Perhaps you can tell us what you see as be "bigotted" in this thread and what you don't. I would certainly hope you are not classifying those who are critiquing particular approaches to the liturgy, in the light of the will of the Church, as somehow being "bigotted" for so doing.
John M, I'd challenge you to show me where I am diverging from a "truly Catholic spirit" (especially since I have defined legitimate diversity; but diversity alone is not legitimate lets recall, it is defined by the Church.)
Nick:
Please define "bigotry against charismatics." And while you're at it, tell us how a preference for what the Church says about what is suitable for official worship, as opposed to that which is not, is a form of "bigotry" against anyone... AT ALL!
Nick Alexander, I just spent about 10 mins at your site and your myspace. Let me ask you a question. Are there any circumstances under which you can imagine any of your music appropriately being used at Mass?
Wow... such a strong response.
A lot of people here have shared their dislike for charismatics. While some gave solid reasons (such as their interpretations of Vatican documents), other based it on their personal experiences and tastes, perhaps equating a charismatic liturgy to a Protestant service. It is this latter group I was addressing when I wrote "bigotry." The Charismatic Renewal is not a Protestant thing, even as Pentecostals were equally disdained by their own Protestant churches--so as to create their own denominations. The power of charismatics is that Catholic Charismatics prefer to stay Catholic.
Equating Charismatic prayer to polka masses misses the point entirely. The latter is based upon a musical preference. Charismatic prayer is a gift of the Holy Spirit--a _charism_. Certainly, there should not be any liturgical abuses, and the respect for the liturgy should be at its utmost. But remember that the birth of the Church came about due to Acts 2--and that Paul, in His wisdom, did not forbid anybody who spoke in tongues. I would suspect the key is to pray so as to not be a distraction to others.
Lastly, for jeffrey's question. You already know the answer to that, for you said you went on my website. In the FAQs there, it states plainly that my comedy songs are not appropriate for liturgy. However, I have been writing songs in the "praise and worship" style (started by Catholics, yaknow) based on the Biblical-antiphonal texts in the liturgy. These congregational-friendly songs I have played, with the priest's permission, with great success. This, to me, is the best of all worlds: incorporating the liturgically-appropriate Biblical texts as a prayer, as a worship aid, at the duration of Communion. I also fully support chant and polyphonies too, and make it a goal to do a blended-type liturgy. People who find these styles at odds with each other may not have seen them done successfully.
One day I plan to have my full resources available for anyone to use. For now, I'm still working on a complete list of antiphonal worship songs, which follows the texts of VII, as well as Paul's admonition to sing "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs" to God.
Shawn, by "receptivity" I don't mean
"ability to receive" but "willingness to accept".
As opposed to the attitude that I am responsible for creating the Liturgy that I want.
Shawn, I do say, excellent commentary!
I think a few of you charismatic supporters need to move away from the emotional speak for just a minute. Explain to us where the Church provides any room for a "charismatic" Mass? All I see are rubrics and directives on how to say Mass. And in none of those do I see any approval for drums, movie screens, band in the sanctuary... nor provisions for the priest to add speaking in tongues, raising his hands, dancing around, etc.. Its one thing if the congregation does it (not a posture of reverence) but there is absolutely no excuse for the priest.
By the way, to raise your hands is an act of the will, you dont need to do it.
Hammerbecker,
You don't need drums, movie screens or a band in a sanctuary to have a Catholic Charismatic mass.
No one has mentioned the basic AMU issue--namely, that Fr. Fessio appears to have been REMOVED by "charismatics" for promoting the reform of the reform in the liturgy. This is something that I have found to be true in my interaction with a number of "charismatics"--a positive hostility to traditional liturgical alternatives. It's as if they are afraid that the charismatic Mass can't survive the competition.
The "Charismatic Seminarian's" suggestion above--that masses combine traditional Catholic and charismatic Pentacostal-style music and worship is not a good one, IMO. The unviersal adoption of that sort of approach to the liturgy would be the death of the RotR. The only solution is to have at least two Sunday masses per parish--one "traditional" (RotR or "Tridentine") and one Pentacostal-style (or Haugen-Hass style, if that happens to be the preferred Protestant-style alternative). This may lead to somewhat divided parish communities, but that's an inevitable feature of the post-v2 church.
Ok Nick what do you need? Guitars? Hand raising?
I could maybe see using guitars out in a mission in central america, but it is not the norm, not the tradition of the church, and defiantly should not be used when an organ is sitting right there...
Its simple, the music is not appropriate for the Mass. And I have yet to see any hand raising with chant.
It is time to graduate to an adult spirituality and adult liturgy..
Nick Alexander,
I can speak only for myself, but I have nothing against charismatics. I simply do not want to be forced to attend Pentacostal-style liturgies (or Gather-hymnal liturgies, for that matter). One of most disturbing experiences in my life, and one that brought me very close to leaving the church, was a charismatic mass--complete with pentacostal-style singing, hand waving, and speaking in tongues--that I had to attend because it was the only available mass in the local parish. If there existed clearly demarcated liturgical alternatives in every parish--"X am charismatic mass, Y am traditional mass" (and, maybe, "Z am Gather hymnal mass")--I would stop complaining, and I suspect that many others would as well. I am not expecting charismatic masses to disappear.
Hammerbrecher...
You cannot equate "hand raising" with the charisms of the Holy Spirit. Nor can you equate particular songs, instruments, or geographical areas with such. Perhaps you are unaware of the musical selections of that Duquesne retreat weekend in 1968, but its principal musical resource was the Veni Sancte Spiritus.
Certainly, there are many charismatics who are unaware of this. But you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, especially if we're talking about the charisms of the Holy Spirit.
My heart goes out to you reluctant penitent, but I would suggest that it was your lack of experience in a charismatic setting that caused your extreme discomfort. But, that said, this is a tide that goes both ways. You're not going to get anybody on this board sharing their same discomfort attending a Tridentine liturgy ("I attended a Latin mass, and I nearly left the church because of it"), but we all know that those people exist. The solution is not relying upon your experiences, but learning. And recognizing that, by the grace of God, you're still here, not because of anything else.
Nick, I am talking about at Mass. If they can raise hands at a 1962 missal Mass, then I would be suprized.
Nick, the charismatic mass is not the new orthodoxy that we must learn to like. The only solution is a compromise: have your charismatic masses, but do not attempt to prevent traditional alternatives from being offered, and do not be offended when Catholics seek those traditional alternatives.
"A lot of people here have shared their dislike for charismatics."
No, they have not.
In fact, this entire matter has nothing to do with what or who anybody likes or dislikes. "A lot of people" have maintained that the so-called "charismatic" style of worship is inconsistent with the Catholic tradition. They have cited official statements to reinforce what they maintain. This includes what type of decorum and/or music is appropriate (as opposed to what they "like.")
The "charismatic" phenomenon is supposedly based on the "gifts of the Holy Spirit." The Catechism of the Catholic Church identifies those gifts. Pray tell, is speaking in tongues among them? No, it is not. Nor were "charisms" of this ilk well received by St Irenaeus in writing his "Treatise Against Heresies." He commented on a similar phenomenon in his day (late second to early third century), and even identified a leading proponent by name (Marcus).
I would submit that his work should be required reading for any members of the Catholic charismatic movement, before they go around mumbling incoherently and telling us they're filled with the Holy Spirit. The evidence suggests the possibility -- however remote it may be -- of being filled with a different spirit entirely.
Kathy: since you asked (a long time ago) If I thought my peers would feel the same way (i.e. would peopel listening to punk rock prefer chant to P&W music), purely anecdotally the answer is Yes (assuming they are Catholic). Of friends who combine a history of punk rock with begin Catholic, I don't know any who actually like P&W music. But their could be some self-selection.
But, getting a way from Anecdotes, Plato has some intersting things to say about music in book III of the Republic. He argues that certain rythms and melodies are, by their nature, unsuitable insofar as they rile up the irrational parts of the soul. (Certainly I would include Punk rock here, although with a quasi-Aristotelian defense). I think this is the fundamental question that we have been circiling around: what part of the soul does 4/4 beat of P&W music feed; what part does chant feed; which would we prefer to get nutrients? Focusing on this will get us past some of the accidental features of the debate
I'd be more than happy to read St Irenaeus. But first, check out CCC# 2003, where tongues is listed as "a special grace", called "charism", and "extraordinary". Are you implying that the writings of St Irenaus--however remote this may be-- contradict the Catechism?
Or, are you implying, David, that the charismatic dimension ought to be tested... and, if so, why make such an angry venomous post which only applies to a fraction of those associated with the Charismatic Renewal?
Hi Brian...
Are you implying that the 4/4 beat of ancient hymns feeds the soul in a negative way, and that the 3/4 or 5/4 or 6/8 beat of other P&W songs are appropriate? And since when did Plato's writings become part of the established canon?
First off, emotions run strong on this issue as one can expect, but let's all step back for one second and re-focus on the issues at hand.
Otherwise, this will devolve and I will close the thread.
Dear Kathy,
You said:
" Shawn, by 'receptivity' I don't mean "ability to receive" but "willingness to accept"."
Indeed, I am quite aware of that. A significant part of my point is that we don't alter the Church's liturgy (in a way the Church wouldn't let it be altered I mean) simply because someone lacks willingness to accept. This is where "death to self" and conversion come in.
Hence my point that if we reverse the relationship with regard the self as forming religion rather than vice versa, we always end up with a problem.
Nick,
Thank you for clarification.
I appreciate Nick's gifts and talents. But I think what he doesn't quite grasp is what *liturgy* is and what the Roman Rite calls for in terms of liturgy and liturgical music. It would be more helpful if he could defend his position in light of that.
There has always been room for popular music within the Catholic tradition - but not at Mass.
Shawn, I don't think you're deliberately misunderstanding me, but you are very much misunderstanding.
Someone raised on the wrong type of liturgical music perceives it as "the Church's music." That music represents what-is-handed-down, literally "Tradition," for that person.
Nick: Our Catholic religion seeks to harmonize faith and reason. If the "Platonici Libri" were good enough for Augustine of Hippo, they are good enough for me. But in any case, I wasn't citing Plato to say "This is how it is" but to say "Here is an intersting way to think about these questions" In other words, to frame the question in a slightly different way. How one frames the questions is just as important as how one answers it (in fact, some philosophers would say MORE important, insofar as the framing of the question limits the range of possible answers...)
PS: sorry for using all caps in 'MORE'; I don't know how to get italics in the com box... ;)
I think that in a place of any type of ministerial responsibility, we have to begin with an awareness of where the people are. If we immediately impose an ideal from without, regardless of the person's beginning point, we might be giving them something intrinsically good, but for the wrong reason, with a bad result.
For example, if I show up and immediately change an entire campus ministry's music program to really conform with the documents, I might have 30 or so of Brian's friends ;) very much involved. But why? Many for religious reasons, hopefully. But what about those who are there for merely aesthetic reasons? In fact, they will have CHOSEN their liturgical forms, not RECEIVED them.
And what about the hundreds who skip down the road to sing with the Lutherans, who've got a beat you can dance to?
Good steps, well chosen, will pastorally and responsibly lead people to the right things, where the Tradition of the Church can be truly received.
Mark...
Thanks for your comments.
All I know is that I base this off the GIRM documents. Basically, GIRM 87 (1), lists that doing the communion antiphon chant (from the Roman Gradual) is the first preferred song for Communion, in either the melodies written, or in "another musical setting."
This is the basis of what I do.
Peace,
Nick
Quote: "You don't need drums, movie screens or a band in a sanctuary to have a Catholic Charismatic mass."
I think a good question is, then why do so many charismatics seem to think otherwise? Why is a particular, Protestant-originated style of religious music such an integral part of most charismatic worship? Who decreed that? This strong favoring in Catholic charismatic circles of Protestant-originated "praise and worship" music is not just outside perception, it's a fact. Why?
Kathy,
Is it so hard to separate out this music and have a praise and worship prayer group? Then have Mass with chant, teach what the Mass is at the prayer group...
The "charismatic movement" came about by a prostestant preacher in California. Eventually it worked it's way to the Catholic Church in the free for all post VII. The big problem: the founders of the movement within the Catholic Church, were American Catholic Priests who were "prayed over" by protestants, and were "baptised in the Holy Spirit". If red flags don't go off about this - we have problems.
Were these priests lacking something in their baptism, confirmation, ordination to the diaconate, and ordination to the priesthood? When a successor to the Apostles laid hands on them, was it insufficient? However, we are led to believe that what was missing was easily made up for by protestants (heretics) and only after 1969. Had the Holy spirit been on vacation for 1,969 years? And liturgically speaking, when the congregation at Francsican Univ. of Stuebenville gets "slain in the spirit", or starts raising their hands because the spirit is moving them to - how come the spirit hasn't seemed to move anyone at a Mass inside St. Peters, celebrated by the Holy Father, to EVER raise their hands in the 500 years it has existed? Why is it that the same person that is able to be "moved by the Spirit" at a Charismaniac Mass, is not moved by the same Holy Spirit any where else, at any other Mass?
I won't even get into the "speaking in tongues" mess.
The Charismatic Masses, replete with innovative hand gestures, are no better than your typical liberal masses complete with liturgical dancers, inclusive language, and the like. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the time for the laity to come up with new ways to worship Almighty God.
Nick, have you read Sacramentum caritatis?
"But first, check out CCC# 2003, where tongues is listed as 'a special grace', called 'charism', and 'extraordinary'..."
I wouldn't have to. Such gifts would still have to be viewed according to the mind of the Church, whose opinion She has made known regarding official worship. (We keep getting back to that, don't we?) This is particularly so, since such gifts are "extraordinary," and by that definition alone, are not the norm.
I fail to see anything "venomous" in pointing that out.
As to whether a "fraction" of a movement is responsible for anything, insofar as Ave Maria University is concerned, it would appear that a "fraction" was all it required. Even aside from the incident at AMU (that is, even if it never happened), it is enough that the phenomenon exists in sufficient numbers, to have elicited nearly 100 responses in a forum such as this.
And a call for prudent discourse from the moderator. (Duly noted.)
There's so many responses to make, I'm wondering if it's worth it all.
Then again, I'm wondering if campidoctoris de anathematis's post alone was enough to call for a crackdown on this thread. So much for those warnings from the moderator.
That said, I'd like to address Mike Silva's excellent question. And there is not a short reply to that answer. I think it should be noted that the renewal began just around the time when guitars were introduced in liturgy, the mass turned to the vernacular, and the altar turned around. There was a sudden need for Catholic music in the vernacular, of which there was very little.
At this time, many of the charismatics saw what they were part of was of a great ecumenical movement, and so some covenant communities had formed. The Word of God Covenant Community, in Ann Arbor, (where you-know-who was a part of), also fronted "Servant Publications", which put out "Songs of Praise", one of the earliest ecumenical songbook series of that era.
Now, I know a lot of traditionalists despise this resource, as it was mentioned on another post on another blog. But a closer look at that resource finds there to be a very particular accomplishment: the first musical resource of its kind that truly integrated music from all genres, from simple praise and worship choruses to elaborate hymns to cultural music standards to even some chant. The vast majority of the songs were based in Scripture, word for word, with the citation listed next to the copyright.
I suspect that, thru the years, a lot of amateur musicians rose to the challenge of playing for liturgies/prayer groups, and many of these musicians found the more complicated music too daunting. This is unfortunate... but it is reflective of a larger issue, that affects "Glory & Praise" and that whole Haugen/Haas thing.
Throughout the years, I believe that the National Service Committee of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (working in conjunction with the Bishops), as well as institutions like Steubenville (starting a Sacred Music program), and major publishers, have begun to understand the need to preserve our Catholic musical heritage and integrate that into the liturgy.
Hammerbrecher...
Yes.
Comment #100!
I think that the discussion focuses a bit too much on recent history, although that is important for understanding things. I think the fundamental questions are not being adressed:
1) Does music effect the soul (Pysche, in Greek, can be read as Soul or Mind)
2) If so, do different styles of music effect the soul in characteristically different ways
3) What are those ways
4) What is the Mass/Liturgy and what does it seek to achieve vis-a-vis the faithful
5) Are the characteristic effects of different styles of music (see #3) conducive to that end
My guess is that most people would say Yes to (1) and (2); although perhaps not for in our we do not take music particularly seriously as a moral issue. (Most moral complaints focus on the lyrics rather than the music per se) More disagreements will come at (3) [where I think Plato is helpful for setting the stage] and (4). The answer to (5) will follow from how one responds to (3) and (4). Only after (5) is answer, can we begin to ask the practical pastoral questions
But I think/hope that this is a helpful way to organize our thinkingabout these things.
The basic problem is that we are talking about two fundamentally different and incompatible approaches to the mass. Neither is going away, and there is no way to integrate them. The logical conclusion: we need to learn to live with two radically different masses and each side must leave the other be. The developments at AMU are not encouraging because they are indicative of a tendency on the part of many charismatics not to be content to have their own masses but to be inclined to suppress a traditional alternative. It is precisely this inclination to suppress that angers so many traditionalists.
Reluctant...
If the charismatics really wanted to suppress traditionalists, then Fr Fessio never would have been hired to begin with.
David L Alexander:
The "charismatic" phenomenon is supposedly based on the "gifts of the Holy Spirit." The Catechism of the Catholic Church identifies those gifts. Pray tell, is speaking in tongues among them? No, it is not. Nor were "charisms" of this ilk well received by St Irenaeus in writing his "Treatise Against Heresies." He commented on a similar phenomenon in his day (late second to early third century), and even identified a leading proponent by name (Marcus).
Or Msgr. Knox's Enthusiasm.
The previous comments seemt to highlight the need for the link between Catholic spirituality and a proper (i.e. traditional) understanding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to gratuitous graces) to be brought to bear on our understanding of the liturgy, and the relationship of the emotions to authentic Christian spirituality (which will help us understand not only the Church's preference for certain kinds of music, but also its prohibition of other kinds).
oops--the first part should have read
"Or one can read Msgr. Knox's Enthusiasm."
Kathy:
I appreciate your ministry and where you're coming from. And you're absolutely right that you can't change things in an instant. But I guess the worry is that there's a big cohort in ministry who have no desire to actually look at the docs, think with the mind of the Church, etc, and are just stuck in imitation of protestant P& W.
I have different experiences than yours. I've been at huge youth liturgies in which maybe a third of the kids sang the PW stuff,but when a simple chant (in English) was intoned...that percentage jumped way up. MOreover, their focus shifted, at it was perceptible, and good.
Just one word to finish off this comment:
Taize.
Not exactly a movement of old people.
As a former AMC (Ave Maria College) person, I'd respectfully suggest that Fr. Fessio's firing had very little to do with liturgical issues. "Charismatics" and "traditionalists" co-existed fine at AMC. Tom Monaghan and Nick Healy may not be the sharpest crayons in the box. But they're not so principled as to recklessly damage cash-flow by firing their Golden Boy over guitars and healing services. No way. The fact that Fessio was re-hired, now MORE free to advocate personal views as Loose-Cannon-in-Residence, speaks to the implausibility of the dispute being over things liturgical.
"ecumenical movement" = protestants in catholic clothing = pentecostal/charismatics.
The beginning of the movement is problematic, the songs are protestant, the hand raising is pentecostal.
Sorry Nick, this stuff does not belong anywhere near the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Hysteria is not part of Catholic Tradition, period.
Meg, at WYD Cologne, the only thing that everyone sang was Taize.
Kathy:
Exactly. Chant is very appealing and in that form, simple to sing.
While I agree that P&W does not often reflect the sacred atmosphere one desires for the Mass, I have to say that I am a bit taken aback by some of the comments here.
P&W found on internet radio stations like Catholic Jukebox may not belong in the Mass, but it has a place. If we simply give our youth a choice of Gregorian chant, or pop music, they will continue to choose the pop music, and the filth that accompanies it.
The goal we must adopt is to reach people where they are, and bring them to Christ. If we only stick with traditional music (which was new at one time...), then we do not reach those who are not already where we are.
Again, I am not advocating that we include P&W in the Liturgy, just make sure we do not make blanket condemnations of the genre even if they sound like poor covers of Evangelical bands. I would suggest that the former Evangelicals who say that listen to some artists like Matt Maher, or Ceili Rain, etc. Not all Catholic bands cover Evangelical hits, and most of the top Evangelical bands cover each other as well.
Peace
I maintain that, in our discourse, a distinction MUST be made between charismatic catholics and pentecostal catholics. Pentecostal catholics speak in tongues. Charismatic catholics don't, necessarily.
Certainly Holy Mass is no place for ANYONE'S individuality to be expressed. Holy Mass is an expression of the whole Church- not our individual spiritualities.
If you want to pray with charism, please do. (And pray for me while you're at it). But leave it at home. The norms for prayer at Holy Mass have already been established.
If you want to "pray in tongues" (which I'm highly suspicious of, btw, coming from a protestant pentecostal background), feel free. But not at Holy Mass. Again, the norms for prayer at Holy Mass have already been established.
Corporate worship precludes our personal inclinations in light of a greater, more awesome worship.
I don't know how anyone else feels, but when I am at Holy Mass- in the presence of Christ, literally- there's no way I could possibly ever feel worthy enough to make the show about me, and not him.
Subject: Holy Thursday Seder Meal
Dear Ave Maria Community,
After the Holy Thursday Mass, April 5, at 8pm, there will be a Seder Meal in the Ark of the Covenant Cafeteria. The invitation is limited to Ave Maria Students, Faculty, Staff, and their families. This Seder Meal will be a Christianized celebration of the Passover meal Christ ate throughout his life and for the last time with the apostles in the upper room. This is NOT a Communion service, nor is it meant to be. We are remembering the Jewish tradition so that we can grow closer to the Jewish Carpenter who gives his life for our salvation.
A full meal is incorporated into the celebration in addition to the ritual foods eaten. Students on the meal plan can eat the Seder meal as their Thursday night dinner. Faculty, Staff, & Families are asked for a free-will-offering of $5 per adult and $3 per child to help defer the cost.
Please RSVP outside Student Life in the Ark BY WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2007.
Parents: When you sign up, please include the name of your youngest child that could read the "four questions" in the Seder Meal. A copy of what he/she would be reading is below. Traditionally, this part is given to the youngest attendee.
Any questions/comments, please see Ruth Moses or Donna Rittereiser in the Chaplain’s office. Thank you.
The Four Questions:
Question #1
Why is this night different from all other nights? On all other nights, we eat either leavened or unleavened bread. Why, on this night, do we eat only unleavened bread?
Question #2
On all other nights we eat all kinds of herbs. Why, on this night, do we eat especially bitter herbs?
Question #3
On all other nights we do not dip herbs in any condiment.
Why, on this night, do we dip them in salt water and haroses?
Question #4
On all other nights, we eat without special festivities.
Why, on this night, do we hold this Passover service?"
Wow, I'm getting exhausted reading the back and forth here and the variety of views expressed. Although I did not originally feel this way, I'm beginning to think Sacrosanctum Concilium (or at least the way it was implemented) was not such a good idea after all. Prior to the Council, we essentially had one Rite, in Latin, with Gregorian Chant and Polphony. Maybe not everyone was comfortable with it, but at least there was nothing to fight about, it was the way it was, in contrast to what I'm reading here today. This is supposed to be a sacrament of unity. If folks on a site like NLM have such a divergence of opinion on these matters it might be better for the life of the Church to restore the Classical Rite, so some of us at least have time for charitable work again instead of fighting liturgical wars. Tom
Okay, re: Brian Mershon's recent comment about the seder meal--That's what I was talking about a while ago when we were discussing Sac Car.
11. Jesus thus brings his own radical novum to the ancient Hebrew sacrificial meal. FOR US CHRISTIANS, THAT MEAL NO LONGER NEED BE REPEATED. As the Church Fathers rightly say, figura transit in veritatem: the foreshadowing has given way to the truth itself. The ancient rite has been brought to fulfilment and definitively surpassed by the loving gift of the incarnate Son of God.
Why did BXVI say that? Why is it being repeated at AMU?
TJM:
But Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't mention anything even remotely resembling the arguments we're having today! It specifically states that the rite has to grow organically! How in the world can the charismatic-type masses POSSIBLY grow organically from the Classical Rite? I would maintain that this isn't SC's fault at all. Do you really think that Bl. John XXIII, or Paul VI, really intended mass to look like that?
"We are remembering a Jewish Tradition so that we can grow closer to a Jewish Carpenter who gave his life for our salvation."
Hmmmmm.......how exactly can one get closer to that "Jewish Carpenter" than through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?
I don't like this, not one bit. This smacks of Evangelical Protestantism. For the record, I'm very interested in the Jewish Liturgy, and love reading about the Passover Seder within the context of the Last Supper, and how the Jewish Liturgy foreshadows the New Law.
However, there is a difference between that and celebrating, as Catholics, the Old Law. This is quite simply returning to the "works of the law," the yoke of the law, IMHO. I leave final judgment to Holy Mother Church, but until then, I say that this is just plain wrong.
I will also go out on a limb and say that it is particularly SCANDALOUS
sorry--got cut off in last post.
I was going to say that it is particularly SCANDALOUS that such a Sedar Meal is going to be celebrated by Catholics on HOLY THURSDAY, AFTER the mass which commemorates the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. We commemorate on Holy Thursday the passing away of the Old Rites, and the emergence of the new. This does the exact opposite. After celebrating Holy Mass, these people are returning to the Old Law. This is just not right.
Obviously emotions are high.
I will close the thread, and would ask people to simply reflection upon the liturgical theology, books and law and look at how anyone and everyone, regardless of their private spirituality, might properly manifest that in a hermeneutic of continuity.
We are about to embark on the sacred Triduum. There are divisions about these matters. This is part of the fruit of the liturgical confusion we've had to bear these past decades -- one will note, for example, that such doesn't exist in the Eastern Churches.
That is our reality now, and it won't always be easy or painless to work through the matters. Though we must indeed pursue it in both charity and fidelity to the mind of the Church.
Let's put this aside for now, re-think, and focus on holy week.
test
While disputes over the liturgy at AMU might have had some role to play in Fr. Fessio's firing, they were not decisive. The truth is more prosaic. Fr. Fessio thinks it best that AMU grow slowly and organically and maintain high academic standards. Unfortunately not everyone in the administration shares this view right now. But the matter will be worked out in time and Fr. Fessio's vision will most likely prevail. So everyone should just relax.
Commenting by HaloScan
