Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Beautifully stated. You've nailed the essential problem with "accessible" liturgy. Thanks.
Often the celebration of Mass does not engage the senses as well as it should.
Most of the time there is nothing to see. Processions are sloppy if there is even a procession to speak of. The way the various folks involved in the liturgy carry themselves often lacks a much-needed stateliness.
Many churches are ugly or have been whitewashed.
Churches often don't smell like churches any more. Incense is rarely used in most places.
And, as Jeffrey notes, the proclamation of the text in many places leaves a lot to be desired. Singing the Mass (all of it, including the readings) would truly be a feast for the ears.
I should add that the more the proclamation of the text feels like a performance (e.g. frustrated Shakespeare actor as lector), the more difficult it is for the content of the text to reach the listener.
It would also help if the homily were, as a general rule, to be limited to no more than five minutes. This would impose a useful discipline on the preacher, and encourage the congregation to listen.
We all know priests who we would willingly except from this rule, but they are, unfortunately, in a minority. I prefer to attend masses with no or little music in order to avoid distress, unless I happen to know the music is well done. So too, I prefer to attend parish masses where the average homily time is short, unless I happen to know the preacher won't bore the congregation witless, or ramble to the point of embarrassment; neither of these eventualities is a spur to our engagement with the Divine.
I hope that doesn't sound too world-weary, but for any priest reading this: it's a cry from the heart.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
I agree 100%. Few people realize that, as a monk of Solesmes pointed out to me this summer, the first part of the Mass that should be chanted is the very first words, "In the name of the Father..." In my few months as a deacon, I have always chanted the Kyrie (in English) on Sundays, as well as the dialogue before and after the Gospel, and the dismissal. The people love it, and many of them have told me how much more "spiritual" it makes the Mass. The sung Gospel gets similar reactions when it is done--and many people have never heard it done in the Ordinary use.
Today, as I was conducting a baptism, I sang the prayer for blessing the font. I got the distinct sense that at that moment, amid the noise and confusion that can often prevail at a baptism, everyone's attention was suddenly grabbed, and they realized something special was going on here.
I was thinking about things this morning as we sat through a Mass at the local student parish (we slept in after a trip to the Houston museum yesterday, so we had to go to another parish). The music was from a Gather hymnal printed way back in the 80's. It had all the inclusive language, mood music, lyrics directed at the fellows across the aisle instead of the Almighty, etc..... I was gritting my teeth and lifting up this penance when a quote from Stravinskas came to mind...."
all the problems in the Church represent her unpaid bills."
In context, Stravinskas was referring to the lack of catechesis in South America being followed up by a mass exodus to Pentecostalism. However, I think a parallel application can be made to music in our churches.
In the 70's and 80's when parishes decided to ditch the musical patrimony of the Church in favor of folk Masses, guitars, bongos, melodramatic lyrics, and maracas, people pinched their noses and tried to deal with it. After a while, many gave up and left. Some fled to Anglicanism, others to Protestantism, and still others to atheism. Those that stayed tried to "stay the course." Gregorian chant, organ music, and polyphany went into hibernation.
Now, fast forward to today. Many in my generation have no idea what Vatican II was about. All they know is that much of the music at Mass stinks. So, parish musicians go out on their own to find whatever feels good. They often run across non-denominational praise-and-worship groups that are sincere in their faith, so the well-meaning Catholic adopts this rather than the sappy drivel they have heard for years. Though this P&W music is better than G&P, it still falls short of the mark when it comes to the vision of the Second Vatican Council (and the Tradition of the Church). However, since it is "better", it is seen as a breakthrough.
All the while, the Propers, chants, organ pieces, polyphonic motets, and many other inspiring pieces from centuries past lie dormant and neglected.
Now the problem lies in convincing these "discoverer of authentic spirituality" that there is something better, something uniquely Catholic out there that is better. You also have the problem of convincing the People that something better exists.
All this because we didn't step up to the plate and be responsible with the musical tradition our Fathers passed into our care.
A great topic, worthy of continued exploration.
I don't see this as a product of the ordinary use. Boredom was widely felt before Vatican II, but low Masses tended to be fast and you could get it over with quickly, to put a coarse point on it.
I do think that there were many who assumed the conciliar reforms would in someway allow either the banishment or at least elision of boredom. They were deeply mistaken.
Boredom is a function of the people and the culture, not the liturgy.
In the First World, passive entertainment became the dominant trend in the generation of the wireless radio and the nickolodeon, almost a century ago. It's been a downhill race since then, and postwar prosperity and technology accelerated the race mightily.
The chief problem is the widespread assumption that feeling is a reliable indicator of spiritual resonance. That assumption certainly has roots in the reformed churches that long dominated American Christian culture, but it is not entirely alien to the Catholic experience and in fact the two are not entirely unrelated, either.
This is primarily an issue of catechesis and preaching. But it is a rare American Catholic pastor who is willing to confront the issues involves on a sustained basis. In my experience, the courageous exceptions to this rule are not neatly correlated to positions along the spectrum of liturgical practice; actually, far from it. Another reason why preferences in liturgical practice are not well correlated to other things they are often assumed to correlate well to.
Indeed, one must be very careful in the reform of the reform to caution enthusiasts to take internal inventory of their expectations in this regard and change their mindfulness if the inventory indicates it would be wise. The issue of boredom can be very vexing for those who have a highly cultivated aesthetic sensibility - it's one of the big undersides of cultivating it....
All of what people have wrote are true but they are merely simptoms of a much greater problem. "presiders" have been "folksing" their way around the liturgy for so long that its second nature to them now. To get them to even quit the rambling asides greetings and extemporanious "introductions" (let alone deliver a short well constructed homily)seems almost impossible. The resistance to formal liturgies well done and rehearsed borders on the insane. I cannot tell you the last time I went to mass without at least some "spirit filled" extemporanious introduction to some part of the liturgy. Wonderful prelude, maby even the gregorian introit followed by a great hymn played and sung well then father saying "good morning everyone" etc etc followed by a sermonette on the readings followed by a clunsy segue into the penitential rite. By then the whole effect is one of...you guessed it...bored disinterest.
Litrugy needs to be rediscovered as an artform. What made the great Shakespearean actors great was not that they improvised, but that they allowed the forms (ie, script) to be the structure that framed their performance.
"It is a first step, not the whole answer."
Very true. The liturgy at my parish is very typical for suburban Western parish - some ad libbing by the priests, the typical 4-hymn sandwich, an army of EMHCs.
While there is a decided bias against introducing the extraordinary rite, I have seen some attempt by the priests to add some elements chant or singing: typically the opening prayer, post communion prayer, the doxology, etc.
It is really jarring to have the doxology chanted and answered with the Amen from the Mass of Creation. Please, no mixing and matching like that!
I suspect that how poorly or well a liturgy is celebrated, depends on the liturgical training--perhaps a certain 'school of thought', theology, and mindset of the priest. I've noticed a much greater reverence from priests under the age of 50. The older, some retired 'but still helping out in the parish' priests, seem to be the worst offenders in the area of 'folkseyness' and other 'cute' or trite phraseology--definitely an indication of some deficiency in training somewhere.
Your website is a great service. I generally agree with you.
I usually go to an indult Tridentine (High) Mass where I live. I was introduced to Gregorian chant now some almost 20 years ago during Benediction where I first learned the Pangea Lingua.
However, I think there is a tendency of some in the comment section here, and even friends of mine, to degrade (perhaps too strong of a word) or at least be condascending to others in the Catholic Church that do not have the same knowledge or opinion of music. I realize that some of this is not opinion but actual Motu Propio(s) like that of St. Pope Pius X on Music or a theology that should be reflected in music concerning sacrifice, reverence, and transcendence--and again I agree.
Certainly, part of the issue, at least in the United States is a cultural Protestantism, especially after Vatican II that influenced liturgy and music.
I am not speaking here of blasphemous or irreverent liturgy here. I am not speaking of the Clown Masses, priests as Barney or that sort--However, I am speaking about well intentioned, and even sometimes well done for the genre of Masses, priests, music directors and choirs etc. who do some "modern" "innovations" within the context of a valid Mass and proper reverence.
I also think that there should not be altar girls (don't want to go into that here)--and that Eucharistic ministers or Extraordinary Ministers are out of control at least vis a vis the sense of a unique sacrifial priesthood and the Real Presence.
BUT, I do want to speak about music here and uncharitable attitudes and words that do not bring more people to a more traditional and introspective way of doing things specifically in the liturgy.
I come to you making these comments as a convert from families that had roots in Protestant traditions specifically (but not limited to) Lutheranism and Methodism. Again, I am fully Catholic now and also fairly traditional in my devotional praxis (Tridentine Rite primarily, Benediction, and I try to use the Dietrich von Hildenbrand Liturgy and Personality as a guide although it is heavy reading. Again, I truly "enjoy" Gregorian Chant as well as Classical Music (I have some limited training).
HOWEVER, I think that many "traditional" Protestant hymns that I grew up with are very spiritual and to many even helpful with spiritual life and growth.
These same hymns are now found in many if not most (at least current) Catholic hymnals. There is almost a hatred and disdain by many Catholic "Traditionalists" including here for any music that smacks of this, without trying to convert or convince or demonstrate the beauty of Chant or Palestrina etc. People like my mother who sings in her choir get immeasurable joy, and joy that I believe is real and directed to God from singing in a choir that would not meet to the standards here on a number of levels (many of them valid).
I don't know if my conversion would of been as quick (although it was
Well said!
It is good to see that things are moving in the right direction. There is a problem with the Novus Ordo, and it is because it does not express the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
The Traditional Latin Mass however, with its broader wealth of reference to what the Church has always taught, together with the evident reverence of the rubrics and other beautiful externals such as the incense and the chant, is a rite more conducive to prayer.
I am part of a church choir, singing the polyphony and the gregorian, and I am sure as a layman there is no better way to attend Mass.
Great post Liam too. Boredom is partially subjective. I have had great fun memorizing the latin names of medicinal herbs. Counterstrike however is boring for me (well, now it is!)
If we could change people's attitude to the Mass, if we could convey by our own sincere love for the Liturgy that same sense of love to others, we would not have the problems we face now with people feeling that there is "something wrong".
The boredom that Jeffrey is talking about is not the aesthetic boredom of a snob but a dissatisfaction with the mundane:
at Mass we are in the presence of a miracle. We enter into a heavenly space outside of time and physically and spiritually experience what is impossible outside of liturgy.
God comes to the everyday to meet us, but many parishes for whatever reason have been at pains to emphasize the "everyday" part of this to the point that one completely loses the sense that it's God Himself who comes into it.
I agree with Ian. A protestant service is about what the minister has to say. The mass has a homily, but it's there to support the rest. It is, after all, subordinate to what comes after and always will be.
5 mins is fine. More than that usually IS rambling anyway. We all know exceptions, but most Catholic priests are not good orators anyway. They're not generally trained well for it.
Um, and there's an important distinction that's not being made here.
There really are 3 things going on when it comes to boredom:
1) Many parishes have boring masses because they're poorly done and bland. As you say, it's said over and over that's how to make them accessible. They're accessible all right and that's pretty much all they are. The music is bad because it's jingly, unpracticed &/or offkey; the homily is bad because it's long and rambling, the priest is "winging it," etc.
2) Another thing that can cause boredom is letting one's faith drift til it's impossible to pay attention because one doesn't care, or alternately, getting so angry over the nonsense that goes on in mass that it overshadows everything else. Really, the fault for this should be shared with the boors who inflict the NO nonsense on people. I firmly believe they will answer for it at the gates of purgatory.
3) The other thing that can cause "boredom" is totally different. At times in the spiritual life, it is quite normal to become "numb" or "insensible," so to speak, to prayer and mass and it can be quite distressing.
About 1) find a better more beautiful mass. About 2) find a more beautiful mass and put some effort into your spiritual life. About 3), well, one has to trust God with that one.
Telling 2 & 3 apart isn't too difficult. Explain to yourself alone, honestly, indepth and outloud what's bothering you exactly, and you'll know which you have.
Yes...I really find the new mass boring...its because on a non verbal symbolic level its uncomfortable. Like getting into a lift (elevator)with everyone facing sideways.Let alone the words words words. I am a teacher and I know people switch off after 20 minutes of continuous talk. Just odd. I went to a 1962 Missa Cantata yesterday. Latin very badly pronounced said with a horrible Australian accent. The singing of the Priest yuck. Rubrics all wrong. No bowing in the confiteor and not facing the congregation for "orate fratres" etc etc etc. We had no way of knowing what the readings were because they were not read before the sermon in English. However there was the pipe organ playing small pieces and it just elevated my whole mood. The choir really dragged the antiphons right out. You know mens and womans voices trailing. Despite this it was so much better than the new Mass....
Going back to the topic of the singing celebrant, recall that Musicam Sacram (the 1967? instruction) gives the first step of singing the Mass as sung responses between priest and congregation. Sung Mass needs to build on this. The only response to a SUNG "Dominus vobiscum" or "The Lord be with you" is a SUNG response back.
Masses sung with beautiful motets, hymns, organ pieces, etc, but with the prayer dialogues recited between priest and congregation strike me odd.
Indeed, David. A related oddity is the Mass in which the doxology is the only prayer that's chanted. I've seen that countless times, including once at an ordination Mass, but I've yet to understand what the thinking is.
I avoid certain masses, the singers think they are performers and sing too high for humans. I pray for some incense, bells, Latin, Greek for time to time and servers that stop yawning and figiting all the time with pink popular plastic shoes. The homilies are good but the music is just sooooo 1970s and with songs that are dumbed down and outright silly. So its not boring but irritating. Luckily the Exultation of the Cross is only a few weeks away.
Please spare us the sung canon. The canon should be silent.
"You can easily compare the difference. Read this text aloud: 'Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.'"
Sorry I think it sounds better when the text is read than when it is sung. A whisper here and there can communicate a great sense of mystery.
Is Mass boring?
The greatest event that takes place on earth each day, boring/
Yes.
I have been taking my old missal from grade school to pray the old Mass and that helps. But our Masses have protestant music and bad music and songs about ourselves. Our local priests preach themselves--their vacations, their feelings, their whatever. What they are not preaching is the Gospel so Mass is often something to be endured. I am sorry to say this. But, of course, with Mass the gathering of the assembly at the table to give thanks...as father told us, then the emphasis is on entertainment and jokes and so forth and since there is really only 'corporate sin', we are all just fine, thank you.
And our young people leave in droves.
The catchy protestant songs do not grab their hearts and they do not know Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament.
My priest sings the canon on big occasions (Easter and Christmas), and it really is supremely beautiful. The other advantage to singing the prayers and dialogs is that, as many have observed, you can't mumble a sung response. When the priest says "the Lord be with you", you can easily respond with "mrrrbu." When he SINGS it at you, you're left to either put up or shut up, there's no middle ground. It's a complete change to the atmosphere of the Mass, and I advocate, even in impractical situations, that the responses ought to ALWAYS be sung at Sunday Masses.
My post got cut off.
The bottom line:
For some of us that converted from Protestantism--while fully embracing the Catholic Church--the very negative view of any hymns or devotions of our youth or past are not necessarily healthy.
Also, the African American community (Black) seem to have a legitimate cultural expression that is more exuberant and includes clapping of hands and body movement.
I wrote more but it was cut off.
We should want people to learn better Liturgy and Sacred Music because it is true and taught by the Church and not just by complaining or insulting former or different forms of worship (even if they are in error in part or whole).
Excellent point, Gavin.
john
Also, the African American community (Black) seem to have a legitimate cultural expression that is more exuberant and includes clapping of hands and body movement.
Squaresville. Pentecostals (White) pick up live rattlesnakes.
By the way, having lived for nine years in Louisiana, I've heard a good deal of "African American gospel music," and I can tell you, it's just as much a mixed bag as anything else.
I don't think anyone here really dismisses the aesthetic or spiritual value of the best hymns of Church protestors. It's just that singing them is not what the Church asks us to do as a first choice during the Mass.
And as for the poorly-written protest hymns, there's plenty of poorly-written orthodox hymns to go around, too.
Yes, very, very boring and oftentimes trite for the following reasons:
1) Father "Entertainer";
2) Bloviating Cantor; and
3) Orientation of the Mass (versus populum).
If Father followed the texts and the rubrics, if the cantor would serve as a facilitator rather than an emcee, and the priest celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist towards the liturgical east, the boredom just might begin to evaporate. And notice, I didn't even begin to speak about the style and type of music. Great music would just be the icing on the cake. Tom
TJM
It might for you. But hardly likely for many others, where those factors are not the rudders of their boredom.
Why not offier it up? You have to experience the Mass as the Holy Sacrifice that it is no matter the liturgy's failings. Granted you should do whatever you can to improve the situation. But whether or not you are bored I think lies with you.
You are responsible for keeping your eyes and heart fixed on Jesus in spite of how badly the Mass may be conducted. St. Francis of Assisi once kissed the feet of a priest who was notoriously immoral, because the priest had the inestimable privilege of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ. The Mass offers us the inestimable privilege of offering our worship to the great God who gave us this great gift of His Son's immolation for us.
When I relapsed as a Catholic, after falling away in 1963, I came back in 1975 or so. I came back to the Church because it was the only place to find the truth, and then I found that Church wasn't there any more. Dismayed, I spent 30 years going to Mass and church activities and trying to establish community with other Catholics, before I could find others who believed in the truths passed down from the apostles, except Pope John Paul II, and he wasn't in my local diocese :-).
I mention this because I was given an insight one day in a Fremont CA parish church, one of the ones that look like a motel from the outside, waiting for confession and upset about all that was spoiled and the unlovingness of the congregation. And I realized (must have been God prompting me) that what everyone else was doing wrong, the gay and flirtatious priests, and all the bad teachings, the bad liturgy and even the sacriligeous acts, such as the eucharistic ministers cavalierly pouring large amounts of the Precious Blood down the drain, none of that, however horrifying should be my focus. I gazed at the crucifix and realized that my place was up there on the Cross with Him.
We can offer our sufferings in the liturgy as in any other place for our sins and for the salvation of all who are in error in these and other matters.
The Mass is mandatory. It is a miracle. Our sufferings are to be welcomed. St. Rose of Lima wrote that if we knew how valuable sufferings were we would seek them out and she is not the only saint to express the salvific value of suffering.
A newly baptized woman told me Sat. that she knows a woman who attends Mass at her parish even though she loves the traditional rite, because she feels called to offer the experience up for the benefit of the parish. We could all try that!
Liam, You must not pay attention to what others are saying on this website because the thoughts I expressed are not unique from the comments of other posters. I note you have an unattractive habit of personalizing your remarks which is unfortunate, thus detracting from what otherwise might be valid points you are making.That's too bad. Tom
"We don't usually hear music that is "unplugged" and created by the human voice alone unaided by electronics."
This is one of the most important things we can do in our churches - to dismantle our elaborate sound systems. God will not strain to hear our voices without them. For the hard of hearing, pass out personal headsets. For the rest of us, its a far better thing to not perfectly hear every word than to hear it reproduced. The unaided human voice is truly what we don't hear much of anymore - especially in public settings. Perhaps if the church building is too large for every to hear the homily, readings or prayers, perhaps it is simply too large. If the building is constructed in a way that is not conducive to carrying the human voice, it should be modified.. There are reasons our (great)grandfather's churches were built in particular ways - so that what needed to be heard could be. There is nothing more glorious than song and prayer lifted up to the honor of God than unaided the voice of man.
(For some of the same reasons, the organ [the king of instruments] is particularly suited for church, as its sound is produced from moving air - nothing is struck, plucked, hammered or hit - it is in harmony with the human voice.)
Wow ShawnS, that's a great explanation of why the organ is like the voice. And yet, wouldn't your description also apply to the trumpet or saxophone? I guess the "harmony with the human voice" point would be decisive here.
I don't have a problem with the trumpet or other instruments used appropriately at mass. They can be sublimely beautiful, as can orchestrated masses. But save it for a special occasion to bring out the brass or strings. The organ is, or should be, the basic instrument to be used in church, when it is appropriate to use one.
Appropriately voiced and played, the organ really supports the full singing of the choir and congregation. Rather than an amplified accompaniment, the organ (even a small one) adds its voice to ours so that the sum is greater than the parts.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
