Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
So when are these so called "liturgicists" gonna be removed permanently from their positions?!!. This was not the Pope's fault!!. You could see the only piece he liked was the one by Placido Domingo. What an embarissment like I knew it would be when we read about the selection weeks ago!.
Perfectly and eloquently stated, Shawn!
Thank you for putting into exalted prose the depth of disgust the rest of us feel.
And I sincerely hope you are correct about the definitive result that today's catastrophe will have for the future.
Jeff, it is not multiculturalism. It is aculturalism - a lack of anything the word "culture" has ever meant Although it was universal music; anyone around the world could listen and tell it was horrible.
Thank You for this thoughtful post. I am new to this website (blog) but really needed an outlet today after watching with embarrassment what went down at Nationals Stadium. You see it as do I... this is a watershed for liturgical music run afoul... and as I could easily forget what happened today and move on, I am worried for the future. How will all this effect what I do in my parish each week? Will there be changes mandated from the council of bishops or even the Vatican?
More constructively, how can this be turned to good? By doing what we've always done: presenting an alternative, the REAL way of doing music in Mass. How can chant not be more churchly than that? We should be ready, when people say "well if that's so bad, what would YOU have done?" to point out that we would only do what the Church requires of us and not presume to know better. That is our opportunity here, which I am glad to see aristotle taking up.
Ditto to what Gavin said.
This blog is a gathering point for many leaders of musical groups committed to the Pope's Marshall Plan to revive an ethereal, transcendent ethos of the Mass.
Rather than focus on what was abominable....rather than worry about what may be foisted on us "since the Pope did it in Washington"....rather than focus on the negative, this should give us hope. When we continue to strive for excellence in music, liturgy, vestment-fabrication, architecture, etc.....the world will see that the Catholic identity that we subscribe to is good, true, and beautiful...and they will want it.
Thanks for the article Jeffrey. It was cathartic.
"...rather than worry about what may be foisted on us "since the Pope did it in Washington"...."
I hadn't even thought of that!
Very well stated and excellent post.
It was hideous. It was vulgar. It was cheap Broadway. All brought to you by our brilliant American bishops. There is no hope in sight. I have said it before and I say ti again: The Novus Ordo cannot be fixed. It generates and promotes vulgarity.
How disgusting that it could be so bad as to make the "mass of creation" seem slightly bearable. The whole thing was an ilicit shamefull mess. God have mercy upon the am-church.
I was in a meeting when the Papal mass began. When I was in the car, I immediately turned on the radio, and the first thing I heard was the Mass of Creation "Christ has died..." I nearly drove off the road.
As Fr Neuhaus said on EWTN after the mass, "what a mish mash" of music. Well said.
And, really, as Shawn said, this misguided and ill-informed caricature of "multiculturalism" is, in my opinion, really just racist (intentional or not).
I think that's the message that should be repeated to the American bishops: "These caricatures are racist!" Believe me, they'll start listening when they think they're being viewed as politically incorrect...
Excellent post, Jeffrey.
Now, the first thing that needs to be done, politely, respectfully, and with the tradition and documents of the Church behind us, is to make a mighty stink. These people need to understand that they don't own the field any more, that everything they do will be examined and that all the shabby stuff, not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated, will be exposed relentlessly. They need to start looking over their shoulders and know we are watching and taking notes.
Secondly, of course, we need to present the alternative as the beautiful, holy, dignified and unifying thing that it is.
I think today may very well have been a tipping point. Let's all tip away.
I propose we send bags on nuts to the AB of Washington and the USCCB to let them know what we think of this nightmare.
Sometimes I wish Benedict lived up to his reputation as a brute and as God's enforcer, sadly, and thankfully, he is holier and more prudent than I.
When I watched the broadcast from the stadium all I wanted to do was cry because it was much worse than what I expected. Really painful indeed.
jeffry
excellent post and truly cathartic.
One point Id like to make...
A year before Benedict was made pope, I had a discussion with a priest friend of mine. He stated that Ratzingers "reform of the reform" was really a fringe movement thaty would have little bearing on mainstream catholcism. Now, as a result of our pope comming tio america, the mainstream is beginning to realize that the emporer has no clothes and that most contemporary catholic music simply doesnt work. the difference between this mass and a JPII mass wasnt the music-it was in the REACTION to the music.
Im hearing phrases such as the heurmeneutic of rapture discussed at NPR!!!!
I think Jeffry really hit it with hise comment about how this mass will be seen as the beginning of the end. Truly the folks responcible for this music wont be dealing with the rubber stamp praise of papel liturgies past. If this can generate honest real dialogue about a true reform of the reform then this can only be a good thing.
the progressives time is indeed over.
Jeffrey Tucker wrote the piece...
Anyways, it is with shame that I read this post. Not shame for the bravery of this piece, but of the "performance Mass" that the world witnessed. Ugghhh.
It's simply unfortunate though, that the Pope will probably not ever make a statement "condemning the Nationals Mass I had to sit through." I'd love it if he gave an admonishment, but the reality is, what's done is done, and he can't really comment on the travesty of worship that was witnessed today.
It is definitely true that we can learn alot from this experience. But in the minds of the so called "expert lay liturgists," they won...they got the mass they have been imposing on millions of Catholics to be "performed" on the Papal world's stage, so to speak. So, I feel that while we've learned something, to the run of the mill Catholic who's always had to sit through this drivel (and still go to mass) it's another mass that they have witnessed and will continue to winess for some time to come. I hate it as much as the next person (on this blog) but it aches me that right now, I feel a little helpless. The pope's statments and writings on Liturgy in the past seem to fall on deaf ears. The change will come slowly, but God willing I hope that it will continue to come!
God bless you all and may our patience be rewarded with lovely, orthodox, reverent, and respectful Liturgy.
But, then again...we have the wonderful program that, in stark comparison to this abomination, will, praise God, be offered in the Archdiocese of NY this Sunday. One can only judge BAD TASTE in light of beauty.
Now, if only they had managed to leave out the Festival Canticle (which the Missouri Synod lutherans use in place of the Gloria in their service...) at the end...:)
Very well written analysis. It's becoming plainer and plainer to me, that "progressive liturgists" don't give a tinker's damn about Sacrosanctum Concilium. They are a bunch of navel gazers. The liturgy is "all about them." By the way, Wuerl has proven to be a disastrous appointment. Tom
Brilliant, Jeffrey, thank you very much. Let's hope it really is this turn of the tide.
Not surprisingly, Jeffrey Tucker has encapsulated presciently the essential travesty of the music in the Washington Papal Mass. This debased, neutered version of Catholic liturgy must be opposed to its face, not just derided behind semi-closed E-doors or simply denounced from the sidelines.
Church Music Association of America members in the Archdiocese of Washington knew from the first announcement of the papal itenerary that kind of music would entirely rule the day. The structures of ignorance, incompetence, and subversion which fueled these well-placed fears are those needing reform and resection. Anything less leaves the malignancy alive and all too well entrenched.
I have not seen the encore mass on EWTN, but I may not watch for fear. Sad to hear these comments about a Papal Mass that should have been a beautiful, and inspiring moment in American Catholic history.
Shawn, I think you and the other commentators here need to take a serious look at yourselves. I think YOU are an impediment to the changes you desire.
First of all, make your own case for what you find beautiful and spiritually rewarding and stop invoking the Pope's name. The Pope did not just get off the plane and find every set and decided. There was detailed review by the Holy See of every aspect of the trip including the Mass and the Pope had every opportunity to take pro-active measures to suit himself.
In fact, the program booklet for the Mass (I was there) called for the Holy Father to chant the Sanctus yet he elected to recite it.
Second, there is no evidence that there was any "top-down" imposition of forced multi-culturalism in the way you suggest. As a Washingtonian, it was clear to me that the music drew from a fair cross-section of the parish choirs and they sang pieces they use in their worship. For good or ill, this is simply what you get if you embrace the parish communities.
I'm not making any defense of the music. I'm suggesting that those who (falsely) invoke the Pope's name are trying to promote their position through top down authority and they give further evidence of this mindset when they assume anything to the contrary of their views is also imposed by some authority.
True liturgical renewal will only come about when you and others like you give up on an imposition of certain liturgical standards by the authorities (which the authorities themselves know would be pastorally disasterous) and actually make yourself part of a local Christian community and patiently deal with real people as brothers and sisters in Christ, helping them to (most likely, very slowly) come to see beauty and spiritual reward in certain liturgical forms. And maybe in turn, they will teach you something about love, pastoral care, fellowship and Christian witness.
However laudable your goal, you are on the wrong path to acheive it.
The difference is that this latest post by Katherine was not deleted from this comment page as some other comments were deleted from anothe web site.
Excellent post! I agree wholeheartedly. I must admit that I was appalled at what I saw and heard.
As a priest, I cannot but think of my brother priests, who out of love for the Sacred Liturgy and a desire to be faithful to the liturgical norms passed on to us, have worked so hard to root out from their parishes much of the same music we heard today. I fear that many will now once again have to fight battles that they hoped were over.
Let us continue to pray for our Holy Father.
katherin
thanks for reminding me why i became a traditionalist.
I can add one nice point for the day: the music at CUA when the Pope was present was once again very nice. The choir inside the Pryzbyla Center sang the Tu Es Petrus, and a small choir led the students outside in singing the Regina Caeli (intending to surprise the Pope) when he emerged after the talk was over. The music at the Mass was most unfortunate, but once again in a smaller and lower profile setting sanity prevailed. The Pope's address to the Catholic university presidents was also most edifying for me, as a graduate student and instructor in philosophy.
This IS what the novus ordo and the mentality it came from invites by its very nature. It has done precisely what it was meant to do.
Yes, it is the Novus Ordo we all hear "if only it was said devoutly" well guess what it was not today, and really side by side the TLM is the superior Mass period. Todays show was horrid, sad, poor, and truly made me sad to watch which I did with no sound, just could not bear it.
It's still the hippy-generation pretending to be experts in what everyone else is suppose to like and which most probably can't stand.
I SANG in a folk band for years, all the while longing for sacred polyphony, but there was no choir. The choir-killers destroyed one of the best choirs in the area.
I'll bet far fewer people the music was aimed at truly liked it.
Now, if we talk about the music in the crypt church before vespers - oy! That was Catholic to the core!
As a seminarian studying for the priesthood and getting ready to serve in America, I am truly embarassed that the Holy Father was subjected to this. This was a deliberate insult to every attempt he has made to restore the sacred in our Church. Clapping during communion? That with everything else, it could be clearly seen that he was mad. I hope the Holy Father does something to correct the liturgy in our country. It is appaling and embarassing.
Isn't it an even bigger insult when everyone knows what the Holy Father appreciates and is obviously trying to do with the liturgy and they, on his birthday as well, can't give him a gift, but, once again, display that it's all about "us".
For a ray of hope:
http://fumare.blogspot.com/2008/...icts-
visit.html
Katherine, want to talk about "imposition of liturgical standards?" What do you think liturgical "progressives" have been doing these past 4 decades with disastrous consequences? Tom
ps: You're an Obama supporter? That tells me volumes.
Couldn't agree with you more.
Seems like a big step backward - Across the country and in churches will be heard: "After all, if this is the music during the Pope's Mass..."
It puts those in sympathy with PB16's views on the defensive -- in a way it seems to leverage his own power and influence against what he says and believes.
Will we get clarity or a correction from Vatican officials? Will (maybe) Pope Benedict more clearly see what is going on here?
So far during his visit I take solace in the Pope's great speeches -- true gifts and meditations for these times. But when looking more concretely I see Bishops-as-usual (George giving a talk is a succint summation), a music mass that's an affront to his Holiness' strong preference, and communion - no questions asked - for Choice politicians.
The visit is still early, but for now I have to wonder if this is a more of a momentum buster than builder for our return to a more sacred liturgy and holier church.
Great post, Jeffrey.
Now, if the music that will be in New York is as good as people say it is, here's what we should do:
Let's be as effusive in praising the good music and liturgical practices that occur in New York as we have been critical of what happened today. Write to the USCCB, email the USCCB, post comments on blogs, post comments on the USCCB's blog, talk to your bishop maybe--let people know not merely your disgust with the bad, but your desire for the good.
And God bless Placido Domingo; I was touched when the Pope thanked him (I sure would have thanked him if I were there; he was the only respite from that musical train wreck during Communion), and then when he went to kiss the Pope's ring. Bravo!
We still have to go through this in New York
Wow if anyone can actualy say in all honesty that THAT thing was a Catholic Mass he needs his head examined. It's about time Catholics recognize what this is, a new Church built on heresy, sacrelige and sodomy. If this happens under Benedict it truly is a new religion and all is lost. I have been hanging on for 10 years now since my baptisim, but I am now decided. The SSPX is where I will be attending from now on. Enough already I have given up with this False Catholic CHurch it's fake liturgy and this Popes crocodile tears.
Katherine,
"First of all, make your own case for what you find beautiful and spiritually rewarding..."
We do this quite frequently. I can only assume you don't read here very often if you don't recognize this.
"...and stop invoking the Pope's name."
Why wouldn't we invoke his name, as well, for that matter, other popes names, Church documents, Church decisions and so forth?
After all, Benedict has a set of clearly enunciated liturgical ideas both as Shepherd of the Church as well as a Cardinal. His statements and those other mentioned are relevant.
We also aren't just about our own personal positions and opinions. Our personal opinions and positions must be characterized by a formation in the liturgical tradition, theology and teaching of the Church; they are not to be purely self-referential.
To demonstrate that means quoting the sources you are suggesting we shouldn't quote.
"The Pope did not just get off the plane and find every set and decided. There was detailed review by the Holy See of every aspect of the trip including the Mass and the Pope had every opportunity to take pro-active measures to suit himself."
How these international events are done seems fairly well established by now.
That said, are you trying to suggest that the liturgy as it was effected today is consonant with the liturgical thought of Benedict?
To even suggest that is a "stretch" is itself a stretch. His thinking is quite clear from his writing, as well as from his practice. We can provide you with many, many examples if you are so inclined.
"In fact, the program booklet for the Mass (I was there) called for the Holy Father to chant the Sanctus yet he elected to recite it."
I'm not certain what you think this demonstrates. In both cases you seem to be wishing to take today's Mass as the exemplar, which, given the fact it isn't consonant with typical papal liturgy.
"Second, there is no evidence that there was any "top-down" imposition of forced multi-culturalism in the way you suggest."
I never suggested it, and I can't recall what Jeffrey point was here, so perhaps Jeffrey can comment on this point.
That said, it seems rather like the big bang theory to think that various accidentals came together and just incidentally happened to form a program that included the various elements noted here.
"As a Washingtonian, it was clear to me that the music drew from a fair cross-section of the parish choirs and they sang pieces they use in their worship. For good or ill, this is simply what you get if you embrace the parish communities."
Shouldn't local parish practice conform with Catholic liturgics and liturgical theology rather than vice versa?
"I'm not making any defense of the music. I'm suggesting that those who (falsely) invoke the Pope's name..."
How is it falsely invoked when the invocation is directly taken from his teaching and even provided for in quotation from him?
"...are trying to promote their position through top down authority..."
This is also misrepresentative. For one thing, the work we do here functions on both the academic level and also upon the grass roots level.
In that view, it is a mixture of legislation, Church teaching, liturgical tradition and grassroots apologetics, catechesis and action.
"...and they give further evidence of this mindset when they assume anything to the contrary of their views is also imposed by some authority."
This is a fairly vague claim and also a false one. NLM contributors are quite able to distinguish between prudential disagreement, issues of legitimate liturgical diversity, etc.
"True liturgical renewal will only come about when you and others like you give up on an imposition of certain liturgical standards.."
There are liturgical standards however, and in point of fact, we continuously mention the pastoral side of this question and how that must be approached sensitively.
Again, I don't get the sense you really read here. Instead you seem to have taken issue with a statement and then jumped to vast conclusions.
Of course, there is an irony in what you say as well, and someone has pointed that out. One of the reasons why we are attuned to that need is preicsely because the liturgical progressivist did the exact opposite and have done exactly what you have noted.
"...and actually make yourself part of a local Christian community and patiently deal with real people as brothers and sisters in Christ, helping them to (most likely, very slowly) come to see beauty and spiritual reward in certain liturgical forms."
Frankly, this is pretty judgemental to presume people here aren't that.
I have to say -- this is some of the best writing I have ever read about these issues. Thank you. You've given us all a greatly-worded essay on which to build our own arguments when we want to write about such things.
Erick
This is solid evidence of the zeitgeist of the USCCB and their staff. To their taste, the papal Mass today is a very nice display of- cooperation and inclusiveness of the diverse cultures of modern society. Everyone had a good time.
Really, I've had it! Show me where the Holy Father ad-libbed liturgical texts, where he changed the rite, where he omitted things,... For Pete's sake, they had the whole Gloria! They had the liturgical texts! This is something many parishes can only dream of! I didn't like the music either, but apart of the music, almost EVERYTHING was right! How can people earnestly deny that this was a Mass???
I should add that my criticism is in no way geared at Jeffrey Tucker. I had some comments in mind...
anon:
Can you honestly say it's what the Church really wants? That's the standard - not what you (or I)may think is beautiful.
Does anyone know if the comments board at the USSCB is posting anything? Maybe the Comminsar over there is shaking in his boots I sure hope so, you vill not say anysing about our Multicultural Broadway Mess or else!!!!!
My Protestant room mate kept asking me to turn off the TV because the music was so awful.
Also, I must add my agreement to the assertion that this sort of multi-cultural music is ultimately racist.
Jeffrey,
I disagree with many things you wrote.
1) First, why would/should traditionalists feel happy about today's Mass? We have seen or heard about worse things that have happened in other places, with other people, priets, bishops,etc...
I completely, as I have said before, disagree with the N.O. and, if it were up to me, it would stop existing as a liturgical option in the Church. However, it does not cause happiness to any true traditionalist when things like today's episode happen. Maybe sedevacantists might be happy about it...
You might not like it that many traditionalists might be saying "I told you so," but that does not mean that traditionalists are happy or having a "grand time." (Many) Traditionalists views were just proven to be correct!.. probably, to the pain of many reform-of-the-reform promoters/supporters. By saying that what happened today is "indefensible," you are really saying that the *N.O.* is indefensible - as believed by many people... if not that, at least not necessary at all.
Guys, read "La Tunica Stracciata" (The Torn Tunic) by Tito Casini. It will give you a great idea as to what the N.O. really leads to - sonner or later, even at Papal Masses, as we have just seen/read/heard.
2) Many of you are trying to make it look like it happened because of other people and not because of the N.O. Well, I think people who think this way *should* open their eyes.
The N.O., in and of itself, lends to these sort of things and worse ones. For as long as there is a N.O. as published by Paul VI and maintained by all the successive Popes, every priest, bishop and the laity will have a "democratic right" to choose from the many options allowed to them. Horrible things like the ones from today are either encouraged, allowed or ignored in the N.O. either because people don't care, because they consider it uplifting or because they are used to it... or, worse still, because it is a "tradition."
You will never see that in the traditional Mass - not twice.
That tells you what people think of the N.O. when they think they can do such things and get away with it -- particularly, in the presence of the Pope and even more when the Pope is the Celebrant of the Mass.
Mr. Tucker, I admire your self-control. You expressed excellently the anger, disgust and shame that I felt myself.
I only wish there were a Vatican hotline that I could call to apologize to our Holy Father.
[Continuation]
3) Many of you are either trying to blame Mgr. Guido or trying to remove "blame" from the Pope as if neither of the two could do anything.
This is just foolish! The Pope, as we ALL KNOW, is the supreme legislator in the Church and he can change the Liturgy (Paul VI did!). He is the only one person who has "absolute" (in a sense) authority when it comes to the Liturgy - there is *no* way "reformers" of the reform can actually ignore this and still think of themselves as liturgical thinkers.
As opposed to what "Liam" said in one of the comments, the Pope is not legalistically bound to follow what the Rubrics say, especially if it is to do/say something that is traditional. So, if he really wanted to go back to say the old, traditional form for the Consecration of the Chalice, HE COULD do it without any problem whatsoever!
He could, too, decide not to wear what they (according to many of you) "made" him wear. You are all trying to pretend that the Pope had no choice in any of this - That is *not* true.
I'm not saying that he intentionally wanted things the way they turned out, but I do think he is very aware that he can (and in my opinion, should) be stricter when it comes to things like these, even if he is just a guest.
He might not want to appear like an authoritarian Pope, but when things like this happen, he should. Please, don't defend the "indefensible."
4) As somebody else said before, many similar things happened when JPII said Masses publicly. Why is the NLM expressing "shame," "disgust," and "pain," etc., now? Is it because subconsciously we all expected much more from this Pope - who has been called (in *this* very blog) the "liturgical Pope"?
The Pope, and everyone else who speaks about "continuity" should also speak about *consistency.* If Mass settings are going to change every time the Pope says Masses in different places, then people, priests, bishops are going to get the wrong message! They are going to be confused and think that anything goes.
In sum, I think that it is out of place to try to remove the N.O. from the whole context of what happened today. And it is also completely out of place to say or imply that traditionalists are, in a way, happy that such things happen. Remember that it was not traditionalists who came up with the N.O.
Y'all should check out the CNS piece on the mass. Apparently, "latin was well represented." You could have fooled me. Here it is: http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0802093.htm.
I feel your (well stated) pain. The "War on Horror" has only begun. One battle was lost, but the effort to educate must continue. The Church is only now beginning to recover from the 1960s-'70s hangover. Those liturgists who insist on serving "cheap wine" are guilty of bad taste, to be sure. The more websites like NLM and WDTPRS continue to insist that God deserves the best we can offer, people will rise to the occasion and begin to again honour and/or produce works of art and soul. The work of education must necessarily include the aesthetics of good taste while acknowledging our great dependence on the wonders that God has previous inspired. I confess, I love the work of Palestrina. Weening people off trite music will take a lot of effort. Think about how difficult it is to get people to exercise and stop eating junk food. People today are addicted to banality, made dull by that cheap wine. The good news is... there's plenty of good wine waiting to be served. Once people get a taste of the good stuff, they'll never go back.
All is not lost, people!
http://picasaweb.google.com/
Clea...sidenceBuilding
Speaking as a 'traditionalist', I find outrageous the notion that we could be happy at what happened today; it is not "traditional" to rejoice at evil.
Sensible traditionalists are not rejoicing; they feel the disappointment and anger of those who sincerely believed in a reform of the reform.
I do hope and pray, however, that more and more priests and faithful draw the right conclusions from today's horrible events and return entirely to the traditional Roman rite. This is the locus of true reform today.
LatinMass, the point you are missing about the "for all", "for many" is that while we may know that distinction, the Pope would no doubt be very conscious of "leading by example" since many would well take such a thing as an example that one can have "creative license" with the liturgy.
As for Jeffrey's comment, he clearly intended to mean some traditionalists, or even a certain kind of traditionalist who might see this as an opportunity. He is not speaking to anyone and everyone attached to the usus antiquior, which includes, incidentally, quite a number of the NLM's contributors.
Pope Benedict is, I would still propose, the liturgical Pope, and one Mass does not change that.
One difference here lay in where people wish to focus. Some seem to want to put the onus upon Benedict and Marini, whereas others would point to the American organizers.
The latter is the point of critique for Jeffrey.
As for the former, there's clearly a programme going on and it won't happen overnight.
As I noted earlier on, don't expect miracles for these liturgies. Look for a few signs instead.
One final note. We have here at the NLM spoken of the fact there are inherent issues in the modern Roman missal that can cause problems. You may recall my own post about Fr. Pacwa's article on the lturgy just a couple of days ago. That fact is one of the very premises that there needs to be a reform of the reform, which ultimately involves revisions to the missal itself.
Maybe some good can come from this travesty. Perhaps the Pope will see what a disgrace the US episcopal conference is and the crap liturgies they make most of us suffer through. And perhaps he will DO something about this instead of just talking.
...just as I suspected! Dissapointed with you Shawn
[The site you keep wishing to push is a schismatic, sedevancatist site, Patrick. Of course I am not going to have it promoted here. Save yourself the time, everytime I see it, I will delete it. - Shawn]
Did they change the music list? None of that seemed at all what was on the list submitted to the Vatican.
A little quick work with the plans?
katherin
You are judging trained liturgical specialists. You words are that of a person fully enveloped into the American feel good culture. Your words also expose a person who thinks that to judge is a sin...I suggest you learn your Faith in a greater degree and stop allowing yourself to float along on feelings alone.
The only way this mass would be acceptable to anyone is that person who believes the Eucahrist is a symbol of Jesus and not the Real Presence. I thank God that Our Holy Father got to see what most of America has been subjected to in the average parish. He will protect us...he is our father...and will not abandon us.
latinmass:
Have you ever heard "To Jesus Heart All Burning"? There are a lot of horrible songs that use to be sung at the Mass prior to Vatican II. It is naive to believe that every country parish in the world was able to produce wonderful Gregorian Chant and polyphony.
Katherine:
When were the people of the pews ever consulted about the foolishness that has gone at Mass? I do not remember being consulted over the issue of inclusive language but they changed the English lectionary in Canada to inclusive language.
Professional Liturgists are the "most" dogmatic and authoritarian people I have ever met. They love to say, "it is a pastoral issue". Nonsense!!! They have no clue. They make it an issue and bishops and priests for years take their word for it.
In my years of a priest, I have not used inclusive language and guess what! Not one complaint! But it was a pastoral issue that caused the change. Baloney
THANK YOU, Fr. Beachey!
In one Catholic magazine, one of the featured monthly authors, who wrote about Scriptural themes, once wrote in criticism of "inclusive" language.
Then he was never seen in the magazine again.
Go figure.
It is up to all of us involved in church music and liturgy never to give up that which we know is right. I want to thank NLM and Jeffrey Tucker for this post and everything you do.
I ranted with a few of my own comments this morning during the mess of the Mass in Washington. It was a revealing moment that messages here were only seconds after the disaster being presented on live tv or internet.
I'm actually looking forward to New York...I have to think that the organizers read this blog and Father Z and know what is being said and thought and are taking down some points.
This mess this morning should shame the USCCB and those responsible.
This is indeed a serendipitous moment...I agree,this is the beginning of the end
Shawn,
If the Pope would really, really, strictly "lead by example," he would/should not have allowed half of the things that went on today.
Also, many priests and bishops do not need any help in the creativeness department when it comes to the Liturgy. So, that is a very weak point or excuse. The "creative license" that you mention was granted to the entire Church in 1964 (before that, very relatively few places did crazy things Cf. for illustrations).
What do you think people/priests are going to gather from this in America and elsewhere?
Most people, traditionalists especially, do not want "signs and wonders." Traditionalists want *action.* The Pope should just talk about improving the Liturgy, the musical settings for the Mass, etc. He should do it universally.
As we saw with the change to the Good Friday prayer, the waiving of the five year period wait to open the canonization process of JPII, and restoring the old method of voting to elect a pope and a few other things, he *can* do things overnight.
It is only things like a motu proprio for the traditionalists, better music and translations for the Mass, and such things that do not happen overnight.
Anon.,
As far as I can tell, music during the Mass was to be only in Latin, unless a parish, diocese, etc. had permission from the Holy See to do otherwise.
I have never heard that hymn or "song" as you call it.
Tell me, did they use drums, guitars, tamborines, etc., to go along with that "song"?
Actually, anon., "To Jesus Heart All Burning" is one of my favourites, though I haven't heard it for years. Thank you for mentioning it: I will carry it in my grateful head all day.
My sympathy to our American brothers and sisters on the music at the Washington Mass. But lift up your hearts, because the Vespers was prayerful and pleasant, and "Rome wasn't built in a day". It will take time and patience. You have shown that America is capable of both good and bad - as the Pope has suggested in his speeches - and I have some hope that, because the musical rationale, choice and execution at Washington was SO bad, planners of future big liturgies will be much more circumspect. Which would be a blessing for us all.
One cannot remove the Novus Ordo in itself, if the the Holy Father signed off on this disaster today than I feel betrayed and stupid for believing in the Moto Propio, God forgive me if I prove to be wrong but what happend today was rancid and not what I expected. Could it be that what some Websites are saying the Traditionalists are having carrots dangled in front of them called the Moto Propio just to shut us up?? I truly hope with all my heart this is not the case. If so than one must believe the S.S.P.X. after all.
"To Jesus' Heart All Burning" was, according to Thomas Day in his book, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" a tune borrowed from a bar song and given Christian words.
My mother remembers it being sung at mass before the Novus Ordo. She told me they sang the same hymns every week from a hymnal called "The St. Basil Hymnal". Anon. is right -- there was bad music before the council too.
First, let's get this straight... Evil doesn't exist in the crappy music that we heard today, it's not present in the Novus ordo, not present in any of the poor people who posted their thoughts here. Real evil is in our abysmal treatment of each other, whether it be the killing fields of some war or how we treat one another on this blog. Evil, historically, lies within the accuser, not the accused. We get so hung up on our tradition, no one talks about scripture, the other pillar of our faith. We get so hung up on our rules, we forget the spirit in which they are created. The music at the mass today was, for the most part, not sacred and misguided. I, probably like you, was praying that at the beginning of Communion when the Ubi caritas chant was intoned that the entire chant would continue, or perhaps it would move into Durufle's beautiful setting. Should have known better. But we can correct that over time so maybe in 10 years when the Pope comes back something like this doesn't happen. Do pay attention to what happens in NYC, as they have programmed some glorious SACRED music. We can make progress, but not by demonizing those who might have a different view. This is the 21st century. The Church, all of us, need to become skilled at persuading, not condemning. Be good shepherds with your musicians, catechize your parishioners, figure out how to love the "liturgical jazz guitarist" who irks you the most, discontinue the vile remarks, and let's get to work renewing the Mass!
Amen, Jeff!
Very, very well said, Jeff. God love you so.
Fr. Beachey,
Do you think if we could just listen to the Pope's we might get it right...finally?
I put it right up there with "Bring Flowers of the Rarest."
You are right, bad music and liturgical abuse did not start at Vatican II.
We need to go back to Tra le Sollecitudini and read it and maybe finally, implement it. It certainly was not considered today, in fact, today was everything that Pope Saint Piux X condemned.
Ironically, he coined the phrase particpatio actuoso badly translated as "active" as opposed to actual, full or true.
Maybe one day we'll listen to him, Piux XII in Mediator Dei, Pope John Paul II...Benedict XVI. These were and are the most important liturgical Popes.
Having read nearly all of the comments in this post and the one before, I'm rather glad that I missed the Holy Father's Mass (never thought that I would say that in my lifetime).
I only hope that the Mass at St Patrick's and Yankee stadium are more reverent.
It is truly embarrassing that our bishops would disrepsect the pope in such a way. If that is how they truly feel about him, they should have remained in their own diocese - until the Holy Father can replace them that is.
A most disappointing Mass performance, especially since the Holy Father has made clear his preference for traditional music. I was also surprised by his use of the word "all" instead of "many" at the consecration of the wine, as Pope Benedict made a point last year of recommending it be changed. Well, prehaps we'll be surprised and witness an Extraordinary form of the Mass tomorrow in new York! Well...we can always dream,,,can't we?
I was there. Thanks for this commentary.
I seriously thought of Ricky Martin's "The Cup of Life" during one of the songs.
Here's the deal the Mass today was done without priestly innovations, no abuse, and all according to Vatican 2 norms, so why was it a disaster? If it was a TLM it would have been the same as it was for 500 years, yet it was ghastly. Someone please explain to us what went wrong if it was not the Novus Ordo itself?
Jeff,
I think your note offers important and good comments. Just a couple of nuances that I think are important.
When you say that the problem is that "...we get so hung up on our tradition, no one talks about scripture, the other pillar of our faith. We get so hung up on our rules, we forget the spirit in which they are created" it could create an impression that all people who value tradition and so forth do this, but of course, that is not the case as we know.
I think we need to be clear that we need both scripture and tradition, to follow the letter and the spirit of the law. I say this because, unfortunately, another extreme that is all too often found today are those who would reject church law or tradition, seeing it as somehow pharasaical.
At any rate, I just wanted that to be out there as an additional nuance to what you have noted.
The Papal Mass today was celebrated according to liturgical norms and liturgical reforms. So why have NLM and so many posters attacked today's Mass? Do you reject the Church's teacings?
There was nothing at the Pope's Mass today that wasn't in line with the Church's teachings on the Mass.
"I was also surprised by his use of the word "all" instead of "many" at the consecration of the wine, as Pope Benedict made a point last year of recommending it be changed."
I would be surprised if His Holiness changed it. He will follow the present approved text, until it is amended through the proper channels.
I think it is a mistake to assume that the Pope can change anything he wants. The rubrics are as binding on the Pope as they are on any celebrant.
Well stated, Mr. Tucker. Thoughtful, charitable and spot-on. God bless.
It is with much regret that I write this post because I am greatly disappointed with the music chosen for this Mass. We have failed at setting a precedent for truly sacred music.
Given the fact that the Holy Father has made the renewal and restoration of the liturgy as a chief priority in his pontificate (April 20th Homily–his first as Pope, wherein he notes that the liturgy is the central point of his pontificate) and has written substantially on the matter, especially where it concerns Sacred Music, why would the folks at DC choose music from a publising house that is known for sub-par songs. The psalm response we are hearing may be lovely as a stand-alone song, but, it should be chanted and not have so much musical interlude. It sounds like something that is better suited for opera than for the Mass.
It’s as though the DC planners were disregarding the Holy Father’s statement in Sacramentum Caritatis wherein he notes that “clearly not one song is not as good as another” when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. From what I have read on a blog, the music for the NYC Mass is far superior.
The message that I interpreted from last night’s address to the bishops indirectly hits the liturgy. Everything flows from the Mass. If the bishops truly believe, as the Council taught, that the Mass is the source and summit of our life as a Church, then, we must take the Holy Sacrifice as our starting point. If the bishops are supposed to be true shepherds, they must draw their strength from the Mass and must conform themselves to Christ. During the Mass for the ordination and/or installation of a bishop, the Gospel account from St. John, wherein our Lord commissions St. Peter to feed and tend his sheep and lambs is proclaimed. Our bishops need to be reminded that this is their main responsibility. Our pastors, too, must draw their strength from the Mass, as well.
I was also disappointed with the commentary made by the folks on the Papal visit website. It’s rather odd that they would repeatedly quote from Sacramentum Caritatis, yet, completely ignore this very telling section of the document that states:
Liturgical song
42. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything — texts, music, execution — ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).
How can anyone state with a straight face that much of the music would fit into the parameters indicated by Sacramentum Caritatis? How could anyone state, with all honesty, that these songs fit in with the Servant of God, Pope John Paul’s Chirograph on Sacred Music, where he states:
4. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.
St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.
I am by no means a liturgical expert; however, having read Pope Benedict’s three books on the liturgy and his numerous writings on the subject, as well as Pope John Paul’s statements (along with the Universal Church’s documents on Sacred Music), I can say with all honesty that this was truly a dark blemish on what should have been a glorious occasion.
The Holy Father’s homily and his presence was comforting. At least, he has now experienced first-hand what many of us in the pews have to endure Sunday after Sunday.
Multiculturalism is noble, but an entirely secular virtue. It is a celebration of the differences that exist when there is no shared culture.
Perhaps there was a time when the Catholic Church had a shared culture that was capable of bridging regional differences. The vestiges of that shared culture have been on the retreat for more than a lifetime now. The natural propensity to innovate in continuity with the tradition has largely given way to a tendency to innovate by extra-cultural eclecticism (discontinuously).
Most practitioners of sacred art now simply do not have the continuity with tradition necessary for organic development. This is why some recent treatments of ancient (e.g. plainchant) material sound "forced" or self-conscious, and some modern lyrics with their aimless repetitions of a few Latin words from forgotten prayers seem, to those familiar with the ancient tradition, arbitrary or macaronic.
Paradoxically, because transient secular culture makes the greatest use of mass communications media, whereas sacred art is necessarily practised at a local level, it is to be expected that the dominant monoculture will be transient and secular, while the sacred is forced into pockets of (literal) parochialism. This is the inevitable consequence of the modern popular monoculture.
I think it is possible to recover the shared Catholic artistic tradition, but it cannot be done without either the use of global communications or global cooperation (or preferably both).
Quote from William "The Papal Mass today was celebrated according to liturgical norms and liturgical reforms. So why have NLM and so many posters attacked today's Mass? Do you reject the Church's teacings?
There was nothing at the Pope's Mass today that wasn't in line with the Church's teachings on the Mass."
Have you read any of the Popes books on the Liturgy?. Have you ever attended a TLM (Extra-Ordinary Form Mass)?. Have you ever heard Gregorian Chant or Tallis at a Mass?. Which church teachings are you referring to. The Baptist Church teachings!? Maybe the US Episcopal Church teachings?.
{sung in a horrible minor key}
"Lord, send out your spirit and renew the face of the earth, and renew the face of the earth..."
"Lord, send out your spirit and renew the face of the earth, renew the face of the earth, renew the face of the earth, of the earth, of the earth, renew the face of the earth..."
"Lord, send out your spirit and renew the face of the earth, renew the face of the, renew face earth of, Lord, renew spirit face of the, renew the face of the earth, Lord, send out your spirit...."
AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!
Excellent post.
Wow...what to say. The music was truly banal. What a shame.
I don't fault the singers...I know that they are the 'foot soldiers' and are just being told what to sing by the director of music, but honestly....the music selection was pretty bad.
The responsorial psalm was truly horrid. Can you say "Andrew Lloyd Webber"????
I knew that this would all happen because of earlier reports...and sure enough...the earlier reports were terribly accurate.
Hopefully, things will be better in NYC.
Excellent post!
My thoughts are simply this:
The overall choice of music displayed this morning at the Papal Mass was painfully appalling, scandalous, and utterly disrespectful of the sacred liturgy of the Church.
Very well-written post Jeffrey. It's important to note that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. The same sort of nonsense is going on in Europe, South America, Australia, Britain, Ireland, etc. Wherever there are guitars and Catholics drunk on V2 "spirit" and multiculturalism the liturgy is in danger.
Along with the modern, multicultural music, I am unsettled by the majority of people in attendance. Dressed for a day at the beach and yelling at the Holy Father while trying to touch him like he is a pop star.
The Pope's own Master of Ceremonies was in this country prior to this trip...Hmmm
It will be interesting to see what if anything becomes of this, whether it will be in the form some official statement from the Vatican Press Office or what?
i was very uplifted by the pope's homily. However, the music and extreme emphasis on a multicultural show was a distraction from the holy sacrifice. This is a shame. I was very disappointed, and did not expect this for a papal mass. To me, this mass was so many steps backward in terms of bringing holiness and sacredness back to the mass--and removing a show atmosphere from the holy sacrifice.
I am actually re-watching the re-broadcast (on the EWTN) of the Papal Mass today...and I am truly disturbed and probably will not be able to sleep tonight.
Wow...the music was truly tacky and just utterly horrible.
I am a hispanic Catholic...and I feel patronized by the sheer volume of 'multicuturalism' displayed in the Papal Mass....I find it very objectionable and very unsettling.
That wasn't a mass today, that was a power play by the bishops. I was astonished by the blantant act of disrespect.
Today's debacle seems to me to be the natural outcome of the USCCB's recent document on music and the sacred liturgy, "Sing to the Lord": a little something for everybody, but nobody's really satisfied. The chickens, my dear bishops, have come home to roost.
"Why doesn't he (the Holy Father) DO something??!?" Oh, he will, to be sure. But in his own time and in his own way. If memory serves me, the American bishops begin their ad limina visits to Rome next year (or maybe 2010), and you can be sure His Holiness will take every opportunity to address in those closed-door meetings what needs to be corrected.
Based on what the world saw and heard today in Nationals Stadium, one might justifiably wonder whether Catholics in America by and large worship not at the altar of the God "who makes the two into one" but at the altars of the idols "Tolerance" and "Inclusivity" - which deities promote the diversity of the many, shrinking in horror at the prospect of the many becoming one. "E pluribus unum" stood on its head.
I couldn't sleep and happened upon your blog as I was surfing the net. How disappointing to read about the Mass music. Then I turned on EWTN to see if a rerun was on. I came in on the consecration and watched the rest. You are so right. The music was inappropriate and not even well sung, EXCEPT for Placido Domingo at the end. How gracious of His Holiness to personally thank Mr. Domingo and how reverent Mr. D. was to the Pope.
In many ways I am glad to hear a common sentiment among those here who are priests, religious or seminarians. Each of us so far has emphasized our embarrassment. This I think is a very telling sign concerning the thought of clerics and clerical candidates. It emphasizes a certain paternal and filial love for the Holy Father and that is a good sign for the future.
There are those who have said that the atrocities against the natural rights of ears demonstrated at this was was some how indicative of the Ordinary Form of the Mass of the Church. Logically speaking such arguments are non sequiturs. There is nothing in the so-called Novus Ordo that necessitates liturgical abuse or even just bad taste. Rather there is a separate issue that is the cause.
The cause of such abuse can be found in the hermeneutic that is used in approaching the liturgy. This manner of thinking was not born out of the Novus Ordo but has, rather, been forced upon it by those who would see their agenda of Modernism flourish. There are plenty of real deficiencies in the text of the Novus Ordo even in the official Latin to discuss so to impose a fallacious argument upon it does no good for the correction of these real issues. Such arguments have no basis in logical thought but only in emotional banter which is anathema to the truly Catholic mind.
In addition:
There are also those who have stated that the Mass in DC didn't violate any of the liturgical rules. This position is in error not because of what the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote but rather it is in error because the liturgical rubrics for sacred music is quite clear. The problem one may have is that in most parishes including the more orthodox parishes have no sense of Sacred Music. The controlling documents on Sacred Music from St. Pius X until now are all at odds with the demonstration that we had today at the National's Stadium.
Br. Gabriel said:
B. your mischaracterization and misquoting of Pope Paul VI is not only intellectually dishonest[...]
I think everyone should read the address of Pope Paul VI. upon the introduction of the Novus Ordo and decide for himself.
"This novelty is no small thing." (Paul VI.)
Indeed.
As I said before - your quotes are out of context as the document itself makes clear. I fear that some people read Church documents like Protestants read Scripture. Rather, a document is always in context in two ways. First, it is context with itself and second it is in context with that which came before unless specifically stated otherwise.
Katherine, I think that you will find that quite a few people around here are committed enough to the local parishes that you talk about (And this is easily verifiable from looking at the sidebar) that they actually give up their time to act as musical directors and such things. As a general rule, it would be good if we assumed that people who critique are passionate enough about the Church for them to take it beyond words. As to the invocation of the Pope, it is not just the Pope who is invoked (and when invoked extensively quoted), but a whole host of authors. It is the point of blogging to do so.
anon., okay, so "To Jesus heart all burning" was sung at Mass, prior to Vatican II, and Mass was not always said with its full glory. But that is just to justify the first liturgical movement. The fact that Mass was not said as wonderfully as it could have been only needs to spur us onwards to do so, and not to accept a second-rate substitute. Secondly, even if there were things in dubious taste prior to Vatican II, there is a difference between bad taste (which can crop up anywhere) and liturgical abuse, and liturgical laxity.
I tend to think, Br. Gabriel, that the NO can be redeemed eventually, but that it is in serious need of overall reworking, beginning with those "real defeciencies" you mention.
The archbishop apparently sought a parish-based director because he wanted the papal Mass to reflect parish worship at its best, Mr. Stehle said. It was not to be a performance by professionals, but an act of worship by everyone present.
"People should be able to come to this celebration and know that their participation is not just permitted, but encouraged," he said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...3/854309-
54.stm
Er, mission accomplished?
A powerful post.
A more general comment. The traditional movement has a reputation for being divisive and negative. Too many letters to the Bishop, comments about trivial items in an otherwise fitting Mass and a general lack of charity. I know one member of a personal prelature who vented his frustration with a particular priest by walking out of a small chapel at the start of Mass, leaving the door to bang in his wake. Sadly, it is with such expressions as these that the traditional movement has become associated.
The comments box rules could not only sum up guidance for those who comment here, but also the way in which any of us should approach any commentary on the liturgy.
Now is as good a time as any to praise the leadership offered on this blog. It is positive and displays a true love for Church and an understanding of where the Church in her universality is at, and where she needs to go.
Thank you!
Thank Heavens, some of those music pieces were so multi-lingual that they cannot be implemented in any parish.
You are quite right, the USCCB are deleting like fury from their comments box, my two-line lamentation was gone after an hour, and it is amusing that, as I write, there are 322 post on this thread, nearly all negative, and 106 posts on Mr Tucker's music thread, but ONLY $ surviving on the USCCB. I think we know the posters of this blog well enough to judge that USCCB must have received say 50 comments, at a conservative estimate, thus less than 10% are deemed suitable, and while all perfectly sound, none praises the music!
http://usccb.wordpress.com/2008/......rk/#comment-
265
I am totally heartbroken. This Mass was so painful to watch. I am a fallen away Catholic that returned 2 months ago. I cannot tell you how upset I was watching this display. It vividly reminded me why I walked away from the church 30 years ago.
The USCCB wants to know the reasons so many Catholic have left. Well, here is one of them. Our sacred traditions and foundations have been totally trashed. I feel this display yesterday was a slap in the face to the Pope and to millions traditional Catholics.
Just skimming the post from the southern hemisphere .....
I'm reminded of the comments of a friend regarding the public Masses during Pope John Paul II's visit to Australia for the beatification of Bl Mary McKillop:
"It's just the parish novus ordo 'writ large'"
It seems apposite to the experience you've just had in Washington.
[This isn't meant to be any comment on the OF per se, just a view of what transpired in those cases]
Peter
I can't read all 111 to-date comments, so pardon me if I repeat someone more eloquent. Just one point regarding Jeffrey's typically passionate post:
You can point to all the outraged commentaries and blog posts you want, but in the end the only responses that matter (in a policy-making sense) is that of bishops and pastors. And it seems pretty clear to me that the vast majority of that particular audience saw exactly what they wanted to see at Nats Stadium. Does Jeffrey expect even some of them to go home, saying: "Never in my diocese!"? I, on the other hand, suspect quite a few of them will go home, saying: "Huh, we could outdo that anyday!" So long as the paradigm cultivated in the past couple of decades prevails, these spectacle liturgies will continue to ramp up expectations that place Catholic liturgy in direct competition with the Olympics Opening Ceremonies and Superbowl Halftime Show.
Mr. Tucker's commentary was very fine indeed and I am in broad agreement. For those lamenting what this all means for the future, however, I think it's important to recall that a revised Missal is on the way. By most accounts, the revised translations of the Gloria and Sanctus, among other things, will require the slate to be wiped clean of the Mass settings of the last 40 years. As I understand it, a system of governing the Catholic publishing houses is being put into place to monitor what they promote. It seems to me that there is real cause for hope and patience here. I have just read Benedict's "The Spirit of the Liturgy." It is a source of great encouragement to me that the same man who wrote this is now in charge of the new Missal. I suspect the new Missal will be much less permissive of variations from the clergy and much more specific about what kinds of music are appropriate and permissible. Perhaps I'm just being naive, but I think Mr. Tucker may just be on to something -- that fiasco yesterday may be the beginning of the end.
What a shame for the Catholic Church in America that this is the example of the Liturgy televised world-wide. Fr. Niehaus was correct when he said that it's sad that those preparing the Liturgy didn't familarize themselves with the Pope's feelings and instructions regarding Music in liturgy. As a Catholic Church Musician, I am embarrassed by what I heard. Hopefully the execution of the music was better "live" than what was picked up by the television / radio feed, however the selections (with few exceptions) were abominable. The orchestrations can't even be considered musical. Truly a mish-mash mass! What was the purpose of that AWFUL arrangement of the Gloria from the Missa de Angelis? Why not just sing the Chant as intended?
What was that? kokopelli on the flute or whatever windpipe that was whining away at Mass? Ughhh!
The music was just a little bit disneyesque, no? Maybe the mousekatear missal and hymnal will be forthcoming from one of the reigning publishing houses (or maybe not!)
I do hope EWTN will put out a dvd of this Mass. I will put it right next to my copy of their dvd of the beautiful funeral Mass of John Paul II. I want to remember and revisit both these Masses, each for very different reasons...both presided by the same Priest, our Holy Father, but, oh, the contrast. In one Mass, it seemed to me that I saw those reading or making music in what I would call actual participation...in the other, I saw very active performance.
More positively, the Holy Father's homily was beyond great and so glad that so many saw another televised Mass... He opened up and applied the readings, while detailing what he hoped to accomplish in his coming and what he hopes we will accomplish after. So much said so concisely!
See text on link at http://www.oecumene.radiovatican...lo.asp?
c=199835
He also beautifully discussed the prayer of the undescribable groaning in our souls ... during and after the music of this Mass, there is a lot of groaning! Pray on, good people, and groan on in good hope.
I think B. may have nailed it. I've just read the linked statement of Paul VI and I don't think the citations are out of context, and the principle of translation His Holiness called for is a vindication of everything ICEL ever stood for.
Further it seems that the Novus Ordo in Latin is a betrayal of the rite itself: "No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass."
And yes, HH explicitly dumps Gregorian chant. He said it had to go to accomplish the greater good of making the rite understandable.
By the rule of context that Br. Gabriel asserts, the citations B produced ARE in context. I don't see any way around it that doesn't involve saying "Paul VI was wrong", and if he was wrong about that what else was he wrong about?
People should be able to come to this celebration and know that their participation is not just permitted, but encouraged
But this isn't really true, is it? For my own part, I would have been incapable (for reasons of both language and musical complexity) of singing along with vast majority of what we heard yesterday; assuming that I wanted to. So the justification for these multi-culty jamborees ultimately rests on a lie, or at least it seems to me.
"the music was not to be a performance by professionals"
obviously...
but whats Mr. Stehle, an accountant?
What else can be done? How about if the next time the pope comes to America we invite him to St. John Cantius or Assumption Grotto and show him how Americans are capable of doing Mass?
I am of Polish descent, and I am outraged that there was nothing sung in Polish to a polka tune at this Liturgy. I demand equal time! ;-)
Contrast the assumptions behind the selection of music at yesterday's papal Mass with the example of the Chiquitano Indians:
http://reluctantpenitent.blogspo...no-
indians.html
Archbishop Wuerl was not a very thoughtful host - matter of fact - I would call him "insensitive." He should know better than all of us, Benedict's liturgical views ( you know, those pesky views which just happen to conform to Church tradition, liturgical statutes, etc.) I hope his red hat is on the line. Although the visual aspects of the Mass were great, the music was a silly hodge podge, liberal pandering at its worst, and clearly all about us, rather than the Divine. Onto New York! Tom
I was disappointed in what transpired yesterday, but not really all that surprised. After living in Durham, NC, for a few years, I've become so accustomed to liturgical aberrations and defective music that almost nothing shocks me anymore. I hope beyond hope that the NLM is correct in prophesying that yesterday signals the end of an era, but I certainly wouldn't wager money on that possibility. We have to remember that an entire generation of Catholics has been formed within this liturgical context, to say nothing of the kind of catechesis they have had to endure. Although there is a resurgence of interest in tradition among younger Catholics, the vast majority don't even seem to recognize that there's a problem. Many of the faithful interviewed after yesterday's Mass spoke glowingly of the beauty and cultural richness of what took place. And, most of the music directors that I've interacted with actually want to push for more liturgical experimentation, not less. Let's be honest: the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago, and it's going to be a long time coming before we see significant, widespread changes on this front.
Pope Benedict has given us reason to hope, but it doesn't seem like he's ready to adopt a heavy handed approach on the matter. In fact, it seems to me like the ball is in our court now. The hierarchy has released a whole slew of documents on sacred liturgy and sacred music. We've all read Tra le Sollecitudini and Musicae Sacrae. We're all familiar with Ratzinger's many thoughts on the subject. Sacramentum Caritatis… Redemptionis Sacramentum... the list goes on and on. The problem is not with magisterial teaching; it's with the way so many priests and lay faithful interpret it, ignore it, or outright defy it. For this reason, I've started to see why there's a group of traditionalists who refer to themselves as "the remnant." We are the remnant. I'm not ready to give up on the Novus Ordo, or anything extreme like that, but much of what goes on in American parishes today is simply not authentically Catholic. Therefore, it's up to us, who realize what's at stake, to do all that we can to preserve the faith, to fight for tradition, and to pass it on to the next generation. Thankfully, our Holy Father has empowered us to do so. We can't stop modernists and revisionists from perpetuating spectacles like we witnessed yesterday, but we can make a difference on the ground wherever we might find ourselves, asking God to multiply the fruits of our humble work, and asking for the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother and Queen, to intercede on our behalf. But, this is a long battle ahead of us, and one not likely to be resolved in our lifetime.
On a different note, I think we have to stop worrying about what the SSPX crowd is doing and saying. I long for the day when we are reunited in full communion with these traditionalists, but the fact of the matter is that they have broken communion with the Holy See. For those of us who truly care about the Catholic Church, this path is simply not available to us. Total fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is not something tangential, but at the very heart of the Catholic faith. While observing the fallout from yesterday's Mass, I couldn't help but think that the SSPX is indirectly responsible for the mess that we're in. Certainly, I understand their disgust at certain post-conciliar developments, but when they took the schismatic route their all-important witness to the Church was lost. Over the last few decades, we absolutely needed these traditionalists in the fold to serve as a counter-balance the "progressive" wing of the Catholic Church. When Lefebvre and his followers left, they gave the impression that the Catholic life can be lived outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome. What is needed in our historical moment, however, is not a weakening or questioning of the Petrine ministry, but a full-flowering of this ministry. God, in his providence, has gifted us with a Pontiff who is empowering faithful Catholics everywhere to restore the Divine Liturgy to its full glory and prominence, and yet the SSPXers can't take full part in this restoration b/c they have chosen schism over reform. Let's stop wringing our hands over what SSPXers may be thinking or saying about us. We have been called to something much higher. We have been called to preach the Gospel in its totality to all peoples through total obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth.
Great post, Jeffrey. You identified the problem, the enemy, as multiculturalism. (I would probably agree with Gavin that multiculturalism is, ultimately, aculturalism. Or maybe, better, that multiculturalism is the weapon that aculturalists, that anticulturalists, use against us.) Multiculturalism is an attack on the cult, which we Catholics must defend by attacking multiculturalism. Guilt, victimhood, mau-mauing, and identity politics are the tools the enemy uses against us. We are particularly vulnerable in the multi-ethnic USA, especially as we seem to be undergoing a demographic shift.
The philosophical problem must be solved (and enforced politically) or the musical problem will never be solved. It's going to be another interesting century.
Raymond Arroyo had this to say on his blog late last night: "Aside from the insistence from several sources that the Mass this morning would be "traditional, sacred--everything Benedict has written about the liturgy", my sources have been amazingly correct. My inbox is filled at this moment with viewers outraged by the musical selections at this morning's Mass. I can only say in charity: thank God for the majestic Domingo."
I think there was a typo and he meant to write "my sources have been amazingly INcorrect." This implies that there was even an element of deception on the part of the Archdiocese of Washington, as to just how bad the show would actually be - because this was not liturgy, this was a variety show. I really hope there is some type of "organized" protest to all this; I hope it's not all just "let go." I don't even want to remember this Mass unless I can replay it with the volume muted, I am so ashamed that my own archdiocese was responsible for this travesty, this anti-music. I still can't get over the bastardized Veni Creator, to the tune of something out of Pocahontas, wilderness flute and all. And as a Latin-American, I repudiate with all my being any attempt to make a merengue tune emblematic of my culture, let alone dare to imply that this is the best that Hispanic Catholics in this country could offer a Mass with the Vicar of Christ. I sincerely pray that some justice is achieved in New York, and that the Holy Father doesn't leave with such a horrible impression of worship in this country. Shame.
Vox,
Bring flowers of the Rarest is a beautiful Marian hmyn and as a traditional Sodalist (look it up) I will not stand for you insulting a hymn which has served millions of Catholics in honouring Our Blessed Mother during her month of May.
As I commented a few month's back when another soi-disant poster tried to ridicule the same hymn, attend a traditional May Crowning in latin, when the congregation raise the roof singing this hymn and then tell me it is of poor quality.
Shame on you! At least it's not sung in a gospel style with drums and maracas!
Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis!
With respect to RJM's comments about the SSPX and traditionalists: I predict that the people who are doing whatever they must do to protect their children from the train wreck that we saw yesterday (and the bad theology and religious education that goes with it) will be the ones left standing to rebuild when things finally collapse.
I have been to too many funerals where the adult children, who were the first subjects of this experiment, have left the Church. They are not sorry about it, either.
The truth can hurt. The truth is that we are in a state of emergency. Those of you who have grown children or no children have the freedom to stay in the trenches and fight. I support you in your battle. But those of us with children must do what we must to give them a fighting chance to get to heaven.
I am not a member of an SSPX parish, but I sympathize with them. I'll bet aside from the fringe, they are all a bunch of families trying to hang on until the "All Clear" is sounded.
Jeffrey,
Thank you for the insightful post; it is as if the Church in America stood up and boldly said: "we did it our way."
By odd coincidence, I just read Ch 7 in Benedict's "A New Song for the Lord". Whereas "Spirit of the Liturgy" tells us eloquently how things ought to be, ANSFTL in Ch 7 examines in exquisite detail the profound error behind why they are not. This is the best disection of "the spirit of Vatican II" to see the light of day I've read. This is the dark error that many people of unquestioned good will have imbibed without critical examination, and which, God willing, can be turned out by the light of truth. B16 understands this quite well; correct the fundamental error, which is the answer to His question:
But whom do you say that I am? Lk 9:20
cure the disease and the symptoms will clear.
It is not necessary for the Pontiff to change anything when referring to the word "for many" at the time of the consecration of the wine. It always was "for many" instead of "for all" and was unfortunately changed some forty years age when the novelty of the novus ordo Mass was given us by Pius VI. The Extraordinary form of the Mass retains the original words of Christ.
I didn't see the mass live as I was working. After reading the previous post about it I tried to sit through the rebroadcast at midnight...I just couldn't do it. I made it to the "Psalm" and I decided it wasn't worth missing sleep over. What a nightmare!
Anyway, how about some good news musically from, of all places, The Diocese of Rochester. Here in the little city of Corning, I have formed a small (3 men) Schola that is has been given permission from the Pastoral Administrator (a Deacon) to begin transforming our 5pm Saturday mass into a more "traditional" Novus Ordo Mass. By the Grace of God and many prayers to Sts. Cecilla and Gregory the Music Directors (who are progressives) agreed.
We will start slowly, with myself and one of the guys alternating as cantor for the mass we will keep the present mass (Mass of Light) and hymns (ugh). But the schola will be allowed to do a prelude chant (the Introit of the day) , and instead of the Second Communion Hymn, we will use the Communion Proper. Next we will replace the Mass of Light with plain-song English and Latin Chants using the melodies from the Jubilate Deo. We will also be given latitude in Hymns by the end of the Summer.
We've had to agree that we will be a "sub-committee" to the Liturgical committee and that we will do things gradually. We also put together a sample of what the mass would look like with chants inserted, more traditional hymns and the progression to that state. This got the Music Directors over the hump so to speak, as they were originally only going to let us do the mass once a month, which would have been doomed in this parish. Instead they were put at ease that we're not going to just brute force things. Dialog actually worked...but backed by reason and truth.
After myself and one of my members go to the Chant intensive, we will introduce more Chant. Our PA is also considering ordering 200 copies of the Adoremus Hymnal for that mass for us to us for hymns and parts of the mass!
Far as the schola goes we have been studying the last few month from Goodchild's Chant, The Gregorian Chant Master Class and the Square Notes work book, all supplemented with the textbook of Gregorian Chant by Dom Gregory. I have used the "The Blueprint: Sacred Music in Your Parish" by Arlene Oost-Zinner and Jeffrey Tucker, as the basis of our plan. Not sure if we are doing justice to it Arlene and Jeff, but we're trying!
We are at the point that we feel ready to take be visible to the community, even in the limited role extended to us. Being visible will make the schola a reality, and, will help us build support for the mass, and finding more recruits.
The reform of reform is even happening in this liturgical wasteland...so don't despair!
Dear Knight of Our Lady,
I certainly meant no insult. I have heard the hymn sung in a Marian procession and it is fine...I find it in appropriate in Mass for the same reason that yesterday's music was inappropriate.
The redeeming part is the chorus when sung by a congregation. The opening is one of those soloist, milk-it-for-all-it's-worth problematic musical stylings that is simply not appropriate for liturgy.
This is of course IMHO, but I do profess to know a thing or two.
Good music is written today and bad liturgical music existed before the Council.
That is my point which I should have made clearer.
I will sing it during the Toronto Oratory's Marian Procession through the streets of Parkdale...but not at Mass.
Vox Cantor,
It's true bad music existed before the Council (Little White Guest), but the difference is, that kind of music was not allowed at a Missa Cantata.
Tom
this is the kind of music some of us live with every day. yet in past months if we had complained we were accused of exaggerating. there are simple versions of the mass propers, in english, that can be used. if they are used the mass will be a totally different experience. why can't this different experience be available in every parish across america immediately? it has nothing to do with latin or even rite. why aren't the mass propers being allowed to be sung in ENGLISH?
i will answer my own question:
it is because americhurch is a separate body and it forbids their use.
i am happy that a few people posting today had the courage to admit it.
James,
This is the loophole that most of the craziness is justified under. Problem for the progressives is this paragraph has been clarified numerous times by the Vatican to mean specifically "Mission Lands" that don't have a tradition of Catholic worship. It wasn't meant to, bring in every kind of secular music and throw off the traditions and music of the Church.
Pope Benedict should at least legislate that this loophole, and others are closed. Lets hope that what comes out of the mess at National s Park at least causes that to happen.
Could someone please show me where the instructions in Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the Latin and Chant having "pride of place" in the Mass applies to the Novus Ordo? After reading the link B. provided of what Paul VI wrote, it is obvious that Latin and Chant were being scrapped and he knew it. Besides, wasn't Sacrosanctum Concilium written BEFORE there WAS a Novus Ordo?
Seriously, the reform of the reform idea needs to be abandoned. It cannot be done. What about that document JPII wrote about 10 years ago that we were all breathlessly waiting for that was supposed to "fix" things? What about the clarifications in the new GIRM? Abuses still abound.
This was what the American hierarchy thought was befitting for the pope. No abuses were committed - doesn't that say SOMETHING? No. Abuses. Committed. Yikes. The fact is - licit and vaild is not enough. Someone tell me otherwise.
Holy Father, PLEASE take the etch-a-sketch that the last 40-odd years had been written on and SHAKE IT.
Dear Jeffrey,
This is a brilliant article. I hope people far and wide read it and digest its meaning.
I don't know anyone who doesn't feel intense shame or anger over the affront to the Holy Father because of the music. My Orthodox and Anglican friends have flooded my email with the sorts of statements that make it clear that not only was this music bad but it had an anti-Evangelization effect.
Vincent
James DePrisco,
I knew one Dick DePrisco once. Any relation? He went for a time to the seminary in Cincinnati.
Richard R (Rice?)hit the nailhead squarely. Our sewing circle here can banter 'til hell freezes over about how every macro and microcosmic aspect of the DC "spectacle" edifies their own philosophical perspective on what constitutes proper, much less licit liturgy. So what?
The seemingly purposeful detachment of our bishops (hence to their priests) from serious engagement collegially as how to address equally serious issues of worship practice in their local sees is the real disaster.
Yesterday's stadium Mass was certainly a "Hindenburg." But what political entity's hubris mandated the engineering of such an innovative and symbolic spectacle?
Lotsa hubris yesterday evident throughout. Hubris is not in any way, shape or form to be found integrally in music. It can be found in both composer and performer, and then made manifest in their music. Sure.
What was evidently missing yesterday was true humility from whomever served as architects of that brokedown, baroque, monstrous musical palace. And that lack of humility was heartbreaking, because as Richard R aptly states, it diminishes authentic worship to the status of mere ceremony. And many of us live that heartbreak daily as we try ever so often, with ingenuity, charity and deference, to engage our parish pastors to enter into dialogues concerning the "hows" of our worship. Only to find more indifference and disengagement.
PS. SING TO THE LORD now seems even more impotent and tarnished in the twilight aftermath.
RE: Comment by Michael Christensen:
The translation (or mistranslation) to "for all" is present in English. In French, we say "pour vous et pour la multitude" and not "pour tous". People should note that this problematic translation is a problem in the English language and not necessarily a problem in other languages.
good ol self idoalization...
Gloria in excelsis Meo..
Agnu Mei..
Credo in unum Meum...
this is exactly what we're saying when we do things in the name of multi-culturalism.
It is a shame that we put the Holy Father through this. But I am in hope that this is the end of an era.
It always was "for many" instead of "for all" and was unfortunately changed some forty years age when the novelty of the novus ordo Mass was given us by Pius VI.
Beg to differ. The Latin words here are identical in both the ordinary and extraordinary forms. The phrase "for all" was introduced by the ICEL in their terrible translation of the Latin into English.
Excellent post Jeffrey, I hope and pray that your analysis of the situation is correct.
Many thanks
I think that the fundamental error behind the choice of music must be attributed to anthropocentricism, the focus upon the congregation as the object of the choice of music. If, in fact, the music had been chosen to enhance the beauty of the liturgy and its sacredness, and to underscore the worship of God, not the celebration of the congregation (crudely represented in a multicultural fashion), then the priorities would have been entirely different. They would have placed Gregorian chant in first place and classical polyphony second; note, that there was not one complete piece of authentic Gregorian chant in the whole proceeding, and not one piece of classical polyphony. As for Placido Domingo, he stood in plain view of the whole congregation as if it were a concert performance, and appropriately received the applause of the congregation (or was it the audience by that time?) Franck's Panis angelicus was the only piece of traditional church music (aside from a couple of hymns, which should have been replaced with Gregorian propers), but that has been viewed as too operatic and theatrical, even since before the Council, thus, the worst of the tradition. I must admit that my ears relaxed a bit upon hearing it after the clap-trap that preceded it, but on reflection, it was scarcely more appropriate than most of the music we heard.
There is quite a different picture for Yankee Stadium; yet, there is not a single Gregorian proper of the Mass, the parts of the Ordinary are uncoordinated, and the whole prodeeding is sandwiched between movements of Beethoven's ninth! I reserve judgment until hearing it, but remain skeptical.
One can only hope that yesterdays trainwreck will spur His Holiness into some concrete action. One recalls that many if not all documents from Rome aimed at correcting or rectifying abuses have been routinely ignored. What is glaring is the sheer audacity toshove this in the face of the Holy Father. Although His Holiness has written extensively on the subject of the Liturgy I seriously doubt any of the clowns planning this "event" would have read a word or an iota ofany of it. His Holiness in spite of his media characterizations prefect of the CDF, showed remarkable restraint during his tenure. Wresting control from a hostile liberal ( dare I say Modernist) establishment takes time. People who likethis sort of thing are entrenched in the Curia as well as the Episcopal Conferences in every country. This will take time.
One hopes that the spectacle is not repeated in NYC and that those with purple or red hats responsible for yesterdays planning find themselves in the Apostolic nunciature in Dubai or Kyrgestan.
JPG
Fairfield, CT
The most encouraging words of this article are: "Meanwhile local ordinaries in Virginia and Maryland are frantically denying any responsibility".
That suggests that at least some bishops have seen how this thing has blown up like the cans of chicken mash in Vandergelder's Hay and Feed, and they don't want any part of the stink. This is a very good thing.
"Archbishop Wuerl was not a very thoughtful host - matter of fact - I would call him "insensitive." He should know better than all of us, Benedict's liturgical views "
The good Archbishop may have just sealed his own fate. Archbishop Wuerl aimed a shot across the Pope's bow. He knew exactly what he was doing. Archbishop Wuerl was given one of the most high visible dioceses in the US and he blew it. An Archbishop in his position is not given many oppurtunities. All he had to do was come half way -but he couldn't control himself.
"O age, thou art shamed."*
"O shame, where is thy blush?"**
-Shakespeare, *Julius Caesar, **Hamlet
The hackneyed and ingenuous arguments that what we witnessed at Nationals Park is somehow integral to the Ordinary Form of the Mass foisted upon us by the dastardly Vatican II are growing beyond wearisome. One only needs to look at St. John Cantius in Chicago, St. Agnes in St. Paul MN, or Assumption Grotto in Detroit, amongst many others, for examples of the Ordinary Form celebrated with exemplary sacred music. With all respect to those who have been deeply offended by the DC Mass, attacking the Ordinary Form itself is too simplistic a reaction.
As reported in the Arlington Catholic Herald, "the prayers of the faithful, the music, and the readers and servers, for the most part, are those decided by the liturgy organizers in the archdioceses of Washington and New York, who coordinated their efforts with a representative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." Take the time and peruse the USCCB website laden with the modernist language of multiculturalism and diversity. Multiculturalism is a political and post modernist movement possessing its own language---it is not Scriptural and it is not pastoral. The USCCB placed its agenda as the American Church over the pastoral sensibilities of our Holy Father which is rude enough. But it also should highlight the great struggle taking place in our Church.
That struggle is manifest on the one side by Katherine, with her website link to Catholics for Obama. She represents Catholicism not as liturgy, not as Church, not as Faith, but as her own divine politics (indeed, catholics for [any politician] demeans the Faith and subordinates Truth to the political). Our Faith is better than that. Our Faith is not about political parties but about salvation. And liturgy is about our salvation, not about our diversity or our politics. I have attended Mass in a third world country where the simplicity of the music, the beautiful but localized forms of chanting and instruments, is real prayer, and emanates from the soul. Can that really be said of a staged affectation for an outrageous attempt at stereotyping various "cultures" in the Mass at Nationals stadium.
I do not write with the anger of a Traditionalist---for if labels apply i suppose i am not really such a person, but I am a simple Catholic whose almost daily visit to Mass is my most selfish half hour of the day to fulfill my need for the love of the Eucharist first. I write out of sadness. Sadness to see the Katherine catholics for obama; sadness to see a lack of reverence for what should be sacred; and sadness over what can only be the rudeness demonstrated to the Holy Father because of the vainglorious sanctimony of someone with a political cause. I am now however a formerly liturgical agnostic
There's a lot of bashing, name calling (and whining) in here as well as the odd piping of elitism ('..trained liturgical specialists' - gotta love that one) and yet very little aintrospection going on.
As an outsider watching the Mass on tv, but having lived in the US, I can only comment that what I saw and heard was a reflection of American society - the banality, the showmanship, the total lack of reverence for anything sacred. I wasn't angry or indignant about it. In truth, I laughed halfway through it. But in the end I just thought, well this is how America celebrates the Mass. It would not have surprised me if Jay Leno had acted as MC.
Instead of pointing the finger, why not take a good look at yourselves first and realise who the real target should be here? Society starts with you, it cannot run without your input and it is something for which you are ALL responsible. As such, it is you that play a part in sharing the responsibility for how the Mass turned out.
So, if all of you are so highly indignant as to the turn of events, then do something that will actively elicit change.
John M. wrote:"The hackneyed and ingenuous arguments that what we witnessed at Nationals Park is somehow integral to the Ordinary Form of the Mass foisted upon us by the dastardly Vatican II are growing beyond wearisome. One only needs to look at St. John Cantius in Chicago, St. Agnes in St. Paul MN, or Assumption Grotto in Detroit, amongst many others, for examples of the Ordinary Form celebrated with exemplary sacred music."
Mr. M, The parishes you list in particular are the exception rather than the rule. In addition, they are not being true to the nature of the Ordinary Form. I read and invite you to read Pope Paul VI's address posted above.
Read it carefully. Did you see this?
"The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin."
And this?
"We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant."
From the above referred document, what we saw yesterday at Nationals Stadium is perfectly normal.
Reform of the Reformers, please wake up. There is NOTHING to reform. Dress the Ordinary Form up any way you like, it is still a shell of its former self.
The fact that people think that the OF can become more than it was designed to be is wearisome.
Grace wrote: "So, if all of you are so highly indignant as to the turn of events, then do something that will actively elicit change."
The current Holy Father did something last July to "actively elicit change" and look what he was subjected to. And HE'S THE POPE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
The people who have no love for the Church or Her traditions will ignore and try to silence those of us who do - even the Successor of Peter himself.
God has sent me children that my husband and I are now tasked with getting to heaven. I cannot fight in the trenches anymore or I risk the souls of my children as casualties.
I support and encourage those with grown children or no children who are active in their NO parish trying to turn the tide.
Prayer is the first line of defense and I do that. Frankly, I think we're going to have to wait out the current generation in charge. The others who are against tradition are not replenishing their numbers so...the meek shall inherit the earth.
RE: Joseph's comment on "for all" and "for many"
I believe we are in agreement about this point. It was the ICEL that made a terrible mistake when translating "pro multis" for the Novus Ordo liturgy to mean "for all" instead of "for many" as the Church has used it from time immemorial in the Latin Mass.
Also: Thanks to Fr. Beachley for his helpful input concerning the deficiency of the English language concerning this point.
Much comment has been made about the document of Pope Paul VI in his promulgation of the so-called Novus Ordo. I would love to take the time to go through an explanation of how one is to read a Church document but this is not the venue. In short, I think the American mind has a hard time with Church documents because of a cultural reality that we have of being highly litigious to the point of fault. In many was I think this is a result of the Protestant influence on our culture. It causes us to latch on to phrases and place them in a vacuum. This is the same thing that some Protestants do with Scripture. This is not the way the Church understands herself and we cannot impose our own cultural norms on the Holy See, so we must read documents as the Church reads them.
The document in question has a context. First it fits into the larger tradition of the Church. Next it fits into the Documents of the Council the post conciliar documents. Further it must be taken in context of the correctives and dubia that surround the liturgy. Also, it has to read from the perspective of the law-giver in this instance Paul VI and so his other statements pertain to the document such as his directives to include Gregorian Chant.
Before I entered the seminary, many years ago, I was driving my Archbishop and speaking to him about some document or another. He told me that my understanding of the topic was flawed because I didn't know how to read the documents. At the time, in my pride, I thought he was wrong. In retrospect I have found that I was indeed prideful in thinking that I understood things completely. This is the reason why we have a Church who in God's mercy was given to us to guide and shepherd us in all truth. So, instead of approaching documents with a hermeneutic of suspicion we must be good Catholics and read them with a hermeneutic of trust and obedience. It is only with such a disposition that truth qua truth can be investigated.
I think it is also important to bear in mind that Pope Paul's words were descriptive, not prescriptive.
The official musical book of the "Novus Ordo" (i.e. the Ordinary Form), the Graduale Romanum, contains nothing but Gregorian chant, in Latin.
That so many have taken the option of "alius cantus aptus" until it has become the default approach to musical planning is a problem stemming from a lamentable lack of episcopal supervision.
Wonderful discussion here, very glad I found this blog as I too was really offended and embarrassed at yesterday's music in Washington
Bad or questionable liturgical music has been with us for a long time though, even at the bastions mentioned above: Watch the 1941 Easter Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago, lovely Solemes Gregorian Propers while the ordinary is like something right out a Broadway Musical, or the Mass Setting by Pietro Yon, the director at St Patrick's in NYC and who also taught Cole Porter harmony. The long standing Sunday Mozartian Mass traditions in Austria and Bavaria (and St. Agnes) don't always flawlessly pass the liturgical litmus test –but who couldn’t love the grand music so we will go and love it and we won’t let the cat out of the bag on this one since the other side loves to beat the performance drum on this.
We in the US tend to hold Europeans at a somewhat exalted state, but good music there is not really a given anymore than here. Langlais improvised his famed organ music at Guitar Masses. Everyone here should attend a Sunday Mass at St. Peter’s in Rome. The Roman Curia is not exactly hearing ‘Pride of Place’ either. We owe a debt of gratitude to the networks, even EWTN, for weaving in the Anglican Recordings of our Roman Music at televised events – I was almost expecting the Tallis Scholars to come out from behind the curtain at JP II’s funeral... And then the live sound came on..... KYRIELEIS (as they say in Benedict's tongue)
Jeffrey:
Well written; thoughtful; intelligent! You have stated the issues with grace and clarity. May a renewal in America truly be the fruit fromt his disappointing moment!
Some of the objections to the Spanish-language Hymns used "in my name" at the Papal Mass in Washington are misplaced. I don't think it would be entirely accurate to attribute the Spanish-language hymns being done in the name of Hispanic Americans any more than it would be accurate to attribute the Gregorian Chants done at the Papal Mass in Washington being done in my name as a European American. To me, the "Ven Espiritu Santo" by Jaime Cortez and the Catholic Gopsel Hymn "I Call Upon You God" by Leon Roberts were done just as much in my name as they were done in the names of the Hispanic-Americans and the African-Americans of the Archdiocese. To me, they were done just as much in my name as the Gregorian Chant "Veni Creator Spiritus" or "Panis Angelicus" of "Lord, You Give the Great Commission."
I KNEW WHAT WAS COMING SO I DID NOT SEE THE MASS.. THIS IS WHAT THE N O CHURCH DOES. MUSIC CHEAP ! VESTMENTS CHEAPER!!! HIDE THE WEALTH BECAUSE NOTHING IS TOO CHEAP FOR GOD.
Dear Sir:
I agree with you that the selections and arrangements performed at Holy Mass in National Stadium were inappropriate, however, this point you raise about how so many people had their feelings hurt is one of the reasons the Catholic Church is in its current state. My feelings and your feelings are not a concern. We are to imitate Christ and act according to Church teaching no matter our feelings.
As a Catholic who is appalled by some of the muzak that you hear at modern Masses, I can see what you're saying here. I love the call to "e-root ourselves to the Church's own liturgical language."
Yet, as a new convert to the faith, former atheist, and person who has almost entirely non-religious friends and family members, I found the Mass to be an incredible moment of beauty and hope. Though I agree that some of the music could have been better, I think something really powerful happened there.
Here's a vignette that illustrates my perspective:
My DVR was taping the EWTN broadcast of the Mass, so I flipped back and forth between the major news networks' coverage to see what their take was. Though, like you, I cringed at some of the music, I was overwhelmed by the effort that it took to put this event together -- as a lifelong atheist who grew up around atheists, it was stunning to see so many people trying to do something to honor God and the Holy Father. (Growing up, I didn't know there were that many Christians in the *world*!)
The homily, the huge numbers of people who were there (+ the thousands who wanted to go and couldn't get tickets), some of the music, all the priests and religious -- watching it, I was overwhelmed with joy and hope, so much so that I was in tears by the end.
And then, as if it couldn't get any better, I noticed something: the announcers on the major news networks -- the mainstream media! -- were blown away as well. On one network the anchor asked everyone to just be silent for a moment. On another network, the anchor asked the (non-Catholic) correspondent to describe the feel there, and he gushed:
"It's like being at the World Series...and the Pope's team is winning."
I could hear one of the announcers getting choked up when he commented on the Pope kissing the baby. To see the way their hearts were touched, I felt like I was in the presence of a miracle.
The next day I got my Kleenex ready and turned to my recorded EWTN version to see it all again. But in this version the only thing you could hear was the commentaters complaining about the music. They didn't even seem to notice the Pope kissing the baby. It reminded me of that scene in John 5:8-10. It's not that the law wasn't important, but sometimes when you focus on it too much you can miss miracles.
Just wanted to offer that perspective. The liturgy-loving Catholic part of me agrees that different music could have been chosen that would have given more glory to God; but the former atheist part of me who knows what it's like to live without religion sees that something big happened here, and it was good.
Jennifer,
I think that you bring up a very good point. Those of us who have been in the trenches of fostering reform and trying to educate people on what is right and proper can forget that that vast majority of people don't notice or don't care and will in fact just do whatever is done with no particular scruples. It reminds me that there is a dramatic difference between the academic discussions about what is right and the pastoral aspect of catechesis. Both are needed and necessary and both have a mode of conversation that should not be supplanted by the other. It is good to remember that for many our conversations can seem pharisaical though it is not our intention nor disposition.
The music was beautiful and extremely uplifting. I wish that the music was like that all the time at papal masses. We must sing with joy like they did at this mass
The music showed the beutiful different cultures that make up our wonderful church . We must make joyful the noise and praise unto the Lord and this is what this mass did.
I think that it is horrible to think that eveyone has to complain about the music. The mass was there to celebrate Our Lord in the Holy Mass and the way that the music was sung was fabulous in accompanying the liturgy, It was very beautiful and made me proud to be part of a faith that celebrates different cultures through the faith that we share
Thank the Lord for the celbration of the mass which was very important and made celebration of the most Holy Eucharist
For those who have recently posted in favor I would challenge them to explain how there is any objective continuity between their statements and the liturgical documents of the Church and her own self identity in the worship of the Father.
I thought the music was pretty good.
Read Mark Shea's comments:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/
Everything you said was literally true, except the part about Haugen's "Mass of Creation." This sort of music represents a different kind of problem, namely the repetition ad nauseum of music that simply does not bear repeated hearings.
It is good to know that there are people out there who are concerned about this misguided approach to Catholic worship.
Thank God for the Mass at St. Patrick Cathedral. Dr. Jennifer Pasqual and those who planned the Music of the Liturgy are to be commended. The music was appropriate and far more inclusive than anything at Nationals Stadium. Great Job!
Jim B:
I read Mark Shea's response and in all fairness I have to say that he was sincere. I would say the problem is not so much the music (though it was horrid) but rather the message being said by the music and musical selections. The thoughtful critiques here are more about the intrinsic dignity of the liturgy and the rules the Church has laid out on the use of Sacred Music. It is also about the oft quoted phrase of the "hermeneutic of continuity" used by our Holy Father. Mark's response seems to be more emotional than thoughtful and I am surprised by that since he is usually more thoughtful in his commentary.
The fact that he practiced for a long time is irrelevant and the fact that people worked hard to make it happen are irrelevant. In Enlightenment France there was a huge "Mass" celebrated with all the traditional art removed and replaced with geometric figures. There was another on at Notre Dame that featured a prostitute on the altar. I am sure that many people put a lot of work into these famous "Masses of the Enlightenment" but that doesn't excuse their impiety.
He speaks on the topic of reverence and while it seems that the Director tried to impart reverence in the choir he did not input reverence in the musical selections. Again, he explains, in brief, how and why the music selections were made and it shows a vast ignorance for the use of music in the liturgy in that it was selected for the subjective and not the objective qualities not even for the subjective qualities that matter. Rather the music choice seems to have been selected through a hermeneutic of relativism. This may just be ignorance because not many people have ever been taught the theological dimensions of the use of music in the liturgy and for that I think many are forgiving. However that does not excuse blatant or stubborn ignorance of the desires of the Church on this point. There is much more that could be said about his comments but we don't have time here to look at each. However, my point is that for the most part the critique here has not been the Naziesque (as he implies) manner of critique but rather it is founded in the very truth of the nature of objective beauty and the guidance of the Church on the issue of Sacred Music.
The mass was a period of Joy we myst thank almighty God for a blessed day.
The Catechism in 1157 says Song and music fulfill their function as signs in a manner all the more significant when they are "more closely connected . . . with the liturgical action," according to three principal criteria: beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly at the designated moments, and the solemn character of the celebration. In this way they participate in the purpose of the liturgical words and actions: the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful:
How I wept, deeply moved by your hymns, songs, and the voices that echoed through your Church! What emotion I experienced in them! Those sounds flowed into my ears distilling the truth in my heart. A feeling of devotion surged within me, and tears streamed down my face - tears that did me good.
The mass proved to be a mass of sincere joy and emotion and as the mass was a liturgy of the holy spirit accompanyied the mass greatly
Brother Gabriel,
You mention "objective beauty," but as near as I can the definition of this "objective beauty" still ends up boiling down to personal taste. Let's take the song from the Washington Papal Mass that seems to have provoked such a reaction on EWTN - Ven Espiritu Santo, by Jaime Cortez - which was used at the Offertory. What can be objected to about this hymn? The text is clearly of the character of sacred music: Come O Holy Spirit, divine light of the heavens; enter the depths of our soul and offer us your comfort; You are rest when we are weary; You are joy eternal - full of love and goodness. Similarly, the hymn was clearly sung with the intent of being a prayer. So what is left? The musical style?
If so, I think the question must be asked: In the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of one billion souls and two thousand years of history, why should the Church be limited to the musical traditions of one relatively small corner of the Eastern Hemisphere, developed during just one portion of its history?
Finally, I think it is worth considering the words of the Holy Father in the homily that he delivered on this very occasion: "Two hundred years later, the Church in America can rightfully praise the accomplishment of past generations in bringing together widely differing immigrant groups within the unity of the Catholic faith and in a common commitment to the spread of the Gospel. At the same time, conscious of its rich diversity, the Catholic community in this country has come to appreciate ever more fully the importance of each individual and group offering its own particular gifts to the whole."
To me, it seems clear that the Church in Washington was particularly blessed to have its immigrant communities from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe, as well as its Native American communities contribute each of their "own particular gifts to the whole" at this Mass.
Alleluia Alleluia! It is not a situation peculiar to America but rather it is capitalism that in its infinitely pythonic coils seeks ever to to choke all life out of the radiant Bride! Wherever the god Profit-and Maximisation-of-Shareholder-Return is venerated with true Moloch-like devotion the rampant consumerist spirit will ever serve to destory the still small voice of calm. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, Heaven and Earth are full of Your Glory!
Abortion is merely the ultimate expression of Americo-capitalist consumer choice.
John D the Holy Father answers this question as does St. Pius X. You might be surprised to learn( or not) that musical style is perhaps one of the most important aspects of defining Sacred Music. For instance in his book "Spirit of the Liturgy" the Holy Father speaks about how percussion based music is unfitting for the Mass.
Further, there is also the difference between what is termed secular and sacred music and that each has their proper sphere and purpose. A good point can be made about this based on the poster before your comment in that secular music arouses the passions and is highly emotive whereas sacred music moves the intellect and will and directs the mind and heart to God and causes a "sober inebriation" as opposed to the cathartic aspects of secular music.
Also, there is the matter of simplicity. Sacred Music is by nature simple. For this reason Pius X disallowed a lot of the popular liturgical music of the time because it was to complicated and thus not suited for the liturgy. This is also the case with a lot of modern music.
You are correct in saying that the words are fine in this particular song you sight (as far as I can tell) so it does fulfill the didactic aspect of sacred music but this is only a small aspect of sacred music.
Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the concept of nobility. To understand and noble or fitting character would take quite an effort to explain here but for the sake of simplicity I think that we can fit it into a concept. The concept is that same hermeneutic of continuity with the tradition of the Church. Much modern music used in churches stands in strong contrast to what would fit into that corpus of tradition.
I am not saying that only Gregorian Chant is Sacred Music but it is and it is the model of Sacred Music. There is much music that has been written in modern time that could fit into the category of Sacred Music but we don't see it in our parishes because this sense of the importance of the nature of liturgical music has been lost. Especially in the US we reduce it to taste but we must look at the very purpose of using music at Mass, how it is used, why it is used, why this song fits here and not in another place, the theological reasons for singing in different manners at different times. What DC expresses to me more than anything is that the whys of liturgical music has been neglected too long.
Trditional music has been neglected in no way and the traditional music of the church will always stay.We must remember we are one universal church which has different types of music and langauge in the end the purpose is to worship God. It is beautiful that we have a different types of music in our church as it shows how diverse a church we really are. We must thank God for this diversity and make sure that we celebrate what we have, As everyone is different and prays to God in different ways and langauages. Faith is something that is very personal and something that is celebrated in different ways.
The DC mass was a means of showing that although we are all different , we are one in the Holy Roman Catholic Church , something which will never change and always be the same. The mass appealed in worship to everyone in all different ways every song had a sentiment in giving all glory to the Lord and all hymns were in the charcter of sacred music as the songs fitted well to the holy liturgy.
I find difficult to believe that "simplicity" is a defining characteristic of sacred music. After all, much polyphony as well as much of the music of the classical tradition, such as Mozart's "Ave Verum" and Brahms' "How Lovely is Thy Dwelling Place" and Franck's "Panis Angelicus" (which were used at the Washington and New York Papal Masses) are all highly complex works of music. Franck's "Panis Angelicus" is particuarly relevant to this discussion as it was written in 1872 during the Pontificate of Bld. Pius IX, but was frowned upon due to its modernity. 130 years later, Pope Benedict XVI was clearly visibly moved by the use of it during his Liturgy, and indeed appears to give the hymn, as led by Placido Domingo, something approaching a "standing ovation" during the Washington Papal Mass.
While I'm not completely familiar with "Spirit of the Liturgy", as written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger five years before his election to the Papacy - I question what exactly was the context of that work, and whether it was referring to all percussion-based basic, including inculturated percussion music, or more primarily to modern rock music. Moreover, it is worth noting that if Pope Benedict XVI truly believed that percussion music was completely inappropriate for the Mass (as so many posters here seem to have argued), then why the Holy Father did not quietly instruct his staff to ensure that percussion-music is excluded from any Mass at which he presides, pending some authoritative liturgical document which he would offer? And yet, the music at the World Youth Day Mass at Cologne, Germany clearly made use of a drum set, and now again, the Washington Papal Mass included a drum set, congas, and other African percussion instruments. And again, all the instruments and musical selections were approved by the Vatican. Clearly, the prohibition on percussion-based music in the Mass cannot be as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.
I don't think the Washington Papal Mass at all showed the neglect of the "whys" of Liturgical Music. As you might imagine, actually a great deal of thought went into the "what" and "why" of the music for that Mass. Rather, they just simply reached a different conclusion about the "why" than you would have. Once again, I think that a line from Pope Benedict XVI's homily really reflects the "why" that was very much in the mind of the organizers of the Washington Papal Mass: "At the same time, conscious of its rich diversity, the Catholic community in this country has come to appreciate ever more fully the importance of each individual and group offering its own particular gifts to the whole."
Br. Gabriel, I am not sure it can be maintained that sacred music is simple without excluding a whole lot of music. Baroque music is one example (even if some people would love to see that). Another would be some kinds of medieval music, some music by Desprez for instance, Machaut.
Also, surely drums can be used as backup for some kinds of chant. I agree that sacred music must be "sacred" properly so called.
Geraldine, the argument is not that traditional music was neglected, but rather that some kinds of music are not suitable for worship, and never were so.
John D., Christ was born in one small corner of one particular place in history. And chant is universal in appeal and aim. You don't have to be a white male to enjoy chant any more than you have to be one to enjoy Shakespeare. Indeed, I think one could argue that there is something odd in not liking or not responding to either.
Tell me why this music was not suitable for worship ? All of the music was in worship of God and linked to the mass that was being celebrated which was the votive of the Holy Spirit.
Do you undertand why many leave the church? I'll tell you because they don't feel at home in the catholic churches in the USA , because the music dosen't give sentiment to the joy of worshiping the Lord and giving thanks to Our Lord in the Eucharist. Everyone has different cultures and celebrates the mass differently,gregorian chant is something that dosen't appeal to everyone as everyone is different.Many people that most decent types of music can be used to wroship God and we Thank God that we are able to worship him in different ways not just one way.
Thank God for the diversity that we share. The majority of the mass gregorian chant was the main setting sung. The church just wanted to show that gregorian chant is the main form of worship but others can be used as we are diverse.It dosen't matter if there are were different types of music the mass still still stayed true to it's roots and still was able to celebrate in different ways.All of the songs were sung in deep reverence to the Lord and that is what matters.
I think that overall the music that was sung overall was beautiful.
Some of the music at the Mass was based on chant melodies but it was not chant and the riffing was not undertaken with evident affection for the original genre.
Geraldine, the music was not suitable for some of the reasons discussed above which I am not going to repeat. I don't think Gregorian chant is (or ought to be) alien to anybody, although I wouldn't advocate banning all modern (non-classical) music in every place around the Church starting tonight at 6pm (nor is this practical). As to the place of chant, and why non-chant based music is unsuitable, one need only look at the many documents since the time of St. Pius X which have come out regarding music in worship. Also, I have encountered quite different sorts of music in Church, and the most joyful music I have encountered in my life is the Lauda Sion sequence for Corpus Christi, and Victoria's O Quam Gloriosum. Besides, when people make the argument that chant is alien to their culture, they are usually speaking (I find) are usually of European extraction, and they are making all sorts of assumptions about those of us who are not.
I think your argument is rather odd, given that most music in American Churches (from what I hear: I myself am not American) is not Gregorian chant or polyphony or developments thereof. If it is indeed true (and I agree it is) that people do not find the music in their Churches fulfilling, then it is because the kind of music that they are enduring is not suitable for worship.
Geraldine, additionally, the point is not to exclude all other music or to impose one set of tastes as normative, but to say that certain music - and only certain music - is suitable for use at Mass. I am now listening to some overtures of Franz Von Suppe, and however wonderful they are and however nicely they fit to the action of a Bugs Bunny cartoon, I haven't the remotest interest in seeing them used at Mass. In fact, I would head any organized march against the use of Franz Von Suppe in the context of the Mass.
I believe that all of the music at the DC mass was suitable and the main point for the musical setting was reverance and rejoicing in the Holy Eucharist.
I am not Catholic. I guess I'm kind of bewildered that the Catholic music directors would fail to use music to the Pope's liking. Pardon the crude expression, but it seems like a no-brainer. Just give the boss what he wants.
This article expresses all that I felt. This music at the Stadium certainly did not represent what our Mass should be like nor the choice of most Americans. It was a very good example of why our church is in such deep disarray and fracture. If any Bishop had anything to do with approving of this muusic, he should be laicized for scandal!
It was horrifying to watch and listen, knowing that those of other faiths were looking on as well. We, those of us faithful to the Magisterium, and solidly Roman Catholic could not help but cringe. To have stooped to this level is an utter embarrassment and, truth be told, a direct insult to the Holy Father, who is not well-loved by the liberal, so-called Catholics, to say nothing of the "dumbing down" of what has been for centuries one of the most magnificent settings for the most magnificently beautiful sacred music. We have allowed the commonality of the street desecrate the holiest of all undertakings allowed to the human race. I do agree that this may just be the straw the breaks the camels back. One can hope and pray.
I am not Catholic. I guess I'm kind of bewildered that the Catholic music directors would fail to use music to the Pope's liking. Pardon the crude expression, but it seems like a no-brainer. Just give the boss what he wants.
Paul Lamon
Dear Mr. Lamon,
You have to understand the issue is that the music was not to the liking of some people who are convinced the Pope agrees with them.
Katherine, the Holy Father has spoken most emphatically on the issue of liturgical music. It's not that we think he agress with us, but rather, we agree with him. To disregard to the extent which they did in D.C. the clearly stated directives of the Holy Father regarding liturgical music can only be seen as a lack of respect for our Pope, a sort of "in your face" brand of Ameri-Catholocism
One of the most beautiful masses I've attended was at a small church in Boston where the music ministry was a group of maybe 14 Nigerians singing accapella, clapping and drumming. It was worship from the heart, worship of common people, and we were all able to join in despite any cultural differences.
It is a mistake to celebrate anything but Jesus, our Risen Savior at Mass. It's a mistake to celebrate our multiculturalism, our liberalism or our traditionalism. As soon as we congratulate ourselves on being liturgically correct or politically correct or do anything to take our minds and hearts off of Jesus, then we have lost something very special.
What a grace it must have been for those who watched the Mass and focused on the Lord rather than on what constitutes appropriate music.
Jesus had a lot to say about people who judged based on the exterior. We who love tradition must take care not to resemble the Pharisees more than we do the Lord.
corakita, the problem was that the music was inappropriate for the circumstance and caused distraction, rather than a spirit of reverence for the Eucharist. And multiculturalism was indeed the focus of the day, NOT the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is America, and while at certain times, under certain circumstances a liturgy reflecting the culture of a particular group is appropriate, this was NOT one of those times, particularly since this Pontiff has specifically called for a return to more solemn and sacred music of the Church. If that offends, then the Pope must offend as well. When are people going to get the message that its not about "me", but about Him? To raise the quality of liturgical music should offend no one, unless they have a personal agenda.
Ok. I guess I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.
Pride abounds.
Say what you want. I was at the Mass in DC as were many of my friends and every last one of us still has his or her head in clouds of joy over being at the Mass.
Herd together all of the old ladies of Washington who were at the Mass, brow-beat us into confessing that Chant would be better than the music selections, that western music is to be prefered over a multi-cultural mismatch and force us to affirm that the Mass was so devoid of beauty, art, and grace that it is not what the Church teaches is to be done to move the heart and we will mutter quitely "Eppur si muove!"
The "Enlightenment" switched the tracks and sent our entire culture in the wrong direction. We either must backtrack or start from the point where we were misguided. The music of the 20th century was railroaded into a dead-end with Schoenberg's 12 tone row and the atonality of Berg and Webern et al. Creativity has come to a screeching halt on all fronts. Art has become a messy caricature of our existence. Liturature, theater, cinematography, music in all its forms for the most part are all collapsing upon themselves. How many sequels and adaptations can we endure? Where is the originality? The Mass in DC is a reflection of our dying culture. We have abandoned God and He has left us to our own devices. The simple solution is to turn to Him and surrender ourselves and our talents to Him. I have heard descriptions of Heaven and the Beatific Vision which state that God will reveal ever-new and awe-inspiring aspects of Himself to each of us for all eternity. I believe with all my heart that if liturgical composers, music directors, cantors, choristers and most importantly, clergy on all levels surrendered their wills to His Will, this entire travesty would never be repeated
One good thing about that Mass in D.C.--Pope Benedict now knows what many Catholics in the U.S. have to suffer through every Sunday.
As for that Cardinal's hat in reserve for Archbishop Wuerl---it should be given to Archbishop Burke in St. Louis instead.
I do not attend Mass for an ancient music concert! I attend Mass for the Worship, Praise & Glory to God. I attend for the experience of our Lord in His Word & in The Eucharist. I attend for the experience of Catholic Community. I do not care if there IS music. I do not care what kind of music there may be. I wish that you sidetracked elitist snobs would Get Over Yourselves & your 'Back To The Medieval Church' obsession & Get WITH living like a committed Roman Catholic who loves ALL of God's People--and their music, if that's what The Lord asks of you.
Geraldine, in that case, we simply disagree.
Katherine, I cannot speak for others "who are convinced that the Pope agrees with them," but I don't really particularly think much would change in the argument, if (as is not the case) the Pope were not to agree with us, if the Pope (as is the case) hadn't written quite a deal about music and made his own preferences and wishes and directions commonly known. The fact that some music is unsuitable for Mass would remain true.
Also, at the end of the day, it really does not matter all that much whether you, the individual, or I for that matter, are moved. The question is about how God deserves to be worshipped. Of course, God can move us using lots of things, but that does not justify the specific things in question.
Carol, And I don't attend Mass for "an overweening and overpreening display of multicultural exhibitionism." Personally I like going to Masses where there is no music rather than music that turns me off. Then I can leave Mass feeling "love for all God's people" because they haven't shoved their ideas of liturgical music down my throat.
The Apostle Paul went to the Greeks as a Greek. What is an American? Is the Holy Spirit limited to Latin, to Gregorian chant? Are hymns just songs, musical notes, organ music, or are they expressions of our hearts? We are to enter His Gates with praise and thanksgiving. Jesus told us to pray "Our Father". We are celebrating Jesus present in Eucharist, present in our midst. He shed His Blood for ALL people, all nationalities. He preached to the poor, sick, lame, prostitutes, tax collectors, vinyard laborers, lepers, soldiers, etc. He used simple language so that they would understand. When the Apostles were given the Gift of Tongues, why would the Holy Spirit do that?? To reach ALL people with the WORD. In Jesus' time, drums, stringed instruments, bells, cymbels, flutes and trumpet were used. Do you think Jesus would be displeased with the guitar or the organ or piano? He seeks your HEART. If you get into the "my music is better than yours" you will find "pride" at the center, not Jesus. If you criticise one another, you are not focused on the Lord, but you are dealing with a critical spirit. The Holy Spirit is like the fresh wind, and I believe He has a New Song to put into your heart. Listen for the Holy Spirit, not with your head, but with your heart. Pat
"As for that Cardinal's hat in reserve for Archbishop Wuerl---it should be given to Archbishop Burke in St. Louis instead.
Mary"
And certainly it will if many of the people who post here are accurate in their analysis and their claims of the Holy Father's mind. Let's bookmark this page for future reference.
WAKE UP Catholic America !!!! Times have changed and many of you who care just about the music are not getting the true jist of what our church is about . We come to mass to celebrate the Eucharist not to celebrate what our musical tastes are. Everyone is different and we all like to praise God in different ways. I personally thought that the different musical selections were beautiful especially Jesus My God and My All , A song based on St Francis of Assisi's love of Our Lord. We Thank God for the glorious occasion. It dosen't matter what music in the end God was glorified at a beautiful mass.
Jeffery,
The only words I understood in the sheet music at the beginning is the Name INTOIT,VOTIVE MASS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. You, maybe and the Holy Spirit are the only ones that can understand what is said in the rest of words.
I as a youth had to listen to Latin at Mass not understanding what was being said.
I was told that the Church uses Latin so where ever you attend mass in the World it would be the same. Result no one understands what they are saying.
I Wonder why I stayed Catholic. I don't want my grand children to have to listen to something like this in their life time.
No wonder so many people left the Catholic Church.
I have to say that the accusatory, judgmental attitude of you folks who insist that those who are upset about the musical selections at Nationals Stadium are elitist is quite revealing. You presume that because someone is capable of singing and/or playing something that has a difficulty level above a Disney sing-along also has an ego and an agenda. You are stereotyping and pigeon-holing. We have been slapped down for 40 years while the "spirit of Vatican II had it's way with us. We're tired of the noise. And no matter what you say, the music does matter. When you return from communion and want to enter into an intimate prayer with your Savior and some chick is singing a torch song with a few biblical references, you feel like asking God to strike you deaf.
John, if you remember, the Missal had the English translation on the facing page. How difficult is that? I might add that the prayers of the Latin Mass are far more poetic and beautiful than the dumbed-down NO prayers. The issue here is actually whether the music facilitated entering into worship. Also, were the organizers so self-conscious and focused on "telling OUR story", that they forgot about the God that they were supposed to be exalting?
Pat, I am afraid I must disagree. It is not a question of being culturally limited, since most peoople here would be quite happy with chant. It is rather (a)a question of beauty. If you want to ask that question, yes, objectively speaking, I do genuinely believe that certain types of music are of such a nature as to displease God, in the same sense that anything ugly or badly done is of such a nature as to displease God (b) whether certain styles of music are suitable for use in Church. Evil or ugliness, Augustine assures us, is simply a matter of lack or misplacing. So too with music. Certain types should never be used in Church, because they are not suitable for it.
John, actually, at 27, I am probably slightly younger than you, and I can tell you that my generation - those of us who become, come back or stay Catholic - generally tend to prefer chant and more traditional music, and latin. Not all of us are ignorant of latin, and even if we did not know it, why should things be immediately accessible to us? If we cannot be expected to put effort into approaching God, how can we be expected to stay when the times get tough.
I believe that the immediacy of modern culture is extremely bad for us. We get everything delivered to us and we (I am not exempting myself) expect everything to be readily available and painless. We need desperately and for our own sakes to be challenged, and that is what traditional (whether that is Reform-of-the-reform or the Extraordinary Use) offers us.
"I have to say that the accusatory, judgmental attitude of you folks who insist that those who are upset about the musical selections at Nationals Stadium are elitist is quite revealing."
But dear, you ARE elitist. For good or ill, the development of the music for the Mass was broadly participatory by the faithful of the Archdiocese. For individuals outside the archdiocese or people within but inactive in their parish communities to start saying it should be done this way or that way because they have a better intellectual understanding of these matters IS elitism.
Embrace your elitism and be proud of it!
Oh, and the distraction for me is not the "chick" singing, but some beefcake up there with a deep, sexy voice. The Mass would be more beautiful and spiritual if we followed Tradition and did a little "surgery" on boy choirs before their voices started changing.
Unfortunatly, this is another tradition the Liberals threw out the window.
Let the schism be officially acknowledged by the Vatican so that the traditional Catholics can worship in peace in their churches and the moderne Catholics can whoop it up all they want in their churches.
Katherine, for your information, Castrati only started appearing in Western choirs around the time of the Renaissance, and even then, it is far from clear that they were castrati and not male sopranos (which still exist). Further, castrati fell out of use and were abolished. There were Papal moves against Castrati as early as Benedict XIV, and certainly, the last genuine castrato retired in 1913. So, on the one hand, it is not a "tradition" (in the same sense that chant or polyphony is a tradition) and on the other hand, liberals can hardly be credited with abolishing it.
And I do wish you would stop showing your ignorance by claiming that most people here are inactive in their parish communities. As a matter of fact, quite a few people sing or direct music in their parishes. You only need to take the trouble to read the contributor side-bar, or actually read the comments.
Missals with translations in them are nice for wealthy developed countries, but with around half the Church in the developing countries, is this really practical for them? And beyond practicality, there is the simple matter that the Church would put itself a leg down to the Protestants in terms of evangelization if it abandoned vernacular languages and inculturated music.
I think it is also worth considering the words of our Holy Father on this subject, as expressed on his most recent visit to the United States:
“Two hundred years later, the Church in America can rightfully praise the accomplishment of past generations in bringing together widely differing immigrant groups within the unity of the Catholic faith and in a common commitment to the spread of the Gospel. At the same time, conscious of its rich diversity, the Catholic community in this country has come to appreciate ever more fully the importance of each individual and group offering its own particular gifts to the whole. The Church in the United States is now called to look to the future, firmly grounded in the faith passed on by previous generations, and ready to meet new challenges — challenges no less demanding than those faced by your forebears — with the hope born of God’s love, poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 5:5).”
It seems to me that this was very much a case of “each…group offering its own particular gifts to the whole.” Or as His Holiness said in his message to the US Bishops: “Many of the people to whom John Carroll and his fellow Bishops were ministering two centuries ago had traveled from distant lands. The diversity of their origins is reflected in the rich variety of ecclesial life in present-day America.” Indeed.
Everyone is equal and all music used at the mass was used to praise God
I hope that the musical travesty, which was this Mass, was indeed a sign of the end. For us here in the Archdiocese of Washington -from the look of things at least - we still have many many years to go if you consider Mr. Stehle's promotion (and the shameful dismissal of the director of the wonderful schola cantorum) as director of music of our cathedral, by our Archbishop, to the delight of the low-church St.Louis Jesuit-jiving cathedral rector. When our archdiocese begins to look just a little more like the Arlington diocese just across the river - I'll believe that things are really starting to come 'round. The 5p.m. Sunday "gay-friendly" service will be the equivalent under Stehle for liberals as High Mass at St. John Cantius, Chicago, is for traditionalists. The Wuerl appointment here, on so many fronts, was disastrous.
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
