A comment on the Holy Father’s Mass at Nationals Stadium [Fr. Z]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
donmaximuso27 said:
I’m not calling supporters of such music heretics, I was simply stating that respect is not the most necessary requirement in theological debates. And the Holy Father has most definitely shown his guidance in matters of liturgical music. If you read his statements, it is clear that the music used today was not the reverent, liturgical music he called for. And by the way, we are speaking of liturgical music, not of the music the Holy Father likes to listen to on his ipod while walking through a park. It would require the personal relationship you speak of to know his personal musical preferences. But liturgical music is not personal, he spoke clearly on the guidelines for reverent music to celebrate a universal mass of a universal church. He is the Pope! It is his job to speak on matters concerning the Church, because he has the spiritual and theological knowledge to do so! And often, he makes clear what is sound for the Church, including the liturgical music.
Click to expand...
I will agree that the Holy Father has shown his guidance and that is what it is. I believe he also recongnized the cultural diversity of the church and that the music can and should reflect such. As far a what is called sacred music, can that only be from middle age Europe? At the recent dedication of our Co-Cathedral, during part of the ritual, a Vietnamese folk him was sung. Although I could not understand the words, the music definitly fit into the classification as sacred. The purpose of the music is to involve one more of our senses into personally being able to touch Jesus. For some that may only be a Gregorian chant, for others it may be a polka mass. In any event, even bad music should not take us away from the purpose of the mass, to be nourished by the word and by the Eucharist.
For those so against recieving the Euchaist by the hand, remember the Gospel story of the woman with the hemorrhage who was able to reach out and touch the tassle on Jesus robe and be healed. To touch, to engage our senses, to be able to make our savior part of us, personal to us. Certainly the body and blood of Christ is to treated with reverence, that reverence must not only be taught but felt from heart. Taking the Eucharist by hand to me is very humbling. It reminds me that my God is not some mystical being far away, but always present with us, and is so loving and forgiving, we can hold him, as he holds us, in the palm of our hand.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
I will agree that the Holy Father has shown his guidance and that is what it is. I believe he also recongnized the cultural diversity of the church and that the music can and should reflect such. As far a what is called sacred music, can that only be from middle age Europe? At the recent dedication of our Co-Cathedral, during part of the ritual, a Vietnamese folk him was sung. Although I could not understand the words, the music definitly fit into the classification as sacred. The purpose of the music is to involve one more of our senses into personally being able to touch Jesus. For some that may only be a Gregorian chant, for others it may be a polka mass. In any event, even bad music should not take us away from the purpose of the mass, to be nourished by the word and by the Eucharist.
For those so against recieving the Euchaist by the hand, remember the Gospel story of the woman with the hemorrhage who was able to reach out and touch the tassle on Jesus robe and be healed. To touch, to engage our senses, to be able to make our savior part of us, personal to us. Certainly the body and blood of Christ is to treated with reverence, that reverence must not only be taught but felt from heart. Taking the Eucharist by hand to me is very humbling. It reminds me that my God is not some mystical being far away, but always present with us, and is so loving and forgiving, we can hold him, as he holds us, in the palm of our hand.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
Excellent. You verbalized what I so far seem to have been unable to express.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
FAB said:
I will agree that the Holy Father has shown his guidance and that is what it is. I believe he also recongnized the cultural diversity of the church and that the music can and should reflect such. As far a what is called sacred music, can that only be from middle age Europe? At the recent dedication of our Co-Cathedral, during part of the ritual, a Vietnamese folk him was sung. Although I could not understand the words, the music definitly fit into the classification as sacred. The purpose of the music is to involve one more of our senses into personally being able to touch Jesus. For some that may only be a Gregorian chant, for others it may be a polka mass. In any event, even bad music should not take us away from the purpose of the mass, to be nourished by the word and by the Eucharist.
For those so against recieving the Euchaist by the hand, remember the Gospel story of the woman with the hemorrhage who was able to reach out and touch the tassle on Jesus robe and be healed. To touch, to engage our senses, to be able to make our savior part of us, personal to us. Certainly the body and blood of Christ is to treated with reverence, that reverence must not only be taught but felt from heart. Taking the Eucharist by hand to me is very humbling. It reminds me that my God is not some mystical being far away, but always present with us, and is so loving and forgiving, we can hold him, as he holds us, in the palm of our hand.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
In another thread on the matter I have already posted the Catholic Encyclopedia’s in depth article on the history of early sacred music. It is a common mistake to assume that the mass is based on European music and culture. The Latin Rite, its music, chants, hymns, and traditional polyphony find their roots in the ancient church. That is the reason why they are so vital to the Catholic Mass. Plain chant and Gregorian did not just spring up miraculously in the Middle Ages. They developed over a thousand years from the chants of the ancient church. I’m not going to get into a debate about recieving on the hand, that is for another thread. I to agree that the focus is always on the Eucharist, to be nourished by the word and by the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, the music, which is part of that word and liturgy must also focus on the Eucharist. It must glorify God in his presence to the greatest extent possible. Did we find this in the music at DC? When we consider the thousands of other options, such as traditional polyphony, sacred chant that clearly exists, as other posters have already shown, in diverse cultures, the music that was present clearly did not glorify God as these other options could.
 
donmaximuso27 said:
In another thread on the matter I have already posted the Catholic Encyclopedia’s in depth article on the history of early sacred music. It is a common mistake to assume that the mass is based on European music and culture. The Latin Rite, its music, chants, hymns, and traditional polyphony find their roots in the ancient church. That is the reason why they are so vital to the Catholic Mass. Plain chant and Gregorian did not just spring up miraculously in the Middle Ages. They developed over a thousand years from the chants of the ancient church. I’m not going to get into a debate about recieving on the hand, that is for another thread. I to agree that the focus is always on the Eucharist, to be nourished by the word and by the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, the music, which is part of that word and liturgy must also focus on the Eucharist. It must glorify God in his presence to the greatest extent possible. Did we find this in the music at DC? When we consider the thousands of other options, such as traditional polyphony, sacred chant that clearly exists, as other posters have already shown, in diverse cultures, the music that was present clearly did not glorify God as these other options could.
Click to expand...
It does very little for me to discuss the origins of the music. If you want to follow that logic, then the mass should be celebrated in Ancient Greek or Aramaic, or even Hebrew, since that was certainly the languages of the early fathers.
Since God is the creater of all things and no doubt the inspiration for the music written and used in the mass, and as believe the Holy Spirit moves and guides the church, who are we to say that the music did not glorify God. God created the many different cultures, allowing for the diversity of the music, how better to glorify Him than expressing that gift of who we are, than in the Mass?

Peace,
FAB
 
Dauphin said:
As commendable as certain parts of the Mass were, the musical choices, especially during the offertory were offensive and unbefitting of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The fact that there are people who didn’t find it troubling in the least is clear evidence of the profound decline of the Catholic Church and the loss of the meaning of liturgy.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s really amazing. One day, the Holy Father holds a prayer vigil and everyone praises its beauty, reverence, music, and every one’s happy to be called a Catholic. The next day he holds Mass and arguments arise. Doesn’t say much for the unity surrounding the New Mass, does it?
Click to expand...
The New Mass is the problem? Or is it those who are blinded by their own preference to their idea of perfect ritual? Seems to me your judgement is misplaced.
 
“If you want to follow that logic, then the mass should be celebrated in Ancient Greek or Aramaic, or even Hebrew, since that was certainly the languages of the early fathers.”

Exactly!!! Yet somewhere along the line, God decided that the only language He will find acceptable is the one of those who crucifed His Son. Great logic there.
 
What is sad is The Holy father has writted about and promoted about the Greatness of the liturgy and how we should be reverent and all the great art and music from ages past organically developing. Wow. You would think D.C would try and WOW the Holy father with pomp and circumstance and they give him “Mass of creation”
 
FYI

NDC- page 130, 3b-2
CCC 1158

I thought the Mass was a true liturgy…since liturgy is the work/action of the people.
 
FAB said:
It does very little for me to discuss the origins of the music. If you want to follow that logic, then the mass should be celebrated in Ancient Greek or Aramaic, or even Hebrew, since that was certainly the languages of the early fathers.
Since God is the creater of all things and no doubt the inspiration for the music written and used in the mass, and as believe the Holy Spirit moves and guides the church, who are we to say that the music did not glorify God. God created the many different cultures, allowing for the diversity of the music, how better to glorify Him than expressing that gift of who we are, than in the Mass?

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
It does very little for you? It obviously means something to you if you think you have the knowledge to make the assumption that the music we are wishing for (chant, trad. polyphony) is purely European. Do not make statements like that and not expect a clear, historical refute of such nonsense. Again, when we state that we do not like the music of the DC mass, we are not denying in any way the multicultural diversity of the Church. There are much more traditional, sacred multicultural chants and music that were available then the horrendous selections that were chosen. And the Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church in faith and morals. Liturgical law and music are disciplines, they are not subject to the infallibility and protection of the Holy Spirit in faith and morals. By your definition God inspired every single piece of music that is dedicated to him, even those compositions that are horribly in contradiction with Church doctrine.
 
I don’t anything about what you folks are discussing as far as what is acceptable music or not for a liturgy, but my question is:

Who set up the whole event with the music, etc? Didn’t Pope Benedict or his assistants ask that it be done in a certain way? I guess I’m just confused as to how this irreverent mass could be conducted and planned as it was when it is the Pope for goodness sake 🤷?

Just curious.

Peace…

MW
 
donmaximuso27 said:
It does very little for you? It obviously means something to you if you think you have the knowledge to make the assumption that the music we are wishing for (chant, trad. polyphony) is purely European. Do not make statements like that and not expect a clear, historical refute of such nonsense. Again, when we state that we do not like the music of the DC mass, we are not denying in any way the multicultural diversity of the Church. There are much more traditional, sacred multicultural chants and music that were available then the horrendous selections that were chosen. And the Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church in faith and morals. Liturgical law and music are disciplines, they are not subject to the infallibility and protection of the Holy Spirit in faith and morals. By your definition God inspired every single piece of music that is dedicated to him, even those compositions that are horribly in contradiction with Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
For kicks I looked up the Gregorian Chant from the Catholic Encyclopedia, let’s see “…Taken as synonymous with plain chant…of the middle ages, … later compositions, written in similar style down to the sixteenth century and even in modern times.” It continues to discuss how it was distingished from other chants, and how it points to Gregory the Great (590-604). Unless I am missing something, it looks like it come from a European tradition. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just not represenative of the music and culture shared in America.
By the way, your definition is that music not in compliance with Church Dictrine, cannot be inspired by God to honor him. How about those of Jewish origin, or Eastern tradition or hundreds of protestant hyms. Their music does not praise and honor Him? That must include the Jewish hyms sung for his Holiness when he visited the Jewish Synogogue this afternoon.
Just admit that you just don’t like anything that falls out of your definition of sacred music.

Peace,
FAB
 
thecoach said:
The New Mass is the problem? Or is it those who are blinded by their own preference to their idea of perfect ritual? Seems to me your judgement is misplaced.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok, I suppose you’re right. Take away the Novus Ordo and you will still have arguments about the liturgy. Oh, wait, that’s how it all started in 1963. 😃
 
TMGallyon85 said:
What is sad is The Holy father has writted about and promoted about the Greatness of the liturgy and how we should be reverent and all the great art and music from ages past organically developing. Wow. You would think D.C would try and WOW the Holy father with pomp and circumstance and they give him “Mass of creation”
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I don’t know if I would call his reference to the New Missal as a fabrication, etc. exactly promoting that Missal but your point well taken about the organic growth of the development of the liturgy.
 
Compared to the rest of the program, the Mass of Creation shone like a star. It was a balm for my ears after the Responsorial Psalm and the salsa-pop of the Offertory.
 
I just commented on mass of creation because it seems like we use it every mass and it gets old
 
We’re equal opportunity. We rotate mediocrity except during Lent when we go back to the standard Gregorian Chant used since I was a kid in the 50s-60s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top