Eucharistic Procession at Mercy Center, World Youth Day 2016

[casslean]

Casslean,

I’m glad you had a great experience worshipping our Lord. However, I think myself and Gavin have a similar issue with it. The problem I see is this, we are called to worship in spirit and in Truth.

What, in that worship, was lacking in spirit or in Truth according to the teachings of the Catholic church? Isn’t it more accurate to say that you PREFER a different type of worship?

Don’t confuse your preferences with what is right or wrong.

 

[SyroMalankara]

ok. Have it your way. My statements are simply preferences. Meanwhile, traditional Catholic sources are ignored and protestant-themed and pentecostal-style charismatic sources (which draw from no Apostolic father or history) and “experiences” are objectively equal. My mistake.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

What, in that worship, was lacking in spirit or in Truth according to the teachings of the Catholic church? Isn’t it more accurate to say that you PREFER a different type of worship?

Don’t confuse your preferences with what is right or wrong.

I believe what you note is the problem: worship of God thus becomes reduced to a matter of preference. But that’s not how the Church has ever approached liturgy or devotion; she considers first the facts of divine revelation, and gives them symbolic form through art. It is, therefore, not the symbol qua symbol that is important, but the degree to which it informs us of truth. Truth resides, not in feelings, but in the intellect and will. It is objective and universal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I hope I’m not resurrecting a dead topic, but I did want to chime in, for one reason:

I was there.

I was in the Mercy Centre for the whole Night of Mercy, including the Eucharistic Procession, and I can tell you, the music chosen was beautiful, completely appropriate to the moment, and only added to the experience. They were not “Protestant” songs - they were Christian songs, sung to glorify God.

You can have a preference for one type of music, or one type of procession, or one type of service, and that’s fine. But recognize that it is your preference - it is not a “better” way of worshipping. There were 25,000 youth in that arena on that night, kneeling on cement floors and in stadium seating, all showing reverence for Jesus Christ. It was amazing. It was powerful. And it spoke to the youth, a youth who increasingly feel ignored and disconnected from the whole world - including the church. Shouldn’t we celebrate that, rather than criticize it because we might prefer something different?

What a perfectly splendid post.

 

[CB_Catholic]

ok. Have it your way. My statements are simply preferences. Meanwhile, traditional Catholic sources are ignored and protestant-themed and pentecostal-style charismatic sources (which draw from no Apostolic father or history) and “experiences” are objectively equal. My mistake.

I’m sorry, but the subject is an Eucharistic Procession. What Protestant churches do you know have this? (Maybe a few high Anglican churches do). Eucharistic Processions are hardly non-traditional. It’s really only the choice of music that you object to. And how many Protestants kneel on the ground or on cement floors under stadium seats to worship Jesus in the Eucharist? I believe you have missed something far more important than music here, like 25,000 Catholic young people doing this? Do you really think “rolling your eyes” is appropriate?

 

[casslean]

I believe what you note is the problem: worship of God thus becomes reduced to a matter of preference. But that’s not how the Church has ever approached liturgy or devotion; she considers first the facts of divine revelation, and gives them symbolic form through art. It is, therefore, not the symbol qua symbol that is important, but the degree to which it informs us of truth. Truth resides, not in feelings, but in the intellect and will. It is objective and universal.

And again I’ll ask - where, in church teachings, does it say that anything done during the Eucharistic Procession that night was objectively wrong?

I think this thread has shown that it doesn’t. Instead, you interpret it as wrong because it is “contemporary” or “non-traditional”. But that isn’t objective. It’s subjective.

BTW, the Masses celebrated during the English catechesis at the Mercy Centre were all accompanied by Gregorian chant - after a morning of contemporary worship music. It was a brilliant display of how contemporary and traditional do not need to travel separate paths and can be embraced together.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why can’t you speak of objectively Catholic historical sources, without resorting to the ‘preference’ argument? Its very weak indeed. Of course, Eucharistic Adoration is inherently a Latin Catholic Tradition, but is it tradition to so faith-healing pentecostal style in the midst of it, or do a ‘rock music’ style “praise music” session? Clearly not. I’m not saying whether you should do it or not, I’m saying I wouldn’t because its a non-Catholic, non-Apostlic import. I’m glad ‘at least’ some get a spiritual experience from it, but in my opinion, its God working thru a donkey, not necessarily the Church offering its treasury to our Most High God

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

And again I’ll ask - where, in church teachings, does it say that anything done during the Eucharistic Procession that night was objectively wrong?

I think this thread has shown that it doesn’t. Instead, you interpret it as wrong because it is “contemporary” or “non-traditional”. But that isn’t objective. It’s subjective.

No. I never said that was the reason why I disagreed with it. You should have read a previous post of mine. I have tried to approach the issue with a great deal of objectivity.

 

[casslean]

Why can’t you speak of objectively Catholic historical sources, without resorting to the ‘preference’ argument? Its very weak indeed. Of course, Eucharistic Adoration is inherently a Latin Catholic Tradition, but is it tradition to so faith-healing pentecostal style in the midst of it, or do a ‘rock music’ style “praise music” session? Clearly not. I’m not saying whether you should do it or not, I’m saying I wouldn’t because its a non-Catholic, non-Apostlic import.

What authority - an objectively Catholic historical source - are you using to determine that it is clearly “non Catholic” to include contemporary worship music as opposed to say, Gregorian chant? At one point in time, after all, Gregorian chant was contemporary worship music.

I’m glad ‘at least’ some get a spiritual experience from it, but** in my opinion**, its God working thru a donkey, not necessarily the Church offering its treasury to our Most High God

I think that really sums this up. This is your opinion, not church teaching. What is unfortunate is when you devalue how others choose to practice their faith based only on your opinion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

OK choose to be offended by a non offensive tone and post.

Now, tell me, are you more likely to find your ‘preference’ of Liturgy or Adoration on any given day, in any given parish, or one that looks like what your grandparents and all of our ancestors recognize?

In fact, not only does this modern stuff erode the Latin tradition; one would be hard-pressed to find certain Eastern Churches in a region or nation that follow their handed-down traditions instead of this ‘preference’. So where are we supposed to learn our authentic tradition?

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

What authority - an objectively Catholic historical source - are you using to determine that it is clearly “non Catholic” to include contemporary worship music as opposed to say, Gregorian chant? At one point in time, after all, Gregorian chant was contemporary worship music.

“Contemporary” has the potential to be misleading, because it’s an umbrella term. When spoken of on this thread, it’s clearly referring to the type of Christian-focused music that has assimilated popular styles from the secular culture for the purpose of making it more relevant to the general populace.

Gregorian chant is not contemporary to any time, because its composition transcends generations and eras and fashions, because it has a qualitatively objective form so closely related to prayer and adoration that it is wholly unique to religion. It was born out of prayer, and its end is prayer. And this is why the Church values it above all other types of music. I could cite just about any of the liturgical rubrics that came out of Vatican II to support my position here. Though the Latin Church permits other forms of music, it gives Gregorian chant the absolute seat of honor (call it the bishops’ “preference,” if you want).

 

[Monica4316]

When I first came to believe in Christ (before I was Catholic, and then afterwards as a new Catholic) I was really moved by the new praise and worship music. As a Catholic I liked it more than the contemporary Catholic hymns like “Gather us in”. Over time, I discovered chant and polyphony and now I find that this type of music really helps me to pray. I think that praise and worship has some good things about it (for example, there are some songs I like by Audrey Assad, a Catholic artist) - but I wouldn’t really have that type of music at Mass. Rather, outside of Mass. Some of it can be distracting though if it’s too fast, too much drums, etc. The emotional side of it can help some people, as it did me, but eventually I found that I just wanted more silence with Jesus in the Eucharist. Some might get too used to the emotional side and rely on that.

So generally, there are good things in this type of music, and some things that I don’t really like (like an excessively strong drum beat, which doesn’t help me), there are some good lyrics, and for that reason it can help some people to open up to God. But I think chant and polyphony are more perfect especially for liturgy, and I find it’s easier to pray my own prayers with that kind of music, as it lifts the mind to God but without being at all distracting. Just my two cents

 

[casslean]

No. I never said that was the reason why I disagreed with it. You should have read a previous post of mine. I have tried to approach the issue with a great deal of objectivity.

I’m not sure where you see that you approached it with a great deal of objectivity. You quoted several documents regarding Eucharistic processions, and seemed to suggest that because those documents indicated circumstances where “It is fitting…” for a procession to occur, that it could not occur in any other way. That is an improper method of interpretation. You also ignored all of the sections in the documents that allow flexibility to adhere to local custom (and local does not neccessarily mean geographically local, but rather local to the audience and congregation being served - and certainly the WYD audience is a congregation in and of itself).

Finally, you went on, at length, regarding the music choices for the evening, including a rather bland parsing of “Come As You Are” - and I say bland, because if you can’t see how that song is totally appropriate for laying yourself bare in front of Jesus as He is present with us, then your interpretative skills are truly lacking. Truthfully, I can’t imagine a message that is more fitting for meeting Jesus, and certainly one that has to be better conveyed to our youth.

I think this encapsulates much of what your issue appears to be:

We can contrast this with more ancient hymns/prayers like Let all mortal flesh keep silence, which perhaps doesn’t qualify as a “common prayer and hymn” for the youth who were gathered there, but there are better options for something as stately as a Eucharistic procession. Perhaps a song written by a Catholic, specifically for adoration of the Blessed Sacrament?

This is it - YOU feel there was a better way to carry out a Eucharistic procession. YOU believe it should have been done differently, and that YOUR way would have been better.

Again, I’ll say - I was there. It was an incredibly powerful experience. Maybe instead of criticizing, we can just rejoice in the fact that 25,000 youth gathered together to worship and give glory to God.

 

[OraLabora]

“Contemporary” has the potential to be misleading, because it’s an umbrella term. When spoken of on this thread, it’s clearly referring to the type of Christian-focused music that has assimilated popular styles from the secular culture for the purpose of making it more relevant to the general populace.

Gregorian chant is not contemporary to any time, because its composition transcends generations and eras and fashions, because it has a qualitatively objective form so closely related to prayer and adoration that it is wholly unique to religion. It was born out of prayer, and its end is prayer. And this is why the Church values it above all other types of music. I could cite just about any of the liturgical rubrics that came out of Vatican II to support my position here. Though the Church permits other forms of music, it gives Gregorian chant the absolute seat of honor (call it the bishops’ “preference,” if you want).

The history of Gregorian chant as the Church currently uses it dates back to only the late 19th century. It was formally re-introduced as the music with “pride of place” with the release of the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum which was the fruit palaeographic institute of the monks of Solesmes and was promulgated by Pius X (who promulgated many sudden and fairly radical changes to the liturgy, including and especially the Roman Breviary in 1910). Therefore today’s chant is a relatively modern reconstitution of Gregorian chant by the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th century. Gregorian chant had gradually become denatured into something completely unrecognizable as Gregorian chant several centuries before the 19th century. The chant of the 17th, 18th and early 19th century was a chaotic mess until the monks of Solesmes went back to original manuscripts and reconstituted it. It’s a field of study that is still active and chants change because of it with the release of newer editions.

It must be pointed out that what we sing as “Gregorian” chant is what the modern studies of Solesmes imagines it was like. We can not know for certain based on the original neumes from the ancient manuscripts.

I say this as a scholar and practitioner of Gregorian chant for the past 14 years. The important thing about chant is that almost (but not entirely) all of it is based on scripture verses including the psalms. This to me is what gives it a special sense, more than anything. The music is meant to support but not overpower the Word.

That does not mean that modern compositions also using the Word of God could not convey similar meaning. After all many of the great polyphonic compositions also used the words from the Propers and Ordinary.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

This is it - YOU feel there was a better way to carry out a Eucharistic procession. YOU believe it should have been done differently, and that YOUR way would have been better.

Again, I’ll say - I was there. It was an incredibly powerful experience. Maybe instead of criticizing, we can just rejoice in the fact that 25,000 youth gathered together to worship and give glory to God.

I’m glad you were inspired. Was anybody really doubting that?

 

[casslean]

OK choose to be offended by a non offensive tone and post.

Now, tell me, are you more likely to find your ‘preference’ of Liturgy or Adoration on any given day, in any given parish, or one that looks like what your grandparents and all of our ancestors recognize?

In fact, not only does this modern stuff erode the Latin tradition; one would be hard-pressed to find certain Eastern Churches in a region or nation that follow their handed-down traditions instead of this ‘preference’. So where are we supposed to learn our authentic tradition?

First, I’m not offended.

Second, you are deflecting the issue, which is that there is nothing in church teaching or rubrics that states that the Eucharistic procession held that evening was in any way irregular. The fact that you prefer a more traditional rubric does not make it any less of a preference. I’m not saying you are wrong for preferring a more traditional rubric - I’m just saying, those of us who can enjoy a different experience aren’t wrong either, until the CHURCH tells us we are.

Frankly, this is becoming a little like people who insist that we shouldn’t impose our “beliefs” regarding same-sex marriage or euthanasia on others, without recognizing that their positions are nothing more than a different set of beliefs.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

The history of Gregorian chant as the Church currently uses it dates back to only the late 19th century. It was formally re-introduced as the music with “pride of place” with the release of the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum which was the fruit palaeographic institute of the monks of Solesmes and was promulgated by Pius X (who promulgated many sudden and fairly radical changes to the liturgy, including and especially the Roman Breviary in 1910). Therefore today’s chant is a relatively modern reconstitution of Gregorian chant by the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th century. Gregorian chant had gradually become denatured into something completely unrecognizable as Gregorian chant several centuries before the 19th century. The chant of the 17th, 18th and early 19th century was a chaotic mess until the monks of Solesmes went back to original manuscripts and reconstituted it. It’s a field of study that is still active and chants change because of it with the release of newer editions.

It must be pointed out that what we sing as “Gregorian” chant is what the modern studies of Solesmes imagines it was like. We can not know for certain based on the original neumes from the ancient manuscripts.

I say this as a scholar and practitioner of Gregorian chant for the past 14 years. The important thing about chant is that almost (but not entirely) all of it is based on scripture verses including the psalms. This to me is what gives it a special sense, more than anything. The music is meant to support but not overpower the Word.

That does not mean that modern compositions also using the Word of God could not convey similar meaning. After all many of the great polyphonic compositions also used the words from the Propers and Ordinary.

Well, I’m not an expert in the history of music, but I was making the point that the Church has provided reasons for holding up Gregorian chant, and those reasons include that it is intimately tied with prayer and the psalms. That provides an objective basis from which to make judgments about any musical style.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The history of Gregorian chant as the Church currently uses it dates back to only the late 19th century. It was formally re-introduced as the music with “pride of place” with the release of the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum which was the fruit palaeographic institute of the monks of Solesmes and was promulgated by Pius X (who promulgated many sudden and fairly radical changes to the liturgy, including and especially the Roman Breviary in 1910). Therefore today’s chant is a relatively modern reconstitution of Gregorian chant by the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th century. Gregorian chant had gradually become denatured into something completely unrecognizable as Gregorian chant several centuries before the 19th century. The chant of the 17th, 18th and early 19th century was a chaotic mess until the monks of Solesmes went back to original manuscripts and reconstituted it. It’s a field of study that is still active and chants change because of it with the release of newer editions.

It must be pointed out that what we sing as “Gregorian” chant is what the modern studies of Solesmes imagines it was like. We can not know for certain based on the original neumes from the ancient manuscripts.

I say this as a scholar and practitioner of Gregorian chant for the past 14 years. The important thing about chant is that almost (but not entirely) all of it is based on scripture verses including the psalms. This to me is what gives it a special sense, more than anything. The music is meant to support but not overpower the Word.

That does not mean that modern compositions also using the Word of God could not convey similar meaning. After all many of the great polyphonic compositions also used the words from the Propers and Ordinary.

I am just preparing my own response to this thread, evoking Solesmes…and here you appear! How splendid.

Very well written indeed.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, I’m not an expert in the history of music, but I was making the point that the Church has provided reasons for holding up Gregorian chant, and those reasons include that it is intimately tied with prayer and the psalms. That provides an objective basis from which to make judgments about any musical style.

Yes the Church gives Gregorian chant “pride” of place. But that does not mean every place. Gregorian chant requires some degree of expertise and training to execute properly, and given the resources of the Church today this simply doesn’t exist everywhere. It is given, however, “pride” of place by its use in monasteries (such as the abbey I’m affiliated with as oblate), cathedrals, the Vatican, and in our case, our small schola that does the rounds of parishes of our archdiocese as do similar scholas around Canada, the US and Europe.

The Church also permits other styles of sacred music, and gives the local bishops’ conferences considerable latitude and authority in setting the norms according to local culture and other factors. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

I will also repeat what I say far and wide all the time in these debates. If people want more Gregorian chant then they should quit whining about it and do something about it!. I joined a schola. It’s certainly within reach of many people to do so, I had no musical training when I started. The schola has now been in existence for some 20 years, and I’ve been part of it for 14 of them. Yes it requires some level of expertise and practice to execute well, but that level of expertise and practice won’t happen unless someone takes the initiative. Like our schola did, you start simply and work your way up as you get better. We started with organ accompaniment, and now we can sing it the way it should be, a cappella.

I’d love to hear more Gregorian chant in more places. But it isn’t going to happen all by itself.

 

[casslean]

The Church also permits other styles of sacred music, and gives the local bishops’ conferences considerable latitude and authority in setting the norms according to local culture and other factors. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Thank you. As I’d mentioned before, one of the greatest things about the WYD programs was that it offered such variety in its music. The Masses were accompanied by Gregorian chant, and there were some excellent breakout sessions held by the music director to help those who were interested in developing Gregorian chant in their own parishes. I thought it was a great message to the youth that we don’t have to have an “all-or-nothing” attitude toward traditional Catholicism - we can embrace both the traditional and the modern in equal measure.