How far we are from the true spirit of sacred music

[peary]

This was not the norm for Catholics. If it was as wonderful as you think, Vatican II would never have been called for, it wouldn’t have been needed.

However, the contrary is the case. Catholics were out of touch with the Mass. The priest, altar boys and choir, participated. The people did as I said, sat and prayed. Sure, they stood, knelt and sat when they were suppose to. However, if there wasn’t some one in the pew, who knew better, they for the most part, would be clueless.

I grew up in pre-Vatican II. I attended two different parishes and nothing was different. Oh sure, there were the few like my uncle, who once attended seminary, who was more in tune with the Mass, but the majority attended purely out of obligation and were clueless as to what was really taking place.

Heck, when my mother grew up, the Church told her parents that dancing would lead people to hell. To this day, my mother tells me about the poster that was put up in the back of the Church, with people dancing their way down Dante’s rings of hell.

Again, if things were so wonderful in Pre-Vatican II, the holy Father, Pope John XXIII would never have called the council. However, the Church was in crisis.

Jim

Wow, Jim. I don’t know where you grew up, but I grew up in Chicago in the 50s and the Church here was ALWAYS active with an overflowing crowd at just about every Mass, not to mention personal devotions, such as the Rosary and Adoration. I suppose your own experiences are reflected in your opinions above.You must remember that the “golden age” of Catholicism in America was in the two decades prior to Vatican II, where 95% of Catholics attended weekly Mass, confessional lines were long, seminaries were overflowing and there was great devotion to our Blessed Mother. LESS THAN ONE DECADE AFTER VATICAN II, seminaries were being abandoned by seminarians, tends of thousands of men/women religious and priests were leaving, and by 1975, less than 70% of Catholics were attending Mass on a weekly basis. Today, it is only about 35%. We also lost TWO GENERATIONS to date on proper catechesis on learning the Truths of the Faith. So please don’t tell me how ‘great’ Vatican II has been for the Church. I accept the Council, and I think what was decided there was solid, but the effects of implementation were the exact opposite of what it intended.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Wow, Jim. I don’t know where you grew up, but I grew up in Chicago in the 50s and the Church here was ALWAYS active with an overflowing crowd at just about every Mass, not to mention personal devotions, such as the Rosary and Adoration. I suppose your own experiences are reflected in your opinions above.You must remember that the “golden age” of Catholicism in America was in the two decades prior to Vatican II, where 95% of Catholics attended weekly Mass, confessional lines were long, seminaries were overflowing and there was great devotion to our Blessed Mother. LESS THAN ONE DECADE AFTER VATICAN II, seminaries were being abandoned by seminarians, tends of thousands of men/women religious and priests were leaving, and by 1975, less than 70% of Catholics were attending Mass on a weekly basis. Today, it is only about 35%. We also lost TWO GENERATIONS to date on proper catechesis on learning the Truths of the Faith. So please don’t tell me how ‘great’ Vatican II has been for the Church. I accept the Council, and I think what was decided there was solid, but the effects of implementation were the exact opposite of what it intended.

Church attendance was high. Devotions and all the above as you mention. However, knowledge about doctrine and sacraments was minimal. People knew that it was an obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. Ask them why this was the case, and they couldn’t give you an answer. Ask them what week in the liturgical calender we are in now, they wouldn’t know. Ask them when does the bread become the body of Christ, they’d tell you, when the altar boy rings the bell. Knowledge of how the Mass related to Scripture, was very basic. In general theology and explanation of Church doctrine, was absent and this I believe was not unique where I lived. People lived in a black and white world, the accepted and obeyed, without question. Heck, a priest or nun could physically beat you, and it was accepted. You mention long lines at confession, well I do to, but I also remember the poor confessors. People went in with a shopping list of sins. The priest gave you penance and absolution and it was over. There was no spiritual guidence or actually listening to whether a person was scrupolous or not.

Also, I remember the horros of confession. I remember a priest draging a young boy out of the confessional, by his ear and being humiliated in front of the people, because the priest said he did not examine his conscience well enough. I knew that boy, and he got up, ran out of the Church and lived the rest of his life as an anti-Catholic.

I live in Massachusetts BTW, and we had an abundant number of parishes and priest. I attended Catholic School, so my knowledge was better than my parents, but I really didn’t learn the depths of Catholic doctrine until my adult life, when I came back to the Church.

I know this was more common than not, for Catholics that I met when I was in the Marines, and in my travels around the country, were no different.

I agree, we had poor cathecesis after Vatican II, but it really wasn’t all the well explained before either. We were told what to do and not do, but seldom was there deeper explaination. Back in the 70’s and 80’s, when I was teaching Confirmation, I was appalled at the text books we were forced to use. It was baron of sound Catholic doctrine. I recall back then, Cardinal Ratzinger stating, that CCD in the United States is a disaster and he was right. However, I don’t blame Vatican II, I blame the Bishops, who allowed a liberal philosophy to take over religious education.

Again, this wasn’t the fault of Vatican II, but the fault of our culture in general. I think if Vatican II had not come about, things would’ve fallen apart worst than they did.

Again, the Pope saw the need to call for Vatican II. It wasn’t done in order that the Church would be damaged, but rather to preserve it.

Jim

 

[TMC]

Before we totally drift off into another discussion of which was worse pre-VII or post-VII, I have a couple comments about this ides of the “true spirit” of sacred music. I have three only loosely realted points.

First, I hear all the time that the newer music is bad and the older stuff was better, but every argument ends up breaking down to what that individual likes more. Putting aside obvious abuses like playing Simon and Garfunkel (there are still rules about what music can be used, please don’t pretend there are not), why is this not just an argument about taste and feelings? If the old hymns feel more spiritual to you, and the new ones feel more spiritual to me, how can there be a right and wrong on this?

Also, when Mozart wrote his liturgical music it was very different from the liturgical music that came before. Do you think everyone agreed with it right away? Now, I am well aware that the modern music does not approach Mozart in quality, or even come close. But maybe if the Church took modern music more seriously and tried to inspire/support some better modern music we would have something better.

Finally, I agree with those that have said we need music and hymns that people can sing. I have attended parishes with amazingly beautiful choirs that sang everything, with priests that sang all the things they are allowed to sing, too. Beautiful. But I go home feeling like I have been to Broadway, not a Sacrament. Maybe folks were better singers back in the day, I don’t know. My wife (who is in the choir at our own parish) and I call these “performance Masses” and they don’t seem like Mass at all to me.

 

[pnewton]

I will go along with whatever we are ordered to do, but I am not holding my breath that Gregorian Chant will be required across the board anytime soon. If it is, I guess we will go to a silent Mass, unless several people materialize with ability in this area.

 

[VociMike]

Before we totally drift off into another discussion of which was worse pre-VII or post-VII, I have a couple comments about this ides of the “true spirit” of sacred music. I have three only loosely realted points.

First, I hear all the time that the newer music is bad and the older stuff was better, but every argument ends up breaking down to what that individual likes more.

Putting aside obvious abuses like playing Simon and Garfunkel (there are still rules about what music can be used, please don’t pretend there are not), why is this not just an argument about taste and feelings? If the old hymns feel more spiritual to you, and the new ones feel more spiritual to me, how can there be a right and wrong on this?

Frankly, the fact that you’re talking about hymns at all suggests that you don’t understand the ideal of Catholic liturgical music. Hymns are at best a poor substitute for what the Church calls for. The best hymns in the world are not as good as having the priest, the choir/schola and the people sing their respective parts of the Mass.

What is right is to compose and use music that has Gregorian chant as its “supreme model” and “permanent standard” in regards to sanctity, true art and universality. What is wrong is to compose and use music that does not reach (or even attempt to reach) those standards. And not everybody’s opinion is of equal validity in making those judgements.

Also, when Mozart wrote his liturgical music it was very different from the liturgical music that came before. Do you think everyone agreed with it right away? Now, I am well aware that the modern music does not approach Mozart in quality, or even come close.

Or is even in the same musical universe…

But maybe if the Church took modern music more seriously and tried to inspire/support some better modern music we would have something better.

Depends on what you mean by “modern music”. If you mean “new compositions imbued with the sanctity, true art and universality of the Church’s supreme model and permanent standard” then yes, let the Church support those compositions. If you mean “music written in secular pop idioms” then you’re sunk before you begin, because such music, written within such limitations, can never rise to the required level of sanctity, true art and universality, any more than a dandelion can become an oak tree.

The Church needs to keep repeating, until the composers, publishers and music ministers get it:

Sanctity
True Art
Universality
A composition for Church is sacred and liturgical insofar as it approaches Gregorian melody in flow, in inspiration, and in flavor, and so much less is it worthy of the temple insomuch as it is recognized as departing from that supreme model and permanent standard.

 

[Sarabande]

…If the old hymns feel more spiritual to you, and the new ones feel more spiritual to me, how can there be a right and wrong on this?

You are right. No can actually negate the feelings one gets from certain kinds of music. We can’t force someone to like a piece of music for instance. I just believe that people should be educated on music so that they have a better understanding of why they like or dislike a piece of music. Or if you do like a poorly written piece of music, have the knowledge of knowing that it is “bad” based on one’s education of music. I do like some music that would be considered very badly composed and cheesy – usually not sacred music, but music from the secular world. But I realize and admit they are “bad” and won’t say that it’s a great piece of music. For some reason I just like the cheesy sentimentality of it or whatever other reason and I feel fine about it because I do realize that it doesn’t stand up against Brahms, let’s say. I don’t like mediocrity if something more can be given, though.
Nothing against people who don’t mind it, but for me, I need to have the “best” offered to God. If the best a parish can offer is something not so great - then fine. It can’t get any better than that. But if that is not the best which can be produced, then something should be done to remedy that. Either recruit better singers/musicians or choose hymns that are better composed.

Also, when Mozart wrote his liturgical music it was very different from the liturgical music that came before. Do you think everyone agreed with it right away? Now, I am well aware that the modern music does not approach Mozart in quality, or even come close. But maybe if the Church took modern music more seriously and tried to inspire/support some better modern music we would have something better.

Actually, there are modern composers today who compose music equal in quality. Most are unfortunately overlooked, though.

Also, the Archbishop of Salzburg (Mozart’s town of birth) didn’t want Mozart’s sacred music played at mass. Some of it was too “joyful” in his eyes, but also he and Mozart just didn’t see eye to eye. Mozart wanted to spread his wings and compose more. The Archbishop wanted to keep his thumb down on him. So, they didn’t part on the best of terms – and I’m not saying that it was all the Archbishop’s fault. Mozart had a hard time dealing with mediocrity, so he didn’t have much respect for the musicianship of many of the Archbishop’s orchestra and singers. So, he went to cities where his music would be appreciated and played in mass and outside of it. In Vienna, though, it was totally the opposite from Salzburg with how the bishops and clergy viewed his sacred music. Churches were playing much of it and secular venues were also performing his works, but Vienna was more of a metropolitan hub than Salzburg was at the time.

Years later, the Archbishop (I don’t believe the same one. It has been almost a year since I’ve read a couple of the biographies) permitted the unfinished Great Mass in C played in the Cathedral with Mozart’s wife, Constanze, as the soprano soloist. But I believe that was the last time his mass was played there during mass until the 1800s with the help of Mozart’s widow and friends. Now you go there and you can’t get Mozart out of your mind. His music is everywhere.

… I have attended parishes with amazingly beautiful choirs that sang everything, with priests that sang all the things they are allowed to sing, too. Beautiful. But I go home feeling like I have been to Broadway, not a Sacrament. Maybe folks were better singers back in the day, I don’t know. My wife (who is in the choir at our own parish) and I call these “performance Masses” and they don’t seem like Mass at all to me.

See, I feel totally the opposite about what you describe as “performance masses”. I’m fine with regular mass, as well, but I prefer the high mass with the beautiful choirs and everything sung. It brings me closer to God and I get much more out of it. Maybe it’s because I’m a musician and make my living as one. But I do know many other people who aren’t musicians and feel the same. But, I also supposed it is based on people’s background and experience. That music during our lifetime was mostly only performed in concert halls, so it’s no wonder it would be related as a performance to some people. But originally, they weren’t performed in concerts. If you grew up only hearing that during mass, there would not be a performance connection at all. Even though I grew up with only hymns at mass for the most part, I always had this feeling that this “higher” music needed to be in mass. And I didn’t feel that total peace until I studied in Europe and saw the connection of that sacred music in mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I have to disagree with the contention that what when on prior to Vatican II and what went on after is not part of the discussion of the true spirit of sacred music.

It is not simply a matter of taste - it is something far more fundamental. I’m with Peary. I grew up in the 50s in New Orleans and my home parish was one of the first suburban parishes established. My second home parish was split off from the first when the subdivisions got larger. I never, ever, experienced what Jim says he experienced. And, most of the Catholic kids on my block went to Catholic schools from K-12. So, I stand four square to rebut the myth that Catholics didn’t know what was going on and did not participate in the Mass. It is this very concept which allowed the concept of sacred music to descend into an “anything goes” kind of proposition.

Mozart’s liturgical music is rooted in the composers who came before. Mozart certainly studied the baroque masters but I would submit to you that what Mozart wrote was not what you would hear in the taverns and inns of 18th century Austria. I can name you several restaurants/nightclubs here where I can hear very similar music to what I hear in some parishes.

Modern liturgical music is not rooted in the past. It is not an organic growth from the past. In 1969 Simon and Garfunkle were not a liturgical abuse - the were “in the spirit of Vatican II” - as was ripping out the pipe organ and choir loft in my cathedral which was one of the first to be renovated after Vatican II. Guess what? By 1992 not only did we have a brand new pipe organ installed, we had the choir loft restored.

There IS music being written today which is rooted in our past. But as long as GIA and OCP continue with pushing their own agendas with such obvious secular music, these other composers will never blossom.

Why is it that there are no hymns or Masses composed in swing music of the “Big Band Era”? The music of my parent’s generation. The popular music I heard while growing up. What makes the Beatles so much better than Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, etc? Given the line of argument that Catholics didn’t understand the Latin and the music before Vatican II, shouldn’t the first “new” hymns have been written in a style of the popular music of that era? Or is something else going on?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

brotherhrolf

I have to disagree with the contention that what when on prior to Vatican II and what went on after is not part of the discussion of the true spirit of sacred music.

It is not simply a matter of taste - it is something far more fundamental. I’m with Peary. I grew up in the 50s in New Orleans and my home parish was one of the first suburban parishes established. My second home parish was split off from the first when the subdivisions got larger. I never, ever, experienced what Jim says he experienced. And, most of the Catholic kids on my block went to Catholic schools from K-12. So, I stand four square to rebut the myth that Catholics didn’t know what was going on and did not participate in the Mass. It is this very concept which allowed the concept of sacred music to descend into an “anything goes” kind of proposition.

Don’t confuse Mass attendance with Mass participation. Yes, in those days before Vatican II, the churches were full. Confession lines on Saturdays were an hour long, especially during Lent.

However, I will stick to my stand that Catholics for the most part, did not understand the sacraments and they certainly did not participate in Mass, as they do today. The priest did everything and ran everything in the parish. People didn’t question the Church, they followed and obeyed. This was true throughout the culture, including how people accepted everything the government told them, and there too, they obeyed.

If you say that Catholics were well educated and participated fulling in Mass, then answer the question, why did Pope John XXIII call for the council?

Jim

 

[brotherhrolf]

Jim, I was too young to understand why the HF called for the council. I can tell you that the good Sisters who prepared me for my First Communion made sure we understood that which we were being prepared for (body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ). My mother showed me how to use my “little” St. Joseph missal and pointed out the words in Latin and in English. By the time I hit the end of third grade, I was ready to become an altar boy and I can never remember a time when I was not fully cognizant of what I was doing.

My brother, my sister, and myself went to Catholic school from Grade K through 12. We were properly catechized .

If you will allow me, let me turn the tables on you. My two sons have gone to Catholic school from K - 12. DW and I were asked to prepare our parish’s kids for Confirmation. There were 6 or 7 kids in each class. I was floored by the lack of knowledge not only in my oldest son but his contemporaries who had been educated in Catholic schools other than his. The same thing was true with my youngest son and his contemporaries.

You can (pardon my pun) “shout to the highest mountain” that the kids today understand the sacraments but do they? Do they really understand what it means to receive Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This theme keeps rearing it’s head over and over again in this thread. Is Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” the equivalent of “One Bread, One Body”? I would say no.

 

[pnewton]

There IS music being written today which is rooted in our past. But as long as GIA and OCP continue with pushing their own agendas with such obvious secular music, these other composers will never blossom.

I have often posted my opinions and likes of many of the newer hymns. However, I think you hit the nail on the head here. These groups are driven, like all American companies, by a profit motive and not providing the best liturgical music. A mediocre to crummy hymn written by one of their contract composers will always take priority in the final cut over a hymn that they do not own the copyright on. I would love to see all liturgical music publication brought under the umbrella of the Church and out of private hands. It still might be subject to undue influence like gender neutrality, but at least one problem would be neutralized.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

If you say that Catholics were well educated and participated fulling in Mass, then answer the question, why did Pope John XXIII call for the council?

John XXIII: Opening Speech for the Vatican II Council

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

However, I will stick to my stand that Catholics for the most part, did not understand the sacraments and they certainly did not participate in Mass, as they do today.

How many Catholics today understand and/or believe in the Eucharist. By your thinking we should have near 100% understanding, with a similar percentage believing. And if they understand what the Eucharist is and what Confession is, why are the Confession lines near empty and the Communion lines near full? And if people understand so much better, why do so few attend Mass? And why do so many chit-chat during Mass? Why do so few sing the hymns that you claim relate to them so much more?

People didn’t question the Church, they followed and obeyed. This was true throughout the culture, including how people accepted everything the government told them, and there too, they obeyed.

You seem to think that obedience is something bad and to be avoided. You do know that it is a virtue and a duty.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I have often posted my opinions and likes of many of the newer hymns. However, I think you hit the nail on the head here. These groups are driven, like all American companies, by a profit motive and not providing the best liturgical music. A mediocre to crummy hymn written by one of their contract composers will always take priority in the final cut over a hymn that they do not own the copyright on. I would love to see all liturgical music publication brought under the umbrella of the Church and out of private hands. It still might be subject to undue influence like gender neutrality, but at least one problem would be neutralized.

It would make a wonderful Apostolate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JMJ_coder

How many Catholics today understand and/or believe in the Eucharist. By your thinking we should have near 100% understanding, with a similar percentage believing.

Why are you saying this? I didn’t say Catholics today have a better understanding, but they have greater participation than Pre-Vatican II Catholics.

Also, I’m not sure how many Catholics of Pre-Vatican II, actually accepted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If they did, they sure didn’t bring the belief with them into post Vatican II. After all, they were the religious ed teachers of that followed Vatican II.

You seem to think that obedience is something bad and to be avoided. You do know that it is a virtue and a duty.

No, obedience is a virtue, but without understanding, obedience doesn’t feed the soul, its spiritually crippling.

Going to Sunday Mass merely because the Church tells you if you don’t, you commit mortal sin, and if you die, you’ll burn in hell, is lousy catechises. Teaching people about Jesus and inspiring a love for worship and participation in the Mass, because they love God, is what the gospel message is actually about.

Jim

 

[scylla]

I agree JimR you will never be able to prove what was really in the hearts of people before Vatican II or after. All we can do is offer opinion or look at statistics to support what is the current state or the previous state of participation.

Of course we should encourage participation and a love of God, but we cannot prove that that has improved from the past or not. We can offer opinion and personal views of how we see it but we cannot tell that participation in the Mass has improved or not. Someone can be singing in the choir but is that physical action better than the person praying in pews silently. Participation is not just an outward action, yet it is necessary. We just cannot judge who is participating and who is just going through the motions.

Is our obedience to Church teaching reflecting the doctrinal teaching of the Church or is there disobedience?
It really doesn’t matter how we feel or how close we feel to God as our devotion to ourselves can overshadow God, when we should be putting God first.
The most important thing is to love God above all else, then love your neighbor as yourself, not the other way around.

Is our obedience and music putting God first or our preferences first?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[brotherhrolf]

JMJ_coder

Also, I’m not sure how many Catholics of Pre-Vatican II, actually accepted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If they did, they sure didn’t bring the belief with them into post Vatican II. After all, they were the religious ed teachers of that followed Vatican II./quote]

I have a very different remembrance of those years. What is forgotten is that the "reforms’ of Vatican II were crammed down the throats of the faithful with the admonition to submit to the magesterium of HMC in the spirit of Vatican II. I’m sorry Jim but you wouldn’t have such long confessional lines if folks didn’t know about the real presence. I can remember that well into the 70s there were downtown churches in New Orleans which offered confession all day long.

It is precisely this lack of belief in the real presence which enables the abuses of today. Benediction and 40 hours devotion were standard when we where kids. What were we doing if we didn’t believe in the real presence?

 

[peary]

*Church attendance was high. Devotions and all the above as you mention. However, knowledge about doctrine and sacraments was minimal. *

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!! Everyone KNEW the Baltimore Catechism. It was STANDARD in catechesis. WOW!! Go read it yourself and get educated as to what Catholics knew (which is more than they definitely know NOW).

People knew that it was an obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. Ask them why this was the case, and they couldn’t give you an answer.

YES THEY DID. ANY CATHOLIC ATTENDING MASS COULD GIVE YOU THE ANSWER. DUH! YOU MAKE THE GREATEST GENERATION SOUND AS IF THEY WERE STUPID. SHAME ON YOU.

*Ask them what week in the liturgical calender we are in now, they wouldn’t know. *

PEOPLE KNEW WHEN THEY WERE IN ADVENT, IN CHRISTMASTIME, IN ORDINARY TIME, IN EASTERTIME, THEY KNEW WHEN PENTECOST WAS AND WHY IT WAS.

Ask them when does the bread become the body of Christ, they’d tell you, when the altar boy rings the bell.

WHEN THE PRIEST CONSECRATES THE BREAD AND WINE. ARE YOU FOR REAL WITH THESE COMMENTS?? YOU ARE INCREDIBLY DEMEANING IN YOUR STATEMENTS

*Knowledge of how the Mass related to Scripture, was very basic. In general theology and explanation of Church doctrine, was absent and this I believe was not unique where I lived. *

GO READ THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM AGAIN. YOU JUST DON’T “GET IT”, DO YOU?

You mention long lines at confession, well I do to, but I also remember the poor confessors. People went in with a shopping list of sins. The priest gave you penance and absolution and it was over. There was no spiritual guidence or actually listening to whether a person was scrupolous or not.

DIDN’T HAVE TO BE. PEOPLE KNEW WHEN THEY WERE WRONG, UNLIKE TODAY. I GET VERY POOR SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE IN MY CONFESSIONS. I GOT BETTER GUIDANCE 50 YEARS AGO.

*Also, I remember the horros of confession. I remember a priest draging a young boy out of the confessional, by his ear and being humiliated in front of the people, because the priest said he did not examine his conscience well enough. I knew that boy, and he got up, ran out of the Church and lived the rest of his life as an anti-Catholic. *

OH WELL, YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME.

I live in Massachusetts BTW, and we had an abundant number of parishes and priest.

YOU ALSO HAD AN OVERABUNDANCE OF PEDOPHILE PRIESTS, MORESO THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY.

*I attended Catholic School, so my knowledge was better than my parents, but I really didn’t learn the depths of Catholic doctrine until my adult life, when I came back to the Church.

I agree, we had poor cathecesis after Vatican II, but it really wasn’t all the well explained before either. We were told what to do and not do, but seldom was there deeper explaination. Back in the 70’s and 80’s, when I was teaching Confirmation, I was appalled at the text books we were forced to use. It was baron of sound Catholic doctrine. I recall back then, Cardinal Ratzinger stating, that CCD in the United States is a disaster and he was right. However, I don’t blame Vatican II, I blame the Bishops, who allowed a liberal philosophy to take over religious education.*

I AGREE ABOUT THE BISHOPS. I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL THEY RETIRE.

*Again, this wasn’t the fault of Vatican II, but the fault of our culture in general. I think if Vatican II had not come about, things would’ve fallen apart worst than they did.

Again, the Pope saw the need to call for Vatican II. It wasn’t done in order that the Church would be damaged, but rather to preserve it.*

WELL, ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE AFTER VATICAN II. BUT JESUS SAID THE GATES OF HELL WOULD NOT PREVAIL OVER HIS CHURCH. I SEE THAT PROMISE AT WORK EVEN TODAY.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

And WHY is that? Perhaps it is because the music ministry programs at churches for the past 40 years were not considered teaching ministries at all. The Church used to be the guardian of the arts and music. Music ministers are to blame for the lack of liturgical music education at the parish level. And the priests are to blame for letting them get away with it. People cannot love what they do not know, and that includes good liturgical music.

Sorry for not posting earlier. Someone stole my dad’s 2007 Jeep (barely three months old) and we finally got it replaced.

The USCCB is going to discuss a document on sacred music during this week’s meeting. Hopefully, they will restore some semblance of beauty and Tradition to the pitiable state of liturgical music. I think Pope Benedict XVI will be watching this very closely, as the document the USCCB is deliberating must conform to Liturgicam Authenticam.

 

[benedictgal]

Jim:

Even as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI said that it was never the intent of the Second Vatican Council to “change” the Mass. In fact, the Council Fathers had celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass. Please get your facts right.

VocMik, for some reason, when I hit that darn quote button, I got you instead of Jim. Mea maxima culpa. That’s why I’m editing it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Why are you saying this? I didn’t say Catholics today have a better understanding, but they have greater participation than Pre-Vatican II Catholics.

So you’re saying that - hey it doesn’t matter if you understand the Faith, as long as you participate?

Hey Joe, I haven’t a clue what’s going on or why, but at least we’re participating. What are we suppose to be doing? I don’t have a clue, but let’s do something.

Also, I’m not sure how many Catholics of Pre-Vatican II, actually accepted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If they did, they sure didn’t bring the belief with them into post Vatican II. After all, they were the religious ed teachers of that followed Vatican II.

I would say near 100% of practicing Catholics (which would have been over 90% of all Catholics) knew what the Eucharist was and believed.

What happened in the wake of Vatican II was a lot of deception by a vocal minority who hijacked the reforms “in the spirit of Vatican II” and a lot of non-catechesis.

No, obedience is a virtue, but without understanding, obedience doesn’t feed the soul, its spiritually crippling.

That isn’t obedience then, its agreement. The virtue of Faith says we are to believe everything the Church tells us, not believe everything we understand.

Going to Sunday Mass merely because the Church tells you if you don’t, you commit mortal sin, and if you die, you’ll burn in hell, is lousy catechises.

What exactly in that is untrue? It may be incomplete, but what is untrue about that statement.

Teaching people about Jesus and inspiring a love for worship and participation in the Mass, because they love God, is what the gospel message is actually about.

Father Corapi relates this as regards the Sacrament of Confession (a related topic to this): The proper motivation to go to Confession is a sincere love of God and regret for having offended Him. But if you can’t muster up love of God, fear of hell isn’t a bad place to begin.