Irreverent Mass

[aristotle]

It looks like participating in an irreverent mass is 16% mortal sin, 14% venial sin, and about 70% fluffy goodness.

I said it’s venial, with the understanding that it is a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday, so it would be better to participate in an illicit mass on Sunday than to skip out entirely. However, if the ``mass’’ were flirting with invalidity, I’d stay on the safe side, stay home, and participate in spiritual communion.

Celebrating an irreverent mass is most certainly a mortal sin, so long as it is done with knowledge and in freedom. I cannot imagine something being more grave than the mass.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I agree it is a Venial Sin. Unfortunately most Catholics don’t seem to see it this way.

 

[Jeanette_L]

(boldface mine)

What exactly is “entertainment-oriented music?”

Someone like me, who was trained in classical music, sees the “classical” music, both sung and played, as “entertainment.” I am used to critiquing a choir, soloist, or instrumentalist who sings/plays classical in regards to technique, etc.

It is very hard for me to “worship” to this kind of music. It’s “concert hall” music, the stuff I pay $30.00 a ticket for (or more).

OTOH, the contemporary music and hymans are what I have grown up with in and out of church (I was born in 1957). To me, this kind of music is just “normal” worship music, communication to God in song, not any kind of “entertainment-oriented” music. Even if people “move” to it, that doesn’t seem like entertainment
to me at all.

It’s not all that simple. What is “entertainment” to one is “worship” to another. I think we should stop trying to pronounce judgment. The various church documents dealing with church music have made it clear that there are few “limits” on what is acceptable during Mass.

But you would be taking the air out of so many people’s balloons if they stopped pronouncing judgments on every doggone thing, it seems to be what they live and die for.

Now it seems, they (all our new popes) want to pronounce it to be various levels of sinfulness at that! Just to go to Mass and fulfill our obligation is going to land all us poor unsuspecting souls in hot water with our Lord!

And who, pray tell, is keeping track of all these pronouncements in heaven, by all our new legions of popes, and who is recording all these levels of sins by the faithful (or unfaithful if we stick to their way of reasoning) to be expiated at some point?

This kind of confusion is expected in the Protestant world, not knowing how to keep track of this doctrine or that doctrine, who do you listen to, who do you ignore?! Here in the Church, we are supposed to be listening to ONE voice to keep us free from distress. Seems distress wants to hunt us down here as well, that is, if we ignore that ONE voice and follow all the OTHERS.

Nice try Cat, to bring us all to some sense of reasonableness though.

 

[Cat]

But you would be taking the air out of so many people’s balloons if they stopped pronouncing judgments on every doggone thing, it seems to be what they live and die for.

Now it seems, they (all our new popes) want to pronounce it to be various levels of sinfulness at that! Just to go to Mass and fulfill our obligation is going to land all us poor unsuspecting souls in hot water with our Lord!

And who, pray tell, is keeping track of all these pronouncements in heaven, by all our new legions of popes, and who is recording all these levels of sins by the faithful (or unfaithful if we stick to their way of reasoning) to be expiated at some point?

This kind of confusion is expected in the Protestant world, not knowing how to keep track of this doctrine or that doctrine, who do you listen to, who do you ignore?! Here in the Church, we are supposed to be listening to ONE voice to keep us free from distress. Seems distress wants to hunt us down here as well, that is, if we ignore that ONE voice and follow all the OTHERS.

Nice try Cat, to bring us all to some sense of reasonableness though.

You know, I’m sure Father has heard a lot of things in Confession. But what do you think he would say if I came to Reconciliation, said, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been a week since my last confession, and during that week, I attended a Mass. I seek the forgiveness of my Lord for committing this sin, which I’m not sure whether is venial or mortal.”

 

[Jeanette_L]

You know, I’m sure Father has heard a lot of things in Confession. But what do you think he would say if I came to Reconciliation, said, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been a week since my last confession, and during that week, I attended a Mass. I seek the forgiveness of my Lord for committing this sin, which I’m not sure whether is venial or mortal.”

I think the word Scrupulous would come to mind.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

In the late 1990’s, while traveling with small children, we found the closest Catholic church in the phone book and went to Mass there. It was a bizarre mix of new age and summer camp. We didn’t feel as if we’d been to Mass, so we looked for another church. The only Mass left was in Spanish. Even though we didn’t understand the homily, we knew we were at a Mass that honored God and the liturgy of the Church.

I also attended many non- English Masses while studying in Europe. I never felt “left out” because I already knew what they were saying. The Mass really is a universal sacrifice.

May I suggest that those unable to find a suitable Mass in English attend a Mass in Spanish (Korean, Polish, etc.) that meets the criteria of a licit Mass. You can read the Gospel at home first and meditate on it during the homily. This is not ideal, of course, but it gets you to a valid Mass until you figure out what to do.

 

[holdencaulfield]

In the late 1990’s, while traveling with small children, we found the closest Catholic church in the phone book and went to Mass there. It was a bizarre mix of new age and summer camp. We didn’t feel as if we’d been to Mass, so we looked for another church. The only Mass left was in Spanish. Even though we didn’t understand the homily, we knew we were at a Mass that honored God and the liturgy of the Church.

I also attended many non- English Masses while studying in Europe. I never felt “left out” because I already knew what they were saying. The Mass really is a universal sacrifice.

May I suggest that those unable to find a suitable Mass in English attend a Mass in Spanish (Korean, Polish, etc.) that meets the criteria of a licit Mass. You can read the Gospel at home first and meditate on it during the homily. This is not ideal, of course, but it gets you to a valid Mass until you figure out what to do.

Great Point. Does language really matter. It should be against good conscience to attend an irreverent Mass.

 

[una_fides]

It’s not all that simple. What is “entertainment” to one is “worship” to another. I think we should stop trying to pronounce judgment. The various church documents dealing with church music have made it clear that there are few “limits” on what is acceptable during Mass.

While I don’t have time to reply to your whole post. I will say that yes there is a relativistic aspect to music to the extent of preferences and such. Nevertheless, just because something may be “permitted” doesn’t necessarily make it best suited for Mass, meaning music that is most free from distractions and best directs the soul to God. The Church has repeatedly said that gregorian chant is best suited for Mass and is best to be used. Why settle for less than the best?
Music with a beat does not settle the soul but it stirs it and disquiets it. My opinion is that rock music and other upbeat music can be great for fun and entertainment–but not for Mass.

 

[JReducation]

I agree it is a Venial Sin. Unfortunately most Catholics don’t seem to see it this way.

Holden, participating in a Catholic mass is never a sin. This is the faith of the Church. How you participate may or may not be sinful. However, this is another matter.

Even if the priest rode in on an elephant, if you participate in the mass with the right intention and receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in a state of grace, you have committed no sin.

I would be stunned at the elephant, but being stunned is not a sin. I may even laugh. Laughing is not a sin.

For something to be a sin, it has to be materially wrong, within your control to stop it and you must have a full understanding of why it is wrong.

In an irreverant mass, what control does the man in the pew have to stop it?

If you don’t meet the three criteria, there is no sin.

JR

 

[NeedImprovement]

I don’ think it’s the instrument that people object to. It’s the sacredness of the music being played on those instruments.

No one would want to hear even the most beautiful organ playing sports arena music at Mass!

Cara Serrano has got it!

@ ethelzguy: Again, the instrument is an extension of the musician - the musician has the last word on whether the sound that comes out will be sacred. You’d make a great employer, you know what “equal opportunity” means .

I’ve been to Mass in a great stone Cathedral here enough times to have lost count. On one occasion during the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a girl I was with had to leave - she said the organ music was so loud it was giving her a headache.
On another occasion the music was so loud I had to cover my own ears with my hands (and I’d played on stage with rock musicians before who weren’t as loud…go figure).

Approximately 8 or 9 years ago (when I was still a little bit active musically) I was asked to play some guitar music for a celebration of the Way of the Cross in an auditorium full of palliative care patients. That was a really delicate deal. I asked the priest who led the celebration beforehand exactly where he thought the music should be inserted, and then proceeded to suggest how it would best be done in a way that wouldn’t interfere with any of the other elements.

As the patients were entering the auditorium, I played several standard selections that are in the CBW (no lyrics just one guitar doing an instrumental version[if it makes a difference - I prefer to play by ear]). Among the entrance selections was an instrumental version of “Faith of Our Fathers.” One of the patients - Lena (102 years old at the time,and who had played the organ professionally in Church Cathedrals all her life) beckoned me over when the “Way of the Cross” had concluded. She said, “I really liked it when you played Faith of Our Fathers.” That was one of the nicest compliments I, and the guitar as a liturgical instrument have ever received.

Back to the ear-piercing organ music. Musically speaking, just as there are certain things which “get people going”, there are also things which can “turn them off”.

There are a lot of things which can “turn people off” musically. I’ll only mention two here:

The first is volume. It’s a never fail no-brainer. Everybody has their limit. Turn it up loud enough, (even if it’s a cassette of Pope John Paul II singing the Pater Noster [really - I used to have one]) and it becomes unbearable. At an excessive volume any and every sort of music becomes an assault on the ears; an assault against which there really is no defence other than to cover one’s ears with one’s hands.

The second is a little more subtle…it’s percussion. It can be linked to volume. When it is done badly, it can often be perceived as noise (not such a good liturgical additive). This is the disadvantage a guitar has regarding its proneness to “turning people off” in the liturgy. Many musicians strum a guitar. Strumming is percussive (and let’s face it if it’s done badly or in bad taste, sometimes it’s just plain cussive.)

Suppose now I’m about to play a song during the liturgy of the Eucharist and I start up a Chugga ! Chugga ! Chugga ! rhythm on the guitar. How many people, right away don’t want to sing/pray to that rhythm? But I’m forcing them to listen to it. Then let’s say my meter is not so steady and a few more (@Cat) are saying interiorly “I’d like to sing but you can’t keep it steady.”
Add one slightly out of tune string and a consequential sung sour note and before you know it, I have the whole congregation praying intensely**…for the end of the song to come**!

Of the so many guitarists I’ve met , seen , heard, played with, roughly 80 % were quite accomplished lead gutarists (for playing melodic solos). However more than half of these barely could have been considered adequate rhythm guitarists. Now rhythm guitar is the type of guitar that is commonly played most of the time for liturgical music (except perhaps for rare virtuosos) and, as explained in the previous two paragraphs, it’s percussive…that’s why they call it rhythm guitar. And like excessive volume, but not to the same extent or intensity, rhythm has the potential of being percussive and or invasive.

The general mindset today says" rhythm guitar[chords], or lead guitar [solos]"

There is another type of guitar. For liturgy, I’d call it background guitar (some types of fingerpicking could qualify as this). To me background guitar is the conscientious effor to remove the percussion from the playing as much as possible, providing the chords for the congregations musical orientation to facilitate participation (with perhaps the occasional slight melodic movements within the chord). When this is done, most of the “stiffness” of a strummed guitar is removed. The difference is that you’re left with something that can be wrapped around the song and help it flow; rather than trying to “drive” the song from start to finish.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not a musician, but I have been around a long time and have heard all kinds of intruments used. I remember being in the missions in South America among the indegenous people. They used percussion instruments and string instruments at liturgy. When I heard it at an open air mass it was beautiful. We didn’t have a church at the time.

When the church building was completed the same music was difficult to tolerate. I’m not sure if it had something to do with the construction itself.

Some buildings have very bad accustics and that doesn’t help. The sound disappears or it echos.

One of the most beautiful churches that I have ever had the pleasure of attending mass was at my alma mater, the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. That building was built for nothing but organ music. All other music sounds horrible. The building has horrible accustics.

The organ music works because of the speakers all over the main church. But they have two organs and for some reason one sounds better than the other. Not knowing anything about music or architecture I can’t explain it.

The same piece of music on one organ fills the Basilica with a sense of awe and on the other organ it echos all over the building and drives you crazy.

I don’t think that everything is the fault of bad music or the musician.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

The organ music works because of the speakers all over the main church. But they have two organs and for some reason one sounds better than the other. Not knowing anything about music or architecture I can’t explain it.

The same piece of music on one organ fills the Basilica with a sense of awe and on the other organ it echos all over the building and drives you crazy.

I don’t think that everything is the fault of bad music or the musician.

JR

I wonder if when they use one organ, the Mass is licit and when they use the other organ it isn’t. And if this is the case, is everyone who attends Mass when the bad organ is playing, committing a venial or mortal sin? This could get very complicated.

 

[holdencaulfield]

However I still believe that if you attend a Mass with blasphemous liturgical abuses then you will be committing venial sin, if you could have attended a different Mass just as easily.

 

[JReducation]

However I still believe that if you attend a Mass with blasphemous liturgical abuses then you will be committing venial sin, if you could have attended a different Mass just as easily.

First you have to know what is considered blasphemous by the Church, not by you. Remember, it is not us who make the rules.

Second, you have to have some control over what is happening.

Third, you must be careful that your judgement is not a sin against charity.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I wonder if when they use one organ, the Mass is licit and when they use the other organ it isn’t. And if this is the case, is everyone who attends Mass when the bad organ is playing, committing a venial or mortal sin? This could get very complicated.

I don’t think that organ music is a materially moral issue, not in any moral theology course that I ever took.

Bad singing should be. But unfortunately, the Church doesn’t agree with me.

JR

 

[holdencaulfield]

@JReducation:

That is true.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think that organ music is a materially moral issue, not in any moral theology course that I ever took.

Bad singing should be. But unfortunately, the Church doesn’t agree with me.

JR

a) The Church isn’t exactly so awash with participation when it comes to “praying twice.” Better that the building ring with a strongly-sung hymn that is a little off-key here and there than that it muddle through with a pitch-perfect but otherwise weak and timid rendition that can be barely heard.

b) It should be a sin to louse up the singing purposefully, but the vast majority of bad singers don’t realize they’re bad. It isn’t immoral to do your best and in doing so to make an honest mistake.

 

[bobzills]

Would it be a sin to participate in a irreverent Novus Ordo Mass, or any form of Mass for that matter? If so would it be a mortal or venial sin? I’m asking this because I had to participate in the Novus Ordo Mass this morning and it was irreverent (music, piano, priest changing the words, etc.).

In the Baltimor Catechism, I think that it says something like this: a willful distraction at Mass is a sin.

 

[NeedImprovement]

a) The Church isn’t exactly so awash with participation when it comes to “praying twice.” Better that the building ring with a strongly-sung hymn that is a little off-key here and there than that it muddle through with a pitch-perfect but otherwise weak and timid rendition that can be barely heard.

b) It should be a sin to louse up the singing purposefully, but the vast majority of bad singers don’t realize they’re bad. It isn’t immoral to do your best and in doing so to make an honest mistake.

That is so well put.

Often times the bad singers who don’t realize they’re bad are singing straight from the heart. Maybe that’s one explanation why the Church doesn’t consider it a sin within the liturgy… because that type of singing has the potential of sounding the sweetest to God’s ears.

 

[bobzills]

a) The Church isn’t exactly so awash with participation when it comes to “praying twice.” Better that the building ring with a strongly-sung hymn that is a little off-key here and there than that it muddle through with a pitch-perfect but otherwise weak and timid rendition that can be barely heard.

b) It should be a sin to louse up the singing purposefully, but the vast majority of bad singers don’t realize they’re bad. It isn’t immoral to do your best and in doing so to make an honest mistake.

However, according to the Baltimore catechism, to be willfuly distracted during Mass, and I guess this would include being distracted by bad singing, it is a sin.