"Life Teen" Liturgy and it's destruction of centuries of Holy Tradition

[palmas85]

Topher:

I chose not to address your problems with bilingual masses because your objections were absurd. The mass can certainly be said in more than one language, depending on the linguistic needs of the community. If a church has a big vietnamese population, then why not have a bilingual vietnamese mass?
If it has a large hispanic population, like my state, why not have a bilingual Spanish mass. The idea that each church will have to accomodate each language is silly. Each geographical location has different linguistic backgrounds. I doubt very highly that the city I live in has a very large swahili population. That is one language group that it is unnecessary to address. However, with all the bilingual speakers, monolingual spanish speakers, and monlingual english speakers in my disocese, a bilingual mass is a cause for unity.

Good point, but say you have several large linguistic groups, as in my Parish. Bi Lingual masses for everyone? Just for the largest group, the smallest, which one? That is my objection. I suppose that if all you have are English and Spanish speakers or English and Tagalog speakers, or English and Vietnamese speakers or English and French speakers or any two groups,then a bi-lingual Mass would be fine.

But to use your example of Swahili speakers in Albuquerque, don’t they count as well? Should they be deprived just because they are few in number? Where does it begin and end? At what number does the bi-lingual aspect kick in? Do they have to learn English while for example Spanish speakers do not? Surely you don’t expect that just because they are few in number they deserve less, or do you?

 

[palmas85]

Topher:

I chose not to address your problems with bilingual masses because your objections were absurd. The mass can certainly be said in more than one language, depending on the linguistic needs of the community. If a church has a big vietnamese population, then why not have a bilingual vietnamese mass?
If it has a large hispanic population, like my state, why not have a bilingual Spanish mass. The idea that each church will have to accomodate each language is silly. Each geographical location has different linguistic backgrounds. I doubt very highly that the city I live in has a very large swahili population. That is one language group that it is unnecessary to address. However, with all the bilingual speakers, monolingual spanish speakers, and monlingual english speakers in my disocese, a bilingual mass is a cause for unity.

Good point, but say you have several large linguistic groups, as in my Parish. Bi Lingual masses for everyone? Just for the largest group, the smallest, which one? That is my objection. I suppose that if all you have are English and Spanish speakers or English and Tagalog speakers, or English and Vietnamese speakers or English and French speakers or any two groups,then a bi-lingual Mass would be fine.

But to use your example of Swahili speakers in Albuquerque, don’t they count as well? Should they be deprived just because they are few in number? Where does it begin and end? At what number does the bi-lingual aspect kick in? Do they have to learn English while for example Spanish speakers do not? Surely you don’t expect that just because they are few in number they deserve less, or do you?

 

[msh]

I’m 25. I have a preferred secular listening standard of enjoying electronic music, usually called “industrial” or “elecro-body-music”. I’ve gone to Life Teen Masses when I’ve had to postone going to Mass earlier due to familial schedules. The music actually is the problem for me, as it distracts me from my purpose at Mass. I find myself drawn to watching the musicians and analyzing the music, and following along with it instead of paying attention to praying and worship. So I just don’t go to those Masses when I can help it.

Sure, I’ll listen to anything outside of Mass, but for me it just doesn’t belong in Mass because of that great distraction it presents for me. It doesn’t symbolize praise for me, it symbolizes a concert - and while this is likely just a problem of mine with focusing, it’s best for me to stick with a more quiet, solemn, classically sounding setting for my times of worship.

It’s a bit funny when I think back to a time in my life when I hated all religions and was a wild child - even then when I accompanied a friend to their church I still dressed out of respect for the others around me, and still was affronted to hear anything other than more “typical” music in their church. Maybe I’ve just been brainwashed.

As for the argument that teens somehow cannot grasp the Mass because of relaxed requirements for them to grow up and encouragement to remain adolescent longer - that’s silly to me. Are we saying that every teen generation before now somehow was more in tune to adulthood than those of today? Are we really thinking that they require a “simpler, more interactive” service to “get” their religion?

Maybe we need a change in tactics before they become teenagers so they can attend any Mass, and “get” what’s going on, music styles ‘en vogue’ or not.

 

[garyco]

I think the main question everyone is debating in this forum in style of music. Surely rock music is not played at mass, i.e. beatles and rolling stones tunes, are they? It is the style of music that people seem to be having the problem with. Regardless of the style if the lyrics are Christ centred and God honouring, then it is appropriate to play in a modern contemporary style especially if the congregation has been brought up that particular style. Most other church music has its roots in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and people of that day were probably opposed to its introduction as following some modern fad! If we go back far enough singing in mass would not have been accompanied by instruments as was the custom for periods. The church is a living organism, and like Jesus alluded to regarding the sabbath, the mass is for the people, to bring us closer to and connect with Almighty God through Christ. It is not the people for the mass. this fact was recognised at Vatican 2 thankfully. For the poeple who dislike modern music it seems to be that they are more ruled by their emotions than perhaps the young people who get emotional in response to praises sung to God in a modern style. Just a thought.

 

[garyco]

A quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1088 “To accomplish so great a work” - the dispensation or communication of his work of salvation - “Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.”’[11]

Regardless of what anyone says about a style of music, Christ is present if indeed the people gathered are there to pray and sing in the name of Jesus, regardless of whether the music is a gegorian chant, a rippling symphony, or a fuzzy techno song. What is the purpose of the music, that is the question? Christ is in all, and through all the mass, people, sacraments, from A to Z. Lets just rejoice that He is there despite our petty arguments. Cheers

 

[Topher]

palmas85:

Many people use the phrase “not in line with the Spirit of the Church” to define anyone who does not follow a liberal, feel good, I love you, you love me we’re a happy family version of the faith. You know the version, where no matter what anyone believes it is all right. See God in your own unique way. No real need for conformity, bend God and Jesus to fit YOUR perception of Him, because all that really matters is what you want and need anyway. You are what counts you are special.

They actually use the phrase “The Spirit of Vatican II”. I Despise that phrase to say exactly what you are criticizing. The “Spirit of Vatican II” congregation try to force to God to be nothing more than this nice old Grampa with a beard. They think that no one goes to hell and that Catholics can believe whatever they want. I agree that with you that trying to make Jesus who you want him to be is wrong. Jesus is bigger than we are and any liberalizing theology is simply blasphemey.
Now when I say “The Spirit of the Church”, what I mean is that I really believe that the Holy Spirit guides the direction of the Church and the direction taken by good and orthodox Catholics, i.e. the faithful. And the direction that the Holy Spirit has taken the Church is to the Novus Ordo mass and away from requiring things like gregorian chant. Even if I prefer the Tridentine rite, and more traditional masses, the Church is where it is and I have faith that the Holy Spirit has lead it here. So even if it is not the direction that I prefer, I have faith in God.

palmas85:

If any potential convert would be scared away beacause of me his desire to be a Catholic wasn’t very strong to begin with. And I hardly think that I am impressive or powerful enough to run anyone out of the Church. You give me way too much credit.

No they may not have been very Catholic but convincing people that the church is aboout musical styles rather than about Christ is not very Catholic either.

palmas85:

I don’t see where in the world you got the impression that “your Jesus” meaning mine, did not care about individuals. By the way, my Jesus is exactly the same as yours and everyone elses. We don’t have separate, individual, made to order for our own convenience Jesus Christs.

I was not speaking of your Jesus vs. mine. I was speaking of your Jesus vs. the Jesus of the Church who is the real and true Jesus.

palmas85:

The legalistic part, well, Jesus was pretty hard core in what he taught and demanded tremendous sacrifices from his followers. He did not put up with a lot of dissent and expected things to be done in certain ways. Remember what he did in the Temple with the moneychangers, although, I suppose in that particular episode he could be seen as depriving some people of the right to earn a living. At least I’m sure they saw it that way.

And one of the things he didn’t put up with was legalism.

palmas85:

No Jesus required, insisted on and DEMANDED that his disciples follow His path, the path of the Father Almighty, not what each person wanted to do or think. They had to submit to what He taught and what He said, and do things His way. There was no room for deviations in His ministry. He demanded total respect for God and for the Temple.

Amen. But his path did not include Gregorian Chant. It simply is not necessary. And reverance for the temple did not include Gregorian chant. It can be nice and beautiful but it is not necessary.

palmas85:

Many people seem to forget that these days

I agree

 

[Topher]

palmas85:

Topher:

I chose not to address your problems with bilingual masses because your objections were absurd. The mass can certainly be said in more than one language, depending on the linguistic needs of the community. If a church has a big vietnamese population, then why not have a bilingual vietnamese mass?
If it has a large hispanic population, like my state, why not have a bilingual Spanish mass. The idea that each church will have to accomodate each language is silly. Each geographical location has different linguistic backgrounds. I doubt very highly that the city I live in has a very large swahili population. That is one language group that it is unnecessary to address. However, with all the bilingual speakers, monolingual spanish speakers, and monlingual english speakers in my disocese, a bilingual mass is a cause for unity.

Good point, but say you have several large linguistic groups, as in my Parish. Bi Lingual masses for everyone? Just for the largest group, the smallest, which one? That is my objection. I suppose that if all you have are English and Spanish speakers or English and Tagalog speakers, or English and Vietnamese speakers or English and French speakers or any two groups,then a bi-lingual Mass would be fine.

But to use your example of Swahili speakers in Albuquerque, don’t they count as well? Should they be deprived just because they are few in number? Where does it begin and end? At what number does the bi-lingual aspect kick in? Do they have to learn English while for example Spanish speakers do not? Surely you don’t expect that just because they are few in number they deserve less, or do you?

I would say we should be realistic and do what we can. If the population is very small and we just don’t have the resources to accomodate a bilingual swahili mass, then so be it. We do what we can.

 

[CanoeCamper55]

I just turned 50 and have been singing and playing acoustic guitar at Mass for 33 years (since 1972). I enjoy listening to and doing all kinds of sacred music, including Gregorian Chant, traditional organ hymns, contemporary Catholic music, and other musical styles. Also, I am a devout orthodox Roman Catholic, and am fully obedient to the Magisterium.

Although there are some abuses of contemporary Christian music at Mass due to a lack of catechesis, there is a lot of spirit-filled, joyful, liturgically-appropriate contemporary music for Mass.

Here are just a few examples of good “guitar/piano” liturgical music over the past 40 years:

• Ray Repp (“Hear O Lord” from Mass for Young Americans, 1966)
• W.F. Jabusch (“Whatsoever You Do”, 1966)
• Joe Wise (“Holy, Holy”, 1973)
• St Louis Jesuits (“You Are Near” from Neither Silver Nor Gold, 1974)
• John Michael Talbot (psalm-songs, worship music, and chant with classical and acoustic guitar, 1980’s and 1990’s)
• Matt Maher (contemporary liturgical music, “Kyrie Eleison” and Lamb of God", early 2000’s)

Also, the psalm-songs of David speak of instruments such as the lyre, harp, tamborine, trumpet, and drums.

There are many guidelines that help one to determine if a song is appropriate for liturgy (see *Music In Catholic Worship at *liturgy.net/body_doc_ref/MICW/body_micw.html). We also need to remind ourselves often that the purpose of sacred music is not for performance/entertainment, but true worship of our God who is present in the Eucharist so that we may draw closer to Christ.

“We find today a vital interest in the Mass as prayer and here lies the principle of synthesis. When everyone with one accord strives to make the Mass a prayer, a sharing and celebration of Faith, then there will be unity - many styles of music, a broad choice of instruments, a wide variety of forms of celebration, but a single purpose: that people of faith may proclaim and share that faith in prayer and that Christ may grow among us.” (No. 84, Music in Catholic Worship)

It has been good to see the gradual shift of some Protestant Christian music to worship and praise styles. SOME of that music is even appropriate for Mass. Check out Michael W. Smith’s Worship and Worship Again CD albums. (Be careful, because not all of the music on these CD’s is appropriate for liturgy.)

Young people desperately need the gospel MESSAGE, relevant and spirit-filled MUSIC, and Jesus truly present in the MASS. Good contemporary MUSIC will open up their hearts and minds to the MESSAGE and the MASS.

 

[palmas85]

Topher:

palmas85:

I would say we should be realistic and do what we can. If the population is very small and we just don’t have the resources to accomodate a bilingual swahili mass, then so be it. We do what we can.

Actually it would seem that the people wanting bi-lingual masses are the ones few in number, just more vocal. Sorry, but that does seem to be the case.

 

[Frank_Roman]

Holy things must be treated in a Holy way- the Council of Trent

Rock Music at Mass??? As a youth I am appaulled. We need to be taught REVERENCE. We want the solemn Truth. Don’t minimize it and make it trivial!

Truth attracts, every heart desires it. We can’t make it easier to take.

Anyone looking for comfort in the Church has come to the wrong place- Pope Benedict XVI

Rock music is loud. God speaks in silence. In other cultures the devil is often called the noisemaker or distracter. Do you think that he might suppor Rock at Mass???

What would Mother Teresa say?!?!?!

 

[palmas85]

Topher:

They actually use the phrase “The Spirit of Vatican II”. I Despise that phrase to say exactly what you are criticizing. The “Spirit of Vatican II” congregation try to force to God to be nothing more than this nice old Grampa with a beard. They think that no one goes to hell and that Catholics can believe whatever they want. I agree that with you that trying to make Jesus who you want him to be is wrong. Jesus is bigger than we are and any liberalizing theology is simply blasphemey.
Now when I say “The Spirit of the Church”, what I mean is that I really believe that the Holy Spirit guides the direction of the Church and the direction taken by good and orthodox Catholics, i.e. the faithful. And the direction that the Holy Spirit has taken the Church is to the Novus Ordo mass and away from requiring things like gregorian chant. Even if I prefer the Tridentine rite, and more traditional masses, the Church is where it is and I have faith that the Holy Spirit has lead it here. So even if it is not the direction that I prefer, I have faith in God.

And one of the things he didn’t put up with was legalism.

Amen. But his path did not include Gregorian Chant. It simply is not necessary. And reverance for the temple did not include Gregorian chant. It can be nice and beautiful but it is not necessary.

I agree

His path did not include Rock, Contemporary Christian Folk, Polka, Mariachi or any other music at all either for that matter.

As to legalism he did not break the law, forbade his followers to do so and apparently encouraged his followers to respect governmental authority. By all accounts he attended Temple after the Jewish custom of the times and conformed with their rules. In fact his real problem with them was his claim of being the Messiah and his subsequent healings, miracles etc, which sometimes fell on the Sabbath… Otherwise, he would not have had much trouble as their were numerous healers, teachers and ministers roaming around in those days.

Twice you made some strange reference to an old Grandpa type of God with a white beard. Where in the world do you get that from? Old illustrations from a Baltimore Catechism? Get real, I don’t think anyone except possibly small children ever believed in that.

As to the Holy Spirit guiding the church, I agree, but historically there have been times when the church went in really strange directions. I think that the Holy Spirit allows man a certain amount of control, free will so to speak, just to see what we will do. Remember there have been heretical popes, schismatic popes etc. At one point during the Arian heresy, about two thirds of the Church was affected. So please don’t take the simplistic stance that the church is and always will be correct in each and every aspect. History does not bear that out. It may always end up where it is supposed to but along the path things can and often have gotten quite messy.

 

[Michael_Welter]

palmas85:

As to legalism he did not break the law, forbade his followers to do so and apparently encouraged his followers to respect governmental authority.

That’s not entirely true. Jesus healed on the Sabath, in violation of the law. He harvested food with His apostles on the Sabath, in violation of the law. And He reminded us that the law was made for us, not us for the law.

 

[CanoeCamper55]

**Psalm 98
******“1 A psalm. Sing a new song to the LORD, who has done marvelous deeds, Whose right hand and holy arm have won the victory. 2 The LORD has made his victory known; has revealed his triumph for the nations to see, 3 Has remembered faithful love toward the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God. 4 Shout with joy to the LORD, all the earth; break into song; sing praise. 5 Sing praise to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and melodious song. 6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn shout with joy to the King, the LORD. 7 Let the sea and what fills it resound, the world and those who dwell there. 8 Let the rivers clap their hands, the mountains shout with them for joy, 9 Before the LORD who comes, who comes to govern the earth, To govern the world with justice and the peoples with fairness.”

 

[CanoeCamper55]

Psalm 149
“1 Hallelujah! Sing to the LORD a new song, a hymn in the assembly of the faithful. 2 Let Israel be glad in their maker, the people of Zion rejoice in their king. 3 Let them praise his name in festive dance, make music with tambourine and lyre. 4 For the LORD takes delight in his people, honors the poor with victory. 5 Let the faithful rejoice in their glory, cry out for joy at their banquet, 6 With the praise of God in their mouths, and a two-edged sword in their hands, 7 To bring retribution on the nations, punishment on the peoples, 8 To bind their kings with chains, shackle their nobles with irons, 9 To execute the judgments decreed for them-- such is the glory of all God’s faithful. Hallelujah!”

 

[migurl]

Look, I get the fact that different people like different music, so I think I’ll give up on that argument. What I don’t like about life teen is that it was created to make church more fun. CHurch is not suposed to be FUN, it supposed to be sacred, a time to witness the Sacrifice of the Mass, not to feel buddy-buddy with someone. If I heard a truly Catholic Song with “contemperary” music, I guess I wouldn’t have much to complain about, but when the music at mass is the same music sung at a christian concert, I have a problem. I also am sick and tired or people thinking that teens need to be mody-coddled. I just turned 20, but when i was a teen I HATED how people would try to change things because they thought I couldn’t handle it any other way. Mass is Mass, and changing it to be more interesting is the problem. Show me a Teen mass with CATHOLIC MUSIC, (after all, Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic), where the Sermons are honest adn not just “cool”, where teens aren’t danicing around like they are at some kind of club, and not running around shaking hands with someone sitting on the opposite end of the Church and maybe I’ll feel a little better about having Teen masses. Teens are so impressionable, and we could be doing them a real disservice by making the Catholic faith seem like something its not.

 

[Topher]

Good points CanoeCamper

 

[Topher]

palmas85:

His path did not include Rock, Contemporary Christian Folk, Polka, Mariachi or any other music at all either for that matter.

As to legalism he did not break the law, forbade his followers to do so and apparently encouraged his followers to respect governmental authority. By all accounts he attended Temple after the Jewish custom of the times and conformed with their rules. In fact his real problem with them was his claim of being the Messiah and his subsequent healings, miracles etc, which sometimes fell on the Sabbath… Otherwise, he would not have had much trouble as their were numerous healers, teachers and ministers roaming around in those days.

Twice you made some strange reference to an old Grandpa type of God with a white beard. Where in the world do you get that from? Old illustrations from a Baltimore Catechism? Get real, I don’t think anyone except possibly small children ever believed in that.

As to the Holy Spirit guiding the church, I agree, but historically there have been times when the church went in really strange directions. I think that the Holy Spirit allows man a certain amount of control, free will so to speak, just to see what we will do. Remember there have been heretical popes, schismatic popes etc. At one point during the Arian heresy, about two thirds of the Church was affected. So please don’t take the simplistic stance that the church is and always will be correct in each and every aspect. History does not bear that out. It may always end up where it is supposed to but along the path things can and often have gotten quite messy.

 

[Topher]

migurl:

Look, I get the fact that different people like different music, so I think I’ll give up on that argument. What I don’t like about life teen is that it was created to make church more fun. CHurch is not suposed to be FUN, it supposed to be sacred, a time to witness the Sacrifice of the Mass, not to feel buddy-buddy with someone. If I heard a truly Catholic Song with “contemperary” music, I guess I wouldn’t have much to complain about, but when the music at mass is the same music sung at a christian concert, I have a problem. I also am sick and tired or people thinking that teens need to be mody-coddled. I just turned 20, but when i was a teen I HATED how people would try to change things because they thought I couldn’t handle it any other way. Mass is Mass, and changing it to be more interesting is the problem. Show me a Teen mass with CATHOLIC MUSIC, (after all, Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic), where the Sermons are honest adn not just “cool”, where teens aren’t danicing around like they are at some kind of club, and not running around shaking hands with someone sitting on the opposite end of the Church and maybe I’ll feel a little better about having Teen masses. Teens are so impressionable, and we could be doing them a real disservice by making the Catholic faith seem like something its not.

Real. if mass is mass, then having contemporary worship music shouldn’t bother you at all. And you know what, having been in Life Teen and now as core member (volountee youth minster) I have seen some amazing fruit come through the Life Teen program. I have seen so many teenagers leave a life of sin for life in Christ and remain solid. I have seen people whose faith was luke warm become a blazing fire. I am begining to think that those who oppose life teen are more concerned with having gregorian chant in mass than they are with people devoting their lives to Jesus and his Church.

 

[migurl]

Topher:

Real. if mass is mass, then having contemporary worship music shouldn’t bother you at all. And you know what, having been in Life Teen and now as core member (volountee youth minster) I have seen some amazing fruit come through the Life Teen program. I have seen so many teenagers leave a life of sin for life in Christ and remain solid. I have seen people whose faith was luke warm become a blazing fire. I am begining to think that those who oppose life teen are more concerned with having gregorian chant in mass than they are with people devoting their lives to Jesus and his Church.

I’m glad that you have witnessed that, but not all teen masses are like that. I went to one in my parish for a few weeks and was greatly disturbed. I hope that the masses for teens change and produce real Catholics with a love for Christ, but the one at my parish is not that way at all.

 

[Topher]

I am begining to wonder if you actually read my post because you almost always reply to some caricaturized version of them and not my actual posts.

palmas85:

His path did not include Rock, Contemporary Christian Folk, Polka, Mariachi or any other music at all either for that matter.

Exactly. Following Jesus has nothing to do with music. So people who have a problem with Life Teen really get over this whole music thing. I mean really, do ultratraditionalists worship Christ or gregorian chant?

palmas85:

As to legalism he did not break the law, forbade his followers to do so and apparently encouraged his followers to respect governmental authority. By all accounts he attended Temple after the Jewish custom of the times and conformed with their rules. In fact his real problem with them was his claim of being the Messiah and his subsequent healings, miracles etc, which sometimes fell on the Sabbath… Otherwise, he would not have had much trouble as their were numerous healers, teachers and ministers roaming around in those days.

I am not saying he broke the law but he did not create these legalistic interpretations of the law that made the law more important than God. It seems like you emphasize the kind of music that is played in mass over the actual myster that occurs in mass. If contemporary worship music distracts you from the mass, then I think you really need to figure out what it is in your own spiritual life that needs to improve. You need to figure out what makes you so easily distaracted.

palmas85:

Twice you made some strange reference to an old Grandpa type of God with a white beard. Where in the world do you get that from? Old illustrations from a Baltimore Catechism? Get real, I don’t think anyone except possibly small children ever believed in that.

not worth replying to.

palmas85:

As to the Holy Spirit guiding the church, I agree, but historically there have been times when the church went in really strange directions. I think that the Holy Spirit allows man a certain amount of control, free will so to speak, just to see what we will do. Remember there have been heretical popes, schismatic popes etc. At one point during the Arian heresy, about two thirds of the Church was affected. So please don’t take the simplistic stance that the church is and always will be correct in each and every aspect. History does not bear that out. It may always end up where it is supposed to but along the path things can and often have gotten quite messy.

Again, I wish that you would have read what I actually wrote. I didn’t say that everything the church did was right or that all Catholics are always right. What I said was that I trust that the Holy Spirit guides the good and orthodox Catholics. The faithful. And yes I know all about the Arian heresy. Every bishop fell except for St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Rome, and one other. But those who fell were not faithful or orthodox. And no, there has never been a heretical pope. To argue such is heresy. By the way, the examples that protestants always bring up are not actual cases of heresy but of ambiguity on the part of the pope under examinantion.
and by the way, I use the term legalism sparingly because I know that liberals try to throw it around when refering to anyone who actually believes in the teachings of the Church. I only use the term legalism when it actually applies, as in ur case.