Over critical narration during Papal events

  • Thread starter Thread starter maximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, we do have something from scripture that would almost be akin to the consternation displayed by Fr. Neuhaus.

When Jesus was clearing out the moneychangers from the court of the Gentiles in the Temple area, he wasn’t exactly saying, “Excuse me. Would you mind leaving the premisis?” He had whips, chords, overturned tables and pretty much read them the riot act because they dared to profane His Father’s house. Remember that the court of the Gentiles was the area of prayer reserved for non-Jews. The moneychangers and the merchants set up shop there and turned it into something banal. Incidentally, this was also a very public display of genuine holy anger. It wasn’t some private moment. This was done in front of a live audience.

Actually, I will now throw this question at some of y’all: Suppose that you were at the Temple the minute Jesus started cleaning house. You don’t have the benefit of hindsight. You are just there. You see this man taking a whip, chords and knocking down tables, and saying a few choice words to the merchants and moneychangers. You even refer to God as His Father. You are one of the folks waiting to get your sacrificial victim. What would your reaction have been? Remember, you can’t fall back on your present state as a Christian. You don’t have the benefit of hindsight. You are witnessing this. Would you not ask yourself: who does he think he is doing this?

I submit to you that this example is very germaine to the discussion. Profaning the sacred is certainly not something to take lightly. I submit to you that this example certainly fits what was on display during the Nationals Stadium Mass. Fr. Neuhaus was simply calling it as it was.
 
You need to study the real reason Jesus chased out the money changers, so this is not a good example, and the explanation would take much too long to print out.

What I see happening is that you are attempting to say that the Father was acting virtuously, and we should all excuse it. Perhaps, perhaps not. We see only the deed, not the motive.

As a deed, I believe we do have the right to form an opinion and express it on this board. Since I have done so, along with the others, enough said. As usual, when one disagrees with you, you are right on their tail to prove them wrong.
 
benedictgal said:
I wonder if a retired Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had been invited to make commentary during the DC Mass how his comments would be received. He certainly would have made mention of the same things that he’s noted in his books. Had he been saying pretty much what Fr. Neuhaus mentioned, how would people take his commentary? I suspect that many would be entirely dismissive of him because in their eyes, he is a theologian and not a liturgist. No doubt, the same folks raking Fr. Neuhaus over the coals would certainly not hesitate to do the same to a retired Joseph Ratzinger.
Click to expand...
So true. 👍
 
The reason why Jesus cleansed the temple was that the moneychangers and vendors were profaning sacred space, mainly the Court of the Gentiles, which was the Temple area reserved for non-Jews. Profaning the sacred is something very serious.

Zeal for His Father’s house consumed Jesus. Zeal for the integrity of the Eucharist also prompted St. Paul to read the riot act to the Corinthians because many of them were profaming the Body and Blood of Christ. I would submit that zeal for the correct celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, including using the appropriate music as called by the legitimate documents of the Church (and not some alleged “spirit of Vatican II”) is what consumed Fr. Neuhaus and many of us who value Sacred Hymnody.
 
Joysong said:
You need to study the real reason Jesus chased out the money changers, so this is not a good example, and the explanation would take much too long to print out.

What I see happening is that you are attempting to say that the Father was acting virtuously, and we should all excuse it. Perhaps, perhaps not. We see only the deed, not the motive.

As a deed, I believe we do have the right to form an opinion and express it on this board. Since I have done so, along with the others, enough said. As usual, when one disagrees with you, you are right on their tail to prove them wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You stated your opinions and benedictgal stated her opinions. When you criticize Fr. Newhaus, you should indeed expect to start a heated debate. You criticized and judged the motives of Fr. Newhaus showing his displeasement with the DC Mass. So, as a response, naturally, you will most definitely see refutes to your criticism. Fr. Newhaus did indeed crticize music that was completely inappopriate for mass. I think one would have to be blind to not see that the music focused on multiculturalism and was driven purely by that, not by the mass and the glorious sacrament of holy communion. Should Fr. Newhaus bring these mistakes to light? Absolutely. There was a clear mistake here in choosing the music. It was only natural for a priest, who knows well the Holy Father’s intentions for liturgy, to criticize what occurred.
 
donmaximuso27 said:
Are you serious? You stated your opinions and benedictgal stated her opinions. When you criticize Fr. Newhaus, you should indeed expect to start a heated debate. You criticized and judged the motives of Fr. Newhaus showing his displeasement with the DC Mass. So, as a response, naturally, you will most definitely see refutes to your criticism. Fr. Newhaus did indeed crticize music that was completely inappopriate for mass. I think one would have to be blind to not see that the music focused on multiculturalism and was driven purely by that, not by the mass and the glorious sacrament of holy communion. Should Fr. Newhaus bring these mistakes to light? Absolutely. There was a clear mistake here in choosing the music. It was only natural for a priest, who knows well the Holy Father’s intentions for liturgy, to criticize what occurred.
Click to expand...
Again for the 100th time :banghead: your opinion and Fr. Newhauses opinion NOT neccsarily the opinion of the Holy Father for this Mass or any of the events.
 
anamchara said:
Again for the 100th time :banghead: your opinion and Fr. Newhauses opinion NOT neccsarily the opinion of the Holy Father for this Mass or any of the events.
Click to expand...
Honestly, how do you know this? Have you read “Spirit of the Liturgy” or any of Ratzinger’s other books on the subject?

If you have not, then on what do you base this assertion? :confused:
 
This is what the Holy Fahter has written regarding Sacred Music. It comes from Spirit of the Liturgy:
***On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. ***“Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.
Click to expand...
…On the one hand, there is the music that Plato ascribes, in line with mythology, to Apollo, the god of light and reason. This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it elevates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being. But then there is the music that Plato ascribes to Marsyas, which we might describe, in terms of cultic history, as “***Dionysian”. It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes rationality, and subjects the spirit to the senses. The way Plato (and more moderately, Aristotle) allots instruments and keys to one or other of these two kinds of music is now obsolete and may in many respects surprise us. But the Apollonian/Dionysian alternative runs through the whole history of religion and confronts us again today. Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. ***If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (I Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and He leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship) of which we spoke in the first part of this book.
Click to expand...
Banal certainly aptly describes what Fr. Neuhaus and the rest of us witnessed last Thursday morning. Certainly, the influence of the Dionysian sphere also manifested itself in many of the songs chosen for the Mass, especially when profane musical instruments were used that rendered these songs more fitting for a Ricky Martin concert than the Mass.

This comes from Sacramentum Caritatis:
Liturgical song
Click to expand...
  1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).
Click to expand...
One certainly cannot say, with a straight face, that this was the case for last Thursday’s Mass. In fact, it was the complete opposite, again, as Fr. Neuhaus pointed out. What I quoted were the Holy Father’s own words. The convictions of Joseph Ratzinger certainly didn’t fly out the window when he became Pope Benedict XVI. There is continuity, as Fr. Neuhaus pointed out.
 
anamchara said:
Again for the 100th time :banghead: your opinion and Fr. Newhauses opinion NOT neccsarily the opinion of the Holy Father for this Mass or any of the events.
Click to expand...
Show me where we are differing from the Holy Father’s opinion on this issue and I will change my stance. But what Fr. Neuhaus said on thursday is backed up completly by what the Holy Father wrote in his book Spirit of the Liturgy.

You can say that Fr. Neuhaus was rude in how he discussed the issue. I don’t believe he was. That is a legitimate arguement. But the message Fr. Neuhaus gave was that the music was not acceptable by the Church’s own standards and the standards of B16.
 
Hey, I wonder if “dona nobis pacem” was left out of their Agnus Dei because they** knew **all their music was NOT going to bring peace to our world! [/COLO:hmmm: R]
 
zagjames said:
Show me where we are differing from the Holy Father’s opinion on this issue and I will change my stance. But what Fr. Neuhaus said on thursday is backed up completly by what the Holy Father wrote in his book Spirit of the Liturgy.

You can say that Fr. Neuhaus was rude in how he discussed the issue. I don’t believe he was. That is a legitimate arguement. But the message Fr. Neuhaus gave was that the music was not acceptable by the Church’s own standards and the standards of B16.
Click to expand...
This topic is being dicussed all over CAF. I found this:
**I just received this from the Papal Mass CHoir Director, fyi:
Click to expand...
(Archbishop Wuerl) mentioned that the Pope gave him very positive reactions to the liturgy on two occasions after the Mass that day. And the Papal Master of Ceremonies, who travels with the Holy Father, was specific about the beauty and prayerfulness of the Liturgy as well.
Click to expand...
If you watched EWTN this weekend or recorded their coverage of the Mass, you may have heard some negative comments by the anchor and his priest commentator… They were not present for the liturgy physically, but EWTN’s on-site commentator, Joan Lewis, who was actually at the stadium, was ecstatic about the music and wasn’t afraid to say so.
Click to expand...
just food for thought.
Al**
Click to expand...
This persons post is here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3586573&postcount=335

From what I can figure out so far this person sang at the Papal Mass in DC.

I had faith that the Pope was a reasonable and thoughtful man. I think many on here do not give him credit and have become to caught up in what he wrote and have twisted it to fit thier own personal taste.
 
What do you do when someone sings you an offkey happy birthday? You smile and thank them. When you are visiting, and someone goes to all the trouble to arrange a special Mass because you can be there to celebrate it you dont go off and start screeming at everyone as soon as it is over. You thank all for their work, you complement them, and the problems you had with it you address behind the scenes. And you make sure it will not happen again.

The choir did sing beautifully, they were well practiced and should be honored for the work they did. The songs chosen were not the best, that was the critique. Don’t mix up the two.
 
zagjames said:
What do you do when someone sings you an offkey happy birthday? You smile and thank them. When you are visiting, and someone goes to all the trouble to arrange a special Mass because you can be there to celebrate it you dont go off and start screeming at everyone as soon as it is over. You thank all for their work, you complement them, and the problems you had with it you address behind the scenes. And you make sure it will not happen again.

The choir did sing beautifully, they were well practiced and should be honored for the work they did. The songs chosen were not the best, that was the critique. Don’t mix up the two.
Click to expand...
😃 you think what you want my friend. Whatever makes you sleep better at night I guess. 😉
 
anamchara said:
😃 you think what you want my friend. Whatever makes you sleep better at night I guess. 😉
Click to expand...
My approaching latin final will prevent any hope at good sleep. 😦 Thoughts of an angry german shepard can only garuntee me so much sleep i suppose… 😉
 
Something else I found that speaks to all these threads on this subject. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802203.htm
In a comment aimed at people inside and outside the church, he said the faith is more than a set of rules and suggested that more attention should be given to external challenges.
Click to expand...
“Perhaps we have lost sight of this: In a society where the church seems legalistic and ‘institutional’ to many people, our most urgent challenge is to communicate the joy born of faith and the experience of God’s love,” he said.
Click to expand...
One of his strongest themes was church unity. At a Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, he expressed disappointment with the formation of divisions within the church between Catholic groups, generations and individuals.
Click to expand...
The church, he said, needs to “put aside all anger and contention” and turn its gaze together toward Christ.

**The papal Masses highlighted the diversity of the church in the United States which, as the pope said, comes together in a “common commitment to the spread of the Gospel.” These were colorful, musical liturgies and the pope seemed pleased with them.
**
Click to expand...
I found this here: uspapalvisit.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top