Over critical narration during Papal events

[zagjames]

Good Luck on the final zag

Thanks

 

[anamchara]

Thanks

Your welcome
I found this as well, it’s background on some of the music that was used at Nationals. Here’s the whole thing if anyone wants to read it.
usccb.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/participant-profile-behind-the-music/

Brother Rufino Zaragoza, OFM, composed “My God and My All,” one of the Communion hymns for the Mass at Nationals Park. Brother Zaragoza is currently in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), working on a bilingual Vietnamese/English hymnal that includes this song. He said that the hymn’s refrain comes from a prayer chant, used by Saint Francis of Assisi. He added, “Far away from home, in a country that offers no news about the Pope’s visit to the U.S., I am deeply touched that somehow the words of Saint Francis would be sung by Americans at the Mass in Nationals Park. Francis prayed that he might offer his all to the Holy One, and in his simplicity and poverty, that he could receive all that the Holy One offers all to his beloved. Somehow this simple song found its way into the Papal Celebration. I think Saint Francis would be happy. Wish I could be there to join my fellow Americans in welcoming Pope Benedict XVI.”

 

[Spiller]

There was nothing wrong with the commentary of Fr. Newhaus, this is nonsense. He knows the Holy Father personally and knows well the works of the Holy Father of when he was Cardinal. The musis was atrocious and completely inappropiate for a mass. There is an abundance of traditional polyphony and chant from many different cultures, that they could have used instead. Clearly, it contradicted what the Holy Father wrote on the importance of sacred liturgy.

I was ashamed for him. He knows better.

 

[Spiller]

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)uts, like another person I was considering writing a letter about what I thought was less than charitable commentary. I do not like it when an anti-Catholic from our separated brethren or a pagan detractor uses uncharitable language against us. I expect knowledgeable and highly intelligent Catholics to conduct themselves with charity of word, because it goes a long way in trying to evangelize and bring people home to the church founded by Christ. I hold them both in high regards and have always enjoyed them speaking and doing interviews, I just did not like the way they did the color analysis for the DC mass and the events at the Seminary it could have been softer and with less talking. I listen to the podcasts of the coverage because I wish to hear our Pope; I don’t have cable. On Sunday, CBS carried the NYC mass and the announcers were very good and keep quiet once the mass started.
I guess maybe the format for large papal masses in the future should be a Tridentine High mass and that way everything is standard.
God bless,

There is always concern that the secular media will use any opportunity to rip the Church and it’s nice to hear CBS did not.

I flicked between EWTN and the secular cable/network offerings and I think that many times the best coverage with via Fox, CNN or one of the others and not EWTN.

I have heard Fr. Neuhaus provide masterful commentary before – particularly when refuting that Fr. NcBrien from ND. I didn’t hear masterful commentary this time. I heard abrasive shots in more than one case. As for Raymond? He sure seems like a nice guy, but he’s no Tom Brokaw.

I think if either Mass had been an EF, it would have been a real turn-off to most people. Not all, but most. Yes I know there are a tiny number that would like it, but it would have poorly nourished the masses (no pun.)

And the inability by some to understand why the EF would have failed to nourish this country’s Catholics as well as the OF did is directly related to those who cannot understand the value and efficacy of the Mass in DC – just as it was celebrated.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal:

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.

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.

As I said, it is very obvious in your assertions that you haven’t studied scripture. Rather than ask humbly a question to find out what I meant, you assumed your opinion is the only valid one, and demonstrated how little you understood that scripture.

The Court of the Gentiles is NOT the Temple’s sacred space. Far from it. Therefore, your correlation served as an inappropriate example to ratify your opinion.

Will you kindly allow me the privilege to hold and express my own opinion, as the OP simply asked, without forming a wagon train to tear it down?
OP:

I am just curious to see if there is anyone else who finds that sometimes the EWTN commentators cross the line into detracting sarcasm.

 

[Joysong]

zagjames:

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.

Could you specify which statement from the book you believe Fr. Neuhaus was echoing? It is so easy to become fixated on one or two statements and pull them out of context from everything he wrote. I found statements that show the liturgy was absolutely in accord with his sentiments in the book. It’s all a matter of opinion as one privately interprets it - whether it is yours, mine, Fr. Neuhaus’s, Arroyo’s.

I think you get my point, that quoting the Pope’s book can also be MIS-quoted to align with one’s personal opinion. We can see how this fixation with an ideology mushroomed into myriads of denominations, precisely because one takes particular verses of scripture unrelated to the whole and runs with it. It is fairly easy to find a verse to justify anything the believer wants others to absorb.

In reality, unless the Pope expresses publicly that he was not pleased with certain aspects of the liturgy, one merely speculates in personally voicing that he might have been. One also speculates that because of their personal antipathy with the Mass, then everyone else must have been displeased also. We need to poll the 46,000 who were there, to know that to be factual, and listen as well to the millions who viewed it on TV, not the handful who post on CAF.

 

[lenseekstruth]

I am just curious to see if there is anyone else who finds that sometimes the EWTN commentators cross the line into detracting sarcasm. I love EWTN and view it as a first class organization for which I am so thankful. I understand that alternative Christian rock, Spanish, or having a famous pop singer at a papal event is not everybody cup of tea. EWTN I believe is fantastic vehicle of evangelization and probably had some new viewers turned off by their tone.

I watched the EWTN video online and did not hear any comments but a few during Communion. In fact I felt that the music was so inappropriate for the dignity and awe of the Mass that I sent several emails complaining, and was surprised hearing but a few very restrained comments.
If anything was distracting, I felt it was the music not the commentary.
By the way, I have nothing but respect for the choir, and all who worked so hard for the success of the event. I only regret the *choice *of music.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

This is what the Holy Fahter has written regarding Sacred Music. It comes from Spirit of the Liturgy:

Of course you’re taking the Pope’s words out of context here, and although I didn’t see the Mass, I didn’t think they used Pop music, so what are you talking about?

As far as Fr. Neuhaus being disrespectful, I would think that it would’ve been proper etiquette, not to provide commentary during the Mass, or even during the Holy Father’s visit. This was a time to be united, not divisive.

Think about the people who worked so hard to put this liturgy together, and have it approved. What would they feel reading and hearing the criticism by Fr. Neuhaus?

I have a lot of respect for Fr. Neuhaus, but sometimes intellectually brilliant people, such as he is, come across clumsily, when trying to express their feelings.

Either way, it was the wrong time to be critical.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

To assert that someone has read scripture incorrectly is not a charge one should be making. First of all, what Jesus did was to corect some serious profanity that was occuring in the Temple, the most sacred space for Jews during that time. Profaning the Temple with moneychangers and animal vendors is something serious. What these people did was to convert an area that was reserved solely for prayer, the area given to Gentiles, and turn it into a merketplace.

Profaning the liturgy through horrid music is just as bad. All parts of the Mass are deemed sacred. Using music that is better suited for a salsa club profanes the very sacredness of the Mass.

The commentary was made during the music, not during the Mass. If anyone has watched the papal liturgies broadcast on EWTN, most of the time, when the folks lfrom Vatican Radio aren’t translating, they leave their comments until the offertory or communion. This was also the case with the way EWTN handled the Papal liturgies during the Holy Father’s visit. The commentaries were made only during the offertory and communion.

No one is twisting the Holy Father’s words. In fact, if anything, he’s been pretty consistent. It is those folks who would rather put a spin on them and claim that he really didn’t mean what he said who are at fault. I would even go so far as to say that those who hold such notions probably haven’t even read any of his books on the subject. On the other hand, if anyone has read them (and thoroughly), it’s been Fr. Neuhaus.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

You are certainly right about that. No one is criticizing the choir; it’s the selections that are the problem. Furthermore, I wouldn’t necessarily take the word of someone who sang at the Papal Mass as saying that it had the Holy Father’s seal of approval.

That would really take twisting things to a new level, downwards.

 

[anamchara]

Just in case anyone missed my post late last night, this is from someone on CAF also trying to defend the DC Mass:

**

**I just received this from the Papal Mass CHoir Director, fyi:

(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.

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.

just food for thought.
Al**

I’m sure the Pope thought it was wonderful. **

 

[benedictgal]

Considring the source, I don’t think that was much of a defense. The work of the choir is not at question here. They have a genuine God-given talent. Of course, the Holy Father is going to recoginze it. However, the selections that were picked are the bones of contention here.

You need to separate the two, as the Holy Father has done. Fr. Neuhaus did not criticize the choir, itself. The thrust of the commentary lay with the selections. It’s hard to defend something when you don’t have any authentic Church documentation to substantiate your point. What was posted is one person’s opinion, not what the Church has said, repeatedly, about sacred music, let alone what the Holy Father has also written and said.

 

[Joysong]

To assert that someone has read scripture incorrectly is not a charge one should be making. First of all, what Jesus did was to corect some serious profanity that was occuring in the Temple, the most sacred space for Jews during that time. Profaning the Temple with moneychangers and animal vendors is something serious. What these people did was to convert an area that was reserved solely for prayer, the area given to Gentiles, and turn it into a merketplace.

Wrong again about the basis being profanity, not even close! … and you insist on your interpretation. With that kind of egoism, it is apparent you are not open to hearing the truth. Suffice to say, the temple’s sacred space was NOT the Court of the Gentiles. Live with your error, then, B’gal. To use another’s Jewish word, it is to be chutzpah!
But do not attempt to speak this to someone in the Jewish faith, or to someone who has studied scripture more thoroughly than you.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.