Papal Mass in DC (was it me or was the music crazy?)

[benedictgal]

benedictgal - I would offer up to you the thought that many people at the DC mass, obviously not knowing the words to the songs of the multi-cultural choir, chose to make the prayer of the choir their own. And believe, that choir, as was true for all 4 choirs, was indeed praying as they were singing. I had a close-up view and I could see it in their eyes. You may or may not believe me on that but I will hold true to what I saw.

peace,
al

But, the musical settings used for those songs were certainly not conducive to prayer. In fact, it was more like something out of Ricky Martin’s greatest hits collection.

Believe it or not, musical instruments do play a huge role. Even if a single acoustic guitar had been used for Bienaventurados (and, I’ve heard the song done with an organ, piano an guitar, although not simultaneously), it would have been much better than the free-for-all at the DC Mass. You can’t pray with all of that racket.

The responsorial psalm was problematic for the same reason. What should have been a cantor/organ/choir and assembly piece turned into some bizarre musical performance that was not all conducive to singing, let alone, praying.

 

[john1863]

Having followed this thread…and I’m amazed it is still going on…I have yet to read a Catholic definition of “Sacred Music.”

Does anyone here have one that can be backed by Catholic writings? Names, forms, years, etc., would be very helpful.

Remember, our Holy Father loves Mozart, as do I, but Mozart was a drunken philanderer.
Just food for thought.

John

 

[benedictgal]

OK, we need a little educating 'round here folks…

*]He prefers ad orientum celebration, but faces the people.

There are 2 valid forms of the Latin Rite - Novus Ordo and the Tridentine. Tidentine uses the ‘ad orientum’. Both are legal and acceptable. Just because he prefers it when he celebrates Mass in no way communicates that EVERY priest must celebrate ‘ad orientum’. It DOES show, however, that he prefers the solemnity and reverence of the Tridentine. In fact, you’ll notice that at Wash DC, he had a crucifix on the altar POINTED TOWARD HIM - a clear sign that he is offering the Mass a sacrificial priest, and not as just a ‘celebration with the community’ - a VERTICAL emphasis over the HORIZONTAL.

*]He disliked applause, but gave no indication of that at the DC mass, and entered wholeheartedly in the tributes paid to him.

He is a kind and gracious host in a foriegn land, I think we all know that there is a love between the sheep and it’s shepherd. An exception? Yes. And rightfully so. The applause was meant as a way to show our love and respect for our earthly shepherd. It took the place of 50,000 people trying to hug him. I can rejoice in that.
His objection was applauding to bring focus to human activity, rather than the glory of and to God.

It reminds me of when I took over as organist for a parish that was used to a contemporary format for liturgical music. When I’d get done with the recessional, the parish would turn around to the choir loft and applaud. Very quickly, I learned to go almost directly into a postlude to prevent that from happening, and in fact the priest later thanked me for musically discouraging that display. It used to be that people would kneel and pray St. Michaels prayer and other prayers after Mass…but no more - it’s time to SOCIALIZE!

*]He said he did not like communion in the hand, yet at every papal mass, one does not see any evidence that he would withhold it from a communicant whose hand is extended.

Again, both forms are correct and acceptable, but this Pope realizes that there was indeed a loss of reverence and awe and receiving the Eucharist in this manner. He prefers to recognize the legitimacy of the ‘old’ way of treating the Body of Christ.
This in NO WAY communicates that everyone must receive communion in this way.

These arguments do not reflect mightily in support of your viewpoint.

I have found that for those who prefer the latest contemporary style and method of worship. Nothing less than a papal decree issued from the Chair of Peter stating that “Let There Be Peace On Earth” will no longer be allowed at the Mass" will they accept any argument against their preference.

All I can do is to make sure that I am participating in our liturgy, reading the church documents, and influencing the appropriate direction of the liturgical music, and most of all - praising God and giving Him all the glory.

The rest is up to the Holy Spirit!

That is very true!

Interestingly enough, regarding the Liturgical East posture, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the foreword to a book by Fr. U. Lang, called “Turning Towards the Lord” where he supports this posture. He also expressed hope that the small book would find a wide audience. I lent it (and subsequently gave it) to my PV (parochial vicar) who, after reading it, decided to celebrate Mass in our local hospital chapel facing the crucifix for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

In fact, lest we forget that for the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord, the Holy Father celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientsum. And, this was on TV for the whole world to see!

For the DC Mass, the Holy Father maintained as much as he could of what he does at St. Peter’s. It’s a shame that the planners of the DC Mass couldn’t have just brought the Sistene Chapel repertoire with them.

 

[qubica]

John - I’m sorry that’s ridiculous…because Mozart was a sinner his art is suspect?

If that is the case, then I cannot approve of ANYONE being at the Mass because we’re all leading sinful lives. EVERYone.

Please seperate the artist from his art or else nothing is art.

In fact, I know that our priest is a sinner (but I do not know it what way…) and yet God has graced him to be a priest - the highest calling of any human in my regard.

 

[MonFrere]

Sorry, but that argument does not work. I asked earlier if you’ve ever planned liturgies with your local Ordinary. No response.

Yes, I’ve planned liturgies but I just didn’t take you up in your request. No reason. It just didn’t fit into anything I thought would add to the conversation.

In other words, the songs themselves, though not the greatest pieces in the world, would have been passable had an organ or a piano been used. However, the musical settings used augmented the problem and really made a sub-par situation worse.

I think what you write is a possibility but not a strong one considering that with the many papal masses the Pope would do and all the problems that has arrisen with the planning of them; you would think that the instrumentation issue would have been a cause of concern far before this visit and the Vatican would have asked the appropriate questions to try to head off any potential problem.

With that in mind - I still think there’s credence to my premise. I think we may be seeing a tempest but we’re living in a teapot.

BTW – Thanks for engaging me. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this conversation. 'til later - I’m going to bed!!

MonFrere

 

[john1863]

John - I’m sorry that’s ridiculous…because Mozart was a sinner his art is suspect?

As I already knew…now…what is the Catholic definition of “Sacred Music.”
BTW, read the entire post, and discern the intention before you begin using terms like ridiculous.

John

 

[harveyc]

Believe it or not, musical instruments do play a huge role. Even if a single acoustic guitar had been used for Bienaventurados (and, I’ve heard the song done with an organ, piano an guitar, although not simultaneously), it would have been much better than the free-for-all at the DC Mass. You can’t pray with all of that racket.

The responsorial psalm was problematic for the same reason. What should have been a cantor/organ/choir and assembly piece turned into some bizarre musical performance that was not all conducive to singing, let alone, praying.

As I wrote before, I guess I didn’t pay as much attention to the music as some of you that watched it on TV because I didn’t find it difficul at all to pray with these songs.

I wouldn’t say the music was something I really liked, but I’m more bothered by some of the comments in this discussion, many of them uncharitable, than I was by the music at the Mass.

 

[anamchara]

Don’t overcommit yourself to getting “the” darn thing. Pope Benedict has written “many” darn things (as you call them) about the liturgy. So as you don’t get in over your head, why not just continue as you have - just continue “disputing the seriously bias and often rude comments made by many on here”. Or else why not just head for the fridge.

Excuse me, I was saying most that in jest so lighten up. And further regardless of what I read and don’t read I will still think of comments like the “the music was horrid” or “banal” to be rude. The list goes on with the rude comments. If you don’t think it is then I suggest you go read a bit more on what the Pope has to say about divisions in the Church. I frankly fed up this sentiment of “if you don’t agree with me then you haven’t read enough” give me a break, it’s common sense and part of our faith that we are to act in Charity. I don’t need to read something the Pope wrote as a cardinal to know that the Mass in DC was just fine. There was nothing wrong with it but a few have thier knickers in a twist because it wasn’t what they liked.

Like it or not, the Vatican approved the Mass and the Pope stated he liked it. I know that is very difficult for many to take, I would suggest you go on a spiritual retreat and find out what the bigger picture is. Or spend more time reading what the Pope wrote out side your very narrow single issue.

:twocents:

 

[anamchara]

I

have found that for those who prefer the latest contemporary style and method of worship. Nothing less than a papal decree issued from the Chair of Peter stating that “Let There Be Peace On Earth” will no longer be allowed at the Mass" will they accept any argument against their preference.

umm, you can say the same thing about those who prefer the older tradiontional style, chant etc… Until the Pope actually decree’s “lighten up, guitar and OCP are ok” they will be whining all over this forum accusing people of horizontal worship.

Goes both ways…

 

[Joysong]

What in the world are you talking about? I just went to EWTN’s site - to the Religious Catalogue - typed in “the spirit of the liturgy” in the search in the upper right of the screen - and up comes one hit - The Spirit of the Liturgy by CARDINAL RATZINGER.

Very evident of your charity to politely ask for clarification.

Now that your steamrolling may have calmed a bit, kindly log on to the EWTN document library. You may be surprised that I was not off my rocker. And while you’re there, it might be a good exercise in liturgical formation to read that book.

 

[Joysong]

AloysiusG:

benedictgal - I would offer up to you the thought that many people at the DC mass, obviously not knowing the words to the songs of the multi-cultural choir, chose to make the prayer of the choir their own. And believe, that choir, as was true for all 4 choirs, was indeed praying as they were singing. I had a close-up view and I could see it in their eyes. You may or may not believe me on that but I will hold true to what I saw.

But they aren’t allowed to have prayed. According to the sentiment one vociferous person, it would have been impossible with that horrendous music. Nobody else could have possibly been lifted to prayer either. So the whole mass was a waste!

Newcomers, I’m being facetious, in case you weren’t aware.

P.S. Thanks for your kind commendation on my post, Aloysius.

What a wonderful program I viewed this morning called “Eucharistic Principles of the Spiritual Life.” I may send for the DVD on it, well worth the $25.

Father spoke about the compulsive perfectionism of some people who just can’t let go when things are not absolutely flawless. He then contrasted it with the compulsive slob who has to live with him and how abrasive each one is to the other. Yet that is our call, to live side by side accepting one anothers’ idiosyncrasies in love

because we are first loved by Christ with all of ours.

 

[aloysiusg]

But, the musical settings used for those songs were certainly not conducive to prayer.

Believe it or not, musical instruments do play a huge role. Even if a single acoustic guitar had been used for Bienaventurados (and, I’ve heard the song done with an organ, piano an guitar, although not simultaneously), it would have been much better than the free-for-all at the DC Mass. You can’t pray with all of that racket.

The responsorial psalm was problematic for the same reason. What should have been a cantor/organ/choir and assembly piece turned into some bizarre musical performance that was not all conducive to singing, let alone, praying.

benedictgal - again I would contend that the setting used by the multicultural choir was condusive to prayer to some, but unfortunately not you and some others. It happens, especially in a large setting such as this one.

I am fully aware of the role musical instruments play - I am a guitarist (God forbid), and I realize that sometimes the song calls for me to play out, and sometimes it calls for me to hold back - it all depends on the song and the form of prayer it intends (reflection or praise, joyous or somber, etc.)

As for the psalm, I have stated that of all the peices we did, that was my least favorite - I just didn’t like the setting, and yet I met people who loved it - again, go figure.

 

[frommi]

Sorry, but that argument does not work. I asked earlier if you’ve ever planned liturgies with your local Ordinary. No response. When I planned liturgies for my bishop, including his silver anniversary (priesthood) Mass, I showed him everything, readings, music, the whole caboodle. He glanced over it and said that it was fine with him. He trusted my judgment. Thank God, except for a couple of rare occasions when I got railroaded into something bad by the wife of the Bishop’s executive assistant (and couldn’t debate, even though what she did was plain wrong-but it had his blessing-like substituting Angels We Have Heard on High for the Gloria at the Midnight Mass), things went well. There was nothing that was questionable in what I presented and in what was finally executed, except for the aforemtioned incident.

The fact of the matter is that the music was probably shown on paper. The greater concern was to prevent any strange oddity from popping up in the Mass, like dancing and other weird items.

Some of these songs actually have organ accompanyment, including Bienaventurados. While these hymns are a sub-par quality, at least the organ or the piano will help to make them a little bearable. But, what looks fine on paper can become very different when the actual event occurs. I know that from first-hand experience with the Gloria switch.

In other words, the songs themselves, though not the greatest pieces in the world, would have been passable had an organ or a piano been used. However, the musical settings used augmented the problem and really made a sub-par situation worse.

And from my perspective made the liturgy better.

It’s been a week, I go on vacation…I come back and this discussion is STILL going on?

I think both papal masses displayed the wide swath of cloth cut by the musical styles in the United States. It was a good use of the talents of the composers and the singers.

Last I checked, there has been no papal press release sending Archbishop Wuerl to the see of Siberia over this. The fairest implication one can make is that the Pope and his liturgy team were just fine with the liturgy. We need to stop putting words and beliefs in the man’s mouth.

 

[frommi]

Every time the Holy Father celebrates Mass on the Altar of the Confession at St. Peter’s he faces liturgical east because that is how the altar was set up. Furthermore, in the documentary Pope Benedict XVI: My Vatican, which aired on EWTN, the Holy Father is seen celebrating Mass ad orientsium in his private chapel. In fact, he celebrates the NO in Latin. Although, from what I saw in the broadcast with the way the books and cards were arranged, he may have been celebrating the TLM on that occasion.

Applause is a sign of respect to the Vicar of Christ. In fact, the final act of respect that the faithful showed to Pope John Paul II occured when the Gentlemen of His Holiness (his pallbearers), lifted the coffin at an angle one last time so that they people could bid a collective farewell to the Supreme Pontiff. This farewell came in the form of applause.

In much the same manner, during the rite of Ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the ritual calls for the faithful to give their ascent that the candidate for ordination is acceptable. Obviously, they don’t raise their hands and vote “aye”; they applaud. This also occurred when my diocese was erected. After the Apostolic Delegate read the letter from Pope John Paul II, we applauded to give our ascent to become a diocese and we applauded to accept our first bishop.

The applause that the Holy Father talks about is when the music becomes more about a performance where we are celebrating ourselves rather than focusing on Christ. One should not confuse that with the aforementioned examples.

Regarding his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Holy Father chose to name his book after the one by Msgr. Romano Guardini in tribute to the late prelate’s work. Interestingly enough, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger once noted that his edition of the book was on Pope John Paul’s nightstand.

What is your response to the idea that when good points are offered to you, you dodge them and reorient your own argument to fit your thesis?

 

[Joysong]

Regarding his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Holy Father chose to name his book after the one by Msgr. Romano Guardini in tribute to the late prelate’s work. Interestingly enough, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger once noted that his edition of the book was on Pope John Paul’s nightstand.

I’m way ahead of you. Since I knew about the book, I also knew why JCR named his after Guadini. You make the point that it was on JPII’s nightstand, which I did not know, however, but it points to the eminent renown of this author’s classic and his profound views of liturgy, since both popes studied it, and I would believe absorbed the concepts thoroughly.

As I read the work, I was deeply edified, and the principles he taught about liturgy were, as I said, reflective of MUCH, much more than simply music. It is true that liturgy need not have any music whatsoever in order for it to be celebrated, and the conditions which cause it to be a worthy sacrifice are not solely dependent upon this.

What I find disturbing in these threads is the vitriole lashed out upon others, condemning everything that seems incoordinate with one’s preconceived learning, but yet I saw absolutely no viable solution offered, other than to quote documents and insist that they study … besides, putting down all who may have found some joy and reverence in said worship.

Just a few worthy insights from the original book:

THE liturgy does not say “I,” but “We,” unless the particular action which is being performed specifically requires the singular number (e.g., a personal declaration, certain prayers offered by the bishop or the priest in his official capacity, and so on). The liturgy is not celebrated by the individual, but by the body of the faithful. This is not composed merely of the persons who may be present in church; it is not the assembled congregation. On the contrary, it reaches out beyond the bounds of space to embrace all the faithful on earth. Simultaneously it reaches beyond the hounds of time, to this extent, that the body which is praying upon earth knows itself to be at one with those for whom time no longer exists, who, being perfected, exist in Eternity.

The first is a sacrifice, which consists in the renouncement by the individual of everything in him which exists merely for itself and excludes others, while and in so far as he is an active member of the community: he must lay self aside, and live with, and for, others, sacrificing to the community a proportion of his self-sufficiency and independence.

The individual has to renounce his own ideas and his own way. He is obliged to subscribe to the ideas and to follow the lead of the liturgy. To it he must surrender his independence; pray with others, and not alone; obey, instead of freely disposing of himself; and stand in the ranks, instead of moving about at his own will and pleasure. It is, furthermore, the task of the individual to apprehend clearly the ideal world of the liturgy. He must shake off the narrow trammels of his own thought, and make his own a far more comprehensive world of ideas: he must go beyond his little personal aims and adopt the educative purpose of the great fellowship of the liturgy. It goes without saying, therefore, that he is obliged to take part in exercises which do not respond to the particular needs of which he is conscious; that he must ask for things which do not directly concern him; espouse and plead before God causes which do not affect him personally, and which merely arise out of the needs of the community at large; he must at times–and this is inevitable in so richly developed a system of symbols, prayer and action–take part in proceedings of which he does not entirely, if at all, understand the significance.

All this is particularly difficult for modern people, who find it so hard to renounce their independence. … The requirements of the liturgy can be summed up in one word, humility. Humility by renunciation; that is to say, by the abdication of self-rule and self-sufficiency. And humility by positive action; that is to say, by the acceptance of the spiritual principles which the liturgy offers and which far transcend the little world of individual spiritual existence.

 

[MonFrere]

All this is particularly difficult for modern people, who find it so hard to renounce their independence. … The requirements of the liturgy can be summed up in one word, humility. Humility by renunciation; that is to say, by the abdication of self-rule and self-sufficiency. And humility by positive action; that is to say, by the acceptance of the spiritual principles which the liturgy offers and which far transcend the little world of individual spiritual existence.

Thanks for the quote - Joysong.

As a teacher I’m going to make a guess as to why some people take the positions they do. As you say, some people love to quote writings and church documents. Some people also learn best by the printed word. The problem with this is that if this learning trait is too dominant then the experiences around you are not also part of your learning (name removed by moderator)ut.

Some people learn best visually. What they experience in the world around them makes their worldview. To these people - “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Even though I have six years of higher education and two degrees; I still learn more easily visually. It’s easier to evaluate by what I see than what I read.

What we have is a conflict with what some have read with some have seen. However, I can still read! I can see how those people who are great readers can have conflict in what they see (e.g. the D.C. Mass) BUT I contend that what the Vatican has done by approving the Mass and the music (multiculturism and all) give one the best “interpretation” of the printed word. I think the Vatican has very talented people there who can both READ and SEE. If they have no conflict because of their approval of the Mass in D.C. then I SEE (visually) no conflict.

As Jesus often said - He who has ears to hear let him hear – he who has eyes to see let him see.

MonFrere

 

[Joysong]

Some people learn best visually. What they experience in the world around them makes their worldview. To these people - “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Even though I have six years of higher education and two degrees; I still learn more easily visually. It’s easier to evaluate by what I see than what I read.

What we have is a conflict with what some have read with some have seen.

And some of us cannot translate what we see OR read, until the Spirit teaches it to us experientially and connects the dots. I could write a book, but experience is a very powerful life-transforming event. In my day, it was required in order to pass religion class to have memorized the Baltimore Catechism. Surely, I was a bright student and can recite most of still today. But how is it that I never got to know Jesus, the key figure in the Catechism? Not until many years later … experientially!

 

[benedictgal]

The original Spirit of the Liturgy was written during the early part of the 20th century. The challenges faced by Msgr. Guardini were very different from the issues that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger faced today. Furthermore, while the titles of the two books are the same, the focuses are very different. What the Holy Father addresses here is a look at the liturgy that involves the cosmic and theological aspect. He also addresses severe misinterpretations of the Council that have resulted in a rupture of things.

Furthermore, most of what Fr. Neuhaus (and many of us who value the importance of genune Sacred Music) noted in his commentaries about the debacle at DC finds finds its basis in this book (along with other writings that the Holy Father has issued on the subject). No one was quoting anything from the originial version of The Spirit of the Liturgy.

 

[30miller]

Excuse me, I was saying most that in jest so lighten up. And further regardless of what I read and don’t read I will still think of comments like the “the music was horrid” or “banal” to be rude. The list goes on with the rude comments. If you don’t think it is then I suggest you go read a bit more on what the Pope has to say about divisions in the Church. I frankly fed up this sentiment of “if you don’t agree with me then you haven’t read enough” give me a break, it’s common sense and part of our faith that we are to act in Charity. I don’t need to read something the Pope wrote as a cardinal to know that the Mass in DC was just fine. There was nothing wrong with it but a few have thier knickers in a twist because it wasn’t what they liked.

Like it or not, the Vatican approved the Mass and the Pope stated he liked it. I know that is very difficult for many to take, I would suggest you go on a spiritual retreat and find out what the bigger picture is. Or spend more time reading what the Pope wrote out side your very narrow single issue.

As there are some “joke” threads available - why is it that you choose to insert your self-admittedly unread and uninformed (and undistinguishable from wiseguy remarks) “jests” on a serious thread? Please take your act where it belongs.

 

[anamchara]

As there are some “joke” threads available - why is it that you choose to insert your self-admittedly unread and uninformed (and undistinguishable from wiseguy remarks) “jests” on a serious thread? Please take your act where it belongs.

I will go where I want and post what I want until a modertor says otherwise, in the mean time you can back off with the rude remarks about my content. If you don’t like what I’m saying then don’t read them. Back off!