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

[anamchara]

I agree with Margarite - she is on topic.

Title of thread "Papal Mass in DC, (was it me or was the music crazy)?

I know Margarite supports your views but get some objectivity my friend. We went off topic talking about her parish.

moving on…

Papal Mass in DC.

 

[benedictgal]

The Church no longer requires to have an imprimatur or a nihl obstat on the books. Therefore, OCP and GIA publish their works without any ecclesiastical approval. In fact, that would probably the case for other publishing houses as well.

The point that many of us are trying to make (which some unfortunately twist and spin to create something totally unrecognizable) that neither OCP nor GIA have any ecclesiastical authority to push their music on anyone. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are forbidden; however, these publishing houses are not the aurthority, nor do they have any authority.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Exactly when did these icons of modernist music - David Haas and John Foley (one of the original 3-chord guitar-strumming seminarians of the 60’s called the St. Louis Jesuits) come to be put on the “very orthodox” side of the table? I think not.

Stringed instruments are very Biblical. See Psalms.

There is nothing heretical in these words. We play them on the organ. They are not hip-hop dance music tunes. They’re just plain boring (to me). St Louis Jesuits are very popular in St. Louis for obvious reasons. You may not like them, but that does not make them wrong.

I am not ignoring you, I am just trying to remember because it was a couple months ago. I may have to ask my family before I can be sure. But I a Also dislike One Bread One Body. My main problem with 90% of modern music is that they say “I” or “Me” when they could easily replace these words with “He” or “God” or “Christ” or “Jesus” Such as in Strength for the Journey, besides being an annoying song that repeats itself too many times, it drums into people’s heads the I and not He look at this verse, then look how easy it would be to make it less about me and more about God and how God will help us and not the Choir director.
I know that it is sung from the point of God, but why not make it more respectful and put it from the point of view of a person on earth who is sinful and in need of help?

I will be, I will be,
I will be strength for the journey.
I will be, I will be,
I will be strength for the journey.

1. There is a road meant for you to travel.
   Narrow and steep is the shepherd’s way,
   and as you say, “Yes,”
   letting me guide you,
   I will be strength for the journey.

OR

HE will be, HE will be,
HE will be strength for the journey.
HE will be, HE will be,
HE will be strength for the journey.

1. There is a road meant for US to travel.
   Narrow and steep is the shepherd’s way,
   and as WE say, “Yes,”
   letting HIM guide US,
   HE will be strength for the journey.

I see your point. I never thought of it that way.

I hate it when people substitute All for men, and God for HE in the Psalms. We used to have a choir director who would copy and paste “gender neutral” words. The sheets were literally still wet with paste when she handed them out. It got ridiculously tortured. Below is an example:

Psalm 118:8
Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in man.

She changed to
Better to take refuge in GOD than to put one’s trust in Humans. (“Lord” is also not PC).

It came out sounding like some anthroplogical study.

Now I just looked up the original verse in the NAB, and it goes like this:

Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in **mortals.**I]

I’m wondering why her copy had “man” on it. Was it an excuse to change the word? I was second guessing EVERYTHING.

“Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” was changed to “Jesu Joy of OUR Desiring.” In my mind, that’s torturing literature and history.

I refused to cantor when this happened. The one priest in our parish and I would respond loudly with HE, HIM, MAN, when these substitutions happened. It was kind of funny.

Just talking about this brings back bad memories. I started bringing my Bible to cantor practice and speak up that she is not authorized to change the words of the Bible. She told me to leave. I’m glad she’s gone. Behind the scenes, I found out, our pastor used to reprimand her everytime and tell her to stop. But she did it anyway. So she tendered her ‘resignation.’ So, you never know whats going on behind the scenes. It’s a shame, because she was truly a gifted musician and brought us beautiful ancient music. She trained me how to sing and to cantor, which I had never done before.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I agree with Joysong. Let’s get back on topic. Did you like or not like the music at the Papal Mass in DC?

Sorry, I must have been posting and didn’t see your request. The problem is that the reasons people give for not liking the music are grounds for disussion! Are they valid or are they subjective?

 

[benedictgal]

Stringed instruments are very Biblical. See Psalms.

There is nothing heretical in these words. We play them on the organ. They are not hip-hop dance music tunes. They’re just plain boring (to me). St Louis Jesuits are very popular in St. Louis for obvious reasons. You may not like them, but that does not make them wrong.

I see your point. I never thought of it that way.

I hate it when people substitute All for men, and God for HE in the Psalms. We used to have a choir director who would copy and paste “gender neutral” words. The sheets were literally still wet with paste when she handed them out. It got ridiculously tortured. Below is an example:

Psalm 118:8
Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in man.

She changed to
Better to take refuge in GOD than to put one’s trust in Humans. (“Lord” is also not PC).

It came out sounding like some anthroplogical study.

Now I just looked up the original verse in the NAB, and it goes like this:

Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in **mortals.**I]

I’m wondering why her copy had “man” on it. Was it an excuse to change the word? I was second guessing EVERYTHING.

“Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” was changed to “Jesu Joy of OUR Desiring.” In my mind, that’s torturing literature and history.

I refused to cantor when this happened. The one priest in our parish and I would respond loudly with HE, HIM, MAN, when these substitutions happened. It was kind of funny.

Just talking about this brings back bad memories. I started bringing my Bible to cantor practice and speak up that she is not authorized to change the words of the Bible. She told me to leave. I’m glad she’s gone. Behind the scenes, I found out, our pastor used to reprimand her everytime and tell her to stop. But she did it anyway. So she tendered her ‘resignation.’ So, you never know whats going on behind the scenes. It’s a shame, because she was truly a gifted musician and brought us beautiful ancient music. She trained me how to sing and to cantor, which I had never done before.

Interstingly enough, they may be blblical, but, they are certainliy not liturgical. Have any of you not read the precursor to the GIRM, the book of Leviticus? This book, along with various repetitions in Numbers and Deuteronomy, covered the liturgical form of worship for Yahweh and it was very detailed. God spelled out specitifcally how he was to be worshipped. The only musical instrument is the horn used to call the faithful together for the sacrifice.

The examples given in the quoted post have nothing to do with the liturgical, cultic worship of Yahwh at all; rather, these were used for private, non-liturgical prayer.

 

[anamchara]

I like the way you expressed this, Anamchara. Card. Ratzinger wrote the book to express his personal reflections on liturgy, but some will elevate and equate the writing to Authority of his Office. If he, as Pope, truly feels strongly about his statements in the book, it would be a simple matter for him to issue a Motu Proprio as he did for the TLM and it would be a closed matter. But he has not done so, which speaks volumes about giving his former words a firm and clear directive. For instance, he could easily say there will be no music other than Gregorian chant in the liturgy. Period. But no, that was HIS personal opinion and taste and he is not imposing that directive on the entire Church.

When people take it to the level of: “I read it, so everyone is required to believe everything I now quote from them,” it steps over the bounds of religious freedom and prudence, since the re-quoter frequently takes it out of context to justify their own newfound appreciation for the author’s views.

What I sense though is the audacity to insist their opinion is right, to have the last word, and to win at all costs; hence, the constant repetition that isolates other members here in the process. There is no comparison with the detachment Jesus exercised in freedom and respect of the individual to embrace the Truth when He set forth his teachings. The Church abhors the practice of coercion.

Thank you for answering. You make some excellent points here. What I’m finding frustrating is that many are not heeding the Popes words on importance of putting our anger aside and coming together to end this division in the Church.

There was nothing wrong with the Papal Mass in DC. There was no abuse. I think it just tiggered a fear that many have on here about things going too far. A great deal of presumptions going on in here.

 

[anamchara]

Sorry, I must have been posting and didn’t see your request. The problem is that the reasons people give for not liking the music are grounds for disussion! Are they valid or are they subjective?

No problem
Hmm, well I’m not the moderator

I’d say very subjective…

 

[frommi]

Interstingly enough, they may be blblical, but, they are certainliy not liturgical. Have any of you not read the precursor to the GIRM, the book of Leviticus? This book, along with various repetitions in Numbers and Deuteronomy, covered the liturgical form of worship for Yahweh and it was very detailed. God spelled out specitifcally how he was to be worshipped. The only musical instrument is the horn used to call the faithful together for the sacrifice.

The examples given in the quoted post have nothing to do with the liturgical, cultic worship of Yahwh at all; rather, these were used for private, non-liturgical prayer.

Didn’t Deuteronomy also tell us that if I was in a duel with my neighbor and my wife hit my opponent in the groin that my wife was to be stoned?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Please point out where in my post I was referring to to anything but to sung Liturgical prayers? Where did I attempt to legitimize inane explicitly non-Catholic muzak? The only pieces of work I referenced were “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and “Sleepers Awake” (Wachet Auf) by J.S. Bach. Do you consider these peiced to be inane explicitly non-Catholic musak?
30miller;3601029:

It gets very tiring hearing music “ministers” repeatedly and illegitimately quoting St. Augustine (i.e. to sing is to pray twice) as some sort of self-praise for themselves. And if you were referring to “sung Liturgical prayers” - please direct me to that post (as I have looked myself and cannot find any such thing) and I will be more than happy to apologize

I wasn’t quoting St. Augustine, it is you who assumed I knew that Augustine was the author of this quote. Thanks for enlightening me on this. I literally am praying when I sing. Especially the Psalms. Kyrie, Psalms, Gospel Acclamation, Mystery of Faith, Hosanna, Great Amen, Our Father, Agnus Dei are all Liturgical prayers. And where do you get off saying that I am praising myself? Music used in the Litury of the mass is to praise God, not a perfomance.

Interstingly enough, they may be blblical, but, they are certainliy not liturgical. Have any of you not read the precursor to the GIRM, the book of Leviticus?

As a matter of fact, I have. Do you receive the Eucharist?
Levicus:

14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”

This book, along with various repetitions in Numbers and Deuteronomy, covered the liturgical form of worship for Yahweh and it was very detailed. God spelled out specitifcally how he was to be worshipped. The only musical instrument is the horn used to call the faithful together for the sacrifice.

So, really, we should be singing a capella with no insturments and continue animal sacrifice. And use a ram’s horn, not bells to gather the faithful. I’m glad the OT is
Finished" (quote=Jesus on the Cross)
"qui:

Psalm 118:8
Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in man.

She changed to
Better to take refuge in GOD than to put one’s trust in Humans. (“Lord” is also not PC).

It came out sounding like some anthroplogical study.

Now I just looked up the original verse in the NAB, and it goes like this:

Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in mortals.**

The examples given in the quoted post have nothing to do with the liturgical, cultic worship of Yahwh at all; rather, these were used for private, non-liturgical prayer.

The psalms are not part of the Liturgy?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thank you for answering. You make some excellent points here. What I’m finding frustrating is that many are not heeding the Popes words on importance of putting our anger aside and coming together to end this division in the Church.

There was nothing wrong with the Papal Mass in DC. There was no abuse. I think it just tiggered a fear that many have on here about things going too far. A great deal of presumptions going on in here.

Yes. And didn’t the Pope give part of his homily in Spanish? Doesn’t he know that English is the language of the US???

 

[Joysong]

Just in case some still profess that everything in DC happened randomly without planning, it is a false assumption. Please read this document from the Vatican.

OFFICE OF THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

1. General preparation. Very often for special occasions such as the opening of a Synod, e.g., the Synod for Africa, an ecumenical liturgy, one of the many Holy Year celebrations, or a Papal Visit, preparation begins with a detailed plan, drafted with the help of qualified experts. This is followed by an on-the-spot investigation of the location, to identify the place of celebration, the positioning of fixed elements, the places for the ministers and the choice of local persons to carry out the various ministries and tasks, etc.

Moreover, the booklet for the use of the faithful must be put together, including, in the case of a Papal Visit a special missal for the Pope and concelebrants which harmonizes the different elements of the celebration (word, prayers, invitations, songs, ritual gestures), in order to ensure, as far as possible, that nothing is left to last-minute improvisation.

For each celebration the Office prepares a service booklet, or Præparanda, with the list of things to be done, the names of the persons involved in the celebration, the task assigned to each master of ceremonies, a diagram of the location showing the site and its elements and positions. Every celebration requires a rehearsal, usually the day before, to make sure that everything is clear and to solve any potential problems.

• PIERO MARINI
  Titular Archbishop of Martirano
  **Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations **

 

[30miller]

So, what you are telling me here is that USCCB is doing something disobedient allowing OCP? I’m just curious. Would you care to give me a source that seriously says the OCP is not allowed by the Vatican yet our American Bishops just do it anyway? If I follow your logic, your saying that the OCP is at fault because only the Bishops approval is on it. Correct me if I’m wrong.

You are wrong. OK. I did NOT say “the Bishops approval is on it” - in fact, I said just the opposite. I have looked at every hymnal of every parish I go in to - and that adds up to quite a few - and NO Bishop puts his name and approval on the OCP and GIA material.
The only thing I have found is that most (if not all - I can’t think of any that didn’t) carry something called the “…approval of the Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB…”. This committee has no authority as I explained in my previous post.

 

[frommi]

You are wrong. OK. I did NOT say “the Bishops approval is on it” - in fact, I said just the opposite. I have looked at every hymnal of every parish I go in to - and that adds up to quite a few - and NO Bishop puts his name and approval on the OCP and GIA material.
The only thing I have found is that most (if not all - I can’t think of any that didn’t) carry something called the “…approval of the Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB…”. This committee has no authority as I explained in my previous post.

Why would a hymnal need an imprimatur? This hasn’t been our tradition as far as I’m aware.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal:

The Church no longer requires to have an imprimatur or a nihl obstat on the books. Therefore, OCP and GIA publish their works without any ecclesiastical approval. In fact, that would probably the case for other publishing houses as well.

This is absolutely false and misrepresenting the Church, assuming we are left to the mercy of a publisher. As if liturgy was not important enough for the Church to demand strict compliance.

We had this discussion in the past, and you are well aware of the proofs I submitted at that time … but you apparently choose to ignore this, so that you can smear OCP and other publishers who don’t meet with your approval. Now that to me is calumnous! You know perfectly well that there is Church approbation on the inside cover of the hymnals used in liturgy. I pointed that out to you.

I truly question your loyalty to the Church at this point, and wonder just how far you will go to be “right.”

There are also several documents in the Vatican on the importance of culture and adaptation to it, but I don’t see any value in producing them, for you would again uphold your own version and disregard them.

I ask the reader, if it concerns you at all, to do your own research and not rely on the truthfulness of those posts. They are extremely biased, prejudiced, and divisive.

 

[30miller]

The Church no longer requires to have an imprimatur or a nihl obstat on the books. Therefore, OCP and GIA publish their works without any ecclesiastical approval. In fact, that would probably the case for other publishing houses as well.

The point that many of us are trying to make (which some unfortunately twist and spin to create something totally unrecognizable) that neither OCP nor GIA have any ecclesiastical authority to push their music on anyone. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are forbidden; however, these publishing houses are not the aurthority, nor do they have any authority.

Benedictgal,
I assume your point that the Church no longer requires imprimaurs and nihil obstats is correct - I myself am not knowledgeable on that point.
I do know, however, that they are still available to be used. And the idea that a recognized authority in my Church has reviewed the material and put his name on it is what it is all about. Grabbing the closest two books off the shelf near me as examples - “Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn - imprimatur by Bishop Sheldon of Steubenville and nihil obstat by Rev. Dunfee, Censor Librorum & “A Still Small Voice” by Father Groeschel - imprimatur by Vicar General Patrick Sheridan of New York and nihil obstat by Censor Lobrorum James O’Connor.
Good authors who you can trust seem to seek and receive both nihil obstats and imprimaturs on their published works. OCP and GIA do not.
Why don’t the OCP and GIA seek that approval? It’s obvious, of course. My parish GIA book, for example, might have to explain, for example, why Shaker songs are in it (Shakers, of course, honoring Jesus as only the 1st coming of “the Christ” (the male coming) and Mother Ann in the 1700’s as the 2nd coming of “the Christ” (the female coming). And GIA might have to explain what a “Black Mountain Liturgy” in our hymnal is (which my pastor couldn’t even explain to me when I asked him). etc. etc. etc.
Benedictgal - your point that their material “…(is) are not the aurthority, nor do they have any authority…” is probably the most important reason for the problem we have.

 

[anamchara]

Just in case some still profess that everything in DC happened randomly without planning, it is a false assumption. Please read this document from the Vatican.

OFFICE OF THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

1. General preparation. Very often for special occasions such as the opening of a Synod, e.g., the Synod for Africa, an ecumenical liturgy, one of the many Holy Year celebrations, or a Papal Visit, preparation begins with a detailed plan, drafted with the help of qualified experts. This is followed by an on-the-spot investigation of the location, to identify the place of celebration, the positioning of fixed elements, the places for the ministers and the choice of local persons to carry out the various ministries and tasks, etc.

Moreover, the booklet for the use of the faithful must be put together, including, in the case of a Papal Visit a special missal for the Pope and concelebrants which harmonizes the different elements of the celebration (word, prayers, invitations, songs, ritual gestures), in order to ensure, as far as possible, that nothing is left to last-minute improvisation.

For each celebration the Office prepares a service booklet, or Præparanda, with the list of things to be done, the names of the persons involved in the celebration, the task assigned to each master of ceremonies, a diagram of the location showing the site and its elements and positions. Every celebration requires a rehearsal, usually the day before, to make sure that everything is clear and to solve any potential problems.

• PIERO MARINI
  Titular Archbishop of Martirano
  **Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations **

Well, one would think, this post would be put things to rest. Unfortunately many believe the Pope and Marini are just being nice about the whole thing but deep down inside they thought it was horrid, banal, and probably talked about it all the way home to Rome

 

[anamchara]

You are wrong. OK. I did NOT say “the Bishops approval is on it” - in fact, I said just the opposite. I have looked at every hymnal of every parish I go in to - and that adds up to quite a few - and NO Bishop puts his name and approval on the OCP and GIA material.
The only thing I have found is that most (if not all - I can’t think of any that didn’t) carry something called the “…approval of the Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB…”. This committee has no authority as I explained in my previous post.

Ok, point taken. Although I am a bit confused. If this committee has no authority, then who do you think ok’s the OCP? I’m asking a genuine question.

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, Archbishop Pietro Marini is no longer in charge of the Holy Father’s liturgies. The new Papal MC is Msgr. Guidi Marini (no relation).

Furthermore, the Holy Father made the switch because of some liturgical and theological differences. In fact, under Msgr. Marini, things have improved dramatically.

Bear in mind that this was, perhaps, Msgr. Marini’s first international liturgical celebration. His main focus was to prevent any anamolies that had occurred during Pope John Paul’s Apostolic voyages when the previous Papal MC was in charge of things.

 

[30miller]

Stringed instruments are very Biblical. See Psalms.

There is nothing heretical in these words. We play them on the organ. They are not hip-hop dance music tunes. They’re just plain boring (to me). St Louis Jesuits are very popular in St. Louis for obvious reasons. You may not like them, but that does not make them wrong.

Whassup, qui? You quoted my post above these comments of yours. Why? I can only infer that because I simply used the word “guitar” in my post without making any other comment about it - that you needed to share something about stringed instruments? Huh? Also, who ever said there was anything “heretical in these words” or what point are you addressing here? My only comment was that the St. Louis Jesuit Seminarians were never on the right of any right-left scale (your analogy) that I ever heard of.

 

[anamchara]

This is absolutely false and misrepresenting the Church, assuming we are left to the mercy of a publisher. As if liturgy was not important enough for the Church to demand strict compliance.

We had this discussion in the past, and you are well aware of the proofs I submitted at that time … but you apparently choose to ignore this, so that you can smear OCP and other publishers who don’t meet with your approval. Now that to me is calumnous! You know perfectly well that there is Church approbation on the inside cover of the hymnals used in liturgy. I pointed that out to you.

I truly question your loyalty to the Church at this point, and wonder just how far you will go to be “right.”

There are also several documents in the Vatican on the importance of culture and adaptation to it, but I don’t see any value in producing them, for you would again uphold your own version and disregard them.

I ask the reader, if it concerns you at all, to do your own research and not rely on the truthfulness of those posts. They are extremely biased, prejudiced, and divisive.

Take heart Joysong. You are making sense.