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

[anamchara]

How many people of my parent’s generation quit going to Mass to avoid the sacro-pop? If I hadn’t found a reverent NO parish with traditional music, where would I be now? We focus on how much sacro-pop attracts people and we ignore how much it repels others. It’s not personal choice and it is not snobbery. If you like the happy clappy a’grinnin’ and a’strummin music fine. But at least have the decency to recognize that my position is equally fine.

**
**I can’t decide if it is merely ironic or flat out hypocritical to ask for respect and “decency” when in the sentence immediately before that you call that which you don’t like “happy clappy a’grinnin’ and a’strummin music” and label it “sacro-pop”. I am at a loss at how one can make such statements and still claim “it’s not snobbery”. Many here who support more modern music, myself included, have no problem with and even enjoy the traditional music you prefer. Furthermore, we do not debase your preference with a string of insults. So, in fact, your position has been recognized as “equally fine”. Your delivery of that message, however, comes off as pedantic, snobbish, condescending and outright insulting. Had you not already proven in post after post that such are your natural tendencies as it enables you to play the victim, one might actually give credence to your words, but fortunately you have successfully devalued them for us.

And I am told by young people and by converts that I shouldn’t have such feelings. Quite frankly, I am sick of being ignored.

And since many of us resent your proclamations over what WE should think or feel, I must side with you and say that if such is the case as you present it, it is indeed wrong that “young people and…converts” try to dictate your feelings.

I grew up before Vatican II. I’m not dead yet and not only do I sing traditional music, I ENJOY it.

Ah, you “ENJOY” it, eh? So it is a matter of personal preference! One could even go so far as to say such sentiments show an intent to make the Mass more about themselves rather than the Eucharist.

And I’m tired of being told that I am insensitive, a drooling neandertal,

Now, that’s just plain wrong. We have no evidence that Neanderthals drool.

If we Louisianans can restrain ourselves with our deep heritage of various musical styles, I would assume that the Archdiocese of Washington could do the same.

Well, huzzah for Louisiana. But two questions come to mind. First of all, as the welcoming Mass to the US and as “catholic” means universal, it seems that the recognition of America’s diverse cultural expressions of the Mass was an underlying message the archdiocese fittingly wanted to convey. Secondly, it is equally possible that Louisiana’s withholding of her bountiful forms of expression was a greater affront than Washington’s celebration.

 

[anamchara]

I could’ve told you that.

I resemble that remark

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Show-Me State is very lucky to have Archbishop Burke guarding its front door (in St. Louis) and Bishop Finn guarding the back (in Kansas City).

Not lucky, blessed.

 

[30miller]

Benedictgal,

IF the Holy Father is seeing the D.C. mass as you do – then he needs to make a dramatic intervention. However, this Mass was vetted – very aptly demonstrated by other posters quotes. It was approved. THEREFORE – your interpretation of the Holy Father’s words ARE NOT HIS…

I’m not so dumb as to see how one could take your interpretation via the Holy Father’s words ALONE. But through what I see and how the Church and the Vatican has acted in real live situations that “seemed” to go counter to their words I can only come to the conclusion that your interpretation is wrong.

MonFrere

Sorry, MonFrere, but both the Vatican and the "American Church" (aside - sorry, benedictgal, but having read the Battle for the American Church Revisited by Msgr. George Kelly (a great book) - there is precedent for using this characterization - and I might add that to sum it up in essence it refers to the "disobedient American" Church, the one that thumbs it nose at the Vatican.  Simple example - right before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF sent a letter to Washington D.C.'s then-Cardinal McCarrick with the explicit directive to share it with all the Bishops at an upcoming meeting. It concerned refusing communion to blatant pro-abortion "catholic" politicians. McCarrick didn't agree with what the future pope sent - so, not only did he not share it as directed but he "summed it up" on his own for the other bishops and told them the exact opposite of what Cardinal Ratzinger's letter actually said. I encourage all to read Msgr. Kelly's book for a couple hundred pages more of the same kind of conduct on the part of the "American Church")  -  anyway, MonFrere, the fact is that when we saw time and again our magnificent bishops over the last few decades before 2002 - we applauded them and praised them, looked up to them, and by everything OUR EYES could tell us these were great men.  Then in 2002 the bishops dropped the $2,000,000,000 egg on us and we found out that what we thought we saw was not in fact reality.  I think you are being extremely naive in your interpretation of both the "vetting" by the Vatican and the gratious conduct our Pope showed us in our country to all that HIS eyes took in here.  
The only time I know of that the Pope corrected anyone in public was JPII on the tarmac in a Central American country. The fact that no other corrections occurred doesn't mean that nothing else ever occurred that needed correcting - far from it.  I think the prism you look at this situation through is way way way too idealistic - it's just not reality (though I certainly wish I could say you are right).

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, what a few people have posted on this topic on CAF is that the clown mass actually took place for clowns where were working and were Catholic. It was a valid reverent Mass for the workers. Someone on here had attended it and verified it. And the other explanation that has been given is that a claim of a clown Mass was found out to not even be a Catholic Church.

So at least we know there are Catholic clowns still attending Mass

Thank YOU! There are some around here that have used this video to blast Catholics. That’s what happens when you take things out of context! My bosses look just like that when they put on their clown suits and ride around on their scooters. And they are very devout Catholics. I could envision them being at a mass dressed like that and not even realizing how they come across!

 

[30miller]

Thank YOU! There are some around here that have used this video to blast Catholics. That’s what happens when you take things out of context! My bosses look just like that when they put on their clown suits and ride around on their scooters. And they are very devout Catholics. I could envision them being at a mass dressed like that and not even realizing how they come across!

You are mixing apples with oranges. The links I have put up are NOT to the Ringling Bros. type “clown” masses (though these are legitimate real masses). They are to parish masses where the people were encouraged to participate like at a masquerade ball or the like - dress up goofy!
Here’s another - the “Barney Mass” where the pastor dresses up in a full BARNEY costume DURING the mass (note - the mass is not over until the final blessing is given). youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8

 

[anamchara]

You are mixing apples with oranges. The links I have put up are NOT to the Ringling Bros. type “clown” masses (though these are legitimate real masses). **They are to parish masses where the people were encouraged to participate like at a masquerade ball or the like - dress up goofy! **
Here’s another - the “Barney Mass” where the pastor dresses up in a full BARNEY costume DURING the mass (note - the mass is not over until the final blessing is given). youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8

Please prove this. This has often been proven to be nothing more than heresay. And the “Barney Mass” was another one of those that was explained away. You are seriously pulling stuff out that is so flipping old and has been explained several years ago.

 

[MrS]

Please prove this. This has often been proven to be nothing more than heresay. And the “Barney Mass” was another one of those that was explained away. You are seriously pulling stuff out that is so flipping old and has been explained several years ago.

I never saw or heard the “explaining away”. Please enlighten.

.

 

[30miller]

Please prove this. This has often been proven to be nothing more than heresay. And the “Barney Mass” was another one of those that was explained away. You are seriously pulling stuff out that is so flipping old and has been explained several years ago.

Then please explain the Archbishop Niederhauer w/transvestites mass. Also copy Bill O’reilly on your explanation because he ran the video 3 or 4 days in a row just a couple of months ago. I’ll patiently await your “flipping” explanation. (This should be good - anamchara out-scooping the No Spin Zone).

 

[frommi]

OK…so somehow this thread has gone from a deconstruction of Peloquin’s “Lord Send Out Your Spirit” to a treatise on how hymns in Spanish with syncopated rhythms lead us to clown masses.

It seems to me that what this boils down to is something like this…

Most music directors that I meet and talk to (of which I am one) find a lot of use for both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ when it comes to music at mass. There is much to like about both eras, and much to malign. Some new stuff is (as has been pointed out) so difficult for an assembly to sing that it makes little sense to use it because it becomes a performance. However, the same idea applies to pieces like “Panis Angelicus”, which are beautiful, but tend to have a superstar tenor quality about them.

The detractors of any modern music will consistently point to the writings of those who back them up. They will point to the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, but dismiss the writings of Cardinal Mahony, or Archbishop Marini. The reason for the dismissal of the writings they disagree with is usually rooted in the idea that they are too ‘liberal’ or that once Joseph Ratzinger became Pope, his prior writings became infallible.

This thread has taken us all in huge circle. There will be no eye opening moments where Benedictgal suddenly asks that Ven Espirtu Santo is played as her casket is lowered into the ground as she meets her eternal reward someday.

Yet, it seems to me that this argument comes back around to old hardened ideas about horizontal and vertical inclusivity. We shouldn’t sing in many languages or styles because we are ‘one church’ and we should sing ‘one way’. Unfortunately, those who promote this idea are often saying the ‘one way’ needs to be ‘my way’.

On the day the church was born, everyone was speaking a different language, but all understood what Peter was saying.

On the day Peter was in America, all sang and proclaimed in different languages, but all understood what Peter was saying.

Can someone please help me understand what was so wrong with that?

 

[aloysiusg]

30miller, I watched the “Barney Mass” video and, if it is indeed a proper representation of what that priest did, then I agree he is an embarrassment to the priesthood and I for one would 1) never go to one of his masses, and 2) hope that the local Bishop would have a severe talking to of him.

That being said, I truly hope you are not equating what he did with what we did at the Papal Mass two weeks ago?

 

[30miller]

30miller, I watched the “Barney Mass” video and, if it is indeed a proper representation of what that priest did, then I agree he is an embarrassment to the priesthood and I for one would 1) never go to one of his masses, and 2) hope that the local Bishop would have a severe talking to of him.

That being said, I truly hope you are not equating what he did with what we did at the Papal Mass two weeks ago?

Absolutely not - you are correct.

And it’s hard to just hope that his Bishop took some action - we need to see that action or else the video speaks for itself what that diocese is all about. It’s equally as hard to just hope in one bishop when in the other video it IS the Archbishop center stage giving communion to active cross-dressing (both as women and clowns - homoclowns,not circusclowns) in-your-face homosexuals. (And the "sisters of perpetual INDULGENCE are infamous in San Francisco and have been for years).

 

[Hally]

Okay, first things first. I was at the Papal Mass in DC and I had a clear view (and hearing ability) of everything that went on.

It is true that some of the music was performed in a “gospel choir” style which my not have been appropriate for inside the Vatican, however, this mass was not held in the vatican, it was held in a big stadium with 48 thousand participants. This is not to say this de-values the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but all the circumstances have to be considered. Some of the music was done very well. I distinctly remember “Panis Angelicus” being sung by a wonderful tenor and I saw the Holy Father himself getting up and greeting the singer, not the other way around. The tenor then went to one knee and kissed the Holy Father’s hand…it was beautiful

I found the Mass (my first papal mass) to be very moving and I felt the love of Christ filling all who were there despite the sometimes annoying music, and that love is what should be remembered about the mass not all the negativity surrounding the music.

Perhaps the music was more predominate for those who were watching on EWTN or those closer to the choir, but to me (who was on the first base line) it wasn’t even all that noticable, I could easily ignore whatever they were singing in whatever random language they decided to sing it in. Chalk one up to multi-culturalism for the music, but if you ask me the Holy Father had a great time

(Yankee Stadium was better though

 

[brotherhrolf]

Hrolf,

You’ve got it brother. This week our parish will sing “Holy God” as our recessional. And you can count in May we will sing Immaculate Mary. Through May we try to sing a hymn to Our Lady each Sunday. But this week this Italian will be thinking about you! God Bless!

Oh yes. My story. My dad took lot of heat for the mistake of being born Italian and often men would call him a “damn dago”. My dad would just look right back at them and exclaim – At least I know what I am!!

MonFrere

That was not a problem down here. The Irish and Italians have parades together to honor St. Joseph and St. Patrick. My beloved godfather was born in Sicily. I have always claimed I was Italian via my uncle/godfather DW had an Italian godparent too. The Italians melted right into Louisiana as did the Cubans. And can we cook? :extrahappy:

 

[MonFrere]

the fact is that when we saw time and again our magnificent bishops over the last few decades before 2002 - we applauded them and praised them, looked up to them, and by everything OUR EYES could tell us these were great men. Then in 2002 the bishops dropped the $2,000,000,000 egg on us and we found out that what we thought we saw was not in fact reality.

Pope Benedict did say that the sexual abuse crisis was “badly handled” (I think those were his words). So, that does give me a glimpse that probably there was much more going on behind the scenes that may have included that some had the riot act read to them.

But, with the Mass, I’ve got to believe - UNLESS I see some change in the papal masses I see on EWTN that are OUTSIDE EUROPE where traditional music consistently used exclusively. THEN I can surmise that there is indeed displeasure in multicultural music, or ethnic music that’s indigenous to a particular culture that’s coming from the Vatican.

Actions will speak louder than all of words Benedictgal keeps quoting. (Though I will say that I consider very intelligent and articulate. I do respect where she’s coming from.) My eyes just tells me that she’s more conservative than is the Vatican lives, projects and teaches the faith. However, if or when the Vatican would change I would be happy to comply because I’m personally more conservative by nature. I’m simply trying to read both the words AND the actions and coming to the best conclusion that logic tells me.

There were many people who complained that JP II was too lax in correcting problems in the church but JP II thought that he hoped that he wasn’t too harsh a shepherd. Right now many are saying Pope Benedict is “gracious” - but, I wonder in time that he’ll get painted with the same “he’s too lax” brush IF reforms they desire don’t come. I think the role of being head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith demanded a different projection of personality than that of Supreme Pontiff. AND if the next pontiff does come from a non-European background it will be that the Church wants to have a pontiff that understands where the majority of the church resides and that’s going to be a pope with a non-European perspective.

I think the prism you look at this situation through is way way way too idealistic - it’s just not reality (though I certainly wish I could say you are right).

Too tell the truth. When I got on this thread it was because I thought the weight of the conversation was way too one sided and I was wanting to bring some balance to the other side. As a matter of personal discipline I try to be very cautious of being publically critical of priests, bishops and pontiffs.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

Bill O’Reilly gives me great joy. He is repeating the same vocabularly lessons I learned at St. Aloysius. That was what it was like to grown up in the 60s as a Catholic.

Hrolf,

… and I can tell you are certainly not … FECKLESS!!

MonFrere

 

[benedictgal]

Okay, first things first. I was at the Papal Mass in DC and I had a clear view (and hearing ability) of everything that went on.

It is true that some of the music was performed in a “gospel choir” style which my not have been appropriate for inside the Vatican, however, ***this mass was not held in the vatican, it was held in a big stadium with 48 thousand participants. ***This is not to say this de-values the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but all the circumstances have to be considered. Some of the music was done very well. I distinctly remember “Panis Angelicus” being sung by a wonderful tenor and I saw the Holy Father himself getting up and greeting the singer, not the other way around. The tenor then went to one knee and kissed the Holy Father’s hand…it was beautiful

I found the Mass (my first papal mass) to be very moving and I felt the love of Christ filling all who were there despite the sometimes annoying music, and that love is what should be remembered about the mass not all the negativity surrounding the music.

Perhaps the music was more predominate for those who were watching on EWTN or those closer to the choir, but to me (who was on the first base line) it wasn’t even all that noticable, I could easily ignore whatever they were singing in whatever random language they decided to sing it in. Chalk one up to multi-culturalism for the music, but if you ask me the Holy Father had a great time

(Yankee Stadium was better though

With all due respect, what I’ve highlighted is a very, very weak argument. If you have caught any of the Papal Masses, you will note that the faithful number in larger numbers, close to 60,000 at St. Peter’s Square. At St. Peter’s Baslica, the number is slightly less, but, it is in the tens of thousands. The music used at “the Vatican” is Universal in character and would have certainly been very appropriate for the Nationals Stadium Mass.

Chalking it up to multi-culturalism means that one is giving more of an emphasis to the people than it he is to God, Himself. The Lord needs to be the main focus of the Mass, not the Holy Father, and certainly, not the music. In fact, the Holy Father has made it very clear that he is not the focus. He’s done this by having the crucifix in front of him during Masses that he celebrates and in trying to lead the faithful to deeper prayer.

If one wants to celebrate mutli-culturalism, then, do so in a concert setting, by all means. But, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the vehicle for this.

 

[frommi]

With all due respect, what I’ve highlighted is a very, very weak argument. If you have caught any of the Papal Masses, you will note that the faithful number in larger numbers, close to 60,000 at St. Peter’s Square. At St. Peter’s Baslica, the number is slightly less, but, it is in the tens of thousands. The music used at “the Vatican” is Universal in character and would have certainly been very appropriate for the Nationals Stadium Mass.

Chalking it up to multi-culturalism means that one is giving more of an emphasis to the people than it he is to God, Himself. The Lord needs to be the main focus of the Mass, not the Holy Father, and certainly, not the music. In fact, the Holy Father has made it very clear that he is not the focus. He’s done this by having the crucifix in front of him during Masses that he celebrates and in trying to lead the faithful to deeper prayer.

If one wants to celebrate mutli-culturalism, then, do so in a concert setting, by all means. But, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the vehicle for this.

Ummm…they are the people of God…some focus should be put on them…

I completely disagree that the vatican has music that is ‘universal’ in nature and is somehow just more ‘valid’.

This is not as simple as saying bread must be made of certain ingredients.

Your oversimplifications of this matter are disturbing.

 

[benedictgal]

OK…so somehow this thread has gone from a deconstruction of Peloquin’s “Lord Send Out Your Spirit” to a treatise on how hymns in Spanish with syncopated rhythms lead us to clown masses.

It seems to me that what this boils down to is something like this…

Most music directors that I meet and talk to (of which I am one) find a lot of use for both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ when it comes to music at mass. There is much to like about both eras, and much to malign. Some new stuff is (as has been pointed out) so difficult for an assembly to sing that it makes little sense to use it because it becomes a performance. However, the same idea applies to pieces like “Panis Angelicus”, which are beautiful, but tend to have a superstar tenor quality about them.

The detractors of any modern music will consistently point to the writings of those who back them up. They will point to the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, but dismiss the writings of Cardinal Mahony, or Archbishop Marini. The reason for the dismissal of the writings they disagree with is usually rooted in the idea that they are too ‘liberal’ or that once Joseph Ratzinger became Pope, his prior writings became infallible.

This thread has taken us all in huge circle. There will be no eye opening moments where Benedictgal suddenly asks that Ven Espirtu Santo is played as her casket is lowered into the ground as she meets her eternal reward someday.

Yet, it seems to me that this argument comes back around to old hardened ideas about horizontal and vertical inclusivity. We shouldn’t sing in many languages or styles because we are ‘one church’ and we should sing ‘one way’. Unfortunately, those who promote this idea are often saying the ‘one way’ needs to be ‘my way’.

On the day the church was born, everyone was speaking a different language, but all understood what Peter was saying.

On the day Peter was in America, all sang and proclaimed in different languages, but all understood what Peter was saying.

Can someone please help me understand what was so wrong with that?

First of all frommi, you need not take an insulting tone with me. I have tried my best to maintain a civil discussion with you, but, you have not responded in kind.

Furthermore, what separates the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from the prelates you mentioned is that he is a well-renowned theologian and he also served as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He was also number two on the Vatican totem pole and, as prefect, he exerted a universal influence. Therefore, when he wrote, everyone read. When he spoke, everyone listened. As Prefect, he was constantly on the world stage and, he played a significant role in the drafting of Redemptionis Sacramenum. Cardinal Arinze’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wasn’t the only body involved in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was also heavily involved. In fact, if you were to compare Redemptionis Sacramentum with the writings of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, you will find a lot of similarities. He was also Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Incidentally, when Cardinal Ratzinger turned 75, he submitted his requisite retirement letter to Pope John Paul II. The late pontiff glanced over it and promptly put it away in File 13. When Cardinal Martini submitted his retirement letter, Pope John Paul II quickly sent him packing to the Holy Land.

Your comparisions don’t make any sense at all.

 

[benedictgal]

Ummm…they are the people of God…some focus should be put on them…

I completely disagree that the vatican has music that is ‘universal’ in nature and is somehow just more ‘valid’.

This is not as simple as saying bread must be made of certain ingredients.

Your oversimplifications of this matter are disturbing.

It is not oversimplification in the least. Look at the words that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote some 20 years ago in his first book on the Liturgy, Feas of Faith:

The movement of spiritualization in creation is understood properly as bringing creation into the mode of being of the Holy Spirit and its consequent transformation, exemplified in the crucified and resurrected Christ. In this sense, the taking up of music into the liturgy must be its taking up into the Spirit, a transformation that entails both death and resurrection. That is why the Church has had to be critical of ethnic music; it could not be allowed untransformed into the sanctuary. The cultic music of pagan religions has a different status in human existence from the music which glorifies God in creation. Through rhythm and melody themselves, pagan music often endeavors to elicit an ecstasy of the senses, but without elevating the sense into the spirit; on the contrary, it attempts to swallow up the spirit in the senses as a means of release. ***This imbalance toward the senses recurs also in modern popular music: the “God” found here, the salvation of man identified here, is quite different from the God of the Christian faith. ***

It’s interesting that none of the defenders of the kind of music performed at the DC Mass have yet to provide authoritative, univeresal Church documentation, as released by the Apostolic See, to justify their views. Even the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy has this to say on the matter:

That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress. Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. . . . Finally, there must be no innovation unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from the forms already existing.

This is the same point that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus made throughout the course of his comments regarding the music performed at the DC Mass. This is also the same point that the Holy Father has repeatedly made, both as Cardinal Ratzinger and as our Supreme Pontiff.