Polka mass

[benedictgal]

Well, the Polka mass and accompanying music are approved by the Church authorities. The priest who came up with the idea even celebrated mass before Pope John Paul II! I’m sorry if some people are perturbed by the idea of the Polka being used at sacred services but, after all, was not the mass full of operatic type music during the past several centuries, Often times many of the great religious works of men like Mozart and Beethoven were inspired by less then reverent secular compositions. This was even the case for many years up until Pope Pius X moto on Church music in 1903 (a big mistake by my understanding since it also banned women’s voice in choirs).

The Polka mass is just a continuation of these types of secular inspired sacred music. Believe me, it is very reverently done and the music is truly both sacred and inspiring. I see nothing wrong with using sacred music that has a secular root to it, even when performed in the setting of a Latin Mass. How many TLM’s even try to do works by the great composers? Not many. Most just use the same old boring Gregorian chant melodies that one so tires of hearing week after week. I understand that the Church considers this type of stuff as most suited to the mass but is it the only type of music that can be used?

Also, why can’t we have a polka Latin mass? Why can’t some budding young composer takes the music of the Gregorian chant and add it to a Polka melody? I’d walk a couple miles to hear that for sure.

First of all, do you have official documentation or are you merely relying on the priest’s website and his comments that Pope John Paul II enjoyed the celebration and was given a CD of same?

With all due respect, before you start making statements that denigrate Gregorian Chant, you might want to read the documents of the Church, including one written by Pope John Paul II, himself, regarding Sacred Music.

Here is a snippet of what his Chirograph on Sacred Music notes:

In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

…7. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

…**12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple”[33]. **

Furthermore, even Pope Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum Caritatis, notes that:

Liturgical song

…Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

If you think that the document written by Pope St.Pius X wrote was a big mistake, I am curious as to what you think of the documents that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI wrote regarding sacred music. With all due respect, before making such rash judgments, it would do you well to read these documents. Furthermore, you have yet to provide proof that an indult exists for the so-called Polka Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what Musicam Sacram, the official document on Sacred Music says:

1. In order to preserve the heritage of sacred music and genuinely promote the new forms of sacred singing, “great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutes and schools,” especially in those higher institutes intended specially for this.37 Above all, the study and practice of Gregorian chant is to be promoted, because, with its special characteristics, it is a basis of great importance for the development of sacred music.

1. New works of sacred music should conform faithfully to the principles and norms set out above. In this way they will have "the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, being within the capacities not merely of large choirs but of smaller choirs, facilitating the participation of all the faithful."38

It is always best to begin with what the Church officially says and not invent your own Mass. The time for experimentation ended long ago.

 

[Kearney]

Here is a Polka mass said at Sweetest Heart of Mary Church in Detroit (which also has a TLM as well).

youtube.com/watch?v=53Bv8ixBAVs

As for Gregorian chant, sorry I 'am just not into it that much. I like the rich liturgical music of the great composers as well as polyphony. I am aware that the Church personally seems to prefer it to what they consider more “profane” sacred music but I still like this stuff. Gregorian chant didn’t even exist in it’s present form until the monks of Solmes Abby in France piece meeled it together in the 19th century as part of their liturgical movement. People like it because it just stays the same and never changes, never has any variety to it. Pope Pius embraced it in the old, pre Vatican II “proto liturgical reform” days when people were trying to figure out how to increase active participation of the faithful whole still keeping the mass in Latin.

If the Church thinks that it is most suited then so be it. However I am entitled to my own preferences and can’t change them if I wanted to. It was a great sham for the then Pope Pius to shut women out completely form church choirs (they were often times replaced lousy boys choirs or cantors who couldn’t hold a tune). It was a tragedy all because the then Pope Pius felt like he had to give into the so called litnicks of his day and do something to encourage the ever sought after but never attainable “active participation” of the faithful at mass.

Just read the books of the great Thomas Day

Why Catholics can’t Sing and
Where have you gone Michelangelo.

Day does a great service witting about liturgical music and the loss of the sacred. Yet he also deals a lot with this period in Church history I speak of and how the great works of composers were shut off from the faithful in favor of simplification in church music so that the mass will be more meaningful to the faithful (sound familiar)?

 

[benedictgal]

Here is a Polka mass said at Sweetest Heart of Mary Church in Detroit (which also has a TLM as well).

youtube.com/watch?v=53Bv8ixBAVs

As for Gregorian chant, sorry I 'am just not into it that much. I like the rich liturgical music of the great composers as well as polyphony. I am aware that the Church personally seems to prefer it to what they consider more “profane” sacred music but I still like this stuff. Gregorian chant didn’t even exist in it’s present form until the monks of Solmes Abby in France piece meeled it together in the 19th century as part of their liturgical movement. People like it because it just stays the same and never changes, never has any variety to it. Pope Pius embraced it in the old, pre Vatican II “proto liturgical reform” days when people were trying to figure out how to increase active participation of the faithful whole still keeping the mass in Latin.

If the Church thinks that it is most suited then so be it. However I am entitled to my own preferences and can’t change them if I wanted to. It was a great sham for the then Pope Pius to shut women out completely form church choirs (they were often times replaced lousy boys choirs or cantors who couldn’t hold a tune). It was a tragedy all because the then Pope Pius felt like he had to give into the so called litnicks of his day and do something to encourage the ever sought after but never attainable “active participation” of the faithful at mass.

Just read the books of the great Thomas Day

Why Catholics can’t Sing and
Where have you gone Michelangelo.

Day does a great service witting about liturgical music and the loss of the sacred. Yet he also deals a lot with this period in Church history I speak of and how the great works of composers were shut off from the faithful in favor of simplification in church music so that the mass will be more meaningful to the faithful (sound familiar)?

However, a segment on YouTube does not mean that this kind of service is licit. And yes, I have read the book “Why Catholics Can’t Sing”. However, even the author manages to prove my point.

You seem to misread the fact that the Church gives Gregorian Chant the pride of pflace in her sacred liturgies. Gregorian Chant is the bench mark by which all other forms of music are measured. Pope John Paul II said as much.

You have yet to provide documentation that indicates that the Polka Mass has a speical indult from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments. I have looked online and have not seen it. What I have seen are articles challenging its legitimacy, even from EWTN.

The Mass is not about your personal tastes; it is about what the Church requires. As Pope Benedict XVI noted, certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.

Some have raised the issue of dancing. You would do well to note that in 1975, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released a statement on dance and the liturgy. The statement made the observation that dance has no place in the liturgy because in our culture:

dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses… For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations”.

Adoremus, one of the most reputable publications on liturgy, made this following observation:

Probably the the priest who first devised the “Polka Mass” in 1973, during a time when liturgical experimentation was rampant, saw his innovation as nothing more than inserting a part of Eastern European musical tradition into Catholic worship. But in fact it introduces into Mass a musical idiom that is incompatible with the expression of reverence and worship. So this type of music should never be used during the celebration of Mass; though the Mass might be followed by a celebration in the parish hall that includes this lively ethnic music.

Concerning the style of music appropriate for Mass, here are some basic considerations:

• Does the style of music enhance the sacredness of Mass?
• Is the musical style so closely associated with profane (secular) activities that it detracts from the reverence due the holy action at the altar?
• Does the music become a performance, competing with the ceremonial appropriate for Mass?
• Are people more inspired by the music to prayer or applause?

As the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium - www.adoremus.org/ SacrosanctumConcilium.html) said (112): “The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn Liturgy”.

Since the true purpose of sacred music is the “glorification of God and the sanctification of the faithful”, all music that is a part of the celebration of Mass should conform to this end.

Thus, as I suspected, this Mass was invented during the time of experimentation, but, has not been granted “official status”, at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Kearney]

Adoramus, while a worthy organization, isn’t the Church.
This is from Fathers web page.

In 1983 Fr. Perkovich and the Polka Massters had the experience of a lifetime, celebrating the Polka Mass on the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican for Pope John Paul II. The Pope commended and encouraged Fr. Perkovich in his endeavors with the Polka Mass and was pleased to accept a recording of the Mass.

rangenet.com/~frperk/

 

[benedictgal]

Adoramus, while a worthy organization, isn’t the Church.
This is from Fathers web page.

In 1983 Fr. Perkovich and the Polka Massters had the experience of a lifetime, celebrating the Polka Mass on the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican for Pope John Paul II. The Pope commended and encouraged Fr. Perkovich in his endeavors with the Polka Mass and was pleased to accept a recording of the Mass.

rangenet.com/~frperk/

I have seen the webpage, but, just because he celebrated this kind of a service in the presence of Pope John Paul II that does not mean that there is an indult attached to it. By the way, was the Mass for Pope John Paul II or was it offered to worship the Lord?

Just as you say that Adoremus is not the Church, nor is the priest who celebrated the Polka Mass. You have yet to provide authoritative documentation stating that an indult has been granted for these kind of Masses.

 

[E.E.N.S]

…This was even the case for many years up until Pope Pius X moto on Church music in 1903 (a big mistake by my understanding since it also banned women’s voice in choirs).

Don’t you think it is a bit arrogant to call an official document of the Church put forth by a Saint and Pope, “a mistake”? (And rest assured, he was only correcting abuses, not banning something that was ever put forth by the Church.)

How many TLM’s even try to do works by the great composers? Not many.

Sounds like you could use some education in the vast amount of Sacred Polyphony that has been used for a very long time now…

Most just use the same old boring Gregorian chant melodies that one so tires of hearing week after week.

Gregorian Chant is FAR from being boring, in fact it is very, very rich. It might do you well to study up on our Church’s sacred heritage a tad. There is plenty out there to help, even audio if you don’t like reading.

I understand that the Church considers this type of stuff as most suited to the mass but is it the only type of music that can be used?

You mentioned the Motu Proprio put forth by Pope St. Pius X (Tra le Sollecitudini), if you actually read it you will see that he says that other music may be allowed, (but there are guidelines to be followed.)

Also, why can’t we have a polka Latin mass? Why can’t some budding young composer takes the music of the Gregorian chant and add it to a Polka melody? I’d walk a couple miles to hear that for sure.

I refer you to the before mentioned document.

 

[E.E.N.S]

As for Gregorian chant, sorry I 'am just not into it that much. I like the rich liturgical music of the great composers as well as polyphony. I am aware that the Church personally seems to prefer it to what they consider more “profane” sacred music but I still like this stuff. Gregorian chant didn’t even exist in it’s present form until the monks of Solmes Abby in France piece meeled it together in the 19th century as part of their liturgical movement. People like it because it just stays the same and never changes, never has any variety to it. Pope Pius embraced it in the old, pre Vatican II “proto liturgical reform” days when people were trying to figure out how to increase active participation of the faithful whole still keeping the mass in Latin.

If the Church thinks that it is most suited then so be it. However I am entitled to my own preferences and can’t change them if I wanted to. It was a great sham for the then Pope Pius to shut women out completely form church choirs (they were often times replaced lousy boys choirs or cantors who couldn’t hold a tune). It was a tragedy all because the then Pope Pius felt like he had to give into the so called litnicks of his day and do something to encourage the ever sought after but never attainable “active participation” of the faithful at mass.

It seems that you really don’t know what you are talking about, that or you bought into someone’s propaganda. There were reasons why Pope St. Pius X did not allow women to sing in the schola, and if you read Tra le Sollecitudini you will see why. If you want even more dept on the subject there is plenty of reading material out there as well, but you should start with the document that you brought up, put forth by the Holy Pope you continuously belittle, (and in doing so in this manner you are undermining the Catholic Faith…think about it).

I didn’t care much for Gregorian Chant either when I first heard it, in fact I had no idea what it was, or that it had anything to do with the Catholic liturgy. Now, however, I love it because it is sacred and it is loved by Holy Mother Church, and I am also a cantor in a schola now as well.

PS~ I can assure you this as well, the chants change for every mass! The propers for this last Sunday (3rd Sunday of Lent) are VERY different from this upcoming Sunday (Laetare Sunday - 4th Sunday of Lent).

 

[E.E.N.S]

From Tra le Sollecitudini:

V. The singers
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music. By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.
13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

I thought I would add the next line as well, even though it does not directly deal with the topic at hand, it does however show how seriously this should be taken.

1. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

 

[bkovacs]

Here is what Musicam Sacram, the official document on Sacred Music says:

It is always best to begin with what the Church officially says and not invent your own Mass. The time for experimentation ended long ago.

Oh did it!.

 

[Patrick1982]

Here is a Polka mass said at Sweetest Heart of Mary Church in Detroit (which also has a TLM as well).

youtube.com/watch?v=53Bv8ixBAVs

As for Gregorian chant, sorry I 'am just not into it that much. I like the rich liturgical music of the great composers as well as polyphony. I am aware that the Church personally seems to prefer it to what they consider more “profane” sacred music but I still like this stuff. Gregorian chant didn’t even exist in it’s present form until the monks of Solmes Abby in France piece meeled it together in the 19th century as part of their liturgical movement. People like it because it just stays the same and never changes, never has any variety to it. Pope Pius embraced it in the old, pre Vatican II “proto liturgical reform” days when people were trying to figure out how to increase active participation of the faithful whole still keeping the mass in Latin.

If the Church thinks that it is most suited then so be it. However I am entitled to my own preferences and can’t change them if I wanted to. It was a great sham for the then Pope Pius to shut women out completely form church choirs (they were often times replaced lousy boys choirs or cantors who couldn’t hold a tune). It was a tragedy all because the then Pope Pius felt like he had to give into the so called litnicks of his day and do something to encourage the ever sought after but never attainable “active participation” of the faithful at mass.

Just read the books of the great Thomas Day

Why Catholics can’t Sing and
Where have you gone Michelangelo.

Day does a great service witting about liturgical music and the loss of the sacred. Yet he also deals a lot with this period in Church history I speak of and how the great works of composers were shut off from the faithful in favor of simplification in church music so that the mass will be more meaningful to the faithful (sound familiar)?

I, of Polish descent, just spit up in my mouth… Ever see the documentary, “In heaven there is no beer”? There’s some footage of a “polka mass”… nearly ruined a perfectly good polka documentary for me!

Who stole the kiszka? Someone call a cop!

 

[bkovacs]

However, a segment on YouTube does not mean that this kind of service is licit. And yes, I have read the book “Why Catholics Can’t Sing”. However, even the author manages to prove my point.

You seem to misread the fact that the Church gives Gregorian Chant the pride of pflace in her sacred liturgies. Gregorian Chant is the bench mark by which all other forms of music are measured. Pope John Paul II said as much.

You have yet to provide documentation that indicates that the Polka Mass has a speical indult from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments. I have looked online and have not seen it. What I have seen are articles challenging its legitimacy, even from EWTN.

The Mass is not about your personal tastes; it is about what the Church requires. As Pope Benedict XVI noted, certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.

Some have raised the issue of dancing. You would do well to note that in 1975, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released a statement on dance and the liturgy. The statement made the observation that dance has no place in the liturgy because in our culture:

Adoremus, one of the most reputable publications on liturgy, made this following observation:

Thus, as I suspected, this Mass was invented during the time of experimentation, but, has not been granted “official status”, at least as far as I can tell.

Quote: “Some have raised the issue of dancing. You would do well to note that in 1975, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released a statement on dance and the liturgy. The statement made the observation that dance has no place in the liturgy because in our culture:”

Tell that to Archbishop Mahony. He is an Archbishop, he can’t be wrong. Can he?.

Quote: “The Mass is not about your personal tastes; it is about what the Church requires. As Pope Benedict XVI noted, certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.”

Agree!

 

[bkovacs]

Here is another Polka Mass from Good Shepherd of the Desert (Catholic).
youtube.com/watch?v=MUipR31yB_o

Looks very reverent!.

 

[bkovacs]

Another very reverent Mass

The Novus Techno Mass

youtube.com/watch?v=67Lom28KSlg

 

[benedictgal]

Oh did it!.

Perhaps you might want to read Redemptionis Sacramentum where it notes that:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

…[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Interestingly enough, the Mass that the OP referenced in one of his subsequent posts was “performed” for the Holy Father in 1983. RS came out in 2004. Over the course of the 21 year-gap between the two, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wound up tightening the reigns. Unfortunately, there are those who will still opt for creativity over what the Church requires.

 

[malphono]

Interestingly enough, the Mass that the OP referenced in one of his subsequent posts was “performed” for the Holy Father in 1983. RS came out in 2004. Over the course of the 21 year-gap between the two, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wound up tightening the reigns. Unfortunately, there are those who will still opt for creativity over what the Church requires.

To my mind, the really unfortunate thing is that there is even room for “creativity” in the OF. The lack of required standards (much less the dearth of rubrics) is, IMO, one of the OF’s biggest problems.

Admittedly, Rome may have “tightened up” to a degree, but that’s not nearly the same as “cleaning up” or, to put it more directly, forbidding the shenanigans. Far too many “local indults” out there to accommodate far too many special interests.

 

[benedictgal]

To my mind, the really unfortunate thing is that there is even room for “creativity” in the OF. The lack of required standards (much less the dearth of rubrics) is, IMO, one of the OF’s biggest problems.

Admittedly, Rome may have “tightened up” to a degree, but that’s not nearly the same as “cleaning up” or, to put it more directly, forbidding the shenanigans. Far too many “local indults” out there to accommodate far too many special interests.

However, the OP has not given any proof that an indult even exists for the so-called “Polka Mass.” When I looked at the website that he provided in support of his ideas, I did not see anything that indicated that an indult had been given. Remember, too, that indults are not permanent. They can be rescinded at any time. We only hae to look at the example of the indult that the USCCB received that allowed EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. Not long after Pope Benedict XVI assumed the Chair of St. Peter, the indult was resinded.

 

[malphono]

However, the OP has not given any proof that an indult even exists for the so-called “Polka Mass.” When I looked at the website that he provided in support of his ideas, I did not see anything that indicated that an indult had been given. Remember, too, that indults are not permanent. They can be rescinded at any time. We only hae to look at the example of the indult that the USCCB received that allowed EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. Not long after Pope Benedict XVI assumed the Chair of St. Peter, the indult was resinded.

No, I’m rather sure there never was an “indult” for that particular oddity. (If there were, the clamor for an "indult for a belly-dancer would not have been far behind ). And yes, of course an “indult” can be rescinded at any time. I don’t dispute that at all. I was simply making a comment that, “indults” not withstanding, things in the OF are, IMO, much too free and loose. Hence the sloppiness that (sadly) remains all too common.

 

[JPUSC]

No, I’m rather sure there never was an “indult” for that particular oddity. (If there were, the clamor for an "indult for a belly-dancer would not have been far behind ). And yes, of course an “indult” can be rescinded at any time. I don’t dispute that at all. I was simply making a comment that, “indults” not withstanding, things in the OF are, IMO, much too free and loose. Hence the sloppiness that (sadly) remains all too common.

Now that’s something I’d pay good money to see - a belly dancer. Sure beats polka.

 

[Kearney]

Well, until the Polka mass is forbidden, it is still permitted. It seems to me like this whole list is just crawling with people who are obsessed with only one form of Catholic worship (guess what) and who seek to disparage anything else that doesn’t fit that standard. The Polka mass is a beautiful way to worship God in the Catholic tradition. If you don’t want to worship that way then don’t. However please don’t try to forbid other people from doing so just because you don’t like that type of mass.

Also, I did not disparage Gregorian chant, I just don’t personally prefer it to the other great works of choral masters that used to be used for the mass before 1903 (on a regular basis). I respect the Churches decision in this matter but don’t feel that I must personally agree and actually force myself to like Gregorian music just because Rome say’s it’s more suited to the mass then the other stuff.

[edited]

Also, I noticed that no one bothered to even answer my initual question on Polka masses? Is this whole message board just dominated by one type of Catholic persuasion?