You’re simply blaming the Mass, and by exension the Church, and your Lord and Savior JESUS himself for the cultural and spiritual problems people have. Yes, you are. Christ gives himself to us at every single Mass regardless of the dispositions of the human beings involved or the music. He gives himself in Spanish, African, Chinese, and late 70’s pop, like it or not. In effect you are denying the efficacy of Christ’s saving power at the altar of your own taste.
The lure of worldly culture is very strong and pulls people away. This happens in any age starting at the garded of eden. In case you hadn’t noticed, we had a cultural, philosophical, and moral revolution in the last couple hundred years. This was exacerbated by the rapid development in communications. Sex drugs alcohol idol worship are all put in front of our faces and easily transmitted through the culture. At a time when people are spiritually lost and need Jeus Christ we have Catholics bickering about the darn music and vestments and which way the priest is facing!!
I want to say some things.
If you take Roger’s statements in an absolutist way, then yes, what you say is what he means. I don’t know if you have an emotional attachment to the subject at hand or something, but you seem to be frenetic in your desire to make the extension that “OF Mass is imprudent” [Roger’s point] to “you are blaming Jesus” [what you said]. That is quite silly and seems to be more of an emotionally-fueled overstatement than something based on solid reason and taking into account the situation at hand.
Christ does give Himself to us at every valid Mass. This is true. There are two “sets” of grace, if I understand correctly, which can flow from the context of a Mass: that coming from the Eucharist and that coming from the Mass itself. The grace of the Eucharist
Itself is unlimited, but our
receptivity of that grace is limited, given our human nature. The grace of the
Mass, however–that is, the grace which flows from a worthy and reverent celebration of the Mass itself, the ritual, the ceremony, the objective aesthetic value, and the priest’s reception of Holy Communion under both kinds is required for any of this grace to flow–is not unlimited; it is quite limited. This latter “set” of grace–that which is apart from the Eucharist itself–is what we are here concerned with.
Outward things like music, vestments, vessels, the architecture of the building, the graceful movements of the priest, all of these things
do result in a greater or lesser amount of supernatural grace to flow from the sacred rites. If the music is plainly poor music, like 70s pop, then this will result in a lesser amount of grace emanating from the celebration of the Mass. Secondly, these things affect the psychological dispositions and expectations of the priest and people present. If the priest is absolutely sloppy and careless at the altar, then his at least some of his people will naturally become sloppy and careless.
These things matter. In fact, practically any Church document concerned with the liturgy at least implies as much. I believe Roger’s concern is that it seems contradictory that we know what good liturgical praxis is, and Sacrosanctum Concilium itself seems rather clear on it, but he views the product of the “reform” as not even faithful to the document which authorized it, and in some places completely contradictory to common sense. I mean, look at Papal Masses. Ten years ago they were frankly dreadful, and they are
very different now. Are the changes in this case so far limited to aesthetics? Mostly. But aesthetics is a very important and fully integral part of liturgy. Outward elements do result in a greater grace.
The outward aspects of liturgy do matter. They are not nice extras that we tack on. This has very little at all to do with taste. Certain music, architecture, styles of art, etc., can most certainly be said to be objectively aesthetically superior to others.
