Vatican II

[FabiusMaximus]

Most Gregorian chant has a deep theological message because most Gregorian chant happens to be Bible and Psalm verses. Dies Irae, a sequence, and In Paradisum, an antiphon are among the exceptions; not to day that they don’t have deep theological meaning although Dies Irae is no longer used at the Requiem Mass but is now the hymn for the 34th week of Ordinary Time in the Liturgy of the Hours.

The general rule for hymns of the Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours is that they are not taken from scripture but were in general intended to combat heresy and are thus mini-theology lessons. Except that Pope Urban VIII in trying to make them into classical Latin more or less messed them up. It was Vatican II that restored the ancient texts of the hymns.

Which is why I love them so much. They are so theologically rich.

Of course some did try to use the hymns to introduce heresy but fortunately those texts have long been flushed out.

I agree though, that the aesthetics of liturgy is very important. The problem though is that aesthetic qualities often lie in the eye/ear of the beholder, and while I love chant, some hate it and prefer polyphony or even (gasp!) modern hymns. Modern hymns don’t necessary have to be bad just because they are modern!

It depends on what you call “modern.” If you’re speaking like a song like “This is the Air I breathe,” then I’m pretty skeptical. If you mean modern as in it was composed recently, but still conform to chant or polyphony, then I’m OK with that XD.

Ora, it seems to me after reading your posts, that the OF was designed so that it could be customized to culture, to parish, to diocese, etc. Multiple EP’s are offered, and there are basically no real limits to the type of music et alia that liturgical committees and such can plan. Given this scenario, what’s there not to like about the OF? Unless of course, one can’t find one that’s in his language and/or comfort level.

The EF has no such variations. One language, one Canon, Latin chant, ad orientem, and some vernacular. Very limited in options but many folks like that too.

I think sounds about correct in terms of intention about the Ordinary Form. I’m assuming that an Eastern liturgy is restricted in variations much like the EF. I wonder if the Council Fathers and the successive popes realized how much “variation” would occur in how the liturgy is celebrated in certain areas.

 

[kdbueno]

Vatican and holy land is synonymous to understand the state of integrity of the churches from its inception to the eternal end.

 

[otjm]

I think that aesthetics can have a very important place in worship. It helps bring an attitude and a mentality of worship.

Yours was an interesting post and a different perspective from those of us who are cradle Catholics.

As a comment: it is easy to refer to reverence as a feeling. However, reverence is as reverence does. When the feelings don’t come, then one gets down to reasons (as opposed to emotions) why one is doing something.

It is a bit akin to love and marriage. Too often, we speak of love, and really mean the emotion of being “in love”. It is when there are distractions (Marriage: kids, career, “he wants to watch football” “she is constantly going over her girlfriends drama” He got fat" “she is going grey” and etc.) that the issue of what real love consists of comes to the surface.

The same can be said of the Mass (music; no incense; ad populum; Latin that I don’t understand; poor homilies; one more sermon about X or Y or Z, etc.) and it is then that we have to decide what worship really means. Something that makes our socks roll up and down? Or something that we do, whether we feel like it or not?

I am not suggesting in any way that your likes or dislikes are “wrong”; only that you not be caught up in the emotional response and misunderstand that for something deeper.

 

[OraLabora]

Yours was an interesting post and a different perspective from those of us who are cradle Catholics.

As a comment: it is easy to refer to reverence as a feeling. However, reverence is as reverence does. When the feelings don’t come, then one gets down to reasons (as opposed to emotions) why one is doing something.

It is a bit akin to love and marriage. Too often, we speak of love, and really mean the emotion of being “in love”. It is when there are distractions (Marriage: kids, career, “he wants to watch football” “she is constantly going over her girlfriends drama” He got fat" “she is going grey” and etc.) that the issue of what real love consists of comes to the surface.

The same can be said of the Mass (music; no incense; ad populum; Latin that I don’t understand; poor homilies; one more sermon about X or Y or Z, etc.) and it is then that we have to decide what worship really means. Something that makes our socks roll up and down? Or something that we do, whether we feel like it or not?

I am not suggesting in any way that your likes or dislikes are “wrong”; only that you not be caught up in the emotional response and misunderstand that for something deeper.

You bring up an interesting and valid point about feelings and liturgy. As someone who prays the Liturgy of the Hours, I’ve had to work hard at detaching my feelings from the liturgy. Some psalms grate, some psalm tones grate more, some formulations I don’t like (such as the NT canticles at Vespers) and some days I just plain don’t feel like it. But it’s a bit like persevering in marriage as you note, as we realize the youthful ideal we had has slowly faded away.

For me, at least, liturgy and worship means continuing to show up even when you don’t “feel” holy, uplifted or whatever, just as you get up and go to work on a dreary gray Monday knowing it will be a brutal week.

I don’t want to claim superiority for arriving at this point because I still do inject some practices into my private liturgy to enhance the aesthetics of the experience (e.g. chanting the Office), and worship in a monastery where Gregorian chant is the rule. But you know… even that beautiful chant isn’t enough to fire up the old spiritual juices on many days, and I have to quite literally drag myself to Mass even for that beautiful liturgy rather than give into the temptation to go cycling or hiking with my wife.

But if there’s one thing that Benedictine spirituality has taught me is this: “it’s not all about me” (and my preferences). Reading the degrees of humility over and over again in the Rule, along with St. Benedict’s fairly dry prescriptions for the Divine Office, certainly help.

 

[tbhamdg]

Try this excellent book:

amazon.com/Iota-Unum-Changes-Catholic-Twentieth/dp/0963903217

 

[TimothyH]

Ora, it seems to me after reading your posts, that the OF was designed so that it could be customized to culture, to parish, to diocese, etc. Multiple EP’s are offered, and there are basically no real limits to the type of music et alia that liturgical committees and such can plan. Given this scenario, what’s there not to like about the OF? Unless of course, one can’t find one that’s in his language and/or comfort level.

The EF has no such variations. One language, one Canon, Latin chant, ad orientem, and some vernacular. Very limited in options but many folks like that too.

My understanding is that not all EF Masses were ad orientem, that some dialog masses were facing the people.

Certainly Mass in monastic abbeys with feestanding altars were often done facing the “People” who happened to the the brothers in the abbey.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

My understanding is that not all EF Masses were ad orientem, that some dialog masses were facing the people.

Certainly Mass in monastic abbeys with feestanding altars were often done facing the “People” who happened to the the brothers in the abbey.

-Tim-

The EF didn’t come into existence until 2007. Why are you using past tense?

 

[ProVobis]

My understanding is that not all EF Masses were ad orientem, that some dialog masses were facing the people.

Certainly Mass in monastic abbeys with feestanding altars were often done facing the “People” who happened to the the brothers in the abbey.

Maybe but what happens when the priest is supposed to turn around and say “Dominus vobiscum” or “Orate Fratres”?

Oh wait, this is written in the IGMR too.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My understanding is that not all EF Masses were ad orientem, that some dialog masses were facing the people.

Certainly Mass in monastic abbeys with feestanding altars were often done facing the “People” who happened to the the brothers in the abbey.

-Tim-

There were places and occasions where Masses before the Council were said facing the people. It was part of the Liturgical Movement, which preceded the liturgical reform mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium. I don’t know, though, how much these were occurring in North America. I have always had the distinct impression it was much less than in Europe. There were dialogue Masses that were occurring without facing the people. These were quite important.

 

[TheologyIl]

This is how you do it buddy.

It’s a pastoral council, and don’t worry about it.

And go to the SSPX, and remember, pray to St. Joseph.

 

[LightBound]

This is how you do it buddy.

It’s a pastoral council, and don’t worry about it.

And go to the SSPX, and remember, pray to St. Joseph.

you’ve certainly changed your tune from your very first post 2 months ago. Given what you’ve put here and on your Fatima thread, I would say this was probably your last post on CAF