What to think of a very modern mass?

[bilop]

All earthly things were once modern innovations. This includes the pipe organ.

Which is why the appropriate music for a Catholic Mass is Gregorian Chant, as declared by Vatican 2.

From Sacrosanctum Conciliam

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

Funny how nobody pays attention to most of what Vatican 2 actually said.

God Bless

 

[clem456]

Funny how nobody pays attention to most of what Vatican 2 actually said.

Yes you are right, people like to read V2 selectively…
Gregorian Chant has a special place in the Church’s tradition.

My post was directed to the other post that seemed to decry styles of music because they are modern. The Church allows modern music at Mass…
All things were once new, including Gregorian Chant. Being new is not evil or substandard.
The New Covenant for instance.

 

[bilop]

Right. Gregorian Chant has a special place in the Church’s tradition.

My post was directed to the other post that seemed to decry styles of music because they are modern. The Church allows modern music at Mass.
All things were once new, including Gregorian Chant. Being new is not evil or substandard.
The New Covenant for instance.

From what I’ve read, Gregorian chant is a direct evolution of how the Jews of Jesus’ time prayed the Psalms. It is as old as the Church.

Obviously, new is not always bad. But, traditions exist for very good reasons. They reflect the collective wisdom of many, many generations. They should only be changed when you have a really good reason why.

As far as I can tell, no one has ever stated a good reason for all the Liturgical innovations of the last 50 years. The vernacular issue could have been solved simply by translating the existing Liturgy (chants and all) into the various languages. No innovation was required, and I’ve seen no cogent argument as to why the modern style is better.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

Which is why , as declared by Vatican 2.

From Sacrosanctum Conciliam

Funny how nobody pays attention to most of what Vatican 2 actually said.

I would like to point out that, “the appropriate music for a Catholic Mass is Gregorian Chant,” and “Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” are not the same. Gregorian chant is appropriate for Mass, it is not “the appropriate music”.

 

[bilop]

I would like to point out that, “the appropriate music for a Catholic Mass is Gregorian Chant,” and “Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” are not the same. Gregorian chant is appropriate for Mass, it is not “the appropriate music”.

It is the most appropriate. Obviously it is not the only music permitted, but Sacrosanctum Conciliam is clear, chant is the first, and best, choice. It is the music written for the mass. The mass parts are meant to be chanted.

Hymns and “praise music” are not organic to the Mass, they are “add-ons”. Just because something else is allowed, doesn’t mean chant isn’t preferred.

God Bless

 

[pnewton]

The mass parts are meant to be chanted…Just because something else is allowed, doesn’t mean chant isn’t preferred.

God Bless

I small note here to clarify. I assume that you mean, in the second statement, *Gregorian *chant. I only say that because the first use is the common use of “chant”, which is a transliteration from Latin and just means “sing”. The English tends to confuse because we have two words, “chant” and “sing”. Most of the last generation of translations took a more dynamic approach and used “sing”, while the latest translations have stuck the more literal “chant”.

“Hymns and “praise music” are not organic to the Mass.” I think the argument for hymns being organic ( a somewhat relative term) is stronger. They are found throughout the last few centuries in Christian worship, different forms in the Mass, and throughout the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[ProVobis]

It is the most appropriate. Obviously it is not the only music permitted, but Sacrosanctum Conciliam is clear, chant is the first, and best, choice. It is the music written for the mass. The mass parts are meant to be chanted.

Unfortunately, Vatican II also appointed committees to reform the liturgy in such a way as they saw fit. This eventually all came down apparently to the parish level, where in many, if not most cases, they deemed Latin, Gregorian chant, organ, etc, just would not work. This IMO has caused much confusion with the original intent of the documents, especially since the Vatican has tried to abide with the SC issues with its Jubilate Deo, 1962 Missal, etc.

 

[JaMc]

Because the word “rubric” in general terms means a set of instructions. Specifically, the word means a set of instructions for conducting a religious service.

Actually, it comes from rubrum, which is Latin for “red,” because the instructions/directions that the priest must follow in the Mass are traditionally printed in red lettering.

 

[ccmcmg]

The first thing you should have done is to check if that Catholic Church really is a Catholic Church in full union with Rome. There are many Churches that use the word Catholic which have nothing to do with the Church Christ founded.

Very true, just as there are individuals who use catholic as their religious identity yet argue prolifically against catholic teachings.

This, completely. I’ve been to Masses across the country, and haven’t been to one with this type of ‘service’. As for the kneeling that the OP mentioned, or lack thereof, I wouldn’t be so sure that an act of Consecration/Transubstantiation occurred, so don’t beat yourself up about not kneeling.

Drums, guitars, and hand clapping in no way prohibit worship or alter the beauty of the Mass.

It does for me.

To each his own I guess.
A few months ago, John Michale Talbot came to my parish and gave several talks/ performances about the parts of the Mass. One thing he mentioned was that a lot of people have this anti modern music, or any music at all, attitude that is chasing a way a lot of people from the Church. Think about it, people are going to want to go to a place where they can feel they are part of the service, and frankly today people are going to find ‘modern music’ a lot more appealing than a guy playing the organ.

In reference to the ‘clapping/applause’ during Mass: Mass is not, and should not be, a performance. All of us are there for the Glory of God, and that includes the choir, the various people assisting at Mass, should point us towards Jesus Christ. The applause makes it about ‘us’ and ‘each other’ and the performance, and the music, instead of the Mass. Similarly, this argument can be used against holding hands at Mass as well. If the music moved you, thank them privately after Mass is over, but not by applause in the church.

 

[GPGT]

If it was a mass where the Rite of Acceptance was being done that would account for the lack of Gloria and Creed. If the OP is in RCIA perhaps maybe they haven’t experience the Rite of Acceptance yet. The priest is only at the altar for the Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer. As for people gathering around the altar, maybe he experienced EMHCs coming up to the altar for communion. While they should not gather around for the consecration they can go up after the priest receives.

I would not be so quick to yell abuse until one finds out if what happened was truly an abuse.

The first thing you should have done is to check if that Catholic Church really is a Catholic Church in full union with Rome. There are many Churches that use the word Catholic which have nothing to do with the Church Christ founded.

Of course it was a Catholic church. Would someone (a cradle Catholic I might add) that generally attends a Latin mass even step foot in a non-Catholic church hoping to fulfill their Sunday obligation? The Church is listed on the archdiocese’s website and if anyone had read my second post they’d see it’s run by Jesuits! It even has an elementary school attached to it. I would never be an “extraordinary minister” and yes we were all invited around the altar for consecration. The blessed sacrament was then placed onto a ceramic plate-like paten and offered to each person gathered to pick up off the plate themselves. Had I even received it I would have stood there with my mouth open. I really have no idea what, if any, specialized group is involved; I just happened to receive word about the mass through a good friend via email. I have plans to take this friend to our local FSSP church for mass soon.

Drums, guitars, and hand clapping in no way prohibit worship or alter the beauty of the Mass.

It does for me.

Same. I prefer a Missa cantata with a good choir and organ.

Think about it, people are going to want to go to a place where they can feel they are part of the service, and frankly today people are going to find ‘modern music’ a lot more appealing than a guy playing the organ.

This is part of the problem. One is not supposed to be part of the “service.” Someone could only feel this way if they had no idea what’s going on. They are to be witnessing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and if they had any inkling of what that was they’d be on their knees praying.

…As for the kneeling that the OP mentioned, or lack thereof, I wouldn’t be so sure that an act of Consecration/Transubstantiation occurred, so don’t beat yourself up about not kneeling… In reference to the ‘clapping/applause’ during Mass…

Based on the expressions of those receiving the blessed sacrament and the fact that it occured in a Catholic Church I’m quite sure that Consecration/Transubstantiation did occur; perhaps though God would be just a little upset at what he saw at the time. Would He rather see the congregation kneeling before Him or just casually standing around the altar? And of course we were encouraged to clap once or twice.

 

[janeway529]

And yes, the church is run by Jesuits. I am interested in seeing how the regular Sunday masses are performed there as this was to be something of a ‘special’ mass.

Ah, that explains your experience. Jesuits tend to do things a bit differently from the norm, because dispensations are the norm for them in practice.

 

[M-Dent]

I’ve decided not to be upset…

That’s good… no reason trying to stir the pot, either.

 

[clem456]

…
And of course we were encouraged to clap once or twice.

Of course you were. No abusive Mass tale would be complete with clapping.

 

[Reborn2013]

I think the OP needs to realize that TLM is not for everyone, and likewise the NO is not for everyone. That is why there are numerous rites for different people to use. Pray for their tradversion if you want, but it is best to just let them be. Even though you may see curiosities like female altar boys and EHMCs, remember they are in place because the faithful want them.

 

[GPGT]

That’s good… no reason trying to stir the pot, either.

That was certainly not my intention; I was mostly curious about peoples’ take on it. It was unlike any other mass I’ve attended, to say the least.

 

[pnewton]

That was certainly not my intention; I was mostly curious about peoples’ take on it. It was unlike any other mass I’ve attended, to say the least.

I am sure you meant no harm, but do consider how it looks. After all, this forum id for traditional Catholicism. This topic, this Mass, does not strike me as traditional catholicism. Personally, I have found it more helpful to address issues in liturgy rather than specific Masses. It is less personal and anecdotal.

 

[GPGT]

I must correct a previous post. It is not a Jesuit parish but is run by another order that perhaps does seem to have some leeway in how they perform the mass. The church was, however, previously run by Jesuits.

And yes this is coming from a traditional Catholic having seen something new for the first time. Which forum would have been more appropriate?

 

[otjm]

From what I’ve read, Gregorian chant is a direct evolution of how the Jews of Jesus’ time prayed the Psalms. It is as old as the Church.

Considering that it started in the 9th and 10th centuries, that is a bit of a stretch. Quite a bit, in fact.

Obviously, new is not always bad. But, traditions exist for very good reasons. They reflect the collective wisdom of many, many generations. They should only be changed when you have a really good reason why.

As far as I can tell, no one has ever stated a good reason for all the Liturgical innovations of the last 50 years. The vernacular issue could have been solved simply by translating the existing Liturgy (chants and all) into the various languages. No innovation was required, and I’ve seen no cogent argument as to why the modern style is better.

God Bless

Actually, there was a good deal written about the changes. However, discussing them with people who outright reject them, or with those who are not so outright is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. There is little point in trying to discuss something with someone who already has their mind made up. Or as they said about 20 years ago, “You are talking to the hand because the head isn’t listening.”

 

[otjm]

It is the most appropriate. Obviously it is not the only music permitted, but Sacrosanctum Conciliam is clear, chant is the first, and best, choice. It is the music written for the mass. The mass parts are meant to be chanted.

Hymns and “praise music” are not organic to the Mass, they are “add-ons”. Just because something else is allowed, doesn’t mean chant isn’t preferred.

God Bless

It may be considered to have right of place, all other things being equal (which they usually are not).

I was part of a schola which cut a record of Gregorian Chant, and I love chant, but there isn’t much that grates on me more than Gregorian chant poorly done - which is mostly for the par. I would rather never hear it done, than to hear it done as poorly as I have had to endure from time to time.

 

[Nacho45]

All earthly things were once modern innovations. This includes the pipe organ.

I do not understand the relevance of what you are saying, but my father used to always say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”