Whatever happend to active participation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mizznicole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mizznicole

Guest
Our church has ultra contemporary music at some masses. Synthesizers, strings, and broadway vocalizations in the style of Marvin Hamlisch…

And no one can sing to it.

The congregation was “allowed” to sing only the mass parts today, which were so wild that you couldn’t even follow them.

I just think it’s ironic that this is the fruit of “active participation.” Liturgical music has become such a performance that no one can participate!

Sigh. If I can’t sing along, why can’t it be in Latin?
 
Amen.

At midnight Mass last night, although I don’t normally have problems with our choirs, they strangely decided to completely redo the Gloria, and Holy Holy Holy melodies, throwing everyone off. The result? Only the choir could do the singing, with everyone else sort of humming along, at best. What a shame on such a momentous occasion.

I’m not in favor of contemporary instruments either. Guitars, drums and electric pianos have no place at Mass, IMHO. But I accept them, while I have a harder time accepting the motivations of choir directors to (almost purposefully?) change up the melodies so that only THEY are singing. It’s almost as if they’re saying “Look, you all don’t add anything to what we’re doing, just listen to us and we’ll show you how it’s done”.

Frustrating. 🤷
 
SteveGC said:
The result? Only the choir could do the singing
Click to expand...
And that, is what “they” want. That is what happens when you have musical directors who think that their job is to present a concert instead of enriching the Mass. My parish church is a stone’s throw from my backdoor but I go to Mass about 10 miles away. We sing the old hymns without accompaniment. It isn’t beautiful, but it is sincere. And we don’t change all of the words, either.
 
Timothysis said:
And we don’t change all of the words, either.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me started on changing words… :mad: :eek: One of the hymns sung at my parish today changed a noun (from “men” to “all”). GRRRRR!! I thought that I had left the gender inclusive language behind at my old Presbyterian church. I didn’t change it when I sang it myself. On whose athority do these publishers have to think that they can change the words to a 500 year old song? And I’m going to stop here on that subject before I go off on a tirade. 😃

God Bless!
Ericka
 
I do not like the Bob Hurd OCP Mass settings my parish uses. The worse ones are those that are used by the Children’s Choir. If you think that happy-nappy-clappy Gloria is bad, try listening to what OCP passes off as the Agnus Dei for children. It is not the prayer and it doesn’t even come close to paraphrasing it. The OCP version of the Sanctus takes too many liberties with the wording. It is as though OCP has never read any of the authoriative documents of the Holy See on Sacred Music.

My form of active participation for yesterday’s Mass (and today’s) was to silently pray the Mass parts applicable to the faithful (which were sung by the choirs) in Latin. A young woman was sitting next to me at Mass last night. And she asked me (during the homily where my pastor went into a tangent and joked about Solomon having to use a male-only medication due to 700 wives :eek: --by the way, families with small children were present and it was not funny, even though some of the folks laughed–I realize he meant well, but, this was too much) if I was praying in Latin. I told her “yes” and she smiled and gave me a thumbs up. My PV doesn’t even sing some fo the settings, but, he prays the acclamations silently.

I like how Pope Benedict defines active participation. It is not necessarily a state of doing; rather, it is a state of being. We are there, in God’s presence and we are participating with our hearts (along with our bodies and voices). Believe it or not, I liken this to a line that John Malkovich said in “Shadow of the Vampire” when he decides to shoot footage of the villagers to include in Nosferatu. The camera man complains because “these people are not actors.” Malkovich, who was portraying Friedrich Mornau wisely observed, “They don’t have to act; they just have to be.”

Incidentally, I was able to catch the Papal Mass thrice. Each time, I was able to sing along with the responsorial psalm (I know some Italian) and some of the parts of the Mass. Being a regular viewer of the Papal Mases, I know the parts, especially the Memorial Acclamation, almost by heart. I actually felt like I was participating more (even though vicariously) along with the Sistene Chapel Cholir than my own parish choir. And,yes, I know that this does not count, but, for my own personal edification, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
ericka1701 said:
On whose athority do these publishers have to think that they can change the words to a 500 year old song?
Click to expand...
Apparently only politically correct parishioners are “empowered.” The rest of us can just shut up. Take it or leave it. Somebody tell me again how the post-conciliar Church is new and different?

Speaking of feeling empowered, I recently read The Catholic Revolution: New Wine, Old Wineskins, and the Second Vatican Council by Fr. Andrew Greeley. Apparently even old Fr. Greeley (!!) is annoyed by the new authoritarianism of “liturgists,” “music directors,” feminist ideologues, et al.

ASD​

New Wine, Old Wineskins
 
With all sincerity, if this is what we are worrying about I think we are missing the point of being at mass.

The priest will take care is there is a violation of the church.

While I also struggle with singing at the modern music masses, it is normally for the teenagers and they really do connect and actively participate.
ericka1701 said:
Don’t get me started on changing words… :mad: :eek: One of the hymns sung at my parish today changed a noun (from “men” to “all”). GRRRRR!! I thought that I had left the gender inclusive language behind at my old Presbyterian church. I didn’t change it when I sang it myself. On whose athority do these publishers have to think that they can change the words to a 500 year old song? And I’m going to stop here on that subject before I go off on a tirade. 😃

God Bless!
Ericka
Click to expand...
 
mizznicole said:
I just think it’s ironic that this is the fruit of “active participation.” Liturgical music has become such a performance that no one can participate!
Click to expand...
Active Participation refers to praying with the priest, joining the the worship, etc. Not doing things (singing, ushering, lectoring, etc).

Prior to VII some would pray a rosary during mass rather than pray the mass. Some would read a bible rather than pray the mass. Some would take a nap rather than pray the mass.

Active participation means be present to the mass… mentally, spiritually, and physically. Pre -V II many were present only physically.
 
We got to “actively participate” by being made nauseous by the lounge music performed before Mass - sappy moaning over the synthesizer. The drums and synthesizer didn’t alleviate that much during the Mass. Thankfully, the Lord WAS there despite it all. But, how long, Lord, how long??!! :crying:
 
mizznicole said:
Our church has ultra contemporary music at some masses. Synthesizers, strings, and broadway vocalizations in the style of Marvin Hamlisch…

And no one can sing to it.

The congregation was “allowed” to sing only the mass parts today, which were so wild that you couldn’t even follow them.

I just think it’s ironic that this is the fruit of “active participation.” Liturgical music has become such a performance that no one can participate!
Click to expand...
While I sympathize with your plight, this is not the definition of “active participation”, since active participation is first and foremost the participation we offer by virtue of our baptism. One can actively participate and yet not say a single word. On the other hand, the unbaptized can sing and respond perfectly at a Mass, but no matter how hard he tries, he can never actively participate.
Sigh. If I can’t sing along, why can’t it be in Latin?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Having the Mass in Latin was never an impediment to active participation.
 
Good to be reminded that our “participation” need not involve doing, but rather being. And yet, there is something to be said about things like this (unorthodox, unpredictable music) which make it that much harder to even “be” at Mass.
LeroyCRHP said:
The priest will take care is there is a violation of the church.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…I’m not so sure many would agree with this comment. Ideally, yes. In reality, it seems to me many things go unchallenged.
 
LeroyCRHP said:
With all sincerity, if this is what we are worrying about I think we are missing the point of being at mass.

The priest will take care is there is a violation of the church.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, & of course you’re right. It goes without saying that bad singing and silly lyrics aren’t what really matter at Mass. But, I think there’s a different point here.

Like, what is the justification for these constant changes? AFAIK, the answer is that we have to be “inclusive.” But, there’s a paradox: Lots of people are actually alienated by the endless “reforms” and innovations.

Does it matter if those people feel “included?” To me it seems very important that they at least be allowed to speak up and say they don’t like it.

I mean, I thought all the liturgical changes were done in the name of “the people,” right? I think many people resent having changes implemented in their name without any consultation. Has anybody asked who wants these changes? If not, it’s seems authoritarian and so not legitimate.

Maybe I could put it like this: Why don’t we approach the music director, or whatever the title-du-jour is, and say:

With all due respect, if your “performance” is focused on politically correct language, you’re missing the point of the Mass. Or, your focus on ideology is distracting other people from the point of the Mass. So, we’d really appreciate it if you’d just quit it.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
 
With all due respect, this is not the only thing that I concern myself about in Mass. My primary reason for going is for worship and, if properly disposed, the Eucharist. I don’t like assumptions made of me, especially when it is in regards to being a “liturgical” police. I do go and try to focus on God, but it is distracting, sometimes to the point of madness, when I have learned these songs as they have been for hundreds of years, and then I get to church, and they change it on me. I used to be a feminist (didn’t really understand what it was about at that time… after I learned, I repented) and even though at that time I demanded that the term freshman be changed to “fresh-person” or something like that, and semester being changed to “ovester”, I have always been absolutely against changing the words to songs like this. It’s as bad as “modernizing” Shakesphere or colorizing “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

Oh, I was a teenager once, and even though I was not in the Catholic Church, I faced similar issues within Presbyterianism. People trying to change the lyrics in these hymns, and even bringing in electric guitars and a drumset. I don’t feel that these instruments are appropriate for church setting. The purpose of any service is to worship our Lord and Father. It is not a performance. I am really hesitant to sing a solo at Mass because I have been clapped for before in other ecumenical services. There is a time and place for showing appreciation for a certain piece of music or a singers’ voice, and that is after Mass. The purpose of music in Mass is to focus the glory and worship on God, not to detract attention from God by focusing on the individual. In changing the wording in these songs, that have been the same for centuries, that were origionally written for the glory and praise of God, that might have even possibly been divinely inspired, is to say that “my own needs and opinion are more important that what God’s people have been doing for aeons”.

I do apologize before hand if I sound coming off harsh, but this is a subject dear and near to my heart. Music has always been my life, and I’ve grown up singing and playing these songs. They are beautiful, in part, because they are rich in history, and have been played for hundreds of years celebrating Mass, but I feel that changing them dilutes that history and common bond with that history, and therefore the whole communion of Saints who have come before us, and therefore are less meaningful.

God Bless!
Ericka
 
Evan said:
Active participation means be present to the mass… mentally, spiritually, and physically. Pre -V II many were present only physically.
Click to expand...
Really? Next time after Mass ask your fellow worshipper what he remembers from the readings. See if we made any progress.
 
Evan said:
Active Participation refers to praying with the priest, joining the the worship, etc. Not doing things (singing, ushering, lectoring, etc).

Prior to VII some would pray a rosary during mass rather than pray the mass. Some would read a bible rather than pray the mass. Some would take a nap rather than pray the mass.

Active participation means be present to the mass… mentally, spiritually, and physically. Pre -V II many were present only physically.
Click to expand...
That said, and I agree with you, some parts of the Mass are to be sung by ALL: the acclamations, the response to the Psalm and the dialog. If the choir messes with the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei, it’s messing with the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that properly belong to the People – and that’s not right.

The Gloria, OTOH, is quite properly done by the choir alone (it’s one of the options in the GIRM) so I don’t have a problem with them doing something new that only they can sing. Interestingly, the 4 hymn sandwich can be done by choir alone. The only hymn that must be communal is the one after Communion if the parish does one at that time.
 
Evan said:
Pre -V II many were present only physically.
Click to expand...
And, post-V II many are present only physically.

They are participating vocally only, saying assigned responses only. Like pre-conciliar altar boys. :rolleyes:
ProVobis said:
Evan;4591612:
Pre -V II many were present only physically.
Click to expand...
Really? Next time after Mass ask your fellow worshipper what he remembers from the readings. See if we made any progress.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct about much-praised new lectionary. But, for that matter, ask them anything about the Mass. Like, OK, what just happened in there? What was the real action, and Who did it?

Based on my experience as a catechism teacher at local OF parish, I can tell you that the answer is virtually always something about receiving communion, which of course is right, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far. 😦

This is no joke. I am almost certain that one well-designed study, one well-implemented nationwide poll of Catholics who attend OF or EF regularly would be a game changer. There would be no more self-congratulatory talk about how bad it was with TLM and how great it is now with OF.

The mantra now should be: Really? Maybe you’re right. Where’s the evidence for that?

ASD​

Eighth Grade Catechism
 
I suppose active participation is in the eye of the beholder. It may be a TV generation thing, but people now seem to seek entertainment. Music no one can join in singing has become the rage, not that many try to sing anyway.

I have come to believe a sizable percentage of people go to watch Mass because they most certainly are doing nothing else at church. We once had a priest who told people that singing, saying the responses, etc. were not optional. Those days are long gone.

It is really sad. We have turned worship of God into amusing ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top