William F. Buckley on the New Mass (the now OF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter elzoro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elzoro

Guest
As a Catholic, I have abandoned hope for the liturgy, which, in the typical American church, is as ugly and as maladroit as if it had been composed by Robert Ingersoll and H.L. Menchen for the purpose of driving people away.

Incidentally, the modern liturgists are doing a remarkably good job, attendance at Catholic Mass on Sunday having dropped sharply in the 10 years since a few well-meaning cretins got hold of the power to vernacularize the Mass, and the money to scour the earth in search of the most unmusical men and women to preside over the translation.

The next liturgical ceremony conducted primarily for my benefit, since I have no plans to be beatified or remarried, will be my own funeral; and it is a source of great consolation to me that, at my funeral, I shall be quite dead, and will not need to listen to the accepted replacement for the noble old Latin liturgy. Meanwhile, I am practicing Yoga, so that, at church on Sundays, I can develop the power to tune out everything I hear, while attempting, athwart the general calisthenics, to commune with my Maker, and ask Him first to forgive me my own sins, and implore him, second, not to forgive the people who ruined the Mass

—William F. Buckley, Jr. (circa 1979)

Editor, National Review
 
The concluding sentence says it all. To ask God not to forgive someone for whatever sin (real or alleged) is not only a diabolical thought, but it is the sin against the Holy Spirit of which Jesus spoke.

The person who aks such a thing actually believes that it is possible to sway God’s mercy to do his will. Such a “prayer” is not only not a prayer, but it is an offense against the mercy of God.

Let us put this in it’s proper context. The Son of God is killed on a cross and his dying words are, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

If the Son of the Living God can find it in his heart to ask for forgivenes of his murderers, how can any Catholic ask God not to forgive those who have, in his opinion, ruined his mass.

There is an inconsistency here. Why even bother going to mass to join in the sacrifice of Calvary with a heart that is contrary to the heart that was pierced on the cross?

For any Catholic to lend this any kind of support or offer a thumbs-up it is reprehensible. For as St. James said, “Faith without works is dead.” The greatest work of man is to desire and work for the salvation of all.

An individual who wishes damnation on any other person is either seriously ill, terribly ignorant of the meaning of the mass, or given to Satan who wishes to steal souls from Christ at all costs.

JR 🙂
 
“A demon from hell could not have done a better job.” Von Hildebrand

It may seem hyperbole, and uncharitable. It’s not my opinion but I understand the feeling.
 
***An individual who wishes damnation on any other person is either seriously ill, terribly ignorant of the meaning of the mass, or given to Satan who wishes to steal souls from Christ at all costs.

JR ***

You’ve unwittingly made a real funny here…in assuming that messing up the Mass is definitely a mortal sin.

😃
 
And, having read a lot of Buckley, I recognize his style, and didn’t take that sentence literally nor seriously.

Lighten up.
 
How ironic that he protestedliturgical reform by adopting foreign and non-Christian (to say nothing about non-Catholic) religious practices.

Too bad it never occurred to this otherwise intelligent man to try Eastern Christianity and enjoy church once more.
 
bpbasilphx said:
How ironic that he protestedliturgical reform by adopting foreign and non-Christian (to say nothing about non-Catholic) religious practices.

Too bad it never occurred to this otherwise intelligent man to try Eastern Christianity and enjoy church once more.
Click to expand...
Yes, the irony strikes me as well. Funny that he’d rather worship in a Hindu manner than a Protestant one :eek:
 
Unfortunately, I have not read a great deal written by Buckley. I took the post at face value. I sincerely hope that it is myrth.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Unfortunately, I have not read a great deal written by Buckley. I took the post at face value. I sincerely hope that it is myrth.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Buckley was a master at incisive satire. I recognized his wit at once. Think along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” 🙂 :cool:

~~ the phoenix
 
JReducation said:
Unfortunately, I have not read a great deal written by Buckley. I took the post at face value. I sincerely hope that it is myrth.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, what Buckley wrote was his wit at work. He was being facetious, while at the same time making a serious point. Loved the piece; funny, yet so true.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Yes, what Buckley wrote was his wit at work. He was being facetious, while at the same time making a serious point. Loved the piece; funny, yet so true.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'cos I personally find the idea of asking God not to forgive someone totally hysterical and witty … :nope:
 
LilyM said:
Yeah, 'cos I personally find the idea of asking God not to forgive someone totally hysterical and witty … :nope:
Click to expand...
William F. Buckley was no more seriously asking God to not forgive anyone than he was actually planning on learning yoga (which he never did). And yes, he is funny.
 
I wonder if anyone had the decency to have his funeral Mass celebrated EF style.
 
Love the quote 😃

However, in my parish we have well celebrated OF masses which are well attended, more so than 10 years ago. Which may indicate that we are getting better better at doing it, people’s standards have dramatically lowered, or that the Spirit works through any valid celebration of the Eucharist.👍
 
What is “OF”?

I understand why people don’t like all the new music for the Mass, but I don’t like the old music that much, either.

Why does the Church itself think that gregorian chant is so great? Most of the time I’ve heard it, it was incomprehensible.

Sure, if a vocally-talented cantor would sing it at a microphone, there’s a chance that the words might be understandable.

But, when the chant is done in choral fashion, (for example as on EWTN), the music overwhelms the words and I, for one, cannot understand a word that is being sung.

I don’t subscribe to the mediocrity of any particular music director opining that they’re doing their best. Nobody, nobody has ever asked me what kind of music I like at Mass. It always seem to be a privileged elite that makes those decisions.

There’s a lot of music that men can’t sing, too. The last music director we had finished off her career with about ten years of imposing childrens’ music on the adult congregations – sing-song melodies, simplistic lyrics, etc.

Frankly, I was a teenager during Vatican II, and I expected MUCH, MUCH better music in English than we got.

With the NO, there’s a conflict between music and all the stuff the priest says.

I watch EWTN every day, for hours. I am disappointed that they don’t have any priest talented enough to sing the Eucharistic prayer. With all the exposure that they get, with international audiences, you’d think they’d try harder.

And, when they broadcast anything from Hanceville, we’re treated to the nuns singing behind gilded jail bars, which is strange to begin with. And, on top of that, most of their singing is incomprehensibe. How do you tell those people anything?

On the upside, I think they broadcast at least two versions of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, and that singing is VERY understandable, I have to say. I’m probably wrong, but it seems that they don’t have a strong music director. (On EWTN, everything seems to be or to have been hand-picked by Mother Angelica, and so so-many things seem to be “set in concrete” there.)
 
If this thread is not all just tongue-in-cheek, I’ll add this.

It turns out that the Bishops in the US, following guidelines from Rome, allowed experimentation with the Mass, in certain things.

I’m not an expert on this, but it may explain why some things in the Mass seemed kind of wild.
 
Crumpy said:
What is “OF”?

I understand why people don’t like all the new music for the Mass, but I don’t like the old music that much, either.

Why does the Church itself think that gregorian chant is so great? Most of the time I’ve heard it, it was incomprehensible.

Sure, if a vocally-talented cantor would sing it at a microphone, there’s a chance that the words might be understandable.

But, when the chant is done in choral fashion, (for example as on EWTN), the music overwhelms the words and I, for one, cannot understand a word that is being sung.

I don’t subscribe to the mediocrity of any particular music director opining that they’re doing their best. Nobody, nobody has ever asked me what kind of music I like at Mass. It always seem to be a privileged elite that makes those decisions.

There’s a lot of music that men can’t sing, too. The last music director we had finished off her career with about ten years of imposing childrens’ music on the adult congregations – sing-song melodies, simplistic lyrics, etc.

Frankly, I was a teenager during Vatican II, and I expected MUCH, MUCH better music in English than we got.

With the NO, there’s a conflict between music and all the stuff the priest says.

I watch EWTN every day, for hours. I am disappointed that they don’t have any priest talented enough to sing the Eucharistic prayer. With all the exposure that they get, with international audiences, you’d think they’d try harder.

And, when they broadcast anything from Hanceville, we’re treated to the nuns singing behind gilded jail bars, which is strange to begin with. And, on top of that, most of their singing is incomprehensibe. How do you tell those people anything?

On the upside, I think they broadcast at least two versions of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, and that singing is VERY understandable, I have to say. I’m probably wrong, but it seems that they don’t have a strong music director. (On EWTN, everything seems to be or to have been hand-picked by Mother Angelica, and so so-many things seem to be “set in concrete” there.)
Click to expand...
Maybe I can help with your EWTN questions.

The Poor Clare Nuns do not use Gregorian Chant, they use what is called plain chant.

The friars do not chant the Eucharistic prayer because they are Franciscans.

St. Francis forbade the use of Gregorian chant in liturgies celebrated in his houses. The reason was because it is very complex and not everyone could do it. He wanted the liturgy to be a celebration for the religious community.

This rule only applies to the Friars Minor and to the Poor Clares. The friars on EWTN are not members of the Friars Minor. They are members of the Franciscan Third Order. As I understand it, they were founded to live as closely as possible to the primitive rule of St. Francis, even though they are not members of the order that Francis founded. Nonetheless, they are part of the Franciscan extended family. Originally they were trained by a Capuchin-Franciscan. The Capuchins ARE Friars Minor. I would imagine that their style of celebrating liturgy was what was taught to the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word.

Their formation director was Friar Angelus Shaughnessy, OFM, Cap, a member of the Pitsburgh Province of Friars Minor Capuchin. I don’t know Friar Angelus well, but I worked with his brother who is also a Capuchin in the missions. If they are anything alike, they are very observant of St. Francis’ wishes regarding the mass and the liturgy of the hours, that means no Gregorian chant. This was approved and protected by a Papal Bull to this day.

Hope this helps with the understanding of this group of Franciscans a little better.

JR 🙂
 
Crumpy said:
What is “OF”?

I understand why people don’t like all the new music for the Mass, but I don’t like the old music that much, either.

Why does the Church itself think that gregorian chant is so great? Most of the time I’ve heard it, it was incomprehensible.

Sure, if a vocally-talented cantor would sing it at a microphone, there’s a chance that the words might be understandable.

But, when the chant is done in choral fashion, (for example as on EWTN), the music overwhelms the words and I, for one, cannot understand a word that is being sung.

I don’t subscribe to the mediocrity of any particular music director opining that they’re doing their best. Nobody, nobody has ever asked me what kind of music I like at Mass. It always seem to be a privileged elite that makes those decisions.

There’s a lot of music that men can’t sing, too. The last music director we had finished off her career with about ten years of imposing childrens’ music on the adult congregations – sing-song melodies, simplistic lyrics, etc.

Frankly, I was a teenager during Vatican II, and I expected MUCH, MUCH better music in English than we got.

With the NO, there’s a conflict between music and all the stuff the priest says.

I watch EWTN every day, for hours. I am disappointed that they don’t have any priest talented enough to sing the Eucharistic prayer. With all the exposure that they get, with international audiences, you’d think they’d try harder.

And, when they broadcast anything from Hanceville, we’re treated to the nuns singing behind gilded jail bars, which is strange to begin with. And, on top of that, most of their singing is incomprehensibe. How do you tell those people anything?

On the upside, I think they broadcast at least two versions of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, and that singing is VERY understandable, I have to say. I’m probably wrong, but it seems that they don’t have a strong music director. (On EWTN, everything seems to be or to have been hand-picked by Mother Angelica, and so so-many things seem to be “set in concrete” there.)
Click to expand...
I think you complain too much.

There is nothing strange or weird about cloistered nuns.

Mother Angelica has nothing to do with the operations of EWTN. She has had no involvement with it for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top