Active, Conscious Participation

[dells_of_bittersweet]

So what's the best way to encourage people to actually participate in the Mass? For starters, the new translation uses language in a manner that makes it much more clear to the faithful what is actually happening, so that's a huge step there. In the future, I would like to see more of the following:

1. Better music. Of all the musical styles that could possibly be used, the most prevalent style in Catholic Churches is the style proven to be the least effective-Haas/Haugen style folk tunes. Not all their stuff is bad, but most of it is. Their music is bad on a variety of counts: trite lyrics, lyrics with bad theology, and a general sound that doesn't imply that something holy is happening. Also, most Americans haven't received proper vocal training in school, and can't sing well enough to follow their complex, complicated tunes that often span more than one octave.

My solution would be to mix praise and worship music with chant. In America we have become so accustomed to music that has a driving beat, 4/4 time, and emphasis on beats 1 and 3, that ametrical chant pieces, or chant pieces with crazy time signatures, such as 13 beats in a measure, don't create the effect they once did in prior centuries. Haugen/Haas pieces that are in 4/4 but move slowly and don't build to anything don't really get the job done either. This is why for opening and closing songs we should pick, with discretion, appropriate P&W songs such as Your Grace is Enough by Matt Maher. For Communion and Offertory songs, pick quiet P&W songs such as We Fall Down by Chris Tomlin. Then for songs that don't need any kind of rhythm to them, go back to the old chants. These would be particularly useful for the Mass parts, such as the Holy, Holy, Holy and Lamb of God.

Also, old Hymns, when played with the Organ and played loud enough, aren't bad either. Really anything is a step above HaugenHaas.

2. Better preaching. Why are Protestant ministers nearly always better preachers that Catholic priests? Honestly, the sermons at most masses are honestly dreadful. We need to properly train our priests in standard public speaking techniques. Priests should take a speaking class every semester during seminary. If we don't lose people during the sermon, they will be more likely to participate through the rest of the Mass.

3. Better Church architecture. Those horrible structures built in the 70's honestly aren't conducive to prayer.

4. Open to your ideas.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
So what's the best way to encourage people to actually participate in the Mass? For starters, the new translation uses language in a manner that makes it much more clear to the faithful what is actually happening, so that's a huge step there. In the future, I would like to see more of the following:

1. Better music. Of all the musical styles that could possibly be used, the most prevalent style in Catholic Churches is the style proven to be the least effective-Haas/Haugen style folk tunes. Not all their stuff is bad, but most of it is. Their music is bad on a variety of counts: trite lyrics, lyrics with bad theology, and a general sound that doesn't imply that something holy is happening. Also, most Americans haven't received proper vocal training in school, and can't sing well enough to follow their complex, complicated tunes that often span more than one octave.

My solution would be to mix praise and worship music with chant. In America we have become so accustomed to music that has a driving beat, 4/4 time, and emphasis on beats 1 and 3, that ametrical chant pieces, or chant pieces with crazy time signatures, such as 13 beats in a measure, don't create the effect they once did in prior centuries. Haugen/Haas pieces that are in 4/4 but move slowly and don't build to anything don't really get the job done either. This is why for opening and closing songs we should pick, with discretion, appropriate P&W songs such as Your Grace is Enough by Matt Maher. For Communion and Offertory songs, pick quiet P&W songs such as We Fall Down by Chris Tomlin. Then for songs that don't need any kind of rhythm to them, go back to the old chants. These would be particularly useful for the Mass parts, such as the Holy, Holy, Holy and Lamb of God.

Also, old Hymns, when played with the Organ and played loud enough, aren't bad either. Really anything is a step above HaugenHaas.

2. Better preaching. Why are Protestant ministers nearly always better preachers that Catholic priests? Honestly, the sermons at most masses are honestly dreadful. We need to properly train our priests in standard public speaking techniques. Priests should take a speaking class every semester during seminary. If we don't lose people during the sermon, they will be more likely to participate through the rest of the Mass.

3. Better Church architecture. Those horrible structures built in the 70's honestly aren't conducive to prayer.

4. Open to your ideas.
[/quote]

Agree with all of this.

[MithLuin]

I am surprised to say that I agree with you. I'm not sure what I was expecting you to say, but I clicked on this thread with a bit of dread.

I agree that both Praise & Worship music [i]and[/i] chant are [i]a)[/i] easier to sing and [i]b)[/i] more conducive to both prayer and participation. I think that the people who like each of them tend to be diametrically opposed in musical tastes, so getting a congregation to accept both would be a bit of a challenge. BUT, it is so, so refreshing to hear a both/and approach rather than an adamant either/or!!! demand. I also agree that the old hymns can be good, but of course (like P&W), most of them were written by Protestants and have to be chosen judiciously, as not all would be appropriate for a Catholic mass.


Homilitics is taught in seminary, of course. The transitional deacons are given a 'trial run' in a parish where they get to give some homilies before their priestly ordination and get feedback from their pastor on what they can do better. So...this is not an easy fix. All I can say is, if you *do* find a priest that gives great homilies, maybe they could be tapped to help out at the seminary? One weakness between Catholic priests and many Protestant pastors is that the priest is more hesitant to bring meaty scriptural exegesis into his homily. This weakens the homily on both an intellectual level and how much impact it can have. I think that the recommended time limit of ~8 min. is largely responsible for this deficit. But then, I'm not familiar with the style of Catholic homilies in countries where preaching for closer to 20 min. is acceptable.

One thing that helps a homily is [i]fire[/i] - Jesus spits the lukewarm out of his mouth, so it's much better to have a guy who is passionate about his faith and living it out in the pulpit. Granted, I think most priests are (or they would have dropped out of seminary a lot earlier), but...that doesn't always come across in the homilies. [url=http://www.franciscanbrothersminor.com/FBM/Video_Gallery.html]Fr. David Mary Engo, FFM[/url] preaches with fire, but not all priests do.


I think the architecture is gradually changing. It's not something that will be changed overnight, but some of the churches built in the 70s are being updated and renovated to improve some of their most glaring problems. And...new structures tend not to suffer from the worst elements of the 'empty' architecture of the past generation. So, I will cautiously say that we are headed in the right direction here in the US (or at least in my diocese).

[faithcecelia]

I agree with some of this.

1) With the music, the needs and abilities of the congregation (and the musicians!) need to be taken into consideration. Personally I think that most types of Christian music can work well in the right Mass. My old parish I used to be a 6 [email="o@clocker"]o@clocker[/email] and we were a lively, fairly charismatic Mass. Occasionally we would get it wrong, of course and it would fall flat, but on the whole we knew our congregation well enough.

I adore chant, but have also seen that fall apart. I know many find it best to 'translate' chant onto standard 5 line western staves, but I have to say it seems to lose something when you do - peopl;e get too obsessed with the notes than with the feel.

Traditional hymns can, on occasion, be very clumsy as the words and phrasings are now out of use in spoken language - if hymns are to help the congregation worship God, they need to at least have an idea what they are singing. I think in all cases, they can work if they are rehearsed enough and problems corrected before using them again.


2) Definately! The ministers of the church I grew up in most definately knew how to preach. It was unusual to have a sermon shorter than 40mins and while of course you didn't 'click' with it each week, on the whole they were informative and scriptural. I once heard a 3hr long sermon at a big youth gathering - 3000 13-25yr olds sat stone still for the whole of that time because he was just such an amazing preacher!

I have known a couple of parish priests who are gifted preachers - my former pp was excellent as is my current Ordinariate priest, but the others, including a community chaplain, have been medeocre at best. I think there should be ongoing formation for priests, maybe a 'buddying' system to help them.


3) Here I personally have to disagree, but know I am in a minority. I like churches as plain and stark as possible so its easier to focus on my Lord coming to me in the Eucharist.

[Jaime]

Those ideas are nice but in my opinion they only deal with the symptoms. I think there are two things that are needed. Good catechesis and greater ministry. The reason that protestants are so fervent about their faith is that they understand that learning is a life long process and does not stop at Confirmation (to be picked up later at marriage prep) Also protestants are actively in the lives of those who need someone. I have been visited and evangelized to by at least six churches in the area. Not once have I been visited by Catholics.

I think people need to feel like they are a part of something to actively participate. Without that ownership, there isn't much more than guilt that keeps them coming. The only way someone will take ownership of their faith is to learn about it and to be ministered by it.

[arfink]

I could go for the "conscious" part of active, conscious participation. As in, why does mass always have to be SO EARLY in the morning! I can't stay awake!

[BigJon16]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
So what's the best way to encourage people to actually participate in the Mass? For starters, the new translation uses language in a manner that makes it much more clear to the faithful what is actually happening, so that's a huge step there. In the future, I would like to see more of the following:
[/quote]

Oh boy...

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
1. Better music. Of all the musical styles that could possibly be used, the most prevalent style in Catholic Churches is the style proven to be the least effective-Haas/Haugen style folk tunes. Not all their stuff is bad, but most of it is. Their music is bad on a variety of counts: trite lyrics, lyrics with bad theology, and a general sound that doesn't imply that something holy is happening. Also, most Americans haven't received proper vocal training in school, and can't sing well enough to follow their complex, complicated tunes that often span more than one octave.

My solution would be to mix praise and worship music with chant. In America we have become so accustomed to music that has a driving beat, 4/4 time, and emphasis on beats 1 and 3, that ametrical chant pieces, or chant pieces with crazy time signatures, such as 13 beats in a measure, don't create the effect they once did in prior centuries. Haugen/Haas pieces that are in 4/4 but move slowly and don't build to anything don't really get the job done either. This is why for opening and closing songs we should pick, with discretion, appropriate P&W songs such as Your Grace is Enough by Matt Maher. For Communion and Offertory songs, pick quiet P&W songs such as We Fall Down by Chris Tomlin. Then for songs that don't need any kind of rhythm to them, go back to the old chants. These would be particularly useful for the Mass parts, such as the Holy, Holy, Holy and Lamb of God.

Also, old Hymns, when played with the Organ and played loud enough, aren't bad either. Really anything is a step above HaugenHaas.
[/quote]

Okay, Sacred Music fans, time to reprisent, yo!

I love P&W music. BUT, I do not agree with allowing the Mass to be completely taken over by P&W music. There is something about the classical-ness of classical sacred music that I think is a very important part of the Liturgy. Probably because its so classical.

What makes Catholicism Catholicism, is a devotion to the Sacred. Especially in a classical sense. (I know Ive already said classical four times, just bear with me) I hate to admit it, but modern P&W owes all of its roots to Protastantism, and if P&W music were to dominate the Mass, then to me, it wouldnt feel Catholic anymore.

Instead P&W music could be used in other formats, as in Praise and Worship, or Adoration. I also feel that P&W music is its own form of worship, and that the Mass is its own form of worship, and to try and cram the two together just makes a big Mess. Capital M. Not Mass, but Mess.


OR I could just be a conservative snob, with an over-appreciation and over-devotion to the Sacred Liturgy.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
2. Better preaching. Why are Protestant ministers nearly always better preachers that Catholic priests? Honestly, the sermons at most masses are honestly dreadful. We need to properly train our priests in standard public speaking techniques. Priests should take a speaking class every semester during seminary. If we don't lose people during the sermon, they will be more likely to participate through the rest of the Mass.
[/quote]

I have never, ever heard a "bad homily". And even if I did, I wouldnt judge it as so. Why? Because Im not the one giving it.

Most Seminaries do require "homiletics" courses, and it takes time and experience to develope the proper technique of giving a homily. Its much more that just plain old "public speaking".

Why do Protastant ministers do a better job? They dont. Most go off of emotion, which isnt always a good thing. Most Priests put fact, Cathechesis, and God before emotion. It might be boring, but to me, a "boring old" Catholic sermon that contains truth is ten times better than an "exciting, captivating" protastant sermon that goes off of emotion and has false-teachings.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
3. Better Church architecture. Those horrible structures built in the 70's honestly aren't conducive to prayer.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1325131935' post='2359109']
4. Open to your ideas.
[/quote]

I think we should trust in our Priests, and trust in Mother Church.

[Aloysius]

here's what you're missing IMO: bring back the propers!!! how can we actively participate in a liturgy when we're not even getting the whole thing? how can we just replace ancient antiphons and propers based in scripture and tradition with ditties and songs and hymns, be they haugan and haas, traditional hymns, or praise and worship songs? none of them should be in there replacing the liturgical riches that are our heritage. chant the propers instead of singing replacement hymns and you'll begin to bring back a liturgical sense to the liturgy.

personally I agree with BigJon about separating P&W from the liturgy, so that each can be their own proper thing, rather than trying to mix them together... because I don't think they fit. But if we are to have P&W in liturgy, let it be in the Entrance and Closing Hymns, and if it is placed anywhere else let it be [b]in addition to[/b] the chanting of the propers rather than [b]in place of.[/b]

down with option 4 (in GIRM paragraph 48)! I'm not all that crazy about option 3 either unless the conference of bishops gets something with a good seasonal liturgical rhythm to it, but then why bother since that already exists in the propers, but it's better than option 4.

[Aloysius]

also, I think these things are both a symptom AND a cause of things. it's a self-perpetuating thing. so yes there would be lots of drama caused by trying to enact these things liturgically among those who do not understand them, but people will never understand them unless the liturgy is presented this way. to a certain extent, a lot of it is stuff you cannot teach, but must experience first hand. authentic consistent liturgical sense develops from authentically consistent liturgies

[Papist]

I would like to see the choir moved to the back of the church, preferably in the balcony.

[Maggyie]

I agree with Jamie, the problem in the church is not aesthetics, I know of Protestant churches with horrible drippy music and services held in warehouses that are extremely successful at getting people to come to church and be plugged in to the worship service. "But I thought you couldn't even have a church without using Gregorian chant!!!!" my sister would say sarcastically. They come because they are given one thing: effective community life. They are not given the Eucharist but they don't know what they're missing.

[Aloysius]

it's not about marketing the liturgy so that as many people as possible come to it and enjoy it, it's about ensuring that those who do come to it, if there are many or if there are few, experience the authentic true worship of God that can only be found in a Divine Liturgy, in a Mass. in that regard, many of the suggestions here will bring the people who do come to Church into a more authentic sense of the Church's worship, and begin to edify them spiritually in a meaningful way.

of course, these liturgical factors are an egg. they produce chickens, but they need chickens to produce them. chickens=well catechized and pious Catholics. you cannot simply say we need more chickens before we can have eggs, because we also need more eggs before we can have chickens. proper liturgical music, meaning sacred chants including scriptural antiphons and propers, it's not just about aesthetics. it's at the core of liturgy. preferring Gregorian chant over other forms of chant, that's aesthetics; even saying Gregorian chant fits the Roman liturgy better, well, that's aesthetics even if it is a simple truism, since the two were made for each other. but merely seeking to have the scriptures chanted, merely seeking to have an authentic cycle of seasonal and feast day propers rooted in the ancient prayers of the Church, that's not just aesthetics. that's the stuff that produces good Catholics in the pews, by the experience of right worship--orthodoxy.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Aloysius

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1325772278' post='2363249']
I would like to see the choir moved to the back of the church, preferably in the balcony.
[/quote]

When they did this in my old parish it nearly caused war in the choir. I am sorry to say I was one of the key figures involved. But it also did us a lot of good - as far as the parish was concerned they were being led not sung to and so the began to join in more. And as far as we choir members were concerned we had a time to spend working on our friendships, thinking about what we were doing and why, and why this small change had caused so much trouble. We were able to come together in a way that allowed us to glorify God better than we could before we had the row.