The Latin Mass

[TotusTuusMaria]

But wouldn't you say that, like all things, beauty (not the form of beauty) can be perceived in a warped way? It could lead to pride--- the devil was a beautiful angel of light caught up in his own magnificence. If we are not careful, beauty can lead to narcissism.

 

There is the possibility (as you point out) to perhaps choose to experience beauty as an end in itself; for one to view the sense-perception of it as a purely human phenomenon with no transcendent message. And, perhaps one could even claim oneself as the end... which is even more so a misfortune and even boarding on heresy. There could be, as you say, "a warped" or as Von Hildebrand would say "a perverted" approach to beauty. 

Dietrich Von Hildebrand acknowledges that there is that which is called aestheticism. He defines it as an appreciation of beauty detached from the meaning of the beautiful object. In the case of the liturgy, it is an appreciation of the architecture, vestments, music, poetry and so forth without reference to the theological and moral content which these things are seeking to convey to viewer and auditor. Von Hildebrand would say, "beauty" is perceived (when taken in this manner) in a "warped" way (to use your words). 

In my experience with the EF and as a parishioner of a FSSP parish for three years (I have now moved and attend a parish which primarily celebrates the OF though offers the EF) and observing my fellow parishioners, I would reply that those in attendance at the EF make it clear that they are not guilty of aestheticism. I myself and my fellow parishioners cared very deeply about the content and meaning of the beautiful things found in the liturgy.

I remember our pastor hiring technically trained, skilled singers for our already beautifully talented choir on our parishes feast day for the sake of the liturgy, and all of my friends who were in the choir and cherished these sacred, beautiful hymns were commenting after that though it was indeed beautiful there was obviously a difference in how these hired singers viewed the hymns and the liturgy versus themselves. For my friends (and all those who attend, I would say) the theology of an artefact is inseparable from their appreciation of its aesthetic qualities. This was not the case for the hired singers. 

Von Hildebrand writes... 

"Aestheticism is a perversion of the approach to beauty. The aesthete enjoys beautiful things as one enjoys good wine. He does not approach them with reverence and with an understanding of the intrinsic value calling for an adequate response, but as sources of subjective satisfaction merely. Even if he has a refined taste is a remarkable connoisseur, the aesthete's approach cannot possibly do justice to the nature of beauty.

Above all he is indifferent to all the other values that may inhere in the object. Whatever the theme of a situation may be, he looks at it solely from the point of view of his aesthetic enjoyment or pleasure. His fault does not lie in overrating the value of beauty, but in ignoring the other fundamental values--above all, moral values.

... If someone were to refuse to go to Mass because the church was ugly or the music mediocre, he would be guilty of asetheticism, for he would have substituted the asesthetic point of view for the religious one. But it is the antithesis of aestheticism to appreciate the great function of beauty in religion, to understand both the legitimate role it should play in the cult and the desire of religious men to invest the greatest beauty in all things pertaining to the worship of God. This correct appreciation of beauty is rather an organic outgrowth of reverence, of love of Christ, of the very act of adoration."

As someone who finds deep appreciation for the beauty in the EF and as someone who is close friends with many who do as well... and having experienced in close relation an entire parish of persons who would be the ideal candidates to be blamed of perhaps being guilty of aestheticism... I can honestly say, it is not the case. My approach to the beauty offered in the EF and that of my peers is, I believe, an outgrowth of reverence and love of Christ. The end ... is Him. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by TotusTuusMaria

[fides' Jack]

For my part, I don't attend the EF as much as I'd like.  I grew up with it and didn't see the OF until I was probably 16.  Eventually I transitioned to mostly attending the OF.  This was a long and difficult journey for me, and was probably done for the wrong reasons (i.e. not wanting to be around people I knew at the EF parish in town).  

It's hard to give reasons for preferring one over the other without offending someone, for the simple reason that from my experience, they encompass entirely different cultures and ways of thinking.  I'm sure there are exceptions to this all over the world, and maybe even to the point that what I'm trying to say is not the norm.  

I still remember my first experience with the OF, and I would admit at this point that I was too distracted for it to fulfill my Sunday obligation.  My first impression was that the people there had no comprehension of what was actually going on, despite the fact that the prayers were in their own language; they did not dress appropriately, they were loud and jovial, and they didn't understand how to truly participate in the Mass, even though they all sang along to the songs.

I know better now, of course, but some of these things do continue to irk me.  

One of the things that we learned growing up was that participation is not about singing along or joining in, but is primarily an interior reflection on what is going on on the altar.  That's much easier to understand from the perspective of the EF of the Mass (at least the Low Mass).  In fact, it's still very difficult for me to participate while singing along, because I can't perform that interior action while focusing on the music that I'm always encouraged to 'participate' with.  Add kids to the mix, and anymore I don't even try to sing unless I know the song very well, AND it doesn't set off the spidey-sense-warning-bells that so many post-modern songs do (songs that you generally don't have to endure in an EF setting).

All that being said, I think my reasons for preference of the EF are now mainly external (beauty, etc...), but largely because it's much easier for me to maintain that inward reflection that is essential to true, active participation.  However, I also maintain that other people are not like me, and everyone has different experiences, and it's entirely possible that a lot of people have the same reactions to opposite circumstances.

[dominicansoul]

I love the Dominican Rite of the Mass the most.  Too bad it is extremely rare...and non-existent in my neck of the woods...

[dUSt]

Me and my daughtz went to an Anglican Use mass on Sunday. It's the closest mass to my house actually, just a few blocks away. It's nice. The priest faces ad orientum, which I prefer. The structure is slightly different, and there are some additional prayers to say. Communion is done kneeling along the communion rail.

[Peace]

 

I still remember my first experience with the OF, and I would admit at this point that I was too distracted for it to fulfill my Sunday obligation.

Hmm. That is interesting. Maybe I am just taking your statement too literally, but I don't think that there is any requisite level of focus required for one's Sunday obligation to be fulfilled. Let's say that you were at a EF Mass and your concentration was broken and your thoughts wandered to the upcoming Steelers game for a few seconds or even a few minutes. . . does that mean you have committed a mortal sin if you don't come back later in the day and sit through an entire Mass 100% focused? 

I think that your desire to be there, your desire to participate, and your sincere attempt to do so is enough. I don't think our mental/physical activity during the Mass is ever "perfect".

One of the things that we learned growing up was that participation is not about singing along or joining in, but is primarily an interior reflection on what is going on on the altar.  That's much easier to understand from the perspective of the EF of the Mass (at least the Low Mass).  In fact, it's still very difficult for me to participate while singing along, because I can't perform that interior action while focusing on the music that I'm always encouraged to 'participate' with.  Add kids to the mix, and anymore I don't even try to sing unless I know the song very well, AND it doesn't set off the spidey-sense-warning-bells that so many post-modern songs do (songs that you generally don't have to endure in an EF setting).

All that being said, I think my reasons for preference of the EF are now mainly external (beauty, etc...), but largely because it's much easier for me to maintain that inward reflection that is essential to true, active participation.  However, I also maintain that other people are not like me, and everyone has different experiences, and it's entirely possible that a lot of people have the same reactions to opposite circumstances.

I agree that participation is internal but perhaps not in the same sense that you mean it. Can you clarify the way that you mean it?

I do not think that it is internal in the sense that one must make a reflection on what is going on at the altar. I would actually consider this more of an "external" action, if you will. When you make a reflection on what is going on at the alter you are still "doing" something. Your work is just mental rather than physical.

I think the internal participation is more an act or a stance of the will (or perhaps more precisely, allowing the Holy Spirit to act within you). I guess I would say that it is more having a desire to unite ourselves with the actions of the priest (Jesus). That desire can then express itself in different ways (whether it be more of a contemplative reflection as you see in the EF, or the "singing and dancing" that is characterized by the OF).

Edited November 11, 2015 by Peace

[MarysLittleFlower]

 

There is the possibility (as you point out) to perhaps choose to experience beauty as an end in itself; for one to view the sense-perception of it as a purely human phenomenon with no transcendent message. And, perhaps one could even claim oneself as the end... which is even more so a misfortune and even boarding on heresy. There could be, as you say, "a warped" or as Von Hildebrand would say "a perverted" approach to beauty. 

Dietrich Von Hildebrand acknowledges that there is that which is called aestheticism. He defines it as an appreciation of beauty detached from the meaning of the beautiful object. In the case of the liturgy, it is an appreciation of the architecture, vestments, music, poetry and so forth without reference to the theological and moral content which these things are seeking to convey to viewer and auditor. Von Hildebrand would say, "beauty" is perceived (when taken in this manner) in a "warped" way (to use your words). 

In my experience with the EF and as a parishioner of a FSSP parish for three years (I have now moved and attend a parish which primarily celebrates the OF though offers the EF) and observing my fellow parishioners, I would reply that those in attendance at the EF make it clear that they are not guilty of aestheticism. I myself and my fellow parishioners cared very deeply about the content and meaning of the beautiful things found in the liturgy.

I remember our pastor hiring technically trained, skilled singers for our already beautifully talented choir on our parishes feast day for the sake of the liturgy, and all of my friends who were in the choir and cherished these sacred, beautiful hymns were commenting after that though it was indeed beautiful there was obviously a difference in how these hired singers viewed the hymns and the liturgy versus themselves. For my friends (and all those who attend, I would say) the theology of an artefact is inseparable from their appreciation of its aesthetic qualities. This was not the case for the hired singers. 

Von Hildebrand writes... 

"Aestheticism is a perversion of the approach to beauty. The aesthete enjoys beautiful things as one enjoys good wine. He does not approach them with reverence and with an understanding of the intrinsic value calling for an adequate response, but as sources of subjective satisfaction merely. Even if he has a refined taste is a remarkable connoisseur, the aesthete's approach cannot possibly do justice to the nature of beauty.

Above all he is indifferent to all the other values that may inhere in the object. Whatever the theme of a situation may be, he looks at it solely from the point of view of his aesthetic enjoyment or pleasure. His fault does not lie in overrating the value of beauty, but in ignoring the other fundamental values--above all, moral values.

... If someone were to refuse to go to Mass because the church was ugly or the music mediocre, he would be guilty of asetheticism, for he would have substituted the asesthetic point of view for the religious one. But it is the antithesis of aestheticism to appreciate the great function of beauty in religion, to understand both the legitimate role it should play in the cult and the desire of religious men to invest the greatest beauty in all things pertaining to the worship of God. This correct appreciation of beauty is rather an organic outgrowth of reverence, of love of Christ, of the very act of adoration."

As someone who finds deep appreciation for the beauty in the EF and as someone who is close friends with many who do as well... and having experienced in close relation an entire parish of persons who would be the ideal candidates to be blamed of perhaps being guilty of aestheticism... I can honestly say, it is not the case. My approach to the beauty offered in the EF and that of my peers is, I believe, an outgrowth of reverence and love of Christ. The end ... is Him. 

Interesting points... about the bolded parts (bolded by me :)) do you think that the trained but not religious singers somehow sound different than the ones who are praying? I have some CDs from monks who are singing and I've always been struck by how "prayerful" they sound, but I'm not sure what I mean by that. Maybe others have noticed that too.

About the second bolded part, yes I agree, I think that it would be wrong to refuse to go to Mass if there's no external beauty, but there's nothing wrong in thinking it's a  way to honour God and even to feel sadness if it's not present out of negligence of people. In a way it's a type of reverence. I don't mean using the most expensive things, or making everything 'professional', I mean just making it respectful of the holiness of the liturgy.

[fides' Jack]

Me and my daughtz went to an Anglican Use mass on Sunday. It's the closest mass to my house actually, just a few blocks away. It's nice. The priest faces ad orientum, which I prefer. The structure is slightly different, and there are some additional prayers to say. Communion is done kneeling along the communion rail.

I would love to see this.  I don't think we have any Anglican Use masses in this area - but I've honestly never looked.  I've experienced Byzantine liturgies, which are very weird (to me).  I imagine the Anglican (form?  rite?) is much closer to my circle of comfort.

Hmm. That is interesting. Maybe I am just taking your statement too literally, but I don't think that there is any requisite level of focus required for one's Sunday obligation to be fulfilled. Let's say that you were at a EF Mass and your concentration was broken and your thoughts wandered to the upcoming Steelers game for a few seconds or even a few minutes. . . does that mean you have committed a mortal sin if you don't come back later in the day and sit through an entire Mass 100% focused? 

I think that your desire to be there, your desire to participate, and your sincere attempt to do so is enough. I don't think our mental/physical activity during the Mass is ever "perfect".

I agree that participation is internal but perhaps not in the same sense that you mean it. Can you clarify the way that you mean it?

I do not think that it is internal in the sense that one must make a reflection on what is going on at the altar. I would actually consider this more of an "external" action, if you will. When you make a reflection on what is going on at the alter you are still "doing" something. Your work is just mental rather than physical.

I think the internal participation is more an act or a stance of the will (or perhaps more precisely, allowing the Holy Spirit to act within you). I guess I would say that it is more having a desire to unite ourselves with the actions of the priest (Jesus). That desire can then express itself in different ways (whether it be more of a contemplative reflection as you see in the EF, or the "singing and dancing" that is characterized by the OF).

I think there is a requisite level of focus.  At the very least one should try to focus on the Sacrifice of Mass.  If you were to spend the entire duration focusing only on those around you in a negative way, it probably doesn't count.  Of course I don't know where the line is drawn, but I think sometimes it can be obvious to ourselves that we've crossed that line.

But I think we're in agreement here - per your 2nd paragraph.  I think a sincere desire and attempt to participate is enough.

The term "Active Participation" is defined here: http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/120/ArticleIndex/35

I think it defines it well (at least well enough for my purposes), but it also describes the "interior" position that I referred to: 

This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).

b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .

It describes what we mean when we use the word "interior" in this context, and then refers to it as "internal attention".  At other points in the paper is separates internal and external quite literally; everything going on in your head (as an act of the intellect or the will) is internal, and the actions performed (sitting, standing, singing, etc...) are external.

So I think the "internal" action is more than just a desire, but also encompasses our thoughts and inward prayers, in addition to, as you say, having the desire to unite ourselves with the Heavenly Priest.  The main word the paper uses (and paired with "internal") is "attention".  It seems to say, then, that attention to what is going on is the primary mode of interior participation.  For the purposes of this thread, I think that's adequate to explain what I mean by "interior reflection". 

From your response, I'm going to guess that you're pretty well-read in these matters and seeing this is nothing new to you.  I think we just have different perspectives on how the meaning is applied.  

As an aside, my wife came to the Church through the charismatic movement, and so she tries to explain Church teaching in terms of how it is affected by the Holy Spirit.  I found it interesting to see some of the same terminology in your response.  I don't disagree with it; I'm just more familiar with other terminology used to describe the same things.

Pax

[TotusTuusMaria]

Interesting points... about the bolded parts (bolded by me :)) do you think that the trained but not religious singers somehow sound different than the ones who are praying? I have some CDs from monks who are singing and I've always been struck by how "prayerful" they sound, but I'm not sure what I mean by that. Maybe others have noticed that too.

About the second bolded part, yes I agree, I think that it would be wrong to refuse to go to Mass if there's no external beauty, but there's nothing wrong in thinking it's a  way to honour God and even to feel sadness if it's not present out of negligence of people. In a way it's a type of reverence. I don't mean using the most expensive things, or making everything 'professional', I mean just making it respectful of the holiness of the liturgy.

Both the regular choir members and the hired sing beautifully, and perhaps even the hired can hit more notes with great skill and precision more so than the regular/volunteer. However,  I think authenticity is showing and bears fruit. Dom Chautard in The Soul of the Apostolate writes of a very charismatic sister, gifted with great skill in teaching and conducting a classroom of students. They all loved her, however when an observing superior came by he told her Mother Superior that she should spend some more time in the novitiate. He brought in another sister not as gifted naturally, but whose words were supported by an incredible, authentic interior life. Everyone thought the kids would eventually stop coming to class because of the perceived dullness on the part of the new teacher, but sure enough - authenticity and the soul of the apostolate won out. Dom Chautard writes that the children began to pray with more piety and devotion, frequent the sacraments more often, and so forth with the new teacher than even with the old. As you point out... the monks sound different and more prayerful likely because they are, and through their prayers souls are won. Simple singing is super-naturalized. One is partaking in the great mysteries while another is simply performing. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I totally agree! I read the Soul of the Apostolate and that story really impressed me too