Trads - what's up with ya'll

[Aloysius]

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

When I asked him why he did it he said "because I wanted to bring an attention to the beauty of the high altar". My words that he cannot use Our Lord to bring an attention to the altar but he must use the altar to bring attention to Our Lord were met with quite disapproval - although eventually he ceased doing that.

I do not know your priest, so he may indeed put ritual over devotion, I cannot know.  But I would point out that those high marble altars served the same purpose in the Roman Tradition as the iconostasis does in the Eastern tradition--setting up the ambiance of the heavenly actions taking place.  His explanation to you may not have been his entire reasoning.  calling attention to the beauty of the high altar for what purpose?  just for the history?  or to add some beauty into the liturgy that enhances people's spiritual experiences?  benefit of doubt to the priest, he may have had in mind the latter, which is why he may have disapproved of your criticism. 

it is true some people get so caught up in the ritual they sometimes forget the purpose of it, though.

but i'm surprised you should be so focused on the laity seeing every action of the priest before the elevation, when that isn't what happens in the East.  I guess the problem is how far away the altar was from the people?  I'm a sit-in-the-last-pew kind of Catholic so for me the idea of seeing it up close is not really my thing haha, but I guess I could see what you mean, especially if the novus ordo renovations of that church has extended the alter up to the point where the high altar is really far back; i personally find it sad when there are high altars in a church and the mass is being conducted on what looks like just a plain countertop.  the beauty of a mass said on a high altar, against the wall of the church calling to mind the old catacomb masses, is something that is lost--the common frame of view of the laity and the priest looking at the same thing (not at each other) that's accentuated by the design of the high altar, for instance, giving that ambiance of the heavenly act.  an iconostasis gives that ambiance in a different way by delineating the space and giving icons as windows to the heavenly realities behind it--but ultimately it's something that is often missing in the versus populum.  the Benedictine layout option is the best fix for that when one wants to maintain versus populum--there should be a signfiicantly large crucifix and candles placed on the edge of the altar nearest to the laity that fixes a point that both the priest and the laity are looking at, the way a high altar does.

the benedictine arrangement:

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

just for the history?  or to add some beauty into the liturgy that enhances people's spiritual experiences?  benefit of doubt to the priest, he may have had in mind the latter, which is why he may have disapproved of your criticism. 

I would not say what I said without being reassured by the priest that his purpose was to highlight the altar, for historical reasons. We had an extensive dialogue about the essence of the Adoration etc. I have been observing him for a long time and he from time to time does things of a similar spirit i.e. which use Christ as a tool for the Tradition (sounds odd and it is odd) As for his disapproval of my criticism, I think it was because a lay person criticized or questioned the actions of priest - it is not something the laity does, in the Roman Catholic Church. Being an Orthodox iconographer, I find this attitude quite difficult to handle. I recalled just now how while travelling I saw in a church a huge Crucifix on which, immediately under the feet of Christ I discovered, to my horror, a money box nailed to the Cross. I approached a priest after Mass and he told me the box was donated fifty years ago and they cannot remove it - and in any case he could not see any offense to Christ in all that. He was also quite annoyed with me speaking of that so I think it is a norm.

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

but i'm surprised you should be so focused on the laity seeing every action of the priest before the elevation, when that isn't what happens in the East.  I guess the problem is how far away the altar was from the people?

You touched a very big subject, of an attachment to Christ. You may be surprised to hear from an iconographer that I am against an iconostasis, in a form it has evolved i.e. five-seven-even more rows instead of a simple "altar barrier" - columns with some images between them which does not obscure the Eucharist. And not only the major part of the Eucharist is invisible for the lay Orthodox, the prayers of Anaphora are often not said aloud (some priests, understanding the needs of the laity say them aloud though). The laity then has to "fill up the time" during the Anaphora with some singing but the major part of the Liturgy, the Sacrifice, is obscured.

When I first witnessed the Mass in Notre Dame de Paris I was stunned that I could see and hear everything. The Mass there of course was very beautiful, combining various musical styles in a very organic, harmonious way. Later I discovered Roman Catholic medieval mystics who were, unlike most of the Eastern Orthodox mystics, very straightforward about their attachment to Christ.

The Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament for me is the manifestation of that intimate attachment, extreme personal closeness which I found in the writings of the mystics of Roman Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox tend to be more reserved), and also in the openness of the Mass.  Ever since I began attending the Adoration I would sit as close as possible to the Lord, often even on the floor. This is why, when the priest placed the Monstrance far away - very far away in fact and very high - I felt as he took Christ away. And in any case there was no need to do that. Our parish is conservative and the Adoration happens with solemnity. His words confirmed that he did not understand why anyone would like to be close to the Blessed Sacrament. His reasoning was the the grace reaches the last pew. My reasoning was the analogy with human relationship - we prefer to sit closely to one we love.

It may appear strange to you that use the word "attachment". It is because I believe that the task of the Church is to aid people in developing an attachment to God. 

[Aloysius]

the TLM also has large parts that are said quietly by the priest while the congregation sings.  Because of the tradition of hand missals, I have always found this a great kind of polyphony of prayers to work with---I can either follow along with the priest, follow along with the antiphon being chanted, or try to do both at the same time which is this kind of combination of prayer and meditation that is quite a nice spiritual experience--it's something that praying the rosary trains you for, contemplating the mysteries is like the antiphons that are being sung and following the priest's prayers is like the prayer on each bead of the rosary.  I find a lot of modern Catholics that grow up without this in their liturgy and with the rosary being a less popular devotion sometimes don't have this kind of meditative experience in their prayer life, which often makes them susceptible to a lot of trendy forms of Buddhist-style meditations that are offered to them because they've never really found that sweet spot of Catholic meditation.  to be fair in the so-called "good old days" many wouldn't have had that meditative experience in either liturgy or rosary, but it was available to develop; actually, I imagine many of the old ladies in the much maligned older practice of praying a rosary during the liturgy were reaching that kind of meditative experience as well.  (the liturgical reform movement starting even before Vatican II that was arguing against this practice WAS a valid one, but it's important to understand there was value being gleaned from the practice I think)

But I can appreciate wanting to hear everything the priest says.  The only thing the Novus Ordo puts in silence, pretty much, is the "blessed are you, Lord God of all creation..." part while there is a song being sung; I can sometimes get that same polyphony of prayer and meditation during that part, but otherwise, while I can find ways to do it, the format of everything being said aloud and in order without any overlap is not as particularly conducive; so from my analogy above, my experience is often feeling like it's like a rosary where I first prayer the 10 beads and then I spend a few minutes contemplating the mystery, rather than both at the same time.  again, this is not to say such meditative practice cannot happen at Novus Ordo, and I do experience it there as well, just to point out what the point was, it seems to me, of those moments where the priest prayed silently and the choir / congregation sang--that it was particularly trying to spark that kind of disposition. 

the Roman Church does not have so fixed a set of rules for the treatment of images as the Eastern Tradition; I can understand your frustration at that, but it is just the way it is.  i can get why you wouldn't like a donation box directly on a crucifix, but there's not really a particular tradition against that in the Roman tradition that I know of; if someone was to propose establishing some kind of disciplinary rule against that I'd probably be on board.

anyway, I think a balance between the hidden away barrier and the ability to see what is an interesting question--there's value to both sides of that IMO.  the iconostasis is said to not be a barrier to sight but a window to what is really spiritually behind it--that is the heavenly worship of Our Lord.  but I can understand if one wants a more clear view.  i think the Benedictine arrangement for versus populum I suggested is very similar to the level of iconostasis you would argue for in terms of not obstructing the view too much (though the Benedictine arrangement has a slightly different purpose--to place a common frame of direction the people and the priest are looking at instead of them looking at each other) while still setting up something of that aesthetic that both the iconostasis and the high altar of old were trying to set up.

anyway I appreciate your insights, you've combined the two lungs of the church in a unique way; I always make reference to Eastern liturgies when discussing where I think the boundaries of the Novus Ordo should go because I think it's an important benchmark where we can see what the spirit of the liturgy is; but I appreciate you have found, in some of the Novus Ordo reforms, some meaningful things from the liturgical reform movement that can resonate with the spirit of the liturgy as well even as they slightly depart from TLM / EO liturgies (but might have some justifications in history, although antiquarianism on its own is not a good enough reason to revive an older practice, but they might be suited to helping the culture of the moment find an attachment to Christ).

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

i can get why you wouldn't like a donation box directly on a crucifix, but there's not really a particular tradition against that in the Roman tradition that I know of; if someone was to propose establishing some kind of disciplinary rule against that I'd probably be on board.

This is why I speak about an attachment to Christ. The rules cannot ensure a proper attitude while an attachment can. Most people who mindlessly roll and fold a prayer card with the image of Our Lord and then live it in the church, on the floor even, would never treat this way a photo of their mother or father. 

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

the iconostasis is said to not be a barrier to sight but a window to what is really spiritually behind it--that is the heavenly worship of Our Lord.

Icons serve as the means of connecting with the invisible world, invisible persons, especially the Person of Christ. When we have the actual Person on the altar, Christ Himself visible in the Cup, why do we need icons instead? No, Christ on the altar should be surrounded by the holy images of the heavenly church (like in a high altar) but not obscured by them - in this case we would have both heavenly and earthly church together.
One could argue that it is the Eastern way, to cover the sacred but it was not son over first seven centuries at least. 

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

I find a lot of modern Catholics that grow up without this in their liturgy and with the rosary being a less popular devotion sometimes don't have this kind of meditative experience in their prayer life, which often makes them susceptible to a lot of trendy forms of Buddhist-style meditations that are offered to them because they've never really found that sweet spot of Catholic meditation.

Perhaps it is also because a lot of modern Catholics do not know their own mystical tradition. Not many people seem to be interested in Saints as well. I wonder why it is so. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Anastasia

[Aloysius]

when i say there are not the same rules, I don't just mean legalistic rules but also expectations and customs of what it means to show respect--the standards to which you're used to from the Eastern tradition, which if broken would show a lack of attachment or a disrespect to the one represented by the image--for the Romans do NOT necessarily constitute a lack of attachment or disrespect to the image.  To use your picture of a mother example, imagine someone grew up in a household where to put a picture of your mother in anything other than a position that was perpendicular to a picture of your father would be disrespectful to both.  But another person grew up in a household where that was not so.  The first person might accuse the second of not having proper attachment to their parents or respect for their parents; but they wouldn't necessarily be right--for the other person it's just not part of their attachment to their parents to place their pictures perpendicular.  same here--many of the customs and traditions of proper use of icons in the East are simply not part of the customs and traditions of Roman Catholics, that doesn't make them less attached to the persons represented by the images, that means they have a different idea of how images themselves should be treated; and really there's a long theological history of divergence here.  In some sense, the Roman Church probably needs some reminding about the Second Council of Nicaea as their counter-reformation response to iconoclasm was a bit more of a retreat into "it's just a symbol, bro" that might result in a bit more of a lackadaisical attitude towards images today.

as far as a picture of your mother or family member--people treat unique photos of their family members with reverence putting them in frames and such, just as we do with unique paintings or statues, but sometimes at a funeral they'll print up hundreds of programs to distribute out that include a printed out picture of the loved one who has died and, indeed, people treat those just the same--folding, discarding, etc.  And it in no way is a show of a lack of attachment to the one represented in that image, that's just common attitudes towards more mass produced images.

Anyway, your explanation of icons showing / communicating with a hidden reality is in line with what I'm saying--when they're an iconostasis I've heard them described as a window.  In the sense that it's not obscuring what's happening at all, if you look at the icon that's blocking your earthly sight you're just looking through a window, it might as well be transparent--it's not blocking anything at all about Christ being present in the cup, just providing a very ornate window aimed at it that can focus the senses of some of the faithful.  That's the logic of many Eastern Orthodox in terms of the big elaborate iconostases, anyway.  I would be wary of too much of a reform in that regard but if you want to make them a little less prominent, basically just a few columns that kind of line up where the doors to the altar would be without obscuring the view, that's up for the Eastern churches to work out--I have seen some Eastern masses done that way and it doesn't take away too much, one has the option to look at the 'window' or at the openly visible sight. 

28 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Perhaps it is also because a lot of modern Catholics do not know their own mystical tradition. Not many people seem to be interested in Saints as well. I wonder why it is so

well these two things--the liturgy and the rosary--have in the past served as big gateways to the Catholic mystical tradition; it's a bit of a matter of chicken and the egg as to whether loss of some aspects of those or loss of interest in the mystical tradition came first, but they are definitely related IMO.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I definitely understand the point you're making here, but would just point out that this phrasing is a little bit worrying to me as regards the spirit of the liturgy in the sense that it's not supposed to be about personal preference and satisfying some particular market demand of the laity.  like it's ok to have the traditional brand for those who like it, the x brand for those who like that, the y brand for those who like that.  that's a bad mentality.  enculturated forms that fit the spirit of the liturgy, as I said that can be fine (which in many ways is the point you're making), but it's not about appeasing personal preferences of worship or something like that; and extending that to "here's our guitar mass, here's our praise and worship concert style mass, here's our young people mass, here's our liturgical dancing mass, now choose YOUR brand of spirituality and go there!" is just contrary to the spirit of the liturgy in my opinion--all about innovation and fulfilling individual preferences, not about a single unifying form all people regardless of what kind of preference they have for prayer meetings (all of the above could be types of prayer meetings that are organied outside the liturgy and I'd have no problem) come together for.  coming up with a coherent version of the liturgy that's adapted to a culture is one thing, adapting it to 'personal preferences of worship' is quite another.

it is supposed to be something perceived as unifying and relatively timeless; again, compare the TLM and Eastern Orthodox liturgies and see the similar attitudes they're treated with--whatever cultural form the NO takes it should be expressing the same attitudes and spirit of the liturgy as the TLM and Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholic liturgies.

this is why I liked Benedict's mutual enrichment project through Summorum Pontificum--the idea of opening up permissions to use the TLM as much as possible was not to get the TLM to replace the Novus Ordo--it was about exposing more people to the liturgical spirit of the TLM (and in the other direction infusing more mainstream people into TLM communities that may have become kind of ghettoized and rigid and out of touch with the rest of the church sometimes) so that it would rub off on the way the NO was celebrated--get it away from this attitude of innovation and trying to please people and the 'community show' or 'community meeting' aspect it all too often takes on.

I had a feeling the convo might go in this direction, especially cause I was not careful enough in the words I used to expressed my thoughts in my last couple posts. Like if I say "prefer to express their faith in XYZ manner" I don't mean that in the sense of "do XYZ merely because that is what I like".

Here are a few thoughts on the topic.

1) Objectively, I don't see how the spirit would differ (whether you are using guitar, gospel, or gregorian chant, TLM, Eastern, NO, etc). We are all there for the Mass, we are all there to worship God as Catholics. Look, if any of us were going to church for entertainment, none of us would be Catholic, let's keep it real. You have churches on the other side with 8k video screens, cameras, and the strobe-light from Saturday Night Fever.

The entertainment charge often gets levied against black Catholic churches here in the US. For most people, I dont think it is really about about pleasing ourselves. We feel like that form of worship is offering something good to God and the Church at large, just like the same for the TLM folks like to say their mass is "reverent" or what have you. We also feel like it enables us to do what we are there to do, worship as a community. Like, some folks, for whatever reason they can't seem to worship unless things are very still and quiet. Otherwise they are distracted or just put out-of-the water for whatever reason. They go to a Mass with loud music and it's like they are incapable of opening their mouth and praising God with outward enthusiasm. I mean, that's fine, not everybody is "enculturated" if you will, to worship that way. But the same is also true on the other side. Not everybody is enculturated into worshipping in the TLM style. It may be difficult for them to do so (although me personally, I don't really have issues at any type of Mass).

But I wouldn't say the criticism you mention is totally invalid. Perhaps we can see that on an individual level, or even some parishes. I mean, I have seen some videos of Mass sometimes with the "Clown" or whatever and I think to myself "What are these folks trying to do, a puppet show?" That could be the case, but I don't know what their intentions are. I would say that I haven't really encountered that attitude from any Catholics that I have met or spoken to personally. Most people are gonna have an attitude like "This is for God" regardless of the choices that they make, rather than an attitude like "I am doing this because I like it."

2) To the extent that the criticism is valid, let's keep it real, the same can be levied about some TLM folks. There can be like this over-obsession with the aesthetic aspects of the TLM, that takes away from the focus on God, in much the same way that the same might occur from the "guitar" or what have you. Ultimately I think it is tough to say. We can't really look into a man's heart, or a group of people, and say what their attitude is, I think.

3) Whether something is unifying and timeless is a bit subjective. It ain't like the apostles were celebrating TLM here, let's keep it real. It seems that the TLM is held as the standard for this, but that debate has been held before I think. One can make the argument that the TLM or the NO is more uniform, or timeless (but let's not get into all of that).

[Aloysius]

As I have said--the TLM + Eastern Orthodox Liturgies is my benchmark for where I look for what the "spirit of the liturgy" would be and what kind of limit we need to place on a bit of the runaway innovation and personalization / group marketing that sometimes goes on.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I had a feeling the convo might go in this direction, especially cause I was not careful enough in the words I used to expressed my thoughts in my last couple posts. Like if I say "prefer to express their faith in XYZ manner" I don't mean that in the sense of "do XYZ merely because that is what I like".

I know, I tried to caveat that with saying I know where you're going with this, but there's still an issue that becomes complicated here because too far down that line of thinking makes mass less of a received and passed on tradition and more of an 'it's ours to do with as we please' activity.  I think both of us have a line we draw there, and mine might be a bit more strict, but my caveat was meant to recognize that I know you, too, have a line drawn; where that line is or should be drawn is a legitimate debate and one which is not just entirely reducible to "different people have different worship preferences".

when I say relative timelessness, what I mean is the attitude that it's not ours to do with as we please, it's something that's been passed on to us and we are to preserve it, participate in it, and pass it on; some different flavors of music and such can work within it particularly when it's about embodying into a particular culture, but we should be careful and not just treat it as something we can just put anything into; as I said earlier one good rule of thumb on music should be that the human voice and the words that are being said should be more prominent than the instrumentation--that would be consistent with liturgies east (who dont have any instrumentation) and west (who only allowed the organ in like 13th century and didnt allow any other instruments until relatively recently, with the exception of rich people getting orchestras involved at some point that were technically against the rules of the time lol).

the attitudes of some liturgical planners today ( i think there is some such strange position in some parishes, at least, who coordinate music and logistics and such, but them plus today's priests insofar as they organize the logistics of their own masses) often is an "it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"--none of those attitudes are consistent with the spirit of the liturgy IMO.  you don't see Eastern Orthodox liturgies being like that, you haven't seen liturgy treated that way in the overwhelming bulk of the history of the church--there have been changes, to be sure, but they are not done with that kind of attitude. it's generally more how do we take what we receive and best worship God with it, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, whether anyone likes it.  (of course there are aesthetic concerns in the sense of what best facilitates the people to worship God well, too, it's a complicated thing, but ultimately talking about a sensibility of relative timelessness is my best way to express what i'm trying to say about the attitude and spirit of the liturgy that we see across East and West for the bulk of the church's history)

I'm usually careful not to throw out a charge like "that's just entertainment" because I know people can get spiritual experiences out of all sorts of things, even things that have some entertainment value.  That's why I say some things would be better not to be put into the liturgy, but would be great to have a prayer meeting with outside of the liturgy.

[fides' Jack]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah I dunno how a group can be right more often when they are in schism, but that is just me.

Well, I wasn't talking about that group.  I meant rad trads in general.  I meant that typically they have a better understanding of faith and morals.  Not always; there used to be several people here who were not rad trads whom I would have been happy to prod for their wisdom and knowledge.

Still, the difference is significant.  If I were to pull a number out of a dark place, it would be somewhere upwards of 95%.

15 hours ago, Peace said:

You see the thing about music and architecture, is that there is a good deal of subjectivity here. You may like Jazz and Gothic, I may like classical and Victorian. You don't have to go around telling everyone how bad classical and Victorian is. Just listen to Jazz, and let the folks who like classical listen to that.

But that's just the point - in terms of what is better for Mass, it makes no difference what you like or what I like.  There is only what God prefers.  Even the Vatican II documents were pretty clear that Gregorian Chant is more suited for Mass.  There's a quality about it that is objectively better in the setting of Mass, for all humans.

And that's probably one of the biggest beefs that rad trads have with the Church today, that everyone sees just about everything in a subjective light.  In my mind, subjectivity about these things indicates lukewarmness.  That change in attitude is probably one of the biggest changes after VII, and it undergirds all the traditional vs modern debates, but it's hard to speak directly to because these conversations usually get far more heated before they get this far... 

That being said, I don't care what music you like for Mass, or what language, or what direction, or how you prefer to receive Holy Communion.  I can only say my "peace" and let God do what He will with it.

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah this is another thing that I don't get. It does seem that Trads have like this nostalgic view of the past, and always see society getting worse-and-worse.

I think you can say with respect to some moral issues, things are getting worse, but with respect to many others, things have gotten much better over time. Heck, my grandparents and your grandparents likely could not even have worshiped together. I mean, it is difficult to harken back a couple hundred years to a time where 1/5 of the population was enslaved, like people were not blind to evil back then. Personally, I don't think that we can say that the "fog of Satan" is worse today than yesteryear. I think you can only say that if you are looking at a narrow range of issues (like abortion and homosexuality, for example).

Yes, I do have a nostalgic view of the past - but within the Catholic Church.  To be nostalgic it is OK to think some things were better at a certain point in history without considering other evils at the time.  Slavery was not due to the Catholic Church.  And the morality provided by the Church had a huge impact on the abolition of slavery, and continues to be a driving force against racism in the world today.  No, I don't think people were blind to the evil back then.  I think they saw the evil and accepted it.

I guess I'm not sure what the point of this comment is.

15 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I guess one of the major differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is the understanding of the responsibility of the laity: absolutely everyone in the Orthodox Church is responsible for keeping the orthodox = correct teaching. The history of the Church is full of cases when the Bishops fell into heresy and the true faith was mostly defended by some lay women and obscure monastics, like it happened during iconoclast (until the Pope finished the iconoclastic heresy off).

You may be right, but I think that understanding is superficial.  The Church makes it clear that the laity can and should reprove their shepherds when it is necessary.  In fact I sent an email to my bishop last night, in this spirit.  I'm pretty nervous about how he'll take it and how he'll respond.  He's almost certainly seen it by now, sigh...

But if we're going off of the understanding of the laity (and even priests and bishops) on the matter, well, most Catholics are in one form of heresy or another and just don't know it.  It's sad, but it's so widespread and remains true about so many more substantial issues now that this has become a non-issue.

[Didacus]

Ok... this may be a silly question...

What precisely are 'trads'?

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Well, I wasn't talking about that group.  I meant rad trads in general.  I meant that typically they have a better understanding of faith and morals.  Not always; there used to be several people here who were not rad trads whom I would have been happy to prod for their wisdom and knowledge.

Still, the difference is significant.  If I were to pull a number out of a dark place, it would be somewhere upwards of 95%.

Nah, I don't buy all of that Jazz that rad trads have a better understanding of faith and morals. Show me the money.

Half of ya'll won't even give the sign of peace!

33 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

But that's just the point - in terms of what is better for Mass, it makes no difference what you like or what I like.  There is only what God prefers.  Even the Vatican II documents were pretty clear that Gregorian Chant is more suited for Mass.  There's a quality about it that is objectively better in the setting of Mass, for all humans.

 Look, I know how much ya'll love to take that one sentence from SC and assert that means that "God prefers Gregorian chant" or that "Gregorian chant is the best Mass music for every person on the Earth" but that is simply not what that document or the Church teaches with respect to that.

33 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And that's probably one of the biggest beefs that rad trads have with the Church today, that everyone sees just about everything in a subjective light.  In my mind, subjectivity about these things indicates lukewarmness.  That change in attitude is probably one of the biggest changes after VII, and it undergirds all the traditional vs modern debates, but it's hard to speak directly to because these conversations usually get far more heated before they get this far... 

Nobody is talking about playing N.W.A. "F the police" during Mass.

Subjective in the sense that different forms of music may be more appropriate in some contexts, and other forms of music may be more appropriate in other contexts. Nobody is saying that there are not objective standards, or objective goals, that we should have for Mass. I am saying that there is not one form of music that best meets those standards and goals, in every context.

The fact that I do not believe that Gregorian Chant is the best music for every Mass ever celebrated on the face of the Earth, and that other forms of music may be more appropriate in certain contexts, does not mean that my attitude is simply "Just do whatever you like, I don't even care".

33 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That being said, I don't care what music you like for Mass, or what language, or what direction, or how you prefer to receive Holy Communion. 

You know you care. Stop lying!

 

6 minutes ago, Didacus said:

Ok... this may be a silly question...

What precisely are 'trads'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

As I have said--the TLM + Eastern Orthodox Liturgies is my benchmark for where I look for what the "spirit of the liturgy" would be and what kind of limit we need to place on a bit of the runaway innovation and personalization / group marketing that sometimes goes on.

I know, I tried to caveat that with saying I know where you're going with this, but there's still an issue that becomes complicated here because too far down that line of thinking makes mass less of a received and passed on tradition and more of an 'it's ours to do with as we please' activity.  I think both of us have a line we draw there, and mine might be a bit more strict, but my caveat was meant to recognize that I know you, too, have a line drawn; where that line is or should be drawn is a legitimate debate and one which is not just entirely reducible to "different people have different worship preferences".

when I say relative timelessness, what I mean is the attitude that it's not ours to do with as we please, it's something that's been passed on to us and we are to preserve it, participate in it, and pass it on; some different flavors of music and such can work within it particularly when it's about embodying into a particular culture, but we should be careful and not just treat it as something we can just put anything into; as I said earlier one good rule of thumb on music should be that the human voice and the words that are being said should be more prominent than the instrumentation--that would be consistent with liturgies east (who dont have any instrumentation) and west (who only allowed the organ in like 13th century and didnt allow any other instruments until relatively recently, with the exception of rich people getting orchestras involved at some point that were technically against the rules of the time lol).

the attitudes of some liturgical planners today ( i think there is some such strange position in some parishes, at least, who coordinate music and logistics and such, but them plus today's priests insofar as they organize the logistics of their own masses) often is an "it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"--none of those attitudes are consistent with the spirit of the liturgy IMO.  you don't see Eastern Orthodox liturgies being like that, you haven't seen liturgy treated that way in the overwhelming bulk of the history of the church--there have been changes, to be sure, but they are not done with that kind of attitude. it's generally more how do we take what we receive and best worship God with it, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, whether anyone likes it.  (of course there are aesthetic concerns in the sense of what best facilitates the people to worship God well, too, it's a complicated thing, but ultimately talking about a sensibility of relative timelessness is my best way to express what i'm trying to say about the attitude and spirit of the liturgy that we see across East and West for the bulk of the church's history)

I'm usually careful not to throw out a charge like "that's just entertainment" because I know people can get spiritual experiences out of all sorts of things, even things that have some entertainment value.  That's why I say some things would be better not to be put into the liturgy, but would be great to have a prayer meeting with outside of the liturgy.

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, you mean like you want to have the Mass so that it gives an impression of something with permanence, like it is not something that can be changed willy-nilly from day-to-day based on the whims of the crowd. I can get down with that idea.

I also agree with the point of having a benchmark. If you think that making the TLM as your benchmark that is cool by me. I would take issue if you said that it is the benchmark of the whole Church (not that you did). But all of that is up for debate I guess.

What's the reason why the words should be heard much more loudly than the instrumentation? I would guess that it has something to do with the lyrical content (if it is the psalms being sung, for example)? If that's the case its kind of interesting. At my home parish (a "Trad" parish if you will), they sing the psalms in some form of chanting (not sure which exactly). But literally when they are chanting it, I have no idea what is being said at all. From my perspective, the chanting is the same as a guitar being played, it is just sound with no meaning because I cannot even make out the words. But if I go to a more common Mass or a gospel Mass, when the person sings the prayer,  I can understand the words being sung, I can interact with it. Thoughts?

As for the "often is an "it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"" type of attitude, I agree with you here, although I haven't encountered it myself. But I'll take your word if you are saying that there are Catholic music directors, or what have you, that view it that way. Is that what they are actually saying to you, or is that your perception of it, based on their ultimate choices?

[Aloysius]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

As for the "often is an "it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"" type of attitude, I agree with you here, although I haven't encountered it myself. But I'll take your word if you are saying that there are Catholic music directors, or what have you, that view it that way. Is that what they are actually saying to you, or is that your perception of it, based on their ultimate choices?

that is definitely just my interpretation, you're right; whether they consciously have that attitude or not, it is implicit in some of the innovative liturgical planning that goes on.  I am sure all of them also have the motivation to offer good worship to God as well and are well-intentioned; but it ends up mixxed with motivations like that whether they're explicit or implicit.

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

I also agree with the point of having a benchmark. If you think that making the TLM as your benchmark that is cool by me. I would take issue if you said that it is the benchmark of the whole Church (not that you did). But all of that is up for debate I guess.

my benchmark is not just the TLM, it's the TLM, Ambrosian Rite, other western rites whether still active or historical, and Eastern Orthodox Liturgies--together this provides us a good and varied view of what the spirit of the liturgy has been throughout Church history.  each of them have their idiosyncrasies, but they all share a certain ethos that I think should be viewed as a benchmark for where we should keep the direction of liturgies even when they're adapted and enculturated in different contexts.

there's a few things in terms of why i am saying to focus on the lyrics and the human voice; it's partially what you say, but even in the case of chant where they do the oooOOoooOOOOOs, the idea of the human voice being the primary instrument in worship is because that's the only God-made instrument we have, rather than human-made instruments.  I've heard that argued by the Eastern Orthodox at least, and while I am ok with the Roman Church's less strict version of that focus on the human voice as the primary liturgical instrument, keeping it in mind as a principle would keep us from straying too far from it.  and again--looking at TLM and Eastern Orthodox Liturgies throughout Church history up until the 1950's / 1960's, that's a time honored principle--i'm okay with it if we paint outside of that line a bit, like the eventual allowance for the organ or the solemn papal mass's silver trumpets back in the day, but keeping the line present is important.  if we bring in some instruments, we should still keep the spirit of the principle of the human voice being the primary instrument of liturgical music in place.

good gospel music does not tend to go too far from this principle, in my opinion.  but a lot of this praise and worship stuff, in my opinion, does get quite far away and really should be done more at events outside of the liturgy IMO.  that's a big point I want to reiterate, there are things that could be spiritually beneficial that would not fit in the liturgy, and it'd be great to have extra-liturgical events for those forms of music and art and expressions without doing damage to the spirit of the liturgy and that sense of permanence / relative timelessness / non-innovation.

[MIKolbe]

Women wearing pantaloons, without a veil, receiving communion in the hand, after lectoring and Extraordinary Minister-ing  Holy Communion...with an Ayn Rand book in her car.

 

(my contribution to this thread is complete)

Edited October 28, 2020 by MIKolbe

[Ash Wednesday]

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

As for the "often is an "it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"" type of attitude, I agree with you here, although I haven't encountered it myself. But I'll take your word if you are saying that there are Catholic music directors, or what have you, that view it that way. Is that what they are actually saying to you, or is that your perception of it, based on their ultimate choices?

Having been involved in musical efforts in ordinary form parishes with a wide variety of liturgical and musical sensibilities, I absolutely have encountered these attitudes explicitly and often.