Diversity In The Way Mass Is Celebrated

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='picchick' date='29 August 2009 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1251591757' post='1958088']


I agree. I am not one for waving of hands and such but this is a point that I have discussed several times on this phorum. I do not think that God hears one prayer or one language more than another. Just because my Mass doesn't speak and chant in Latin the whole time doesn't mean that God hears the Mass less. I do not think the Church should be able to limit music and language as long as it reverent.

I remember one converstation where I was discussing Pie Jesus by Fauré. People told me that it did not belong in a Mass because it was too soloistic. Also I remember discussing Masses by Mozart. Again it was too symphonic for a Mass for some people.

How I see it: People praise God in other ways than just chant and Latin. Why should the Church limit it to only one genre and call that one single genre "sacred"?
[/quote]

I agree with what you said. I could definitely see someone performing Pie Jesu by Faure during the offering of the gifts. As for Mozart, this past year for the feast of Christ the King (which happens to be the name of my parish), our choir performed Rex Tremendae from his Requiem.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='29 August 2009 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1251570088' post='1957939']
The worst I ever saw was one that used oreos and milk as the elements of communion. I didn't partake.
[/quote]
That is very sad. Was this supposed to be some form of teaching mass for really young kids? And by teaching mass, I mean one where the priest just walks through the mass, saying some words along the way, without officially holding a service.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='picchick' date='29 August 2009 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1251591757' post='1958088']


I agree. I am not one for waving of hands and such but this is a point that I have discussed several times on this phorum. I do not think that God hears one prayer or one language more than another. Just because my Mass doesn't speak and chant in Latin the whole time doesn't mean that God hears the Mass less. [b]I do not think the Church should be able to limit music and language as long as it reverent. [/b]

I remember one converstation where I was discussing Pie Jesus by Fauré. People told me that it did not belong in a Mass because it was too soloistic. Also I remember discussing Masses by Mozart. Again it was too symphonic for a Mass for some people.

How I see it: People praise God in other ways than just chant and Latin. Why should the Church limit it to only one genre and call that one single genre "sacred"?
[/quote]

How should we determine what is reverent if not through the guidance of Holy Mother Church? I don't think the issue is whether God "hears" one way more than another or not. Of course he hears. Of course he loves them regardless. WE are the ones affected by the type of music at mass, whether or not we realize it. WE don't often realize how much music influences us, and in what way, but it DOES, and the Church understands that, because she has had 2000 years of experience with human nature... and really, thousands of years because she also carries on the wisdom of the Old Testament, and knows how our surroundings affect our disposition to worship and to experience God. ... which is why it is so essential to respect the Church's authority over the liturgy.

I grew up going to "charismatic" masses. I never really knew anything else. I've been to youth conferences where they brought a basketball hoop onto the stage during where the priest used shooting hoops to emphasize something during his homily. I don't remember what he was emphasizing, and I'm positive no one else from my youth group does either. But they remember how "cool" it was... and mass at our parish isn't that "cool," even though it does have plenty of popular music... so whatever they experienced at that retreat has fallen by the wayside.

I am positive they were not trying to be irreverent... I know they really thought that would inspire the kids... All the same, that was not appropriate for Mass... The focus got lost in their feelings, in it being exciting. Was it still Mass, with infinite graces where He gave Himself to us in the Eucharist? Of course. But they couldn't see that Mass is awesome in its [i]essence[/i], because there was too much distraction in the music, and the movements, and so on... they associated the awesomeness of the experience with what they could see and feel going on, rather than the really important thing that actually was taking place, namely the supreme sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, that God Himself was coming down to dwell in the form of bread to be consumed by us. How sad... that through no fault of their own really, they weren't able to experience the mass in a way that made them understand that essential thing... that essential thing that is always there, whether or not the congregation is "charismatic"... that Jesus is really present and wants to be with them.

The authority of the Church HAS to have primacy over individuals. If a child only wants to eat potato chips for the rest of her life, because she likes it, it satisfies her hunger, and she doesn't like the look of lasagna, does that really mean its the best thing for her? It's the parent's responsibility to make sure she gets food that is truly nourishing, and if they go about it the right way, she'll grow to love what's good for her. It's the same with worship... the Church is our mother. It is her responsibility to make sure we get what we need to grow. Just because we think all music is equal, and maybe think what is most familiar to us is the best thing for us, does not mean that it is so. The Church tells us what is sacred because God put her in that position.

Edited August 30, 2009 by zunshynn

[iheartjp2]

I think the point she was trying to make was more along the lines of putting objectivity before preference. She wasn't really talking about anything controversial, she mentioned Faure and Mozart. While the Church should have primacy over matters of reverence, the Church really shouldn't weigh in with personal preference of those in charge simply because it clashes with their "style", if you will.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='29 August 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1251596203' post='1958109']
While the Church should have primacy over matters of reverence, the Church really shouldn't weigh in with personal preference of those in charge simply because it clashes with their "style", if you will.
[/quote]


Would you clarify this a bit? I want to make sure that I don't misunderstand your point. What I am reading is that you believe that the Church should determine what it believes to be reverent, while being less involved in the style of the celebration?

I agree wholeheartedly with Zunshynn's point. I don't think there is an area of the liturgy where the Church "shouldn't weigh in." The Church's authority over the liturgy is absolute. Part of the problem we have at present is precisely that people are more concerned with style over substance. I believe, though, that reverence is, in fact, directly related to style. That is not to say that a NO mass is inherently less reverent than a Latin mass; on the contrary, I believe that a NO mass celebrated faithfully by the GIRM and the rubrics is a beautiful and reverent mass. My parish is a NO parish and I think that our mass is among the most beautiful and reverent I've seen. However, standing totally aside and saying that all stylistic elements are at the discretion of the celebrant goes a little too far in the opposite direction, too. [i]Lex orandi, lex credendi. [/i]

It is impossible to please everyone. No single liturgical structure is going to make everyone happy. However, the Church's job isn't to make everyone happy. The faithful should act in accordance with their profession of faith as Catholics and submit themselves to the authority of the Church and the celebration of the liturgy as She sees fit. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide Holy Mother Church as He wills, and I submit the assent of my faith to the Church and to Her bishops, under the direction of our Holy Father.

[Apotheoun]

Thankfully the Byzantine liturgy is too structured to allow for ad libbing by the priest or individual congregations.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='29 August 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1251593093' post='1958103']
That is very sad. Was this supposed to be some form of teaching mass for really young kids? And by teaching mass, I mean one where the priest just walks through the mass, saying some words along the way, without officially holding a service.
[/quote]

It was a teaching mass for young kids. I walked out, and then I called the archbishop. He was not pleased. I'm happy to say it never happened again, and they transferred that priest to a church without a school.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='29 August 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1251597175' post='1958113']
Would you clarify this a bit? I want to make sure that I don't misunderstand your point. What I am reading is that you believe that the Church should determine what it believes to be reverent, while being less involved in the style of the celebration?

I agree wholeheartedly with Zunshynn's point. I don't think there is an area of the liturgy where the Church "shouldn't weigh in." The Church's authority over the liturgy is absolute. Part of the problem we have at present is precisely that people are more concerned with style over substance. I believe, though, that reverence is, in fact, directly related to style. That is not to say that a NO mass is inherently less reverent than a Latin mass; on the contrary, I believe that a NO mass celebrated faithfully by the GIRM and the rubrics is a beautiful and reverent mass. My parish is a NO parish and I think that our mass is among the most beautiful and reverent I've seen. However, standing totally aside and saying that all stylistic elements are at the discretion of the celebrant goes a little too far in the opposite direction, too. [i]Lex orandi, lex credendi. [/i]

It is impossible to please everyone. No single liturgical structure is going to make everyone happy. However, the Church's job isn't to make everyone happy. The faithful should act in accordance with their profession of faith as Catholics and submit themselves to the authority of the Church and the celebration of the liturgy as She sees fit. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide Holy Mother Church as He wills, and I submit the assent of my faith to the Church and to Her bishops, under the direction of our Holy Father.
[/quote]

My main concern was that the reply (with which I'm not contesting in substance) that zunshynn made to picchick wasn't exactly addressing the concern. From what I read, picchick was having a problem with some poeple she was talking to about certain sacred music that they didn't believe was proper to mass (two examples being pieces by Faure and Mozart). I don't think that she was saying that the Church doesn't have a monopoly on what is reverent, but that some individuals when coming to conclusions give too much of their own preference (subjective analysis) and not enough objective analysis on what's reverent or not. I personally think that certain pieces by many common practice period composers are suitable for mass (during certain times, like a prelude or during the preparing of the gifts). My concern was mostly musical, like picchick's.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1251597250' post='1958115']
Thankfully the Byzantine liturgy is too structured to allow for ad libbing by the priest or individual congregations.
[/quote]

Well, that settles it. Let's all be Byzantine!

JK, just messin' with ya, Apo.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1251597250' post='1958115']
Thankfully the Byzantine liturgy is too structured to allow for ad libbing by the priest or individual congregations.
[/quote]

The extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is the same way.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 August 2009 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1251567428' post='1957915']
I think that the ordinary form of the Mass of the Roman Rite should be celebrated as it is on EWTN, or, even better, as at Brompton Oratory.
[/quote]

I know that. But as the Church allows it to be celebrated in a variety of ways would you say this is fine? Do you think your own preference is right for everybody and should be enforced? What if someone finds a Mass like that alienating and prefers a different form of worship that is allowed by the Church?

Edited August 30, 2009 by OraProMe

[zunshynn]

[quote name='picchick' date='29 August 2009 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1251591757' post='1958088']


I agree. I am not one for waving of hands and such but this is a point that I have discussed several times on this phorum. I do not think that God hears one prayer or one language more than another. Just because my Mass doesn't speak and chant in Latin the whole time doesn't mean that God hears the Mass less. I do not think the Church should be able to limit music and language as long as it reverent.

I remember one converstation where I was discussing Pie Jesus by Fauré. People told me that it did not belong in a Mass because it was too soloistic. Also I remember discussing Masses by Mozart. Again it was too symphonic for a Mass for some people.

How I see it: People praise God in other ways than just chant and Latin. Why should the Church limit it to only one genre and call that one single genre "sacred"?
[/quote]


[quote name='iheartjp2' date='29 August 2009 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1251596203' post='1958109']
I think the point she was trying to make was more along the lines of putting objectivity before preference. She wasn't really talking about anything controversial, she mentioned Faure and Mozart. While the Church should have primacy over matters of reverence, the Church really shouldn't weigh in with personal preference of those in charge simply because it clashes with their "style", if you will.
[/quote]


[quote name='iheartjp2' date='29 August 2009 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1251597754' post='1958123']
My main concern was that the reply (with which I'm not contesting in substance) that zunshynn made to picchick wasn't exactly addressing the concern. From what I read, picchick was having a problem with some poeple she was talking to about certain sacred music that they didn't believe was proper to mass (two examples being pieces by Faure and Mozart). I don't think that she was saying that the Church doesn't have a monopoly on what is reverent, but that some individuals when coming to conclusions give too much of their own preference (subjective analysis) and not enough objective analysis on what's reverent or not. I personally think that certain pieces by many common practice period composers are suitable for mass (during certain times, like a prelude or during the preparing of the gifts). My concern was mostly musical, like picchick's.
[/quote]

Well, part of my point is is that you can't reasonably argue that the Church does not have the right to limit what is considered Sacred Music because of what an individual says is right for Mass. She was saying an individual, or a group of individuals, did not think Mozart and Faure are appropriate for Mass. But what those individuals think really doesn't matter. Mozart's sacred music has been deemed appropriate for Mass (distinct from his secular pieces, which can be very beautiful, but nonetheless inappropriate for Mass.) That was why I did not take the two points together. On the one hand she's bringing up someone's opinion, and seems to be suggesting that those opinions are a reason to question the Church's right to limit what is considered sacred. It doesn't follow, the way it's phrased...