There is a double standard in the Church, and I'm tired of it.
We have a wonderfully rich liturgical tradition, a tradition that stretches back to the Apostles. Being Catholic we, more than any other group, have a diverse tradition liturgically as well. We have within the Church, the Roman Rite in both it's extraordinary and ordinary forms, we have the Hispano-Mozarabic Rite, the Abrosian, the Coptic, the Ge'ez, the Byzantine, the Ruthenian, the Anglican Use, the Bragan Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carmelite Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Malankarese, the Chaldean, the Syro-Malabarese, the Belarussian, Bulgarian, the Czech, the Krizevci, the Italo-Albanian, the Melkite, the Romanian, the Slovak, the Ukrainian. In all of these liturgical rites, only one disrespects itself to the point of liturgical abuses so egregious that one wonders if they are even in a Catholic Church--the Roman Rite.
I was very excited about the new translation of the Mass texts for the 3d edition of the Roman Missal. It wasn't just the theological richness of the prayers, it was the chance to initiate a reform of the Liturgy. I confess myself disappointed. Mostly about Music and Solemnity.
Frankly, I am appalled by some things. The Second Vatican Council affirmed the use of Latin as the language of the Church, and affirmed and directed that the people learn to make their responses in Latin. It also affirmed the pride of place of chant in the liturgy. The most basic of the liturgical books for the Mass, after the missal itself, is the Graduale Romanum. It has the proper texts with the proper tones for each Mass. There is an edition for the Ordinary Form. The key word here is "Proper"--the Chants at Mass are Scripture, or closely derived from Scripture. They work with the readings and the Calendar to increase the richness of the Liturgy, and to aid the faithful in participating in a meaningful, fruitful way. Not only that, but it has the Psalms attached to each of the proper antiphons--did you know that there were psalms, scripture, attached to them?
Even the names of certain part of the Mass have been translated to underscore things, to bring the Liturgy more in line with tradition, and the directives of Vatican II. For instance--there is no "opening hymn" the Missal calls for an Entrance Chant. The antiphon you find in your missalette is the peoples part of that. It is to be CHANTED when the priest and ministers enter the Sanctuary at the beginning of Mass.
Some people will complain that the Graduale is in Latin. But there is an apprved book, called the Graduale Simplex, which was designed to serve parishes, and there is a version called By Flowing Waters, in English.
So what did we get? Well, in my parish we got a musical setting for the Mass called "Mass of St. Francis in D". It sucks. It's more effeminate, feminizing camp fire girls folk tunes. This isn't exactly the choice of our music director either--it is a mandated setting from the Archdiocese. In spite of the documents concerning music from the Vatican, and the USCCB itself--of which the Archbishop is Vice President.
So here's the double standard--if the faithful complain, if we ask for traditional music and liturgy we are labeled divisive. It boggles my mind--how is adhering to tradition and following the directives of an Ecumenical Council divisive? How is striving to meet the goals for our worship that were set up by the Council Fathers, and constantly reiterated by the Popes divisive? I'm in an area with more fruit loop nuns and do-it-yourself friars than you can shake a stick at. I'm in an area where nuns "bless fields" wearing white coats to pretend to priestly authority, where priests run nature worship centers, where the CCHD gives money to pro-abortion 'women's advocacy groups"--that's damnably divisive. In fact the lack of liturgical standards are divisive.
Michael Voris has been asking where the men are, why there are so few men in the pews. Well, for one thing, when you edit all the hymns and psalms to appeal to feminists, you alienate men. It is a deliberate attempt to exclude us. We don't like, by and large, camp fire girls sing along songs, and when that's what we get, it slowly erodes our very ability to have full , active and meaningful participation. So maybe, just maybe, we could help fix this if we had REAL CATHOLIC MUSIC instead of semi-hippy 60s era college girl songs?
For that matter, what would be wrong with just going with the musical settings for the Mass found in the 3d Edition of the Roman Missal? Heck, we had to buy new Missals, so why Buy new music when it's already in there?
Not following the guidance and rules published by the Vatican, with the Authority of the Bishop of Rome separates us from the traditions of our own Rite, and our Faith. Yet when we complain, we are told we are being "divisive" and "opaque". Oh really? tht makes me feel divided from and marginalized by the people in the Church, who don't want to be part of the tradition and growth of two millennia, who would rather do something "new". They evidently haven't read St. Paul, or listened during the Mass to the Readings--because Paul told us not to chase after novelties More than that, they can't seem to get it through their heads that 40 years of camp fire music, pianos guitars and such have led to a huge drop in participation in the Mass--a figure that becomes more alarming when one see that the denominations that are growing are those that proclaim a traditional Gospel. It's not lost on me that denominations in the US who have embraced Modernity, Inclusion and a lax form are dying, but evangelical, fundamentalist and traditionalist Churches are full, and growing. It's lost on them that there are many Catholic who will drive for hours for a good liturgy, but who shudder at the thought of yet another Sunday ho-down at St Iwemus Catholyc Community. They havent even figured out that we don't sing their stupid, banal, saccharine and vapid songs because we will not!
The double standard that tells us that we are divisive when we want solemn, reverent Masses with Traditional (the capital T is not a typo) and transcendent music while conducting liturgical actions that are so divisive that people just give up and leave is what bothers me. It bothers me a lot. When people just quit coming, that is the ultimate in divisiveness.
We have a wonderfully rich liturgical tradition, a tradition that stretches back to the Apostles. Being Catholic we, more than any other group, have a diverse tradition liturgically as well. We have within the Church, the Roman Rite in both it's extraordinary and ordinary forms, we have the Hispano-Mozarabic Rite, the Abrosian, the Coptic, the Ge'ez, the Byzantine, the Ruthenian, the Anglican Use, the Bragan Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carmelite Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Malankarese, the Chaldean, the Syro-Malabarese, the Belarussian, Bulgarian, the Czech, the Krizevci, the Italo-Albanian, the Melkite, the Romanian, the Slovak, the Ukrainian. In all of these liturgical rites, only one disrespects itself to the point of liturgical abuses so egregious that one wonders if they are even in a Catholic Church--the Roman Rite.
I was very excited about the new translation of the Mass texts for the 3d edition of the Roman Missal. It wasn't just the theological richness of the prayers, it was the chance to initiate a reform of the Liturgy. I confess myself disappointed. Mostly about Music and Solemnity.
Frankly, I am appalled by some things. The Second Vatican Council affirmed the use of Latin as the language of the Church, and affirmed and directed that the people learn to make their responses in Latin. It also affirmed the pride of place of chant in the liturgy. The most basic of the liturgical books for the Mass, after the missal itself, is the Graduale Romanum. It has the proper texts with the proper tones for each Mass. There is an edition for the Ordinary Form. The key word here is "Proper"--the Chants at Mass are Scripture, or closely derived from Scripture. They work with the readings and the Calendar to increase the richness of the Liturgy, and to aid the faithful in participating in a meaningful, fruitful way. Not only that, but it has the Psalms attached to each of the proper antiphons--did you know that there were psalms, scripture, attached to them?
Even the names of certain part of the Mass have been translated to underscore things, to bring the Liturgy more in line with tradition, and the directives of Vatican II. For instance--there is no "opening hymn" the Missal calls for an Entrance Chant. The antiphon you find in your missalette is the peoples part of that. It is to be CHANTED when the priest and ministers enter the Sanctuary at the beginning of Mass.
Some people will complain that the Graduale is in Latin. But there is an apprved book, called the Graduale Simplex, which was designed to serve parishes, and there is a version called By Flowing Waters, in English.
So what did we get? Well, in my parish we got a musical setting for the Mass called "Mass of St. Francis in D". It sucks. It's more effeminate, feminizing camp fire girls folk tunes. This isn't exactly the choice of our music director either--it is a mandated setting from the Archdiocese. In spite of the documents concerning music from the Vatican, and the USCCB itself--of which the Archbishop is Vice President.
So here's the double standard--if the faithful complain, if we ask for traditional music and liturgy we are labeled divisive. It boggles my mind--how is adhering to tradition and following the directives of an Ecumenical Council divisive? How is striving to meet the goals for our worship that were set up by the Council Fathers, and constantly reiterated by the Popes divisive? I'm in an area with more fruit loop nuns and do-it-yourself friars than you can shake a stick at. I'm in an area where nuns "bless fields" wearing white coats to pretend to priestly authority, where priests run nature worship centers, where the CCHD gives money to pro-abortion 'women's advocacy groups"--that's damnably divisive. In fact the lack of liturgical standards are divisive.
Michael Voris has been asking where the men are, why there are so few men in the pews. Well, for one thing, when you edit all the hymns and psalms to appeal to feminists, you alienate men. It is a deliberate attempt to exclude us. We don't like, by and large, camp fire girls sing along songs, and when that's what we get, it slowly erodes our very ability to have full , active and meaningful participation. So maybe, just maybe, we could help fix this if we had REAL CATHOLIC MUSIC instead of semi-hippy 60s era college girl songs?
For that matter, what would be wrong with just going with the musical settings for the Mass found in the 3d Edition of the Roman Missal? Heck, we had to buy new Missals, so why Buy new music when it's already in there?
Not following the guidance and rules published by the Vatican, with the Authority of the Bishop of Rome separates us from the traditions of our own Rite, and our Faith. Yet when we complain, we are told we are being "divisive" and "opaque". Oh really? tht makes me feel divided from and marginalized by the people in the Church, who don't want to be part of the tradition and growth of two millennia, who would rather do something "new". They evidently haven't read St. Paul, or listened during the Mass to the Readings--because Paul told us not to chase after novelties More than that, they can't seem to get it through their heads that 40 years of camp fire music, pianos guitars and such have led to a huge drop in participation in the Mass--a figure that becomes more alarming when one see that the denominations that are growing are those that proclaim a traditional Gospel. It's not lost on me that denominations in the US who have embraced Modernity, Inclusion and a lax form are dying, but evangelical, fundamentalist and traditionalist Churches are full, and growing. It's lost on them that there are many Catholic who will drive for hours for a good liturgy, but who shudder at the thought of yet another Sunday ho-down at St Iwemus Catholyc Community. They havent even figured out that we don't sing their stupid, banal, saccharine and vapid songs because we will not!
The double standard that tells us that we are divisive when we want solemn, reverent Masses with Traditional (the capital T is not a typo) and transcendent music while conducting liturgical actions that are so divisive that people just give up and leave is what bothers me. It bothers me a lot. When people just quit coming, that is the ultimate in divisiveness.
7 comments:
Excellent post! I'm sick of the double standard too. I don't its quite as bad in Pittsburgh as the place you have described.
I feel your pain and we did exactly as you suggested would happen - we left. If we can't go to the FSSP parish, we don't go at all.
I was completely fed up with people looking at us like we pooped in our pants because we didn't want to hold hands with them and wouldn't sing heretical happy-clappy songs.
Going to Mass and bitching all the way home was not working real well in our household.
Oh - did I mention the choir director at the 10:30 happy clappy Mass is a homosexual who lives with his boyfriend (they wish to marry and it looks like will be able to across the border in Washington) who also is in the choir? They post links on their Facebook pages to all sorts of sexy male sites. Anyone, including the youngsters at our parish can access this. WTHell???
WTH is correct--it is HELL--the machinations of Satan--link their porno to the Chancery, and get a high volume, reform minded blog to point out what's on the parish blog, and the lifestyle of the music director.
I.R.
Hey, did you go to the pro-life mass on Sunday? There was some woman (reportedly) carrying a black rose who had to be dragged out after she started yelling expletives at one of the priests? Do you know anything about it?
Red: I need to correct you on the Introit and Communion antiphon found in the Missal.
From the Latin Typical Edition Re The Introit
48. Peragitur autem a schola et populo alternatim, vel simili modo a cantore et populo, vel totus a populo vel a schola sola. Adhiberi potest sive antiphona cum suo psalmo in Graduali Romano vel in Graduali simplici exstans, sive alius cantus, actioni sacrae, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.56
Si ad introitum non habetur cantus, antiphona in Missali proposita recitatur sive a fidelibus, sive ab aliquibus ex ipsis, sive a lectore, sin aliter ab ipso sacerdote, qui potest etiam in modum monitionis initialis (cf. n. 31) eam aptare.
My translation follows
The chant is sung alternatively between the schola and the people, or the cantor and the people, or entirely by all, or entirely by the schola alone. Either the Antiphon with its psalm, which is found in the Graduale Romanum, or in the Graduale Simplex, or another chant adept to the sacred action to the character of the day or time, and its text has been approved by the Episcopal Conference.56
If there is no singing at the Introit, the antiphon proposed in the Roman Missal is proclaimed(read) either by the faithful, or some of them, or the Lector, or else the celebrant who may adapt it to an initial explanation(cf. n. 31)
The same is said of the communion antiphon.
Re the Offertory antiphon if there is NO singing then the preparatory prayers are said aloud with the people responding Blessed be God for ever.
But as for the rest of your argument it is sound.
There is an english translation of the Simplex (BY Flowing Waters, Dr. Ford) And I would have to check to be sure, but there either is an english translation of the Graduale Romanum or someone is translating the GR
The antiphons in the missal is NOT to be chanted at all.
Puff--Iknew that. But the antiphon in the missal goes with, according to the Graduale, a given psalm proper for each day, and can be chanted in a manner similar to the Responsorial psalm, or strophed.
Bully!
Post a Comment