As the years go by and a newer generation of Catholics participate more actively in the ministry of the church Iíll try to bear my cross while weíre rapping the Our Father or listening to Christian hip hop during the Offertory since this is what the flock may prefer. I speak facetiously of course, but Iím not advocating a change in doctrine, or that we return to Latin, or the TLM, or that even Gregorian chant be sung. Nor am I suggesting the choir play my favorite tune each Sunday. But I do believe that music during Mass should be sacred and ideally distinctly Catholic. I think we lose our Catholic identity and traditions as we head down the slippery slope of appeasing the faithful by incorporating whatever latest fad exists into the Mass. The Mass isnít about us, itís about Christ. Itís not entertainment, itís a sacrifice. The music of the Mass should glorify God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Conte

In some parts of the world today, Christians are dying for Christ. And in other parts of the world, we argue over little points of liturgical form and over which music would be best. What would Jesus himself say?

I acknowledge the unfortunate reality that Christians are dying for Christ each day and they certainly have my prayers. However, this is not a new phenomenon and has been occurring for millennia. Martyrdom hasnít stopped the saints from discussing proper liturgical forms during the Mass nor do I believe it should stop us.

As the years go by and a newer generation of Catholics participate more actively in the ministry of the church Iíll try to bear my cross while weíre rapping the Our Father or listening to Christian hip hop during the Offertory since this is what the flock may prefer. I speak facetiously of course, but Iím not advocating a change in doctrine, or that we return to Latin, or the TLM, or that even Gregorian chant be sung. Nor am I suggesting the choir play my favorite tune each Sunday. But I do believe that music during Mass should be sacred and ideally distinctly Catholic. I think we lose our Catholic identity and traditions as we head down the slippery slope of appeasing the faithful by incorporating whatever latest fad exists into the Mass. The Mass isnít about us, itís about Christ. Itís not entertainment, itís a sacrifice. The music of the Mass should glorify God.

I have the same preferences for traditional Catholic hymns as you. But I notice some Catholics online complaining a great deal about small points of liturgical form, while the vast majority of Catholics commit mortal sins of various kinds frequently, and the vast majority also never go to confession. The Church is plagued by some very serious problems right now.

Pope Francis is very likely to make some substantial changes to discipline at the Oct. Bishops' Synod. He might also issue some new definitions of doctrine. I believe that this event will initiate the great apostasy. Many traditionalist and conservative Catholics will accuse the Pope of heresy and create a schism in the Church.

We must never treat any aspect of discipline, however good or useful, as if it were unchangeable dogma.

Very true Ron. Your point is well taken. Debating liturgical music does seem somewhat nitpicky while the Church faces more significant concerns. The Church as we have known it may very well change but we must always remain faithful.

But I notice some Catholics online complaining a great deal about small points of liturgical form, while the vast majority of Catholics commit mortal sins of various kinds frequently, and the vast majority also never go to confession. The Church is plagued by some very serious problems right now.

I guess the question is whether or not there is a relationship between the two. Not "small points of liturgical form," but do liturgical changes and practices - female altar servers, banal hymns, folksy talk, applauding during the mass, communion in the hand, etc. - have an effect on Catholics? Over time, do we take Mass less seriously because it seems, outwardly, less serious? Does that affect our beliefs and our practices? If a priest is going to wear a Mickey Mouse hat during a sermon (I witnessed that), how serious should we take this? Do we then take the "rules" less seriously elsewhere - abortion, contraception, etc?

I think there should be a balance and, as our society is growing less formal since the 1950's, our Church should not race to meet that informality.

Ron, to what extent is Sacrosanctum Concilium's directive that Gregorian chant have pride of place binding? The document's purpose was to allow for a change of the Mass, which was accomplished with a 1965 Missal that was then superceded by the current Novus Ordo. Must Gregorian chant have the pride of place, or was that just a suggestion from the Second Vatican Council?

__________________
St. Thomas More
--"The King's Good Servant, but God's First"

I guess the question is whether or not there is a relationship between the two. Not "small points of liturgical form," but do liturgical changes and practices - female altar servers, banal hymns, folksy talk, applauding during the mass, communion in the hand, etc. - have an effect on Catholics? Over time, do we take Mass less seriously because it seems, outwardly, less serious? Does that affect our beliefs and our practices? If a priest is going to wear a Mickey Mouse hat during a sermon (I witnessed that), how serious should we take this? Do we then take the "rules" less seriously elsewhere - abortion, contraception, etc?

I think there should be a balance and, as our society is growing less formal since the 1950's, our Church should not race to meet that informality.

I have a few comments to add. First, you assume that the conservative judgment or preference on these matters is necessarily correct. An early Ecumenical Council settled a controversial question of the day on liturgical form: whether a particular prayer at Mass should be said standing or kneeling. Their decision: standing. The conservative answer is not necessarily the correct answer on every point.

Second, the Church permits Communion in the hand and She has the authority to do so. When Jesus healed the leper, He touched the leper first, while he was still a leper, and then He healed him. He could have healed him before touching him. I don't believe Jesus would mind Communion in the hand. Again, the conservative judgment is not necessarily correct. So we can't conclude that souls are harmed when a point of liturgical form is not conservative.

Third, at my current parish, at the end of every Mass, just before the closing prayer, the priest asks if anyone has a birthday this week. If so, then applause for those persons. Then he asks if there are any wedding anniversaries; again, applause. And finally, are there any visitors here today? applause a third time. I see no reason to object to this practice. It is not irreverent, nor does it have some type of negative effect.

Fourth, I agree that there are some liturgical abuses in the Church today. But the solution is not one rigid form of the Mass for all Catholics worldwide: say exactly these words, sit - kneel - stand exactly at these points, wear exactly these garments. Liturgical form is necessary and good judgments should be made on points of form. But discipline is not doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by St. Thomas More

Ron, to what extent is Sacrosanctum Concilium's directive that Gregorian chant have pride of place binding? The document's purpose was to allow for a change of the Mass, which was accomplished with a 1965 Missal that was then superceded by the current Novus Ordo. Must Gregorian chant have the pride of place, or was that just a suggestion from the Second Vatican Council?

It is not a teaching, so it is neither dogma, nor non-infallible doctrine. A Council's decisions on discipline are changeable, by any proper authority in the Church subsequently. A new Council is not needed to make such a change. The specific point about the Gregorian chant is merely an acknowledgment that it is fitting, and a recommendation, generally, to the Church. It does not imply that each and every parish must use Gregorian changes. The Churches in the East (Catholic ones) have their own Canon Law and their own liturgical form.

But the solution is not one rigid form of the Mass for all Catholics worldwide: say exactly these words, sit - kneel - stand exactly at these points, wear exactly these garments. Liturgical form is necessary and good judgments should be made on points of form. But discipline is not doctrine.

I agree with you - the Church gives us liberty to attend the Roman Rite in the Extraordinary form or the Ordinary form. And there are many other valid rites we can attend. I was never claiming Catholics should attend one "rigid form of the Mass." But, aside from liturgical abuses, the informality and lack of reverence sometimes detracts from the gravity of the sacrifice, for me. This might occur with music, or something else. That is just my nature and approach. I know that many others can attend a folk mass or a rock mass, (we have them, too), and apprehend the gravity of the sacrifice. I'm not disparaging them or any form of the Mass, nor advocating one over the other.

Where the Church has approved several forms of the Roman Rite, we have liberty to attend what we deem appropriate. Some of us prefer Gregorian Chant (like the Council did) to set the mood for the Mass; others do not.

I also think - just my opinion - that children can apprehend the seriousness of the sacrifice with greater reverence at the Extraordinary Form. But I don't fault anyone for going to any valid and licit Catholic Mass.

__________________
St. Thomas More
--"The King's Good Servant, but God's First"

I agree with you - the Church gives us liberty to attend the Roman Rite in the Extraordinary form or the Ordinary form. And there are many other valid rites we can attend. I was never claiming Catholics should attend one "rigid form of the Mass." But, aside from liturgical abuses, the informality and lack of reverence sometimes detracts from the gravity of the sacrifice, for me. This might occur with music, or something else. That is just my nature and approach. I know that many others can attend a folk mass or a rock mass, (we have them, too), and apprehend the gravity of the sacrifice. I'm not disparaging them or any form of the Mass, nor advocating one over the other.

Where the Church has approved several forms of the Roman Rite, we have liberty to attend what we deem appropriate. Some of us prefer Gregorian Chant (like the Council did) to set the mood for the Mass; others do not.

I also think - just my opinion - that children can apprehend the seriousness of the sacrifice with greater reverence at the Extraordinary Form. But I don't fault anyone for going to any valid and licit Catholic Mass.