Yikes.

for anyone confused by this:

Please edit previous comment.

I'm assuming the issue is this

"best practices" for whorship.

This is an example of a Freudian slip, which is what it's called if you're thinking of one word and you accidentally say your mother.

Profound apologies.

Bad typing skills, honest!

(And com'on you guys, none of you have editing privileges and coulda fixed it?)

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

Do it Kathy

Matthew J. The J. stands for Beelzebub.

Re preaching: Find some specific point of contact with actual Catholic Church teaching. Don't be afraid to point out that certain activities are or can be sinful, even if the choir is selling bakery after Mass (hint: there's more sin above the neck than below the waist -- not that they ever discuss "below the waist" either.)

Ultimately, though, this is all another instance of "The Mass is all about you.". And... if Jesus walked into your parish, that would be exciting, right? Well, He did.

G, this was mean and terrible! I was having a great day preparing for the one year anniversary of Pope Francis' election, and then I read this article... I almost feel like I need to go to confession after reading that...

So that makes me a near occasion of sin?
I guess I've been called worse ;o)

That was one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever committed in my life. I almost feel like I need to go to confession after reading that...

Oh, so you didn't watch any of the new network sitcoms this year.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Nope! I don't watch the stuff...

Neither do I. People around me talk about those shows and the stars. I have never heard of any of them, and didn't miss a thing.

I don't suppose it's on Fox, PGA?

I lost interest when the judges revealed that it's not actually about the music.

I didn't think anyone could go into it thinking it was about the music. It was, is, and will always be about show-biz, and I don't think the show ever pretended otherwise.

I just now read the article. Wow. I actually couldn't finish reading it completely. It seems that the author's point can be reduced to this: good liturgy = participation. The author also seems to be encouraging some sort of party atmosphere towards that end: "...lively and active..." sounds like my current principal at the school: she pins everything on two words "...fun and engaging..." which of course can mean different things to different people, so it's really not a standard that can be attained unless we all think alike. "...stop making music dull..." Ok then let us make it beautiful, which as has been discussed on this forum many times is not a subjective term. "Pretty" is the subjective term, but it's not the same thing as "beautiful." Other than that, I'm not sure what else to say at the moment.

As I mentioned before in other posts, our Parish music director picks "beautiful" music that is fitting to what is going on in the liturgy. No guitars, no drums, none of that... but meshes the traditional with a flavor of quality contemporary hymns that don't sound like they are contemporary (even my parents can't really tell the difference when they visit our Parish), purely using piano (sometimes alongside a cello or violin) and organ. Some are more upbeat, some are more solemn for occasions they should be. Combine with to the point, relevant homilies that don't drag on (both our Priests got this mastered), it really is a good combination.

Any article on this subject that cites theologians heavily instead of parish priests is a waste of time.

And the same for one that quotes parish priests!

She starts by calling herself a "Vatican II Catholic". I don't know what that means. I don't think I am any less a "Vatican II Catholic" than she is, yet I imagine that my interpretation of Vatican II's teaching is quite different from hers.

I didn't care for the implication that any desire for chant and Latin somehow constitutes a call for a return to "pre-Vatican II" practices. She makes it sound as if Vatican II actually eliminated chant and Latin from the liturgy.

When she states, "some Catholics went in the opposite direction and called for a return to the pre-Vatican II Mass." I don't know who she is talking about. In all my travels, I have rarely encountered anyone who is literally calling for a return to the "pre-Vatican II" mass - except for a few radicals who actually believe that Vatican II was a heresy. Of course, there are those who support the EF as a legitimate and beautiful form of the liturgy, but I don't equate that with a return to pre-Vatican II. Am I wrong?

To of sorts plagiarize a learned twentieth century mind, "If Vatican II fails, it won't be because it was tried and found wanting, but that it was never tried." Was Benedict XVI the only one who ever truly and seriously studied the documents?