In case it's not obvious, I'll restate that people like that really make me angry. And let me add that when you have GRANDCHILDREN, you lose your right to say what people my age want/don't want.

Alas, I know some people who often seem thrilled to hear a priest preach about sin, provided that the sins are ones that they are not likely to commit.

At the risk of sounding dated:

Gavin, you rock.

Well said. True, too.

We're almost there, aren't we? When was the last time you heard a priest (or bishop for that matter) preach on the four last things? (I know you and others on this forum actually may have, but I haven't and most of my colleagues around here haven't, either. So, I'm just saying.)

You're right though, Gavin. I don't think some of us will ever be able to make serious headway in advancing good music as long as we have clergy that pander to the white-bread, pop-tarts, pre-fab, wash and wear, loose credit, plug-and-play mentality of the post-modernist types in the pews. If the priests don't make the connection, the PIP's won't either, and they'll go on asking for Mass-As-Entertainment experiences of church.

Meantime, I'm soooo glad the post Vat. II catechetical advances foisted on the most recent generations by the aging hippies have done so much to bring about the much-needed aggiornamento.

Bravo. Well-done.

Now give us back our Church!

perhaps in some other service.

Amen to that.

An old saw, indeed, it may be; and tired at that.
But consider the reality that this presumably elderly man (his grandchildren have CHOSEN to lapse) took the time to write a fairly well-known, mainline periodical with his concerns and (mis)perceptions. Now think how many folks his opinions may typically represent. As Jimmy Akens would say: "Mass confusion."
Those of us who have found surety and sustinence in these blogs, CMAA, St. John Cantius, NLM et al, need still to remember that such people as that grandfather didn't come to their ignorance of their own volition. They simply floated in the tidewaters of whatever liturgical environment was prevelent at various points of their lives. Essentially the Church of "pray, pay and obey" didn't really change after the council. I am reminded of Mary Jane's accurate analysis of the PIP's groupthink article in SMusic of a year ago.
I hope we all manage to both keep our eyes on "First: Worship," and then active charity in all our efforts to restore the sacred not just in the external aspects of our liturgies, but in the hearts of that man and his grandchildren.
Can we, again, stop with the generational stereotyping?

It wouldn't hurt for us to think for a moment that our country should be treated as mission territory, and some forms of evangelization appropriate to mission fields may be suitable here.

I took a break and went back and read the letter in question. It's hard to know where to start. One very good point in the answer was this:

"Worship in any church can become superficial if it celebrates more the people who pray instead of the God who makes their prayer possible. At its worst, worship can become an inoculation against conversion rather than a stimulus toward it. That’s what prophets like Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah complained about."

Down here in the ever-happy and positive-encouragement land of Florida this is a serious issue. Practically all of our church activities, not just the liturgy, are a celebration of middle-class values and our own specialness. Ministry accomplishments are endlessly celebrated in the bulletin and from the lectern. Everybody's doing just great. And if they have a momentary stumble, we have a support group for them (and maybe a prayer blanket). 45 minutes a week for confessions is more than adequate. And if, heaven forbid, too many people show up for confessions to finish in that time slot, the priest tells them to come back next week. They really couldn't have done much of anything wrong, could they?

All of these things hang together. Consequently, when we envision remaking the music from Happy Haugen and Haas to something better, we have to bear the environment in mind. It's not impossible, but "heck, your music is such a downer."

We have the treasure that everyone seeks. Why don't we understand that?

It's too strong a brand image.

At least, that's what Sixties Types thought. Emphasizing our commonalities with Protestants was just the pretext the Sixties Types needed to start gutting the RC Church from the inside, so they started throwing everything RC overboard in a rush to "embrace their Christian brethren."

Naturally, Protestants were delighted. But did they change anything on their Protestant side? Did they become more RC in return?

(laughter) Of course not.

The whole game has been to undermine the RC Church, and the Sixties Types have done their work well.

But it will not last.

The hunger in one's heart for God's real presence is too strong, and the need to worship the transcendent divine is as strong as ever. They will see a strong young generation slip through their fingers like sand, and they will furiously rage.

Gavin, I was "venting."

And lest I should be thought of as not valuing laymen's input, some valid suggestions are as follows:

"I think we're doing too much Latin/chant" (fair enough, we're not required to do ALL Latin or ALL chant, so it's worth discussing how much is within the range of the congregation to grasp and the musicians to perform)
"We need to get children involved in the music" (this would be a legitimate expansion of music ministry)
"We don't use (decent hymn) often enough" (it can be nice to know what people like)
"I don't understand X" (so it's an opportunity for them to learn, if they're open)

And even things like "why do we do Latin?" or "Why can't we have contemporary music?" aren't so bad, as they represent teaching opportunities, assuming the person is really seeking a dialog and not making demands.

What I take issue with is when people try to argue, as this man does, from propositions that are not only outside the Christian faith, but OPPOSED to it.

Gavin wrote:

"The Lutheran Hymnal's service is nearly a translation of the Tridentine Mass. Same goes for the 1928 BCP. Away with your anti-protestant blame game, I say the old adage is true: when Rome catches a cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia."

I do not know enough of the Lutheran Service to comment about it.

The 1928 BCP was in no wise a translation of the Tridentine Missal; nor was the order of "Mass" set forth in the 1549 Prayer Book. Just about all Anglican Prayer Books up to the last round of revisions were re-workings of Cranmer, who compiled liturgies to express his own profoundly protestant theology. For political reasons he made them ambiguous, and patient of a Catholic interpretation quite at odds with his own. Throughout the following four centuries few Anglicans ever gave them an interpretation nearly so protestant as his own. The American Prayer Books of 1789-1928, influenced by the rites of the Scottish non-jurors, moved several steps in a Catholic direction, re-assembling a dismembered Eucharistic Prayer. No Anglican Prayer Book since 1549, however, has been nearly as Catholic as the American book of 1979. It was, indeed, and Anglo-Catholic triumph. In many places, e.g., Eucharistic Prayer II and the fixed postcommunion in rite I, receptionist language has given place to much more orthodox language.

Since Cranmer did not attribute much objective significance to the Eucharistic action per se, his liturgy revolved principally around devotional preparation of the communicants--hence the Collect for Purity, Ten Commandments, Exhortation, Invitation, Confession (laden with highly emotional language), Absolution, and Comfortable words. The 1979 Prayer Book reduced the amount of this material (in Rite II, at least) to a short confession and absolution.

The penitential rite at the beginning of the current Roman Ordo Missae is, perhaps, its most protestant feature. The penitential devotions at the beginning of the Tridentine rite, which were quite late additions to the Roman mass, were private devotions of the ministers, inaudible to the people at High Mass. The Confiteor recited by the deacon before the administration of communion to the people was part of a separate office for administration of communion. It was not even printed within the Ordo Missae. (The same can be said of "Ecce Agnus Dei... Domine, non sum dignus." Public confessions were a Reformation innovation. Only at the insistence of Paul VI was a confession placed at the beginning of the new rite. Most liturgists favored placing it before the offertory. In the "classic" (pre-Carolingian) Roman rite references to sin and repentance were largely confined to the orations (collects, prayers over the offerings, and postcommunions).

Personally, I would like to see the Confession of sin relegated to a bidding in the Prayers of the Faithful, (e.g., "Let us pray for ourselves, humbly confessing our sins, and beseeching almighty God to grant us true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit. (Silence) V. Lord hear our prayer. R. And let our cry come before you.)

"As we prepare to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins," is not a traditional way to begin the Mass. Nor. in my view, is it normally the best was.

"Kyrie, eleison" is an acclamation that is not of itself penitential. Its use in Byzantine intercessory litanies show that it has not always been understood as penitential. In the traditional Roman rite, where it follows the introit, its context is not penitential.

A penitential emphasis is more characteristic of Reformation-influenced protestant worship than of the Roman rite.