Well, Jesus might have been talking about people getting tortured and beheaded for the faith, or grilled on a gridiron, or cast into the sea with an anchor tied around their neck. I don't think he was talking about the delicate "suffering" of having to listen to people sing "Jesus" before "Lamb of God." So you're right, it's probably not what he had in mind.

I was told that I was trying to impose the ideal on the parish. The ideal is to chant the antiphons and have an organ. I am just shooting for the bare minimum: Mass settings that are word-for-word faithful to the text. Unfortunately, we also have the same problem with the Spanish settings.

The problem is that the rest of the parishes in the diocese are like this, if not worse. For me, it goes beyond having to put up with insipid music by Haugen, Hurd, Haas and Kanebo. It's about trying to do what the Church asks us to do.

I sympathize with you. That "Lamb of God" is a problem and my pastor has asked that we not use it. But then, why would anyone expect Haugen to uphold Catholic liturgy or doctrine in the first place? He's not Catholic and has never pretended to be.

As for my own plans, I am not going to confront anyone over MOC. When we change to the new missal at Advent, it will quietly disappear and be replaced by other mass settings. No words will be exchanged, it will just be gone.

It's pretty hard to make changes when the music director isn't on board with trying to be faithful to the text. Most likely, if the music director simply chose another setting that is more faithful, nothing would have been said. For example, as music director, I'm making a change at the parish where I've just begun work. They've been using a Gloria that has clapping as part of it. I admit it is a very happy, cheery, tune (although inappropriate for the Mass). The people know it and can really belt it out, too.

I'm moving to some parts of the Heritage Mass as an interim move to begin the transition to the chanted ordinaries. I think it is a move in the right direction for this parish. (along with the simple Kyrie in Greek and chanted Our Father instead of the Celtic Mass Our Father they've been singing).

I do find it very interesting that we are barred from using the new Mass Ordinaries for the new translation before the beginning of Advent by the bishop. With the wacky liberties that have been taken with the text in much of the music that is currently used, I truly cannot understand why they would object. However, since it is as it is, I am just going to work to teach the congregation the Latin chants upon which the melodies for the new ordinaries are based during the coming months. I hope this will make the transition to the new English translations smoother.

The choice of musical instruments says a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHcA5dUEJHw

Ripple, being a fortified wine, is probably not licit for use at Mass. Like the music we are talking about.

TABLE WINE AT MASS - [including excellent response to DIVERSITY]

ROME, 27 JAN. 2009 (ZENIT)
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Could you please comment on the permissibility of using commercially available table wine for Mass? When the label clearly indicates "100% grape," this would seem to satisfy the requirements for validity. I ask the question because "altar wine" sells at a premium over table wine, and is generally not available without having to pay additional shipping charges. Having this option might appeal to pastors of poorer parishes who are looking for ways to trim parish expenses, and yet who are expected by the diocesan ordinary to offer the chalice to the laity at all Masses. — A.L., Gallitzin, Pennsylvania

A: The principles involved in the determination of proper matter are relatively simple. The most recent official declaration on this point stems from the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 50, which basically sums up earlier laws and the Code of Canon Law, No. 924:

"The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances. During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured. It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter."

Almost a century earlier the Catholic Encyclopedia gave basically the same doctrine but added more details, all of which are still relevant.

"Wine is one of the two elements absolutely necessary for the sacrifice of the Eucharist. For valid and licit consecration vinum de vite, i.e. the pure juice of the grape naturally and properly fermented, is to be used. Wine made out of raisins, provided that from its colour and taste it may be judged to be pure, may be used (Collect. S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 705). It may be white or red, weak or strong, sweet or dry. Since the validity of the Holy Sacrifice, and the lawfulness of its celebration, require absolutely genuine wine, it becomes the serious obligation of the celebrant to procure only pure wines. And since wines are frequently so adulterated as to escape minute chemical analysis, it may be taken for granted that the safest way of procuring pure wine is to buy it not at second hand, but directly from a manufacturer who understands and conscientiously respects the great responsibility involved in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. If the wine is changed into vinegar, or is become putrid or corrupted, if it was pressed from grapes that were not fully ripe, or if it is mixed with such a quantity of water that it can hardly be called wine, its use is forbidden (Missale Rom., De Defectibus, tit. iv, 1). If the wine begins to turn into vinegar, or to become putrid, or if the unfermented juice is pressed from the grape, it would be a grievous offence to use it, but it is considered valid matter (ibid., 2). To conserve weak and feeble wines, and in order to keep them from souring or spoiling during transportation, a small quantity of spirits of wine (grape brandy or alcohol) may be added, provided the following conditions are observed (1) The added spirit (alcohol) must have been distilled from the grape (ex genimime vitis); (2) the quantity of alcohol added, together with that which the wine contained naturally after fermentation, must not exceed eighteen per cent of the whole; (3) the addition must be made during the process of fermentation (S. Romana et Univ. Inquis., 5 August, 1896)."

Note that none of these documents speak about the obligation to use any officially denominated "Altar Wine" and indeed there is nothing special about official altar wine except that it is guaranteed to be nothing special.

If one could be equally certain that a cheaper table wine is 100% grape with no additions of other substances or of non-grape alcohol, then it would also be valid matter. To be certain, and before using it, one should inquire from the manufacturer regarding the process involved in making the wine so as to exclude any doubt whatsoever.

While any priest could make such an inquiry, it would be more prudent that it be done through the local ordinary who could then inform his clergy that, as well as official altar wines, such and such a brand of common table wine may also be considered as valid matter for the Eucharist.
* * *

Follow-up: Table Wine at Mass [2-10-2009]

Our Jan. 27 piece on proper altar wine generated a great deal of interest and further questions which we will attempt to deal with now.

A U.S. reader asked if wine from America's native muscat grapes are equally valid as European varieties. While no wine connoisseur, I believe that if this is a true grape, then the fact that it is native to America has no bearing on its validity. The first Christians always used whatever local varieties were available and this principle can be followed today.

Something similar can be said regarding the presence of minute traces of sulphites found in most modern wines as preservatives. As we explained in a follow-up on July 13, 2004, our opinion is that since the sulphites do not change the nature of the wine, their presence does not affect validity.

An Australian reader offered some further qualities of sacramental wine that were not included in our earlier reply. "It could also be noted that that the wine used for the liturgy should not be fortified, no wine-based spirits, and that it should be 'still' — no champagne or spumante!"

I would only specify that "fortified wine" usually means the likes of port, Marsala and sherry. It is not the case mentioned in our previous column, when grape alcohol is added to weak wines in order to preserve them, provided that the alcohol level does not exceed 18%.

Our Australian correspondent also commented that if price is not an issue, kosher wines from Jewish stores are guaranteed as valid for Mass.

Another reader, an abstainer from alcohol, suggested the generalized use of mustum (grape juice that is only minimally fermented) instead of wine. The reader wrote:

"I have also read papal documents explaining that the essential substance is 'grape,' not 'alcohol.' Although alcohol content of recognized altar wines are low, drinking and driving gives the wrong message to the people (both communicant and otherwise), regardless of sacramental and liturgical changes in substance and meanings. Catholics frequently drive to and from Mass, when receiving the chalice.

"Therefore, it concerns me that you fail to mention the legitimacy of using mustum, especially in cases where the priest celebrant is a self-proclaimed alcoholic. Having identified and sampled mustum which is acceptable for the chalice, I find that it fulfills the sacramental and liturgical purposes far more completely than the fermented varieties. However, I can understand why the chemically changed wine (the fermented version) is today regarded as the acceptable standard.

"Mustum is not freshly available all year round in every parish, and at its best it is highly volatile. It requires very careful storage and handling, which would be impractical in most cases. However, I would like to stress that (1) fermentation is actually a process of chemical corruption of the grape juice (attempts to say otherwise can undermine the theology of transubstantiation because the science proves it), and (2) I know that the administration of alcoholic liquor from the chalice is pastorally and symbolically suspect (it fails to give good moral example).

"Therefore, with new technologies becoming more widely available for packaging, refrigerating and dispensing pure pressed grape juices (Tetra Paks, thermal insulators and so forth), I think the Church would be wise to stay awake and sober about the virtue and legitimacy of using unfermented mustum as an altar wine. The word 'wine' has not always been synonymous with 'booze'; it has also meant a deliciously flavored taste."

While respecting our reader's decision to refrain from alcohol, I beg to differ regarding both the interpretation of papal documents and the use of mustum.

First, the Church has always understood the proper matter of the sacrament to be wine (an alcoholic beverage), and not simple grape juice. When conceding the use of mustum in extraordinary circumstances, the Church stressed that it is at the limit of validity. Therefore I do not believe that this concession justifies extrapolating the case in order to recommend its general use.

Also, the nature of the chemical process of fermentation has absolutely nothing to do with transubstantiation, which occurs to the final product, not to the process.

Second, I would respectfully disagree with expressions such as "administration of alcoholic liquor from the chalice" as well as linking the idea of "drinking and driving" with receiving Communion under the species of wine. We should always treat with respect, indeed adoration, what has become Christ's precious blood and is no longer simple wine. It is true that the accident of alcohol would certainly have an adverse effect if taken in large quantities, but we must give priority to faith in what the wine has become. From the point of view of faith I fail to see how consuming the sacred species could be construed as giving a bad moral example.

Even from the material point of view our correspondent's argument is untenable. It is a good thing to abstain from alcohol as a spiritual sacrifice; indeed, it is a meritorious act. It is not obligatory, however, and Catholic doctrine has always held a generally positive outlook toward material things when used with moderation. In other words, if Catholics may imbibe moderate quantities of alcohol with a clear conscience, much more may they partake of Christ's precious blood.

Finally, a reader from Washington state asked: "For the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, our church asked parishioners to 'bring your favorite bottle of wine' to be used as sacramental wine. Later, a flier was put out saying that 'as we enjoy the different flavors of the wines in coming weeks we would remember our diversity.' Doesn't this send the wrong message? Is this even allowed?"

From all that we had said about the care required in establishing the suitability of sacramental wine, it goes without saying that this is a very bad idea, and there is no small risk of compromising the validity of the sacrament, at least on some occasions. I would recommend that our correspondent inform the local bishop of what has occurred.

Even if there were no risk of invalidity, I can only wonder at the pastoral logic behind such an initiative. How could the quintessential sacrament of unity with God and our fellows be sequestered into becoming a vehicle for remembering our diversity?

Suffering at the hands of the Church is a *normal* state of being for anyone who spends enough time in it. It's been the reality for centuries. Doesn't make the Church less "true" but it helps to understand that the Church is a hospital full of sick people (aka sinners) and that its inner workings involve people in active sickness."

This is one of the major reasons people endure spiritual dryness and dark nights of the soul/senses for years on end.

One line of St Therese's Story of A Soul always struck me. I can't cite it verbatim, but in one passage she says that her ecstatic language is not a reflection of what she actually felt but what she'd have liked to have felt; it was a hint of a spiritual desert that may have been like the one Bl Teresa of Calcutta experienced for a half century.

One of the largely unspoken dangers of being a church musician is getting dependent on the aesthetic, intellectual and/or pastoral consolations of the job to avoid the spiritual desert that most Christians are called to as part of their journey.

While I disagree with Charles rather often on just this issue, I am absolutely convinced that his motives are not disobedience in any way. They are charity, realism, and a certain Catholic sensibility of taking the long view. I respect this attitude very much.

I was actually more appalled by the mustum discussion than the BYOB. If somebody is getting enough Blood for it to be psychoactive, there's something wrong. There are alcoholics who don't take that species and that's perfectly fine. And Who created those yeast beasties to do what they do?

Last year in Holy Week I heard this evangelical pastor on the radio claiming that it was grape juice at the Last Supper because wine would have been trayf as a leavened product. Hello...leavened BREAD?? And how does yeast make juice "lighter" (it does, actually, but you can't tell without a hygrometer, and not in the sense that bread is) And Jews drink it at the Seder; you'd think they'd know it was kosher. Not to mention, oh yes, Israel is in the Northern Hemisphere; grapes ripen at Succoth, and it's not like they could knock open an amphora of Welches. And f the juice couldn't be allowed to ferment, the juice from the grapes still miraculously fresh after 6 months would need to be squeezed and consumed within 12 minutes, as matzo is.

I guess that if you can deny that wine = wine, it makes it easier to deny that is = is in "This IS My Body". But such rampant stupidity opens the Church of Christ to ridicule.

Getting back to the original subject....hugs to benedictgal; I feel your pain.. If they're used to MC, you're going to need political pull or a good excuse to get them off it. Apparently you don't have the pull, but the new text is a good excuse. My fear would be...aren't they coming out with a rewrite of MC for the new text?

But yes, text is important. Last Sunday, I was visiting and they were doing Massive Cremation (very well, actually), and the priest decided to preempt the Creed for something else, in violation of GIRM 24. If we start mucking with texts, it gives permission to muck with other things. I was so appalled that I dropped a dime to the diocese.

CharlesC, for what it's worth, I think she was referring to CharlesW.

Oh, I agree, Charles. That kind of discourse is not worth anyone's time.

I think the long view is best, Kathy.

Taking the long view doesn't preclude making immediate changes, but ok.

Also, the story of the money changers was brought up. I've never felt comfortable about that story, and I couldn't put my finger on why until now.

Jesus wasn't in the temple as a Jew attending worship. He was entering His own House, and found serious injustice in it. A Temple of His Presence was turned into a place where the poor and simple were exploited by thieves. He hallowed His House and fulfilled the saying of David.

The parish building is not your house. If someone comes into your own house and starts singing "Jesus", you can form a whip and drive them out. Otherwise, don't compare yourself to Jesus.

Generally speaking, it's rarely a good thing to compare yourself to Jesus.

Mark has been rather contentious with me on the Catholic Answers Forums.

Gavin, the Mass of Creation is just one of MANY problems, and, it's also diocesan wide. I could give you the whole litany, but, to paraphrase Vivian Leigh's accepstance speech, the list would be longer than the credits for Gone With the Wind. If we cannot be faithful in small matters, how can we be faithful in larger ones? I am frankly disappointed with some of the attitudes here, including Kathy's. It seems to me that it's the "go along to get along" mentality.

I've been following this whole thread today, and I really don't see the comments from the people here that seem to be disappointing you, benedictgal, as "go along to get along."

There is something noble in openly registering your disagreement with an issue (as in the meeting), but (in this case) then at the same meeting conceding that you understand the entire issue will be taken care of on its own in a manner of months. This will give you the working relationship necessary to help effect bigger changes later. I'm not saying we should ignore abuses, but you must certainly agree that there are degrees of abuses (just as there are different kinds of sin). There are also certain amount of metaphorical "capital" everyone has in pointing out areas for improvement. All I think people are suggesting is that you think about saving your "capital" for an issue that comes along that may be more important (just as you wouldn't make frivolous purchases when saving money for important needs - house, car, education). If you can see no such issue on the horizon - or you truly find this one more important than anything else going on in your parish/diocese at the moment - by all means, do as you see fit.

Janet, OMG! That's the exact situation I found at my first job ("clapping Gloria" and Disney, err.. Celtic Lord's Prayer). I made the same changes. The Alstott is not wonderful, but it is faithful to the text and most folks can sing it.

I'll put money on the number of parishes that continue to sing it as is...as a pastoral decision.

So let me get this straight. Because you suggested using another Mass setting people were upset with you? Wow, they must have very delicate emotions. Do you know how many years they have been singing the Mass of Creation at your parish?

Well, if it's politics, then there must be also ego involved. I've had experience in the secular work realm. You float an idea, maybe with some explanation, and see what people including the boss think about it. Usually your idea is deemed as impossible. Six months to a year later, lo and behold, the boss puts forth you idea as his/her own, and pushes for it, and everyone goes into "yes man" mode. The ONLY down side is that you don't get the credit for the idea. But, in the end, it's worth it just to get it done.

For what it's worth, BenedictGal, sometimes we have to take a step backward to get ready for two steps forward.

When our previous pastor appointed me as choir director a little over five years ago, I thought I would be able to begin introducing the congregation to the Latin ordinary, more traditional music, etc. While he had no problem with the hymn selection, our attempt to gradually bring in the Ordinary chants flopped because I couldn't get Father to agree to consistently use the ones the congregation had already picked up. I had to accept that he simply wasn't "the right priest at the right time" and went back to a THREE-hymn sandwich (no offertory at Father's request) until he retired December before last. Fortunately, our current parish administrator (late vocation, < 3 years in the priesthood) is enthusiastic and open to suggestions on the liturgy (and, although he's a "work in progress" in this regard, absolutely loves the Extraordinary Form), so I don't anticipate any problems introducing some small, incremental changes to the 10:30 Sunday Mass....

One step back, two steps forward.

On the bright side, Benedictgal, nobody on the parish council has sent their relations to kill you and give your job to a cousin of notorious life and no discernable musical skills. There's a fair amount of saints out there who died that way. And yeah, having to be obedient even when it's unfair, stupid, and even a liturgical abuse is something that does in fact show up in many saints' lives.

There's a saying somewhere that if the pagans don't make enough martyrs, the Christians will manage it instead....

Also, there's a fair chance that the other people were basically using up their "kick and scream against change" impulses, and that within a year or a year and a half, they'll have totally forgotten all about this weird attachment to the Mass of Creation. The kick and scream thing does tend to sweep over people without warning; and I suspect that a lot of congregation members out there will vent at the ushers or the musicians for no reason some Sunday, and be perfectly fine thereafter. You just happened to be a handy target for their anxieties, which of course stinks but which happens.

What you do is not useless. God will repay you even for trying. Trust Him as you suffer with Him.

Now what to do moving forward? Personally, I've never mastered the art of attending meetings, much less the art of subtly bending the attendees to one's will while making them think it's all their idea. People who have that skill are usually business execs or in similar people-managing fields. If you know anybody like that, you might ask them for tips on figuring out what's going on in people's heads, how to plant seeds ahead of time for what you want done, how to defend the important things in your territory, when to surrender or change the subject so you don't lose more important things, and so forth. There may even be classes on this sort of skill from some community organization. Probably all church musicians could use some training in this, just like engineers are supposed to be taught in school how to make corporate presentations and sales pitches about engineering stuff.

Come to think of it, that might be something for the Colloquium someday. Maybe have some folks roleplay a worship commission, showing dos and don'ts, and showing what sorts of things people say and do that mean something (both conscious hints they expect you to pick up, and unconscious cues that are windows into their worries and needs). Then you might roleplay some answers to common concerns, ways to smooth things a bit, or ways to push a point and make progress without offending people. Spouses who aren't musicians might be very helpful for this sort of training (pretending to be various sorts of pastors, priests, commission members, worried parents, etc.). In the business world, this sort of thing is always getting worked out and refined, and the most senior people often train the hardest so they can make useful changes, etc. We don't have to be super-slick manipulators, but we don't have to be totally defenseless, either. (And if your worship commission people have certain expectations about meeting skills, they may unconsciously assume that musicians know all that also, and are purposefully being obtuse and obstructive for show.)

Intriguing idea, Maureen. I can envision some kind of panel discussion or workshop or something that will help build up our skills around influence and leadership in a parish setting.

The big challenge with something like this is to keep it upbeat, optimistic, and useful. As we've seen with a number of discussions on this forum, it's real easy for us to get into an emotional bashfest. It's natural, I suppose, but what we all need is ideas and inspiration, not venting.

Anybody interested to talk about designing something like this? I'd like to be in on the discussion, I can bring my business coaching background.

Carl

Back to the topic:

From a blog I just ran across:

16. Figure out who is suffering in your community. Go be with them.

BenedictGal did not post to complain.

Not sure what the last couple of comments mean.

What I do like about sacred music is its ministry directly to those whose prayer lives are already advanced. I can imagine some of my good parishioners, praying, sacrificing, joining their lives very intimately with God's throughout the day. I imagine that some of them live on the delicate manna (St. John of the Cross's expression) of contemplation and recollection.

When they come to Mass, what do they need? Can we meet their pastoral needs and the needs of others at the same time?

By "others," I mean those who are just getting their foot in the door at Mass, who might be trying to decide about whether Mass is worth getting up for on a Sunday morning--whose pastoral needs may be quite different.