Holy Cow Erbarme dich is my favorite Bach aria too!

Thanks for posting!

His personal tastes are very much like Benedict's!

Shocked. I'm so shocked.

(what's color for sarcasm?)

I believe we all must daily accept our calling in the manner, the manner of the many depictions of household help over the last decades such as "Upstairs, Downstairs....Gosford Park....Downton Abbey....The Help....Mrs. Brown......et al." We know what we do is indispensible. "They" know what we do is indispensible. And both of "us" know that it is an honor and art what we do, whether we're acknowledged or merely compensated. We are among the sheep being shepherded. To me it matters not whether we're being herded by a Rottweiler or Babe the Pig, as long that leader knows how to martial us with grace and dignity.

I'm not sure what is so bad about Pope Francis.

I ONLY like and support the latin mass in as much as it has good music, necessarily, and it has influenced, in a positive way, the ordinary form mass. For those reasons, I was glad that Pope Benedict allowed its usage and supported it. But I don't prefer it.

And as far as traditionalists, conservatives, et al ... well, I've never been of their mindset either. The Holy Father's remarks about offering X number of rosaries for him was spot on to me. Now, I'm HUGE on FIDELITY to the Church. So I really did appreciate Pope Benedict's demand for orthodoxy and fidelity. But so many "conservative" ideals don't strike me as fidelity to Church teaching, but rather to their own ideas. I'm also all for being with the Church. By that I mean that if this Pope or any other legitimately use their office to teach, I will believe what they teach because that is what it means (partially) to believe all that the Church teaches. So if Pope Francis says women can be deacons, I'm all for it. Why? Because that will now be an orthodox position, in line with the Church.

I did like Benedict's episcopal appointments, again, because under them it was not true that anything goes. I hope that Francis doesn't start appointing bishops who say "well regardless of Church teaching, it's ok to do what you want." But I don't think he will. And that's not what I've heard him say at all.

So if Pope Francis says women can be deacons, I'm all for it. Why? Because that will now be an orthodox position, in line with the Church.

I'm not sure that's a good example, because that would be a doctrinal innovation that is hard to reconcile with established infallible teaching. If such a position were expressed as an opinion, it would produce an intellectual crisis about the sacrament of ordination: it would lead to the implication that diaconal ordination is not the same sacrament as priestly ordination, and that we have eight sacraments. In practical consequences, such a doctrinal innovation would end any prospect for Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation.

Popes can be removed from office for heresy, btw. The Orthodox, and maybe some Eastern Catholics, would wash their hands of the Roman church forever if it ordained women.

From the moment that the College concludes its work and the "Habemus Papem" resounds through the world, we have a valid, sitting successor of St. Peter. The continuity thus is not broken and he becomes the Vicar of Christ on earth.

All else is secondary; are you more Catholic than the Pope? Are you faithful to the Church or not (a question I've posed to many who advocate for puppet masses and the ordination of women et al)? Now I find myself posing it to self described "conservatives" these days.

Exactly. He is pope, not God, and there are the restraints imposed by sacred tradition that he is required to follow, too.

The Orthodox. To make that kind of change would require a Pan-Orthodox Council. They could never, as has been the case for 1,000 years, agree on anything. It will never happen.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

It is heartening that at least in his private tastes, Francis enjoys beautiful music...What is perhaps worth observing, is what others, priests, bishops, liturgy folks will do with his other comments in general. We have already seen the media do some ridiculous things with his words... I have already heard comments to the effect that "we are now going to liberalize the liturgy, because that is what the Holy Father wants"... It seems to me possible that those who could not stand the liturgical views of Benedict have been waiting for a "liberal" pope. Now that they 'have' one, they are going to enter the fray with renewed energy. (I am speaking of liturgical matters) In other words, those who dislike the Latin rite, or want to suppress it, or find chant pointless, will find needed ammunition in the comments of Francis, even though he may not have intended this at all. Those who never wanted what Benedict was proposing (or really are anti) will latch onto anything that Francis says that seems to support their views. I have heard this already. Or, those 'traddies' who like Latin will made to ever more feel out of place and less welcome.

Also, it is worth noting that our present Holy Father is thankfully in good health and will be with us for a long while, so I believe he will be very influential.

It seems to me that this liturgical debate is an inherent difficulty with the OF. It is impossible to 'regulate', and everywhere it is celebrated, it is affected by the political/theological/cultural/sociological/musical views of the community where it is celebrated. I used to see this is as a very good thing, Now I am not so sure. The great thing about the EF is that everyone is on the same level, and no one group, cultural or otherwise can hijack the rite. With the OF, who is in charge? Who makes the decision of what language, music, etc? it's always open to debate, it really does not matter what the documents say.

CGZ writes -
"Since the original post was about the Holy Father and music, he couldn't forbid the use of Gregorian chant, or Latin within the celebration of the Roman rite."

No, he could not make this decision, but parish priests and bishops everywhere make this decision every day.

( 3ish - When people of an extremely conservative or radically traditionalist ideology turn the Old Rite into a platform for the ideology, decent traditionalists and orthodox people are less likely to notice it as opposed to when the same thing happens among extremely liberal and radically progressive people.)

Is it possible to make the celebration of Mass about one's personality, even in the Venerable form? Sure, but it takes much more effort, and is much more obvious. The only reason it's harder to see "personal restorations" in the Ordo Juvenior is that many people have been taught that there is no ritual, and that this is normal in the rites of the Church.

(There: I've even managed to coin a new term.)

I appreciate your comments, I guess I am speaking about the actual Rite itself. The EF is strict in what it allows as licit. However, Adam, you have made a good point: that is the EF were as popular, you would probably see the same sort of cultural variation or abuse or however you want to put it. But was this true before Vat. II? I know that the EF Rite varied in how well it was performed, and of course the quality of music varied from place to place, however, the rite still was pretty much unchangeable? It seems that the OF came into being for the very reason that the OF was inflexible, people couldn't 'do things to it'.

Melofluent,

Given that the older brother is 1500+, being only 50 is, practically, still in diapers.

Cheers,

Chris

Charles,

Since Adam and Andrew have both thanked you, I'm afraid to correct you. Nevertheless, the basic format of the Mass is unchanged for a good deal longer than 500 years (i.e., the Council of Trent), although some parts have had revisions more recently than that: the Leonine prayers, for example, were added by Pope Leo.

No, I don't have the documents with me, but I can find them if I need to do so.

In Church history, something which is only 50 years old is, metaphorically speaking, still in diapers.

For reals.

The Mass promulgated at Trent has as much continuity with the Mass celebrated 1000 years earlier as the Mass promulgated by Paul VI has with the Mass promulgated 500 years earlier.

Which is to say: A LOT of continuity.
But also a lot of DISCONTINUITY.
Which one of those factors who find to be more important is largely a matter of ideology and worldview.

If there had been an internet after Trent, I'm sure there would be all sorts grumbling about how the loss of some particular sequence hymn is a clear indication that the Papacy had fallen into heresy and that the new Mass was totally invalid, and even if it is valid technically, it's deficient and won't work.

(And, not for nothing- the more I personally learn about the transition from the Medieval to the Modern, the more I think that the Tridentine Rite [or, at least, its implementation] was part of the problem. But that's a story for another post.)

The Mass of Paul VI does have some... peculiarities, compared to previous reforms and renewals, peculiarities which are not in its favor. But I think that has to do, more than anything else, with the fact that it was promulgated in the era of mass communication. The framers of the New Missal could have gotten everything 100% perfect and right (whatever that means) and it STILL would have been a bizarre historical oddity to be able to, essentially, flip a switch and make every Catholic in the world adapt to a single set of changes all at the same moment.

If I had been POPE OF THE WORLD, I would have tried to figure out a way to continue with the pre-Concilliar reforms, keeping in mind the mandate(s) of the Council, to introduce a series of planned, slow revisions over the course of a decade or two.

Also, had I been POPE OF THE WORLD, I would have had more specific things to say about actual implementation disasters. I don't know if Pope's don't know, or don't care, or don't think it seemly to call people out by name, but I sometimes wish they would stop speaking in generalities and say something like, "Now- just for example- this song here. It's really bad. And let me tell you why...." or "We have spoken before on the need for beauty and the problems caused by ugliness in the Sacred Liturgy. Now- let me tell you about this gosh-darn awful chasuble I saw recently, so you actually know what I'm talking about."

Trent did overreact more than a bit to Protestantism. Perhaps that Council felt it had to for the survival of the Church.

DISCLAIMER: I may have no idea what I am talking about.

My sense of things is that Trent and the "Counter Reformation" weren't exactly reactions AGAINST modernism, so much as the Catholic Church's version of it.

In some ways (SOME) it seems that Vatican II was trying to reverse that- by reclaiming a Medieval sense of ecclesiology. But what happened instead is that modernists hijacked it, diagnosed the previous incarnation of modernism as "old fashioned" and went about instituting a new version of the same problems.

The worst of the Traddie v. Proggie style wars, then, really represent two factions of modernism fighting against each other whilst missing the point. (Which does not in any way remind me of American Politics.)

I see Benedict's liturgical movement, and Francis' evangelistic movement, to be particular incarnations of a "Third Way" - beyond the T/P//L/C divide. The fact that Bennie was lambasted by the left and championed by the right, whilst Frank is being attacked by the right and hailed by the left - even though they say the same things - is evidence for me of this issue. (Which is not at all like how, in US politics, Libertarians are seen by each party as belonging to the other one.)

In a world that only has two options, whoever doesn't look just like you must be on the other team.

Again- that's just how I'm seeing things right now, mostly because of Page and Pickstock. I'm hardly a historian.

What happened to the discussion of the Holy Father's comments on music? ... and on the music upon which he comments?

I'm old enough to have purchased and cherished a vinyl issue of the Knappertsbusch recording of Wagner's "Parsifal" long ago. And my introduction to Bruckner was through an ancient Capitol Records two LP set containing the masterful Symphony no. 5 in B-flat major, which opened up a young teenager's eyes to great contrapuntal writing.

PGA, I don't believe the Council Fathers had the gift of prophecy, and could not have anticipated Paul VI, or his take on liturgy. The Council did its works on liturgy and faith, then went home. The Council ended in 1965, and Paul VI issued what we call the Novus Ordo in 1969. Whether or not it is a new rite is a matter of contention, but the NO is definitely not what was in use immediately after the Council. The changes in my 1965 missal seemed relatively minor. The changes were mostly the use of the vernacular instead of Latin, and turning the altar around, which I don't believe the Council actually mandated. Even the music was still pretty good in my area until the late sixties.

Gosh, who wants to talk about music when we could be literally saving the Church and the World with our Profoundly Correct Understandings?

If that were true, I wouldn't mind; however, this is MusicaSacra.

If that were true, I wouldn't mind; however, this is MusicaSacra.

Exactly. And no smiling. I hate smiling.

St. Tardar Sauce. That's her real name.

Eh - it's off-topic anyway.

If the EF were universally mandated and the OF went away tomorrow, you'd have plenty of sub-optimal celebrations of the EF. Just like before the council.

Yes, and I'd embrace that change ! I'd take sub-optimal celebrations of the EF over sub-optimal celebrations of the OF anyday !!! Than the playing field and perspective would be leveled, no more excuses or artificial illusions left. :-)


(Although if such a thing occurred I'd also prefer there be an option for a partial english version ala 1964/1965 translation or Anglican use/Knott Missal translation that is purely in line with the tridentine latin rubrics and words. That's a compromise that would ensure the success of such a prospect, as the use of non-latin language seems to be part of the pandora's box that vatican II opened. I could live with exclusively latin but I doubt that the majority of others could or would any longer. Especially for instance in a country such as China.)