Priest: Remove the beauty of the mass for Lent.
Priest: is said to be in persona Christi.

Something doesn't add up here.
(As in there is something wickedly oxymoronic in the juxtaposition of these two dicta.)

"And the homily should be simpler and shorter as the weeks go by"

From what was described, I'd say that the homily should be skipped entirely. Permanently.

And to OP: Bless you. I will pray for you and your parish.

(The relatively few priests that I do know are mostly quite reasonable men.)

Do they balk when you show them the GIRM and SC and cite them as sources for doing chant and Latin in the Mass? What reasons do they give for refusing them (if they do refuse them)? "Because the people don't understand (or speak) Latin," is argumentum ad populum and is not reasonable. "Because the people can't follow (or understand) the chant," is likewise. "Because it's not uplifting enough," isn't reasonable, either, as it is ambiguous. Many of the arguments against using chant and Latin (and true Sacred Music in general) are anecdotal at best, and are not generated in an attempt to be reasonable.

Of course, all of the above is begging the question, because I assume that the priests you know, as many that we all know, will cite the reasons I gave for why they do not allow chant nor Latin in their parishes. Again, as melo likes to say, YMMV.

Maybe he could do his part by not brushing his hair on Ash Wednesday.
1st Sunday, not having shampooed.
2nd, no socks.
3rd, not shaving.
4th, stop brushing his teeth, and so on....

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Maybe he could do his part by...

wearing a hair shirt for forty days.

PaxMelodious -
Has spoken sagely. There isn't much that one can do when suffering under such a man than to 'be obedient' and to reap the spiritual profits (real or imagined) from said obedience. Such obedience may save much internal stress, anger, resentment, and so on, and may stave off much mental anguish, anger, and angst. (On the other hand, it does little to assuage the sensation that one really has been spiritually, intellectually, and professionally 'violated'.) He has, also, pointed out that one is an 'employee' of a parish priest who is responsible for the liturgical life of 'his' parish. So, other than resigning (which would be the most honourable alternative) or finding another post, one has little choice because the 'cards' are stacked against him. All this, though, does not at all come anywhere near to addressing the fact that The Parish Priest has absolutely no real authority to change one jot or tittle of the mass, nor require what the Church in her documents forbids, nor forbid what the Church in her documents enjoins. Such priests (and bishops!) are tyrants who imagine that they and their vision are supreme, even more supreme than what the Church says to do or not to do. A tyrant is one who sets himself (or herself) above all law and authority and presumes (presumes!) an authority which he or she does not, in fact, have. So, one could go and 'tell' the bishop, who would likely do nothing, leaving one in more hot water than one had been in already. The most honest and virtuous thing, the thing of greatest integrity, is not to serve such men. Their actual, real, authority begins and ends with their own obedience to what the Church says to do and not to do - it is neither unfettered nor carte blanche.

Oh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE

Instead of *removing* beauty, would the pastor instead gradually *veil* it?

Julie

My point is more subtle (unsubtle counterpoint provided by Arnold Horshack, of course): if someone's pushing *removal*, on what basis can they object to *veiling*? It's an indirect way to demonstrate to someone that you see the hollowness of their reasoning, without directly saying so. It's, um, a Roman approach. You ask a non-rhetorical question, and let it sit there for a long while.

(PS: I like Passiontide veiling. I also love Lenten arrays, but I am not English (rather, I'm a Euromutt, 50% Swabian, 25% from north Leitrim (the most desolate and depopulated part of Ireland), and 25% from the northeastern corner of traditional Masovia), so it's not my tradition.)

LOL! Subtlety is not my forte.

Very sage advice, Sir Liam. Diplomacy is a lost art.

diplomacy = skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will

At Walsingham all statues are veiled in purple throughout Lent, red on Palm Sunday, white on Maundy Thursday, and black on Good Friday and Holy Saturday; likewise the needle-point kneeling cushions at our altar rail. We have yet to use the Lenten array, but are talking about it. We, of all people, should! Of course, the mass is sung as always, with only the music changing appropriately for the season. We will sing the Englished cum jubilo mass as in The Hymnal 1940. You should hear 200 people singing this kyrie, which 'the people', according to too many Catholic clergy and musicians, 'can't sing'. I regret that we have fallen into the 'chant-mass-during- penitential-seasons-only syndrome' and hope that we can change that unfortunate mis-characterisation of chant. (One would think that our English version of the cum jubilo mass, Gloria and all, would be perfect at least for solemnities of our Lady.)

Idiot.

I'm rolling. HAHAHAHA
Pretty sure that's all that needed to be said.

Perhaps your priest has the mindset of the Emperor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU

Yes, Francis, "The Abduction of the Seraglio" was not my favorite Mozart opera, either: no baritones.

Yes, MJO, but the Emperor had some sort of problem with it, already, but couldn't quite say how. Salieri sort of just proved how clueless the emperor was by giving him an option relatable to his not-so-musical brain.

Fixed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ubiUIxbWE

There has yet to be heard hyperbole which even approaches excessive in reference to Mozart and his music. Everything he wrote is a gem. And those (ahem: Francis) who denigrate his harmonic vocabulary could never hope to reach the genius of achieving so much with so little. Even his masses are wonderful - as (I hasten to add) concerts spirituelles; not, of course, as liturgical music.

I need my piano tuned. If you do it for free I will promise to fail to (visibly) be impressed or entertained....

What I find strange is the assumption that the mass becomes less beautiful and less worthy during Lent. The mass takes on a penitential dimension that is almost fierce in its power and promise of deliverance. The Lenten mass is not less beautiful, it just takes on a different personality and character. That difference is for our greater good.

MJO...as a student of piano since age five, Mozart has been before my eyes and ears my entire life. Teachers, colleagues, family and friends have always put out constant requests that I learn and play his works. I have done so over and over. I am simply stating my own opinion of his music. Do not feel you must turn me to your way of thinking on the matter. The music speaks for itself. It alone must convince me.

And Francis hijacks a perfectly good thread once again.

And I posted the opposing side, Florence Foster Jenkins singing Mozart. Think of it like the rebuttal to the State of the Union address. ;-)

to put thread back on track... the NO is subject to ten times more abuse than the TLM because it is (rubrics) left open to interpretation

Yes, the potential is there. My point, however, is that usually the EF operates under the same bishops, chancery staffs, and priests as the OF. Connect the dots. What could you really do if the EF were abused by a crazy priest besides little or nothing. You are not as immune and sheltered as you think.

You are not as immune and sheltered as you think.

One thing I've discovered from working in a parish school and also for a time as a parish DM in the OF is this: at some point it all boils down to the priest. Period. It all depends on who your priest is: from the quality of his formation to his interpretation of ecclesiastical law. I have come to realize that this has always been, even before the Council. Not to say that the TLM was just as subject to abuse as the OF is, but it may have been that there was better quality control in terms of who the priests were, and as a result, who the bishops ended up being, which cyclically influenced who the next generation of priests would be, and so on. To bring us where we are, something happened in that cycle. Something that I consider to be poisonous. Train a generation of priests to regard the rubrics and laws as absolutely sacred, and they will be treated as such. Not to say you won't get the occasional wacky priest that tries to deviate, but they would be much fewer in number. I suspect that much of what we see today in terms of abuses are due to the fact that modern priests believe that outside of a very small quantity of rules, they are free to do as they please. At some point the rules must matter, or at some point none of them will. Then what's the point of having rules/regulations/laws/oversight/accountability in the first place? I will also include the insistence that the focus of the Mass has changed entirely: we now have the theology of the Mass as Assembly instead of the theology of the Mass as Sacrifice. This is likely being taught in seminaries, and priests are being formed to believe that the congregation is everything, and that Mass is about who shows up on Sundays. I don't have any actual information to back that one up, but I would love to find out what is actually being taught in seminaries: it might explain a great deal, especially because the Mass you get depends greatly on the priest celebrating it.

What could you really do if the EF were abused by a crazy priest besides little or nothing

I would like to point out that there are systems in place that stop you from being able to do something about it.

Chonak,

Have you ever combined disparate threads when they seem to coalesce?