Removing The Beauty Of Mass For Lent
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    the one on Mozart would be huge!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    I've merged threads when two people start discussions on the same topic at about the same time.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Speaking of the beauty of Lent, every year I appreciate more the season of pre-Lent in the old calendar as a way to transition from the glory of Christmas to the gravity of Lent. I'm sad that we won't be able to sing the Septuagesima propers tomorrow because of the treacherous road conditions. The Introit always surprises me with its dramatic language:

    image
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 425
    As I recall, Jesus wasn't overly big on following the rules.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,365
    True, true.
    But then, somewhere he did say something or other about fulfilling every jot and tittle.
    And, of course, his entire ministry, from baptism to passion, was 'that the law might be fulfilled'.
    I really don't think that he would appreciate the sloppiness, cheap music, and carelessness-of-beauty that characterise all too many of his masses.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    ^ Such a cop-out statement.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    To bring us where we are, something happened in that cycle. Something that I consider to be poisonous.


    Yup. And the immediate causes were Seminary rectors; the secondary causes were the Bishops who appointed them. Things went wacko in the Mke. Seminary around the mid-'50's, e.g.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    As I recall, Jesus wasn't overly big on following the rules social conventions.


    Fixed that for you.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    As I recall, Jesus wasn't overly big on following the rules.


    No, not overly. Just perfectly.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CCooze
  • TeresaH
    Posts: 53
    Here is the announcement in today's bulletin:
    This year during Lent, as a parish we will be “Fasting From
    Beauty” Each week we will be dropping a hymn from the
    Masses. As our Liturgy becomes more and more quiet it is
    hoped that we reflect more deeply on the crucifixion and
    how we are shown the mercy of God by this sacrifice. Then
    when the music returns we will be able to celebrate with
    even greater joy. We will also be using chairs that have long
    ago lost their glamour and vessels which in themselves hold
    sacred beauty, but aren’t a matched set.
    The second part of the “Fasting From Beauty” is “Own
    Nothing More”. For this, other than food and personal care
    items, if you bring something new into the house you need
    to get rid of something that you already own. i.e. If you buy
    a new shirt you need to get rid of a shirt that you already
    own.

  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    Could you scan this bulletin and post it?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,939
    Actually, it's probably best to avoid scanning or extensive block quoting....
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    It really sounds to me like someone is trying very hard to deliver an emotional high: one that no one in the parish will forget for years. It is neatly disguised as a focus on the crucifixion and death of Jesus, but I see an ulterior motive.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    The implication (or motivation), apparently, is that the only emotion expressed by music is joy.

    That's sad.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    is that the only emotion expressed by music is joy.


    Or that the only emotion music is supposed to express is joy.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Or that music is window dressing to the liturgy.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn ClergetKubisz CHGiffen
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,044
    "The second part of the “Fasting From Beauty” is “Own
    Nothing More”." Who is this Pflegerite?
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    In festivity do we then mark the season by buying TWO OF EVERYTHING?
    Thanked by 4irishtenor chonak CHGiffen Salieri
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    His prescription is like an invitation to get rid of old consumer goods and get new ones!
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CCooze
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Throw things into the trash.

    In the spirit of Laudato Si.

    And then buy new things.

    In the spirit of Laudato Si.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 425
    As I recall, Jesus wasn't overly big on following the rules social conventions.



    Fixed that for you.


    No, you changed it.

    Jesus and the disciples harvested grain on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1)
    Jesus healed on the Sabbath (John 5).

    These are some concrete examples of rules / laws he broke.

    Yes, he also didn't follow some social conventions. But these were different. These a rules he didn't follow.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    The second part of the “Fasting From Beauty” is “Own
    Nothing More”. For this, other than food and personal care
    items, if you bring something new into the house you need
    to get rid of something that you already own. i.e. If you buy
    a new shirt you need to get rid of a shirt that you already
    own.


    Wow, the assumption that every parishioner lives in such a state of abundance would be rather offensive to those who don't!
    Thanked by 5CharlesW CCooze Salieri MatthewRoth CHGiffen
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    Jesus and the disciples harvested grain on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1)
    Luke 6:5, "The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath," i.e. I am not breaking the rule, I'm making an exception as the legislator.

    And then John 5:18, "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

    It's not that he's breaking the rules... anybody can do that. It's that he's claiming preeminence over the rules.
    Thanked by 3CCooze M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,937
    For He is the Torah himself...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    For He is the Torah himself...


    Someone needs to re-insert the handle on that scroll, and rather harshly.
  • TeresaH
    Posts: 53
    I thought I'd give an update: A few of us wrote a letter to the bishop telling him of the concerns we had with the way Mass was being said and all the things left out, etc. He wrote back saying that there were illicit things going on and that he would be having a meeting with the priest. We now have our music back, he genuflects at the Consecration, he says the Kyrie, though, sadly but not surprisingly, we had to give up the Confiteor. Hopefully we will get the Gloria after this week. He is saying what is written in the Missal and is not interrupting Communion with announcements and jokes. He's still not referencing the book of the Gospels but is washing his hands and pouring the water into the wine. He isn't doing everything but it is a start. There haven't been any nasty comments about Jesus or the readings and Gospels lately. We still have old worn out chairs and mismatched vessels because "we are fasting and that is what is important," and half of the baptismal rite is still being omitted. I wonder what he will do on Good Friday when he is supposed to prostrate himself.
    He clearly isn't happy with me (which was made known to me when I went up for Communion) or the others who signed the letter, but I keep praying for him. I'm hoping he doesn't kick me out of the music in retaliation.
    The bishop got a letter after ours reporting that the priest had given general absolution to the people in a retirement home and refuses to hear their individual confessions. Things here are still in a pretty sad state.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,767
    He's still not referencing the book of the Gospels...
    Surely as case of Cupertino-ing, but has spellcheck really started using "reference" as a verb too?
  • SrEleanor
    Posts: 26
    He clearly isn't happy with me (which was made known to me when I went up for Communion)

    Good grief. Perhaps that's sadder than anything.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Is your bishop so hard up for priests he has to tolerate this idiot?
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Is your bishop so hard up for priests he has to tolerate this idiot?


    In most US Dioceses, that IS the case.
    Thanked by 5CharlesW Liam ClergetKubisz CHGiffen francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    He may ACT like an idiot, but let us remember that without the priest (In Personae Christi) we would not have Jesus with us in flesh and blood. Therefore, I would recommend we refrain from calling any priest an idiot. JMHO
    Thanked by 2gregp ClergetKubisz
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I would recommend we refrain from calling any priest an idiot.


    Not just a priest, but anyone. My most difficult challenge these days, alas.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Therefore, I would recommend we refrain from calling any priest an idiot. JMHO


    With some of them, unfortunately, using the word "idiot' is being kind. Thankfully, we do have some good priests but the bad ones give all a bad name.
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Holy orders does not inoculate for idiocy, nor does it implant wisdom. The Catholic church will be much better off when both priests and members understand that priests have no higher calling or status than any other member - they merely have a different, and important, role. It is one among many important roles.

    We ask both too much and too little of priests, and perhaps of each other.
    Thanked by 6CharlesW CCooze Adam Wood kenstb CHGiffen PaxMelodious
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    The Catholic church will be much better off when both priests and members understand that priests have no higher calling or status than any other member - they merely have a different, and important, role.


    But they do have a higher calling and status than the lay members of the Church. This is the nature of their ordination, and why they must go through seminary and years of discernment and training in order to reach the stage where they can be ordained. We as lay people do not do this. The Council of Trent had the following to say on the subject in its 23rd Session (emphasis mine)

    CANON I.--If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.

    CANON II.--If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.

    CANON III.--If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.

    CANON V.--If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.


    Clearly there is a hierarchy, and clearly the Church intends for there to be.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I think Trent tended to glorify and exalt the clergy, perhaps a bit too much. Perhaps a reaction to Luther's teachings. Priests are there, as some forget, to serve the people. In the east, for example, priests have no authority and can perform no services apart from their bishop and the congregation to which they are assigned. There were and are some differences in the Augustinian and Cyprianic teachings on the priesthood. In any event, some priests are angels and some seem to be devils in clerical garb. They are still human with all the faults that go with it.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    This is the nature of their ordination

    No, the nature of their ordination is to serve the people of God by being good celebrants of the sacraments.
    they must go through seminary and years of discernment and training in order to reach the stage where they can be ordained.

    If, as I believe, ordination should mark the beginning of their succesful and effective sacramental ministry - the years of discernment and training are not working well enough and need to be completely rethought and then reinstituted.
    We as lay people do not do this.

    Many of us have as much training or more in our craft than do newly ordained priests who have some theology but are not theologians, some philosophy but are not philosophers, some homiletics but…etc.


    Yes, priests have a hierarchical role, so that they rank higher in the organizational structure of the Catholic church than lay people. My point is that, in absolute human terms, that role is no higher or more important than a lay person's role as a musician, architect, plumber or even politician. It is special and "higher" only within the church.

    So the priest has a particular and singular role in the liturgy, and the institution of the church has a particular, but not singular, role as teacher. We musicians have particular and singular roles in the liturgy also. And, unfortunately in my experience, we are too often better prepared to exercise our roles than priests, as currently formed, are to exercise theirs.


    I hope I am not anathema.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I hope I am not anathema.


    Anathema is a state of mind so don't worry about it. LOL
    Thanked by 2MBW ClergetKubisz
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,156
    "For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains."
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    If the priests are there to serve the people, does that mean that they are subject to them? This seems to be the prevailing attitude in the United States: that the hierarchical clergy are subject to the will of the people in all things. I vehemently disagree with this notion.

    If we apply the qualifier, "...by being good celebrants of the Sacraments," we find that many priests are, in fact, not servants of the people at all, though they claim to be.

    Though, my original question remains: does being servants of the people mean that the priests and other hierarchical clergy are subject to their will?
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    I don't think anyone is subject to anyone in this situation. Some matters (sacramental) belong to priests, other matters belong to others. Mutual respect and, when working together, collegiality are what I would like to see. I think this happens best when all concerned fully realize that we are all equally subject to the will of God.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    If the priests are there to serve the people...
    ...
    does being servants of the people mean that the priests and other hierarchical clergy are subject to their will?


    No.

    (although it sometimes sadly seems that way)

    Well-formed and wise pastors are able to steer the flock toward orthodoxy in a gentle way, sometimes surprising even themselves at the lack of COMPLETE OUTRAGE about certain things that happen in parish / liturgical life.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    The "hier" in "hierarchy" means holy, not that some are higher than others. Its present meaning as a pyramid structured organization is derived from an understanding of the institutional churche's structure. But that does not mean, necessarily, that a "Hierarchical" church places some members at a higher value or worth than others. Given the etymology of the word hierarchy, it would be difficult to use the fact that the church is "hierarchical" as a proof of anything other than the nature of tautology.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Despite the painful state of things in the parish, it is good that the priest is getting some beneficial guidance from the bishop. Perhaps eventually he will understand things better.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    (although it sometimes sadly seems that way)


    Why? Why then, do we often in the United States see priests and other clergy that are very interested in keeping wealthy donors and other influential PIPs happy, even to the point of sacrificing the liturgy for it? How is it that these people are allowed to have such influence on the liturgy in the first place?

    And to return to my original point: there is a clear difference between the royal priesthood of all and the ordained priesthood. There are many in the Church in this modern era that would like to blur those lines, effectively reducing the importance of the ordained clergy, and increasing the importance of the congregation. I think this is evidence of Theology of the Mass as Assembly, which I see as being part of the Protestant influence on the Church today.

    The past few comments have been a significant digression from the original post and point of this thread, however, my original objection was to MBWs comment that seemed to suggest that priests are no more than men who fill a specific role: a person with a job to do. I believe that I have supported my objection sufficiently, with documentation from the Council of Trent (which was subjected to a strawman argument, suggesting that the Council tended to "glorify the priesthood" as a response to Martin Luther's teachings), which specifically condemned that notion and reiterated that the ordained priesthood is a Sacrament, given to us by Christ himself, and should be respected as such.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I believe that I have supported my objection sufficiently, with documentation from the Council of Trent (which was subjected to a strawman argument, suggesting that the Council tended to "glorify the priesthood" as a response to Martin Luther's teachings), which specifically condemned that notion and reiterated that the ordained priesthood is a Sacrament, given to us by Christ himself, and should be respected as such.


    Trent, in general, over-reacted to Luther and exacerbated, if not created, problems worse that what already existed. Trent was about control, not holiness.

    Why? Why then, do we often in the United States see priests and other clergy that are very interested in keeping wealthy donors and other influential PIPs happy, even to the point of sacrificing the liturgy for it? How is it that these people are allowed to have such influence on the liturgy in the first place?


    It isn't just in the church. Have you ever wondered why it doesn't make much difference which party gets elected and that nothing in the government changes? The same "money crowd" is funding both parties and calls the shots. Money is power.

    If the priests are there to serve the people, does that mean that they are subject to them?


    This is an entirely different matter.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Money is power.


    Then there are many priests not serving God. You cannot serve mammon and God at the same time.

    Trent was about control, not holiness.


    Another strawman. Since Trent was only about controlling the faithful and not about making us more holy, we cannot rely on it for any information or view it as an authority on anything whatsoever, yes?

    This is an entirely different matter.


    No, it's not. Look around you in the Church in the modern era: priests are bowing to the will of the people everywhere, even to the point of sacrificing the liturgy for it. If you are correct, nothing is sacred anymore except money. If that is the case, we no longer have the Church of God, the Church that Christ himself instituted.

    To return to my original point: there is a clear difference between the ordained priesthood and the royal priesthood of the people. Do any of you deny this? Nobody has addressed this point yet. Also in my original point is this: blurring the lines between them places more focus on the congregation and is a type of Theology of the Mass as Assembly, as opposed to Theology of the Mass as Sacrifice. It also places greater importance on the will of "the people" (I ask this all the time on this forum, but I receive no answer: who are "the people?") in order to highlight the new roles they can take in the liturgy, some of which were formerly reserved for clergy.

    Perhaps His Grace has some enlightenment for us. I just found this and found it fitting:

    “It is impossible for me to explain how helpful the Holy Hour has been in preserving my vocation. Scripture gives considerable evidence to prove that a priest begins to fail his priesthood when he fails in his love of the Eucharist. Too often it is assumed that Judas fell because he loved money. Avarice is very rarely the beginning of the lapse and the fall of the ambassador. The history of the Church proves there are many with money who stayed in it. The beginning of the fall of Judas and the end of Judas both revolved around the Eucharist. The first mention that Our Lord knew who it was who would betray him is at the end of the sixth chapter of John, which is the announcement of the Eucharist. The fall of Judas came the night Our Lord gave the Eucharist, the night of the Last Supper.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Treasure in Clay)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933

    Another strawman. Since Trent was only about controlling the faithful and not about making us more holy, we cannot rely on it for any information or view it as an authority on anything whatsoever, yes?


    I'm an easterner. We don't rely on Trent for anything. LOL.


    It also places greater importance on the will of "the people" (I ask this all the time on this forum, but I receive no answer: who are "the people?") in order to highlight the new roles they can take in the liturgy, some of which were formerly reserved for clergy.


    You do know that none of us were responsible for these changes in the liturgy, right? These were put in place by some of those "clergy," namely bishops who willingly gave up and threw out some of those roles formerly "reserved for clergy."
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Trent was about control, not holiness.


    Charles, you are allowing election-year mentality to overcome your good sense.

    If Trent was not about holiness, it wasted a lot of time and ink on doctrine, eh? Just as with VatII, some 'stuff' crept out of the bowels of the earth which corrupted right teaching. Thus it ever was, and ever will be.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I think, dad29, that every time the Latins have a church council they believe it is ecumenical applying to all. That is not election year mentality, it is eastern mentality. We generally don't care about Latin councils and only accept the first seven as binding.

    I get the impression you are no more fond of Vatican II than I am of Trent. Actually, I didn't care much for either.
Add a Comment