Lamentations and Observations of a Gregorian Greenhorn (My Story as a Young Catholic Musician)
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    Good day everyone!

    I’m Charles, a young musician serving rural parishes in the Diocese of Buffalo. I’ve been a cradle Catholic all my life, but this is my first post here, sharing my experience as a novice Catholic musician.

    At 15, I began playing piano at St. Mary’s, Arcade, under the direction of an untrained senior citizen organist and a middle-aged guitarist who favored electric instruments. I started with hymns but soon joined in on the Ordinary. Over the years, with frequent priest changes, coordinating music was difficult. I grew curious about liturgy and sacred music, reading documents like Tra Le Sollecitudini, Sacrosantum Concilium, and the GIRM. I realized Mass music should reflect tradition and sacredness, not just comfort or trends.

    Trying to bring these ideas forward, I faced resistance. I was labeled a “purist” and “traditionalist,” but I wanted to choose music that matched the liturgy’s theology. Somehow, I eventually began selecting hymns monthly, leading practices, and teaching choir members about the meaning behind the music. Yet often, traditional selections were removed by the organist and guitarist in favor of less fitting contemporary songs.

    My attempts to introduce chant during the Triduum were especially challenging. I tried to bring in Hosanna Filio David for Palm Sunday, but after one practice, it was forgotten. I proposed Ubi Caritas and (the non-St. Thomas Tune) Pange Lingua for Maundy Thursday, only to have them rejected faster than a drone over a military base. For Good Friday, I suggested Crux Fidelis and Stabat Mater; by God’s grace, Stabat Mater was sung a cappella by me, though I wasn’t sure if that was valid. Later, I offered Resurrexi, Pascha Nostrum, and Terra Tremuit for Easter, but whenever Latin appeared, it seemed everyone fled in favor of popular composers like Haugen and Haas.

    After much prayer and discernment, I made the difficult decision to resign from my position at St. Mary’s, Arcade. It was a huge step for me, but I felt undervalued, hurt by ageism, and unable to advance the sacred music ministry there. Despite having contributed the most musically to the choir the past year, my authority was trumped simply because “that’s not how we’ve always done it” won out regularly.

    Sadly, I’ve noticed that nearly every Catholic musician I’ve encountered—except for the dedicated folks in groups like CMAA and Musica Sacra—suffers from both unintentional and intentional ignorance of Church documents. This lack of formation means many don’t fully understand or appreciate the sacred role of music ministry. Yet despite their lack of knowledge, these musicians believe that what they do is fully valid and blameless. This gap often results in poor music choices and missed opportunities for true liturgical beauty.

    Currently, I volunteer at nearby churches and hope to build a choir rooted in sacred music, tradition, and the Graduale Romanum . Yet parish politics, closures, and entrenched preferences make this difficult. The Diocese of Buffalo has seen many closures, complicating ministry opportunities.

    I share this not just as a lament, but as a request for prayers and encouragement. Though the journey hasn’t met my early hopes, I remain committed to learning and serving. I seek to grow in knowledge and help others appreciate the beauty and tradition of Catholic liturgical music.


    Thank you for listening to my story.


    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
    Thanked by 4Chant_Supremacist M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen Abbysmum
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 297
    Of course there is resistance to change. It is human nature. And to simply say to someone, “You are just wrong,” is just going to make them defensive and more resistant.

    What I am curious about was how the original poster attempted to sell the change. What was the rationale given for the resistance and what was the attempt to undermine or better, co-opt, the reason for the resistance.

    So, for example, if the reason for the resistance is “People won’t understand the Latin.” The response could be, “You’re right. The Latin would be unfamiliar. Could we start with the ICEL chants which the group responsible for English in the liturgy put together. That way the congregation can sing chant in their own language.” Or, “You are right. Why don’t we try just try the Agnus Dei and see if, with a little practice, the people can know what they are singing.”

    Then there is something to be said about the pace of change. There is the story of boiling a frog by putting it in tepid water and then slowly turning up the heat until it was boiled without it feeling a thing.


    Thanked by 1Abbysmum
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    Btw, if the people know *the Ordinary* in the vernacular, they already know the vernacular meaning of the Latin, even if church Latin pronunciation is not (yet*) familiar to them. People do not need to be fluent/conversant in conversational or literary Latin to understand Latin texts that they recite/sing the vernacular equivalents of every week. (This is the very justification relied upon when, for example, Spanish settings of parts of the Ordinary are programmed for parishes where the two dominant vernaculars are English and Spanish.)

    One of the great *practical* reasons for familiarizing congregations with chant settings of the Ordinary (in the local vernacular(s) and Latin) is that they can be sung in the absence of instrumentalists. I remember being vividly struck by this at an offsite parish retreat where chapel Masses were celebrated without an instrumentalist, and the celebrant and retreatant congregationalists just sang David (not Bob) Hurd's New Plainsong Mass back in the day - it was effortless, elegant, and it bonded those celebrations in a way that music-free celebrations otherwise might not have.

    If you work back from a capella repertoire (music that sounds good and not awkward unaccompanied) as a baseline/threshhold consideration for developing repertoire, what develops is likely to be sturdier and more resilient over time in the congregation's experiences.

    This is perfectly consistent with the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

    * The nice thing about the Ordinary is that we encounter it at least weekly. Congregational participation and engagement should be considered not as a photo - the immediate current instance - but as a movie - over longer periods of time.
    Thanked by 2Abbysmum a_f_hawkins
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,193
    unintentional and intentional ignorance of Church documents

    In the hermeneutic of rupture, none of the documents before Vatican II are valid. Even Sacrosanctam Concilium is considered pre-Vatican II in spite of being a V2 document. And the few later things are "guidance"; if they were binding, they'd be enforced.

    83% of American Catholics think that the Church should allow birth control; 64% want women priests. They reject established doctrine, and think it's up for a vote. So whyever would you think that such a comparatively minor thing as sacred music should matter to them?

    I have been privileged (nay: spoiled) to serve in the EF and in NO churches where music matters. When I have affirmed the unity of the Church and "reached across the aisle", it has not gone well. Those of you here who serve in Susan-from-Parish-Council's parish and want to bring its music into line with Church teaching are better humans than I am.
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    Where does the motto “save the liturgy, save the world” come from?

    Edit: I see it’s from Fr. Zuhlsdorf (that was easy). It feels pompous to me, though I’m certain a lot of good stuff is happening under that motto.
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    @Chaswjd

    I agree completely — telling someone “you’re wrong” rarely leads to progress. That’s why I tried to avoid criticizing individual choir members and instead focused on encouraging us to think more carefully about how we select music for Mass. I’ve made hundreds of horrible liturgical decisions, and will continue to learn in decades to come. I’ve always liked the saying that occasionally appears on this forum, “criticize principles, not people,” and I’ve tried to follow that.

    Since Sunday after Mass was usually the only time we were all together, that’s when I’d share ideas. I wouldn’t simply propose “a complicated chant from the Graduale Romanum” — instead, I’d say something like, “Here’s a beautiful chant that fits the readings and propers for this Sunday, and I’d love to teach it over the next few weeks.” I’d bring a recording (often from CCWatershed) or sing it myself so they could hear it in context.

    Sometimes there was hesitation — for example, a comment that chant was “too old-fashioned” or that “we’ve never done that before, so let’s stick to a familiar hymn.” I understand that chant feels unfamiliar for many, and that can make people reluctant to try it. That’s why I would always explain the text’s meaning and point out when the missal offered side-by-side Latin and English (e.g., Adoro te Devote, Panis Angelicus, Attende Domine, Pange Lingua). I would do my best to field any question they had, and if I didn’t know, I’d do some reading and scan though musica sacra for an answer sometimes.

    I also suggested starting with something simple from the Ordinary, such as the Sanctus and Agnus Dei from Mass XVIII. A few singers remembered them from school, but preferred to use Schutte’s Mass of Christ the Savior. While at St. Mary’s, I even floated the idea of a weekly basic chant workshop or teaching Mass to help the whole parish learn, though I decided against it after my resignation to avoid sending mixed signals.

    At this point, since I’m a volunteer without a fixed schedule, I think any shift toward including more Latin in the Ordinary would work best if it came from a unified parish directive rather than from individual musicians doing their own thing - despite my personal goals. I continue to practice a variety of music daily (plainsong, Latin, devotional, metered, etc…), and have been reading through “The Ministry of Music” and “The Ministry of Cantors” by Kathleen Harmon regarding STTL.
    Thanked by 2Chant_Supremacist Abbysmum
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    Gotta love seniors telling 20 year-olds that their music choices are "too old-fashioned." Were there times you pressed the issue, and how did that turn out?
    Thanked by 1Abbysmum
  • AbbysmumAbbysmum
    Posts: 105
    Btw, if the people know *the Ordinary* in the vernacular, they already know the vernacular meaning of the Latin, even if church Latin pronunciation is not (yet*) familiar to them


    I have had versions of this conversation many times. It's frustrating that they refuse to acknowledge that they literally know what they mean because they sang it in English for decades before today.

    Since Sunday after Mass was usually the only time we were all together, that’s when I’d share ideas. I wouldn’t simply propose “a complicated chant from the Graduale Romanum” — instead, I’d say something like, “Here’s a beautiful chant that fits the readings and propers for this Sunday, and I’d love to teach it over the next few weeks.” I’d bring a recording (often from CCWatershed) or sing it myself so they could hear it in context.


    I have found that Taize, love it or hate it, makes a good bridge for introducing Latin. There's a few reasons for this:

    1. The Latin is usually just one phrase, or a fixed expression. For example, Ubi caritas et amor Deus ibi est. It helps the musicians and the congregation become familiar with foundational phrases that they will encounter often as they explore music with Latin text, but in bite-sized chunks that they can associate back to English phrases.

    2. They are usually musically simple and accessible to folk-oriented musicians and work with a diverse range of instruments. They lend themselves well to working with beginning choirs as well, as many are in canon form and/or are incorporate an ostinato.

    3. Because of their repetitive nature, they are memorable, so again as a teaching tool, that's helpful.

    Music is a long game. You usually have to work in baby steps.
    Thanked by 3Liam irishtenor m_r_taylor
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 606
    I have been privileged (nay: spoiled) to serve in the EF [...] where music matters

    Meh, the EF has its own issues in the choir loft, primarily sexism.
  • m_r_taylor
    Posts: 360
    One step can be introducing English language plainsong. Some Latin chants are just too awkward rendered into English, but others have worthy translations.
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 230
    I perhaps have an unusual perspective on this, as sacred music as a full-time endeavor is either my second or third career, depending on how you count it, and my undergraduate degree is in journalism and political science.

    Two quotes from my prior lives came to mind, and though they're about politics, they apply here. The first: "Politics is the art of the possible," which I have heard forever, not knowing the source, and I was surprised to learn today that it's originally attributed to Otto von Bismarck (for better or worse, the quote is true). The second, from a journalist/humorist in my home* city of Chicago, is "Politics ain't beanbag."

    What you're going to want to develop is, first, the ability to work in what you can (not to mention the ability to sell what you're doing), and then second, the ability to accept that at the vast majority of parishes, if you like being employed (and personally, I do), you'll need to squeeze "traditional" music in alongside what the parishioners want.

    When you're nudging that stuff in, you'll need to be relentlessly positive about it and avoid denigrating the music they like, even if it actually is terrible. Others have added good practical suggestions on how to do that, and those are helpful, I hope.

    I've just started year 5 with my parish. Year 1 was rough. I took over as music director in the summer after Covid for a very nice and quite competent woman who nonetheless wasn't an organist and hewed very much toward the contemporary side. My approach to choirs and conducting was different. What I like to program is different. It was a lot of adjustments on both sides, but admittedly mostly theirs. There was a little "creative destruction."

    Slowly, we jelled, but it wasn't until more than halfway through year 3 that what I was doing finally clicked for just about everyone in the choir. We had a three-month run from about halfway through Lent until Corpus Christi that was probably the best run I've ever had with a choir. We've been consistently good and still improving since, but I have to admit those three months were just incredible.

    Now, we're tackling Palestrina, Bruckner, Elgar, and even the Faure requiem, which I have slated for this fall. We're still doing Haugen and Haugen-esque stuff (but, of course, not He Should Shall Not Be Named), but now I've earned the leeway to toss more sacred music into the mix.

    God bless you and best wishes for your future!

    * OK, OK, I live in the suburbs
    Thanked by 3contemporaryworship92 Abbysmum PaxMelodious
  • contemporaryworship92
    Posts: 303
    Charles you have good intentions and I imagine this is a frustrating experience. To echo some of the thoughts above, I suggest being more strategic in your management of your political capital.

    I was labeled a “purist” and “traditionalist,” but I wanted to choose music that matched the liturgy’s theology.


    You've already dug yourself a hole once you've let yourself become labeled by your opposition. I personally think you'll enjoy the most success when the people you are working with don't have a political category they see you as. Do what you can to find common cause with people in the places where you can find agreement, show interest in the music they like as best you can, and present any suggestions for more traditional repertoire as "I like this", "this is cool", etc., and strongly avoid making arguments based on legal compliance - most human beings are not going to be enthusiastic about "the documents say this is the way, so suck it up" and even if you don't phrase it like that, it's very hard to not have people hear you that way. As a point of reference, how many members of your choir are extremely enthusiastic about compliance with civil copyright law?

    Attempting to litigate the church documents with people who aren't already enthusiastic about doing what they say in my view is a losing battle. They'll reply with statements like "I don't think these legal documents are more important than sharing Jesus with people", and as long as they view the contents of these documents as being in the way of what they think is the right way to share the Gospel, you probably won't make many converts.

    You also have a big problem when you are attempting to insist on a stricter reading of these documents than is held by the director of music, the pastor, or the bishop. Keep track of what's in your sphere of influence vs. what is not - the people in these positions are responsible before God for their decisions, which is to say, it's on their conscience, not yours, and there's no use worrying about what God hasn't given you the authority to change. In the meantime, I recommend thinking about the long game here - if you want to work your way up to a director of music position, in which you really could make some of these changes, you'll need to known and liked by the people who make hiring decisions.

    If you can work your way up to a role where you are picking the songs, this will get easier!

    Save the Liturgy, Save the World


    This phrase, while dressed up in traditional sounding rhetoric, hides what I call the meta-Spirit of Vatican II. The meta-Spirit of Vatican II states that getting the things that are of human origin in the liturgy right (language, orientation of the altar, music) is the central thing that must be done to evangelize. The meta-Spirit of Vatican II contains an essentially Marxist theory of change. If the meta-Spirit of Vatican II is in fact true, what lay people should spend their energy on is engaging in struggle sessions to create as much change in your parish's liturgy as fast as possible. This meta-Spirit of Vatican II works just as well if you think we need guitar Masses and felt banners vs. if you think we need to turn the altars back around and bring back Latin - the conclusions is the same: demand change in your parish's liturgy now!

    In my life experience, the meta-Spirit of Vatican II is false. I've seen some of the best evangelization occur in parishes with the most 1960s era aesthetics. My undergrad Catholic Campus ministry parish church was built in the style of French Brutalism, and we had guitars and sometimes drums at Mass, but we were incredibly bold in inviting people to encounter Jesus in our Newman center and we brought many people to Christ. The meta-Spirit of Vatican II lets people off the hook to easily from doing things that are hard - if you think that evangelization consists in aesthetically perfect liturgies, well, that absolves you from any need to share Christ with people who don't know Him, or for that matter, any responsibility to talk to strangers or interact with people outside your bubble.
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    @contemporaryworship92

    Thank you for the advice.

    The first time I was called a traditionalist was when I finished rehearsing On Jordan’s Bank (Winchester New) after mass with the choir. I’m not sure about you, but I have no regrets over choosing this hymn for the Feast of the Baptism of The Lord. I hadn’t ever made comments about legal compliance when programming this song. Then, the first time I was called a purist was when I suggested we lessen the instrumentation for Lent (and I said I would be playing piano with much more restraint as we already have the organ to lead and guitar to support music). This wasn’t my behest for other people - I volunteered to lessen the piano accompaniment on my own accord. Yet somehow I still get these monikers. If you have any ways to avoid getting called names for choosing On Jordan’s Bank, I’m all ears. Like discussion title mentions, I’m a Gregorian greenhorn and am always learning more about the musical and political landscape of being a catholic musician. I hope that my post wasn’t suggesting an impervious attitude towards the liturgy, but rather my willingness to defend hymnody that’s commendable, and related to the feast, ie, On Jordan’s Bank. I’m not going to pretend that P+W is equally suitable as a Eucharistic chant during communion just because “people like it”.

    I don’t like to revisit the “labels by my opposition” because I don’t believe framing other people as exclusively opposition is fair. My habits might differ from theirs but we share the same goal: to help the parish community worship God. A couple months ago, I might’ve felt the others were “opposition” but this doesn’t feel Christlike to me. This was also a really hard time for me because the principal organist sent me some really nasty text messages after I suggested some music for Divine Mercy Sunday. In hindsight, this deserved immediate attention to the pastor, but I decided to sit down, be quiet, and cede my involvement because that once seemed like the right thing to do.

    When formerly employed, my job title was “organist” according to the pastor, but he clearly never noticed that I was always forced to play piano while the older woman accompanied with electric organ. I’m sorry to digress, but a major issue I faced at St. Mary’s is that I don’t think there’s any DOM. There’s some more senior choir members, but nobody said that they were in charge while I sang and played piano there. It was just inferred that I had to always acknowledge their musical taste as supreme and that metered hymns would only be sung if they specifically liked it. Even our parish bulletins fail to name a director of music for Arcade.

    Oh, in response to the papal liturgical documents - I’m unsure what Bishop Mike Fisher says about them. I went to a national conference a little bit ago with the Bishop and Director of Worship for the Diocese of Buffalo, but was unable to figure out if there were diocesan guidelines. The diocesan website isn’t helpful much either. We have some precepts for weddings and funerals, but there doesn’t appear to be any collection of locally-approved hymnals, psalm settings, or mass settings. When I played for a youth event last year, I collaborated with the Director of Worship to choose mostly contemporary music for mass (mostly his suggestions). I would like to think that He-who-should-not-be-named’s music would get blacklisted because of the sex abuse scandal, but His Excellency is in a very tough spot with bigger problems. The Diocese of Buffalo owes $150 million to survivors, and music is probably at the lowest priority given this situation.


    I won’t address the entirety of the last two paragraphs, but I’ll summarize with this: “Save the liturgy, save the world” is not intended to suggest a Marxist theory of change for the ‘meta-spirit of Vatican II’. The mass is the literal foretaste of Heaven on Earth! If we do not make Jesus present in the Eucharist the center, source, and summit of our life, then it will make other aspects of our faith fragile, disconnected, and less effective in forming disciples. Evangelization has never been restricted to aesthetically perfect liturgies, because liturgy and personal witness are most powerful when working together.


    I’m grateful this discussion has gained so much traction and that everyone is so willing to share their insights and help. As I’m still learning the complexities of parish music ministry, I truly appreciate being part of this community effort to support faith and worship. I’m probably the youngest and least experienced here, so it’s wonderful to communicate with such a scholarly group of musicians! This group always amazes, and has a fascinating style of language and humor.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,076
    if you think that evangelization consists in aesthetically perfect liturgies, well, that absolves you from any need to share Christ with people who don't know Him, or for that matter, any responsibility to talk to strangers or interact with people outside your bubble.

    I'm not sure who you're talking to here. No one I know thinks that a beautiful liturgy exhausts all efforts at evangelization, or that it somehow excuses anyone from interacting with people.

    In fact, this shows that liturgy and evangelization are not the same, and that one should not be measured in terms of the other. Liturgy is first of all the worship of God, not a tool for bringing people to the faith. In fact, it is intended for those who already believe. Of course God may use the liturgy to draw unbelievers to him, as he may use any number of other things. Naturally we should do everything we can to evangelize, but the worship due to God is worthy in itself and should not be instrumentalized to some other purpose.
    Thanked by 3irishtenor StimsonInRehab MatthewRoth
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    I think he's talking to anyone who adopts the motto "Save the liturgy, save the world." It's a misleading, pompous, and even doctrinally incorrect motto, and I bet it rubs anyone less intensely involved than we are the wrong way. I mean it rubs me the wrong way (and getting worse the more I think about it) and I'm intensely involved in "saving the liturgy."

    As a merely emotional rallying cry connoting passion for good liturgy and ascribing importance to it, then fine, maybe, though I've never been one for mottos (or for Fr. Z).

    Personally, I'm just assisting the liturgy at my parish and some other nearby parishes. I don't need to delude myself that my music ministry is "saving the world" to understand it as important and meaningful.
    Thanked by 1contemporaryworship92
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    @Chant_Supremacist

    Alright, I get it. “Save the liturgy, save the world” is officially a dangerous ideology now. I promise I won’t spread this plague further; I’ll make sure it goes in my blacklist of liturgical no-nos - right alongside Haas’ music, Lord, You Have Come to the Seashore, and any hymn daring enough to use a medieval tritone.

    Be acerbic not academic. (wait did I say that right)?

    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    I think he's talking to anyone who adopts the motto "Save the liturgy, save the world." It's a misleading, pompous, and even doctrinally incorrect motto


    Okay, whatever, honestly. Sometimes I wonder what we’re doing here. And I definitely think that you need to honestly let go of your dislike (or obvious apathy which you don’t hesitate to share) for Fr Z, which is coloring your view. I am immensely grateful for him, even if I long stopped reading the blog daily (I stopped reading everything before he changed it from WDTPRS to simply Fr. Z’s Blog, then after that I basically stopped except to see if he’d posted news). I learned a lot. Occasionally he answered a question that I sent. He sung the second solemn Mass for which I was the MC, so that’s also something.

    And indeed, the liturgy is not evangelization even if it is, despite the church’s preference to an extent (I don’t actually think that there’s evidence for the church having historically excluded non-Christians as is sometimes claimed: the disciplina arcani seems to be fake news).

    I’ve been at this for over half my life now. People are overthinking this.
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    @Charles I detect a tiny little hint of sarcasm.
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    @Chant_Supremacist

    The sarcasm was indeed there. I couldn’t figure out how to do the famed purple text, so I went for a block quote.

    But Matthew is right, we both ought to let go of our overly-publicized internal convictions. Apologies for how I might have come across. I think I’m learning the habits of this forum quite well now.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    <font color=purple>Matthew is suggesting that Orthodox deacons saying "catechumens depart" is an innovation !</font>
    <font color=red>IS OUTRAGE</font>
    Matthew is suggesting that Orthodox deacons saying "catechumens depart" is an innovation !
    IS OUTRAGE
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Chant_Supremacist
  • contemporaryworship92
    Posts: 303
    I'm not sure who you're talking to here. No one I know thinks that a beautiful liturgy exhausts all efforts at evangelization, or that it somehow excuses anyone from interacting with people.

    In fact, this shows that liturgy and evangelization are not the same, and that one should not be measured in terms of the other. Liturgy is first of all the worship of God, not a tool for bringing people to the faith. In fact, it is intended for those who already believe. Of course God may use the liturgy to draw unbelievers to him, as he may use any number of other things. Naturally we should do everything we can to evangelize, but the worship due to God is worthy in itself and should not be instrumentalized to some other purpose.


    I'm pleasantly surprised by this and other responses. Roughly a decade ago I had a very strong disagreement with a self-identified rad trad who claimed that the liturgy was the Church's primary method of evangelization. I don't think that claim makes sense but I incorrectly assumed that this was a representative view of trads. It looks like we're all on the same page here.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • CharlesCharles
    Posts: 12
    @a_f_hawkins


    Thank you. I look forward to using this purple text more often.

    This is useful too.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,961
    Pleasure to meet you, Charles. Welcome to the Forum.

    How many Chucks Amuck does that make on this page, now?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    Well, yeah, there is the litany of catechumens and the deacon’s command. I don’t dispute that. But we seem to overstate the absolute secrecy, and although neither catechesis nor evangelization are the first end of the Mass or even tertiary, we live in a world where the externals (including texts that we read but don’t hear except if we’re the deacon or MC) matter as the Mass is the first point of contact and the first teaching site for so many Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, pagans…
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 389
    For those who are interested in the origins of such things, I believe Fr. Z's coinage of "Save the liturgy, save the world" was a play on the oft repeated line in mid-2000s TV show Heroes: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." I presume it was initially meant to be humorous and we definitely should not take it serious.
    Thanked by 2irishtenor montre_16
Add a Comment