Somehow, this reform of the reform of the altar when the priest faces the people simply doesn't cut it; it's horrible in fact. Wouldn't it be better for the altar candles to be on either side of the altar, floor standing, or behind the altar on a reredos?
The Reform of the Reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass must take into account the Second Vatican Councils decree on the liturgy. Any subsequent directives immediately following the council, even from Pope Paul VI are relegated to this document and must be revised if not faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium. What cannot be questioned is the authority of the Council, Pope and Bishops and thus the Universal Magisterium, acting collectively in an ecumenical council of the Church which in fact called for the "reform" and "revision" of the Order of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
However, there may be two generations or more of Catholics who knew nothing of the actual "praxis" of the Catholic Mass prior to and during the Second Vatican Council. They are either too young to know, or are converts to Catholicism after the reforms and may well have converted because of the revised Order of the Mass.
In fact at the age of 58, my generation of Catholics (baby boomers) may be the last generation to actually have known first hand what the pre-Vatican II Mass was like as well as the pre-Vatican II Church, warts and all! Our testimony cannot be discounted. There was a reason why so many baby-boomers embraced the reforms of Vatican II with such reckless gusto. The Pre-Vatican II Church was too authoritarian and rigid, especially if (and most of us were) one went to Catholic school were discipline, both corporal and otherwise was well dished out and childlike fear of the Church and of God reigned supreme.
But it is also the baby boomer generation who knows first hand the silliness that occurred in the post-Vatican II Church that was destructive of Catholic liturgy and belief and thus Catholic identity. We know well the connection between the sexual revolution and how this affected the clergy and religious of the Church as well as the laity. We know well the connection between "gay liberation" and the homosexual sub-culture that developed in the priesthood that thrived off of this liberty and led to the abuse of so many adolescent boys which cannot be classified as pedophilia but as homosexual men acting out with adolescent boys who looked like adults.
Therefore the genius of Pope Benedict in allowing for the more liberal celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass helps more Catholics to know which Mass the Council was directing its reform and helps more Catholics today to experience in the Tridentine Mass its glories, some of which were unnecessarily discarded, and its vanities, duplications and remoteness, which should have been revised. A second look and experience of the Tridentine Mass will lead to a better reform of it today or in the near future.
One may argue about the translation into English of "active participation" but this is the official translation from the Vatican Website:
"14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy."
This does not mean that we abandon interior participation and spirituality but that each person during the celebration of the Mass take the parts that are assigned to them and make the most of them internally and externally, spoken and sung! To be quite frank, my experience of the Tridentine Mass as a child was non-participative. My parents taught me to say the Holy Rosary during Mass--that was praying during Mass. When we were allowed to participate with the 1965 missal--it was truly a blessing to pray the Mass, not the Rosary and to do so out loud like the altar boys and choir! English facilitated this greatly!!!!
30. "To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
Let there be no doubt that the Second Vatican Council directed the laity to do these things in #30!
34. "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation."
Let there be no doubt about "noble simplicity" which today needs to be truly clarified as this can have multiple meanings and hasn't always been carried out in the modern liturgy in any sort of noble way!
"The Mass should be unencumbered by useless repetitions." Just what did this mean. We can only understand that in light of the "useless repetitions" that were eliminated in the modern Mass. These are:
1) The double prayers for priest and laity, such as the Confiteor and absolution
2) The double communion rites for the priest and people
3) The repetitions of the "signs of the cross" over the oblations prior to and after consecration
4) The repetition of the Dominus Non Sum Dignus for the priest and then again for the laity
5) The added Confieteor for the laity prior to Holy Communion
6) The added prayers after the added "Last Gospel"
35. "That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy."
The Tridentine Missal's lectionary was good for a year but did not give a wide exposure to the Bible, in fact almost no Old Testament Readings were read at Sunday Mass. The revised lectionary certainly followed what Vatican II explicitly directed. Does this lectionary need further revision. I'll leave that to others for I like the three year cycle. My only concern is that perhpas too much is proclaimed at Mass thus diluting what is proclaimed. Perhaps we only need a first reading, psalm and Gospel. Perhaps we could have the Tridentine Lectionary as Year A and the current lectionary divided differently over the course of an additional year or two where Old Testament readings are spread differently and at different seasons of the year to allow one of the first two readings to be eliminated but all heard over the course of several years.
Once again, the daily Mass lectionary today is far superior to the Tridentine Mass which relies too heavily on "saints' readings" and thus the same readings are read day after day!
36. 1. "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
The preservation of Latin has been abysmal in the post Vatican II Church because most people like the vernacular. Even Pope Paul VI lamented its loss so quickly after the Council. He wanted the laity to know how to sing a particular Gregorian Chant of the Latin Parts of the Mass in a little booklet published called "Jubilatio Deo." It had the Greek Kyrie, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. These should have been mandated to be sung in Latin throughout the Latin Rite, but this did not occur.
107. "The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery."
As a priest celebrating both forms of the Mass today, I must say that I prefer the revised Roman Calendar and classification of memorials, Memorials, Feasts and Solemnities. What I don't like is the term Ordinary Time, but that could easily be adjusted without changing anything else by calling Ordinary Time, Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost. We also need to restore the Octave of Pentecost and the "Gesima" pre-Lenten Sundays as well as Ember Days. That would be very simple!
116. "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."
The chapter on Sacred Music is lenghty and opened the door to all of the abysmal music that has developed in the Mass including the use of other instruments apart from the Organ. It asked that these instruments be suitable for the Liturgy and its spirituality. But the judgment of this is so arbitrary, that ultimately it allowed for any and every kind of instrument, many of which are not suitable for the spirituality and devotional quality of the liturgy.
The styles of music allowed today for the Liturgy which began with the horrible stuff allowed in the late 1960's has caused more harm to the post Vatican II Mass than any other experimentation, even the more wild forms of experimentation because most parishes implemented horrible music into the liturgy while not all parishes celebrated Mass in the most absurd ways possible.
In my opinion the following instruments are not suitable and should be forbidden from the Sacred Mass and Liturgy of the hours. These could be used for devotional music outside of Mass of course:
1. the guitar, electric or otherwise
2. the snare drums and corresponding cymbals and bongos
3. the saxophone
4. tambourines
5. harmonica and mouth harp
6. Piano--I love the piano, but don't think it is good for the Liturgy as well as the sounds that many electronic keyboards can make.
7. The Hurdy Gurdy I think could be used in some cultures, (I'm fascinated by the instrument and only learned now about it!) but I don't think the Bag Pipes are appropriate for the indoors or for the Liturgy--fine outdoors and at grave side committals.
Certainly classical orchestral instruments should be permitted, including strings,woodwinds, brass, timpani, harp and the like.
The Council explicitly asked that Gregorian Chant and presumably in Latin be preserved. What happened?????? We went gunge-ho with what was only vaguely allowed by arbitrary judgments and forbade that which was explicitly requested be preserved.
We need the Pope to tell local bishops how the Revised Liturgy should be celebrated and there needs to be explicit instructions about Music and instrumentation in particular. There needs to be a national hymnal for each language group which includes "universal Gregorian Chant" that must be used in the Liturgy, i.e. Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons as well as parts of the Mass. Hymns need to be scrupulously studied by local bishop's conferences and then submitted to Rome for further examination before these are to be admitted into any formal liturgy of the Church, i.e. Mass and Liturgy of the Hours.
The current Mass needs to be revised as I suggested in the previous post. I'm not advocating anything radical, just a revision of the Penitential Act and restoration of the Introit to its proper place and the maintaining of the Kyrie in its nine fold format. I simply asking for Ad Orientem but not to preclude the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Universal Prayers, Post Communion Prayer, Blessing and Dismissal from the Presiding Chair.
This is an Appendix to Sacrosanctum Concilium which I will copy without my comment:
APPENDIX
A DECLARATION OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN ON REVISION OF THE CALENDAR
The Second Ecumenical Sacred Council of the Vatican, recognizing the importance of the wishes expressed by many concerning the assignment of the feast of Easter to a fixed Sunday and concerning an unchanging calendar, having carefully considered the effects which could result from the introduction of a new calendar, declares as follows:
The Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent.
The sacred Council likewise declares that it does not oppose efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil society.
But among the various systems which are being suggested to stabilize a perpetual calendar and to introduce it into civil life, the Church has no objection only in the case of those systems which retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact, unless there is question of the most serious reasons. Concerning these the Apostolic See shall judge.
17 comments:
I apologize in advance, and have had to post in sections...
I am not fond of the versus populum celebration of the Mass. I think, for one thing, that in Ad Deum mode, it is much clearer that we are all present for the sacrifice, and that the people's role in this is to assist the priest through their prayers, both spoken and silent. But perhaps it is just me--I am there to worship, after all, not for a meal.
In my own parish, the feeling is far too casual, the sense is more of a communal meal, and the music (now accompanied by two guitars and a piano, and on occasion, a flute) rather too reminiscent of the bad old days of folk Mass infamy.
I am unusual in my parish, for having actually read Sacrosanctum Concilium. Several times. I have worked to understand it, which further reduces the company I keep. Having read a good deal about the Council, and having been in high school while it was in session, I was pleasantly surprised to find (article? item? paragraph?) 4:
4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to Tradition, the Sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
This seems particularly to encourage exactly the sort of reflection in which you have been indulging, Father, and the discussion you foster.
However, while I was delighted with:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
I was disheartened with these paragraphs:
37. Even in the Liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the Liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the Liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into Divine Worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.
I knew, as soon as I read them, that despite the repeated phrase "especially in mission lands", and the fact that the section title refers to "cultures and traditions of peoples", these were the loopholes through which the post-conciliar ruptures were created.
In 37, there is caution against error, yet we see error all around us, in the ad libs still being made by priests of a certain age, in the use of inappropriate instruments and inappropriate lyrics, and in the remaining architectural profanities, such as the dislocation of the tabernacle from the altar.
In 40, the real damage is done, in my view. I can imagine the delight with which some have read the words "In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the Liturgy is needed...".
A reform of the reform is desperately needed. And more, we need all our parishes to be influenced, if not guided, by the spirit evident in celebrations of the EF--and I have no doubt, in the OF celebrations in your parish--which are clearly reverent, as so many appear not to be.
In my parish, where the nave is of a very clearly post-V-II design, the noise before Mass is disruptive of thought, and makes prayer a challenge. Some days, I want to walk over to the choir (the worst offenders) and suggest to them that the parish hall is over that way....
I pray, father, that more of our blessed priests will turn away from the innovations of the 60s and 70s, and return to the very well founded and valuable traditions of our Church.
Forgive my lengthy comment, please, but so much needs to be said, and done.
there is a "sacramental, little 's'" sign of girls (representing the congregation and thus the Church in the feminine)being a very powerful sign of the Femininity of the Church as the Bride of Christ.)
It's most impressive, Fr. McDonald, that you have been favored with an insight that eluded each of the Church's first 262 popes, all of her doctors, and two millenia of her most profound theologians.
this is the official translation from the Vatican Website:
Really, there is nothing official about Vatican web site translations. Indeed, they frequently contain blatant errors of grammar or substance. In this case, the term "participatio actuosa" was defined by a half century of prior usage beginning with Pope Pius X and extending through Pius XII, and an ideologically based meaning was substituted in this particular English translation.
What cannot be questioned is the authority of the Council
While it would be absurd to suggest that the Holy Spirit inspired any particular one of the recommendations in Sacrosanctum Concilium which, as any reader of the minutes of the 50+ of the committee that drafted it realizes, was the product of backroom politics little different from the smoke-filled rooms of political conventions of the same era.
All this said, however, let me say that--aside from my judgment, from following both daily, that the older lectionary is in some distinct ways superior to the newer one (which however has its own advantages)--I agree so enthusiastically with both the spirit and the substance of your incisive analysis that I hereby endorse your appointment to be in charge of the whole reform of the liturgy.
Henry, I blush, but thank you! What I'm trying to enunciate and bring to the discussion table is that we not go into another "rupture" with the reform of the reform of the Mass and simply ignore what Sacrosanctum Concilium sought in future reforms of the Mass. We have the privilege today to celebrate the EF Mass and then look at the Vatican II documents (which by the way, cannot be divorced from the decrees on the Priesthood and the nature of the Church (ecclesiology) and then look at how the reforms were implemented, good things and especially the bad things, the bad things having diminished the Catholic identity of the laity and their zeal for the true faith. Today in Catholicism we suffer from a major form of "indifferentism" in all generations of our Catholics but especially the young. They aren't anti-Catholic or they don't hate the Church, they are just indifferent or tepid. They don't have a sense of the possibility of damnation and the high sacrificial price our Savior offered to us to remove the punishment due our sins.
Bill, I appreciate your comments too. The directive for inculturation, including "radical" inculturation has been followed by obedient bishops, priests and laity in other parts of the world, especially Asia and Africa and given an imprimatur by the Vatican in the 1960's and 70's although cautions were issued also.
I think this "radical" inculturation has done more to destroy the universal character of the Latin Rite Mass than anything else. Was the purpose of this to create new "rites" in the Western Church, similar to the various rites of the EAstern Church? Even the Western Church prior to the Council had different Rites in union with Rome which distinctive features in the Liturgy which were not in the normal Latin Rite EF Mass.
I don't know how to address what I think are aberrations in terms of inculturation without coming across as ethnocentric.
In terms of women in official ministries of the Mass such as Altar Server and Lector, we have to take into account the little "t" tradition that has developed and certainly can be viewed as inculturation. There is no need to make women more angry at the institutional Church by denying something to them that is not part of the capital "T" tradition and defined doctrinally or dogmatically.
How do you feel about the use of Hurdy-Gurdies for liturgical music?
I don't know what Hurdie Gurdies are?
Father, from the first time I read SC, it seemed clear that 37-40 were meant to provide for adjustments which might be needed in mission lands. In particular, in cultures where there is no context for an understanding of God, rather than gods, nor for a messiah, then a good deal of ingenuity might be needed to manage the teaching and the growth of understanding required.
However, the application of these items to the U.S., which I understand ceased to be a mission land over 100 years ago appears entirely unjustified.
I also think that to achieve an understanding of how we suffered such a rupture we must learn more about the experimentation which was taking place in locations such as Collegeville, MN, well before the Council was convoked.
Hurdy gurdy
The "Reform of the Reform" remains problematic for many reasons. As a former Protestant mimnister (Presbyterian), I lived for a long time with not only the divisiveness of having many denominations, but with the divisiveness of having many factions within the various denominations. I watched churches split, denominations split, whole parishes fail, and ministers leave the church altogether in droves.
From seminary and grad school forward, I watched Protestant theology become anthropology and social work and Protestant social and moral values deteriorate into humanistic, politically correct banality. I attribute all of this to the lack of a Magisterium and to the abandonment of the Real Presence and the understandings of the Church entailed by that belief. When I witnessed the "fruits" of protestantism...ordination of women, looking the other way on abortion or making official statements that it was "between a woman and her doctor," the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers, blessing gay marriage, and ministers openly questioning the Divinity of Christ from the pulpit...I finally had enough. After much study, prayer, and discussion with Priests I joined the Catholic Church, largely because I came to believe Calvin was wrong and Catholic theology (especially the Real Presence and the Magisterium) was more Biblical and correct.
It is troubling to see the Catholic Church laying the groundwork for the same kind of divisiveness that I fled in Protestantism. But, at the same time the Pope and traditionalists want to wisely return to a true Catholic identity and worship, the Church still allows all kinds of contrarian and subversive elements to have a loud voice. Organizations such as Cursillo and the Neocatechumenate are great examples of groups actively working at odds with traditional Catholic identity and worship. The Church allows maverick Bishops to make outrageous statements and support activities that are clearly contra the Reform, stray "demi-nuns" run around in street clothes or some kind of "service uniform" while spouting all the catch phrases of the secular/lib movements. More and more, it seems that these things are just going to be allowed to continue with no real consequences. All the while, a little voice sounds in my head, "you'll be sorry...."
Father,
I think the dividing line for those who are among the last to have conscious memory of the pre-Conciliar Church and Mass has to be about age 55 and above. I'm now 51 and I was only 4 when the '65 Missal came out. I barely remember the Tridentine Mass only as a pre-schooler. I do remember, much better, the '65 Missal era as that is when I received my first Communion (1968). My attitudes about the way Mass should be celebrated were, for a long period of my life, very much formed by that period, when I was in our little Catholic school (with habited Franciscan sisters) here in Waycross. It was in English and versus populum but otherwise very much like the '62 Missal form of the Tridentine Mass.
It was only after having the opportunity to attend (and learn to serve) Mass according to the '62 Missal in my early 30's (under the Ecclesia Dei indult in another Diocese) that I then realized what my parents, grandmother, and other older folks had been talking about all during my growing up years. It changed my views on how Mass should be celebrated and caused me to re-examine the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms. I think that, for both priests and laity, it is only by regular exposure to the old Mass and by reading Sacrosanctum Concilium that we can gain a proper understanding of what may have really been intended by the Council.
I wish more priests would be more open-minded and take the time to consider learning to celebrate the old Mass because it is a critical part of bringing them to an understanding of liturgical reform in the light of continuity. Your writings are evidence of how your understanding has been affected by your actual familiarity with the EF and further affected by a more traditional ("TNO") ad orientem celebration of the OF. Thanks, Father!
Joseph, I cannot tell how much celebrating the EF Mass for five years now has done to reshape my understanding of what the Mass in the Ordinary Form should feel, look and sound like,even in the vernacular. The Holy Father is a genius in allowing all priests to celebrate this Mass as he knows that the hermeneutic of continuity in reform can only occur if priests are aware of what was reformed from the old to the new and how an organic reform can come about that is not a rupture with the EF or the Pre-Vatican II Church. This is the way to go and I pray more priests and especially bishops will celebrate the EF Mass more often to get acquainted with its theology, dignity and solemnity. It will change the way they celebrate the OF Mass if they do!
On the list of banned instruments, you need to add the recorder flute and pan flute. Talk about nails on a chalkboard. I kid you not, my parish has a prominent recorder flute/pan flute sound. Ugh!
I find that altar ugly as well. First, I don't like the altar cloth. I don't like how it semi-covers the beautiful stone frontal; if a cover is going to be used, make it a full antependium and stop teasing us with the half-covered thing that just makes the artistry look bad. I also don't like the flowers, as they don't blend well. But I think the worst part is the candlesticks. The glass tops are what ruin them.
However, I'd leave the candlesticks on the altar. I think they usually look bad when they're on the floor, and it just smacks of that "I know there's a better way, but I'm only going to do it halfway to not offend anybody's liturgical sensibilities [or insensibilities?]" attitude. Candlesticks on the altar look the best.
I also hesitate with any Vatican translation of any document. If I'm not mistaken, translations are only given for the most basic of referential applications, and never for official policy-making and doctrine-clarifying decisions. Only the legitimate Latin (or, as the occasional case may be, some other language) original. I think that's right. So I think the hesitation that many have with "active participation" is very legitimate and very valid, as it is, after all, only from an "unofficial-official" translation, so to speak.
I want to talk for a bit about inculturation. I think it is completely illegitimate to so much as think about inculturation in Western countries (except perhaps Japan), and I include countries like Mexico and Brazil in that definition. These countries have all long had a very considerable Catholic presence for at least hundreds of years, so I think it is at lest extremely disingenuous to talk about liturgical inculturation in places where Catholicism flourished for a very long time. I do think it is legitimate to talk about inculturation in Asian and African countries, however. But in the USA, UK, Canada, Mexico, Germany, France, etc.? Absolutely, unequivocally not. The whole point of inculturation, after all, is to help with conversion, no? There is no point in this in Western countries because our cultures are already heavily Latinized and Westernized. I THINK the BEST way to inculturate in ANY culture is with POPULAR DEVOTIONS! We need those back! These are what perpetuate Catholic identity in the home!
I think another thing to talk about is Catholic youth. I am an 18 year old male. I do agree that most (around 75%) of Catholic youth are disinterested in the Church, and I honestly believe this is the Church's own fault. I will, however, make one point. I do know several very interested Catholic youth (16-24) in my parish and online, and the funny thing is that we all prefer the EF, we all like Catholic tradition, and we all love strong and teaching-rich homilies. So it is true that most Catholic youth are disenchanted, but the ones who remain committed are strangely all very similar in liturgical preferences and otherwise...
I could talk about other subjects like music and ad orientem, but I think my opinions are already expressed here.
I am relived to see the banjo is not banned. Saint Brigid, thank you!
A question: Do you have the musician, I guess it's not a pianist, play along while you pray the Invitation to Communion? This just seems distracting when this happens.
rcg
We went this morning to the parish nearest to our home. I'm sorry to report that they appear to have made some changes in the music area. The new items include:
- music director
- drum set
- guitar
And lest there be any doubt of the changes, the first hymn was "Gather Us In".
It is to weep.
Bill, your post made me sad and I feel your pain.
My local parish (2.1 miles) on a typical Sunday has 3-4 guitars and often a tambourine. UGH!!
That is why I drive 40 minutes to St. Joseph in Macon every Sunday.
I pray that the reexamination of the V2 documents during the 40 year anniversary of V2 later this year will lead to a correction that will do away with this auditory nonsense!
Post a Comment