I skipped through the video and felt the same. The bland, Protestant mega church with the one out of scale statue perched on a column doesn't, to me, do much to raise one's eyes heavenward. Again and, to me, This is just too white washed and casual. Though PF's ars celebrandi is certainly reserved and say the black - do the red, it is just too sterile for the joy, foretaste of heaven that liturgy should be. Also, for as much as I try and try and try, I just cannot acquire a taste for that contemporary music. Perhaps my ear is too rigidly tuned to chant at this point but, this, to me, is too praise/worship sounding for formal liturgy. But then again, this "version" of the Catholic Church has become informal/casual/"approachable", right?
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict were both"listless" in their manner of celebrating the Mass, although Benedict would chant.
The problem for both and most bishops and priests is that we have to look at their facial expressions for the entire Mass. If Pope Francis had faced away, it would have seem more pious and energetic.
But the energy is to be found in the young musicians and the manner in which they sing and play their instruments, which in fact has nothing to do with the Mass except to make it more into an entertainment model. They are performing. At least Pope Francis isn't performing but his piety is boring to watch, thus the need for ad orientem.
This sounds like the fundamental problem with versus populum as well as the current thinking regarding active participation. It's not good if it's not entertaining! How would I know whether I am entertained or not unless I can see, perhaps engage and react to those who are performing?
When I serve, chant the epistle and/or cantor at Divine Liturgy, (in addition to the priest), I mostly do not face the people. I therefore do not see how they react to what they see and hear and, in turn, they do not see my reactions. Similarly, when we process for the little and great entrances, our respective gazes are downcast as it isn't the appropriate time to interact in any way (I don't fault people for wanting to smile, wave or, say hello when we pass - it is a somewhat normal and human thing to do). My point, the Liturgy - this work in which we are privileged to assist - stands on its own. My job is to simply fulfill the obligations of my role reverently, to the best of my ability and in the least disruptive manner possible (e.g. do nothing to make a spectacle of oneself). I suppose it is a matter of mindset that, formerly, was shared between the east and the west.
"...it is just too sterile for the joy, foretaste of heaven that liturgy should be.:"
Don't such statements rely tremendously on what is one's conception of heaven?
Scripture says heaven is many dwelling places, a place of blessing with multitudes of angels, all gathered AROUND the throne of the Lamb, a place of no hunger, thirst, heat, a bride bedecked for her groom, a place not needing any light, a place with plenty of water.
But all of these are metaphors.
Eye has not see, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love him.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, published in 1988, warns against depicting heaven as an extension of this life prettied up with depictions of “lions laying down with lambs,” and eternal picnics. Not only do we have the real problem with the fact that most of the world lives in abject misery, materially speaking—we forget that living in our modern United States of America where “the poor” often means not being able to afford all 2,000 cable channels—but we also must remember that lions, lambs, and picnics get boring after a few million years. These depictions just don’t cut it for the modern, thinking man.
On the other hand, I Cor. 2:9 is overused as well. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard,” with regard to heaven is often used as a cop out. Yes, it is true. Heaven is ultimately beyond what has ever “entered into the heart of man.” But there are certain things we can know about heaven even if now we “see in a mirror dimly” what will only be revealed fully in eternity (I Cor. 13:12). If we are going to excite people about the prospects of heaven, Ratzinger says, and if there is going to be a healthy sense of fearing the “loss of heaven” as we enter the confessional, a biblical and traditional understanding of the nature of heaven is essential.
What the Church Teaches
CCC 1023 says,
Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified [whether in this life, or in the next life in Purgatory] live forever with Christ. They are like God forever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face.
The essential problem with this Liturgy (besides being banal) is that you can experience this kind of music almost anywhere outside of Church. Why bother going if you are just going to hear what the secular culture can conjure up and do that genre better? Instead of Church music influencing the world, the world has influenced Church music and not in a good way. When Hollywood wants to evoke other worldliness and the sacred in movies which depict the Catholic Church, Hollywood selects chant and polyphony. Too bad our "bishops" can't take a cue from Hollywood at least on that score.
'Pope Francis and Pope Benedict were both "listless" in their manner of celebrating the Mass.' What does this mean, exactly? 'Listless' implies disengagement and uninterest. Francis mumbles the prayers and during the singing of the Gloria stares glumly at his (black) boots, but this does not necessarily indicate listlessness. Benedict at this point looked rapt, his eyes uplifted. And chanting the orations, even in the vernacular, is important.
At least Francis does not follow the example of many NO priests and declaim the prayers in a portentous and supposedly 'meaningful' way, with heavy overemphasis and obviously addressing the congregation, even during the Eucharistic Prayer. Since the NO is excessively wordy (which is why it usually deadly dull) and the celebrant in most cases faces the people throughout, such mannerisms can become intensely irritating.
Of course, given their age, I would not expect them to be full of verve either, but I agree with your points. The Archbishop of New York is downright buffoonish, particularly when entering and exiting St. Patrick's Cathedral. I would much prefer "listless" to that sort of sophomoric behavior.
Dolan's waving and glad-handing, and his appalling 'liturgies' are indeed deplorable.
Hovever, PF should, as a bishop, bless from side to side when processing in and out. Watch Pius XII do this from the sedia gestatoria. Yet he does not do so - why not?
14 comments:
very pedestrian and not inspiring, at all. Hardly, a "foretaste of Heaven."
TJM -
I skipped through the video and felt the same. The bland, Protestant mega church with the one out of scale statue perched on a column doesn't, to me, do much to raise one's eyes heavenward. Again and, to me, This is just too white washed and casual. Though PF's ars celebrandi is certainly reserved and say the black - do the red, it is just too sterile for the joy, foretaste of heaven that liturgy should be. Also, for as much as I try and try and try, I just cannot acquire a taste for that contemporary music. Perhaps my ear is too rigidly tuned to chant at this point but, this, to me, is too praise/worship sounding for formal liturgy. But then again, this "version" of the Catholic Church has become informal/casual/"approachable", right?
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict were both"listless" in their manner of celebrating the Mass, although Benedict would chant.
The problem for both and most bishops and priests is that we have to look at their facial expressions for the entire Mass. If Pope Francis had faced away, it would have seem more pious and energetic.
But the energy is to be found in the young musicians and the manner in which they sing and play their instruments, which in fact has nothing to do with the Mass except to make it more into an entertainment model. They are performing. At least Pope Francis isn't performing but his piety is boring to watch, thus the need for ad orientem.
Fr. AJM -
This sounds like the fundamental problem with versus populum as well as the current thinking regarding active participation. It's not good if it's not entertaining! How would I know whether I am entertained or not unless I can see, perhaps engage and react to those who are performing?
When I serve, chant the epistle and/or cantor at Divine Liturgy, (in addition to the priest), I mostly do not face the people. I therefore do not see how they react to what they see and hear and, in turn, they do not see my reactions. Similarly, when we process for the little and great entrances, our respective gazes are downcast as it isn't the appropriate time to interact in any way (I don't fault people for wanting to smile, wave or, say hello when we pass - it is a somewhat normal and human thing to do). My point, the Liturgy - this work in which we are privileged to assist - stands on its own. My job is to simply fulfill the obligations of my role reverently, to the best of my ability and in the least disruptive manner possible (e.g. do nothing to make a spectacle of oneself). I suppose it is a matter of mindset that, formerly, was shared between the east and the west.
"Hardly, a 'foretaste of Heaven.'"
"...it is just too sterile for the joy, foretaste of heaven that liturgy should be.:"
Don't such statements rely tremendously on what is one's conception of heaven?
Scripture says heaven is many dwelling places, a place of blessing with multitudes of angels, all gathered AROUND the throne of the Lamb, a place of no hunger, thirst, heat, a bride bedecked for her groom, a place not needing any light, a place with plenty of water.
But all of these are metaphors.
Eye has not see, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love him.
Anonymous @ 4:28
Then Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, published in 1988, warns against depicting heaven as an extension of this life prettied up with depictions of “lions laying down with lambs,” and eternal picnics. Not only do we have the real problem with the fact that most of the world lives in abject misery, materially speaking—we forget that living in our modern United States of America where “the poor” often means not being able to afford all 2,000 cable channels—but we also must remember that lions, lambs, and picnics get boring after a few million years. These depictions just don’t cut it for the modern, thinking man.
On the other hand, I Cor. 2:9 is overused as well. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard,” with regard to heaven is often used as a cop out. Yes, it is true. Heaven is ultimately beyond what has ever “entered into the heart of man.” But there are certain things we can know about heaven even if now we “see in a mirror dimly” what will only be revealed fully in eternity (I Cor. 13:12). If we are going to excite people about the prospects of heaven, Ratzinger says, and if there is going to be a healthy sense of fearing the “loss of heaven” as we enter the confessional, a biblical and traditional understanding of the nature of heaven is essential.
What the Church Teaches
CCC 1023 says,
Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified [whether in this life, or in the next life in Purgatory] live forever with Christ. They are like God forever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face.
Please continue reading here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-heaven
Byz, I the no we are saying the same thing.
We do know there will be angels, thrones, worship of God, no suffering, and lots and lots of incense.
The rest is commentary.
The essential problem with this Liturgy (besides being banal) is that you can experience this kind of music almost anywhere outside of Church. Why bother going if you are just going to hear what the secular culture can conjure up and do that genre better? Instead of Church music influencing the world, the world has influenced Church music and not in a good way. When Hollywood wants to evoke other worldliness and the sacred in movies which depict the Catholic Church, Hollywood selects chant and polyphony. Too bad our "bishops" can't take a cue from Hollywood at least on that score.
I don't know if "great" is what I'd use to describe that...
“Byz, I the no we are saying the same thing.”
The problem with knee-jerk responses is that they are often unintelligible.
'Pope Francis and Pope Benedict were both "listless" in their manner of celebrating the Mass.' What does this mean, exactly? 'Listless' implies disengagement and uninterest. Francis mumbles the prayers and during the singing of the Gloria stares glumly at his (black) boots, but this does not necessarily indicate listlessness. Benedict at this point looked rapt, his eyes uplifted. And chanting the orations, even in the vernacular, is important.
At least Francis does not follow the example of many NO priests and declaim the prayers in a portentous and supposedly 'meaningful' way, with heavy overemphasis and obviously addressing the congregation, even during the Eucharistic Prayer. Since the NO is excessively wordy (which is why it usually deadly dull) and the celebrant in most cases faces the people throughout, such mannerisms can become intensely irritating.
John Nolan,
Of course, given their age, I would not expect them to be full of verve either, but I agree with your points. The Archbishop of New York is downright buffoonish, particularly when entering and exiting St. Patrick's Cathedral. I would much prefer "listless" to that sort of sophomoric behavior.
TJM
Dolan's waving and glad-handing, and his appalling 'liturgies' are indeed deplorable.
Hovever, PF should, as a bishop, bless from side to side when processing in and out. Watch Pius XII do this from the sedia gestatoria. Yet he does not do so - why not?
John Nolan,
Worn out from protecting his lavender mafia?
Pius XII possessed great dignity combined with personal warmth. He knew how to "Pope." He was my first Pope.
Post a Comment