"Wish a New Church Into Being"

The Reporter is so predictable.

It doesn't take an expert church observer to understand that those who want to diminish the actual teachings of the Second Vatican Council to advance another agenda have come upon an easy sound-bite solution: Pretend Catholics who oppose their agenda are rejecting VCII, and that the Council embraced secular mores and was in opposition to what went before, but dressed up for the Catholic consumption.

It’s a “you’re for us or against us” strategy of dealing with the complexities and messiness of church reform. While a quick way to tidy the boundaries and square the edges, the strategy does a disservice to serious consideration of the council and it masks deeper problems within the community.

Pea Soup with Celery

How can you NOT love a recipe that suggest you "frizzle" chopped onion in fat?

100 Questions

Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington has a fantastic post

One of the bigger mistakes people make in reading Scripture is that they read it as a spectator.

So, if you're going to enter into scripture, the good monsignor suggests we need to answer when the Lord asks a question. And from a book by Bishop John Marshall of Burlington, But Who Do You Say That I Am? he lists a HUNDRED of them:

1. And if you greet your brethren only, what is unusual about that? Do not the unbelievers do the same? (Matt 5:47)
2. Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your lifespan? Matt 6:27
3. Why are you anxious about clothes? Matt 6:28
4. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye yet fail to perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? (Matt 7:2)
5. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)
6. Why are you terrified? (Matt 8:26)
7. Why do you harbor evil thoughts? (Matt 9:4)
8. Can the wedding guests mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them? (Matt 9:15)
9. Do you believe I can do this? (Matt 9:28)
10. What did you go out to the desert to see? (Matt 11:8)
11. To what shall I compare this generation? (Matt 11:6)
12. Which of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Matt 12:11)
13. How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and take hold of his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? (Matt 12:29)
14. You brood of vipers! How can you say god things when you are evil? (Matt 12:34)
15. Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Matt 12:48)
16. Why did you doubt? (Matt 14:31)
17. And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt 15:3)
18. How many loaves do you have? (Matt 15:34)
19. Do you not yet understand? (Matt 16:8)
20. Who do people say the Son of Man is? (Matt 16:13)
21. But who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)
22. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life and what can one give in exchange for his life? (Matt 16:26)
23. O faithless and perverse generation how long must I endure you? (Matt 17:17)
24. Why do you ask me about what is good? (Matt 19:16)
25. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink? (Matt 20:22)
26. What do you want me to do for you? (Matt 20:32)
27. Did you never read the scriptures? (Matt 21:42)
28. Why are you testing me? (Matt 22:18)
29. Blind fools, which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred….the gift of the altar that makes the gift sacred? (Matt 23:17-19)
30. How are you to avoid being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:33)
31. Why do you make trouble for the woman? (Matt 26:10)
32. Could you not watch for me one brief hour? (Matt 26:40)
33. Do you think I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than 12 legions of angels? (Matt 26:53)
34. Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? (Matt 26:53)
35. My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? (Matt 27:46)
36. Why are you thinking such things in your heart? (Mark 2:8)
37. Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed rather than on a lamp stand? (Mark 4:21)
38. Who has touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)
39. Why this commotion and weeping? (Mark 5:39)
40. Are even you likewise without understanding? (Mark 7:18)
41. Why does this generation seek a sign? (Mark 8:12)
42. Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and still not see? Ears and not hear? (Mark 8:17-18)
43. How many wicker baskets full of leftover fragments did you pick up? (Mark 8:19)
44. [To the Blind man] Do you see anything? (Mark 8:23)
45. What were arguing about on the way? (Mark 9:33)
46. Salt is good, but what if salt becomes flat? (Mark 9:50)
47. What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3)
48. Do you see these great buildings? They will all be thrown down. (Mark 13:2)
49. Simon, are you asleep? (Mark 14:37)
50. Why were you looking for me? (Luke 2:49)
51. What are you thinking in your hearts? (Luke 5:22)
52. Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I command? (Luke 6:46)
53. Where is your faith (Luke 8:25)
54. What is your name? (Luke 8:30)
55. Who touched me? (Luke 8:45)
56. Will you be exalted to heaven? (Luke 10:15)
57. What is written in the law? How do you read it? (Luke 10:26)
58. Which of these three in your opinion was neighbor to the robber’s victim? (Luke 10:36)
59. Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? (Luke 11:40)
60. Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbiter? (Luke 12:14)
61. If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest? (Luke 12:26)
62. Why do you not judge for yourself what is right? (Luke 12:57)
63. What king, marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king marching upon him with twenty thousand troops? (Luke 14:31)
64. If therefore you are not trustworthy with worldly wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? (Luke 16:11)
65. Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God? (Luke 17:18)
66. Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? (Luke 18:7)
67. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth? (Luke 18:8)
68. For who is greater, the one seated a table or the one who serves? (Luke 22:27)
69. Why are you sleeping? (Luke 22:46)
70. For if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry? (Luke 23:31)
71. What are you discussing as you walk along? (Luke 24:17)
72. Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter his glory? (Luke 24:26)
73. Have you anything here to eat? (Luke 24:41)
74. What are you looking for? (John 1:38)
75. How does this concern of your affect me? (John 2:4)
76. You are a teacher in Israel and you do not understand this? (John 3: 10)
77. If I tell you about earthly things and you will not believe, how will you believe when I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3: 12)
78. Do you want to be well? (John 5:6)
79. How is it that you seek praise from one another and not seek the praise that comes from God? (John 5:44)
80. If you do not believe Moses’ writings how will you believe me? (John 5:47)
81. Where can we buy enough food for them to eat? (John 6:5)
82. Does this (teaching of the Eucharist) shock you? (John 6:61)
83. Do you also want to leave me? (John 6:67)
84. Why are you trying to kill me? (John 7:19)
85. Woman where are they, has no one condemned you? (John 8:10)
86. Why do you not understand what I am saying? (John 8:43)
87. Can any of you charge me with sin? (John 8:46)
88. If I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46)
89. Are there not twelve hours in a day? (John 11:9)
90. Do you believe this? (John 11:26)
91. Do you realize what I have done for you? (John 13:12)
92. Have I been with you for so long and still you do not know me? (John 14:9)
93. Whom are you looking for? (John 18:4)
94. Shall I not drink the cup the Father gave me? (John 18:11)
95. If I have spoken rightly, why did you strike me? (John 18:23)
96. Do you say [what you say about me] on you own or have others been telling you about me? (John 18:34)
97. Have you come to believe because you have seen me? (John 20:29)
98. Do you love me? (John 21:16)
99. What if I want John to remain until I come? (John 21:22)
100. What concern is it of yours? (John 21:22)

The Disneyfication of the Liturgy

Jerry Galipeau at Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray nails a description of the too widespread approach to liturgy the Catholic Church has suffered from for most of my lifetime.

This brings me to a principle about the Triduum that I have always espoused. When I was in Orlando, the liturgy commissions I worked with had developed what I used to call a "Disney approach to liturgy preparation."... Disneyworld needs to change their big events (light shows, parades, etc.) on a regular basis so that they can attract people who don't want to see the same thing year after year. Many people wanted to approach the Triduum in the same way, i.e. "What can we do bigger and better this year?" It took some time, but we finally came to the conclusion that preparing the Triduum meant relying on time-tested ways of planning the music and ritual movements so that the Triduum changed very little from year to year. This is a thoroughly Catholic approach

Amen, amen and amen.
I do wish he had acknowledged that at least some fault for that might lie with the approach of those who publish, promote and sell, the newest/latest/hottest liturgical whatevers.
This approach has not just been brought to bear on the Triduum, but on liturgies the year, (or the three year?) 'round.

And it is still the prime directive for too many people in positions of some liturgical authority at too many parishes.

Let's do something new!

Does anyone ever say, "Gee, the pledge of allegience is gettin' tired, let's spice it up! and those words are too hard for little kids, that's not the way we talk anyway"?

"The Clever Remark Does Not Help in Fostering Relationships"

The most recent newsletter from Colin Mawby's organization has some advice I need to take to heart before I again attach myself to a Church music program.

I was talking with a wise priest recently who told me that in the five parishes in which he had worked, music had always been a source of division. He went on to say that if a parish priest wanted to retain a peaceful parish, he must at all costs avoid trying to reform the parish choir.

It is a terrible indictment of church musicians and clergy that something which should be a source of unity and wonder is allowed to become a cause of bitter argument and division. This has absolutely nothing to do with the teaching of Christ to "love one another".

We have all observed rows with the clergy over music - I have close personal knowledge of them - but we musicians need to take a step backwards and analyse what causes these situations. There is often a misunderstanding of the roles of Pastor and musician. The former is in charge of the worship and the latter is the musical expert whose views should be respected and acted upon. In the end it all comes down to the maintenance of good personal relationships. These are built on trust and respect.

When Pastor and musician work well together the result can be superb; when they don't, the ordering of worship degenerates into a nasty power struggle. Trust can be easily lost by careless talk - the clever remark does not help in fostering relationships....

The preservation of a good relationship between Pastor and musician is a two-way thing and both need to be on the lookout for the simple misunderstanding that can lead to permanent breakdown.

Thank the Lord, I do have a very warm relationship with my former "boss" but there were rocky times, and I believe they were mostly my fault.

The fact that I was always absolutely correct does not alter that fact.

Men of Known Piety

Only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise.

Yeah.
In light of this scandal, rocking the Vatican, the former pastor's requesting that someone in an irregular marriage not stand up in front of the congregation as a cantor seems straining at gnats, I suppose... (me, I would have gotten rid of the singer because he's a CRANK.)

One...

Did I really use "one" as the subject of several sentences in a single post?

How's that vaccine for pernicious pretentiousness coming along?

Sacrilege

One reads or hears of this more and more often, it seems, whether perpetrated by malicious atheists, foolish young people, or "ignorant" (I find such a defense utterly lacking in credibility,) "journalists."

The Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia has criticised the authorities for not pressing charges against two Muslim journalists who took Holy Communion.

The two apparently put communion wafers in their mouths and then spat them out.

The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Murphy Pakiam, said the two men had desecrated the church, and the lack of charges appeared to legitimise their behaviour.

It is the latest in a series of incidents raising religious tensions in the Muslim-majority country.

One fears that an over-reaction will lessen the availability of communion to the faithful, of opportunities for adoration.... and yet it is hard to see that anything could be an "over" reaction to such evil.

At last!

I awakened to bird song this morning!

Yes, its still cold, yes, there're inches and inches of snow still on the ground, yes, there are two-foot-high grey drifts and filthy snowplow spoor everywhere --- and NO, I didn't have to endure an entire winter, I was away for a good chunk of it but still, I am so awearied of winter this year, (which'll make some scenes in the Selfish Giant a great deal easier to write.)

And oh, a BIRD was singing! Aloud! (yes, they're around and get fed all winter, but understandably, they're a bit closed-mouthed...)

A bird!

SINGING!

Like I NEED a Special Reason?

Because in all honesty I have not been since Lent began.
I never realized how much I depended on living within walking distance of Church.

But in case you do, Taylor Marshall offers Seven Reasons Why You Should Go to Confession During Lent (Can't recall how or why I arrived at his page, what was I looking for in the timesuck that is the interwebs? Oh, well....)

1. Priestly absolution is an awesome gift that Jesus gave us.
Jesus gave us this Sacrament and wants us to enjoy His grace through it. He told His first priests, the Apostles:

Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins are forgiven (John 20:22).

Christ gave us this sacrament of grace and forgiveness because He loves us. It is a divine gift of mercy and love - not merely an obligation.

2. You are a sinner.
We are a sinners and we need to examine the sinful patterns of our hearts and have a priest give us absolution, counsel, and penance.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8).

We are often not honest with our hearts and it takes an objective "physician of souls," to help diagnose us spiritually.

3. Confession is a means of grace.
Confession shouldn't be terrifying. It is peaceful. We get excited over baptisms, weddings, and ordinations. Why not the remedy for our greatest Christian struggle? Why not be excited about Christ's forgiveness being declared by His appointed deputies - the priests of His Church.

4. You may have committed mortal sin.
There is a such thing as mortal sin:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal. (1 Jn 5:16)

Mortal sin is deadly and it separates our souls from the pure eternal life that exists within the Blessed Trinity. Contrition and priestly absolution restores our hearts to a position of love toward God and our neighbors. It ratifies our repentance.

5. Guilt is unpleasant.
Often Satan weighs us down with guilt. Guilt can be a good thing if we transform it into repentance. Of course, Satan hates this and God and the angels love it. So free yourself from guilt and hear a tangible person with spiritual authority say, "I absolve thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

6. Confession unites you more fully to the Church.
When you make your confession to a priest, you acknowledge that you have sinned not only against God, but against every single other Christian because by your sin, you have weakened the universal witness of every single Christian. You have given the non-believer the excuse that "All Christians are hypocrites." When you go to Confession you acknowledge that you have caused every Christian to suffer by your sins.

"If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Cor 12:26).

The priest, who represents both God and the Church by his ordination and office receives your repentance and you have the assurance of not only God's forgiveness, but also the implicit forgiveness of the entire Church.

7. Receiving the Eucharist becomes even more powerful.
When you receive the Holy Eucharist you receive the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ our Redeemer. When you confess your sins in a sacramental way, you also have a stronger sacramental union with Christ in the Eucharist. Also, if you are living in mortal sin, you should NEVER receive the Eucharist because you blaspheme Christ and set yourself up for greater judgment and eternal damnation! Consequently, confession heals and deepens your devotion to Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Joyous News!

It seems that the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America has formally requested to be received into the Catholic Church.

Ut unum sint!

Orlando, FL - 1 pm EST - Bp. George Langberg

Released by the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, Traditional Anglican Communion 3 March 2010

We, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America of the Traditional Anglican Communion have met in Orlando, Florida, together with our Primate and the Reverend Christopher Phillips of the "Anglican Use" Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas) and others.

At this meeting, the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The things you can learn...

I would have thought this was the little bottles Arlene so thoughtfully saw to it were included in our CMAA totes at the Colloquium, since the plant managers at Loyola have not seen to it that drinking water is readily available in all the buildings.

(Water fountains are a dying thing, generally, are they not? is that so that those bottle can be sold?)

Anyway, thanks to the chapel consecration being broadcast on EWTN I now know that Gregorian water is that holy water containing wine, salt, and ashes that is used in the ceremony of consecration.

I am interested in the fact that the Gloria was just sung. Is a consecration ipso facto a solemnity?

Speaking of Arlene's thoughtfulness, this thoughtful post is very interesting. Probably commment later.

NCR on the "Liturgy Wars"

The National Catholic Reporter is running a series of editorials on liturgy this week.
I applaud the fact that the first one acknowledges right off the bat that there is "good reason" for the liturgy to "occupy [so] much of our time and energy."

It is tiresome to read objections to the new translations, or to the preference some have for ad orientem worship, or whatever, with the "rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic" cliche, the disingenuous pretense that those who advocate a return to greater formality, or a liturgy that respects the traditions and history of the Church are concerned with trivialities, with mere matters of taste and preference -- if those opposed to the Reform of the Reform really though such matters were insignificant, wouldn't they ignore them and let those with different taste indulge them?

No, however some might pretend otherwise, they know that they matter very much indeed.

When the assembled bishops of the world ratified the first document of the Second Vatican Council on Nov. 22, 1963, the groundbreaking Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the tone and direction of the rest of the council’s session was irrevocably set. It is not overstatement to say that with that document, the church as the modern world knew it was changed forever.

For even with the “reform of the reform” in motion, history has amply recorded what followed the council:

• Altars were turned so the priest faces the people;
• Communion rails disappeared;
• The Eucharist was distributed to standing, rather than kneeling, communicants;
• Latin was replaced the world over by languages spoken by the people;
• The liturgy was seen as intimately connected to what takes place outside the sanctuary walls, particularly regarding issues of social justice;
• In a deeper change, an understanding of Christ’s humanity took its place in a profound way in the Mass alongside reverence for the divinity of Christ, and there was a shift in emphasis from a vertical relationship with God to a more horizontal relationship to God in the community;
• Perhaps most important for average churchgoers, everyone became participants, and not simply passive observers, in the eucharistic celebration.

Say what?Are they trying to imply that the first four are even mentioned in SC, much less "set" by the Constitution?

Anyway, I look forward to the rest of the week's editorials.

The Expert

I wonder, are you, by dint of being employed by the Church, considered by your family to be an expert on all things Catholic?
A relative called, reporting that his pastor had told him that not only does one not "need" (odd word for a completely voluntary abstention,) to forgo on Sunday that which one has "given up" for Lent; but that it is a SIN to fast on a Sunday, (even a Sunday during Lent,) and that there used to be canonical penalties for such a sin.

Huh?

"Understandable, understandable..."

What is "understandable," you ask? Apparently, to some, that the fewer minority babies born,the better.

Across the country, the anti-abortion movement, long viewed as almost exclusively white and Republican, is turning its attention to African-Americans and encouraging black abortion opponents across the country to become more active....

“What’s giving it momentum is blacks are finally figuring out what’s going down,” said ... a black pastor ... in Fayetteville, N.C. “The game changes when blacks get involved. And in the pro-life movement, a lot of the groups that have been ignored for years, they’re now getting galvanized.”

The factors fueling the focus on black women — an abortion rate far higher than that of other races and the ties between the effort to legalize and popularize birth control and eugenics — are, at heart, old news. But they have been given exaggerated new life by the Internet, slick repackaging, high production values and money, like the more than $20,000 that Georgia Right to Life invested in the billboards.

Whyis that momentum "an exaggerated new life", I wonder?

Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that black women get almost 40 percent of the country’s abortions, even though blacks make up only 13 percent of the population. Nearly 40 percent of black pregnancies end in induced abortion, a rate far higher than for white or Hispanic women....


Abortion opponents say the number is so high because abortion clinics are deliberately located in black neighborhoods and prey upon black women. The evidence, they say, is everywhere: Planned Parenthood’s response to the anti-abortion ad that aired during the Super Bowl featured two black athletes, they note, and several women’s clinics offered free services — including abortions — to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina...

Black opponents of abortion are fond of saying that black people were anti-abortion and anti-birth control early on, pointing to Marcus Garvey’s conviction that blacks could overcome white supremacy through reproduction, and black militants who protested family planning clinics....

In 2008, Lila Rose, a college student at U.C.L.A. and the founder of an anti-abortion group called Live Action, released four audio recordings of a man trying to make donations to Planned Parenthood clinics to pay for black women’s abortions. In one, the caller, played by James O’Keefe III, the provocateur recently arrested on charges that he tried to tamper with the telephones of Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said, “You know, we just think, the less black kids out there, the better,” to which the Planned Parenthood employee replies, “Understandable, understandable.”

Planned Parenthood has apologized for the employees’ statements and says they do not reflect the organization’s values or policies.

The recordings led to calls by black leaders to withdraw financing of Planned Parenthood, which receives about $350 million a year in government money for education and medical services. They reinvigorated old claims that the organization was a front for racial genocide and that Sanger viewed blacks as undesirable.

Scholars acknowledge that Sanger did ally herself with eugenics, at the time a mainstream movement

Oh, well, as long as it was mainstream...

Lila Rose is a remarkable young woman, no?

"A Program That Is Consumer Oriented"?

Well, by its very catholicity, the Church often feels compelled, or rather, some of Her leaders feel compelled to make Her into, a liturgical Walmart. "We got it in every color, at half the price of the other guys!"

Another tip of the hat, (or should it be a wave of the mantilla?) to Sacred Miscellany for pointing me toward this post from Dr.,(Rev. Mr.?) Edward Schaefer over at PrayTell.
He's had an interesting journey, both as a liturgical musician and as a worshiping Roman Catholic, and the witness he gives is very moving.

Yes, I admit it. I have gone to the “other” side. I travel 100 miles each week to attend a Tridentine Mass, and it has rejuvenated my spiritual life and my hope for the future...

My first professional position was as a church musician. ...
All in all, however, it was a losing battle. The pressures to “consumerize” the music were relentless. Ultimately, I took refuge in academia. ...

For reasons that are too numerous to list here and somewhat irrelevant anyway, that chapter of my life ended in 2007. However, what is worth sharing is that one of the reasons for my departure was the same as the one that led me to leave full-time church work – a relentless pressure for a program that was more consumer oriented. I left that university and took an administrative post in a public university, where curiously enough it is far easier to be a devoté of the traditional music of the Church than it ever was in a Catholic institution.

Early in my tenure here, a small group of students came to see me. Somehow they had discovered that I was a chant “scholar,” and they asked if I would form a group for them to sing chant. We started a small schola. The local parishes were (and still are) largely dedicated to various types of popular music, so our music did not fit well into the local scene. However, about 50 miles south a Tridentine Mass was starting. We offered our services and were warmly welcomed.

This was my first experience with the Tridentine Mass since my altar boy days in the early 1960s. My initial reaction was more personal than that of the younger members of the schola, but essentially the same: “This is so beautiful! Whose idea was it to stop doing this?”

However, as the last couple of years have unfolded, my appreciation for the traditional Mass has grown far deeper than reveling in its surface beauty. ...

... It is no longer my responsibility to choose music that somehow will offer the appropriate spiritual guidance for the congregation – or choose music that feeds a particular taste or choose music that satisfies any particular political interest group. I am simply a guardian of the Church’s music ...

....For nearly four decades now, in every instance where I have been engaged in a process of “slowly introducing chant and more traditional music” into the novus ordo Mass, there comes a point when everyone realizes that the process is not really about musical taste. It’s more about living life through a somewhat contemplative frame of reference, about living in the world but not succumbing to the world, about living a life that is less concerned with rights and “self actualization” and more concerned with repentance and submission of self to a higher authority. The chant is not just beautiful music, it is the handmaid of the Liturgy, the Liturgy that should also bring us to these realizations. In the traditional Mass this intimate partnership between the Liturgy and the chant is quite clear. However, in the novus ordo Mass, chant seems too often not to “fit.” I often find myself wondering, “Just what has happened to our Liturgy that this music, which for centuries was its handmaid, is no longer fit for service.”

...Perhaps this may seem like a post that is not adequately focused on chant as music, but the chant isn’t just music. It is truly the handmaid of the Liturgy. It is ostensibly an intimate part of the traditional Mass. On the other hand, it is too often something of an imposition on the novus ordo. The continued presence of the traditional Mass, and its integral chants, will help us to answer more honestly whether this sense of the chant being out of place in the novus ordo is simply a question of changing tastes or it is a question of things much more profound. As we face that question, I, for one, will continue to give thanks that God has blessed me with the opportunity to help keep the traditional Mass – and the chant as its welcomed handmaid – vibrantly present.

I so wish Dr Schaefer well.

I don't see myself going the same way, but it would not be out of the question.
I have read in too many places descriptions of the growing rift between musicians and their liturgist employers in the '60s and '70s which put a "I'm gonna take my marbles and go home," spin on the musicians' attitudes.
But the more I learn of those troubling times, the more I realize it was not an Exodus, but an Expulsion.
Their gifts were no longer welcomed, their skills were contemned, their wisdom and experience ignored.
And I have felt like that at times, (and I'm not that gifted or skillful or wise... how painful it must be for someone of his talents!)
So one day, I will be determined, stay, fight the good fight, do what you can to improve this... and the next I am just too tired.
And I lose hope, and I think it is silly to put duct tape all over something that is beyond repair.

On the other hand, I find myself likely to be living in a place, and in a familial situation where I will not have options. (And then I think, thank God for the "silent Mass.")

Ah well... I'll go eat thistles.

One funny thing -- at a marvelous seminar on the chant that Dr. Schaefer conducted which I was privileged to attend, he joked that you had to be careful of expressing too great an attachment to the chant. Otherwise, people might suspect you of being a, (I think this was the phrase he used,) "closet Tridentinist," he chuckled, as if such a thing were beyond the realm of possibility, absurd.

Um, yeah.... wonder if he'd chuckle to remember that?

I love Charles in CenCA

(Forgive me, Wendy)

On the subject of what music should accompany the catechumens, (on what always looks like the perp walk to me, with the catechist hiding her face from the TV cameras with a great big red book...):If ever asked for such, I'll simply sing "Happy Trails."

Liturgy: –noun, plural -gies. 1. Predictable Worship

Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray asks:

What effect will the new English translation have on people whose first language is not English?
Some of you would respond that there is an easy answer: sing and pray in Latin.
This might be helpful in large multicultural gatherings of people who do not share any common language.
Does replacing one "second " language with another "second" language really address the issue?

I would say yes.
In my experience, yes, even MORE so in a smallish parish setting, where there is an imbalance in numbers between two language groups.
This is because the major problem in parishes that minister to communities who speak different languages is NOT comprehension, per se, (printed translations, or minimal prep work by the participants could take care of that.)

The problem is ownership, and structures that reflect an us-and-them mentality.

How often in a committee or council meeting I hear, "We have to be sensitive to/do such and such for, the XXX community," from a member of the English-speaking community.

Oh really?
The very words betray that the speaker thinks "we," the parish are the Anglophones, and everyone else is a guest to whom we should be welcoming, and for whom we should perhaps make concessions.

The Mass basically belongs to us, but sometimes we'll do some things so that you guys don't feel completely left out.

When the ordinary, and even (the prescribed,) propers are in a liturgical language, that belonged to no one group, and therefore is equally the property of all, and accessible to all who have a hand missal in one "Comfortable Language," (there's an awkward phrase I would like to retire from the liturgy....,) it goes a long way towards equalizing the components parts of what should be ONE community, ONE parish.

One Church.

Another point in favor of using the proper antiphons: hymns and songs that are less an integral part of the liturgy, more a matter of personal taste, and subject to a decision made by the more-or less qualified or unqualified, and drawn from an impossibly large pool, are exponentially more difficult for the Mass goers to prepare for, (not to speak of translating.)

The proper texts are of a finite number.

Misereris omnium, Domine.../Lord, you are merciful..../Señor, usted es compasivo.... (I don't pretend that Spanish is right, by the way, correction welcomed)

No rising again from ashes, or perdona a tu pueblo, or forty days and forty nights, or breaking the chains of oppression so my light breaks forth, or walkin' that lonesome valley, to wonder and worry about.

Nope, that "predictable worship" that some are so het up about.

Misereris omnium, this Ash Wednesday, and next. Hey, and the one after that!
In this church, and the one in the town I move to next year.Hey, and the one in Zanzibar!

Himself, after decades of resisting it, has discovered that between libretti and super-titles, he really loves opera.
He finds it worth preparing for.
Imagine if, instead of being told, it'll be Carmen, here's the libretto, it were, gee, not sure what we're gonna see, but there are only 2 dozen in the company's repertoire, so it'll probably be one of this stack...

"It is Better to Bring One Man to Salvation Than to Bring One Hundred to a Church Service"

I have read recently expressions of modified rapture, that "we," (variously Christians, Episcopalians, members of non-denominational megas, Catholics, small "o" orthodox, ) are increasing in number, or not shrinking as fast as, or.... and of hand wringing that "we" are losing ground.

Well guess what, "ground" isn't the goal!

Anyway, the Episcopal Church has the most recent official-ish such expression. (One hopes the presiding bishop will refrain from explaining away any losses in numbers with the opinion that of course the flock decreases in number, well-educated people don't reproduce!)

If I belonged to the ECUSA I would be put off by, if not the report, then at least the way it is reported.

[The Episcopal Church’s] membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008...
he church’s program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.

Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is “rote, predictable and uninspiring.”

Say what? He has a statistical way to determine whether or not worship is inspiring?

(And I am not Episcopalian, but personally, am much drawn to worship that is liturgical, and therefore has, oh I dunno, AN ORDER, and therefore much of which can be learned BY HEART. And am utterly repelled by the "how can we make the liturgy different THIS week?" LitCom mindset.)
And I suppose the statistician cannot be blamed for how the reporter framed his (pretty obvious) findings: "Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female."

Such diction and phrasing implies a causal relationship, post hoc, propter hoc. I should think any cause and effect transaction might go the other way:
The membership's median age increases, and only women keep the faith when a congregation declines.

Anyway, a GREAT comment on this blog post on the matter:

Paul in his letters did not think church growth and pew-count to be worth his effort discussing. He focused on something else – something that mattered much more – that those in the church held fast to sound doctrine. Surely it is better to bring one man to salvation than to bring one hundred to a church service?

Disappointed with PrayTell

Been catching up on a few blogs, trying not to read EVERY post, of EVERY blog (didn't someone say something about reading Pascal's Pensees, likening it to beginning with the intention of only eating the best, reddest, ripest cherries in a bowl but finishing by consuming the entire thing?)

Anyway, there is a newish blog on the block, a group blog that encompasses liturgy, ecclesiology, etc.
And its com-boxes were a welcome antidote to the one-sided and often mean-spirited threads at National Catholic Reporter and What Does the Prayer Really Say?.
Though-provoking, fair, civil, above all moderate ... and then "The Editor" had to go and post THIS.

Why do we (and similar blogs) get more comments from conservatives and hardcore traditionalists than from moderates or progressives or liberals? Is all the energy and vitality today on the right? Are the “liberals dying or hiding,” as the NCReporter recently asked? Or are all the centrists and leftists too busy to post because they have jobs and are occupied in actual ministry? Why is there so much anger and lack of respect in comments from the right, compared to the comments from the other side?

Really?
That's your idea of the way to foster dialogue, and find common ground, and promote the health of the Body?
Did they even READ the comments on the editorial at NCR to which they linked?

And the snarky "question" about actually working in ministry was pretty low... not to mention that the implication, (in what Jon Stewart calls a "cavuto",) is demonstrably untrue.

The mathematics of this comment interested me:

I wonder if, in general, the more progressive considerations allow for more acceptance of variation. Issues of hymns vs. antiphons, enculturation, posture during Communion, to name just a few — I, for example, am OK with the conservatively inclined having their conservative ways, as long as I can also be accommodated. On the other hand, many conservative comments claim that there is only one right way: e.g., we should always use the antiphon of the day instead of a hymn.

I don't know, despite combox rhetoric indicating it, that someone on either the "conservative" or traditionalist side of these questions is more likely to think there is "only one right way to do things" -- for instance, there seem to be more parishes where Latin is forbidden by TPTB than where it is insisted upon, no?

And in practice, let's see -- if I want to attend a Mass with four hymns, within an hour's drive there are upwards of 175 parishes that could accomodate me.

A rock Mass? I don't know, but at least 3 dozen.

A Mass with the sung propers?

One. (And that's in another state.)

So much for the claim that "the more progressive considerations allow for more acceptance of variation."