By now, most readers will have heard about the whiplash emanating from the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri, as Bishop Shawn McKnight’s decree of October 28 on liturgical music was revoked by November 5. The original document arose from the Ordinary’s desire to fulfill his pastoral responsibility to ensure that the lex orandi truly reflected the lex credendi or, put otherwise, whether the former was reinforcing or weakening the latter.
Although I do not know the Bishop well, I was very favorably impressed with his work for the Secretariat for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations at the United States Catholic Conference from 2010 through 2015. Further, his October 28 decree was hardly earth-shattering; in fact, it did no more than make local applications of the document of the bishops’ conference on the same topic from 2020–his action being no different from that of many other bishops. Interestingly, the liturgical norms set forth for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon in 2018 (without the support of the Conference document at that point) are much more far-reaching, producing little if any backlash.
Now, let’s step back a bit for some historical background to all this, which involves the Sacred Liturgy (its music in particular here) and how such decisions are (or should be) made–topics dear to my heart, about which I have written extensively over the years.
The back story
The Committee on Doctrine of the United Conference of Catholic Bishops completed work on a document dealing with the doctrinal content (or lack thereof) in hymns used in the Sacred Liturgy in September 2020, releasing it under the title of “Catholic Hymnody at the Service of the Church: An Aid for Evaluating Hymn Lyrics.” The document is a damning critique of the harmful diet many Catholics have been fed by the liturgical establishment of the past half-century. It should be noted that this text deals only with doctrinal concerns, not the musical quality of hymns, which is a different (but not unrelated) element for consideration.1
The bishops’ paper begins by linking truth and beauty, following the logic of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In fact, even the title of the paper is instructive: “Catholic Hymnody – at the Service of the Church.” Sometimes one could get the impression that one wag got it right by asking, “Is it, ‘What’s the place of music in the liturgy’ or is it, ‘What’s the place of liturgy in the music’?” And so, we are reminded:
There is a necessary and direct relationship between the living Word of God and the Church’s worship. Thus, the sacred texts, and the liturgical sources which draw on the living Word, provide something of a “norm” for expression when communicating the mystery of faith in liturgical poetics, or hymnody.
Calling on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which, in turn, is having recourse to Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium), the text teaches:
The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness of the People of God who celebrate. Hence “religious singing by the faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services,” in conformity with the Church’s norms, “the voices of the faithful may be heard.” But “the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Sacred Scripture and from liturgical sources.” (n. 1158)
We are reminded that “Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, has from antiquity been acutely aware that hymns and other songs are among the most significant forces in shaping – or misshaping – the religious and theological sensibility of the faithful,” as we have already seen. With that in mind, the document lays out “two general guidelines”:
1. Is the hymn in conformity with Catholic doctrine?
2. Is the hymn expressed in image and vocabulary appropriately reflective of the usage of Scripture and the public liturgical prayer of the Church?
These two standards are designed to support the liturgy as what the Catechism calls “the privileged place for catechizing the People of God” (n. 1074). Hence, the bishops warn:
It is important to avoid language that could be easily misconstrued in a way that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. The poet always has a certain “license” for language chosen to serve an aesthetic purpose. But in assessing whether a paraphrase or restatement is an appropriate use of poetic license or an inappropriate distortion, Guideline 2 can provide assistance.
While the direction given is quite needed, it is regrettable that, not only in this instance, but frequently throughout the document, one finds the expression, “to be avoided.” If a text is theologically problematic, it should not be “avoided”; it should be banned.
At the time of the document’s promulgation, I wrote in these pages:
A final assessment: This is a most welcome contribution to the life of the Church in the United States, however – and it’s a big “however” – this is, in all likelihood, too little too late. From my initial expression of alarm to Cardinal George in 1999, we find ourselves over two decades later with a document that, most regrettably, has no teeth in it – there is no enforcement mechanism. As a result, the people guilty of these abuses will just say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and move along on their merry way, continuing their ecological pollution of Catholic worship. This paper will be helpful, however, for embattled laity and priests at least as an authoritative document with which to push forward the battering ram of opposition to these heretical texts.
Enter the Diocese of Jefferson City
On October 28, Bishop McKnight promulgated “Suggested Mass Settings and Prohibited Hymns,” listing four suggested Mass settings and twelve hymns prohibited for use at Mass, all of which had been identified by the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee as being doctrinally problematic for various reasons, including for deficiencies in their presentation of the Eucharist, the Trinity, or the Church. His document further decreed that all works by composers David Haas, Cesáreo Gabarain, and Ed Conlin were prohibited for liturgical use in the Diocese because the composers have all been credibly accused of sexual abuse.
A fire-storm erupted, resulting in a walk-back document on November 5, abrogating the original policy and providing a new one, eviscerating the first decree. The new document is entitled, “Promoting Active Participation in the Liturgy through Sacred Music,” in which the Ordinary essentially apologizes for the first document, which had been intended to “foster the active participation of the laity in the liturgy by providing common Mass settings for singing by the whole assembly in diocesan liturgies,” but which was not the product of “an authentically synodal process,” according to the Bishop–a strange assertion because the first document evolved over a long period of time and had received input from a wide variety of sources and had been approved by the Diocesan Presbyteral Council!
Oddly, to justify his involvement in matters liturgical, the Bishop cites a passage from Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes, which had clamped down on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I say “oddly” because hundreds of prior documents establish that responsibility for an Ordinary but even more so because that document was anything but an example of a “synodal” or “consultative” document.
At any rate, the replacement document no longer refers to the four Mass settings as “approved” but merely encourages their use. The list of the twelve previously prohibited hymns (identified in the USCCB document) disappears completely, with only the criteria for hymn review from the episcopal conference mentioned.
The November 5 text holds to the prohibition on works by composers credibly accused of abuse, offering this explanation:
It is vital that we ensure the greatest care be taken to prevent scandal from marring the beautiful celebration of the Eucharist. Therefore, it is forbidden to use music by composers who have been found by his or her diocesan bishop or competent authority to be credibly accused of sexual abuse.
This kind of special pleading is concerning. Let’s be honest: 99% of parishioners know nothing of the problematic composers (and they are that), so that the risk of “scandal” is minimal. But what about the true scandal of exposing the faithful to clearly heretical hymns? Why are those hymns not even mentioned, even though it is admitted that “some hymns in current distribution may not be appropriate for use in Catholic liturgies. The use of such hymns could damage our communion as Catholics in what we believe”?
The new policy takes effect immediately and is approved ad experimentum for one year, during which time the Diocesan Liturgical Commission will conduct a year-long consultation of diocesan pastors, music “ministers” and the laity, and will then suggest potential revisions for a final policy.
A defense of the walk-back is offered by the diocesan communications director Jacob Luecke:
After publishing the original decree, we received comments and saw reactions online to articles. Seeking to harness the fervor and passion for this topic, Bishop McKnight chose to use this as an opportunity to deepen our community’s appreciation for a consultation that was more synodal. We feel it’s vital that we use this as an opportunity to give people an option beyond “obeying” or “‘disobeying.” This is truly a synodal moment in our diocese, when the baptized laity can exercise their co-responsibility in the life of the church.
As though there is something wrong with obeying!
Luecke further opines:
Rather than the faithful being relegated to the outside as commenters on a decision, with their only response being either obedience or disobedience, it is better to invite everyone in our diocese into a discernment process. The Holy Spirit is working through each one of us. When the people of God speak, we have a responsibility to open ourselves to listen, even when that means changing course and trying a different approach.
The Bishop himself also weighs in:
I am excited about moving forward with an open mind and an open heart. Music is such an important part of who we are as Catholics. The act of singing is intensely personal, helping us to encounter the mystery of Christ and the Church. I am eager to hear from everyone, in a synodal process of deep listening, as we embark on this process together.
Which misses the fundamental issue: The original document was not a pastoral or liturgical or even a music document at root; it was a doctrinal text, which had those other elements.
In other words, this was not the case of a dispute between a musician and cleric over the relative merits of a Palestrina Mass setting versus that of one by Byrd Hence, as a doctrinal promulgation, input from the non-ordained is totally out of place. Shall the “baptized laity” be voting on the Trinity next week?
Which leads to my next point.
The nature of consultation in the Church
Parish priests are inundated with meetings: staff, pastoral council, finance council, school board, liturgy committee (if a priest–or bishop–needs advice from lay people are how to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, he ought to hand in his collar). On that final item, the 2004 Vatican Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is crystal clear:
Although it is appropriate that [the priest] should be assisted in the effective preparation of the liturgical celebrations by various members of Christ’s faithful, he nevertheless must not cede to them in any way those things that are proper to his own office. (n. 32)
Many church historians have pointed out the risky business of synods and councils. The future Paul VI is alleged to have responded to John XXIII’s call for the Second Vatican Council with these prescient words: “This holy old boy doesn’t realize what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up.” In Cardinal Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua, he observed: “Living movements do not come of committees,” an insight he may have gained from St. Gregory Nazianzen’s attitude toward synods: “If I must speak the truth, I feel disposed to shun every conference of bishops; because I never saw a synod brought to a happy issue, nor remedying, but rather increasing, existing evils” (Ep. 55).
Now, to be clear: There is nothing inherently wrong with consultation, including in the Church. Only a fool would not take the temperature of the water before diving in. I have been involved in administration of parishes, schools, universities, and national organizations for my entire forty-seven years as a priest; I have always taken the “temperature” as part of my decision-making process–if the matter admitted of various valid outcomes. The Jefferson City situation did not.
Firstly, “religious” music is not the same as “liturgical” music. The former can be a matter of taste, while the latter always concerns doctrine–which is why debate or a show of hands is an inappropriate process, because it is giving people the impression that all “opinions” will have equal weight when they do not and cannot. Frankly, it is disrespectful of someone’s dignity to mislead him into thinking that he will have something to say when he really won’t–or shouldn’t.
Secondly, it is also equally clear that the response to Bishop McKnight’s first document was exaggerated and orchestrated. The opposition from the liturgical musicians was born of emotion and finance, as well as a well-established pattern of control. There is no form of clericalism worse than that exhibited by lay bureaucrats. A mantra was popular in the 1970s: “What’s the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.” The truth of that adage is alive and well.
St. John Henry Cardinal Newman knew a thing or two about divine worship. Here are but three of his more salient insights:
Persons who put aside gravity and comeliness in the worship of God, that they may pray more spiritually, forget that God is a Maker of all things, visible as well as invisible; that He is the Lord of our bodies as well as of our souls; that He is to be worshipped in public as well as in secret … there are not two Gods, one of matter, one of spirit; one of the Law, and one of the Gospel. There is one God, and He is Lord of all we are, and all we have; and therefore, all we do must be stamped with His seal and signature. We must begin, indeed, with the heart; for out of the heart proceed all good and evil; but while we begin with the heart, we must not end with the heart.— Parochial and Plain Sermons. VI 304 (23.9.1839)
Men are to be seen adopting all kinds of strange ways of giving glory (as they think) to God. If they would but follow the Church; come together in prayer on Sundays and Saints’ days, nay, every day; honour the rubric… I say that on the whole they would practically do vastly more good than by trying new religious plans, founding new religious societies, or striking out new religious views. — P.S. I 154 (6.11.1831)
Rites which the Church has appointed, and with reason,–for the Church’s authority is from Christ,–being long used, cannot be disused without harm to our souls.— P.S. II 77 – 78 (1.1.1831)
Conclusion
When the bishops’ conference produced their liturgical music document in 2020, I wrote this cautious assessment: “Let’s hope that, despite legitimate expectations to the contrary, this document will have a salutary effect on the liturgical life of the Church in our nation.” I was right not to be overly hopeful, apparently.
Last but not least, a pervasive problem in the Church over the past five decades is that the seminaries have too often not been training shepherds; they have been raising sheep, scared of their own shadow. The vast majority of today’s clergy are not leaders, and since nature abhors a vacuum, all kinds of other folk have stepped into the breach.
Synodality” cannot be an end in itself. There has to be an end-game, as the inimitable G.K. Chesterton put it so succinctly: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” Or, as a philosophy professor of mine was wont to put it, a bit more crassly, “It’s good to have an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out.”
Or, better yet, to end on a more prayerful, liturgical note, we can have recourse to a prayer found in the Roman Missal:
O Lord, . . . . direct the hearts of Priest and people to be so disposed
that the obedience of the flock may never fail the shepherd,
nor the care of the shepherd be lacking for the flock.2
Endnotes:
1For a depressing documentation of this situation, the barn-burner of Thomas Day is a must-read (or re-read): Why Catholics Can’t Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste (Crossroad, 1992).
2Mass formulary for the Priest Himself, Prayer over the Offerings.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
These issues arise with novus ordo masses. Tridentine masses offer us meditation and praying our rosary during mass to assist the priest. I am a cantor for 44 years.
What you describe is precisely what helped bring down the Vetus Ordo!
I’d say that the blank check Paul VI gave to Annibale Bugnini had a great deal more influence.
It’s interesting and very sad that “music” is often a reason for conflicts and even splits among all varieties of Christians, including Catholics.
I was Evangelical Protestant for the first 47 years of my life. Back during my teen years, songs by musicians like Ralph Carmichael and Larry Norman were introduced into youth groups and eventually into the worship services–and war broke out! Many of the older folks were convinced that all “pop” or “rock” music was of the devil and had no place in church!
I love Christian rock music–and I hear it on EWTN Catholic radio (along with various chants, too!). And many of those evil “rock songs” are now in Protestant and Catholic hymnals!
Before Carmichael and CCM, it was the “Singspiration” movement–lively songs that started out being sung at a youth camps and eventually were heard in worship services–and again, the warnings were dire–“this is the devil’s music!” and “it’s so banal!”
I’m sure before that, it was probably some other popular style of music; e.g., the “gospel” songs written by musicians like Ira Sankey and Phillip Bliss (I LOVE those songs!). I’m sure there were movements to “bring back Bach!”, which probably didn’t go over well with American homesteaders living in sod houses and seeing a pastor or priest once a month, and the only “instrument” was a harmonica or maybe a fiddle!
I have read that J.S. Bach was criticized by the churches because he “danced on the organ pedals” when he played! So worldly!
And now it’s “banal Catholic hymns written by very flawed people.” We must expunge these from our hymnals and never mention them again!
Well, “Here I Am, Lord,” labelled “banal” by many traditional-leaning Catholics, was the straw that broke down my resistance to converting to Catholicism after two years of study of the Catholic Church. I love this song. I consider it Biblical (the story of the prophet Samuel, who as a boy who heard God calling him in the night). I consider it very singable–beautiful melody. I consider it liturgical and totally reverent.
I do recognize that there are problems with admitting hymns into the liturgy that were written by people guilty of sin–oh, wait–all of us are guilty of sin. Yes, sexual abuse of children/teens is heinous, but my tendency to judge people and look down on them is just as heinous if not more so, along with my gluttony and my chronic laziness (I’m retired! I worked for 50 years!), and of course, all the more serious sins I committed when I was younger and thought I knew it all!
So because I sin, am I not allowed to write hymns, songs, and spiritual songs? I have written many, mainly children’s songs–not published or known to the public, but I still get occasional notes and emails from grownups who as children sang my songs at a VBS or a camp and still love the song(s). And when I teach them to children today, they still love them.
At the request of my daughter and son-in-law, I wrote a lullaby for their baby son–and he still asks me to sing it. My daughter sings it to him most nights and even though he is 3 going on 13!, he still asks for it–the song is called “It’s Time To Fly Away to Dreamland” and makes use of “airplane” language (my son-in-law works with airplanes).
It’s a good song, even though I am not always a good person.
I think that it’s wise to monitor the words to hymns and songs used in the liturgy and make sure that they are not hostile to Catholic teaching and are reverent (even if they aren’t “quiet and sedate!). But at this point, I consider the main concern the lack of singing by many Catholics, and the shortage of church musicians and choirmasters/choir mistresses.
I am a member of the American Guild of Organists, and the chapter in my city sends out a well-done newsletter once a month–and every month, there are several pages of “Organist Wanted” or “Choir director wanted”, and many of the openings are at Catholic parishes.
Our children are not being enrolled in piano lessons (which often lead to organ lessons), and they are not joining children’s or youth choirs. My parish school offers a music class–a lady plays the guitar and leads the children in singing songs. That’s fine–but are they learning how to READ music? Is there an attempt to help the children sing on pitch, listen to melodies and sing them back, learn what a crescendo and decrescendo is? Are they getting an overview of music history and learning about the different composers, not only European, but American, African, and Asian composers and musical styles? Are they learning the difference(vocally) between singing a classical piece and a Broadway piece, and speaking of Broadway, are they learning how to “perform” a show tune and how this is different than cantering at a Mass? And are they singing in 2 parts by the time they are in 6th grade, and 3 parts by the time they are in 8th grade? And do they know how to sing in their head voice to avoid getting a sore throat?
(I know that there are Catholic schools who do learn all this–good for them! The Catholic high school in my former city has produced several music stars, including Broadway stars).
I don’t think this kind of music education is happening in all our Catholic schools–but the kids are playing soccer and basketball!–we want our Catholic high schools to be State Champs someday! Music isn’t as important because “the kids need to learn skills that will lead them to a well-paying career, and “Catholics don’t sing anyway”.
And of course, piano lessons cost money, and the practicing is something that even kids who love music don’t always like to do, especially when they are missing out on playing on the soccer team, or swimming laps so they can be on the swim team (or playing with their I-phone). As for children’s choirs–well, that’s one more activity that the parents have to drive their kids to, and it takes away from homework and family time, and depending on the choir, it costs money, too. And you need a piano at home for your kids to practice their lessons on, although a very cheap piano can be purchased at CostCo–and it’s a good little instrument–I bought one for my parish!
Gone are the days when the nuns taught music in the parish school and gave piano and organ lessons for free.
Many parents are rightfully concerned about making sure that their children have skills that will eventually allow them to have a good job that pays a decent wage. Well, I have two daughters–one is a physical therapist with a doctoral degree, and the other is a stage manager with a Masters of Fine Arts, and who also teaches stage management at a college. And which one makes more money? No contest–it’s the stage manager! She’s constantly working, in demand in her city and outside of her city, is currently under contract to write a college-level textbook of stage management, and also is under contract with an event management company that sends her somewhere in the U.S. at least once a month and pays a huge salary for her work.
I wish that Holy Mother Church in the U.S. would do a serious study of the state of music in the Catholic churches and schools. I can totally see a day when most parishes will have no choir, organist, pianist, or even a guitarist, and will also stop singing the hymns during Mass. And that’s really sad. I always remember that the early Christian (Catholic) martyrs sang hymns as they were marched into the arena to be killed. If martyrdom is in our future, will we be googling on our phones and not even notice when the lions tackle us?
Sharon,
I too like the melody of “Here I Am, Lord.” I too believe it may refer to the likes of Samuel who heard God’s voice in the night. And third, yes, as you say, hymns are written the by people who are sinful although some are more or less gifted with more or less talents, and some are more or less sinful depending on grace.
The lyrics to the hymn are the problem. The hymn does not mention Samuel’s name. The hymn does not mention the name of Jesus. The name of Jesus is that at which every knee should bend—of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, according to Scripture. Also in scripture, the name of God as He gave it to Moses was “I AM.” This is also in the song but not in the sense of God since God is asking whom He may send, and the “I” answers God.
We may assume that Jesus stands for the “I” in the song, but the name of Jesus is NEVER proclaimed, written, or sung in the song. And Scripture does not have God the Father asking the cosmos whom He shall send. Jesus, as God, agreed with any question as well as with any answer; no question need be asked by God to any other person in His Trinitarian Self.
Who, then, can we rightfully assume is the “I” referenced in the song? Is it a man, any certain type of man, one specific man, or any anonymous and/or any gravely sinful man?
There is a liturgical deficiency in the words of a song which repetitively intones and celebrates an “I.” Liturgical praise and glory is to be given to GOD who IS, and to Jesus, at which every knee should bend. Liturgical praise and glory to an unidentified “I” does not justify man. Since all men are sinful and more or less egotistical, men tend to think of the “I” without a name (the self) in the lyrics of the song, and this is doctrinally suspect, deficient, and unworthy of both man and God.
You seem to have missed the first part of the article, which said ““Religious” music is not the same as “liturgical” music. The former can be a matter of taste, while the latter always concerns doctrine”. Feel free to enjoy the religious music that suits your taste. Imposing music that is a poor or incorrect expression of doctrine on people who are fulfilling their Sunday Mass obligation is a form of spiritual abuse.
And I promise you, very few people have had their lives half ruined by someone being snobbish toward them once or twice. People who are sexually abused as children have a high probability of developing lifelong drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, mental disorders, and/or sexual disorders – even if it was “only” once or twice. Please do not minimize that by comparing it to overeating. Your gluttony is very unlikely to spike anyone’s adrenaline levels, certainly nothing like a sexual abuse victim hearing songs at Sunday Mass written by the abuser who was their music mentor.
Tridentine Masses are inadequate since Vatican II because they do not liturgically express post-conciliar ecclesiology. You admitted it yourself when you said that rather than being attentive to and praying the Mass you pray the rosary during Mass. Vatican II’s constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium decreed that the highest aim is to restore the people’s participation in the liturgy rather than having them pray non-liturgical and extraneous devotions while the priest “says Mass”.
TLMs should be prohibited in all parochial churches, which is what has been happening since Traditionis Custodes. The Mass of the Roman Rite is no longer the TLM; it is the 2000 Roman Missal, Third Typical Edition. The Roman Rite has evolved beyond the TLM.
Concerning music, much of what is currently sung should be banned. OCP and GIA songs are largely not liturgical music, yet that is what well over 90% of parishes sing at Mass. Parishes should be singing mostly Gregorian and vernacular chants from the Church’s tradition, as instructed by the Church in her liturgical norms and as contained in the Roman Missal and in the Graduale Romanum and Graduale Simplex.
If the Church’s liturgical norms would just be adhered to, a lot of the silliness and bad practices could be eradicated. It’s simple, really: 1) reformed, novus ordo liturgy; 2) reverent ars celebrandi; 3) Gregorian and vernacular chant.
Scott,
The Rosary is said in many ways. One is verbally; obviously this is not said during a Tridentine Mass. The second way is meditatively. What is meditated is man (predominantly Mary but also extends to other wo/men) in relationship with God as revealed by the life of Jesus. Jesus. If you know and meditatively pray the Mysteries of the Rosary, you surely see the other people and experience major events in the life of Christ. The Mass recapitulates the events of Jesus’ life through the liturgical calendar and throughout each Mass (man begs forgiveness and mercy, and Jesus offers His life to God the Father as a gift to man through his Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Meditation upon the Mysteries of Christ’s life can and does follow the progress of the main processes during Mass. Finally, a Rosary is a vehicle to contemplative prayer during which the person’s mind and soul are at rest in God, and God does what He does best at healing, saving, and giving of Himself and His gifts.
To suggest that praying a Rosary during Mass works against God’s grace is to suggest that prayer also works against God’s grace. Surely that is a difficult, perversely contradictory proposition.
Psychological studies have shown that one cannot truly “multi-task” without there being some loss of attentiveness to one of the tasks. When one prays the rosary during mass one cannot, it is psychologically impossible, be paying full attention to the mass. I pray a rosary every day, but to pray one during mass is to turn the mind to a lesser thing from a higher thing. I am afraid defending such gives ammunition to those who want to suppress the traditional mass and the old way of doing things.
“To suggest that praying a Rosary during Mass works against God’s grace is to suggest that prayer also works against God’s grace.” The mass is the perfection of prayer, it does not need to be supplemented in real time. Somewhat related, I have seen people, many people, who seem more dedicated to and involved in the various devotions that occur after some masses than the masses themselves. This sort of phenomenon is what produced the post-V2 changes in the first place, we should not be supplying the agents of revolution with more bullets.
Mark – No one (but you) suggests that the Rosary “supplements” or misplaces or replaces the prayer of the Mass. Rather, it is more that the Rosary may assist certain persons to enter, meditatively and perhaps contemplatively, into union with Jesus at Mass.
It ought not matter to you if you see people dedicated to devotion before or after Mass. The idea is to prepare and to prolong the union with Christ in Eucharist. If that doesn’t suit your thinking or way of attaining to grace, why fault others?
You are flat wrong to suggest that this ‘sort of phenomenon’ (of prayer before or after Mass) is the reason that produced post-V2 changes.
Like someone below, I too attend TLM, and no one there prayers Rosary during Mass. No one prohibits the practice; it simply is not done during Mass. It is said communally before and after Mass. [Confessions occur before, during and after Mass when two priests are available; like devotions surrounding Mass, Confession prepares one to received Christ more perfectly. The aim is the same.] It seems that kvetching about practices which are not in fact very prevalent is simply a fabricating or wishful thinkinng in order to criticize and besmirch Catholic brethren (if in fact you profess the name). Not a good look, Mark my Word.
Since we are not at war and are instead simply discussing acts of faith, words about revolution and bullets make no sense to me.
Some reading/study here may give knowledge and understanding in order to better argue your points:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html
Specifically, from the Decree:
“In affirming the primacy of the Liturgy, “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed…and fount from which all her power flows” (Sacrosanctum Concilium,10), the Second Vatican Council nevertheless reminds us that “the spiritual life, however, is not limited solely to participation in the Liturgy” (ibidem, 12). The spiritual life of the faithful is also nourished by “the pious practices of the Christian people”, especially those commended by the Apostolic See and practised in the particular Churches by mandate of the Bishop or by his approval. Mindful of the importance that such cultic expressions should conform to the laws and norms of the Church, the Council Fathers outlined their theological and pastoral understanding of such practices: “pious devotions are to be ordered so as to harmonize with the Sacred Liturgy and lead the Christian people to it, since in fact the Liturgy by its very nature is far superior to any of them” (ibidem,13).”
From Pope JPII’s September 2002 address to the CCDDS:
“Genuine forms of popular piety, expressed in a multitude of different ways, derives from the faith and, therefore, must be valued and promoted. Such authentic expressions of popular piety are not at odds with the centrality of the Sacred Liturgy. Rather, in promoting the faith of the people, who regard popular piety as a natural religious expression, they predispose the people for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries.”
Masses using the rubrics from 1570 to 1965 were inadequate before Vatican II because they did not express the perennial teaching of the church. That is why even a conservative bishop like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote :-
“There was something to reform and to rediscover. Clearly, the first part of the Mass, which is intended to instruct the faithful and for them to express their faith, needed to reach those ends in a clearer and so to speak more intelligible manner. In my humble opinion, two such reforms seemed useful: first the rites of that first part of the Mass amd also a few translations into the vernacular.
The priest coming nearer to the faithful; communicating with them; praying and singing with them and therefore standing at the pulpit; saying the Collect, the Epistle, and the Gospel in their language; the priest singing in the traditional melodies the Kyrie, the Gloria, the creed with the faithful; these are so many good reforms that give back to that part of the Mass its true finality.”
Abp. M Lefebvre; Itinéraires vol 95 July-August 1965
Lefebvre was not against reforms in the church or the liturgy, as long as the changes kept with tradition and were organic. The Novus Ordo mass imposed on the church in 1970 was the exact opposite of this. It was created by a committee which included Protestant theologians to create a mass that would satisfy Protestants. As a result, we ended up with a mass that does not clearly express the Catholic faith in the same way the old mass does.
The Novus Ordo keeps with tradition and if you are going to say it was imposed upon the people you have to say the same of the Tridentine rite. It was created by the Bishops of the Church. Please don’t use the let’s please the protestant’s propaganda.
For many decades I attended the novus order mass every week. While I believe I received graces from the mass, on most occasions I was not meditating or even praying. I was simply waiting to respond to the priest to the point where it became a habit.
I know attended the old mass, where I follow the beautiful prayers in my missal, and where the silence allows me to meditate uninterrupted on the most sacred and sublime sacrifice taking place before me.
Those who pray the rosary during mass do so silently.to suggests the rosary distracts us from Christ is a Protestant error.
Seems somewhat akin to the Protestant error that says any devotion to Mary takes away from devotion to Jesus.
I don’t pray the rosary at Mass myself, but as I understand it, the idea is to meditate on the Passion of Christ, which is in both the mysteries of the rosary and the prayers and symbolism of the Mass, as a way of entering more deeply into the Mass. One meditation, but two things pointing to it, which can help with focus. Not my method, but there’s rather a lot of people in this world, and I expect most of them don’t use my method.
Your comments are blasphemous. The ancient Mass is never inadequate, in any way. Did you mean to say that many people have not been formed to worship at Holy Mass, no matter the form or rite?
If someone prays the rosary instead of paying attention at Mass, that is a formation issue. It has nothing to do with TLM.
While I generally do not pray the Rosary during Mass, I make no judgment on those that do. I think it is a matter of personal spirituality if one considers a meditative rosary as the best means of participating in Mass. There are many times of silence during Mass when a lay person in the pew finishes reading one of the propers and has the chance to continue his rosary while the chants finish.
For those who struggle with distraction when the priest sits down(during Gloria, Credo, and possibly the Sequence), a rosary might be best for them.
Lastly, I have never seen the young large families that attend the TLM ever pray the rosary during Mass. They pay attention with awe and zeal to the most Holy Sacrifice. Your beef is a non-issue. Why are you fighting the rare little old lady who holds her beads during Mass?
If your goal is to destroy the only growing demographic in the church, those who love and desire the TLM, you are barking up the wrong tree. Figuring out why young people love the TLM and flock to it would better serve you. You might be converted in the process, though!
Ave Maria!
Joseph & others – I apologize for any offense but there was a good reason why in the Middle Ages they added to the Mass the priest’s request to the congregation to pray for the sacrifice “which is mine and yours” to be acceptable to God. Unfortunately in 1570 they took the rubrics unchanged from the form of private Mass used in the Roman Court, since there was no congregation and there might well be other priests saying their Mass in the same church the rule was that these words should be said silently except for the opening indication “Orate fratres “. Furthermore when they added rubrics about choirs for Solemn Mass they obscured it still more.
Two points of possible confusion –
The priest is, of course, the one who has power to link up our sacrifice to the one eternal Holy Sacrifice. But this confecting of the Sacrament is not itself the act of sacrifice.
‘Fratres’ means all of us – the wording in England and many other places before 1570 was “Orate fratres et sorores …”; and even the 1570 rubrics suggest the response be made by ‘the bystanders’.
Anthony, my comments were for Scott Walker. My apologies!
I appreciate your thoughts, and understand where you are coming from. I learned something. The history of why there is an Oremus after the creed is very interesting, too.
One question though: how is the confection of the Eucharist not the act of sacrifice of Calvary?
Appreciate the dialogue…
Ave Maria
These comboxes are confusing in terms of who is replying to whom and in relation to what comment. I did reply to one of Hawkins’ or Walker’s comments on the “inadequacy” of the liturgy. But I took no offense at either; it was not a personal attack, was it? Only one poster here gets my goat to grunt, snort, spit, or kick, so I typically steer clear of his posts.
I dream that some donor will greatly gift Carl Olson the amount to upgrade this difficult software. I detest that the size of this ‘type box’ shows only 5-6 sentences; I type what tend to be lengthy comments and tend to randomly express inchoate stuff more often than not. Then I am too pressed for time to structure and edit. Perhaps Carl’s aim is to keep our posts short? Sadly, I am hopelessly verbose.
If you guys want to get into the weeds of pre and post NO liturgy, an excellent liturgist, Gregory DiPippo, writes at New Liturgical Movement. About ten or so years ago, he had a series on changes in the theology of the Liturgical Offertory. Here’s a link to one article to get you going. Happy reading!
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/the-theology-of-offertory-response-to.html
A sacrifice has multiple parts: slaughter, oblation/offering, immolation, and eating. The slaughter and immolation aspects of Jesus’ sacrifice happened only on Calvary. The offering happened at Calvary and at every Mass. The eating happens only at every Mass.
The confection itself, assuming that refers to the transubstantiation, is a bit like Abraham finding the ram in the thicket before he sacrificed it.
Yes, Abp. Lefebrve. Prior to the above quote, he noted why and what reform he regarded as necessary. In the January 21, 1964 edition of Itineraires: “…there are many churches where the liturgical rules are violated with impunity,…” He “hoped that new instructions from the Holy See would lead to “…the cessation of private initiatives.”
Abp. Lefebrve could not have foreseen the reform—authorized by Sacrosanctum Concilium and implemented by Bugnini’s pen—would open wide the gates of opportunity for ‘private initiatives’ during Mass. Did anyone truly expect the radical emptying of the pews which followed?
To say that Mass is ‘inadequate’ expresses an inadequate understanding of what the Mass signifies and what the Mass offers to mankind, avec ou sans innovation, before or after VCII. It is a sacrifice and a sacrament. When valid, its efficacy is infinite.
No sarcasm intended, Scott, but how exactly will we secure compliance with the Church’s official norms for celebrating Mass? We’ve been trying to do that for the last 60 years without success. Part of the problem lies squarely within those norms themselves, since they afford numerous options or alternatives that invite improvisation. None of this, of course, is a problem with the TLM, with its fixed rubrics and cycle of readings
This essay has lots of good points. We might actually go a step further by simply eliminating hymns altogether; instead, we could simply chant the antiphons prescribed for each day. Apart from that, for once, I wish someone would issue a document or statement and simply stick to his guns and defend it instead of jumping back in fear the moment someone criticizes it.
Young people are not flocking to the TLM. That is a lie that trads tell. The TLM has a tiny, niche appeal that has a very, very low ceiling. The fact that trads stop going to a parish when they lose their TLM there shows that they are TLM protestants. They reject Vatican II’s teaching that the TLM be reformed.
Vatican 2 called for a return to chant. TLMs now use chant.
Vatican 2 called for the use of Latin in the liturgy. TLMs have Latin.
Vatican 2 called for actual participation by the laity. At TLMs most people follow the prayers with a missal and pay attention to what is being done.
Vatican 2 called for homilies to be preached at Mass. TLMs do that.
Vatican 2 called for the use of the vernacular. TLMs repeat the readings in the vernacular before the homily.
If the Novus Ordo were shut down in half of all parishes tomorrow, many would change parishes rather than switch to the TLM. I wouldn’t say that makes them Novus Ordo Protestants, I would say that would make them human beings who have developed a legitimate spirituality that is intricately interwoven with their Rite, as it ought to be, and who have been seriously wronged and have a correspondingly seriously difficult time dealing with that. But perhaps that is because I see them as my brothers and sisters, and worthy of compassion.
Sebastian, I am not sure where you are. Our parish in an unnamed diocese, where the TLM is not suppressed, has seen a 60% increase in Sunday Mass attendance since 2021.
We also recently attended a TLM confirmation in a neighboring diocese that was jammed like sardines.
If we are a tiny unimportant non-flock with a very low ceiling, why do you see the need to post your distaste and waste your time with our “Protestant” sect? Why are traditional Catholics such a threat?
Ave Maria!
Sebastian, I wish you could visit our local TLM. I feel like I’m the oldest person in the pews.
🙂
It’s completely full of young people, children, and infants.
I thought the “Graduale Romanum” was the official music book for the Mass but it is completely unused because it is too Catholic and does not mimic Protestant hymns for worship.
The rule in the Catholic Church is that hymns are for the Breviary / Divine Office as found in the books “Antiphonale Romanum” or “Antiphonal Monasticum.”
The use of hymns at Mass are a concession to the Protestant mindset of Catholic bishops and priests.
Most Catholic have never attended a 100% authentically Catholic Mass unless they attend a FSSP, SSPX, ICKSP etc Mass and are instead attending a warmed-over Protestant service as a result of the mindset of the bishops who are all crypto-Protestant and anti-Catholic.
Amanda your VATICAN II observations are among the best, I think; and, are most astute. Your observations also reveal how far off the mark the ongoing “insightful missives” are that are presented as authentic and primary and magisterial.
Anthony Hawkins the Mass is the un-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, complete, the sacrifice of Christ. It is not necessary for anyone to actually be a martyr -or great saint or great Pope or great humble servant of the poor,- to participate and receive the graces of the Mass.
The separation of Christ’s physical submission in His Passion and Death, from his priestly offering in the Last Supper, is a mystery in the Holy Spirit.
All Mass music “purists,” buy your “Graduale Romanum” (official music book for the Mass) here:
https://paracletepress.com/collections/chant-books-for-mass/products/graduale-romanum
As you will notice after you buy the Graduale Romanum, there are no Hootenanny and Hee Haw hymns in this music book of the Protestant or syncretistic variety which Catholic bishops and priests can’t get enough of.
I was thrown out of a cantor position at a Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Catholic chapel back in the early 1980s for singing the responsorial Psalm in English straight out of the monthly misselette “Our Parish Prays and Sings” and I was a vocal performance minor in college. The priest apparently wanted a 4-hymn low-mass only with no other singing such as the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Santus, Agnus Dei. Singing the responsorial Psalm was just too much singing for this priest.
Most Catholic bishops and priests have no musical training or talent which exposes their incompetence as presiders the more they have to sing which might explain the minimum amount of Catholic music at Mass. For most Catholic bishops and priests, the “Dialogue” speaking-only Mass is preferred because it is quicker and doesn’t require any talent on the part of the presider.
Don’t deny the lack of musical training, but EVERY Mass does not need to be sung. When I was dean at Seton Hall, I hosted a visiting scholar from Austria, a diocesan priest who was a Biblical scholar. Some of our seminaries were constantly into the music business. I remember this priest coming down one morning and popping into my office: “John, can you please tell your students that it is absolutely unnecessary to celebrate a pontifical Mass with incense and four-part choir for Tuesday in the 28th Week of Ordinary Time?” (He also once made an observation about attending Vespers at a Benedictine college, viz., “I could start the Psalm, take a drive to Boston and back, and they’d be on the next verse”). Of course, we should not begrudge time with the Lord, but prudence also suggests – at least to me – this Austrian priest was right.
It’s not just a question of the doctrinally dubious content of hymnody (though that’s job # 1) but listen to the music. A commonplace “Lamb of God” sung in many churches at Mass does NOT have a melody that sounds like we NEED God’s mercy or peace. Rather, the version of ecclesiastical elevator music is bouncy, with barber shop quarter refrains (“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world [sins of the world]”) as well as what I call “bridge music” for the happy organist between verses. If you DIDN’T understand the language, would the melody tell you we seriously are begging God for mercy and peace? Which is why, rather than more “discernment,” we need to get rid of this schlock. “Listening” does not mean endlessly and never permanently refuting nonsense, beyond which we never move. That’s rather called a “rut.”
Just get rid of “Ashes”!
Yes, please. Not having to sing “Ashes”, “Rain Down “, or the Harry Belafonte Alleluia is a good enough reason for me to attend the TLM. There are other good reasons of course.