Pelagius famously made St Augustine furious by quoting the works of St Augustine and using them to claim Augustine as being in agreement with him. Augustine, of course, responded – and the response, as we know, was Augustine’s crusade against the Pelagians.
Such, I expect, is also the case with Pope Benedict and many online Catholics. They have convinced themselves that Benedict is trying to move the Church forward by having it return to pre-Vatican II ways. Of course Benedict is interested in continuing liturgical reform and using all available tools to do so. However, he does not have such a limited view of what this means as so many online Catholics are trying to suggest.
We now see many Catholics who were not at the mass complaining about the Pope’s liturgy in DC. They are acting up, suggesting to their readers that the Pope has contradicted himself. Some want us to believe all his writings on liturgy are now merely “theory.” Perhaps, instead of telling us that the Pope is not putting his words into practice, they would be better consider they are doing to him as Pelagius did to Augustine. Others want to still believe that the Pope is one of them; thus, they are telling us something equally silly, that is, the Pope was forced to celebrate mass in a way which was against his will. So many from the online Catholic community, ever ready to criticize bishops and get in their face, telling them that they are going against the Pope’s wishes now have to find themselves doing the same – with the Pope! They are upset they can’t entirely claim the Pope to be on their side. No wonder they are brutal in their attack on the Pope and the mass! Their illusion has been shattered.
Of course, for the few hundred grumpy online Catholics full of sour grapes, there is the great multitude of faithful Catholics, who love the Pope, who love the Pope’s coming to America, and have taken in the greatness of such a wonderful event.
At the mass, one could hear non-Catholic protesters with loudspeakers. They were trying to interrupt the mass. Online, we had Catholic trying to do the same. Since both thought they knew the way of faith greater than the Pope, can someone tell me what separates the two of them?
Henry,
This such a weird post. What is your point? That you love the Pope more than these people? That you are more Catholic than them? Your faith is stronger because you don’t criticize the Pope?
One can “…love the Pope, [] love the Pope’s coming to America, and [take in] in the greatness of such a wonderful event”, while at the same time being critical. It doesn’t mean they love Jesus any less.
And jeez, you don’t even know what the Pope thought of the Mass himself! There’s a chance it wasn’t to his liking – there’s lots in his writings to believe that could be the case – but it’s not like he would have interrupted the solemnity and criticized the ongoings during his homily.
Strange, strange.
Zach
The Vatican, from all I have been told and can ascertain, approved of the Mass.
The preparations were not done without such approval. It wasn’t just given to him as a surprise.
You should figure out what this means.
The Pope’s vision is far wider than what we find by many from the online community; they are trying to make a narrow vision of what liturgical development is about. The Pope, on the other hand, by celebrating this mass as he did, shows exactly the absurdity of the online community. They read him out of context — and, as is the case for so many, they read him with a hermeneutical lens in favor of one agenda or another.
You should be able to tell that this actually is the continuation of my other post, because it continues to hit at the central issue. So many “I am a greater Catholic than the bishops” people are showing their true colors with this one. It’s a Papal Mass! The Pope CLEARLY has the authority. The Pope’s celebration is an approval. If, of course, he did it all in latin, they would be using that to make points.
Instead, when he doesn’t follow their own rules, the devil is exposed. The people who are trying to CREATE a vision of the Pope are doing to him what Pelagius did to Augustine. That’s why we see a bitter reaction from the vocal online inquisition; they’ve been shown to be for what they are.
I’m still looking for the websites that are “brutally attacking the Pope”. Can you be more specific please?
So your point is that the Pope likes aesthetically-awful music, and that no one is allowed a different opinion?
Let me tell you this as somebody close to the event: the Vatican approved every single detail of the Mass. In fact, they changed things at right last minute which meant there was a frantic rehearsal right before the Mass– they had to rush back to the sacristy. You can see it on TV.
I thought the pope’s favorite hobby is playing Mozart piano sonatas on his personal piano.
I know his favorite pieces of music are Mozart’s clarinet quintet and clarinet concerto. I’d say he has exquisite musical taste.
Mark
Yes, he does. And I know that really had to be one way Balthasar (who had Mozart memorized in his head) and Benedict really were able to hit it off so well (same with Barth, btw).
…and von Speyr. ;0)
Is all criticism out of bounds?
I’ve heard they were selling refreshments, sodas, burgers, and hot dogs durring communion like it was the seventh inning stretch.
Is it okay to criticize that?
Or should we assume that the Vatican must have approved of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D47e_i1uFAM For anyone who wants to see the Panis Angelicus — notice, at the end, even Benedict is clapping.
Ben
Perhaps they needed such to be sold because 1) we were outside for hours and 2) some people have medical needs where they need to eat a little food constantly (like for diabetes). Since one is not allowed to bring in food, they needed people to be able to sell food.
In other words — even that aspect of criticism shows a lack of charity.
It’s hardly news that some people get overly bent out of shape and critical about liturgy.
That said, I don’t see how the fact that the Vatican was able to exercise control over some aspects at the last minute necessarily means that all the music (and the only complaints I have seen even at New Liturgical Movement have been about the music) was to the Pope’s liking. Perhaps MM can tell us what was changed at the last moment, but I can’t imagine that musical selections were swapped out at the last minute.
Frankly, some of the music was pretty rocky, most noteably the psalm, which was very discordant.
To observe that some of these musical choices were not in keeping with Benedict XVI’s own expressed liturgical preferences is hardly disrespect to the Holy Father.
There a certain view-from-10,000-feet aspect of this that is a bit dissettling.
The only way that criticism of the hot dogs shows a lack of charity is if the critics were aware that the food was medically necessary and ignored that fact. Maybe they didn’t think of that. People can be illinformed. You seem to be assuming the worst which doesn’t bode well for charity. I am still looking for the websites/blogs that are brutally attacking the pope as you described Henry.
MZ — do you mean the taunting “nyah, nyah” attitude?
MZ — do you mean the taunting “nyah, nyah” attitude?
No. How do I put this? Most folks commenting on this are so far away from the event that they don’t really know what they are talking about but because they saw it on TV or even watched it live they think they have some cutting edge insight that the whole world needs to know.
In large part, the criticism is properly directed to those who planned and organized the mass — over which the Vatican reportedly had no control and specifically took a “hand’s off” approach:
They didn’t make the musical selections, Thomas Stehle (the music director) did. One could speculate as to why Marini chose not to assert more control over what was chosen — in such cases, I think it’s best to relenquish top-down control to those properly delegated at the local level — but thus far I haven’t seen Catholics use what happened yesterday as a club to beat Benedict over the head with.
It’s amazing. I came back from the Mass on such a high. The feeling in the stadium was one of pure joy, the woship of the universal Church (in all its divesity) in the presence of the Holy Father. Now, some of the music was not to my taste, but so what? I was just one of 50,000. I know most people I talked to really liked it. And then I come home, and see the blogs. The usual suspects start their sniping. Honestly, they remind me of bitter old geezers who infiltrate neighborhood associations to promote their selfish agendas, and whose only contribution is negative– to complain and moan. It’s the bitterness that gets me, the lack of charity. How ironic that the pope preached a homily against the divisions in the US church, and this is what the blogosphere focuses on.
The notion that Marty Haugen writes sappy music isn’t a new or “cutting edge” insight, and I doubt that anyone has claimed as much. Moreover, one hardly needs to attend a mass in person to make that point.
Maybe attempt to connect to claims that people have made and it won’t be rendered nonsense.
Well, go right ahead — since you criticize unnamed people who are supposedly claiming “cutting edge” insights (just as Henry criticizes unnamed people for making “brutal attacks” on the Pope), can you give specifics? Without any substantiation, yes, a response is necessarily going to be rather unfocused.
[...] Minion Says: April 18, 2008 at 10:13 am It’s amazing. I came back from the Mass on such a high. The feeling in the stadium was one of [...]
I’ll put that at the top of my list SB. Anything else you want me to do?
I’m not giving you random assignments; I’m just saying that since you seem to want a focused response to your point, you’ll have to start by fleshing out an actual argument with specifics. Otherwise, it’s simply impossible — I can’t read your mind. If you don’t feel like having a discussion, that’s fine, but then it hardly makes sense to complain that people aren’t responding to points that you left unsaid.
To be fair, the blog that “led the charge” in its criticism of the musical selections (The New Liturgical Movement, titled after one of Ratzinger’s writings calling for a “reform of the reform”) both complimented other aspects of the Washington Nationals Mass that were positive AND advised:
You know there is a problem when the liturgy is a cause of division and “open for criticism”… I thought the Mass was supposed to bring us together as the Body of Christ? “Embarrassing” because it didn’t fit a group of people’s expectations or likings? Ridiculous… and sad.
BTW, I didn’t see in Jay’s blog a link to Fr. Neuhaus’ criticism of the Mass… was this during EWTN? Is there a link available for that?
I think the reason people found the music for the Mass unsettling is that Pope Benedict is well-known for his writing on the liturgy. Virtually all of the things that he has criticized in his writings were present in the musical selections for this Mass, showing that the people planning the Mass knew this was not the sort of thing that he likes, or that they didn’t bother to read any of his thought on the liturgy. Either way, it shows that the American attitude of “We know best” prevailed over a more humble approach.
Hahaha… I’m sure Benedict will fire a few priests and music directors, because “apparently” he hated the music and he didn’t know they would do this to him… hehhehehe geeeeeeeeeezzzzz this is so much fun.
Katerina–I’m sure the Pope was gracious enough not to make a big fuss about this. I’m sure he knew what to expect, since this is the norm at WYD and other “big” events. But this kind of Mass was the sort that happened at the Vatican for a while under Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict put a stop to it shortly after he became pontiff–which doesn’t exactly show that he’s a fan.
Try reading some of his writings on the liturgy. Then maybe you’d understand where the critics are coming from.
Here’s Neuhaus: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1051
And an apt comment:
Another interesting quote:
From Neuhaus:
Or this:
I’m sure the Pope was gracious enough not to make a big fuss about this.
If only his soi dissant protectors could manage to do likewise.
Here’s bit:
Religious and Liturgical Music
Whether it is Bach or Mozart that we hear in church, we have a sense in either case of what gloria Dei, the glory of God, means. The mystery of infinite beauty is there and enables us to experience the presence of God more truly and vividly than in many sermons. But there are already signs of danger to come. Subjective experience and passion are still held in check by the order of the musical universe, reflecting as it does the order of the divine creation itself. But there is already the threat of invasion by the virtuoso mentality, the vanity of technique, which is no longer the servant of the whole but wants to push itself to the fore. During the nineteenth century, the century of self-emancipating subjectivity, this led in many places to the obscuring of the sacred by the operatic. The dangers that had forced the Council of Trent to intervene were back again. In similar fashion, Pope Pius X tried to remove the operatic element from the liturgy and declared Gregorian chant and the great polyphony of the age of the Catholic Reformation (of which Palestrina was the outstanding representative) to be the standard for liturgical music. A clear distinction was made between liturgical music and religious music in general, just as visual art in the liturgy has to conform to different standards from those employed in religious art in general. Art in the liturgy has a very specific responsibility, and precisely as such does it serve as a wellspring of culture, which in the final analysis owes its existence to cult. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp 146-7)
The Challenge of Popular Music
After the cultural revolution of recent decades, we are faced with a challenge no less great than that of the three moments of crisis that we have encountered in our historical sketch: the Gnostic temptation, the crisis at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modernity, and the crisis at the beginning of the twentieth century, which formed the prelude to the still more radical questions of the present day. Three developments in recent music epitomize the problems that the Church has to face when she is considering liturgical music. First of all, there is the cultural universalization that the Church has to undertake if she wants to get beyond the boundaries of the European mind. This is the question of what inculturation should look like in the realm of sacred music if, on the one hand, the identity of Christianity is to be preserved and, on the other, its universality is to be expressed in local forms. Then there are two developments in music itself that have their origins primarily in the West but that for a long time have affected the whole of mankind in the world culture that is being formed. Modern so-called “classical” music has maneuvered itself, with some exceptions, into an elitist ghetto, which only specialists may enter–and even they do so with what may sometimes be mixed feelings. The music of the masses has broken loose from this and treads a very different path.
On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p 151)
Liturgical Dancing
Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. Before the Passion, Christ had abandoned the body that in any case he had never really assumed. Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes–incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy–none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly–it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. None of the Christian rites includes dancing. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp 198-9)
To be fair to the liturgy geek crew (NLM in particular, which — despite its excesses — my wife and I have found to be a helpful resource during the last year in our work starting a Liturgy of the Hours group and a chant schola in our parish) there were a number of things about the DC mass which they praised:
-The layout of the sanctuary area
-The vestments
-The design of the altar
-Benedict’s characteristic use of altar candles and crucifix
-Some of the early hymns as the Pope was entering
-Panis Angelicis
-Benedict’s leading of the chanting of the Our Father
etc.
However, there’s no question that some people were also getting way over the top with harsh words about some of the less well chosen music.
One of the dangers of becoming deeply involved in producing liturgy, at least based on our family’s experience of the last year or so, is that when you get deeply involved in trying to plan and execute the details of liturgy, one often finds oneself moving in to critic mode in regards to liturgy — both ones you are involved with yourself and those you simply attend as a congregant or watch from a distance.
And yet, at the same time, we do desperately need in our Church the efforts of the many dedicated choir members and directors who make up a lot of the readership and commentariat of these “liturgy geek” blogs.
Sure, there are probably a good share of armchair quaterbacks out there who’ve never done anything in regards to parish music — but a lot of what you’re seeing here is disappointment from those who give huge amounts of their time to trying to live up to the ideas of liturgical music and praxis which Benedict XVI himself wrote about in The Spirit of the Liturgy and many other works. These are people who spend a lot of trying trying to produce beautiful music in order to bring their congregations more fully into the sacrifice of the mass. And they wish that aspects of this mass had cleaved more closely to the ideals that they hold.
Maybe we can back off comparing them to the anti-Catholic howling outside the mass throughout the liturgy…
Criticism of liturgists, cantors, or what have you, preening or not is not off limits on the face of it. Having said that it was bad form and bad taste for Fr. Newhaus and Raymond Arroyo to criticize the music during the Mass on air yesterday. The people here who enjoy the discord and are entertained by it and have fun watching it should reflect on what they do. While Fr. Neuhaus and Mr. Arroyo were off base yesterday have done an excellent job this morning with an interview with Mary Ann Glendon and after that their coverage along with Raymond Flynn, of the Holy Father’s speech at the UN. The “I’m so much better than all those other bitter Catholics clinging to their sacred music and their pieties including kneeling” act is wearing thin.
(And, BTW, I would have loved to have been there, music and all. One of the highlights of my life was attending a papal Mass at the Vatican celebrated by Pope John Paul II–and, yes, it included really, really bad music. The presence of the Pope trumps whatever else is thrown in the mix.)
Yeah, Katerina. Read Ratzinger’s writings on the liturgy. Then you’ll see why Pope Benedict XVI hated the Liturgy over which he presided.
Tim,
Arroyo and Neuhaus made their criticisms ON AIR DURING THE MASS????????????? How pathetic.
Policraticus — can you read the Pope’s words on the liturgy without seeing a bit of dissonance between what he views as ideal and what America presented him with as ideal? I can’t.
Pardon my sarcasm, but perhaps the Pope’s words on the liturgy are just his opinions, just how many consider the Pope’s words in Deus Caritas Est Part II to be his opinion and a matter of prudential judgment. Perhaps the American “liberal liturgists” thought the same thing about his words on the liturgy and didn’t think they were binding.
Well Katerina, you are judging something as pathetic that you did not witness. I surely think it was in bad form and bad taste. But again, you should have watched their coverage and commentary on the Pope’s UN speech. I think even those of you who constantly denigrate them and mock them would have found very little to criticize. BTW, you can watch the Mass if you can bring yourself to visit EWTN’s website. At least it was available for steaming yesterday.
Tim,
I was traveling for business all day yesterday, thank you very much for thinking (as always) that I couldn’t bring myself to watch EWTN. Criticism during Mass is out of bounds. PERIOD. I don’t care who you are. Neuhaus and Arroyo just don’t get it, because if they would “get it”, then they would know why creating division through criticism during Mass is out of bounds.
Oh and I’m just waiting for it:
“Why was the first reading in Spanish?”
“Why was part of the homily in Spanish?”
Katerina–Because people who value liturgical solemnity are also racist?
I didn’t get that memo, sorry.
Hi Katerina,
So true, and preach it sister! :)
I found the mass to be a multicultural masterpiece, and allowed the many segments of American society to showcase their talents and cultural differences.
Although it may not have been as “vibrant” as many of the liturgies presided over by Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles, all in all I think it was pretty good. There were a few elements of ‘medieval trappings’, probably with the best intentions to try to be reverent, but I can overlook that. At least we didn’t have to kneel…Wheew!!! ;)
Peace!
BTW, here’s some great commentary:
http://thrownback.blogspot.com/2008/04/papal-mass-in-washington-its-about.html
Very much reflects what my thoughts are.
LD sez: “I found the mass to be a multicultural masterpiece, and allowed the many segments of American society to showcase their talents and cultural differences.”
And therein is a core of my objection — the attitude that the liturgy should be an opportunity for ‘us’ to ‘showcase our talents and cultural difference’.
It is, after all, all about us, isn’t it. How American. How disappointing.
RM
Katerina,
I think enjoying the division and finding it fun is out of bounds period. Now I am going to prepare to go to New York for the Papal Mass. Maybe I can kick my blog habit over the next few days. I will pray for that among other things.
Amen, Robert M.
It all sounds very evangelical to me.
Don’t get me wrong. I love my evangelical brothers and sisters dearly. I was one for several years, and I respect their right to worship as they please.
That having been said, one of the first things that drew me to the Catholic Church was the deep sense of reverence I felt at Mass (something I had never felr at a protestant service before).
Thankfully, my parish doesn’t utilize the type of liturgy preferred by folks like LD.
John,
Actually, I have found people complaining about the music at the Mass AND the fact that a reading was in Spanish. Not everyone though. Check the Catholic Answers Forums.
Try reading some of his writings on the liturgy. Then maybe you’d understand where the critics are coming from.
I’m preeeeeeeeeeeeeety sure she’s read it.
Actually, I have found people complaining about the music at the Mass AND the fact that a reading was in Spanish.
Well, that’s silly of them. Given that the Catholic Church in the United States is growing mostly because of Catholic immigrants from Spanish speaking countries, people who complain about the bilingual aspect should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they forgot that the Patroness of America didn’t appear in Boston.
I’m preeeeeeeeeeeeeety sure she’s read it.
Then the bafflement over people’s concern about the music from the papal Mass is kind of a put-on, isn’t it?
JohnH
Here is the thing. We not only read the texts, we often read them in context, not cut-apart like a Protestant with a Bible ignoring the Gospels because Paul said something in Romans. The problem is that the internet has had a very poor understanding of Pope Benedict because a few vocal people who have little to no real world authority and connections have convinced many others that a certain, peculiar and particular version of readings, is the authentic one — all, of course, which purposefully matches their agenda.
Of course, I would like to ask them — if their views about worship is correct, and it is only about God and nothing about our relationship with God, nothing about the human side and what we do with God in synergy with God’s grace, how much of the Bible would have been prohibited from ever being published? How much of the Psalms? How much of the Song of Songs?
Many people complain about “clapping” because it is about “giving praise to someone who is human.” Well, how PROTESTANT does that sound? Of course we are giving praise to something human, but in doing so we are also recognizing the gift given to a person by God, and so we are glorifying God. Only Protestants or those still contaminated with this “don’t give any honor to men” ideology would not see this. Iconoclasm is still a heresy. And a rejection of the glory of God mediated through man, a rejection of the image and likeness of God in man, is iconoclasm.
This goes a long way to showing why even the Pope clapped for Placido after he sung Panis Angelicus.
Many people complain about “clapping” because it is about “giving praise to someone who is human.” Well, how PROTESTANT does that sound?
“Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.”
– the famous Protestant theologian, Joseph Ratzinger
Henry, I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about here.
The Pope clapped. You are, like a Protestant, taking one line out of context, ignoring the whole. Reminds me of the Protestants with the verse “every man is a liar” yesterday, using that to justify calling the Pope a liar. “Well, it’s in the Bible. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
Henry–I respectfully disagree with you. I don’t think you understand the theology behind the liturgy. I think you’re ignoring the whole body of work by the Pope, judging by one exception. Maybe because you don’t worship in the Roman Rite, or perhaps because of your background… but you don’t get it.
And I repeat–read what the Pope has said. If it squares with the music from the Mass you attended–sorry, I can’t help you. You’ve blinded yourself with ideology instead of listening to the man.
And if you want to know the context, the context is in relation to a kind of liturgical dance which is aimed for entertainment and the dancers get an ovation for their dance because it is dance. That is quite different from applause for someone who is doing something of talent for God through the grace of God, and therefore, giving praise to God via the wonderful worshipful experience of a great singer (for example). This, of course, demonstrates the problem of the out-of-context reference; the reference is to a kind of applause in a specific situation. Nothing more.
So you think the Pope needs to read his own works, John? See, your narrow vision is like a Protestant with the Book of Romans. They don’t get what “law” is being intended by Paul, and what “works” he means. You don’t get what kind of applause the Pope was talking about in The Spirit of the Liturgy on page 198 in the English translation. Context means quite a bit. Out of context quotes, from the Bible to theological documents, however, are just demonstration of someone with a pretext.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D47e_i1uFAM watch this video, and take especial note of the Pope at the end. The applause is there. And it was not all he did. He was very moved by the glorious beauty he experienced with the rest of us. And he, like the rest of us, knew it was a great work of God we experienced moving through Placido.
Well, that’s silly of them.
I know…
Stop calling me a Protestant, Henry. It’s very childish.
Really, I think you’re missing the entire point of what the Pope has been trying to say about the liturgy, about what he means by the direction of our praise and worship. And if you can’t see it in his simple, direct writing, no amount of explication by someone like me can help.
The Pope, apparently, can’t see it either. So perhaps the problem isn’t me, but those who read without context, with a pretext, not understanding the whole.
And yes, it’s very Protestant. It reminds me of people saying “But Mary is a woman, why are you giving her praise?”
Yes, the singing by Placido Domingo was incredible, and the pope rightly congratulated him on it. (I suspect he would not have stopped the mass to do so if it had been during the main body of the liturgy rather than after communion.)
Nor is clapping in mass universally a wrong thing, though I think you would be taking him overly narrowly if you took him to mean that it is _only_ inappropriate in response to liturgical dance. It would be inappropriate in relation to treating any of the standard liturgical parts of the mass as a performance. Thus, applauding a beautifully performed Gloria would be inappropriate. (Again, note that Panis Angelicus was sung as a meditation after the communion rite.)
But if you’re going to beat JohnH about the head about context, I think it is only fair that you treat the full corpus of Benedict’s writing about liturgy in context as well. He is a gracious and intensely pastoral leader, and so he is hardly going to be ranting and firing people as some lords of the blogsphere may wish, but at the same time some elements of the music in this mass were pretty clearly not in keeping with what Benedict as described as the proper tone for the Roman Rite. That doesn’t mean that the Holy Father didn’t like the mass or appreciate the work that so many people put into making this liturgy conform to their idea of the beautiful. However, Benedict has pretty clearly articulated his understanding of the types of music that are appropriate to liturgy. And in that regard, some of this was not fully in conformity.
On that point, JohnH is dead right.
Darwin
First, we will agree “nor is clapping in mass universally a wrong thing.” The problem is JohnH’s point is it is, and trying to say the Pope thinks as much. I have not put my opinion on it (normally, I am opposed to clapping as well, but I am also not a legalist/Pharisee).
Second, I am only dealing with the Pope’s quote from within the book, The Spirit of the Liturgy. The whole entire context makes it clear what kind of applause is meant by that one quote. Now, again, I am not saying we should give applause to everything at mass. On the other hand, I can see legitimate times and places (like at the Papal Mass) for it.
Third, I think I have a far greater foundation on the issues than people on the blogosphere who tend to live on few quotes alone; and they repeat and repeat and create a hermeneutic which they use to interpret the Pope. Of course, when that fails, and the Pope does differently than their hermeneutic would allow, we can see the result.
Fourth, Ratzinger has said many things; not all of them are of the same level or value, nor would he himself suggest they are. This is the problem of people reading theological dialogues out of context of the dialogue, and reading one author who they can use for the agenda to bully others. Again, the Vatican’s approval of the Mass says enough. Catholics are not literalists. But the blogosphere tends to be full of them.
Fifth, and yes, there is an ironic iconoclasm going on with the way people take the Pope’s words out of context. They are wanting something the Pope does not want — a monophysite liturgy which denies humanity. You wouldn’t want me to label all the heresies I can find in that. Not the Pope, but his would-be interpreters.
Henry, thanks for the reply. The pomposity speaks for itself.
“The pomposity speaks for itself.”
We agree. The criticisms of the mass — as people attack Bishops to the Pope to Placido — says enough.
Henry,
If that is what one seeks, one can always manage to find people with far less foundation on the issues. But though there are certainly many who are just sounding off, there are also many who are experts, some of rather greater standing on this than yours — with all due respect.
Their comment boxes can get rather crazy, but the authors at New Liturgical Movement mostly carry advanced degrees in the field, have 10+ years of experience in directing choirs or scholas, and attend a number of conventions on liturgy each year — some of which then Cardinal Ratzinger has addressed personally. So while I’m sure you can find quote-mining people with less expertise than yourself somewhere, there are also those with far more knowledge and experience than you who are discussing these issues.
You are, of course, welcome to try to read into the writing of the “reform of the reform” movement whatever heresies you wish, but your suggestion about that they desire a “monophysite liturgy which denies humanity” suggest that perhaps you are, dare I say it, reading them out of context and in keeping with a pre-determined hermeneutic of your own.
Then the bafflement over people’s concern about the music from the papal Mass is kind of a put-on, isn’t it?
Yes, I have read his writings and I find myself personally in agreement with him, but it is very sad that after such beautiful celebration we can only focus on the negative points and about the music that accompanies the sacred celebration. I’m going to copy what another commenter said in another post here at Vox Nova in reply to someone when somebody said that the Mass was an embarrassment:
Absolutely right!
I continue to hear “read Pope Benedict’s books on the liturgy” in order to ascertain what was wrong, ugly or inappropriate at the Nationals Stadium Mass. I read Fr. Neuhaus’ reflections today. I have read the Pope’s books on liturgy. I keep hearing about “the music” and the “multiculturalism.” Thing is, I cannot detect anything in the Nationals Mass as a practical misapplication or contradiction of what the Pope has written. Perhaps someone can tell me how “One Bread, One Body” in the liturgy is contrary to Ratzinger’s liturgical viewpoint. Perhaps someone can tell me how Spanish readings, Spanish hymns and a partially Spanish homily is problemmatic. Fr. Neuhaus can’t seem to move beyond criticizing the liturgy beyond the scope of his personal taste. Can someone list specifics as to why this liturgy was so deviant?
Katerina,
I think that those who are critical of the Nationals Stadium Mass were unable to immerse themselves in the liturgy on account of their own personal taste. How else canwe explain their fragmentation of that MAss into what was good, bad and ugly? They obviously did not experience the Mass as a single event irreducible to its parts. They have exhibited a fundamental inability to perceive the pervasive quality–aesthetically and sacramentally–of having the Pope celebrate a soaring liturgy among tens of thousands of people. Best of all, Jesus the Christ showed up. Let The New Liturgical Movement, Fr. Neuhaus and Amy Welborn distract themselves by their own prejudices and standards. Let us focus on the perfection of what took place yesterday: Jesus Christ, his Church–his Vicar with his people. Father, forgive those who cause division and strife on account of their own taste.
Let’s first get a few things out of the way. First: The Mass was not for the Holy Father. It was for the faithful. He came to minister not to be adored. Second: I tried out for the Papal Choir and was not selected. Life’s like that sometimes. If you want to write all the rest of my comments off as sour grapes, so be it.
Now, on to the music. Like most modern American Catholic music, it was mostly insipid and patronizing. I don’t know what Placido Domingo’s Panis Angelicus sounded like at the stadium, I wasn’t there. On TV it sounded as if it were being accompanied by a German oompah band. Perhaps this was to honor the Pope’s Bavarian heritage ;).
In general I have to say that I am constantly struck by the banality of music sung in English speaking Catholic Parishes. It is treated as a trivial thing by the clergy and, to hear the product, by most parish music directors as well.
If this is the case, why do we bother at all? Bad music, badly performed is more of a distraction from worship than an addition to it.
Can someone list specifics as to why this liturgy was so deviant?
It just didn’t fit certain personal tastes. That’s really what it boils down to.
Let’s pick the right battles, folks. Is truth contained in the liturgy being compromised by Marty Haugen? Is this man really the Arius of the 21st century? Let’s look at things in perspective and then you’ll see that you do more damage (like Fr. Neuhaus) by criticizing the music used in the Mass, hence creating division among the faithful, than by seeing the true miracle that takes place in the celebration.
These people are no more than a very noisy– and sometimes bitter– minority. We should always remember that. And we should also remember that the division they are trying to sow is exactly the problem diagnosed in the homily of the Mass the complain about.
Policraticus — I think some people can be appreciative while still recognizing that some aspects of Mass did not reflect what the Pope has called for in the reform of the liturgy. As I said earlier, one of the high points in my life was attending a papal Mass in Rome celebrated by Pope John Paul II. It was a moving, emotional, and spiritually enriching experience. But the liturgy itself was rather piled-on with the sort of music and spectacle that is lamented by Pope Benedict (indeed, shortly after he became Pontiff, he reassigned the MC and installed a new priest). I don’t think you have to divorce the two perspectives entirely in order to fully appreciate the Mass.
I cannot help but wonder, would this same spirit be coming from these same commentators if the Holy Father had chosen to celebrate this Mass in a more traditional way, even TLM? I am sure they would protest that it would, but I somehow doubt it.
I think his ‘applause’ and allowing the Mass to conform to ‘American’ modes more common in a suburban parish has more to do with his being simply a gracious guest in the U.S., rather than an expression of preference.
I also think the problem has more to do with the simple scale of the thing, which cannot help but become a secular ‘event’ in addition to a Mass.
RM
Robert
The liturgy I normally go to is far more traditional than the Tridentine Liturgy. I like a variety. I am not a legalist, because I know none of our liturgical traditions would have been created if people followed through with the ideologies we see around today.
I saw the mass for what it was — beautiful. I didn’t run it. I know I would have done things differently. So what. Doesn’t make it less beautiful.
Henry,
Fair enough. Don’t mistake me, I believe the beauty of the Mass transcends the aesthetics of the celebration, and arguing about the ‘trappings’ is, of course, irrelevent in the grand scheme. It cannot help but be beautiful, regardless of how we celebrate it. But as Katerina said, a lot of the current furore on the blogosphere boils down to arguments of people’s personal tastes, a legitimate if tangental topic of discussion.
My main point was simply that those who approved of the way it was done tend to portray themselves as above such pettiness, in the ‘get over it, it was no big deal’ mode, and I am not convinced they are as ‘above the fray’ as they wish to seem — it’s only easy to seem so because it was done in a way they approve of. Had it not been so, I think there’d be just as much handwringing from that side about the ‘reactionary statement’ the choice of a much more traditional form might have been perceived as making (and just as much unwarranted triumphalism from the more traditional side, as well).
I prefer a more traditional celebration myself, not necessarily Latin but something a bit more elevated than has been my experience in suburban America, at least in my part of the country. It’s a bit of a desert for me, sadly. But I don’t stop going, because like you, I still understand the beauty underlying it. It just makes me sad.
RM
I, for one, appreciated the clapping during Mass. So quit complaining.
Michael,
You of all people should know better since you have read Ratzinger’s writings.
These people are no more than a very noisy– and sometimes bitter– minority. We should always remember that. And we should also remember that the division they are trying to sow is exactly the problem diagnosed in the homily of the Mass the complain about.
Yes, exactly.
And you should also remember that it is hugely unfair to accuse them of ‘trying to sow division’. That implies a malice and intent on their part that is, I think, an unjust accusation. Indeed, I would bet many would argue that they advocate as they do because they think ‘their way’ would be a unifying thing for the Church.
I’m not saying I agree, but right or wrong, I think you should at least be fair in characterizing that point of view. It’s that kind of judgementalism and condescension that gives the alternate viewpoint a bad name and makes the other side seem just as uncivil.
How are you certain who is ‘sowing division’? Each is ‘dividing’ the other, and I would argue that neither is doing so with genuine intent to ‘divide’ the Body. Perhaps there is a third ‘side’ who intends the division, and both others are all-too-apt tools to that purpose.
RM
Policraticus — I think some people can be appreciative while still recognizing that some aspects of Mass did not reflect what the Pope has called for in the reform of the liturgy.
That’s the precise problem–I don’t think they know what does not “reflect” what the Pope has called for. Critics equate their tastes with Ratzinger’s liturgical theology. I await a specific, documented demostration justifying the claims of the critics.
I cannot help but wonder, would this same spirit be coming from these same commentators if the Holy Father had chosen to celebrate this Mass in a more traditional way, even TLM? I am sure they would protest that it would, but I somehow doubt it.
Wow, what a groundless assumption. Not to mention, this is a red herring. But to indulge this claim, I’ll remind you that some of our contributors here at Vox Nova actually prefer and attend the “TLM,” while others, like myself, deeply admire its tradition.
Side 1: “Dang, I hate Marty Haugen. This wasn’t consistent with Ratzinger’s previous writings on the liturgy.”
Side 2: “Nyah, nyah, the Pope didn’t buy all of your agenda! So there! By the way, stop sowing division all the time.”
Poli, don’t get defensive, I know emotions are flowing on this topic lately but honestly I did not mean to offend, only to discuss.
a) if it doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
b) I do not agree that it is a ‘red herring’, perhaps you have a more expansive definition of the phrase. I am not distracting from the main point of the piece (if indeed there can be one 85 posts into the comments), I’m introducing an alternate, but related, observation.
c) On the other hand, speaking of ‘red herrings’, I’m glad you, Henry and everyone ‘prefer’ the TLM or admire its traditions, but that’s not what I was discussing. I didn’t wonder what people prefer or admire. I wondered what they would say under a certain circumstance.
No one has disabused me of my ‘groundless assumption’ that they would not be saying the same things in an alternate circumstance, they’ve only done the equivalent of reassuring me that ‘some of their best friends are traditionalists’.
I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that my point was based on an ‘assumption’, and I’m perfectly willing to concede it may have been an incorrect one. That’s why I asked it.
RM
Robert
I don’t think you can argue about non-events and what people would have done if an event happened which didn’t happen. One can only argue about what happened.
I do think we both agree, in general, with liturgy if I understand your “fair enough” to me. I am high in my liturgy, and I’ve been through liturgies which I have not liked. I think we all have. But I also know that one of the problems of our society is people tend to disect and show “parts’ and use that to complain about the whole. That, however, is far and away against the tradition of liturgical studies Benedict follows.
Henry,
Well it was not my intent to ‘argue’ about an event that didn’t happen, only to ‘wonder’ about it speculatively (not to parse words too pedantically). I don’t see what’s wrong with that — one can argue about how productive it is, but it’s certainly not an empty exercise if it prompts some reflection.
On your second point, yes we do agree. I think sometimes I am just discouraged because the ‘high’ liturgy has been more or less unavailable to me or my family for most of my adult life. I am pleased you and others here have access to it — there is no practical option for it for my family, and I confess to feeling a sense of loss about that, which sometimes makes me perhaps a bit crusty in weaker moments.
It also helps me understand how some people in similar situations could feel that the ‘whole Church’ is being overrun by liturgical dancers etc., if that’s all they are normally able to experience. Sometimes have to remind myself that the sun is always shining somewhere.
RM
I’m old enough to remember the pre-concilliar church, and spent half my life fighting in the ‘liturgical trenches’. When I was young, many of us were optomistic, and thinking we were filled with the Spirit of Vatican II, set out to change the liturgy – and the world.
No that I’m older, and times have changed, I’m seeing a ‘new breed’ of young Catholics. Many are much more open to traditional forms of worship, and seem to have a genuine appreciation for what the Pope calls ‘continuity’.
For people like me, the handwriting is probably on the wall. What was done in the name of “vibrance” will inevitiably be replaced with reverence. In time, Marty will be out, and Mozart in…And in the end, we will probably end up liturgically with the “Missal of ’65″, which may be a good thing after all.
I really haven’t read much of this thread.
However, I will say that I think this is a whooha about nothing. My bet is that the people complaining are the minority of those looking for liturgical continuity.
[...] during the Mass. It was quite frustrating and annoying to listen to, what to me seemed, incessant whining about the music selections for the Mass. While the faithful were being uplifted and filled with joy, those two seemed eager to rain on [...]
1)Jesus condescends to be fully amidst us; and some choose to fixate feverishly on 2)our humble attempts to express back to him a bit of his Glory and our gratitude for the wonderful unity he brings about betweenus and Him and between ourselves altogether.
Do you really think you are winning browny points in heaven for your “aesthetic” reservations and seeming fits about 2); done with such shortsightedness that you eclipse your full realization of–and grateful transformation in–1)?
Are you talking to me, Mark D? Because I don’t remember any discussion about ‘earning brownie points in heaven’ being at the heart of the issue, nor the motivation for the dissenting comments (at least on this blog). Is that the only way you can characterize this point of view — is that the only way you can ‘understand’ it?
You do those who disagree with you a great injustice by assuming such shallowness.
RM