![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
NLM on the Papal Mass at Nationals Stadium
NLM has gotten into the act at last, posting an entry about the Holy Father’s Mass in Nationals Stadium.
You should also be visiting their site, but here – at least today – you can read what they offer with my emphases and comments.
It is the grace of all Americans to have Pope Benedict XVI visit this country. And it was to the grave embarrassment of all American Catholics that the music employed at the papal Mass at the Nationals stadium in Washington, D.C., not only represented a repudiation of everything that this pope has written on music appropriate to Mass. We can go further to say that there is no robust tradition of liturgical scholarship that is capable of defending what happened, and that is because it is indefensible. [Okay… that’s a "No" vote from NLM.]
By now the news is out—the whole world watched this liturgy—and I don’t want to rehearse all the details of the pieces of music in question. It is too painful, [agreed] and there will be plenty of Youtube videos [Oh Lord… I forgot about that….] around for many years to remind us more than we want to be reminded.
Let us talk about principles.
In the name of "multiculturalism," the Pope was subjective to music more suitable to dingy dance halls than Churches. The Psalms of David were distorted to the point of ear-splitting dissonance. The congos, pan flutes, meringue rhythms, the jazz and blues and rock, the swaggering vocals, went beyond even the most pessimistic predictions.
Indeed, when Marty Haugen’s Mass of Creation finally came on at the Sanctus, it was a moment of dignity [Wow… is that sad or what? When Haugen’s stuff is actually a relief?] —so much so that I want to take back all my negative comments back when I thought that this Mass setting was unsuitable for a Papal Mass. I don’t think anyone knew before this what the phrase "unsuitable" could really mean.
I personally feel the greatest hurt toward American Catholics of diverse races and ethnicities, who have been quite viciously caricatured here. How wounded they must personally feel by this presentation done in their name.
Blues and jazz – intended to appeal to African Americans? What about those African Americans who sing in chant scholas, are accomplished singers, are working to actually compose excellent sacred music? [I just had this conversation in Virginia a few days ago when, while travelling there, I stopped at a historic church where there was a Sunday Mass taking place. Had it not been for the stained glass windows, I would have had not a clue I was in a Catholic church. I would have thought I was in a southern baptist church. Who was it that told Catholic African Americans that they had to do certain sorts of things when, for so long, they were simply Catholic along with everyone else?]
Meringue for Hispanic Americans? Please. Does this include the Hispanic scholar who wrote me about an hour ago with heartbreak at what saw and heard? He is an expert in the polyphonic music tradition of Latin America, and has done extremely important work in showing how the themes from chant strongly informed the construction of 16th century mass settings.
And were all those wacky instruments somehow supposed to appeal to Asians? I recall can’t go on here. There is grave insult at the heart of all these attempts to construct styles that appeal to all people, pigeonholing their tastes the same way a racialist writing in the 1930s might do. This is not unity but division. [Whew….]
I know that none of this was intended, [They were trying to give us a sense of "New Pentecost", I think. It turned out to be the opposite. The division of languages is a sign of man’s divisions, whereas at Pentecost people heard the apostles in unity, their own languages. I think Latin could have done that.] but let us remember that we are united in Christ, united in our Catholicism. The Pope has written in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy that the issue of multicultural was confronted and dealt with early in the Christian history, as the Roman Rite developed to deal with intense diversity of early converts from many regions and language groups. The result was the Latin language in liturgy, and Gregorian Chant and its timeless and universal sound, together with the text of the Psalms that speak to universal impulses in the human person. True multiculturalism is achieved in the Roman Rite itself, a point which is still emphasized in Church teaching. [Amen. Well said.]
This is not inaccessible knowledge. The Second Vatican Council stated very plainly that Gregorian chant and polyphony should enjoy primacy of place at Mass. This teaching has been restated by the Pope time and again. This is not his personal taste at work, nor mine. Chant is the music of the Mass. Styles that elaborate on chant are also suitable. What the liturgy does not admit are styles that are at war with the liturgical sense and purpose of reaching outside of ourselves and into eternity. We face a choice between Apollo and Dionysius, wrote Cardinal Ratzinger.
"The Church’s Tradition has this in mind when it talks about the sober inebriation caused in us by the Holy Spirit. There is always an ultimate sobriety, a deeper rationality, resisting any decline into irrationality and immoderation. We can see what this means in practice if we look at the history of music. The writings of Plato and Aristotle on music show that the Greek world in their time was faced with a choice between two kinds of worship, two different images of God and man. Now what this choice came down to concretely was a choice between two fundamental types of music. On the one hand, there is the music that Plato ascribes, in line with mythology, to Apollo, the god of light and reason. This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it elevates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being. But then there is the music that Plato ascribes to Marsyas, which we might describe, in terms of cultic history, as “Dionysian”. It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes rationality, and subjects the spirit to the senses. The way Plato (and more moderately, Aristotle) allots instruments and keys to one or other of these two kinds of music is now obsolete and may in many respects surprise us. But the Apollonian/Dionysian alternative runs through the whole history of religion and confronts us again today." [This morning in Nationals Stadium.]
Let me add here as an aside that I do not believe it is correct to describe this as a typical "American" event. The fact is that there are hundreds of parishes in this country that have wonderful liturgy, gorgeous music, and musicians all over the country are working very hard, at sometimes little or no pay, to learn sacred music and use it in liturgy. This is a movement of great vibrancy and growing numbers, and all the trends here are up in every way. This movement involves mostly young people who are seeking to do their best. They are Americans too. It is wrong to let a small cable [I think that is ‘cabal’] that took control of the Washington liturgy define the whole country and its liturgical sense." [Right. I think that is one of the most insulting and disappointing results of this.]
What is the current situation in the aftermath of this Mass? There is no question that anger, even fury, is palpable. The USCCB has been deleting comments from its own website. Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, in his running commentary on EWTN, expressed astonishment. The blogs are overflowing with bitter comments. The traditionalists are having a grand time, unjustly [not to mention stupidly] trashing the "Novus Ordo," as if the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is responsible for this.
Something tells me that this Mass is a defining moment, and possibly the end of an era. [A last gasp?] For many years, a certain tendency of liturgical aesthetic has said that we need to loosen up, use music that appeals to our sense of things as collected from the secular world, to use music that has a beat and is drawn from the world in which we live. We need to forget all that solemn chant and "classical" stuff and move on. And what we saw this morning was the result — perhaps not the intention, but once you lose track of the liturgical ideals, there are no limits. The "no limit" model was put on display for the Pope himself this morning, while onlookers cringed. [I know my reaction, hearing this at a distance, overly amplified, etc. I will look forward to hearing reactions of people who were actually there. I hope they chime in with their impressions and those of people around them.]
I can understand the outrage, but the question is how it can be turned toward the good?reductio ad absurdum of the pseudo-multicultural, non-liturgical approach to music, where can we turn to re-root ourselves? The answer is the same now as it has always been: The Graduale Romanum and Church legislation. [As Msgr. Schuler used to write again and again when he was editor of Sacred Music: "Just do what the Council asked!"] The propers attached to the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit, the Mass that was offered this morning, are posted at Cantemus Domino. You will hear in them the true music of the Church.
But can these propers and a Gregorian ordinary really sound right in a stadium? [That is a good question.] It’s all the more important that they be used in this setting, as a way of infusing the place with the dignity and solemnity of the Christian liturgy. [Okay… but I am only half way with this: I am not sure there should be stadium Masses. But that is another question.] And who will sing them? There are Gregorian scholars around the Washington area. There are workshops. There are chant books and tutorials. There is a way to learn them and sing this music that is appropriate to the Mass. [There is no way anyone will ever convince me that in that metropolitan area, the nation’s capitol, a Gregorian schola could not have been developed which would have brought the whole listening world to their knees in wonder at what America can do even with liturgical music. The White House ceremony the day before, and the perfect propriety of every single piece performed, put this whole thing to shame.] If it is done properly, the music not only enhances the Mass; the Mass itself dwells within the music, not as performance art but as sung prayer. This is the ideal. No effort to provide music for Mass should ever proceed without an awareness of that ideal.
Without that ideal, what are we left with? Let the Pope answer:
"When the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? [The music for this Mass split us from our past, from elsewhere in the world, and from ourselves as a blended nation. It totally failed.] Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds – partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council."
Let us use this occasion to recommit ourselves and re-root ourselves to the Church’s own liturgical language. Let us close the chapter on this event and move on. Let us stop what we have been doing to our heritage of inestimable value. We can do better. We must. Benedict’s own writings show the way.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that in the ‘Extrodinary Rite’ you cannot have this kind of barbarism since it is always done the same(except for High or Low), it really is a safeguard against this type of thing.
Comment by ecwoods — 17 April 2008 @ 3:52 pm“The White House ceremony the day before, and the perfect propriety of every single piece performed, put this whole thing to shame.”
I think you nailed what I was feeling, Father.
Comment by Jason in San Antonio — 17 April 2008 @ 3:54 pmNot surprised at all with their music selection. Maybe, just maybe it’ll give the Pope an idea of what we suffer week and and week out here in America.
Comment by Kevin J. Symonds — 17 April 2008 @ 3:59 pmWe knew this was coming weeks ago!. Petitions were made!. And not one thing was done about it!. Only highlight for me, as well as the Pope was Placido Domingo. That was it!. So much for “pride of place for Gregorian Chant”!. I wonder what the good Archbishop Wuerl had to say about this event?. Like I said before. Next Papal visit to the US the FSSP priests along with the Vatican should take control of all Vespers and Masses!. Not the liberal liturgists that we had for this one!.
Comment by Bob K. — 17 April 2008 @ 4:00 pmThat was a quick repair Father bravo.
And the write up was worth waiting for wasn’t it, I think it pretty much covered everything and said it far better than I could.
Comment by Volpius — 17 April 2008 @ 4:02 pmNLM wrote: “The blogs are overflowing with bitter comments. The traditionalists are having a grand time, unjustly trashing the “Novus Ordo,” as if the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is responsible for this.”
Father Z inserted the following comment, which I have set off for emphasis: “The blogs are overflowing with bitter comments. The traditionalists are having a grand time, unjustly…....[not to mention stupidly].......trashing the “Novus Ordo,” as if the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is responsible for this.”
1. I argue that the claim that Traditionalists are having a grand time, unjustly, trashing the “Novus Ordo” is sweeping and uncalled.
Traditionalists love the Church and to claim that Traditionalists as a whole have a “grand time” trashing the Novus Ordo is preposterous. Did such a great liturgical scholar as Monsignor Klaus Gamber have a “grand time” when he “trashed” (critiqued) the Novus Ordo? The majority of bishops during the 1967 Synod “trashed” the Novus Ordo. Did they do so to have a “grand time?”
Did Michael Davies, a holy Catholic man and friend of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (our Pope) have a “grand time” when he “trashed” the Novus Ordo?
To claim that traditionalists are having a “grand time trashing” the Novus Ordo is a sad and preposterous statement.
Traditionalists have pointed out in sober and convincing fashion the inherent weakness and failure of the Novus Ordo. It is a shame that certain Catholics are unable to accept reality regarding the Novus Ordo.
2. Father Z, I disagree, of course, with your “not to mention stupidly” remark.
What a shame that Traditionalists, whose arguments regarding the Novus Ordo simply mirror the remarks and scholarly work, for example, of such a great Churchmen as Monsignor Klaus Gamber, are classified as “stupid.”
Father Z, I realize that you are a holy man and great and important priest…Holy Mother Church needs you…but Traditionalists have not trashed the Novus Ordo “stupidly.”
Traditionalists have advanced scholarly arguments against the Novus Ordo Mass, which, as many bishops insisted during the 1967 Synod, would all but empty our parishes…and that has come to pass.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 4:18 pmdear fr.z
i have just send a comment to the usccb
its still there
thank you so much for your blog.
Comment by PAUL BRENNAN — 17 April 2008 @ 4:20 pmOK… we all agree that the music was abysmal. Here is my question .. why doesn’t the Holy Father tell them not to play that sort of garbage? Who’s in charge here? If you let the loony “liturgists” in the US orchestrate the Mass, this is what we end up with! Perhaps I am naive when I ask what to me is an obvious question … why doesn’t the Holy Father just say no and do it HIS way? He is the Pope, after all….
Comment by Romanrevert — 17 April 2008 @ 4:23 pmWhy is it that those who wish to promote “multiculturalism” seem to think that the best music a culture has to offer is that which is typically played in a tavern?
Comment by Arieh — 17 April 2008 @ 4:23 pmThere are some days when, to be perfectly blunt about it, I feel ashamed to be Catholic, and I wonder if I wouldn’t be better off in the Orthodox Church, where I would still have access to valid sacraments but without all of the idiocy.
This is one of those days.
Comment by Carolina Geo — 17 April 2008 @ 4:29 pmAt the same time, should we not pause on what Father posted a little below:
They needed to ask for a crucifix?
It seems the Holy Father and his staff are so busy with fundamental issues, we can hardly expect much by way of music and the like!
Comment by DJY — 17 April 2008 @ 4:32 pmNLM commentary: “The whole world watched this liturgy…It is too painful…This is not unity but division.”
Let me get this straight…it is unacceptable for Traditionalists to “trash” the Novus Ordo, according to NLM.
However, it is perfectly acceptable for NLM to trash this morning’s Sacred Novus Ordo Papal Mass?
Did this morning’s Papal Novus Ordo Mass disobey Church teaching? No.
Did this morning’s Papal Novus Ordo Mass not adhere to similar liturgies celebrated, for example, by Pope John Paul II?
Did Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Marini object to the Novus Ordo Mass that they knew they would encounter this morning?
To turn the tables on NLM, how dare anybody “trash” today’s Sacred Novus Ordo Papal Mass. Who determined that today’s Mass in question was “too painful” and featured “division?”
How dare NLM trash a Sacred Papal Novus Ordo Mass.
See how easy it is to play the game that Traditional Catholics face each day from, if you will, “conservative” Catholics.
See how easy it is to play the “let’s shoot the messenger” game.
NLM is, of course, correct regarding today’s dreadful Novus Ordo Papal Mass. Unfortunately, certain Catholics are simply unable to bring themselves to the true root of the problem.
The Novus Ordo is the problem itself. Only the Pope’s return to the Traditional Latin Mass can solve the problem of Latin Church liturgy.
At any rate, it is somehow acceptable for “conservative’ Catholics to trash today’s Papal Mass…but Traditionalist Catholics are trashed for having the guts to tell the truth regarding the root problem with the Novus Ordo.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 4:36 pmOnce again, we are given another priceless gem from a bunch of old white men left over the 60’s who are trying to show how hip they still are and who are celebrating how multicultural, PC, and progressive they are. As usual, not only did the people who organized this look like jackasses, they dragged the rest of us down too. The music was uncreative, banal kitsch at best and horribly racist at worst. I am embarrassed as an American that this is how we were represented to the Pope and to Catholics worldwide. What I do not understand is why it is so difficult to follow the Pope’s teaching on what is suitable to liturgy. Rather than focus on what divides us to the level of absurdity, why not focus on the traditions which unite us as Catholics? Gregorian Chant and polyphonic music are common to all of us as Catholics, and its composition is not limited to the European sphere. The American bishops here had the perfect opportunity to show their solidarity with this Papacy and demonstrate an openness to Catholics all over the world. Instead, they chose to celebrate themselves. As a result, the world’s opinion (especially in Europe) that Americans are egotistical racist idiots is only re-enforced. The only good to come out of this is that hopefully the Holy Father will take this to heart when he returns to the Vatican. It is not my intention to hype my disgust about this issue, but what occurred today was inexcusable. I did not think it possible to be more disappointed when I heard that Marty Haugen was to be used at the Mass, but the music today was in such bad taste it made him look halfway decent.
Comment by Braadwijk — 17 April 2008 @ 4:42 pmIt is a sad, sad, sad thing that the Pope couldn’t watch over the production details before they got to this point. On the other hand, ti is a perfect example of some fo the extemes the American Church has to stomach.
God bless
Comment by Aaron Magnan — 17 April 2008 @ 4:44 pmIt is a sad, sad, sad thing that the Pope couldn’t watch over the production details before they got to this point. On the other hand, it is a perfect example of some of the extremes the American Church has to stomach.
God bless,
Comment by Aaron Magnan — 17 April 2008 @ 4:48 pmAaron Magnan
The Papal Mass ended up tragic in the musical aspects. The music was an “in your face” event as those who ‘arranged’ this liturgy obviously were not attuned to the words of this pope.
Comment by Luke Maria — 17 April 2008 @ 4:49 pmThe music reminded me of the emotive style of those huge “seeker Churches” in my city. Thank god for Placido’s wonderful voice and his magnificent rendention of Panis Angelicus. I was stunned by the music and I pray the Holy Father will not be burdened at the next “American Papal Mass.” God Bless Benedict XVI.
“Here is my question .. why doesn’t the Holy Father tell them not to play that sort of garbage? Who’s in charge here? If you let the loony “liturgists” in the US orchestrate the Mass, this is what we end up with! Perhaps I am naive when I ask what to me is an obvious question … why doesn’t the Holy Father just say no and do it HIS way? He is the Pope, after all….”
OK… we all agree that the music was abysmal. Here is my question .. why doesn’t the Holy Father tell them not to play that sort of garbage? Who’s in charge here? If you let the loony “liturgists” in the US orchestrate the Mass, this is what we end up with! Perhaps I am naive when I ask what to me is an obvious question … why doesn’t the Holy Father just say no and do it HIS way? He is the Pope, after all….
Certain Catholics offer two excuses…
Excuse A…the Pope is hostage to disobedient Cardinals and bishops. The Pope wishes for this or that, but Cardinals and bishops supposedly yawn and disobey the Holy Father.
Excuse B…the Pope was ambushed. He didn’t realize that he would encounter such a liturgy that offered today.
Throughout the reign of Pope John Paul II, the dreadful liturgies and bizarre encumenical/interreligious spectacles were excused by various Catholics who insisted that the Pope expected “X” to occur, but was disobeyed and received “Y”...
...or that the Pope didn’t have any idea that this or that would transpire during Mass and/or ecumenical/interreligious gatherings.
In other words, the Pope was presented as weak and devoid of authority.
Interestingly, when certain Catholics argue that a state of emergency exists within the Latin Church, various people reject that claim and insist that the Pope is in full control of the Church.
The bottom line is that today’s Papal Novus Ordo Mass was in accord with post-Vatican II liturgical “reforms.”
Pax.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 4:54 pmOne hopes this is not repeated in NYC. I did not see the Mass but the comments raise the spectre that it was a Buzzby Berkley production. The description is painful. I would agree the NO is not the problem but instead the approach and implementation. The teachings aout the nature of the Mass have not changed. What has changed is the approach taken by Liturgists individual priests and Parishes as well as Episcopal conferences. What needs changing is the rubrics and the enforcement. In one sense one wishes Benedict would use more force but this is one percieves not in his nature.
Comment by JPG — 17 April 2008 @ 4:57 pmThere may stillbe those in the Curia who would stymy any change in the rubrics to make them more in line with the EF.
JPG
At any rate, it is somehow acceptable for “conservative’ Catholics to trash today’s Papal Mass…but Traditionalist Catholics are trashed for having the guts to tell the truth regarding the root problem with the Novus Ordo.
Comment by Tom
If today’s mass would have been a Novus Ordo in Latin, do you think there would have been the same musical circus?
Comment by RBrown — 17 April 2008 @ 5:00 pm“On the other hand, it is a perfect example of some of the extremes the American Church has to stomach.”
I disagree that today’s Papal Mass is an example of the extremes that the American Church has to stomach.
Today’s Mass was in accord with various liturgies offer by Popes (particularly John Paul II), Cardinals, bishops and priests throughout the Novus Ordo Era.
What we experienced today was in perfect accord with post-Vatican II liturgical “reforms.”
What we witnessed today is the tremendous difference between the Traditional Latin Mass and Novus Ordo.
Today’s style of liturgy could not possibly have been offered had the Holy Father celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass—the Mass that he was ordained to offer.
Conversely, today’s Papal Mass was possible as the result of the Latin Church having created and adopted the Novus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo Mass can range from fairly traditional to the supposed “extreme” that we witnessed today.
Either style is in perfect harmony with Vatican liturgical teachings.
Sorry, but that is reality.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 5:04 pmI don’t understand the reaction from various conservative bloggers to today’s dreadful Novus Ordo Papal Mass.
Pope John Paul II offered similiar Mass for years and years…during which time conservatives bashed Traditionalists who objected to said liturgies.
What in today’s Papal Mass was not in accord with post-Vatican II liturgical reforms?
Why such anger from conservative bloggers?
Did they actually expect a traditional Roman Mass today?
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 5:10 pmI posted this at NLM and am reposting it here.
I can add one nice point for the day: the music at CUA when the Pope was present was once again very nice. The choir inside the Pryzbyla Center sang the Tu Es Petrus, and a small choir led the students outside in singing the Regina Caeli (intending to surprise the Pope) when he emerged after the talk was over. The music at the Mass was most unfortunate, but once again in a smaller and lower profile setting sanity prevailed. The Pope’s address to the Catholic university presidents was also most edifying for me, as a graduate student and instructor in philosophy.
Comment by Brian — 17 April 2008 @ 5:14 pmI was there. The commentators are all correct. The music was intrusive, distracting and patronizing. Unfortunately, even the lovely bits of chant seemed out of place… just another “set” in a multi-cultural Broadway extravaganza. The “band” was too loud. The percussion and horrible “pan pipes” incessant. I felt embarrassed.
However, most of the folks in the stands around me seemed to take it in stride and treated it as the performance it was, politely applauding just as they would at a concert. Not good. The average Catholic is disconnected from authentic tradition. There is much work to be done.
The Peloquin responsorial psalm deserves special mention. It was horrible the first time I heard it in the 70’s and it has not improved with age. I could almost feel the Holy Father wince at the dissonant final chord. Very, very bad.
Perhaps the contrast between what happened today and the liturgies in New York will truly sound the death knell for the sort of thing we had to endure today.
However, to have an opportunity to be with the Holy Father I’ll gladly endure this and much more. It was a grace-filled moment for me, in spite of the distracting and annoying music.
Long live the Pope!
Comment by Bailey Walker — 17 April 2008 @ 5:17 pmI say let him experience first hand the horrible liturgical abuses/music. That way the Holy Father can better understand what really needs to be done to put the liturgy back on track.
Comment by John — 17 April 2008 @ 5:26 pmI say let him experience first hand the horrible liturgical abuses/music. That way the Holy Father can better understand what really needs to be done to put the liturgy back on track.
Comment by John — 17 April 2008 @ 5:27 pmFr. Z. re: test
Me paenitet. Nunc Scio.
Comment by Irulats — 17 April 2008 @ 5:33 pmWhat I don’t understand is the reluctance – no, the refusal – of some commenters to acknowledge that the travesty we all witnessed today is completely consistent with the Novus Ordo. Sure, the Pauline liturgy can be celebrated with external reverence and a nod toward tradition, but then it really becomes a paradox and inconsistent with itself. The spirituality of the Novus Ordo – judging by the content and structure of the prayers – is intended to flexible, open to various interpretations, “non-judgmental”, non-dogmatic, and the like. The rubrics are likewise intended to accomodate a “diversity” of preferences and styles. Tradition in the context of the Novus Ordo is nothing but one possible OPTION among many. To borrow a phrase from Fr. Neuhaus, tradition in liturgy is like orthodoxy in theology: once it becomes optional, it is effectively proscribed.
Comment by Jeff Culbreath — 17 April 2008 @ 5:41 pmI have been at work and so have not seen the liturgy but will probably not now watch the tape I was making. I agree with one of the other writers above that maybe this evidently shameful disply will show the Holy Father exactly how bad things are here in the US (I can certainly imagine the same kinds of things being done here in Houston). These sacreligious displays are products of the pride of the clerics and others putting them on, which should be severely reproached, as good medicine for them and for us. Oh, but I forgot, that kind of thing is only done for the SSPX.
Comment by Woody Jones — 17 April 2008 @ 5:44 pmHow ironic that our Protestant President seemed more humble and respectful of the Holy Father than the Archdiocese of Washington.
Myself, I was relieved that the music for the mass was not worse. Except for the blues song and the “Amazon” music, it was FAR better than what I hear in church each Sunday!
Comment by Christa — 17 April 2008 @ 5:48 pmTo be honest I would not have minded the music so much if it had been done outside the context of the liturgy.
Unfortunately these types of huge stadium Masses promote a spirit of entertainment opposed to what we should truly be focusing on in the Mass. Pope Benedict is aware of the problem, though if I remember correctly he also admitted that there has yet to be a solution. I don’t know if anyone has seriously proposed this to him, but perhaps the Pope should consider dropping these mega-sized liturgies in favor of non-liturgical gatherings where large groups of people can pray devotional prayers and present to the Pope their own music and talents on the side. This would save the Liturgy from a lot of unnecessary abuses that we saw today, without necessarily depriving the people of the experience of being with the Holy Father.
Comment by AnonGuy — 17 April 2008 @ 6:02 pmThey didn’t send in the clowns! Where were the clowns? I’m sooo disappointed, this is not an authentic Am-Church Mass without at least one priest in a clown costume!
Comment by Mark — 17 April 2008 @ 6:07 pmThe music offered resembled a half-time show at the super bowl.
What a sad disgrace to the holy father who had to endure
this modern AmChurch entertainment spectacular.
His schedule today was very long and this stadium
Comment by marcum — 17 April 2008 @ 6:11 pmMass was more focussed on typical diversity and PC rather than
a prayerful large gathering Mass. WHat gives with all this
“American Idol” worship anyway?
Thank God that we were given the wisdom NOT to watch this Mass. Thank you, God. Thank you, God. Thank you, God.
Comment by Anthony and Marian — 17 April 2008 @ 6:14 pmI was there also. The music was just awful. The whole thing was awful. I wish the Holy Father would abolish these “cattle call” Masses. Perhaps they woualc substitute a Liturgy of the Word or simply an address by the Holy Father. But subjecting the Eucharist to such disrespect is untenable.
Comment by Janice — 17 April 2008 @ 6:23 pmWhen I got up this morning, I remembered that the altar of St. Patrick’s cathedral is in the east part of the church, and I thought that maybe we would see an ad orientem celebration on Saturday. I actually had my hopes up. Now I’m afraid to watch the liturgy at all. I’ll have to ask someone to tell me whether the replay is worth watching.
Comment by Ioannes — 17 April 2008 @ 6:43 pmPlease note that in the ninth paragraph from the top, Jeffrey Tucker at NLM actually used the word “Nazi” to describe the racialism of this Mass:
“And were all those wacky instruments somehow supposed to appeal to Asians? I really can’t go on here. There is grave insult at the heart of all these attempts to construct styles that appeal to all people, pigeonholing their tastes the same way a racialist writing in the 1930s or a Nazi propaganda poster might do. This is not unity but dangerous division.”
He provides this link: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/start-world-war-2-18.jpg
In your post, Fr. Z, “or a Nazi propaganda poster” is omitted. Perhaps Tucker added it after you posted.
Comment by Winfield — 17 April 2008 @ 6:48 pmI was at the Mass.
I don’t like this kind of stuff any more than most of the people here. But I think the dominant motif was—as one commentator on EWTN noted—PRAYERFULNESS, despite the musical problems.
People were joyful and prayerful and Benedict’s presence and personality brought home to me and I think to many others the wonder of being a Catholic, despite the imperfections of the liturgy.
I think this is an occasion when we can afford to be lenient with felt banners and HaugenHaas spirituality and simply rejoice in the fact that we are Catholic and in the end, He is with us and so is His Spirit.
Comment by Jeff — 17 April 2008 @ 6:50 pmThe blogs are overflowing with bitter comments. The traditionalists are having a grand time, unjustly [not to mention stupidly] trashing the “Novus Ordo,” as if the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is responsible for this.
That’s unfair statement on the part of Mr. Tucker, and an unfair comment on your part, Fr. Z. Most of the traditionalists I’ve read in regards to this are saying what we have always said: When the novus ordo can be hijacked to served the ideological whims of whoever (progressive liberal or neo-conservative), there is something wrong, not just in praxis, but in form. I think that is a reasonable criticism, not stupid.
Comment by David — 17 April 2008 @ 6:52 pm“Perhaps I am naive when I ask what to me is an obvious
question … why doesn’t the Holy Father just say no and do
it HIS way? He is the Pope, after all….
Because, trying to be obedient to the Holy Spirit speaking through
the bishops of Vatican II, and on a pastoral visit to the Church in
this country, he is not acting like some potentate, but like the
servant of the servants of God, that’s why. The Pope has to obey
more than anyone. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote as much.
[Separately]
Whatever anyone says about Pres. Bush, you’ve got to give him credit
Comment by mpm — 17 April 2008 @ 7:06 pmfor his “class”: his mother taught him good manners. Maybe before
becoming “certified liturgists” one ought to be give a test in “manners”.
A much better lineup, which doesn’t take a rocket scientist to plan, might have been the following:
Prelude (as the Pope was entering): Tu Es Petrus
Entrance Hymn: Holy God We Praise Thy Name (the unofficial “national anthem” of the Church in the U.S.)
Kyrie: Missa de Angelis (I know everybody thinks it’s overused, but, it’s better than what they had today and much more singable!)
Gloria: Missa de Angelis (Alternating between choir and congregation, no frills!)
Responsorial Psalm: A simple chant everybody can sing!
Gospel Acclamation: The traditional triple Alleluia. Why reinvent the wheel?
Offertory: Perhaps “Ubi Cartias” where the congregation could join in the refrain and some motet by the choir, if time permits.
Sanctus: Missa de Angelis
Great Amen: The good old Danish Amen Mass that everybody knows.
Communion: O Sacrum Convivium (Raimondi)
Ave Verum (Mozart)
Then if Placdio Domingo has to do it, “Panis Angelicus,” but tone down the accompaniment. Restrict it to an organ accompaniment and not so overpowering! Let the man’s voice dominate! If you need to throw in an modern English hymn, perhaps Gerard Manley Hopkins’ English translation of Adoro Te Devote (“Godhead Here in Hiding”)
Recessional: “Now Thank We All Our God” or even “Hail Holy Queen Enthroned Above”
Keep it simple, yet classy. I believe this is what could be called “noble simplicity.” All this “high falutin’” pseudo-professionalism is for the birds!
Comment by TNCath — 17 April 2008 @ 7:15 pmI heard from someone who was there that His Holiness actually rolled his eyes when some song with a crazy flute thing started. Dunno how reliable that is…
Comment by Devin — 17 April 2008 @ 7:19 pmI heard from someone who was there that His Holiness actually rolled his eyes when one of the songs(something with a weird flute) started. Dunno how reliable he is, but it’s interesting…
Comment by Devin — 17 April 2008 @ 7:22 pm“I personally feel the greatest hurt toward American Catholics of diverse races and ethnicities, who have been quite viciously caricatured here.”—
Comment by A Philadelphian — 17 April 2008 @ 7:24 pmYes—nothing but a caricature.
Tom, there’s a major difference between criticising a badly-done Mass in the Ordinary Use of the Roman Rite, and bashing the Ordinary Use of the Roman Rite. You and others aren’t bashing bad or inferior liturgical praxis, you’re bashing the reformed Roman Rite. As RBrown has said, “Novus Ordo” doesn’t just mean vernacular Masses with mediocre or atrocious music.
Anymore than the Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite only means priests mangling Latin and rushing through Mass, or Mass with hymns only and no chant—even though that was a common experience of pre-Vatican II Catholics in the U.S.
Comment by Jordan Potter — 17 April 2008 @ 7:28 pmAs another CUA student, I’d like to affirm what Brian said: the music offered for the Holy Father at CUA was a sober step up – and a relief. Especially, I expect, for the Pope himself.
Comment by Richard — 17 April 2008 @ 7:29 pmI realized just now why many conservative bloggers expressed outrage at today’s Papal Mass.
I failed earlier today to grasp why various conservative bloggers trashed the type of Papal Mass that was offered frequently during Pope John Paul II’s reign.
When Pope Benedict XVI assumed the Throne of Saint Peter, many conservatives predicted that a staunch liturgical traditionalist who would crackdown on “liberal” bishops and priests had arrived finally to restore order to the (Latin) Church.
Certain expectations that various conservatives had pinned to Pope Benedict XVI have failed to materialize.
Conservatives can neither bring themselves to criticize the Novus Ordo itself nor admitted that Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Marini knew what to expect today.
Conservatives are, in reality, angry at Pope Benedict XVI for having participated in today’s debacle…but conservatives are unable to acknowledge they the Pope had disappointed them.
Therefore, conservatives must pretend that the American bishops “ambushed” the Pope today with dreadful liturgy.
That is the conservative spin today…that the Novus Ordo isn’t the problem…the problem with today’s dreadful Papal Mass is the fault of the American bishops.
The conservative bloggers are clever.
They trashed the Papal Mass…absolved the Pope and Monsignor Marini of any responsibility regarding today’s debacle…and preserved the fantasy that the problem isn’t the Novus Ordo itself.
The problem is, of course, the Novus Ordo…but conservatives are afraid to reach that conclusion.
Oh…and conservatives found time today to attack Catholic Traditionalists when they insisted that Traditionalists had a grand time today trashing the Novus Ordo.
Conservatives trashed the Papal Mass, then trashed Traditionalists who had the guts to point to the root cause of today’s problems: The Novus Ordo itself.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 7:37 pmDavid: When the novus ordo can be hijacked to served the ideological whims of whoever (progressive liberal or neo-conservative), there is something wrong, not just in praxis, but in form. I think that is a reasonable criticism, not stupid.
Well… maybe so. However, the issue here is really music, and very bad music can be used for the TLM and truly glorious music can be used with the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo does not demand bad music. As a matter of fact, it requires by its internal logic, the great treasury our Church has produced. Moreover, there is actually greater flexibility in using good music in the Novus Ordo.
What matters is who is choosing the music a why they choose it.
99.9% of those who criticize the Novus Ordo, criticize it on the basis of abuses which really have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
Can you argue that the Novus Ordo is more susceptible to abuses than the TLM? Sure. But that does not change the fact that the TLM can be celebrated very poorly and the music can be shockingly bad.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 17 April 2008 @ 7:48 pm“If today’s mass would have been a Novus Ordo in Latin, do you think there would have been the same musical circus?”
The watered-down ecumenically-flavored prayers, such as EP II, would have remained in place. Correct?
Communion in the hand would have transpired today had the Papal Mass been offered in Latin. Correct?
The Novus Ordo can be offered in Latin, vs. populum, with altar girls and EMs. Correct?
The above practices are linked to the Novus Ordo liturgical “reform.” Correct?
That said, the Novus Ordo Papal Mass offered today was in accord with the liturgical reform. Correct?
Today’s Tower of Babel Mass (regarding languages) is part of the Novus Ordo liturgical “reform.” Correct?
Today’s Papal Mass was a valid Novus Ordo Mass. Correct?
Today’s Papal Mass was offered with solemnity. Correct?
I thought that the problem with the Novus Ordo isn’t the Novus Ordo itself…the problems simply revolve around liturgical abuses and proper disposition of the priest.
But the Pope offered today a liturgical abuse-free Novus Ordo Mass with proper disposition. Correct?
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 7:51 pmFrom what I’ve heard, this wasn’t a badly performed liturgy.
Everything was done in accordance with the documents of Vatican II. The letter, not the “spirit” of Vatican II.
There was no liturgical abuse. The bishops of the Church decided the Liturgy should be that way. That must be God’s way then.
As S.C. states about the liturgy:
“...thus shows forth the Church to those who are outside as a sign lifted up among the nations [5] under which the scattered children of God may be gathered together [6], until there is one sheepfold and one shepherd [7].”
“Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”
“Devotions proper to individual Churches also have a special dignity if they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops according to customs or books lawfully approved.”
“With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example.”
“Transmissions of the sacred rites by radio and television shall be done with discretion and dignity, under the leadership and direction of a suitable person appointed for this office by the bishops. This is especially important when the service to be broadcast is the Mass.”
Since there are no objectively quantifiable statements in Sacrosanctum Concilium and so much power is given to the local ordinary. If the Pope doesn’t do anything about it, by definition it’s not liturgical abuse. It’s merely the ordinary form of the Roman Rite celebrated according to the conditions laid out in accordance with Vatican II.
The Novus Ordo gives those options to the bishops. It’s part and parcel of the Novus Ordo. If people don’t like those options, it’s their fault, not the fault of the Church or rite itself.
Comment by Gerard — 17 April 2008 @ 8:04 pmFather Z wrote: “99.9% of those who criticize the Novus Ordo, criticize it on the basis of abuses which really have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.”
That is incorrect, Father.
Great liturgical scholars, such as Monsignor Klaus Gamber, critiqued the Novus Ordo itself and panned the Mass.
During the 1967 Synod, the majority of bishops rejected the Novus Ordo. They did so, Father, not as the result of their having been subjected to liturgical abuses.
From the very beginning of the Novus Ordo, Cardinals, bishops, priests, great liturgical scholars and lay Catholics recognized immediately that the Novus Ordo itself was not good for the Latin Church.
The very men who formed the Novus Ordo boasted that they, for ecumenical purposes, watered-down the prayers and movements of the Novus Ordo.
Father, you presented the “it’s the liturgical abuses…not the Novus Ordo itself” argument that doesn’t hold much water.
The bottom line is that great divide between Traditionalists and conservatives has emerged today. Perhaps, Father, you reject being linked to either term. Therefore, I will leave you out of my conclusion to this post.
Traditionalists and, I believe, many conservatives agree that today’s Papal Mass was dreadful.
The difference is that Traditionalists have not wavered today from the writings of great liturgical scholars, such as Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who panned the Novus Ordo Mass itself.
Conservatives remain, in my opinion, in denial regarding the problem with today’s Papal Mass.
The Novus Ordo itself lends itself to such debacles.
The Mass at Yankee Stadium may be an improvement over today’s Papal Mass. I hope so.
But the fact remains that the Novus Ordo lends itself to debacles.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 8:11 pmFather Z wrote: “99.9% of those who criticize the Novus Ordo, criticize it on the basis of abuses which really have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.”
Father, what liturgical abuses transpired at today’s Papal Mass that led to the awful Mass that was held at the Nationals stadium?
The Mass was offered with proper priestly decorum.
Therefore, we witnessed today the fallacy of the “it’s not the Novus Ordo itself…it’s the liturgical abuses…it’s the disposition of the priest” argument.
The Papal Mass was offered with proper priestly decorum and devoid of serious liturgical abuses.
The Mass was, in fact, in accord with various post-Vatican II Novus Ordo liturgical reforms.
We witnessed today they root problem of the post-Vatican II Latin Church’s liturgical collapse.
Today’s Papal Mass debacle didn’t have a thing to do with liturgical abuses and improper priestly decorum.
Comment by Tom — 17 April 2008 @ 8:19 pmLook on the bright side, everyone: at least there were no “wardrobe malfunctions”! (As far as I could see).
Comment by Tomas Lopez — 17 April 2008 @ 8:26 pmFr.Z,
If you actually agreed with those of us who believe the problem is the Novus Ordo form itself, and made it public, and those beliefs were based on objective not subjective standards would you get into trouble with your superiors?
I’m beginning to believe that conservatism in the contemporary church is only a tolerated force in the Church as long as it only restrains and doesn’t actually reverse the progressive forces in the Church according to the evoltutionary process of modernism as described by St. Pius X.
Comment by Gerard — 17 April 2008 @ 8:30 pmAm not sure where I fit in within the bipartite Traditionalist v. conservative division. I agree with the Sacrosanctum Concilium directives for the revision of the 1962 missal but am still waiting for that revision. I’m not really a fan of the 1962 missal but the 1970 missal doesn’t do much more for me. The directives of the Novus Ordo are clearly partially to blame for what happened today; since the order itself does not abide by the mens of S.C., why should we expect priests and liturgy planners to parse the order’s abundance of options according to that mens? However, I don’t think one need be a champion of the Extraordinary Form (Traditionalist?) to hold that belief.
Comment by Ioannes — 17 April 2008 @ 8:36 pmT