Our bishop says that the Mass should be a celebration of great joy. There are moments when solemnity should always be observed, but the overriding spirit should be one of joy and thanksgiving. Afterall, that is where we get the word "eucharist."

 

I don't disagree. But I also don't believe that "solemn" has to mean "sullen." Solemnity can carry with it feelings of great joy. One of its definitions is that it is "awe-inspiring" and Catholics seems to lack a certain awe when it comes to contemplation of the Almighty these days.

I don't disagree. But what if the things that make me feel happy and joyful are the same things that make you shudder? Where does that leave us?

I think there is room for many nuances of expression within the faith. I guess we each have to find a faith community that makes us feel most edified.

^ Again, I don't disagree. Which is part of why I'm so mystified by people who absolutely HATE the thought of the Tridentine Mass being more regularly available for those who would like it. I go at 12:30 in the afternoon on Sunday. It's not exactly the most convenient time, especially since the best way to experience a beautiful Low Mass is early in the morning, preferably when it's still dark out. Low Masses have no music and it is typically not sung or chanted, leaving only the silence of the morning in which to pray the Mass. Through the course of the mass the sun slowly begins to shine through the stained-glass windows behind the altar and then into the nave of the church, illuminating the sanctuary completely by the time the Last Gospel is read... magnificent.

I don't disagree. But I also don't believe that "solemn" has to mean "sullen." Solemnity can carry with it feelings of great joy. One of its definitions is that it is "awe-inspiring" and Catholics seems to lack a certain awe when it comes to contemplation of the Almighty these days.

I agree totally!

I don't disagree. But I also don't believe that "solemn" has to mean "sullen." Solemnity can carry with it feelings of great joy. One of its definitions is that it is "awe-inspiring" and Catholics seems to lack a certain awe when it comes to contemplation of the Almighty these days.

 

Amen to that. One of the reasons I am so adamant about music is that it often sets the tone for the worship for the duration of a mass, or at least it does for me. If I am having to listen to a bunch of contemporary shlock with tambourines, drums and guitars I am taken completely out of the experience. In fact I can't stand to see the choir or cantor in front of the church for that matter either. You are not there to make yourself the center of attention, you are there to glorify God and worship. There is no room for self aggrandizing in a proper mass, be it Norvus Ordo or Tridentine.

^ With everything done properly, the Novus Ordo can have remarkable solemnity and beauty. Here in Louisville there are numerous NO churches that have wonderful masses every weekend. The atmosphere and the ambiance can help create a feeling of solemnity that, unfortunately, is not something seemingly important to those in charge at a lot of NO parishes; if the "participation" I've seen at most masses I've been to throughout my entire life is what we're aiming for, then I don't know that it's working. Instead of going somewhere to pray, it's a 55-minute show. It's part of what makes mass such a miserable experience at these churches for me. Take the following two videos. I'll take the first over the second every single time.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly0WUDzkB7M

 

The second video here typifies some of my problems with music in the modern Catholic Church. Haugen's Mass of Creation, as excessively overused as it is, can actually sound beautiful. In this case it sounds pretty pathetic and completely without reverence or any semblance of power from the congregation. In fact it looked to me in this video that folks were pretty indifferent and going through the motions of singing with the cantor doing most of the work(and even her intonation was pretty unenthusiastic). Given the fact that this church clearly has a loft and from the looks of it a pipe organ (the grating on either side of the choir loft) and it is clearly not being used is just painful for me to see.

 

I would suspect that particular church uses the Gather books that are far too prevalent in many parishes. In fact when I walk into a Catholic Church and see a Gather book for the music I tend to cringe because normally it is a portent of the quality of music I will be hearing. Not always, sometimes the director can do a good job despite that, but not often enough.

While I know Chloe Agnew and the rest of Celtic Woman are absolutely spectacular (they could probably sing the Denny's Menu to me and I would love it) I think the sheer beauty of Latin in song is evident here.

 

 

 

 

Latin Text

Panis Angelicus fit panis hominum

Dat panis coelicus figuris terminum

O res mirabilis! Manducat Dominum

Pauper, pauper, servus et humilis

Pauper, pauper, servus et humilis

English Translation

The angel's bread becomes the bread of men

The heavenly bread ends all symbols

Oh, miraculous thing! The body of the Lord will nourish

The poor, poor, and humble servant

The poor, poor, and humble servant

 

 

I remember doing this hymn many times along with a ton of others and every time we did something in Latin like this or any number of others we always received fantastic feedback from the parishioners. We still did a Norvus Ordo mass but we incorporated as much of the rich tradition of music that the church once had to enhance the worship for others. We did not exclusively use Latin and we even made use of Marty Haugen's Mass of Creation for the mass parts on occasion, and we always had tremendous participation on the part of our congregation.

I went to a Latin Mass once at the request of a friends mother. I don't remember Mass being in Latin. For me the experience was little more then a novelty. I found that rather then participating in the Mass I just watched and over all it was not something that I have felt a need to repeat. I know some people have problems with music and some people still consider Vatican II an abomination but to me the bottom line is that everyone should worship someplace where they are actually a part of the Mass rather then just watching a priest "Say Mass". For some that is a very ritualistic Mass, for others a less formal Mass. One of the most moving Masses I have ever attended was in my parents living room when they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. Just very close friends and family presided over by a priest who was (and still is) a close family friend.

I went to a Latin Mass once at the request of a friends mother. I don't remember Mass being in Latin. For me the experience was little more then a novelty. I found that rather then participating in the Mass I just watched and over all it was not something that I have felt a need to repeat. I know some people have problems with music and some people still consider Vatican II an abomination but to me the bottom line is that everyone should worship someplace where they are actually a part of the Mass rather then just watching a priest "Say Mass". For some that is a very ritualistic Mass, for others a less formal Mass. One of the most moving Masses I have ever attended was in my parents living room when they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. Just very close friends and family presided over by a priest who was (and still is) a close family friend.

 

All Tell,

Likewise, I recently went to a Latin mass at St. Martin at the behest of a relative. I found it unfulfilling compared to the current Vatican II version. I remember as an altar boy, I had to learn the Latin prayers and responses. It was a big deal to learn them and get approval to serve. But as a member of the congregation, I much prefer the Mass to be in the vernacular. Speaking of changes, I just wish each parish in the Archdiocese would agree on when/if to stand during communion and then when to sit afterwards. It's a mess out there among the various churches.

While I'm on my soapbox (pulpit?), why is it that the readings (Scripture) can't be rewritten so that they are more understandable. It seems that many of the sentences are 70-80 words long, full of appositives, and generally very hard to follow. I realize that Scripture is holy and that words mean things, but a more understanable version would seem to do more good than what we have now....as far as understanding what is trying to be conveyed. I understand, though, that it would probably take years to agree on new wording and maybe even an act of God.

why is it that the readings (Scripture) can't be rewritten so that they are more understandable. It seems that many of the sentences are 70-80 words long, full of appositives, and generally very hard to follow. I realize that Scripture is holy and that words mean things, but a more understandable version would seem to do more good than what we have now....as far as understanding what is trying to be conveyed. I understand, though, that it would probably take years to agree on new wording and maybe even an act of God.

 

The theory is similar to that of a game of telephone...one person changes something slightly, and then upon recounting, the message can in turn be changed slightly again, and after a point, the meaning original message has been changed entirely.

Lots of religion but not much scripture? Lets see some.

 

Virtually every aspect of mass is taken from or has been inspired by scripture. (Here is a rough list of some of the parts of the mass and their partial origins.)

 

The mass is also split into two parts: The Liturgy Of The Word, and The Liturgy Of The Eucharist. The first is focused entirely on the readings from the Bible presented at that day's mass, and the latter focuses to Christ's sacrifice for mankind, and His command to "Do this in memory of Me".

Well, count me in the minority with PR & GS. I can remember Latin Masses. And the Mass in Latin instills a sense in me that simply doesn't happen in NO masses. I actively avoid churches who's masses are "modern", including and especially in the selection of liturgical music. I can't describe in words the difference I literally feel when comparing the two types of mass. Maybe I'm old-school, but I believe in and treasure the solmenity of the Latin Mass. I also actively avoid churches that are modern in design. So...that's me.

Well, count me in the minority with PR & GS. I can remember Latin Masses. And the Mass in Latin instills a sense in me that simply doesn't happen in NO masses. I actively avoid churches who's masses are "modern", including and especially in the selection of liturgical music. I can't describe in words the difference I literally feel when comparing the two types of mass. Maybe I'm old-school, but I believe in and treasure the solmenity of the Latin Mass. I also actively avoid churches that are modern in design. So...that's me.

I'm not super-thrilled with ultra-modern anything; however, I do feel more comfortable in smaller churches than in cavernous old gothic churches.

 

The most awesome church I've ever been in was one with a very modern and open design. The seating was arranged as a cross, with lots of glass walls to give it an outdoor feel. This was in Florida though, where they can ge away with that. A lot of the attraction, I'll admit, was the friendliness of the people and the easy-going nature of the service.

 

And as for the Latin Mass, I guess it just had to be something you grew up with. I grew up with the N.O. and that's all I've ever known. I would feel like an alien at a Latin Mass...but that's just me.

To bring this thing back around, here's a post from the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that lists all the changes to the parts of the mass involving the congregation.

 

http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

 

It's a side-by-side of the current second edition and the new one. Some sections have commentary on the far left side.

I'm not super-thrilled with ultra-modern anything; however, I do feel more comfortable in smaller churches than in cavernous old gothic churches.

 

The most awesome church I've ever been in was one with a very modern and open design. The seating was arranged as a cross, with lots of glass walls to give it an outdoor feel. This was in Florida though, where they can ge away with that. A lot of the attraction, I'll admit, was the friendliness of the people and the easy-going nature of the service.

 

And as for the Latin Mass, I guess it just had to be something you grew up with. I grew up with the N.O. and that's all I've ever known. I would feel like an alien at a Latin Mass...but that's just me.

 

I have always felt that the older, more Gothic churches, inspire more reverence and awe at the thought of Christ and his sacrifice than those that look like community centers. Again, personal preference.

 

I like both Tridentine and N.O. masses, like Getslow I grew up with the Norvus Ordo and it was all I knew for the most part. It wasn't until my involvement with church music that I began to be introduced to the Latin and Greek that were once more common in the church. I feel comfortable in either setting however I feel that far too many liberties are taken with worship in the Norvus Ordo than with the more traditional mass. My biggest problem with the modernization of the church is the impact it has had on the music, the reverence people show while in church/in the presence of the blessed body and blood and with the dwindling of the Catholic identity. No offense to our Protestant friends, but I have been to mass in some Catholic churches and thought to myself that I would have been better off going to a Baptist or Church of the Nazarene service with as Catholic as it felt.