One of the longest discussion threads in comment box history has been raging at Mark Shea’s place, in a post entitled “A Note from a Faithful Catholic on the Receiving End of New Liturgical Fussbudget Hysteria“.
The entire thing centers around the reactions to the papal Mass at our Washington Nationals stadium here in D.C. Mark begins with a comment from a reader who in turn cites Fr. Rob Johansen. These comments play out (in part) as follows:
Aesthetic Unity. The Mass music admittedly did not have that. Rev. Neuhaus disapprovingly called it a stew. The metaphor is apt, but I question the disapproval. This was to be one of only two Masses in this country, a country which is truly culturally diverse. Each group wishes to present something of its own to the Lord. Fr. Johansen understands this, but says the following:
Archbishop Wuerl, in his greeting of the Holy Father at the beginning of the Mass, stressed the different cultures and ethnicities represented at the Mass. Fr. Neuhaus observed that the spirit of “multiculturalism” pervaded the Mass. A different EWTN commentator, after the Mass, gushed about how the Mass represented the “diversity” of the Church in America. Others waxed about how the Mass was an opportunity for the Church in America to show the Holy Father who we are. The problem: That’s. Not. What. Mass. Is. About…The Mass is about re-presenting the eternal Sacrifice of Christ at the Last Supper and Calvary. It’s about Him, not me, and not even about we.
How can I possibly disagree with something so obviously true? Well, because as far as music is concerned, it is simply wrong. Unlike Apollo, God did not set forth a given musical style. Each culture brings its own to the Mass. I think Archbishop Wuerl thought this important. Furthermore, seeing how his presentation comments dovetailed with the Pope’s remarks in the homily, it certainly seemed like this had been worked out and approved in advance. I cannot make people like music they simply don’t like, any more than anyone can convince me that Telemann is anything but boring. But if the music is performed professionally and reverently, it should not be a cause for scandal and dismay.
This critique of Fr. Johansen’s point is off on a number of levels, but one particularly irritating aspect of it is the assumption that Mass is an appropriate context for manifesting culture. This is due in no small part, I’m sure, to the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, #38:
Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
This paragraph has been drawn upon for any number of obscene displays of liturgy-as-cultural-theater throughout the world. I don’t believe that the majority of these instances can actually be justified by the relatively conservative wording of the paragraph in question. Note that there is a requisite preservation of the “substantial unity of the Roman rite”. This ties into something older than SC itself.
In his apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia, Bl. Pope John XXIII (citing Pope Pius XI) defended the use of the Latin language within the Church for religious (above and beyond intellectual or cultural) purposes:
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.
Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” (emphasis mine)
What the denizens of our narcissistic society - including Shea’s commenter, and by implication, perhaps Shea himself - is that Mass is not about us, our culture, or our tastes. It is about what God has ordained through his Church to be efficacious for our salvation. It transcends our cultures, and becomes a culture of its own.
The Church has given us plenty of guidelines on liturgy, including music. If we’re “content” even when those guidelines aren’t being followed, something isn’t right.
But it’s evident that some people don’t care to have their “contentment” disturbed by “New Liturgical Fussbudgets”.
Steve, this is Shea. You shouldn’t read Shea. It’s bad for you.
Curse you for a bad man!
You made me go read him…
rrrrrrrrrrr…
Shea can be bad for you. To his credit, he’s one of the few well-listened to voices in the Catholic blogosphere who is working against Catholic support of continuing the war in Iraq, the use of Torture, etc.
I strongly disagree with him on a number of things, but there are others where I think it is sensible to work with him, personal irritations aside.
I also have him to thank for hundreds of prayers for my family when Jamie’s mom was killed last year. He linked twice to my requests for prayers, and I am indebted to him for that, particularly because we so often disagree and he threw that aside to ask for help for me.
That won respect from me.
As a musician regularly paid to sing, direct choirs or (on occasion) play the organ for liturgical events I can attest to the fact that the you can legitimately accommodate ethnic diversity without compromising the sacred, transcendent nature of the liturgy. The music of the Spanish composer Cristobal Morales is very different
from that of the English composer Thomas Tallis. Pope Pius X spoke to this in his Motu Propio on sacred music:
Instruction on Sacred Music
1. Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.
2. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.
It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.
It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.
But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.
Thus, the musical program for the Mass in Nationals Stadium was inappropriate primarily because of the profane style, not on account of the ethnic diversity, although the awkward lengths taken on that account caused a jarring aesthetic disjointedness as well. The expression of diversity must be subordinate to the expression of the sacred mysteries:
Musica sacra et sacra liturgia
B. Modern sacred music.
50. Modern compositions of sacred music are only
to be used during
liturgical ceremonies if they conform to the
spirit of the liturgy,
and to the ideals of sacred music as laid down in
the encyclical
Here is a bit about the primacy of chant:
Musicæ sacræ disciplina
First of all the chants and sacred music which are immediately joined with the Church’s liturgical worship should be conducive to the lofty end for which they are intended. This music - as our predecessor Pius X has already wisely warned us - “must possess proper liturgical qualities, primarily holiness and goodness of form; from which its other note, universality, is derived.”[18]
42. It must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this holiness.
43. This chant, because of the close adaptation of the melody to the sacred text, is not only most intimately conformed to the words, but also in a way interprets their force and efficacy and brings delight to the minds of the hearers. It does this by the use of musical modes that are simple and plain, but which are still composed with such sublime and holy art that they move everyone to sincere admiration and constitute an almost inexhaustible source from which musicians and composers draw new melodies.
Snip
57. These laws warn that great prudence
and care should be
used in this serious matter in order to keep out
of churches
polyphonic music which, because of its heavy and
bombastic style,
might obscure the sacred words of the liturgy by
a kind of
exaggeration, interfere with the conduct of the
liturgical service or,
finally, lower the skill and competence of the
singers to the
disadvantage of sacred worship.
Sorry for epic length of this comment. Bad music really gets under my skin.
(backing away slowly)
who are you and what have you done to Steve?
“I also have him to thank for hundreds of prayers for my family when Jamie’s mom was killed last year.”
I’ll second your sentiment here, Steve. I disagree with Mark Shea about almost everything when it comes to liturgy and traditionalism, but when my printing business was suffering due to stands I had taken against printing certain materials, Mr. Shea kindly linked to my plea for help and I received dozens of inquiries for new business across the country. His heart is in the right place and he’ll be there for any Catholic in genuine need. God bless him. As for his head, well, sometimes it’s in the nether-regions …
Thanks, Steve and Jeff, for recognizing my friend’s real virtues. Let me chime in further on his behalf, if you permit me to be the lukewarm water in this debate (bonus points if the film is recognized):
Mark came to Catholicism from an unobservant American “civil deist” household through non-denominational evangelicalism. Liturgy feeds him. Even the goofiest novusordism. He’s not a fan of foolery–I’ve attended the Mass with him (and his Giant Viking son) at his Dominican parish in Seattle. It is very well done–I even remember the homily, having to with the feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran. He can also tell you appalling liturgy stories about life in Hunthausenland–the upside down rubber chicken of the Holy Spirit being a gruesomely funny example.
What he was detonating about was the reduction of the DC Mass to whining involving, in one horrid case, scatology. That’s not just appropriate, it’s necessary. No valid Mass of the Roman Rite, in either form, should ever be described with the term s–t. No matter how bad it gets, I think Hilaire Belloc’s response to the ex-priest who consecrated a bottle of wine in a gentleman’s club is appropriate: after snatching the bottle away and drinking it to the last drop, he said “If you ever do that again I will kill you.” A valid Mass is a valid Mass, no matter how well disguised by the misbehavior of the priest and/or others involved.
And the rhetoric got to be awfully overheated at NLM and Mark’s.
Where I think Mark goes too far is in chalking it up to de gustibus non disputandum. Validity is the barest minimum, and there are other objective concerns that make criticisms like yours well-taken. The liturgy is too important not to address them. It’s harder for him to see it, though, when the s-bomb is being bandied about.
Dale,
In fairness to the commenter - who, by the way, was over the top - what he said was:
“Sure, there were good parts in this travesty of a Mass. But sprinkle some shit on ice cream, and all of the ice cream is ruined. Similarly, the various sacrileges of this Mass ruined it completely. This was a complete disaster - and a step closer to schism. Yet I see that the blog owner here supports it. I’ll never read this blog again.”
While I don’t completely agree with the sentiment that I’ve highlighted here, it’s hardly uncommon. I’ve heard it used to make an argument for why we shouldn’t watch a movie at all if it has a gratuitous sex scene, for example. The notion of pollution, of taint, and how it spoils the whole thing despite what goodness otherwise remains, is a powerful if simplistic metaphor made stronger by the innated repugnance of excrement.
Mark took that comment out of context, and in my opinion didn’t need to. The Mass wasn’t a travesty, and I’ve yet to hear of documented sacrileges (other than those committed by certain high-profile communicants) nor was it a “complete disaster” or “a step closer to schism”. It would be fair to say that the Mass, despite its obvious flaws, was a far cry better than many such masses celebrated by John Paul II. I’d say it’s a step away from schism.
With that in mind, it’s evident enough that the commenter in question made quick work of his own credibility without Mark de-contextualizing the word “shit” and ramping up his rhetorical hyperbole machine.
It is this passive aggressive behavior that makes his approach to this subject offensive.
He says he doesn’t care to have all these debates about liturgy - but posts about them regularly - usually baiting liturgical purists to get things rolling - leading to by far the largest discussions on his blog.
He says he’s content with the liturgy he has access to - but gets upset when people say that the state of liturgy is such that we should not be content, even when they cite the Holy Father himself.
He insists he does want good liturgy without being willing to qualify what that means, or how it should be decided - only that WE laymen are not the ones to be doing so (and certainly not in comment boxes).
His alleged indifference on the subject is exceeded only by his zeal in putting out the flames of passion that exist in those who are very much NOT indifferent. The same sort of passion, I should add, that he rightly applies to the topics of torture and just war.
There’s a reason that comment threads about liturgy get heated, and it’s usually because any time someone makes a criticism of the way liturgy is commonly (or specifically) done, a chorus of “What, are you holier than the pope?” and “There are more important things to worry about!” and “You’d get a lot further if you were charitable/docile/just buried your head in the sand.” follows.
Orthodox Catholics do not want to have to fight with other Catholics they believe are orthodox about setting a baseline for liturgy that rises above the reductionist cant of “as long as the Eucharist is valid it’s OK…”
It’s precisely BECAUSE the Eucharist is valid that it’s NOT ok. Let’s show our Lord a little more respect!
So that’s what steams me, and your last comment, Dale, hits that right on the head, up until the point where you excuse his suddenly delicate sensibilities (the man employs a fairly liberal use of swearing when he sees fit in his own blogging, after all.)
Steve, where do I excuse his “delicate sensibilities”? Let me be clear–like me, I don’t think he has any.
OK, so the commenter didn’t directly call it shit, but the fact he used a metaphor doesn’t redeem it.
Moreover, I said that I agreed that he’s too dismissive about liturgy complaints. He’d do much better if he acknowledged that a lot of harm has been done by the “look at wonderful us” mentality about the Mass that is absent from the Extraordinary Form. I wish he could see the problem as less abstract, but he doesn’t. I don’t know what can change that.
Let me add this point: I think the very issuance of the Motu Proprio is supposed to provoke these kinds of questions about what is fitting in the Mass and in keeping with the Tradition. A Tradition that has, I note, nourished Catholics across two millenia and a myriad of cultures.
Steve, where do I excuse his “delicate sensibilities”? Let me be clear–like me, I don’t think he has any.
You said: “It’s harder for him to see it, though, when the s-bomb is being bandied about.”
My point is that it’s not at all “harder for him to see it”, as if the hurt he feels because someone used the brown word in reference to the accidentals of the Mass have blinded an intelligent man from hyperbole-free discourse.
I don’t think he does have delicate sensibilities when it comes to his writing. Where I would distinguish him from you, however, is that he seems to be prone to a sort of hypersensitivity (I’m guilty of this as well, but I do try not to show it in my writing) that leads him to react irrationally at times.
Moreover, I said that I agreed that he’s too dismissive about liturgy complaints.
Which is why I said, “your last comment, Dale, hits that right on the head…”
I suppose it seemed you were excusing his reaction because someone was using the “shit” word. Maybe that wasn’t your point.
Personally, I don’t find that sort of comment offensive enough that I resort to “Hulk, MAD!!!” in my response. In fact, I’ve seen plenty of shit sprinkled into liturgy in my lifetime, and I don’t have a problem calling it that.
I don’t think that it somehow invalidates the entire liturgy. On the other hand, it CAN make the liturgy not fruitful for a person, subjectively speaking.
I think the very issuance of the Motu Proprio is supposed to provoke these kinds of questions about what is fitting in the Mass and in keeping with the Tradition. A Tradition that has, I note, nourished Catholics across two millenia and a myriad of cultures.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Which is precisely why Mark needs to learn to handle the people presenting these questions with greater delicacy than he does. He baits them, they respond with less magnanimity than they should, and he hunts them down, takes them out of context, and uses them again to set up the next such post.
What Mark needs to realize is that the retroactive freeing of the extraordinary form is not a question of “You have your Mass; I have mine.” It’s been made clear that it is part and parcel of the Roman Rite.
It’s HIS Mass too, even if he doesn’t care for it. And insofar as he recognizes that, and the wisdom of what the Holy Father has done, some restraint on his (at times well-deserved) animosity toward the TLM’s advocates, as well as those who want better, more traditional liturgy in general, would be welcome and well-advised.
I am reading the latest thread, and I think commenter Mike Petrik puts it well:
I agree, Sam. Many comments smacked of disappointment, but few really came across as bitter. I kind of get the impression that the real rub is that some folks who got goose bumps from the music last week are upset that other folks have the temerity to criticize the music that gave them the goose bumps. Consequently, the latter are raging teeth-kickers. I agree that some critics made intemperate comments, but not many. But instead of imploring these critics to write with more charity, it’s so much easier to just dismiss critics generally as hysterical fussbudgets. Yawn.
Wow. I see you guys still really care about this stuff.
Hmp.
Weird.
THIS IS SPINAL TAP.