Skip to comments."While We're At It": What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity?
Posted on 10/29/2004 2:41:11 AM PDT by AncientAirs
What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity? Greeting people at the door is a start. It alerts us to the fact that we are going to do something with others. . . . I have found some Catholics who think this whole welcoming business is destroying our traditional sense of reverence and replacing it with some folksy, feel-good experience. This is a false conclusion. If you wish to invite a guest into your home, you must have space. To invite others into our hearts and our worship, we must make room for them. The enemy of reverence is not hospitality but arrogance. Despite my being intimidated by the flat assertion, This is a false conclusion, I dare to wonder if the author, a professor of theology writing in America, might tolerate a modest dissent. Note the language: we are going to do something; our traditional sense of reverence; your home; our worship. Is there not something to be said for reverence for what God is doing in His house through the liturgy of the Church, the saints in heaven and pilgrims on earth? There are many conversion stories in which the narrator describes quietly entering a Catholic church, maybe even sneaking in, and being struck by the statues and candles, and, most of all, by the people kneeling in rapt devotion as the priest at the altar lifts the consecrated host and declares, Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. There may be one, but I have never read a conversion story in which a person was drawn to the Catholic Church by the kind of chumminess that one might encounter at a birthday party or around the water cooler at the office. This is a false conclusion, rumbles our liturgist. Im sorry, sir, but since Ive had the temerity to go so far, Ill go a step further and, at the risk of your wrath, suggest that it is really not so important to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity. Thats not the point. The point is what God has done, and is doing in the Mass, reconciling the world to Himself through the sacrifice of Christ. The eucharistic community is created precisely by our turning away from ourselves and toward Christ. The wonderful friendliness of our wonderful selves is really quite beside the point. And to think otherwise is, well, arrogance.
Be careful, that is grounds for excommunication in extremistville :)
Congregational singing at low Mass and at other services in the church, not strictly "liturgical" in ceremonial character, has always obtained, more or less, in our churches
actually I have it sitting here next to me in my dorm room. Its by the choir of westminster abbey. I would of thought that the work would have been a given. To be honest, even though i am a traditionalist, I find that listening to too much sacred Polyphony makes me think about counterpoint, which is a part of my music thoery class, and that gives me a headache. It good in med. doses, like Stravinsky or Wagner operas (the latter being hard to take any way else). (sarcastically) your description of trads is sooooooooooooooooo mature.
*So, every time you are posting something that cites Jesus; every time you pray and that prayer includes "Jesus" you genuflect (what do you do when you are already kneeling in prayer?); every time you speak the name Jesus, you genuflect?
Color me skeptical :)
Listening to Tchaikovsky. I hope that doth not offendith thy ears.
*But not the much better known Mozart or Beehoven?
That "reasoning" is sooooooooooooooooo mature.
How refreshing to come across a musical director who isn't so full of themself that they think the Mass is about them instead of what it is.
Since I guess you were directing that comment at me, my heartfelt thanks. Obviously I am in favor of music at Holy Mass - of the most noble chracter, with plainchant as the preferred ideal.
I certainly agree that we praise God in song, and that our hearts and minds are lifted to god, and edified in song - or in listening to the performance of sacred music by a choir.
But the spiritual reality which I touched upon - which some hear seem to be tone deaf about.....is that God speaks to us in SILENCE. That is when there is real communication.
I have long suspected that - the blather of wannabe liturgists to the contrary - the reasons many pastors feel the overwhelming compursion to have nothing but constant music & singing - even at daily masses.....so that there are no more "low masses".....is that they are afraid of the silence. Afraid to let God speak in and through silence.
The pastor who has at least one Sunday mass in silence, and daily masses also as low masses without music is wise. There are souls who want and need this.
The soul learns in silence. The souls gains much in the wisom of the Holy Spirit in silence. It is for that reason that monastaries are knwn for period of silence - so that God can speak to the hearts of those who ae within its walls.
The observations which you have made are very good and valid ones. And I am sure you may understand what I am driving at.
But I am sure some twit is going to come back at me and post all manner of blather about "how good it is to sing", having (again) missed my point.
Yes, my reasoning is mature (taking your sarcasm out of context). Seems to me that you are taking shots at Palestrina now. are you implying that he is inferior?
didnt St. Augustine say that singing is praying twice? Could somebody clear this up? I like your reply too thor.
I do not genuflect every time I speak the name of Jesus. I genuflect evertime I enter the Church and take my seat at a pew, always when I'm in front of the Altar or pass by the Altar, and always during the "I am not worthy to receive you, but just say the word and my soul shall be healed."
Listen, I'm willing to concede you know everything, and I know nothing except histrionics, if it just ends this confab here and now.
Any other musicians/conductors on this thread?
I think the correct quote is "he who sings WELL, prays twice".
Any twit can sing.....well, sort of!
I meant no offense. I think I'll choose to ignore in the future.
My real and only point was that I prefer silence during the Administration of the Holy Eucharist. I wouldn't mind some soft, Gregorian chant, but I'm distracted by loud, sort of bellowing song.
Peace to you too, and sorry for being snotty.
It is so far beyond me that I won't respond other than to note those on this thread there are those who imagine themselves experts and who are so sure of this and that but, in reality, are really very ignorant as to the real facts of Catholic Liturgical History. (And, notice there never seem to be admissions of errors or apologies by these imagined experts)
That ignorance accounts for a lot of the errors in the extremist camp. Combining ignorance with arrogance leads to schism far too frequently.
BTW, I am WELL aware of my ignorance. There are MANY on these threads who know a LOT more than me. That is why I am so submissive to the Magisterium. I don't rely on my own intellect/knowledge. I rely on the Universal Permanent Living Magisterium Jesus established
But I am sure some twit is going to come back at me and post all manner of blather about "how good it is to sing", having (again) missed my point
* That's "Traditioanl Twit," partner :)
(d) The words of the quoted councils and of the pope imply a restoration of congregational singing through instruction in Gregorian chant, and therefore clearly refer to the strictly liturgical offices such as solemn or high Mass, Vespers, Benediction (after the Tantum Ergo has begun). Congregational singing at low Mass and at other services in the church, not strictly "liturgical" in ceremonial character, has always obtained, more or less, in our churches.
thanks for the clarification.
* It isn't about your (my)tastes." It is about Tradition. The actual Tradition of Catholic Liturgical Practice is being posted here
Why is it you trads are so often wrong on Tradition and why, when you are wrong, don't you have the decency and honor to simply admit it?
how are we wrong on tradition. Im sure tradition didnt dictate that we change the Mass to cater to the "modern world". After all, what is holy and sacred doesn't need to be changed.
"Congregational singing at low Mass and at other services in the church, not strictly "liturgical" in ceremonial character, has always obtained, more or less, in our churches."
That's very interesting, considering that it directly contradicts William F. Buckley in his book, "Nearer, My God."
Now let's see, who's more credible...hmmm...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.