Shame on you, Bishop Wuerl
That's right, reading public - I'm breaking my own rule about not being negative, catty, and just plain snarky. These are all things in which I excel around the dining room table (just in case anyone thought I was Miss Goody Two Shoes.)
I just finished watching the Papal Mass and the shock of the music makes me want to crawl under a rock and hide. I had already read many bad reviews but the reality was so much worse.
To quote Father Blake:
"Words like meaningless, culturally bankrupt, saccharine, lack of intellectual conviction, trivial, decadent, debased, rootless, superficial, inauthentic, inconsequential, secular, and horizantalist come to mind - none of these words come to mind when one thinks of the Pope.
Is this really the image that AmChurch wants to present to itself and the world?? Badly done Archbishop Wuerl, very badly done."
and also Jeffrey Tucker at NLM:
"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. "
18 comments:
I KNEW this was going to happen! What you saw was Missa Papae Potpourri, which I don't think constitutes a complete mass produced by one source. The parts may have been cannibalized from different masses to form a "composite mass" : hence the term Missa Papae Potpourri.
I was already prepared for this fiasco, so I'm not so much bothered by it now as I was when I saw it coming in the horizon.
For the lack of a better word, the music STUNK! And with our Catholic musical heritage, grabbing a piece that venerated and exemplified the tenets of our faith isn't that difficult to find. You'd have a tougher time finding a slot machine here in Vegas than appropriate and meaningful Catholic sacred works.
Get ready for N.Y.
Well for starters, the music in New York should be much better; if you've looked at the schedule, it's capped off on both ends by Beethoven's 9th, so it can't be that bad. Plus, my choir director happens to be quite good friends with those involved in planning the liturgies, and he is optimistic, having worked with them in his prior position. So, there's that...
Regarding the public denunciation of Bishop Wuerl, perhaps I'm too optimistic myself, but I have a tough time believing that he was really involved in planning the music for Mass. I bet he could have done a few things to ensure it's beauty which he did not, but unfortunately the life of American prelates doesn't leave much time or energy for things like that. I wish it would, since the liturgy is the fundamental and prima theologia of the Catholic faithful (I broke a rule too, since you set the trend).
As one in seminary and also quite devoted to the beauty of the liturgy, my recommendation to fight liturgical abuses is not to complain about them, but rather to do something. I would be curious to know how many of those who found the pope's Mass abhorrent are currently dedicated to taking classes in Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, etc.; historically, these are still the norms for liturgical music, even as addressed by Sacrosanctum Concilium in Vatican II. Why do most who complain not invest their own time and effort in making the liturgy beautiful. The battles are fought in the parish, not papal liturgies.
andrew - I am in complete agreement with you. That is why I just returned from our liturgical committee meeting on which both my husband (a muscian) and myself participate. I also sing in the choir part-time, teach the 7th - 12th graders religous education, and prepare the Confirmation class.
I spend about 6 hours a day studying the Vatican texts and Canon law. At the rate I'm going by the time I drop dead I may actually know something:)
However, the resistance to the concept of lex orandi, lex credendi is astronomical at the parish level.
Job done.
I'm sorry, but it's not all about your own personal preferences. You're not the center of the Mass. The shame is on YOU and all the others who embarrass the Church in this country by insisting that everything be done their way, or else. His Excellency did an excellent job.
That makes 2 bloggers (at least) upon whom Jeffrey has come down with blazing wrath. Could I suggest a further articulation of your position, Jeffrey? I think narcissism and a desire for beautiful liturgy are two different things. I'll admit--as is evident in my first comment--I disagreed with the strong language here to some extent, but not necessarily with what it represented. Thoughts? (Even if they be to the detriment of my being linked on your blog...)
Jeffrey - it really isn't about my preferences. It is about people who did exactly that. The music represented a group of people who placed themselves at the center of the Eucharistic celebration.
It also represented everything the Holy Father does not like. I think that is a shabby way to treat a guest.
After last nights Liturgical Commitee meeting this is tame.
Andrew,
I think you're right. I spent years on my parish's liturgy committee, banging my head trying to get them to do what is *obviously* correct (e.g., what is clearly specified in the GIRM). Then I gave up.
Now I've got a handful of guys together, we're learning chant, and we've been asked to start taking over music for one of our Masses. Who knew?!
pax,
Scott
To Jeffery Smith:
To say, as you said with your comment; "The shame is on YOU and all the others who embarrass the Church in this country by insisting that everything be done their way, or else" leaves me with the impression that you are as unfamiliar with the Church's great rule book known as the GIRM as the folks in Washington, D.C. seem to be. The Church is not a democracy, and the elevator does indeed go all the way to the top. Anyone who thinks the elevator stops on some mythical floor called "My Opinion" will find that the GIRM states otherwise. There's no room in the Church for selective use of liturgical procedures. Minds far greater than ours formulated those procedures, and not following them invites chaos. The Mass in Washington was indeed a "train wreck", and as for his Excellency doing an excellent job as you put it, indeed he did. He did as much as he could, given what he had to work with.
After speaking and writing at length about liturgical music preferences, the music Pope Benedict XVI was subjected to was like inviting someone over to dinner, and after finding out they didn't like liver and onions, proceeding to serve them liver and onions.
And as for Mass being celebrated in the vernacular, last I looked, the vernacular for the U.S. is still English - not Spanish as was the case with the first reading.
One Bead Short of a Rosary
So, while i might agree there is 'consensus gentium' [widespread agreement] on most of the issues adrienne brings up, I do not see that we have reached 'consensus omnium' [agreement of all].
If the vernacular is truly the preferred, then the use of a Spanish reading I think was a way to reach out to the millions in our land for whom that is their first tongue. Otherwise, if B-XVI would prefer Latin to come back into the liturgy as the norm, he should so state - plain and clear.
I did not see or hear the mass, only 30-second sound bites - some of us worked during those hours. So, I'm not familiar with what music was used - but I do believe there is a lot of 'crap' out there being used in liturgies today.
Has Bishop Wuerl had any comments? Has there been an outcry other than by bloggers? I guess I'll check with some locals I know in DC and see what they think ... of the hundred or so I know around DC, most happen to be pretty orthodox Roman Catholics. I'll let you know what I hear from the scene.
Jeffrey Smith needs to separate criticism of the music from criticism of the pope. Duh?
Jeffrey, as Father Richard John Neuhaus pointed out on EWTN yesterday, it was a bit too obvious that whoever coordinated that music has never read any of the Holy Father's own works on music and liturgy. It was... irreverent, it wss entertainment, it was personal performance -
It was disgraceful.
My only hope is that this embarrassment leads to some real, bones-deep reform of American liturgy and music.
Music = BAD
Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry taking Communion in a deliberate effort to insult and inflame = WAY WORSE!!!
Shame, indeed. Bp. Wuerl, for not defending the faith. Maybe he didn't plan the music, but he sure as heck had the authority and responsibility to ensure that those hereticians were politely blessed and sent on their hypocritical way.
Adrienne, I agree with you. But there's hope. The New York mass will be better and people will forget how bad DC was.
I just want to know what churchman is responsible for inviting Pelosi and Kerry.
For a different perspective, read Mark Shea's post for April 18,(http://markshea.blogspot.com/). The mother of one of the choir members for the papal Mass gives her thoughts. It is easy to be armchair liturgical critics; maybe not so easy to be involved in making the whole thing happen.
Melody - I did read Mark Shea's post and he and I agree on what was wrong i.e. it being a "stew" and other points.
I offer no criticism toward the singers who did a wonderful job with the material they were given.
Since we have now witnessed the Mass in Yankee Stadium his argument that the music had to be that way because of the locale does not hold water.
Since the Mass at St. Patricks and now Yankee Stadium, I think it best we all just forget about Washington and move on with our lives.
Overall it has been a wonderful visit and the homilies and talks by the Holy Father were wonderful.
Post a Comment