Trads - what's up with ya'll

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

that is definitely just my interpretation, you're right; whether they consciously have that attitude or not, it is implicit in some of the innovative liturgical planning that goes on.  I am sure all of them also have the motivation to offer good worship to God as well and are well-intentioned; but it ends up mixxed with motivations like that whether they're explicit or implicit.

my benchmark is not just the TLM, it's the TLM, Ambrosian Rite, other western rites whether still active or historical, and Eastern Orthodox Liturgies--together this provides us a good and varied view of what the spirit of the liturgy has been throughout Church history.  each of them have their idiosyncrasies, but they all share a certain ethos that I think should be viewed as a benchmark for where we should keep the direction of liturgies even when they're adapted and enculturated in different contexts.

there's a few things in terms of why i am saying to focus on the lyrics and the human voice; it's partially what you say, but even in the case of chant where they do the oooOOoooOOOOOs, the idea of the human voice being the primary instrument in worship is because that's the only God-made instrument we have, rather than human-made instruments.  I've heard that argued by the Eastern Orthodox at least, and while I am ok with the Roman Church's less strict version of that focus on the human voice as the primary liturgical instrument, keeping it in mind as a principle would keep us from straying too far from it.  and again--looking at TLM and Eastern Orthodox Liturgies throughout Church history up until the 1950's / 1960's, that's a time honored principle--i'm okay with it if we paint outside of that line a bit, like the eventual allowance for the organ or the solemn papal mass's silver trumpets back in the day, but keeping the line present is important.  if we bring in some instruments, we should still keep the spirit of the principle of the human voice being the primary instrument of liturgical music in place.

good gospel music does not tend to go too far from this principle, in my opinion.  but a lot of this praise and worship stuff, in my opinion, does get quite far away and really should be done more at events outside of the liturgy IMO.  that's a big point I want to reiterate, there are things that could be spiritually beneficial that would not fit in the liturgy, and it'd be great to have extra-liturgical events for those forms of music and art and expressions without doing damage to the spirit of the liturgy and that sense of permanence / relative timelessness / non-innovation.

That's cool. Some of the minutia about what is / is not historical, the standards that the Church sets, whether those standards are served by particular forms of the Mass, I think it's not not black-or-white issue, and different folks will have different views on the details. I might disagree with you here and there with respect to some of the details but I can agree with the broad goals.

Why not include the NO among your benchmarks though? I think its fair to say that the Church views the NO as historical, or in keeping with (or returning to) past traditions of the Church. I mean, it ain't like the Church proposed the NO just to make everybody happy. I mean, I would think that the folks who came up with the NO saw themselves as returning to the tradition of the Church, rather than innovating out of thin air. Does that hold any weight with you, given that this is the direction that the Church has moved in?

7 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Having been involved in musical efforts in ordinary form parishes with a wide variety of liturgical and musical sensibilities, I absolutely have encountered these attitudes explicitly and often.

That's fair. Myself, the only time I have really heard the idea was kind of like from Trads actually. Like, I would hear the argument that the reason why church attendance has decreased over the years is because of the switch from the TLM to the NO (implying basically that we should go back to the TLM if we want to increase attendance, or to keep Catholics from falling away).

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Nah, I don't buy all of that Jazz that rad trads have a better understanding of faith and morals. Show me the money.

Half of ya'll won't even give the sign of peace!

And would you care to explain the proper way to give the sign of peace, as well as how it fits into the category of faith and morals?  Otherwise that's a pretty empty argument.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Nobody is talking about playing N.W.A. "F the police" during Mass.

Subjective in the sense that different forms of music may be more appropriate in some contexts, and other forms of music may be more appropriate in other contexts. Nobody is saying that there are not objective standards, or objective goals, that we should have for Mass. I am saying that there is not one form of music that best meets those standards and goals, in every context.

The fact that I do not believe that Gregorian Chant is the best music for every Mass ever celebrated on the face of the Earth, and that other forms of music may be more appropriate in certain contexts, does not mean that my attitude is simply "Just do whatever you like, I don't even care".

I don't know what NWA is.  And is that a song title?  I don't even want to google it.

I wholeheartedly agree that different forms of music are certainly more appropriate in some contexts.  Likewise I am not saying that there is one form of music that best meets those standards and goals in every context.  I am specifically limiting the context to that of a regular Mass.  I will continue along that line and limit it even further - I'm talking now specifically about an ordinary Mass in Ordinary Time.  I'm excluding special feasts and funeral Masses and other distinct events.  And even then, I won't even outright say that Gregorian Chant is best (nor did I say it before).  There are a number of forms of chant.  I agree with the other poster than the human voice should be the standard.  And I will leave my argument, there.  

1 hour ago, Peace said:

You know you care. Stop lying!

Ok, you got me.  I do care if you choose something offensive to God.  Otherwise, I don't care at all.

For my part, I agree with Aloysius in that I believe Gospel music is likely closer to the ideal than praise and worship.  I can't stand the latter, in the slightest.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And would you care to explain the proper way to give the sign of peace, as well as how it fits into the category of faith and morals?  Otherwise that's a pretty empty argument.

Relax buddy. It was a freaking joke!

Quote

I don't know what NWA is.  And is that a song title?  I don't even want to google it.

We are gonna have to get you to leave the crib every once in a while. But yes, I wouldn't suggest you google it. You might want to stay away from Cardi B too.

Quote

I wholeheartedly agree that different forms of music are certainly more appropriate in some contexts.  Likewise I am not saying that there is one form of music that best meets those standards and goals in every context.  I am specifically limiting the context to that of a regular Mass.  I will continue along that line and limit it even further - I'm talking now specifically about an ordinary Mass in Ordinary Time.  I'm excluding special feasts and funeral Masses and other distinct events.  And even then, I won't even outright say that Gregorian Chant is best (nor did I say it before).  There are a number of forms of chant.  I agree with the other poster than the human voice should be the standard.  And I will leave my argument, there.  

That's cool. We'll call it "The spirit of the Trad".

Quote

Ok, you got me.  I do care if you choose something offensive to God.  Otherwise, I don't care at all.

All faithful Catholics care about that, friend.

Quote

For my part, I agree with Aloysius in that I believe Gospel music is likely closer to the ideal than praise and worship.  I can't stand the latter, in the slightest.

Yeah for the latter, I think I would need to see specifically what he/she is talking about. I think there is a lot of variation there.

It does strike me as odd though, that folks seem to have a general issue with the idea of "praise and worship." That isn't exactly a bad thing you know. The Mass itself, fundamentally is a form of praise and worship I think (in the form of a sacrifice). I don't really understand where ya'll are going with that, honestly.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Peace

[Aloysius]

the NO as written, say the black do the red, can be part of those benchmarks; there were a lot of liturgical scholars involved and while I think they sometimes promoted anachronistic and unjustified forms of antiquarianism (claiming something might have been done in the early church with little or no evidence and then justifying it), overall the text of it would pass a test of the benchmarks of the TLM and Eastern Orthodox liturgies--it's the practice of it that I'm comparing to the practices of the universal church reaching back into time immemorial.  (When I say Eastern Orthodox I'm also including Oriental Orthodox, who were split from both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox since the 5th century AD and still preserved a remarkably similar liturgy and spirit of the liturgy--we are talking about a very ancient standard here).

They're kind of all benchmarks for each other, and if any of them pop up as an outlier in terms of the spirit of the liturgy, attitude towards the liturgy, etc, then it's that one that needs reigning in and bringing up to the standards of the spirit of the liturgy.  i keep saying spirit of the liturgy lol, one of my favorite ratzinger books goes by that title, but like I said I'm referring to a kind of pathos and spirit that is common to TLMs, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox liturgies that when you add many of the community-meeting-style versions of the Novus Ordo, you can easily say "one of these things is not like the other ones...".  There are very well done Novus Ordo Masses out there, don't get me wrong, but the call for mutual enrichment by Benedict was something that was really meant to reign in some of the more innovative things that have crept in and get people back into the liturgical spirit.  I think every Roman seminary should train all seminarians in the TLM, if that's too hard train them in the TLM without the L at least--and require all of them to attend some Eastern Catholic liturgies also--and tell them while there's a lot of options you're going to be offered in the Novus Ordo, always try to keep your liturgies in line with that kind of a spirit.

Praise and Worship style is the name given to a kind of concert-style Christian music.  There's nothing wrong with it, it's just not liturgical IMO.  it'd be fine to have a P&W concert /session after a mass if you want one.  if i were in charge and feeling particularly magnanimous, i might even be okay with the recessional hymn being something non-liturgical like P&W, it's after the final blessing so it's out of the liturgy by then lol.

so I guess I'd have a question for you, @Peace, to kind of get further into where we're drawing the lines; we draw them differently, and that's fine, but I'm curious, are there forms of music that praise God that you would think would be okay at a non-liturgical prayer meeting but which are not proper to a liturgy?

[fides' Jack]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

Relax buddy. It was a freaking joke!

I'm not making a big deal about it.  But it's good to know it was a joke.

Honestly, it's very likely that I am at least slightly on the autism spectrum - I don't always get humor on forums.  Be warned!

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

We are gonna have to get you to leave the crib every once in a while. But yes, I wouldn't suggest you google it. You might want to stay away from Cardi B too.

Haha!  Yeah, Cardi B has been in the news recently.  Definitely not looking into her... Yikes!

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

That's cool. We'll call it "The spirit of the Trad".

Fair enough.  I kinda like it, actually.

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

All faithful Catholics care about that, friend.

This is true. 

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah for the latter, I think I would need to see specifically what he/she is talking about. I think there is a lot of variation there.

It does strike me as odd though, that folks seem to have a general issue with the idea of "praise and worship." That isn't exactly a bad thing you know. The Mass itself, fundamentally is a form of praise and worship I think (in the form of a sacrifice). I don't really understand where ya'll are going with that, honestly.

I believe praise and worship is a specific genre, largely reminiscent of the style they called "alternative rock" in the 90s, but with lyrics directed to how we feel about God or how God makes us feel, or (sometimes) just actually singing praises to Him.

I've been to praise and worship events 3 times, I think, and was horrified each time, but that's mostly because these events happened in front of the exposed Blessed Sacrament.  I do believe that's offensive to God, honestly.  But I also admit that I can only call that my opinion, just as I can only claim my previous comments regarding liturgical music to be my opinion.  I'm not an authority on the matter or even terribly-well studied. 

...

And now I see Aloysius already basically said the same thing.  I'll leave it at that.

Be well, friend!

21 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Praise and Worship style is the name given to a kind of concert-style Christian music.  There's nothing wrong with it, it's just not liturgical IMO.  it'd be fine to have a P&W concert /session after a mass if you want one.  if i were in charge and feeling particularly magnanimous, i might even be okay with the recessional hymn being something non-liturgical like P&W, it's after the final blessing so it's out of the liturgy by then lol.

I was with you until this point.  I do think, technically, that the recessional hymn is still part of the liturgy.  I could be mistaken.

[Peace]

47 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

the NO as written, say the black do the red, can be part of those benchmarks; there were a lot of liturgical scholars involved and while I think they sometimes promoted anachronistic and unjustified forms of antiquarianism (claiming something might have been done in the early church with little or no evidence and then justifying it), overall the text of it would pass a test of the benchmarks of the TLM and Eastern Orthodox liturgies--it's the practice of it that I'm comparing to the practices of the universal church reaching back into time immemorial.  (When I say Eastern Orthodox I'm also including Oriental Orthodox, who were split from both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox since the 5th century AD and still preserved a remarkably similar liturgy and spirit of the liturgy--we are talking about a very ancient standard here).

Fair enough.

Yeah ya'll love that "time immemorial" phrase too don't ya'll? I think there is fair room for debate on what constitutes "the universal practice of the church going back into time immemorial" or whether there is even such a thing at all, but that's cool. Those debates have been had by people more knowledgeable than me.

Quote

They're kind of all benchmarks for each other, and if any of them pop up as an outlier in terms of the spirit of the liturgy, attitude towards the liturgy, etc, then it's that one that needs reigning in and bringing up to the standards of the spirit of the liturgy.  i keep saying spirit of the liturgy lol, one of my favorite ratzinger books goes by that title, but like I said I'm referring to a kind of pathos and spirit that is common to TLMs, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox liturgies that when you add many of the community-meeting-style versions of the Novus Ordo, you can easily say "one of these things is not like the other ones...".  There are very well done Novus Ordo Masses out there, don't get me wrong, but the call for mutual enrichment by Benedict was something that was really meant to reign in some of the more innovative things that have crept in and get people back into the liturgical spirit.  I think every Roman seminary should train all seminarians in the TLM, if that's too hard train them in the TLM without the L at least--and require all of them to attend some Eastern Catholic liturgies also--and tell them while there's a lot of options you're going to be offered in the Novus Ordo, always try to keep your liturgies in line with that kind of a spirit.

Yeah I have heard of that book, don't have it. From what I understand he basically goes in on problems that he sees with the NO. That was before he was pope, correct?

It's weird to me though. I have been to TLM, the Latin-laden "very well done" NO (like at my home parish), gospel Masses at black churches, Spanish masses with the Mexican music, these super friendly liberal type white Catholic churches with the guitar or folk music, the "say hello the visitors" part or whatever, and in none of these have I felt a spirit other than people wanting to worship God in earnest. Like, to a certain extent I feel like some people might just be used to one thing, so when the experience something else, they perceive a certain attitude or motivation that does not exist in reality.

Perhaps part of that is because I am a convert though, I have a different starting base. Like for me, I see the various forms, none of them particularly strike me as being the "one of these kids ain't like the others" from Sesame Street. To me, I see the same thing, expressed with different music, etc.

Quote

Praise and Worship style is the name given to a kind of concert-style Christian music.  There's nothing wrong with it, it's just not liturgical IMO.  it'd be fine to have a P&W concert /session after a mass if you want one.  if i were in charge and feeling particularly magnanimous, i might even be okay with the recessional hymn being something non-liturgical like P&W, it's after the final blessing so it's out of the liturgy by then lol.

I haven't seen much of that in Catholic Churches. The closest I have seen to that is in the black Catholic church I go to sometimes. Like, I forget exactly when, but at some point during the mass, they might have the gospel choir sing 1 or 2 worship songs, at points where there would be no singing in my normal Mass.

Is something like that an issue because it is "not liturgical"? I guess I never could really get down with the whole "say the black do the red" thing. To me, that makes it seems like we are supposed to be a bunch of robots executing computer code. I don't see how you accomplish that goal of "active participation" if you are really saying that we have to be strict about everything that we can't add an extra song or two to worship God, but that's just me. I guess that's just a different worldview that folks have when it comes to that.

Quote

so I guess I'd have a question for you, @Peace, to kind of get further into where we're drawing the lines; we draw them differently, and that's fine, but I'm curious, are there forms of music that praise God that you would think would be okay at a non-liturgical prayer meeting but which are not proper to a liturgy?

That's a good question. I mean, I can't see myself approving of gangsta-rap at Mass. If Lil-Wayne turned up with a DJ and a turntable, and rapped the Mass, I would probably walk myself right into the confessional and stay there for about a week.

I am not against the idea of having standards, or objective goals that should be adhered to. I think it is the idea that there is no room for diversity in adhering to those standards, and objective goals, that I have an issue with, the idea that "XYZ form of the Mass is always the best".

But that's not to say that everything is equivalent, or acceptable.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Peace

[Aloysius]

oh I think even at bad liturgies there is a spirit of people wanting to worship God in earnest.  that's also true at many Protestant churches, that's also true at many non-liturgical prayer meetings.  the liturgical spirit is something that channels that earnest desire to worship God in a particular way.  and that's why I try to be careful about how and why I criticize certain things saying they're non-liturgical but would be fine for groups to organize prayer meetings or other events around. 

as to my last question, I specifically asked about music that praised God that would be good at a prayer meeting or Catholic event, so I'm talking about not something that'd have bad or irreverent things in it but that would actually have a good message and direct people to pray to God, but which is not liturgical; but I guess you're saying the gangsta rap or the lil-wayne stuff would actually be rapping Catholic / prayerful lyrics?  so basically, phatmass rap music?  :D haha funnily enough there's a line we agree to, while on phatmass, that the phatmass Catholic rap shouldn't be done in mass (that's also always been phatmass's position) but could fit in other non-liturgical Catholic events.

sigh, I remember getting my first massmatics CD back in the day; and then I remember at a youth group dance event I had them put it on and no one at the youth group knew what to do with it.  good times.  man I haven't listened to those songs in years, that'd be a good nostalgia trip.

anyway, it's that line I think is interesting to think about it--the line that runs through something that would be fine music to praise God with but which is not liturgical.  phatmass Catholic rap is one we agree on there--as much as School of the Eucharist gets a pretty good vibe, it wouldnt really be good in a liturgy.

[[by the way it's funny to think about this thread calling out phatmass for being too traddy when phatmass was originally organized around Catholic Hip Hop hahaha]]

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

oh I think even at bad liturgies there is a spirit of people wanting to worship God in earnest.  that's also true at many Protestant churches, that's also true at many non-liturgical prayer meetings.  the liturgical spirit is something that channels that earnest desire to worship God in a particular way.  and that's why I try to be careful about how and why I criticize certain things saying they're non-liturgical but would be fine for groups to organize prayer meetings or other events around. 

as to my last question, I specifically asked about music that praised God that would be good at a prayer meeting or Catholic event, so I'm talking about not something that'd have bad or irreverent things in it but that would actually have a good message and direct people to pray to God, but which is not liturgical; but I guess you're saying the gangsta rap or the lil-wayne stuff would actually be rapping Catholic / prayerful lyrics?  so basically, phatmass rap music?  :D haha funnily enough there's a line we agree to, while on phatmass, that the phatmass Catholic rap shouldn't be done in mass (that's also always been phatmass's position) but could fit in other non-liturgical Catholic events.

sigh, I remember getting my first massmatics CD back in the day; and then I remember at a youth group dance event I had them put it on and no one at the youth group knew what to do with it.  good times.  man I haven't listened to those songs in years, that'd be a good nostalgia trip.

anyway, it's that line I think is interesting to think about it--the line that runs through something that would be fine music to praise God with but which is not liturgical.  phatmass Catholic rap is one we agree on there--as much as School of the Eucharist gets a pretty good vibe, it wouldnt really be good in a liturgy.

[[by the way it's funny to think about this thread calling out phatmass for being too traddy when phatmass was originally organized around Catholic Hip Hop hahaha]]

Yeah I think I need a little more clarity about your use of the word "liturgical". I mean that's keep it real here. Some TLM hard heads would probably say that the whole NO is not "liturgical" right? If you like it and think it should be part of the Mass, it is "liturgical". If you don't like it and don't think it should be part of the Mass, then it ain't "liturgical". You are just using the word as a proxy for your own preferences, correct?

I agree with the Official Phatmass position when it comes to rapping the Mass. Yeah, in my hypo I meant like rapping the Mass, without any explicitly immoral lyrics or anything. It would not sit well with me. Perhaps for whatever reason I would think that it does not fall into that amorphous category of things that we accept as "liturgical" huh?
 

Yeah I think it is pretty hilarious that at a forum called Phatmass nobody has heard of NWA. Wasn't there a rapping priest on here at some point? Yeah I don't even know how you go from Hip Hop to Trad. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[Aloysius]

As I've explained, it's not about the minutia but the spirit of the liturgy--that ethos and attitude that is common between TLM, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox; that's not some kind of personal preference, that's reaching back to the earliest centuries of Christian liturgical worship. 

The Novus Ordo is sometimes done within this spirit and sometmes done in the spirit of innovation, of community-meeting, of putting anything in, of meeting personal preferences, etc. 

I have not argued here to replace NOs with TLMs--but for Benedict's mutual enrichment project, the idea of connecting some of the branches that have been going a bit astray back to the roots of what it means to have public liturgical worship--not as something that we're meant to be in control of or something we're supposed to be tuning to different personal preferences or different attitudes of today, but something people can perceive as reaching back and connecting us to the same experiences of 2 millenia of tradition.

if you can place your mass next to TLM, Eeastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox liturgies and it's obvious one of these things is not like the other, you've probably strayed a bit far from the spirit of the liturgy.  I've been to all those types of liturgy and the difference is palpable from some of the stuff I grew up with--and the only way to describe that difference is one had a prioritized liturgical spirit and one was lacking in that pathos and attitude, even as it was earnest worship of God with some liturgical parts.  Again, that's not me arguing for my personal preferences, it's arguing for continuity and connection.  The reform of the reform will be a long and winding road, it's not leading to the past--it's leading to continuity with the past and with the universal practices of the apostolic churches.

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

As I've explained, it's not about the minutia but the spirit of the liturgy--that ethos and attitude that is common between TLM, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox; that's not some kind of personal preference, that's reaching back to the earliest centuries of Christian liturgical worship. 

The Novus Ordo is sometimes done within this spirit and sometmes done in the spirit of innovation, of community-meeting, of putting anything in, of meeting personal preferences, etc. 

I have not argued here to replace NOs with TLMs--but for Benedict's mutual enrichment project, the idea of connecting some of the branches that have been going a bit astray back to the roots of what it means to have public liturgical worship--not as something that we're meant to be in control of or something we're supposed to be tuning to different personal preferences or different attitudes of today, but something people can perceive as reaching back and connecting us to the same experiences of 2 millenia of tradition.

if you can place your mass next to TLM, Eeastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox liturgies and it's obvious one of these things is not like the other, you've probably strayed a bit far from the spirit of the liturgy.  I've been to all those types of liturgy and the difference is palpable from some of the stuff I grew up with--and the only way to describe that difference is one had a prioritized liturgical spirit and one was lacking in that pathos and attitude, even as it was earnest worship of God with some liturgical parts.  Again, that's not me arguing for my personal preferences, it's arguing for continuity and connection.  The reform of the reform will be a long and winding road, it's not leading to the past--it's leading to continuity with the past and with the universal practices of the apostolic churches.

That's cool but how does that not just end up into subjective determinations, or just imposing your own conclusions on others? Look, if we take Scholar A he might say that XYZ part of the NO, is part of the common "ethos and attitude" and Scholar B might say that the very same XYZ is not part of the common "ethos and attitude" and Scholar C might say that the whole NO is not within the "ethos and attitude" (the folks who completely reject the NO, for example).

I don't object to the principle that there should be some standard (whether you want to make that an amorphous "ethos and attitude" or some other standard). I don't think we really disagree in principle, but we would probably disagree as to where that line should be drawn.

And as for whether "one of these Masses is not like the other" I think that is pretty subjective too. Some hardcore Trads would say that a Latin "well-done" NO is "not like the others". They would disagree with your conclusion that "well-done" NO is within the spirit of the liturgy. It's not really different than you looking at a "badly-done" NO and concluding that it is not within the spirit of the liturgy. You are just drawing the line at different locations based on your own determination of what the "ethos and attitude" of the Mass should be.

Yet at the same time, I would object to the "Hip Hop Mass" so I am no different in that respect. I am drawing a line too, just at a different location than you and my hypothetical hardcore Trad who rejects the NO.

How do we resolve that? I dunno. I think it is really up for the authorities within the Church to decide where the line should be drawn, I guess. From that aspect I would probably say that as long as parishes are acting in-line with what is permitted, then it should be cool. If they are going beyond what the Church has permitted, then bishops should step in and make appropriate corrections of the abuses.

But overall I think I understand your point and basically agree with it. I am guessing that the main issue that I have with it is when people (not you in particular) seem to enforce the idea so rigidly that it does not leave room for diversity. I think my main issue would be with the folks who have like a "TLM only, communion kneeling on the tongue, do the black and say the red, there is no other viable way!" kind of an attitude. In that case I really do think it is a form of imposing one one's preferences on other people, rather than trying to adhere to objective standards that the Church has set.

I think I will buy a copy of that "Spirit of the Liturgy" book though. This convo has peaked my interest in the topic.

[Aloysius]

---

ultimately you're right it is for the ecclesiastical authorities to decide; but I really don't agree that this is purely subjective--there are objective standards we can work with.  as with any objective standards, there's always subjective people interpreting them, but that doesn't mean trying to draw that line.  I'm advocating for some reform of the reform mutual enrichment that grounds the Roman Liturgy in its roots--not too rigidly, but definitely reigning in some of the innovations that have crept in. 

Quote

I think I will buy a copy of that "Spirit of the Liturgy" book though. This convo has peaked my interest in the topic.

cool, it's been a long time since I've read that one (had I read it more recently I might've had some more refined arguments in this thread at points were I got a bit fuzzy lol).  will be interested to hear your take.

anyway at this point we're probably talking in circles, we've kind of identified where each others' lines are--a bit away from each other but we can see through the mirror darkly there's some kind of liturgical principle needed.  as long as we recognize there is such a thing as a line for what is proper liturgically and what, while it may be worshipful of God, belongs outside of liturgy, I think that's some alright common ground.

either way, we can remember the gates of hell shall not prevail:

PHATMASS - Massmatics- Catholic Hip-Hop Volume 1 - 16 Gates of Hell (ft Akalyte).mp3

[edit, well that didn't embed like i wanted it to, how about this:

and we could all always use some confession:

 

[Anastasia]

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I don't just mean legalistic rules but also expectations and customs of what it means to show respect--the standards to which you're used to from the Eastern tradition, which if broken would show a lack of attachment or a disrespect to the one represented by the image--for the Romans do NOT necessarily constitute a lack of attachment or disrespect to the image.

I agree with you here but not with the following - at least not fully

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

as far as a picture of your mother or family member--people treat unique photos of their family members with reverence putting them in frames and such, just as we do with unique paintings or statues, but sometimes at a funeral they'll print up hundreds of programs to distribute out that include a printed out picture of the loved one who has died and, indeed, people treat those just the same--folding, discarding, etc.  And it in no way is a show of a lack of attachment to the one represented in that image, that's just common attitudes towards more mass produced images.

and this is why. While the common expectations and standards to which you refer are very important and even forceful (to the point that the learnt behaviour can cover the lack of a deep attitude, a true connection when a person habitually crosses himself before an icon without even looking at it = without seeing it) it is not them or only them that ensure a proper attitude. Respect and care about something a person values runs through the centuries in all cultures. If that something is about higher things like faith, God - about holy things - care and respect and care tend to grow. As for multiple prints, take an example of someone who madly loves, let's say, poet Joseph Brodsky. While renovating his apartment, he pulls out the pile of newspapers to cover the floor and then sees on a spread a famous photo of Brodsky with his cat. He most likely will not keep it but he will not put it on the floor to step upon it. It is just a common sense - when we love someone we tend to care about his or her depiction and if we throw away their images, we do this with some care. 

Even more so then it is normal not mindlessly fold a very fine icon of Christ printed in colour on a piece of a very thick paper, not to make something like a plane out of it or throw it on the floor and walk over it. I agree with you that the people who do that may and probably do have an attachment to Christ yet "something" is missing there. I tend to think that "something" may be something about an immediate response, about seeing the Person.

I was thinking about what you said, the Roman Catholics do not have the Eastern Traditions re: holy images and I recalled that French, Spanish and Italian people tend to respond to the holy images in a very Orthodox way, I saw it. I think they have that inner need to connect with the Lord, His Mother and the Saints via their images. So, what I wrote about the lack of an immediate response I observed among English speaking Roman Catholics. They appear simply not to see the images. I see it as Protestant.

As for the Orthodox explanation, of how the elaborate huge iconostasis does not obscure the Eucharist built "clarifies it", it is, unfortunately, one of those "esoteric" discourses which are quite popular in the West (just like Zen meditation), probably because in the West there is not much knowledge of the history of the Eastern liturgical arts, the scheme of frescos in an Orthodox church and so on. Most importantly though, the acceptance of this argument shows the lack of that "immediate response", a feeling, a need to connect.

Without going into details, the construction of the Orthodox church, its frescos and icons (we have them on the walls as well) make it very clear that during the Liturgy the earthly Church celebrates together with the heavenly Church. We are literally surrounded by the angels and saints and merge with them. The Lord in the cupola is looking down onto the altar where the earthly church, the visible, does the Sacrifice on Golgotha; the Crucifix is standing just behind the altar. To see all that and to appreciate fully the Centre, Golgotha = the altar, must be visible. It has been like that for centuries but gradually  it became obscured: an iconostasis grew taller, the doors we shut and finally the curtain shut as well.

From a point of a common sense, the insistence that it is good for a soul not to see the Last Supper but to perceive it "via icons" would be the same as, when the Resurrected Lord came to the Apostles, Apostle Luke promptly made His icon, placed it between Christ and the others and insisted that all would communicate via the icon and not look at the Lord. The meaning of this action is a denial of a direct contact and an immediate response. The argument about relating to the Lord on the Altar via the icons which entirely cover that sight is about forcing the believers not to worship the Lord directly but “to worship Him via the worship of others, the depicted on the icons”.

There are many other things which make this argument a pious nonsense. For example, the curtain in the Temple was torn apart, symbolizing the end of impenetrable separation between God and men - but during the Eucharist the doors of the iconostasis not only closed but also the curtain is being closed. Etc.

This argument is very akin to a trend in the West to say that an iconographer is not painting an icon but "writing" it. Icons are “written” they say, to indicate the holiness of the occupation, unlike "painting lay pictures". It is pious nonsense again, because the whole thing came about as a result of... mistranslation from Greek and Russian. In Russian the word "to write" used for lay paintings and icons both and also for writing books. In English you have two different words for making books and paintings.

To sum it up, icons are for a prayer, to help a person to establish a connection with the Person. They are incredibly important for contemplation but when the Lord is visible in the Eucharist, via the actions of a priest (a priest is an icon of Christ) they out to step back.

[Anastasia]

9 hours ago, Aloysius said:

"it's ours to do with as we please" and "what is the thing that will get the most butts in the pews" and "how do we reach this group, or that group, or that group"--none of those attitudes are consistent with the spirit of the liturgy IMO.

You are right, we treat Liturgy as something so high, inspired by God that we just do not feel we can insert into it something alien to its spirit.

Commenting your discourse on “entertainment and catering” in worship you are correct, this is totally alien and even shocking attitude for an Orthodox.
I think a matter is quite easy to clarify if we begin asking why we come to the Church and how all that began.

The ancient Church gathered for the Eucharist, reading the apostolic letters, Scriptures; naturally they sang psalms. With Jewish inheritance I am sure it was very reverent.

Later on “the theological and art frame” began growing around the Eucharist and readings. Hymns were written, inspired by the developing theology, so as music. I think it is hard to argue that the liturgical arts have served as an aid for a prayer; they focus a mind and lift it up. For example, it is enough just to stand in front of an Orthodox icon and look very carefully into the face of the depicted Person (Who in fact looks at you) to still a mind. The same effect is achieved by the Bach chorales and preludes.

As for “using modern music to bring people together as a community”, people are brought together during the Liturgy via receiving Christ and becoming his Body and via focusing on Him. If everyone looks in one direction (God) they are together, effectively. I have no problem with spontaneous expressions of joy in different cultures like here, Ethiopian Orthodox during the Easter Liturgy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxgsgyPnew

I myself at times have felt like dancing a bit during the Easter service; in the Orthodox Church an equivalent of it would be going around a church in procession and endlessly shouting “Christ is risen!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kDqo3GBoE

[Anastasia]

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You may be right, but I think that understanding is superficial.  The Church makes it clear that the laity can and should reprove their shepherds when it is necessary.

What you are saying is clashing with my experience although it is limited just one Cathedral parish (with many priests). I read Catholics documents about the role of laity and they are definitely in a line with what you are saying. Yet, in both priests and laity I found that very attitude, that it is improper for a lay person to reprove the priests. In fact, the laity told me that "we just do not so that". 

I thin an Orthodox attitude to the clergy is very well expressed in a facts that we kiss the hands of our priests without any problem but we criticize them also without much problem. I think what hold those tow actions together is the reverence for God. When an Orthodox kisses a hand of a priest he revere a hand which held the Cup (the attitudes goes to the Cup, a priest being a "a shelf" for the Cup) and he challenges a priest he does out of his reverence for God's truth.

[Anastasia]

Actually, after watching the video of a tiny fragment of the Orthodox Easter service (I do not know how to insert it so it would be visible, like others do) I do not understand what “unity” anyone would need to create via catering to some preferences if it is quite evident that the people on the video are united singing the ancient hymns which express the truth of our faith.

I am quite certain that when people begin referring to the means to “unite” or “to bring more people into the church” like various styles of modern music etc. it means they somehow forgot about the primary agent of unity, God.

Here are some Eastern hymns we sing during the Easter; they do not sound as good in English though but they provide some idea.

THE PASCHAL TROPARION:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

HYPAKOE:
Before the dawn, Mary and the women came and found the stone rolled away from the tomb. They heard the angelic voice: “Why do you seek among the dead as a man the One who is Everlasting Light? Behold the clothes in the grave! Go and proclaim to the world: The Lord is risen!” He has slain death, as He is the Son of God, saving the race of men.

PASCHAL HYMN TO THE THEOTOKOS:
The angel cried to the Lady Full of Grace: Rejoice, O Pure Virgin! Again I say: Rejoice! Your Son is risen from His three days in the tomb! With Himself He has raised all the dead! Rejoice, all you people!
Shine! Shine! O New Jerusalem! The Glory of the Lord has shone on you! Exalt now and be glad, O Zion! Be radiant, O Pure Theotokos, in the Resurrection of your Son!

HYMN TO THE RESURRECTION:
Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship, the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One! We venerate Thy Cross, O Christ, and Thy Holy Resurrection we praise and glorify; for Thou art our God, and we know no other than Thee; we call on Thy name. Come, all you faithful, let us venerate Christ’s Holy Resurrection! For, behold, through the Cross joy has come into all the world. Let us ever bless the Lord, praising His Resurrection. By enduring the Cross for us, He destroyed death by death!

I guess this is what unites us, Orthodox.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Anastasia