Charismatic Worship

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' date='08 September 2009 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1252427704' post='1963321']
Traditional Catholic spirituality is founded in the will, not in obtaining charismatic experiences.
[/quote]
Yes. The Eastern Fathers called the liturgy "a pure and reasonable oblation."

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='mortify' date='08 September 2009 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1252427704' post='1963321']
Traditional Catholic spirituality is founded in the will, not in obtaining charismatic experiences.
[/quote]

Whatever your opinion on Catholic spirituality or what that should be, it has nothing to do with whether or not short portions of the mass (gloria, communion, etc.) should be open to charismatic worship (not synonymous with chaotic or disorderly worship). I'd encourage you to stick with that topic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1252436244' post='1963375']
Whatever your opinion on Catholic spirituality or what that should be, it has nothing to do with whether or not short portions of the mass (gloria, communion, etc.) should be open to charismatic worship (not synonymous with chaotic or disorderly worship). I'd encourage you to stick with that topic.
[/quote]
It is a principle of Catholic liturgical theology that "no one, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority" [Vatican II, [i]Sacrosantum Concilium[/i], no. 22; see also CIC, canon 846 §1].

Edited September 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1252436244' post='1963375']
Whatever your opinion on Catholic spirituality or what that should be, it has nothing to do with whether or not short portions of the mass (gloria, communion, etc.) should be open to charismatic worship (not synonymous with chaotic or disorderly worship). I'd encourage you to stick with that topic.
[/quote]

I believe we should continue in the living tradition of the Roman Catholic Church (or any legitimate Apostolic tradition), and so I personally believe we should avoid novel practices that find their origin outside of a legitimate Apostolic tradition.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 September 2009 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1252437624' post='1963384']
It is a principle of Catholic liturgical theology that "no one, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority" [Vatican II, [i]Sacrosantum Concilium[/i], no. 22; see also CIC, canon 846 §1].
[/quote]



That would include, but not be limited to times of "free praise" in my opinion. It is appropriate to either have music or silence after communion. Free praise is neither.

[mvi18th]

While I am not for Charismatic Masses (another time I may tell the story of going to Mass at our Cathedral expecting Gregorian chants but instead greeted with a hippie Mass) - I would encourage everyone to look outside your own culture before condemning certain parts of a Charismatic Mass without thinking outside the box.

My parish is lucky enough to have 4 ethnic communities (European descendants, Filipino, Brazilian and Hispanic) thriving together and somewhat separate – in the fact that while everyone is invited to all the Masses, there are specific separate masses weekly for the Filipino, Brazilian and Hispanic communities.

When you visit these Masses with open eyes, you can see where the culture has crept in – while what is being said is the same, the songs and how the parish participates, is totally different than that of the European descendants.

Is it wrong or more of a remembrance of home? Just because it is easy enough for most American parishes to have an organ – most rural 3rd world parishes are lucky to have a guitar and they do the best with the limited resources they have.

Are we better than them because we have an organ? I don’t think so, in fact I have been moved more by 4 guitars and 10 singers singing to the Lord in Portuguese than almost any song done in English.

If you have the opportunity, visit a parish offering Mass from a different culture – you will be surprised at how it can change you.

[Slappo]

[quote name='mvi18th' date='08 September 2009 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1252450821' post='1963525']
Is it wrong or more of a remembrance of home? Just because it is easy enough for most American parishes to have an organ – most rural 3rd world parishes are lucky to have a guitar and they do the best with the limited resources they have.

Are we better than them because we have an organ? I don’t think so, in fact I have been moved more by 4 guitars and 10 singers singing to the Lord in Portuguese than almost any song done in English.
[/quote]

Part of the reason the organ is the prized instrument of use in the mass is that it resembles vocal chords in the way it makes music. Air traveling through pipes to create different pitches.

Human vocals is the most sacred form of music, not the organ.

[iheartjp2]

While I respect all opinions expressed, I think it would help the discussion to move a bit more if you looked (not skimmed) previous posts. A lot of these things, I've already addressed.

As for adding to or taking away from the liturgy, a bishop allowing a parish to have a one-minute period between the end of the gloria and a reprise of the last stanza thereof to praise God in tongues, lift their hands, etc. (not to be exuberant, but to be non-verbally expressive) or to allow people to do the same quietly during communion is not adding to or taking away from the liturgy. The beauty of having a liturgy is that it provides definitive structure so that things like that can take place and not completely take over the mass. I've heard people commonly speak of charismatic praise as a deterrant to truly centered mass participation. I've never seen people so immersed in the liturgy anywhere else but at Christ the King.

As I said before, Reverence comes from the inside out. Solemnity is an outward attitude that doesn't necessarily change someone internally. For someone to be reverent, they have to allow themselves to be put in that place by God before the mass even begins. My parish is nowhere NEAR to being a "hippie" parish or is in any way, shape, or form theologically or liturgically liberal in the conventional sense of the word. It's one of 3 places that one can participate in a mass said strictly according to the GIRM in a town that has five Catholic parishes.

Here's a question that I pose to those who believe that we should hold to that which is traditionally Catholic: have you read the Acts of the Apostles? I know the Church doesn't look the way it did then at all, far from it, but one must ask, is this some infultration, or is it what was originally ours that some who were separated picked up on? I don't think that anyone can argue that the use of the gifts, even in the gathering of Christians is something that's strictly Protestant with the evidence we have that the early Church was Catholic. Then the Church didn't really have the liturgy cut and polished the way we have it now. There were times in which the Church had to admonish certain communities about getting carried away. There are abuses that can happen, I'm not denying it. It's just that now we have the beauty of the liturgy, some guidelines we can follow, parameters within which we can stay. I don't see any reason why the Spirit can't be visibly seen and glorified now the way He was then.

Slappo, about the organ, did you know that at one time, it was forbidden to be used in churches? Organs were originally used in taverns and bars where there was carousing and other licentious behavior. In the early Church, there were some people so turned off to instruments because of the possibility that they would be distracting that they got rid of them altogether. Apotheon is a member of one of those parts of the Church that did get rid of them, so he should know best. While I don't think that EVERY instrument has its place, I think that there are instruments that aren't usually found in churches that can be played in ways that suit the liturgy just fine. God simply takes pleasure in the worship given to him, be it on a guitar/variant thereof (there probably were some of those used in churches during the medieval/renaissance/baroque periods) or any number of instruments that aren't typically found in churches (such as orchestral ones). I don't think it's accurate or fair to assume that the instruments sometimes used at mass are there to give the people pleasure. They're there to give God praise, which is what [i]should[/i] be the point of any instrument. Whether or not one gets caught up in it himself and is therefor distracted isn't a universal problem, it's his problem.

Edited September 9, 2009 by iheartjp2

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1252468762' post='1963710']
Slappo, about the organ, did you know that at one time, it was forbidden to be used in churches? Organs were originally used in taverns and bars where there was carousing and other licentious behavior. In the early Church, there were some people so turned off to instruments because of the possibility that they would be distracting that they got rid of them altogether. Apotheon is a member of one of those parts of the Church that did get rid of them, so he should know best. [/quote]
Actually, the Eastern Churches never "got rid" of musical instruments; instead, instruments were never introduced into their liturgies. The Western Church only allowed the use of certain musical instruments in the late middle ages, and prior to that time only the human voice was used in worship in both East and West.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='09 September 2009 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1252475914' post='1963749']
Actually, the Eastern Churches never "got rid" of musical instruments; instead, instruments were never introduced into their liturgies. The Western Church only allowed the use of certain musical instruments in the late middle ages, and prior to that time only the human voice was used in worship in both East and West.
[/quote]

Ethiopian Catholics, if I am not mistaken use drums in their liturgies.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 September 2009 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1252487632' post='1963769']
Ethiopian Catholics, if I am not mistaken use drums in their liturgies.
[/quote]
If they do, then they do so against the teaching of patristic tradition. I suggest reading James W. McKinnon's dissertation entitled "The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments," which is considered the definitive treatment on the use of musical instruments during the liturgy. That said, modern usage in a single Eastern Catholic Church, or in the Latin Church for that matter, does not overturn the unanimous teaching of the first 1,000 years of Christian history.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

One of my Charisms is Chant.

I think by Charismatic Mass we in the West usually mean spunky emotionally sweet Mass.

[Slappo]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1252468762' post='1963710']
While I respect all opinions expressed, I think it would help the discussion to move a bit more if you looked (not skimmed) previous posts. A lot of these things, I've already addressed.

As for adding to or taking away from the liturgy, [b]a bishop allowing a parish to have a one-minute period between the end of the gloria and a reprise of the last stanza thereof to praise God in tongues, lift their hands, etc. (not to be exuberant, but to be non-verbally expressive) or to allow people to do the same quietly during communion is not adding to or taking away from the liturgy[/b]. The beauty of having a liturgy is that it provides definitive structure so that things like that can take place and not completely take over the mass. I've heard people commonly speak of charismatic praise as a deterrant to truly centered mass participation. I've never seen people so immersed in the liturgy anywhere else but at Christ the King.
[/quote]

Says who? The Gloria does not include a 1 minute interlude with various praise and worship words which are surely not written down in any missal. In past years Franciscan University used to do something similar at the Great Amen, but it has ceased in the past two years because it is not appropriate to the liturgy.


[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1252468762' post='1963710']
As I said before, Reverence comes from the inside out. Solemnity is an outward attitude that doesn't necessarily change someone internally. For someone to be reverent, they have to allow themselves to be put in that place by God before the mass even begins. My parish is nowhere NEAR to being a "hippie" parish or is in any way, shape, or form theologically or liturgically liberal in the conventional sense of the word. It's one of 3 places that one can participate in a mass said strictly according to the GIRM in a town that has five Catholic parishes.

Here's a question that I pose to those who believe that we should hold to that which is traditionally Catholic: have you read the Acts of the Apostles? I know the Church doesn't look the way it did then at all, far from it, but one must ask, is this some infultration, or is it what was originally ours that some who were separated picked up on? I don't think that anyone can argue that the use of the gifts, even in the gathering of Christians is something that's strictly Protestant with the evidence we have that the early Church was Catholic. Then the Church didn't really have the liturgy cut and polished the way we have it now. There were times in which the Church had to admonish certain communities about getting carried away. There are abuses that can happen, I'm not denying it. It's just that now we have the beauty of the liturgy, some guidelines we can follow, parameters within which we can stay. I don't see any reason why the Spirit can't be visibly seen and glorified now the way He was then.
[/quote]

Traditional Catholicism doesn't mean sticking with the old stuff. Very few traditional Catholics want the older public confessionals and multiple year penances. Traditional means flowing from the traditions of the Church, which the Charismatic movement does not, especially seeing that it came from outside the Church. Following in the traditions of the Church means organic growth, natural change keeping in line with what the Church has practiced for 2,000 years. There was very little organic about what happened in between Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Novus Ordo mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium itself could have been organic change in the Church flowing from Her traditions, but the allowances made in it were abused. The late 1960's and early 70's were more like genetic engineering then organic growth .


[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1252468762' post='1963710']
Slappo, about the organ, did you know that at one time, it was forbidden to be used in churches? Organs were originally used in taverns and bars where there was carousing and other licentious behavior. In the early Church, there were some people so turned off to instruments because of the possibility that they would be distracting that they got rid of them altogether. Apotheon is a member of one of those parts of the Church that did get rid of them, so he should know best. While I don't think that EVERY instrument has its place, I think that there are instruments that aren't usually found in churches that can be played in ways that suit the liturgy just fine. God simply takes pleasure in the worship given to him, be it on a guitar/variant thereof (there probably were some of those used in churches during the medieval/renaissance/baroque periods) or any number of instruments that aren't typically found in churches (such as orchestral ones). I don't think it's accurate or fair to assume that the instruments sometimes used at mass are there to give the people pleasure. They're there to give God praise, which is what [i]should[/i] be the point of any instrument. Whether or not one gets caught up in it himself and is therefor distracted isn't a universal problem, it's his problem.
[/quote]


That doesn't make a difference about what I said concerning the organ... I didn't say the organ was a particularly sacred instrument, I said the reason it is prized above all other instruments is that it most closely resembles the human voice. How does it's use in secular places have to do at all with anything I said? As you can see from Eastern Tradition that we in the West have lost, it is the human voice that gives the highest praise to the Lord not an instrument (this does not of course mean that you cannot praise the Lord with instruments).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='09 September 2009 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1252511560' post='1963826']
One of my Charisms is Chant.

I think by Charismatic Mass we in the West usually mean spunky emotionally sweet Mass.
[/quote]
Ah yes, [i]a cappella[/i] chant!!! Now that is the music of the universal Church.

"David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." + St. John Chrysostom, [i]Exposition on Psalms[/i], no. 41

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='09 September 2009 - 09:02 AM' timestamp='1252512157' post='1963829']
Ah yes, [i]a cappella[/i] chant!!! Now that is the music of the universal Church.

"David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." + St. John Chrysostom, [i]Exposition on Psalms[/i], no. 41
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that Apo, that's sweet

I St. John Chrysostom.

God grant you many years,
Marcus

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Slappo' date='09 September 2009 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1252512145' post='1963828']
That doesn't make a difference about what I said concerning the organ... I didn't say the organ was a particularly sacred instrument, I said the reason it is prized above all other instruments is that it most closely resembles the human voice. How does it's use in secular places have to do at all with anything I said? As you can see from Eastern Tradition that we in the West have lost, it is the human voice that gives the highest praise to the Lord not an instrument (this does not of course mean that you cannot praise the Lord with instruments).
[/quote]
Yes, the Church Fathers (both Eastern and Western) condemned the use of musical instruments during worship, for they they saw those instruments as lifeless, and in their place they extolled the incarnational value of the living human voice, for the human voice is the only instrument made by God Himself, and also used by God personally while He walked as a Man among men.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='08 September 2009 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1252468762' post='1963710']
Here's a question that I pose to those who believe that we should hold to that which is traditionally Catholic: have you read the Acts of the Apostles? I know the Church doesn't look the way it did then at all, far from it, but one must ask, is this some infultration, or is it what was originally ours that some who were separated picked up on? I don't think that anyone can argue that the use of the gifts, even in the gathering of Christians is something that's strictly Protestant with the evidence we have that the early Church was Catholic. Then the Church didn't really have the liturgy cut and polished the way we have it now. There were times in which the Church had to admonish certain communities about getting carried away. There are abuses that can happen, I'm not denying it. It's just that now we have the beauty of the liturgy, some guidelines we can follow, parameters within which we can stay. I don't see any reason why the Spirit can't be visibly seen and glorified now the way He was then.
[/quote]

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that these gifts die out in the early Church, and the liturgy mature for two millenia without it. Certain Saints like St Xavier received the gift of tongues outside of the liturgy, but this was the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language in order to spread the Gospel. Whatever the Protestants may call "speaking in tongues" it may not be what the early Christians meant by it.

[Slappo]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 September 2009 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1252513052' post='1963835']
[b]It was the will of the Holy Spirit that these gifts die out in the early Church, and the liturgy mature for two millenia without it.[/b] Certain Saints like St Xavier received the gift of tongues outside of the liturgy, but this was the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language in order to spread the Gospel. Whatever the Protestants may call "speaking in tongues" it may not be what the early Christians meant by it.
[/quote]

I disagree with that statement. No where does the Church teach that particular gifts have "died out" by the will of the Holy Spirit.

I definitely agree that what Protestants, and now many Catholics refer to as tongues may not be, and is probably not what the early Christians meant by it. St. Xavier's example of tongues follows scripture better as well. His gift of tongues is a correction of Babel, a perfection of it you might say. What was once scattered due to evil, has now been made pure and renewed by the Holy Spirit.

[Apotheoun]

I agree, the gifts of the Spirit have not died out, but the liturgy is not the place for spontaneity, emotionalism, and individualism; rather, it is the place where the whole body of Christ - according to the liturgical tradition of a [i]sui juris[/i] Church - worships God as one.

[Apotheoun]

If people during the liturgy are "speaking in tongues" or are supposedly crying out with "prophetic words of knowledge" I cannot in fact assent to such things, for I have no way of knowing if what they are saying conforms to Catholic truth, and the fact that I cannot simply assent to their utterances means that the unity of the Body is broken, for the liturgy is not about what a particular individual may or may not believe, but concerns the one faith of the whole Church, which all must believe.