FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Forget about quality, get as many people possible to say there catholic.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(01-07-2013, 11:36 PM)jim111 Wrote: [ -> ]I know the churches teaches that not only does it not want Luke warm people, but that these are wolves among the sheep who need to be driven out.

The Church doesn't teach this. We're not Jansenists (or at least we shouldn't be). The Church is open to all. We should not be lukewarm, but even the cold are invited and encouraged to come to the mass.
(01-08-2013, 02:07 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2013, 02:01 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2013, 12:55 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]A bigger problem is thinking that mass attendance should be influenced by music.  Until your friend can be convinced to go to mass for God, he's not going to go with any real purpose, even if he likes the music.

This is not a traditional approach.  Yes, it is horrible to use a rock band at mass to attract people as it's not appropriate for the sacrifice, but the Church has always been happy to take people in or encourage people to attend mass who didn't completely get it.

The principal of getting people to initially walk through a door for mass for a reason other than God isn't a bad one. I have heard of people converting after listening to some of the great Mass arrangements.  The mass is there to help us accept the grace of God not as a reward for those that already have.  If you had a trad chapel creating an amazing orchestra to get non-Catholics attend that wouldn't be bad. That would be good.

One of the reasons that Catholic missionaries were so much more successful than Protestant missionaries was that Protestants wouldn't admit natives to their Churches until they completely understood Protestant theology and approaches to scripture.  Catholic missionaries didn't have that expectation.  They would just explain the basics of the faith, teach them the rosary, and baptize them.  We shouldn't be treating the mass as if it is there for the elect and it's pointless to encourage anyone to attend unless we are sure they have received the grace of God. 

The principle, you mean!

Yes, that's all fine.  Don't disagree at all.  If you re-read my brief post, you'll notice I didn't demand any theological understanding for mass attendees.  I made the comment that a person going to mass for a reason not having to do with God (ie, going for one's self-- in case that wasn't clear) won't be going for long.  That's all.

That's not necessarily true.  Someone could begin attending a Latin mass because they liked the music or because they were a nerd and liked Latin and subsequently become converted.  I remember CollegeCatholic mentioning that he helped organize some Latin students to attend the TLM. They weren't attending because they wanted to know God. They were attending because they wanted to practice their understanding of Latin. Yet, I am sure he received graces even though they weren't attending for spiritual reasons. And it was certainly good for them to attend even if they attended for less than spiritual reasons. 
A person who spends his life going to mass because of the music is being mislead.  I'm not talking about the first, or first two, or even first dozen times going to mass.  At a certain point, the music and the aesthetics take a supplementary role to the liturgy and to one's purpose of going to mass.  If they don't, a person is not going to keep going because they can burn incense at home and listen to Chant on the computer.
(01-08-2013, 02:21 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]A person who spends his life going to mass because of the music is being mislead.  I'm not talking about the first, or first two, or even first dozen times going to mass.  At a certain point, the music and the aesthetics take a supplementary role to the liturgy and to one's purpose of going to mass.  If they don't, a person is not going to keep going because they can burn incense at home and listen to Chant on the computer.

People of course should be at mass for God. But, it's traditional to want a person in a pew for whatever reason.  It's not traditional to say someone attending mass because they like the music, or because they like the priest's sermons, or because they married a Catholic and want to keep her happy, or because they are an Italian immigrant and if they don't belong to the Church they won't know anyone in America, or a because they are a politician who wants to attend mass for political reasons is better off not going. 

HK has written posts that 100 years ago there were so many more reasons to participate in a Church than just religion.  People's entire social lives revolved around the parish.  You ever see the Godfather? Michael Corleone wasn't attending masses because he was a great Catholic...and the Church was fine with him attending masses for cultural reasons. 

When Henri IV of France converted to Catholicism the whole world knew he converted solely for political reasons. The Church didn't tell him to stop attending mass until he truly accepted the faith. 

The mass is a holy sacrifice and even people who don't receive communion receive graces.   

Do I really need to look up some old papal condemnations against the Janesnists for demanding people attend mass truly be converted.  The mass isn't a reward for the elect.  It's there for everyone. 
Basically the point is there are plenty of people who attend mass for less than stellar reasons. Maybe the mass won't ever convert them. Maybe it might take them 50 years. Ideally we want them to attend for God and to live for God, but it's not ours or even the Church's place to say they are better off not there.  You greatly underestimate how many people have historically just gone through the motions at mass. 
Jim you may also want to look at Pope Pius IV's condemnation of the following in "Auctorum fidei":

[quote]The doctrine which proposes that the Church "must be considered as one mystical body composed
of Christ, the head, and the faithful, who are its members through an ineffable union, by which in a
marvelous way we become with Him one sole priest, one sole victim, one sole perfect adorer of God
the Father, in spirit and in truth," under-stood in this sense, that no one belongs to the body of the
Church except the faithful, who are perfect adorers in spirit and in truth,—heretical.
(01-08-2013, 02:36 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2013, 02:21 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]A person who spends his life going to mass because of the music is being mislead.  I'm not talking about the first, or first two, or even first dozen times going to mass.  At a certain point, the music and the aesthetics take a supplementary role to the liturgy and to one's purpose of going to mass.  If they don't, a person is not going to keep going because they can burn incense at home and listen to Chant on the computer.

People of course should be at mass for God. But, it's traditional to want a person in a pew for whatever reason.  It's not traditional to say someone attending mass because they like the music, or because they like the priest's sermons, or because they married a Catholic and want to keep her happy, or because they are an Italian immigrant and if they don't belong to the Church they won't know anyone in America, or a because they are a politician who wants to attend mass for political reasons is better off not going. 

This is another one of those things that no one has said and that you're choosing to argue against.  Hmmm....

Quote:HK has written posts that 100 years ago there were so many more reasons to participate in a Church than just religion.  People's entire social lives revolved around the parish.  You ever see the Godfather? Michael Corleone wasn't attending masses because he was a great Catholic...and the Church was fine with him attending masses for cultural reasons. 

Yes, but the OP gave the impression that the context was Holy Mass, and the music during.  Now you are addressing "parish life" for some reason or another. 

Quote:When Henri IV of France converted to Catholicism the whole world knew he converted solely for political reasons. The Church didn't tell him to stop attending mass until he truly accepted the faith. 

Neither did I.  I wonder if the Church thinks it's better to go to mass for God than any other reason.  Because that's all I've said.

Quote:The mass is a holy sacrifice and even people who don't receive communion receive graces.   

Yes.

Quote:Do I really need to look up some old papal condemnations against the Janesnists for demanding people attend mass truly be converted.  The mass isn't a reward for the elect.  It's there for everyone. 

At least in Denzinger, this is not listed as an error of the Janesnists-- though it very well may have been.  Anyways, I think that in your zeal against misguided traditionalists who are quick to jump for their guns that you are trying to start some kind of fight with me.  I made a pretty simple statement, elaborated on it in case something wasn't all that clear, and haven't claimed to hold or believe any of the positions you're arguing against.
We take people where they are. The Church wants everyone, and the Church is for sinners. Christ came for the sick, not the well (Mt 9:11-12). Plus the Mass is for man, not for God (Mk 2:27). But we should treat it like it is for God. And the principle of bending to man has no limit. Might as well have free virgins to fill the pews. So a prudent implementation of modern musical style and instrumentation can be fitting for the Mass. We have to understand that the Creator is sought through the creation. Does the creation point to us, or to Him? (Or to us as fallen man, or as redeemed man?) That's a simple test. Is it raising minds to God, or keeping them in their everyday sinful condition? Be honest. Also be honest about the music sucking. If these guys come up with some stuff that is timeless, then we can talk. Most of it is passe the minute the first chord is strummed.
I am not pointing fingers; this is only my experience, and my thought.  Take it as you will.

When I finally came back to the Church my biggest complaint was the music.  I felt that the Church needed to Jazz it up, make in interesting!  That would get people in the pews!!

That was before I understood The Sacrifice or the Real Presence.  This is bad for a Cradle Catholic such as me.  But it is true.  Growing up I never once heard of the Sacrifice or the Real Presence.  In fact I never heard it, much less understood it, until I discovered “traditionalism”.

Once I realized what was actually happening at Mass my entire outlook changed.  My desire for entertainment at Mass stopped.  We actually have Jesus in our Church, why would we need anything else?

My personal thought is that a good number of people who desire novelty at the Mass either don’t know of the Real Presence, or just don’t believe it.

I am not saying this is your friend’s case.  I don’t know him, much less his heart.  But if I had a friend who clamored for novelty at the Mass, I would start with the Real Presence. 

Once a person “gets” there is a sacrifice taking place on the altar and that Jesus is literally, physically, body, blood and soul, in the building…once most people “get” this… then the silliness stops.
(01-08-2013, 04:00 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]We take people where they are. The Church wants everyone, and the Church is for sinners. Christ came for the sick, not the well (Mt 9:11-12). Plus the Mass is for man, not for God (Mk 2:27). But we should treat it like it is for God. And the principle of bending to man has no limit. Might as well have free virgins to fill the pews. So a prudent implementation of modern musical style and instrumentation can be fitting for the Mass. We have to understand that the Creator is sought through the creation. Does the creation point to us, or to Him? (Or to us as fallen man, or as redeemed man?) That's a simple test. Is it raising minds to God, or keeping them in their everyday sinful condition? Be honest. Also be honest about the music sucking. If these guys come up with some stuff that is timeless, then we can talk. Most of it is passe the minute the first chord is strummed.

I'm bothered by the lack of "usual caveats" in your post, Script.  Bending to man has no limit?  Wasn't it St Augustine who said "in essential things, unity, in non essentials liberty (or leniency, something to that effect) and in all things charity?"  Bending to man certainly has a limit.  But I think you know that, otherwise you wouldn't have had the qualifier "prudent" (implementation of modern musical style and instrumentation). 

If by prudent you mean music that doesn't jeopardize or compromise the integrity of the liturgy, then I would agree in principle, though I don't know if I would in practice.  Liturgy should be the best we can give.  There's a certain level of subjectivity when it comes to musical taste, but it's not all relative.  Gregorian Chant is objectively superior to Amazing Grace.  What is a better form of liturgical expression through music than chant and the like?  Traditionally, the music at the mass has been part of the mass, right?  Not integral like the words of consecration or bound to the liturgy like the canon, but nevertheless it's a part of the liturgy.  Being part of the choir is like serving mass.  It's not just something for the people to listen to while they watch the priest do his thing.  Changing the music to be more modern is changing something that is directed to give glory to God into something that is intended to give pleasure or convenience to men.  The prevailing point is not that this should be avoided (men enjoying the music at mass) but that there's an injustice if what replaces the current music is not equal or better than what was prior, in terms of it's religiosity and glorification of God.

What modern music would be appropriate and prudent?  I don't listen to much anymore, but one of my favorite groups is a band of anarcho-socialists from Montreal called Godspeed You! Black Emperor.  They're entirely instrumental, and their albums are usually just four tracks done in movements, each track being around twenty minutes to a half hour long.  I think the first six minutes of this song are absolutely heavenly.  Soul-lifting and inspiring.  Would recommend to anyone.  Do I think it should be played during the offertory at mass?  Probably not, even though it's in perfectly good taste and is objectively beautiful.  I even think it gives glory to God in it's own way.



As an aside, didn't VII stipulate that the normative method of music for all Roman rites should be Gregorian chant?
Pages: 1 2 3