Variations in SSPX and diocesan Mass
#31
(06-22-2011, 05:08 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 05:03 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: But you see....very few Catholics can sing well....

Yeah, I've read "Why Catholics Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste" by Thomas Day. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Catholics-Cant...0824511530

It's a depressing read, but it's really all in people's heads. If you promote a culture of good singing, then Catholics will sing just as well as Baptists and Episcopalians.

I would start with requiring all boys and men who want to be altar servers to first sing in the schola, and to sing in the schola on all days when they're not serving. The sooner we see the relationship between singiing and serving, the better the world will be.

I didn't even know that book existed! What's the jist of it?
Reply
#32
(06-22-2011, 05:10 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I didn't even know that book existed! What's the jist of it?

The book focuses mostly on American Catholicism, and compares Irish-American churches to other ethnic churches from before Vatican II like Polish, French, etc. In truth, many of the other ethnic churches had robust congregational singing, but the Irish did not for a number of historical and cultural reasons (the persecutions in Ireland, and perhaps just not wanting to be like the Anglicans).

Our schola has a hard time recruiting new members, and the most common excuse by far is "I can't sing". This is usually defeatist nonsense. Most normal men can learn to sing Gregorian chant with a moderate amount of dedication. Some trads, I've noticed, have developed a mentality where singing in the choir is a concession for girls in the family while boys serve the altar. Therefore, singing has become a wussified girls' activity, just like those banal holy cards of saints from the early 20th century with rouge and a cavity-inducing heap of sentimentalism.

Reply
#33
(06-22-2011, 05:20 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 05:10 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I didn't even know that book existed! What's the jist of it?

The book focuses mostly on American Catholicism, and compares Irish-American churches to other ethnic churches from before Vatican II like Polish, French, etc. In truth, many of the other ethnic churches had robust congregational singing, but the Irish did not for a number of historical and cultural reasons (the persecutions in Ireland, and perhaps just not wanting to be like the Anglicans).

Our schola has a hard time recruiting new members, and the most common excuse by far is "I can't sing". This is usually defeatist nonsense. Most normal men can learn to sing Gregorian chant with a moderate amount of dedication. Some trads, I've noticed, have developed a mentality where singing in the choir is a concession for girls in the family while boys serve the altar. Therefore, singing has become a wussified girls' activity, just like those banal holy cards of saints from the early 20th century with rouge and a cavity-inducing heap of sentimentalism.

LOL...so I take it you didn't like that article on Saint Anthony?
Reply
#34
(06-22-2011, 05:25 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: LOL...so I take it you didn't like that article on Saint Anthony?

That article was spot-on, but I've been bashing sentimentalist holy cards for years. Got sick of them after having worked in a Catholic gift shop.
Reply
#35
(06-21-2011, 04:59 PM)MichaelNZ Wrote: In my experience, the SSPX seems to be much more traditional than diocesan TLMs. SSPX priests always wear the maniple, while diocesan priests may not. SSPX priests often wear a lacy alb and a fiddleback chasuble. And with the SSPX you know that the sermons are going to be good and traditional.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this!  Let me give a few points:

1. All priests must wear the maniple in the TLM.  In my experience at diocesan TLMs I have never seen a priest w/o one, but if you have, you saw an abuse.

2. Lacy albs ... well I think they are nice for feasts, but not so important at all.  Fiddlebacks ... I prefer them, but there is nothing at all wrong in principle with other chasubles as well.  These things are iMHO very minor.

3. WIth the sermons ... you have a good point there.

Something odd about the SSPX thought ... from what I have seen they don't wear birettas.  I think this is fine, I hear it is a legitimate French practice ... but if you want lacy albs and fiddlebacks, why don't you want birettas?
Reply
#36
(06-22-2011, 04:36 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 04:19 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: How uniform is the TLM, really?  Is the idea of an absolutely identical worldwide Mass a rose-colored trad myth?

The TLM is pretty uniform when it comes to the actions of the Priest.  The rubrics are incredibly detailed as to what the priest must be doing at all times.  Although it is preferable to have mass in a proper setting, mass can be said on top of a jeep in the battlefield, but that doesn't change the nature of the mass.  The rubrics don't really mention anything about what's going on outside the holy of hoilies, so here you will see a lot of variety. 

Yes, I know how detailed the rubrics are.  What I am saying is, was Mass pre-V2 as pleasingly uniform as all of us post-V2 trads like to think.  No matter how rigorous the seminary, no matter how well-intentioned the priest, there HAD to be, if not abuses, then at least deviations from the rubrics.

I guess my point is, if the real Mass does become more widespread, we are going to see more of the deviations and local practices that the OP is asking about.
Reply
#37
(06-22-2011, 07:43 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 04:36 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-22-2011, 04:19 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: How uniform is the TLM, really?  Is the idea of an absolutely identical worldwide Mass a rose-colored trad myth?

The TLM is pretty uniform when it comes to the actions of the Priest.  The rubrics are incredibly detailed as to what the priest must be doing at all times.  Although it is preferable to have mass in a proper setting, mass can be said on top of a jeep in the battlefield, but that doesn't change the nature of the mass.  The rubrics don't really mention anything about what's going on outside the holy of hoilies, so here you will see a lot of variety. 

Yes, I know how detailed the rubrics are.  What I am saying is, was Mass pre-V2 as pleasingly uniform as all of us post-V2 trads like to think.  No matter how rigorous the seminary, no matter how well-intentioned the priest, there HAD to be, if not abuses, then at least deviations from the rubrics.

I guess my point is, if the real Mass does become more widespread, we are going to see more of the deviations and local practices that the OP is asking about.

Yes, you're right. There has always been liturgical abuse.

The following pictures are all from 1940s or 1950s. Can you spot what is wrong?


[Image: HB%20at%20Mass%202%20for%20web.jpg]

[Image: liturgical-reform%20early_NOM4.jpg]
[Image: sr=1]
[Image: abuseu.jpg]
[Image: liturgical-reform%20early_NOM2.jpg]
[Image: liturgical-reform%20early_NOM3.jpg]
Reply
#38
Communion in the hand, not kneeling. Table turned around, choir in front of the altar. Oh those are horrible scenes. I'd no idea those sorts of things were happening back then.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#39
(06-22-2011, 08:01 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Communion in the hand, not kneeling. Table turned around, choir in front of the altar. Oh those are horrible scenes. I'd no idea those sorts of things were happening back then.

Still missing something.  What is that couple doing?
Reply
#40
(06-22-2011, 08:01 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Communion in the hand, not kneeling. Table turned around, choir in front of the altar. Oh those are horrible scenes. I'd no idea those sorts of things were happening back then.

Choir near the altar is good. The second picture, though, has them too close for comfort.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)