I just ordered my brand new 1962 Missal from Catholic Overstock. It is the Baronius Press version, and was on sale for 50% off. That's right, ladies and gentlemen HALF PRICE. Including taxes and shipping, that made my total a bit over thirty bucks! I have been wanting to buy one for six months or so, but the $60 price (both from Baronius Press and Angelus Press) was a bit too much to swallow, at least without a mass in which to use the missal in the first place! But at this price, I couldn't see waiting.
Now comes the anticipation! I have been using the remains of a hand-me-down Saint Joseph's Daily Missal to read and refer to. This is made quite difficult by the fact that the binding was about 80% destroyed 20-some years ago by my then puppy Border Collie (as was every book on the bottom two shelves of my bookcase). The semi loose-leaf format can be a bit difficult, so I am all the more excited about the new one. Not that I have use for it in an actual mass right now, as there are none in these here parts, but I am hoping and praying every day that, God willing, that will change soon.
I don't know how many will read this, or are wanting to buy a missal, but it's impossible to beat that price. You can't hardly buy an old one on ebay for that. Plus, unlike ebay, I have no worries about condition, or which version of the missal I am getting. I am no expert on these things but I know that many small changes to the mass and the calendar were made in the 1950's and I would be hard pressed to know which version is which. With a new one, I have the you betcha 10-4 roger official version. I have never dealt with them before, so I have no experience on which to base a recommendation, but if you are looking to buy a missal, they are worth a look.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Church Music
Irreconcilable. That's the only way to describe it - yesterdays Mass.
How can a service that starts out with what is possibly the most insipid song to ever be performed in or out of Church also include a breathtaking Ave Maria ( I cried ) and a chanted Salve Regina??? How so the decisions get made that leave you with that conundrum???
I could see if all of the music was glorious, or all of the music was lame. That would be understandable - the music director would be either a genius or a tasteless idiot. But how do you get half-and-half?
I am not trying to be a cranky old blogger, the mass was beautiful, plain and simple. I just don't get it. I would appreciate any input....
How can a service that starts out with what is possibly the most insipid song to ever be performed in or out of Church also include a breathtaking Ave Maria ( I cried ) and a chanted Salve Regina??? How so the decisions get made that leave you with that conundrum???
I could see if all of the music was glorious, or all of the music was lame. That would be understandable - the music director would be either a genius or a tasteless idiot. But how do you get half-and-half?
I am not trying to be a cranky old blogger, the mass was beautiful, plain and simple. I just don't get it. I would appreciate any input....
Mothers Day
My wife is perfect. Yes, I know, that only the Blessed Mother was perfect, and yes, I know what that means. My wife is perfect for me. If I could write a description of everything I needed or wanted in a wife, I'd still wind up with her, I have no doubt.
That having been said, she is also as perfect a Mom as she could possibly be and still be human. She is loving, patient - strong and soft at the same time. She is so focused on teaching and nurturing our three girls that I am constantly amazed. I mean, I try to be a good Daddy, and I think I do okay, but I am nowhere near her league. The funny thing is, that, prior to the birth of our first child some 5 years ago, she would not - literally would not - hold a baby. That fear/hesitance lasted about three days, and since then she has been on an uninterrupted climb to Mommy Stardom. I am so lucky. I am so blessed.
I guess I was in childhood, too. My own mother, who passed on 15 years ago this week, was amazing. She made me who and what I am (at least the good parts). I Loved her dearly. I still do, I suppose, and always will.
That having been said, she is also as perfect a Mom as she could possibly be and still be human. She is loving, patient - strong and soft at the same time. She is so focused on teaching and nurturing our three girls that I am constantly amazed. I mean, I try to be a good Daddy, and I think I do okay, but I am nowhere near her league. The funny thing is, that, prior to the birth of our first child some 5 years ago, she would not - literally would not - hold a baby. That fear/hesitance lasted about three days, and since then she has been on an uninterrupted climb to Mommy Stardom. I am so lucky. I am so blessed.
I guess I was in childhood, too. My own mother, who passed on 15 years ago this week, was amazing. She made me who and what I am (at least the good parts). I Loved her dearly. I still do, I suppose, and always will.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Music and Mass
Quantity:
I know this may be considered heresy by some in the traditionalist world, considering their (and my) love for sung high masses, etc. However, the fact is that the music in most Catholic churches is as weak as circus lemonade - and I'm not talking about insipid lyrics here. This is coming from someone who LOVES to sing, in church and otherwise, and does so pretty well, having been complimented on my voice many times. I much prefer the semi-silent, spoken "low" mass to the far more common four-hymn semi-sung variety. Not that I don't love chant and singing in mass. In fact, during lent, the other church I attend had the usual four hymns, plus chanted kyrie, sanctus, and agnus dei, and I loved it.
That may seem somewhat bi-polar, but I think it's the right way. If you are going to be silent, prayerful, reverent, then be so, if you are going to sing, then sing it all!! Don't try to compromise, because then all you get is a mess -- enough singing to intrude upon and prevent a reverent-silent atmosphere, but not enough to create a glorious uplifting one.
Quality:
The other issue, apart from the format, is the quality of the hymns themselves. Some years ago, I noticed that, if a hymn was poorly written and bland, I could look down to the bottom of the page in the hymnal and see the name Schutte. I hear a lot of people on the blogs talk about Haugen & Hass, but I don't seem to hear a lot of their product (though what I do hear is bland).
I am no music theorist, but it seems to me that, if you begin to sing a hymn and it is pleasant, flows well, and is both easy and rewarding to sing, it was written proir to the last century. Those hymns sing like they were meant to be sung. On the other hand, the newer hymns seem to be stilted and lame. There are many odd, uncomfortable changes in tone and cadence, making them awkward and clumsy. It's as if the writers couldn't write a normal, good song, so they had to throw in a few "twists" to make it "interesting". My lack of musical "literacy" makes me a mere civilian in these matters, but I have common sense and a pretty good ear. I am also observant enough to notice that the older hymns tend to have people singing along joyflly - lots of participation. While the newer ones are almost left unsung save for the choir. With some hymns, it's as if the hymn itself almost makes you sing it in a balls-out from-the-heart fashion. Imaging, for instance, trying to sing Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee softly and with no emation - it's almost impossible. Or Amazing Grace in a cold, lifeless way - it can't be done.
Sing like you mean it, that's the idea. I understand that some people are uncomfortable singing in public, and that's okay, but even hymns sung softly, and with feeling, get to God's ears just fine. Not everybody was given the gift of a beautiful voice, but we were all given souls. A hymn should not be a hindrance to bearing your that soul to God in song.
I know this may be considered heresy by some in the traditionalist world, considering their (and my) love for sung high masses, etc. However, the fact is that the music in most Catholic churches is as weak as circus lemonade - and I'm not talking about insipid lyrics here. This is coming from someone who LOVES to sing, in church and otherwise, and does so pretty well, having been complimented on my voice many times. I much prefer the semi-silent, spoken "low" mass to the far more common four-hymn semi-sung variety. Not that I don't love chant and singing in mass. In fact, during lent, the other church I attend had the usual four hymns, plus chanted kyrie, sanctus, and agnus dei, and I loved it.
That may seem somewhat bi-polar, but I think it's the right way. If you are going to be silent, prayerful, reverent, then be so, if you are going to sing, then sing it all!! Don't try to compromise, because then all you get is a mess -- enough singing to intrude upon and prevent a reverent-silent atmosphere, but not enough to create a glorious uplifting one.
Quality:
The other issue, apart from the format, is the quality of the hymns themselves. Some years ago, I noticed that, if a hymn was poorly written and bland, I could look down to the bottom of the page in the hymnal and see the name Schutte. I hear a lot of people on the blogs talk about Haugen & Hass, but I don't seem to hear a lot of their product (though what I do hear is bland).
I am no music theorist, but it seems to me that, if you begin to sing a hymn and it is pleasant, flows well, and is both easy and rewarding to sing, it was written proir to the last century. Those hymns sing like they were meant to be sung. On the other hand, the newer hymns seem to be stilted and lame. There are many odd, uncomfortable changes in tone and cadence, making them awkward and clumsy. It's as if the writers couldn't write a normal, good song, so they had to throw in a few "twists" to make it "interesting". My lack of musical "literacy" makes me a mere civilian in these matters, but I have common sense and a pretty good ear. I am also observant enough to notice that the older hymns tend to have people singing along joyflly - lots of participation. While the newer ones are almost left unsung save for the choir. With some hymns, it's as if the hymn itself almost makes you sing it in a balls-out from-the-heart fashion. Imaging, for instance, trying to sing Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee softly and with no emation - it's almost impossible. Or Amazing Grace in a cold, lifeless way - it can't be done.
Sing like you mean it, that's the idea. I understand that some people are uncomfortable singing in public, and that's okay, but even hymns sung softly, and with feeling, get to God's ears just fine. Not everybody was given the gift of a beautiful voice, but we were all given souls. A hymn should not be a hindrance to bearing your that soul to God in song.
Sermons and Readings
I had the good fortune to be able to attend mass on Sunday at my "home" Church. And what a treat it was. Father Duc preached one of the most moving, inspiring sermons (I don't like the term "homily", it just plain sounds goofy to me) I've heard in years. Generally he's very good, but this week he was just awesome.
Plus he tied the sermon with the readings of the mass in a real reinforcing positive way. That is something that so rarely happens nowadays. So often a sermon has a passing reference to the Gospel reading, and then rambles on from there. Father Duc is actually generally better than a lot of priests at making the whole package work together, and like I said, he nailed it on Sunday!
Plus... it being the early morning Mass, there was no singing at all. No hymns, no organ, no sung responsorial psalm. LOTS of silence, focus, praying, and reverence.
Plus he tied the sermon with the readings of the mass in a real reinforcing positive way. That is something that so rarely happens nowadays. So often a sermon has a passing reference to the Gospel reading, and then rambles on from there. Father Duc is actually generally better than a lot of priests at making the whole package work together, and like I said, he nailed it on Sunday!
Plus... it being the early morning Mass, there was no singing at all. No hymns, no organ, no sung responsorial psalm. LOTS of silence, focus, praying, and reverence.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
RIP Jolly Wally
Wally Schirra, one of my boyhood (and adulthood) heroes died today.
What a Cool Guy.
May he Rest in Peace.
'tis all a checker board of Knights and days,
where destiny, with men for pieces plays
hither and thither moves and mates and slays
and one by one, back in the closet lays
EXTRAORDINARY means......
extraordinary
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English extraordinarie, from Latin extraordinarius, from extra ordinem out of course, from extra + ordinem, accusative of ordin-, ordo order
1 a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary b : exceptional to a very marked extent
Pretty straight forward, don't you think? Now how about this...
ordinary
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ordinarie, from Latin ordinarius, from ordin-, ordo order
1 : of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events : ROUTINE, USUALordinary day>
Ref: Merriam-Webster for the above
Easy one there, too, huh???
These two terms having been established, I would love for someone to explain to me why, at every Sunday Mass at EVERY parish in my area, there are at least three, and often as many as seven EXTRAORDINARY ministers giving communion! If it is ROUTINE, then it, by definition cannot be EXTRAORDINARY!!
There is apparently no practical reason for this procedure. Though I am sure that the standard argument is that communion will take too long if there are not a priest and seven EMHC's to give communion, but that is patently wrong, at least as far as I have seen. For instance, Sunday last, at the Mass I attended there were about 300 communicants. It takes a bit under 3 seconds to deal with each one (I timed it, I'm anal that way). That means, with one priest, communion would have taken about 15 minutes. In fact it took about 8 minutes, start to finish. A savings of 7 minutes, or almost 50%. Looks pretty efficient, no??
Ahhhhh, but not so fast!!!! You see, the presence of these 7 "ministers" means that the priest now has 5 chalices, and 4 ciboria (instead of one of each, respectively) to handle, fill, distribute, collect, and purify. That process takes time. If you then add in the time it takes for these ministers to get up on the altar, communicate each other, form up, and peel off to their positions, it all adds up to about 5 minutes. Hence leaving a net "savings" of 2 minutes... TWO MINUTES!
Then there is the functional problem of having 8 lines of people at the front of the church, jostling for space, bumping into one another (albeit politely). It's a zoo. My 80 year old father can't even GO to communion, except at the 7:00 AM service, when there is a smaller crowd.
Then there is the more important part, to me. That is the "us and them" aspect of the whole thing. The priest does the consecration and his own communion, etc. Then what happens?? We, the poor souls in the pews, have to wait patiently while a half dozen "anointed ones" go up on the altar, where they don't belong to begin with, and go through an elaborate aren't-we-so-special ritual of their own oh-so-special communion, and then, only after they are done, do they "come down" to the level of the groundlings and pass out communion.
All in all, the whole thing is about the most decidedly irreverent and unnecessary procedure in the Mass today. To me, it is tantamount to having the congregation wash the feet of the priest and parish council every Easter - it is backwards and offensive.
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English extraordinarie, from Latin extraordinarius, from extra ordinem out of course, from extra + ordinem, accusative of ordin-, ordo order
1 a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary b : exceptional to a very marked extent
Pretty straight forward, don't you think? Now how about this...
ordinary
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ordinarie, from Latin ordinarius, from ordin-, ordo order
1 : of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events : ROUTINE, USUAL
Ref: Merriam-Webster for the above
Easy one there, too, huh???
These two terms having been established, I would love for someone to explain to me why, at every Sunday Mass at EVERY parish in my area, there are at least three, and often as many as seven EXTRAORDINARY ministers giving communion! If it is ROUTINE, then it, by definition cannot be EXTRAORDINARY!!
There is apparently no practical reason for this procedure. Though I am sure that the standard argument is that communion will take too long if there are not a priest and seven EMHC's to give communion, but that is patently wrong, at least as far as I have seen. For instance, Sunday last, at the Mass I attended there were about 300 communicants. It takes a bit under 3 seconds to deal with each one (I timed it, I'm anal that way). That means, with one priest, communion would have taken about 15 minutes. In fact it took about 8 minutes, start to finish. A savings of 7 minutes, or almost 50%. Looks pretty efficient, no??
Ahhhhh, but not so fast!!!! You see, the presence of these 7 "ministers" means that the priest now has 5 chalices, and 4 ciboria (instead of one of each, respectively) to handle, fill, distribute, collect, and purify. That process takes time. If you then add in the time it takes for these ministers to get up on the altar, communicate each other, form up, and peel off to their positions, it all adds up to about 5 minutes. Hence leaving a net "savings" of 2 minutes... TWO MINUTES!
Then there is the functional problem of having 8 lines of people at the front of the church, jostling for space, bumping into one another (albeit politely). It's a zoo. My 80 year old father can't even GO to communion, except at the 7:00 AM service, when there is a smaller crowd.
Then there is the more important part, to me. That is the "us and them" aspect of the whole thing. The priest does the consecration and his own communion, etc. Then what happens?? We, the poor souls in the pews, have to wait patiently while a half dozen "anointed ones" go up on the altar, where they don't belong to begin with, and go through an elaborate aren't-we-so-special ritual of their own oh-so-special communion, and then, only after they are done, do they "come down" to the level of the groundlings and pass out communion.
All in all, the whole thing is about the most decidedly irreverent and unnecessary procedure in the Mass today. To me, it is tantamount to having the congregation wash the feet of the priest and parish council every Easter - it is backwards and offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
