Beyond that, “Introibo ad altare Dei” is a cultural marker. It’s one of those tag-phrases that surfaces again and again in literature and simply cries out “Catholic” (or at least “Roman Catholic”). It’s deeply regrettable that the postconciliar liturgical reformers chose to excise it.

The offertory prayers I don’t feel so strongly about, but they are pretty majestic and emphasize the sacrificial character of the mass, which might stand a bit more emphasizing these days.

Btw we’re almost exactly the same age… Have you ever been to mass in the older form?

More later if I can find the time. My main thought about taste & aesthetics & so forth is that one can make all the good arguments one likes in favor of celebrating the liturgy in one particular manner or another, but in the end the best argument is from tradition. “We should do it this way because that’s how the generations before us did it” is a poor argument in many contexts but a very strong argument–I’d say the strongest–in a discussion about liturgy. I confess that I’ve lifted this idea from Joseph Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy”, and it’s really the conclusion of an extended biblical reflection there that begins in Exodus, but at any rate I found it all very convincing.

Mass would be, first of all, almost entirely sung from beginning to end — excluding the celebrant’s offertory prayers and the anaphora, but ABSOLUTELY including the readings and the general intercessions — and without artificial amplification. Microphones and speakers would be donated to thrift stores.

YES! I can definitely get behind that.

* All four Graduale propers would be sung, especially the Gradual itself, probably in Latin unless the traditional chant melodies could be preserved in translation (please may I just hear ‘Audi Filia’ sung at Mass once before I die?). The congregation would sing the psalm verses and doxology in English.

I’m in favor of Propers(+hymns). My preference would be to “mix it up” with Propers settings: latin, english, chant, polyphony, choral. There are so many good Proper cycles, it would be a shame to not hear several of them.

Mass would be celebrated ad-orientem or at least in the ‘Benedictine’ manner (i.e., prominent crucifix on the altar between the celebrant and the people). Meanwhile the celebrant’s chair would face liturgical north and would be placed “off to the side” (I’m assuming a traditional small-church floor plan) — so that, by and large, the celebrant would face the people only when the Missal explicitly directs him to turn toward the people.

One day I want to have an all-out, no-holds-barred knock-down debate on orientation. In the mean time, I’ll just say: my preferences differ from yours. (Although I am in favor of the chair being on the side, instead of up front.)

The Roman Canon would be used far more often than any other anaphora (certainly it would be the norm on Sundays). If we could borrow the Anglican-Use translation that would be awesome; if not, the new ICEL translation will be just fine. Regularly, though (perhaps once a month), it would be prayed in Latin — so that every Roman Catholic could hear the music and poetry of the central prayer of the Mass, as it has been prayed for far more than a thousand years.

I don’t even understand why there are other EPs besides the Roman Canon. This is not a time or place for variety.

A few of the elements that were removed in 1970 would be restored (mainly the Introibo/Psalm-42, the ninefold Kyrie, and the celebrant’s old offertory prayers).

Other than the 9-fold Kyrie, I don’t know what you’re talking about (I was born in 1982).

Composed-fresh-each-week General Intercessions would be suppressed in favor of either (a) nothing, which is really the more Roman way, or (b) a fixed, time-proven text, like the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (which would, of course, be chanted by a deacon vested in dalmatic, facing liturgical east)

AMEN TO THAT! The Anglicans have a nice Intercessions for Morning Prayer I might consider. But these made-up-by-the–lady-who-does-the-bulletin prayers have GOT TO GO.

I think I disagree with the last two, but I’m not sure- I’ll have to think about it more before I say so.

Thanks again for reading!

Or maybe a more fundamental question is, what do you mean by “aesthetic of liturgy” in particular and how does that relate to the concept of “taste”, which you mention often in the half-dozen or so posts here that I’ve read this evening?

Might as well do a full disclosure here and say that, given my druthers:

* Mass would be, first of all, almost entirely sung from beginning to end — excluding the celebrant’s offertory prayers and the anaphora, but ABSOLUTELY including the readings and the general intercessions — and without artificial amplification. Microphones and speakers would be donated to thrift stores.

* All four Graduale propers would be sung, especially the Gradual itself, probably in Latin unless the traditional chant melodies could be preserved in translation (please may I just hear ‘Audi Filia’ sung at Mass once before I die?). The congregation would sing the psalm verses and doxology in English.

* Mass would be celebrated ad-orientem or at least in the ‘Benedictine’ manner (i.e., prominent crucifix on the altar between the celebrant and the people). Meanwhile the celebrant’s chair would face liturgical north and would be placed “off to the side” (I’m assuming a traditional small-church floor plan) — so that, by and large, the celebrant would face the people only when the Missal explicitly directs him to turn toward the people.

* The Roman Canon would be used far more often than any other anaphora (certainly it would be the norm on Sundays). If we could borrow the Anglican-Use translation that would be awesome; if not, the new ICEL translation will be just fine. Regularly, though (perhaps once a month), it would be prayed in Latin — so that every Roman Catholic could hear the music and poetry of the central prayer of the Mass, as it has been prayed for far more than a thousand years.

* A few of the elements that were removed in 1970 would be restored (mainly the Introibo/Psalm-42, the ninefold Kyrie, and the celebrant’s old offertory prayers).

* Composed-fresh-each-week General Intercessions would be suppressed in favor of either (a) nothing, which is really the more Roman way, or (b) a fixed, time-proven text, like the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (which would, of course, be chanted by a deacon vested in dalmatic, facing liturgical east)

* A “solemn rite”, with three ministers (one of whom need not be a cleric but need must wear a tunicle), would be revived, and celebrated at least once a week in parishes with more than one cleric. In this solemn rite there would be plenty of opportunity for overlap (i.e., situations where the celebrant is praying one thing and the choir/congregation are singing another).

* Any participation by lay ministers (apart from a vested ‘subdeacon’) would occur outside the sanctuary, as is done in the Byzantine rite, e.g., when a lay reader chants the Epistle

I think it’s wrong to exclude an entire classification of instruments simply because they have been used in secular locales for secular purposes.

I agree with you. The Roman Catholic hierarchy disagrees to some extent. Further discussion on this point is welcome.

Really, this whole conversation is about personal preferences. No one aesthetic of liturgy is “correct,” while all others are somehow less.

This conversation is ABSOLUTELY about personal preference, as I said in the first paragraph. As to some being correct and others not- there are legions who would disagree with that too, but I’m of a mind to agree with you on that as well, with some reservations about the frightening “free-for-all” that has happened in contemporary liturgical practice.

More often, I would feel fed and uplifted by a (well-balanced, competent) contemporary ensemble, yes, including guitars AND drums.

I think it’s wrong to exclude an entire classification of instruments simply because they have been used in secular locales for secular purposes. The organ’s been used that way, too. Those who would further the argument that contemporary music is intrinsically inappropriate for liturgy are implying that the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring people at some point in history, and that’s just not true.

Really, this whole conversation is about personal preferences. No one aesthetic of liturgy is “correct,” while all others are somehow less.

Thanks for your comment!

First of all, I encourage you to tone down your vitriol. I don’t appreciate the R2 people saying my favorite David Haas songs are trite and meaningless. I equally don’t appreciate your desire to banish the traditional expressions of worship, still beloved and useful to millions around the world, to the dustbin of history.
Additionally, it is simply impolite to refer to Benedict XVI as “Ratzinger.” I sense that you are using his old name to invoke the distaste many liberal Catholics developed for the man during his tenure as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I shared that distaste, but I also have a strong distaste for those who cannot contain themselves to civility and courtesy. He is properly “Benedict” (or one of his many current titles), not “Ratzinger.”

As to the actual content of your comment…

Liturgy is the public work of the church. That is, it belongs to all of us. It does not belong, then, to us individually, or to a particular parish, for us to do with as we will. Whatever my disagreements with him, the Pope certainly has much to say about this as shepherd of the people. To suggest otherwise is absurd, or simply Protestant. (Protestant is fine, but then why bother bringing it up?)

Beyond that, I don’t take any of what the Vatican or this Pope specifically has said to be contrary to a sensible approach to modern expressions of worship. The traditionalists are constantly exegeting the Pope’s statements, as well as the V2 docs, in a way that supports their particular efforts to “Reform the Reform,” but that is not the only possible way to understand the official church teaching. Clearly, the Bishops of the United States have elaborated at least one alternative understanding- which the Vatican has not condemned nor redacted.

I’m not sure what to make of your desires within worship. The internet helps spread information, but we cannot conduct worship online, so the liturgical reach of a parish will always be limited by the physics of the real world. Multi-media and film have been attempted in worship settings over and over for the last 50 years, usually with dismal and tacky results.
The Liturgy, like Christ, is both fully human (the work of us people) and fully divine (the work of God). Artificiality (projected images, pre-recorded music) strips the liturgy of its humanity. Tackiness strips it of its divinity.

I have feelings similar to yours with respect to a general preference away from “Baroque altar pieces with Puti, Frescos, and pompous displays of Gold.” (I like linen and incense…). But I think you’ve missed the boat here, too. If you are claiming that liturgy should respond to your particular needs, and be expressed in a visual and aural (and olfactory) language that will reach you- How can you possibly suggest that others (the traditionalists) not be afforded the same right?

The Tridentine Mass (or any other religious manifestation) is not “the theatre of the absurd.” Absurd theatre was an attempt to show the inherent meaningless of creation. The liturgy of the Church (in its present and past forms) is intended to express the most profound meaning of the universe.

Your equating of traditional liturgy with magic and superstition sounds… Protestant. I have nothing against Protestantism, but if you are Protestant I don’t understand the point in commenting about the Catholic liturgy on a Catholic blog. That’s like a Canadian being upset that the US didn’t follow the Canadian constitution when enacting a new law.

Finally- and in all seriousness:
I can’t fathom why you would be so vehement against outward forms of worship being antiquated, when you yourself refer to humanity using the sexist and outmoded moniker “man.” That’s hardly contemporary of you.

I have nothing kind to say about the Pope’s attempt to resurrect the dead Latin Mass. Tridentine is a tradition best left to gather dust in a museum. Liturgy, literally means: The work of the people…So Ratziger has no say in the matter, rather parishioners get to choose the manner in which they worship God. To me what your blog misses is the critical link between Worship, Music and Multimedia. After Pope Benedict dies, the Catholic Church will need to figure out how to incorporate computer art, internet, film, and electronic music into sacred worship. It cannot be put off. When the message of the gospel, modern music, dance, electronic media, and good sermons are brought together the result is a powerful religious experience.
Use of electronic media means one can fulfill the Great Commission as internet allows infinite expansion of a church without bricks and mortar. Recreating Baroque altar pieces with Puti, Frescos, and pompous displays of Gold, Linen, and incense ain’t gonna cut it in a space age society. The Tridentine Mass literally is the theater of the absurd…stagecraft without message. Relationship with God reduced to ritual, magic and superstition. Christ would be ashamed. Modern man’s religious expression needs to be contemporary.

Clearly we have different tastes (part of the point of me posting this). I hope you’ll keep reading anyway.