David Ancell / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Comments(0)
Today we celebrated the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I went to a parish other than my own and heard a homily on how Mary was the new Arc of the Covenant and to hear music such as Immaculate Mary, Hail, Holy Queen, and others. It was one of the best Masses I have been to in a while.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Comments(0)
This is just plain scary. The bad part about it is that it can really happen.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, August 14, 2003 / Comments(0)
Catholic World News has blogged this article by George Weigel about the need to take our music more seriously at Mass. I couldn’t agree more with his premise. However, I think I have a bit of a different order as to what should be eliminated.
I agree that anything that contains false teaching must be the first to go. The song he cites, “Ashes,” is often played at school Masses at my parish, and I’d be glad to see it go. The most important things to get rid of are the ones that tell us that the Eucharist is still bread and wine. I would add to that category the “light and fluffy” stuff that is often theologically questionable, such as “Gather Us In” (and everything else written by Marty Haugen). How about garbage like “Let There Be Peace On Earth”? Can peace really begin with me? It had better begin with Christ.
I also agree that we should get rid of the “we are Jesus” stuff. Some of it is not only awkward, but it is just plain bad music. The song “Be Not Afraid” is a prime example of ultra-bland music in addition to being a “we are Jesus” song. I just want to gag every time I hear “Here I Am, Lord.”
However, I think there are higher priorities than “Gifts of Finest Wheat” (rarely heard in my parish) and the “Joyful, Joyful We Adore You” adaptations. Some parishes haven’t beaten them to death, so it won’t hurt to keep playing them. No, I’ve got one idea of a bigger fish to fry.
The next to go should be the songs that praise the congregation rather than the Lord. “Gather Us In” fits here, as well as stuff like “One Bread, One Body” which is basically a song about the congregation. Some of this also fits into the category of theologically confusing as it suggests the whole congregation is performing the consecration.
Have you ever been to a school Mass? I’ve been to several. They are notorious for having the silliest, most banal music I have ever heard. One hymn begins “If I were a tree, I would be your shade.” It is used in a congregation of first through eight graders, and you can hear the sighs when that song is introduced. Another being “Little is much if it comes from your heart.” Need I mention that awful adaptation of the tune of Simple Gifts entitled “Lord of the Dance.” I have long hated that one. I wish they would at least use praise and worship if they have to use this kind of music. At least praise and worship praises God (just don’t play “Shine Jesus Shine”).
There are a lot of great hymns around. I really like the Adoremus hymnal. We can use many great songs like “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” and “All the Earth Proclaim the Lord.” “O Sacrament Most Holy” is quite appropriate, to say the least, for a Eucharistic hymn. It wouldn’t kill us to learn a few Latin songs as well. We can use a number of Protestant hymns as well. With plenty of good music available, there isn’t much excuse to use the bad stuff.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Comments(0)
I just started listening to a tape series from Fr. Peter Stravinskas entitled The Liturgy of the New Millenium. I’ve only made it through the first two tapes, but he has gone through the Constitution on the Liturgy and part of the GIRM. Fr. Stravinskas is a good teacher and relates his central theme of “Father, stick to the book!” that I wish every priest would do.
He made an observation that I made once. I told the Frassati Society that one way that we could eliminate or greatly reduce the need for lay people to distribute the Eucharist would be to eliminate giving communion under both species to all the faithful. It isn’t necessary that everyone receive from the cup, and it creates the need for more lay people to distribute communion, which really isn’t a funciton of laity. He said that the Vatican has been very clear that if the only way you can distribute communion under both kinds is to use lay people, then you are not allowed to do it. Unfortunately, he didn’t cite any sources.
Another theme of his is the number of things in the documents that have been thrown out the window. I’ve always wondered why the Vatican puts out their rulings and their documents, and then people think we can just ignore them. Do we think that the Vatican writes these things because they enjoy writing documents? Even orthodox priests do this. Why?
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Tuesday, August 12, 2003 / Comments(0)
Some have told me that arguing is not Christian. If you haven’t been able to tell from reading this blog, I believe this to be far from the truth. However, I know our faith cannot be reduced to arguments. No matter what you can do with the intellect, if someone’s will is against the truth, they aren’t going to go for it.
The dissenters have their arguments, and some of them seem quite good to them. This is true if they are liberal or even if they are radical traditionalists. The difference is in which sources they use (or abuse). Some of the arguments sound convincing. However, I’ve not been convinced by any of them. Even if I feel that I have lost, I stand in confidence that Christ will protect his Church from teaching error.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Tuesday, August 12, 2003 / Comments(0)
I just got the Catholic Exchange newsletter for today, and I thought it was interesting that this article from Russell Shaw suggests that anti-Catholicism is part of the Declaration of Independence. Given the social climate in America at that time, it’s quite possible.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Comments(0)
. . . but this is a great illustration.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, August 10, 2003 / Comments(0)
Here is another post on the same discussion as the last post:
We have free will, but that does not mean that we have the right to sin. While we are free to choose, we are not free to make our choices right. This comes from outside us, namely from God. To do evil is an abuse of our freedom. Freedom makes us responsible for our actions.
Take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1733: “The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to ‘the slavery of sin.'”
Ultimately, truth does not come from a consensus of the people, but from God himself. Therefore, the diversity of viewpoints doesn’t eliminate the existence of truth. Besides, it is silly to say that it is true that there is no truth. The fact that people have created a secular state doesn’t change this fact.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, August 10, 2003 / Comments(0)
A lady on the Busted Halo forum was questioning whether bishops should expect politicians to go along with Catholic teaching in their voting. She said that it might cause Catholics to lose their voice in public matters. Well, here is my response:
To enter this discussion, let me begin by citing two passages from Sacred Scripture:
John 15:18 says that if the world hates us, we should be reminded that it hated Jesus first. The other passage, Matthew 10:38-39, reminds us of the necessity of taking up our cross and following Jesus. He even goes so far to say that whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for his sake will find it.
I could cite more, but my point is that one result of following Jesus is opposition. In a day and age when the idea of an absolute truth is extremely unpopular, it only follows that those who believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church as truth will also be unpopular. If this means sacrificing position, then that’s what one has to do. It does little good for Catholics to have a voice if they have to water down the message to get through. If one wishes to be Catholic, one must believe the teachings as truth. For example, if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then this belief is simply incompatible with the belief that he did not rise from the dead.
The problem with these politicians is that they want to claim to be Catholic while publicly opposing Church teachings on very serious issues. If the messages of our bishops is causing them to question their salvation, then it is working. The fact that a pro-abortion politician sides with the Church on “social justice” issues doesn’t negate the fact that he is pro-abortion. Such a one is in the deluded position of believing that one can advocate for better housing, medical care for the poor, etc. while meanwhile also advocating that some defenseless members of our society don’t even have a right to live.
Ultimately, the question is not a matter of accountability to hierarchy. The hierarchy are not an opinion body but guarantors of the truth that comes from God. They hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, August 09, 2003 / Comments(0)
Ya know, our world is so crazy these days that it took me a second to realize that this is actually satire. These days, it could happen.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized