Conversion is a lifelong process

Now this is interesting.
I thought you had decided that doctrine was not important, and that it was the emotional aspects of faith that led you to change denominations. (As I remember, you were making the case that we are emotional beings and not just rational ones.)
Now you seem to be saying that doctrine is of primary importance, and that the emotional is significatnly less so.
Are you flip-flopping?

My suburban Catholic parish has a problem typical to a lot of suburban Catholic parishes... a pretty lackluster music program (I've always thought they should hire a Baptist music director, because the Baptists really know how to rock).

At a mass a couple months ago, we sang Amazing Grace. Amazing Grace, the most beautiful and revered (and lampooned) hymn in the American canon. After mass, I overheard one of the wily blue-haired members in the congregation who was nearly livid they sing "that Protestant Crap in my Catholic Church".

I didn't bother to point out to him that they print the words and lyrics in the Music Issue of our Catholic Church.

But still, I felt it a poignant moment in my understanding of modern American Catholicism. It's been a lot of learning for me to understand her recent history; I'm a late 20's Cradle Catholic, my parents are post-Vatican II converts, and this was guy a lifer who spent as nearly much time in the Tridentine tradition as the modern Mass.

Music matters a lot. Maybe a lot more than congregations innately recognize. A guy like me who has spent nearly all his religious life in the musically languid parishes can be nearly amazed to find a congregation with a music program that blows the doors off.

We had a funeral for one of our long-time parishioners a couple of months ago at my mainline Presbyterian church in South Carolina, where I sing in the choir. At age 79, this woman had been at our church for over 40 years, and had sung in the choir for 30. She was much beloved by all... in fact, her nickname was "Saint Margaret." Anyway, our choir prepared a beautiful version of Schubert's "Ave Maria" for the funeral, at her son's request. Apparently, Margaret had stated many times over the years that this was the song she wanted sung when she passed. The choir did a gorgeous, emotion filled rendition of the song and the congregation loved it. But one of our older choir members (a gentleman who's also been at the church for over 40 years) could not stop griping, both before and after the funeral, about how much he hated "that Roman Catholic song." It would have been amusing if it weren't so sad!

Churches could do worse than look to 12-step groups for new insights into spirituality, transformation and, when followed in spirit, a discipline for constant self-assessment (i.e. "taking one's inventory") and applying principles to all aspects of one's life.

Re: music and the usual shots at music you don't like, I can understand Erin's point about "Gather Us In" being focused on "us", not "Him", and certainly there is no scriptural basis for it. But for "On Eagles Wings", I'm scratching my head. It is based on a passage from Isaiah and the "us" vs. "Him" argument doesn't have merit. Is the objection theological here or strictly aesthetic?

This reminds me of a joke my pastor told me. I was speaking with him about our dialog here recently about liturgical and music changes made "in the spirit of Vatican II", as Erin likes to say to clarifiy that VII itself does not require them. Anyway here's the joke:

What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?

You can negotiate with a terrorist.

RE Willow Creek: I attended WC for a while and the idea that it was latte serving fluff and just what people wanted to hear is completely off. Their problem (and this is precisely what they are saying) is that because they buy into the whole, "profess Jesus or you're going to spend eternity in hell" thing, conversion was seen as THE most important thing for a church to be doing. After all, if this is waht you believe (I don't, but they clearly do), it's better to send thousands of not-so-mature Christians off to heaven than to send a few really mature Christians to heaven while thousands suffer for all eternity. So they are good at helping people make an authentic committment to Christ. Then they do a fairly good job of helping people get started down their walk in real, practical ways and helping people understand that faith is something which should be integrated into every single part of our lives, not just a Sunday and prayer before meals thing which is what people find all too often in a lot of more mainline churches.
Where they aren't so good is helping people who really start seeing the fruits of their walk and are finding that they fit in less and less with the world and even with less mature believers. There just weren't good mechanisms to support and encourage someone who finds that they are deeper into their faith walk than most of the people around them. Once the Holy Spirit has really taken hold and you have joy and aren't still struggling with the same old, same old much of what is taught at church and discussed in small groups just isn't very compelling or helpful anymore. There have been a few steps in recent years by WC to explore more ancient church practices of the mystics and such which can be useful as you get deeper into your walk. However, that of course brings its own critisisms and can be a real distraction from the church's emphasis on converting non-believers.
However, the fact of the matter is that if all WC was doing was providing comfortable Jesus-spiked entertainment, therapy and ego massages there wouldn't be a problem of mature Christians in their midst not getting their needs met. It is the very fact that WC is good at getting people off to a solid, authentic start and supporting them through the process of changing their lives to live in authentically Christian ways which is resulting in mature Christians who want more than WC has to offer.
None of this is meant to say WC is perfect or that other church can't or don't do it better. It just seems that much of the critisism aimed at WC on this issue is a bit off base and there's not enough understanding of the real issues.

aaron,
Of course, there are Protestants and then there are Protestants. I was raised Lutheran and married Episcopalian, and never even *heard* of altar calls in either of those denominations. That's more a function of "charismatic" churches, so-called - especially on Sunday morning.

re: music - as someone whose primary mode of worship and spiritual expression is musical, I can say that music absolutely matters - in fact, it matters a lot. There are people who are moved to tears (and sometimes conversion) by full-on Gospel singing - and then there are people (like me, I'm afraid) who are moved to the door. Likewise Gregorian chant and Renaissance polyphony, which lift me to the ceiling even though it's no longer my religion, put many people to sleep - and it's hard to hear the message when you're snoring.

Can you imagine a church uniting not around shared doctrine, but around musical tastes?

Well, yes, actually... :) But in real-world terms I disagree with the implication you're making here that the medium is somehow the message. There may be valid reasons not to segregate the congregation this way, but if the kids and the old folks are being preached the same doctrine, then I don't see where your question holds up.

"Bill Hybels understands the problem that the Church is in today."

I'm not so sure. His description of their plans to address the problem still suggest an individualistic religion:

Hybels:
"We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

William, with all due respect, if you can claim to say when all the other denominations were started, then it is entirely fair an accurate to point out that the Roman Catholic Church was formed in 313 when Constantine elevated the school of Rome over the other 5 schools of Christianity in existence at that time and it took hold via the force of government. Of course others date the start of the Roman Catholic Church to 606 with the elevation of the bishop of Rome to the post of "Universal Bishop" and the formation of the modern papacy.
Why post something so obviously meant only to demean the faith of others while exaggerating your own faith's foundations? It is a tactic which does nothing to convince others of the truth of your faith, but makes you look willing to manipulate facts, provides a really, really terrible witness, and appears completely devoid of love and Christian brotherhood. IJS.

Ah, William, but how many of the denominations you list were founded with the intention of restoring the faith and practices of the "first century church"? Many, if not most. The founders of these sects saw the Catholic church as having strayed far afield from Jesus's original movement of "the way". I'm not intending to debate that topic, simply to point out that it's more complicated than you present it.

That said, I agree that it's surprising how many Christians are unaware, not only of their denomination's founding, but of the basic doctrines and their theological and philosophical underpinnings. Witness the growing number of churches called "XYZ Community Chruch" or "ABC Bible Church". What is their theology? Who knows -- until you get there and ask some questions. Clearly, it's the "community" and the atmosphere that are meant to draw you in. If they ever get around to explaining doctrine at all, most attenders probably respond in one of two ways: either they just accept what they are told, or they remain unconvinced (or even reject it), but keep attending anyway because they like the people and the music.

Speaking for Hicksite Quakers like myself, I've found that most of us are pretty well aware of George Fox and our other prominent founding mothers and fathers, as well as our shared testimonies that form the nearest thing we have to doctrine. Sadly, however, many Quakers are woefully unaware of the theological (and Biblical) underpinnings of our faith and testimonies. That's the down-side of not having preachers, I guess. We don't have music either, because early Quakers were highly concerned with honesty. Songs were thought to tempt some to utter words they might not (yet) mean out of conformity or peer pressure. As much as I enjoy singing, there is some truth to this. I hate alter calls for the same reason. The whipped-up emotional atmosphere, combined with the social pressure of the group make for many an insincere or at least incomplete response.

If others hadn't responded to William, I would have deleted his post. He's just cutting and pasting a Catholic apologetic that's been around for a long time. I don't like that sort of thing in the comboxes. If you want to produce original work, great, or quote something fresh, fine. But pasting something like that in smacks of pamphleteering -- like the post-er just walked into a conversation and started handing out tracts.

May I offer a dissenting view?
I was in a church that was really into the "deeper things"? By this I mean the teaching of mystics such as Madame Guyon, Father Fenelon, Brother Lawrence, and the Pietists, and the "inner life" teachings of such luminaries as Andrew Murray, A.B. Simpson, T. Austin-Sparks, Watchman Nee, and the "Keswick movement." (Anyone here familiar with these people?) This church also had a lot of profound teachings from the Plymouth Brethren and similar "return to the New Testament" groups.
There is certainly something to be said about deeper teachings and mystical experiences. But what I found is that my "shallower" spiritual needs were not being met. In fact, the seeking after deep teachings can lead to a lot of pride ("knowledge puffs up, but love builds up"), and the seeking after mystical experiences can turn into a very unhealthy subjectivity.
Eventually this church has become a very peculiar group of people, who talk in a high language that makes it stand out from other Christians. There are deep teachings, but not much love for people. In fact, those who care too much for helping people with their practical needs are considered immature in the faith.
I left this group for a much larger church which might be considered a megachurch, and I'm glad to be in a place that teaches the simple faith of loving the Lord Jesus, and endeavoring (by grace, not by works) to be pleasing to Him. There are often altar calls, although not just for basic salvation but for particular needs being met. But that doesn't bother me, because I see genuine responses from people who truly need Him.
I'm sure there must be a balance somewhere, between the "shallow" and the "deep," between "milk" and "solid food" (as 1 Peter calls it). But as someone who spent too much time in a very deep place, I can testify that sometimes you need a little love and basic truth, accompanied by "shallowness." I'm much happier in a place where people are normal, make no pretenses of being more profound than other Christians, and realize how much they need Jesus for their daily lives.
Hope this makes sense, and sorry for going on so long.

So.....
Rod does not like a comment so he just delete's it!!!
CENSORSHIP......JUST LIKE BLH

Chuck Colson critiquing Bill Hybels is like Barry Bonds critiquing Alex Rodriguez.

A-Rod would no doubt respond politely to Bonds as Hybels did to Colson. But there's still something creepy about it.

You're right, weemaryanne. From this moment on, you no longer exist.

The problem with contemporary religious music is that it is designed to do nothing but fill air. The grand old Protestant hymns and the Gregorian Chants had something in common, they hit the soul.

"The problem with contemporary religious music is that it is designed to do nothing but fill air."

To you. For many people, not so much. Lots of people find contemporary religious music very inspiring.

"The grand old Protestant hymns and the Gregorian Chants had something in common, they hit the soul."

Again, to you. Many people find them snooze inducing, hard to sing, and uninspiring.

"But as is the case with anything worthwhil, Daniel, sometimes the taste for these things needs to be cultivated."

True. Of course, that can go both ways. An appreciation of contemporary music can also be cultivated.

Sig,

That always reminds me of the joke where newly arrived souls are being taken on a tour of heaven and delight at the unity of man in God's love realized, excepting this enclosed space set apart from the rest by a white brick wall. The new souls ask about the separation of the souls in this space from the rest, and God replies it's for the [pick your sect here], "they seem to be happier thinking they are the only ones in here".

"You're right, weemaryanne. From this moment on, you no longer exist."

That's my best laugh so far today, Eric. You're the bomb!

Yes, Jim, I was thinking about that joke--as well as the Emo Phillips joke that's too long to retell here, that ends up "So then I said 'die heretic scum!' and pushed him off the bridge." Google "die heretic joke" and you will find many versions.

Actually, I've been enjoying this thread because so much of it has been composed of people talking about how they worship and what it means to them. And so much good music is being recommended! Palestrina, Bach and 18th century Sacred Harp? Yes to all! (Heinrich Schutz, anyone?) Hildegard of Bingen, John Tavener, Arvo Part? Gregorian chant? Yes, please. Mexican Baroque? I had the good fortune to attend a Christmas concert of Mexican Baroque last year. It was an eye-opener. I admit to not really liking "Ave Maria" in any version, and to being tired of "Amazing Grace," but I can listen to both with equanimity, especially when others are shedding tears of joy.

True story: I was having lunch one day with a Baptist who was teaching a Bible study I had joined. She asked what kind of music I liked (I think it was on the list of "how to get to know the student" questions.) I said I liked classical music, and was about to make a distinction between late classical/romantic and early classical/baroque so she would know exactly what I meant. Silly me. She immediately jumped in her seat and cried, "Oh! Then we have NOTHING in common! I HATE classical music! It's so BORING!" So she gave me a CD of her favorite group--Relient K. Lo and behold, I quite like Relient K. It's sort of a boy-band version of Jesus Luv, but it rocks in a mild sort of way.

And nobody's even mentioned the great gospel tradition, which I guess goes to show how white these boxes are. You haven't lived till you've seen a Lutheran bell-choir marching around the church playing an African gospel tune on their bells. : )

Yes, Rob G., I can and do love both classical and popular music. And why not? Why not take big bites? I don't demand that everyone like what I like--but I consider myself free to enjoy it all.

The world is so full of a number of things
I am sure we should all be as happy as kings.

Interesting post Rod, I have a couple of comments. First, to the person (I don't want to scroll back up to find out who) that churches could learn a lot from twelve step pregrams, thats a great idea, especially since the original twelve step program, Friends of Bill or AA, clearly takes a lot from the church, even confession and the institution of spiritual fathers, uh, I mean sponsors. I think thats why they are successful and, no matter how much a person pays for rehab programs or how much long they spend in them they better be willing to high themselves to a meeting and by all means, do the ninety meetings in the first ninety days.
Second comment, about the targeted marketing of services with music. I think this has been hit on already that if the most important thing about salvation is accepting Christ into your heart and then you are saved, then the targeted marketing is vitally important. This is the logical concusion of the doctrin of substitutionary atonement. That Christs death is the punishment for our sins that God would have inflicted on us. Its a legal idea and in legal procedures there is a moment where the result is declared. This means that you are saved in a moment and that moment of repentence and salvation is all important, so you need to pack them in to hear your pitch and then issue an alter call. This isn't something that you find in Roman Catholic theology, but that is where the seed is found.
It hinges on the idea of repentence and whether repentence is a one time action or, as we Orthodox understand it and your post title hints, a life time process. This vastly affects how a church thinks of salvation and how it affects the actions of the church. If it is a moment in time, then all the marketing makes sense, but if it is a lifetime process, then the Church has to be just as concerned with teaching its members how to live a christian life and grow in the Faith as with evangelism. I know, in my case, this issue was at the crux of my decision to convert, while in my Fiance's case, it was the feeling that her protestant church had nothing more to teach her while the Orthodox Church would never stop teaching her how to be a Christian.

OK, That was a long post. Sorry

Alicia, I hate the songs you mention! LOL. Actually, almost all of the old protestant hymns turn me off (my husband and I have a running joke about singing "Bringing in the Sheeves").
I always tell people that I was raised in the easy listening period of the Catholic Church. On Eagles Wings, that awful prayer of St. Francis song. We had a cantor who was a professional opera singer at my church growing up and a couple of times a mass the woman would wander into the screaching range of her soprano voice and coughing fits would break out all over the sanctuary as us kids tried not to laugh out loud. More than one child was dragged off to the bathroom to be dealt with over that woman's voice!
I think really this music issue is the natural result of the fact that we're in the middle of a time of change where different groups of people are in greater contact with each other, different ages have different tastes, etc. I would guess, and hope, that in time we'll settle into more universal tastes as the wars between the generations die down and people from different cultures become more acclamated to each other.
Right now I'm on a big contemporary gospel kick. Fred Hammond, Donny McClurken, Fred Hammond, Karen Clark-Sheard. And there is a move in this genre to re-interpret some of the older protestant hymn standards, most of which I like, so maybe it's the music rather than the words which I find so unappealling about them. And I do still have a soft spot in my heart for the old easy listening guitar songs - sometimes there's nothing like a round of "Only in God" or "I love you Lord" to quiet my heart.
At any rate, worship music is really a tool for us. I've actually known people who aren't moved to worship by any music at all. They worship in other ways. And I've known people with voices so awful that they really needed to find other ways to worship! :) And this is precisely what makes it such a hard thing for churches. Too often worship through music is presented as an easy way to enter into God's prescence and it's probably not a bad thing for us to have to struggle through that process sometimes.
I really do hope that at some point in the future we can come to a better resolution of this issue.

And not all people can learn to appreciate all types of music. I've finally come to accept the fact that most classical music literally gives me a headache. I tried for at least 15 years to listen to classical music frequently, learn the differences, I can recognize the instruments patterns and some composers, etc. But after many years of not really being able to enjoy it like I thought I should, I had to accept that for whatever reason classical music gives me headaches, so I finally gave it up. It just seemed like something I should be able to appreciate, but not at the expense of physical pain. Maybe it's the brain damage caused by guitars in church. LOL
Contemporary music - hear I come!!!!!!!!

By far the best religious music I've ever heard and sung, is the shape note songs of The Sacred Harp, http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/harp.html

I've sung Old Church Slavonic hymns and songs, as well as having grown up with the American tradition (I know, an arguable term) of sacred music.

So often in these threads I get the feeling that the whole subject is being approached backwards.

What is the purpose of worship? What do we mean to do when we engage in it? What do we hope to accomplish, or to gain?

My answers as a Catholic will probably vary from the answers of many other Christians (though not the Orthodox; we should be fairly close to being on the same page here, even if my page is written in Latin and yours in Greek).

But to understand why some Catholics find music like "On Eagle's Wings" distasteful you have to see what we believe worship is, and why the art, architecture, music, vessels etc. matter at all.

This is difficult, because many of us Catholics grew up during a time when an effort was underway literally to desacralize many elements of the Mass, and to transform our worship into something that would no longer retain the specific Catholic character but be virtually indistinguishable from the worship services of Protestant Christians. Sadly this effort has not been entirely rooted out, and may even be said to flourish in some American dioceses; however the recent writings and actions of Pope Benedict XVI make it clear that the Church rejects this diminished and human-centric style of worship as being unworthy of the great liturgical traditions that have been entrusted to us over the centuries since the death and resurrection of Christ.

Now, I don't wish to offend Protestant Christians by the above, but it's important to understand that there is something vitally and essentially different about Catholic (and Orthodox) worship: namely, the Eucharist, and our belief that the holy rituals of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) are centered around the Real Presence of Jesus, Who comes among us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament, and Who by this mysterious and miraculous Presence nourishes our souls, strengthens us to bear trials, and richly blesses us with His grace. In the Eucharist we believe that God literally comes among us, and His Presence is not merely due to the gathering of the assembly, nor is it a reality which is only spiritual. He is there with us; we receive Him with joy, and give humble and grateful thanks to Him for continuing to remain with us.

Our worship must be focused on this reality. To the extent that it focuses on any other thing it is deficient. We are not there for self-celebration or self-congratulation; we are there as members of a community, it is true, but the community together strives for holiness and for the Communion which is both sign and prefiguring of the eternal Communion of the people of God toward which we quest together.

And to show our focus on the mysterious and awe-inspiring Presence in our midst, we present to Him the best we are capable of, in art, architecture, music, vessels, and the like. Do these things replace the humble and grateful hearts which we must also bring? No, but they serve as visible reminders of the reality which we are about to experience, and thus serve as aids to us as we strive to present ourselves for worship in the proper spirit.

At this point people begin disputing about taste: what if I like clay chalices better, what if I love "Eagle's Wings" and am left cold by chant, what if I like waving at my neighbors in a "church in the round" but find cathedrals ugly, etc.? The usual charges of snobbery start to rise, and the American tendency to exalt the plebeian and tear down the aristocratic comes to the forefront of the discussion.

The best answer I can give comes from a dear and recently departed acquaintance of mine, active for many years in music ministry. He was talking about some of the newer compositions, and in his very diplomatic way he said that unfortunately the only way to sort out what is good and worthy from what is tasteless or too vulgar or profane for worship is to subject it to the test of time. I have to agree: the reason the ancient forms of music, worship, art et. al. should have pride of place is because they are ancient; they have already developed a venerable tradition of their own, and can be recognized for the treasures they are. Even the best modern compositions haven't yet passed this test, and far too many of the worst end up on the weekly schedule to the detriment of the celebration of the Holy Mass, when our only criteria for music is that it be new.

What he said about the music is equally true of innovative art, architecture, liturgical vessels or vestments, practices like holding hands during the "Our Father," lay involvement to the extreme that the priest becomes a mere "presider" with little to do other than the consecration, and so on. There may be pockets of good among the dreck, but how do we know what is good and what is not? Unless we measure the novel ideas against the ancient and venerable traditions we are merely imposing our own tastes onto the worship. And if worship is not ultimately about us and our fleeting tastes and desires, then this is the wrong thing to do.

Jim,
we must be wired up similarly. I hate that book! I can't even explain the content of the book to someone else without getting all choked up. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it! Argh. (I hate crying - once I start I can't stop.)

"Even the best modern compositions haven't yet passed this test, and far too many of the worst end up on the weekly schedule to the detriment of the celebration of the Holy Mass, when our only criteria for music is that it be new."

But this is a circular argument. If you say that we should only venerate things that have passed the test of time as part of worship, then nothing new will ever come into the worship. It's the argument that the Orthodox make, which results in being frozen in time. Catholicism has never been like that.

If you look at the development of the mass, it always allowed for some innovation and change. You see that with the development of hymnody, the movement beyond chant, the use of music from non-Italian traditions. The mass that you venerate now would be foreign to those who celebrate the mass and worshiped at the beginning of the church. And the only way the mass has changed and grown has been the willingness to consider changes.

The aesthetic of the worship experience are important, but they are merely aesthetics. You can acknowledge His presence in the Mass and they mystery that it represents without relying solely on Latin and chant and 18th Century mass music. They've stood the test of time only because they were allowed in. Contemporary art and architecture can be equally as moving and meaningful. The Los Angeles cathedral and its modern tapestries "Communion of Saints" offers one of the most transformative mass experiences I've ever had. And there was even mariachi music.

Actually, Jim, you're getting to the heart of the matter.

The congregation does pray--but the priest must offer the principle act of worship, particularly the Canon of the Mass, containing within it the words of the consecration. Though we unite ourselves in an interior way to this central mystery of the faith we are without the power to stand 'in persona Christi' at this moment, which is why we have an ordained priesthood in the first place.

And while the congregation is to sing, even the recent document released by the USCCB on Sacred Music points out the differences between the congregation's singing, which is necessarily in unison and kept simple enough to allow for the fullest participation, and choral singing, which is more intricate, requires more skill and training, and yet is very appropriate at many points in the Mass (and even for the entire Mass should the decision be made to use a more complex musical setting for a Mass, something entirely appropriate on many solemn occasions).

The principle of offering our best at Mass, as it is the highest form of worship available to us on earth, remains a sound one. No one would attempt to force the congregation to sing polyphony, yet polyphony is a desirable element of many beautiful liturgical compositions. No one (who is Catholic) believes that lay people can consecrate the Eucharist, which is why we have a hierarchy of ordained clergy whose role in our liturgical celebrations is of the utmost importance to us. Neither the presence of a trained choir nor the presence of an ordained priest in any way diminishes the ability of the congregation to worship; in fact, without the priest the particular form of worship we call the Mass wouldn't even be possible, and though choirs aren't strictly necessary I wouldn't think of them as superfluous or undesirable.

Well, goodness. It seems that Beliefnet is capable of resurrecting the comments one thought vanished during a "flicker!" :)

Rebeccat, do you not see the Eucharist as a huge difference between our two forms of worship? I'm honestly curious--I see "that it is meant to praise and celebrate the real presence of God in the midst of the congregation..." as fundamentally different from the worship of God really present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine in the Blessed Sacrament. These two different experiences of God's presence seem to account for the difference in our forms of worship, to me.

Erin,
I don't see the difference. In the Catholic Church, there is a belief in the physical "I can reach-out and touch" presence of God. In the Protestant church, there is a belief in the spiritual presence of God which is no less than the physical presence of God. Most religious sorts believe that ultimately, the spiritual world is both more important and more real than this physical reality and see it as part of their religious training to try and transcend the physical realm, so the lack of a physical "reach out and touch" presence just isn't seen as a problem at all.
To the believer, the physical presence of God should be no more real or even special than the spiritual presence. After all, isn't that the substance of faith? Faith and hope in what can not be seen or touched, but is more real and more important than anything we could touch or see?

Yes, the congregation prays--but without the priest there is no Mass.

As clear a statement of clericalism as anyone could imagine.

Alternately understood, as clear a statement of Catholic doctrine as anyone could imagine.

Orthodox teaching here is slightly different--there cannot be a Divine Liturgy without a priest AND at least one Orthodox layman present. No private masses are permitted.

Over at Fr. Stephen Freeman's blog, the observation was made that the problem with so much contemporary worship music is that it is a product of our mass, synthesized, consumer culture as opposed to being an outgrowth of a genuine folk singing culture--the result of the fact that our country's musical tradition has largely devolved into one which is mostly bought and heard rather than sung and learned. Somebody replied that yes, this may be the case, except that the mass, synthesized, consumer culture is in fact our genuine culture as Americans, whether we like it or not--I believe this person referred to it as the "democratization" of culture. I suppose that's one way to think of it.

Richard

(pinches self just to be sure) OUCH. Apparently, Eric W., I have a distinct advantage over your imaginary friend -- I exist and I'm still here. And since I'm here, why not try convincing me that he/she/it's here? I'm listening.

Daniel, I missed your comment above. Aside from sympathizing with the Orthodox who must get awfully tired of the whole "frozen" thing, I'd say that there are appropriate safeguards when introducing the new into the Mass, safeguards which have largely been cast aside in recent memory.

The first is that changes ought to be made very slowly, with proper care to the legitimate pastoral needs of the faithful, who deserve as much to have their patrimony preserved as to have present concerns addressed. The second is that change ought to be measured against the standard of what has gone before, and nothing that lacks harmony with the past ought to be adopted.

What plagues the Church at the present time is not that changes were made, but that change was allowed in a way that was wholly inorganic, far too fast for absorption, far too widespread for continuity or harmony with the past, and far too often touted as good simply because it *was* change, not because it was in any way desirable in itself. Moreover, instead of seeing the liturgical patrimony as the standard against which the new should be measured, those responsible for the changes saw the liturgical patrimony as something flawed and broken beyond repair which needed to be severed as completely as possible from the "new church" that was being imagined and, as some of them liked to put it, "sung into being."

The end goal was a Catholic Church that bore no resemblance whatsoever to the Church of previous ages; it was far more than liturgy that was intended for change. Many of the innovators wanted new doctrine and practices, too, ranging from the ordination of women to the de-emphasis on the sacrament of Penance to the complete rethinking of all of the Church's teachings on sexual morality, with the goal of ushering in a new era of permissiveness.

There are, however, things that it is simply not in the Church's power to change. For all the felt banners and liturgical experimentation there has not been a single area of the Church's moral teachings that has fallen under the assault of those who wanted change in these areas, and the only women being ordained are the ones who separate themselves from the Church by their actions.

"There are, however, things that it is simply not in the Church's power to change. For all the felt banners and liturgical experimentation there has not been a single area of the Church's moral teachings that has fallen under the assault of those who wanted change in these areas, and the only women being ordained are the ones who separate themselves from the Church by their actions."

Which shows, ultimately, the gradualness of change you advocate for. The problem is that for the veneration of the past, traditionalists actually have a very short memory. The fresh area breathed into the church by Vatican II didn't happen overnight, but instead was three centuries or so in the making. It was small steps that 21st Centure traditionalists view as "tradition" that actually were considered radical for their times. The mass and traditions that traditionalists now cling to as authentic were considered radical and even "offensive" when they first came to the Church.

So the fresh breath of Vatican II was just another step in a three or four century process. It was completely organic to anyone who was really paying attention.

Well, gosh, Daniel, that must be my problem: after two and a half centuries or so my mind begins to wander. :)

Seriously, though, I'm perfectly willing to see the organic development within the *documents* of Vatican II (which I have read). But nowhere in the documents were all the various manifestations of liturgical silliness mandated, and in point of fact the Novus Ordo Mass when celebrated *exactly* as VII envisioned it (in Latin, by the way) is not only beautiful but clearly linked to what went before. Throw in the felt banners and the pantsuited nuns giving homilies at Mass, though, and I defy you or anyone to point to a hermeneutic of continuity that justifies those elements (one of which is still completely forbidden).

Erin: Wasn't intending to be critical; I was responding to Susan's comment about "clericalism". You stated nothing badly, and so far as I can tell, you're a rather extraordinary Catholic.

Richard

The widow was still giving her mite "decently and in order"; as soon as the kind of behavior you describe calls more attention to itself than to the aim of worship, I'd say we're off the rails.

I heard an Orthodox priest-monk once say that the ideal kind of liturgical music is that which you wouldn't notice at all, because it's just an organic part of what's happening. I'm not sure I'd put it that way necessarily, but I think I agree with the central principle of simply being part of the fabric of the corporate worship (which isn't the same thing as everybody doing everything).

Richard