A Video and some Q&A. (Semi Rant?)

First Friday.

Q:Why didn't you want to attend the first Friday mass tonight?

A: Because I hate, hate Hate,Guitar Masses. I hate them. With a passion. I was subject to them since I first decided that I wanted to become Catholic, hence my fleeing for four year to Anglicanism. At least they have good music. Hence my daily walk of 15 blocks to Lourdes to get away from the local parish, (only across the street.) who does a guitar mass. If I had known ahead of time what it would have been like, I would have gone to adoration at St. John's, gone to the evening mass at the cathedral, and said my votive office of the Sacred heart+ private devotions in my own room, like I've done for the past three years.

Q: Why do you hate guitars?

A: I don't hate guitars. I dare anyone to look at the playlist on mu ipod and say that I hate guitars. I love rock music. I just don't love it in the holy sacrifice of the mass. That's God's time. We use his music. The church says that Chant and the Organ are the proper music of the liturgy. Other instruments may be admitted only on the condition that they can be made suitable for sacred use, and are not profane. Face the facts, guitars/keyboards/drums are not sacred instruments. They thus far have failed to be made sacred, unlike instruments such as the violin, cello, and other orchestral instruments , for which music with a truly sacred character has been written. (eg. Ned Rorem's mass.) on the contrary, the music written for the instruments which I don;t like i mass is not written with sacrality in mind, rather, it is written with identicality to secular music in mind. Face the facts, if you can't hear the words to one of songs, there's no way you'd know it was supposed to be sacred music. Compare that with Guillame de Duffay, or Byrd, or Durrufle, or John Tavener.You'd know without the words that their music was written expressly for ecclesiastical use. I'd say that Musicam Sacram 63 applies here. So none of that.

A: For what other reasons do you think these instruments shouldn't be used liturgically?

Oh, for many. If we remember that the documents of the Second Vatican Council should be read as the apex of a larger Liturgical Movement beginning with Pis X, continuing with Pius XII's Mediator Dei, and Musicae Sacrae, finally culminating in Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram. In both of these, any instruments that reflect profane music are condemned as unsuitable for use in the liturgy, some specific ones named. (Pianos, drums, bells, whistles.) In interpreting conciliar and post conciliar documents, we must take into mind the larger context of the whole liturgical movement itself. Through all these documents, the common thread of support for music which is integral to the Roman Rite is evident, as is the condemnation of music composed in the style of secular composers. All sacred music should be based on chant and polyphony, the two types of music officially enumerated as the church's music. That's not me talking, that Vatican II. (Musicam Sacram 59,60 )
Why was the true intent of the council abandoned, and the whole liturgical movement of the 20th century hijacked into oblivion? Don't know. But it happened, and I will not support further dissent form the motives of the church as they stood at Vatican II.

Q: So why did you leave the social after the mass?
Well, I had to be home by ten. Plus, there were more guitars, so I was starting to pile up mortal sins.

Q: So you're one of those elitst raving trads then?

A:,Umm..No? Tradition minded Catholic, but I don't subscribe to the mindset of trads. I'm not raving. Before you call me elitist, remember, being a minority who grew up in poverty, I have the sociological advantage. Hardly an elitist, so don't pull your liberal appeals to emotion on me. I win that one by default. Fail.

Q: Fine then Mr. Elitist, what have YOU done for liturgical Music Huh? Nothing but criticise!

A: Hey, cool it inner voice for the purpose of debate. I've done some stuff. I've written two chant masses, and an adaptation of the Ambrosian Gloria. I'm in the process of writing a choral mass for SATB choir and organ. I've written proper chants for some feasts of the liturgical year, all in English of course. I can read/ interpret Gregorian chant, and I can put together music for services based on a choir's ability. I doubt severely that any of it will be used, because the current establishment does'nt benefit small, poor composers like me.
To hit it big, you have to have money, just sos you can get printed in OCP/GIA. You need to be able to pay for copyrights, most importantly, you can't write in a sacred style. Basically, OCP/GIA/ (Insert name of big corporate bureaucracy running liturgical music in your country) gets to decide what kind of music you and everyone else will sing at mass, because they have the ability to distribute music easily and effectively, and you and I don't. They decide what goes in their music issues, and we don't. They have the upper hand at least when it comes to getting their music out. Especially since the current American hierarchy does'nt seem to care much about liturgy, unless they are disparaging the Tridentine mass. They support the big corps, who make sacro-pop/praise music, not the old masters (Palestrina, Byrd, Gabrielli, etc.) with their sacred music, nor the new guys who write in continuity with the old masters. So you and me, the little guys, we're stuck between several rocks and hard places, with no way out apparently.

Q:So you Are one of those raving Elitist Trads!!!11one!11!

A: *Headdesk/Facepalm* No. I just want to overthrow the establishment when it comes to the current liturgical environment on the world. I guess you could say that I'm a liturgical revolutionist. Or liturgical Anarchist. Ooo, that sounds cool. Liturgical Anarchist. It just rolls off the tongue. Liturgical Anarchist.

Q:Pirates or Ninjnas?

A:Pirates are coolest.

Q:Paper or Plastic?

A: Paper. The cats play in paper bags.

Q: Credit or Debit?

A:Neither. Theft.