February 6, 2012
Kudos to the writer of "Mass reform is obstacle to evangelization" (WCR letters, Jan. 23).
I have read many of the ecclesiastical arguments in favour of these changes, but I have to agree with Ms. Lacoursiere about the revised liturgy. I find the new Gloria especially woeful.
The old, well-known one was dynamic and everyone joined in the praise. The sung new version is painful – not even the lead singers can get it right.
And how much more comprehensible is the answer, "and also with you" than "and with your spirit" to the priest's "The Lord be with you"? Who in the congregation really can define "spirit"?
If the Lord is with "us," why can't he be with the priest? Why must he be with his "spirit"?
Why would the Church spend so much money and time on producing those inane changes, reverting to the original Latin texts (which no one understood anyway) of decades ago, when we have had perfectly meaningful and well-established versions since Vatican Council II?
I also have to agree with Ms. Lacoursiere's statement about the new hymns. Who can (or wants to) sing, or listen to, them?
While I love music, I do not enjoy having to attempt a multitude of tortuous new tunes at every Mass, especially when many well-established and perfectly melodious ones abound in the voluminous song books that are published every few years.
These days, I am more familiar with the hymns sung at a United or Lutheran Church service than with the ones in my own Church. I am not a traditionalist, and I am not against change – in fact, I welcome it.
However, I cannot applaud those fortuitous, meaningless "innovations."
Currently rated by 3 people