Bye-Bye, Kumbaya?
While Benedict XVI was expected to trim the Vatican bureaucracy, in keeping with his preference for institutional minimalism, the Curia may be set to expand by an office–one that would set limits on liturgical music. Before his election, Joseph Ratzinger advocated for such a Vatican office, and in ways large and small, since his elevation to the papacy he has sought to restore Gregorian chant and “traditional” and classical (i.e., his personal faves) music to center stage.
This week, Monsignor Valentín Miserachs Grau, director of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music–a non-curial office dedicated to teaching sacred music–ramped up the volume. In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, (reprinted by Zenit), Grau called for a centralized Roman authority over liturgical music, which he said has been the arena of greatest abuse since Vatican II:
“How far we are from the true spirit of sacred music, that is, of true liturgical music,” he lamented. “How can we stand it that such a wave of inconsistent, arrogant and ridiculous profanities have so easily gained a stamp of approval in our celebrations?”
It is a great error, Monsignor Miserachs said, to think that people “should find in the temple the same nonsense given to them outside,” since “the liturgy, even in the music, should educate all people — including youth and children.”
No doubt there’s been plenty of dreck out there, and I’m sure folks will want to hammer than point home. But a CDF for liturgical music? Interestingly, the US bishops are set to debate (and likely approve) an updated document on liturgical music next week at their fall meeting in Baltimore. It is expected to reflect the trend back to a solemn, Latinate, Occidental worship.
Seems not a bad idea if his favorites [classical music] include Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Gounod, Palestrina, and those many composers who seem to have been banned from the churches. Not to mention the many traditional hymns – Easter hymns, and Christmas hymns – which have not been heard for lo! these 20 years.
All of which is fine, assuming that every single liturgy in the church is supposed be a “solemn, Latinate, Occidental” experience. As much as I like traditional hymnody, it’s helpful to remember that anything liturgical should invite people into “full, conscious and active” participation, as the Second Vatican Council wrote. To that end, enabling people to pray and sing in the languages and styles of their own cultures (even at the risk of occasional crummy songs) is one way of encouraging many people to participate (not everyone, but many) more fully, consciously and actively.
And it’s good to remember that it is, in fact, supposed to be a “celebration” of the Mass.
In short, solemn is wonderful and so is “O Sacred Head Surrounded,” by joyful isn’t so bad either, and neither are many of the joyful tunes in our “Gather” hymnals.
I love pop music. I try to like classical music. I’ve noticed that the times when I’m actually able to enjoy classical music is when I’m growing in the mysterious progress of life–a little out of control, having to grow in trust.
It’s in those times I want a music that is “higher” than me, that I cannot comprehend.
I think that almost all of the songs in the Gather hymnal are “comprehensible” by anyone, growing or not. And I don’t think they provide music for the growing times.
Comfort, Comfort, O My People being the obvious exception (Advent on my mind).
I think I may agree with the Pope on this one. After all, if I am not mistaken, we both seek to see God more clearly, love God more dearly, and follow God more nearly, day by day.
I remember my mother saying, well before Vatican II, that Schubert’s “Ave Maria” was banned from Catholic Churches because it was “too beautiful.” I had never done a Google search to see if there was any truth to it (I had always doubted the “too beautiful” reason as implausible), but I just discovered a fascinating document, “Music Approved and Recommended by the Society of St. Gregory of America,” referred to as the “White List,” and also another document (an addendum or appendix, known as the “Black List”) listing disapproved music. Lo and behold, Schubert’s “Ave Maria” is on the “Black List,” as well as other settings by Bach-Gounod, Verdi, and Mascagni. (For a sublime experience, listen to Kathleen Battle’s recording of the Mascagni “Ave Maria.” )
You can download a scan of the “White List” and part of the “Black List” in PDF format at this link, or e-mail me and I will send you copies.
http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2006/09/white-list-archive.html
I also came across this interesting quote: “‘I’ve heard it suggested–by Thomas Day?–that all the focus on the ‘correct’ and ‘approved’ music in the preconciliar period after PX and befor PVI, and the unnecessarily dogmatic attempts to suppress Haydn and Schubert etc., actually paved the way for the reactive generation of the late 1960s to tear up the pea patch completely.” I had no idea what was meant here about suppressing Haydn and Schubert, but now I suspect it’s a reference to the “Black List,” which I hadn’t discovered when I found this quote.
It seems to me that the pressing issue isn’t whether we like the current music or not, but rather why the solution is the creation of another centralized office in Rome. What is the reasoning of making an official in the Vatican arbiter of what is, and is not, appropriate liturgical music in the United States, Zambia, Indonesia, or wherever? We have Bishops’ Conferences for a reason, and as much as I dislike many of their decisions, I’d much rather have a person who worships in the United States deciding what is appropriate music in those congregations than someone across the Atlantic.
This, like so many issues, raises the need for a more sustained discussion of subsidiarity within the Church itself.
See Johm Allen on line this week apropos of this.
I agree with Andy strongly about the Roman oversight. John Allen also pointed out several weeks ago that BXVI didn’t see much in the variety of universal input and was basically concerned with the Church in Europe (with the very = my word- Roman curia overseeing things,)
Much less the needs of the people, as Fr. Martin pointed out – but who wants to hear the voice of the laity anyway?
The needs of the people may not be what your average music minister thinks they are.
I went to a friend’s ordination in Rochester, and the last song was, interminably and inexplicably, in Swahili. The guy next to me sang bravely for a couple of verses, then just heavily sighed.
Joe Pettit, you are very wicked funny, and Jesus is just alright with me.
There seem to be competing concerns going on here. One is for “full, active participation” by all members of the worshipping community, and the other is for a liturgy intended to “educate all people, including youth and children” (Msgr. Miserachs’ words). Mind you, the two need not be mutually exclusive, but one wonders what sort of education is sought after here–asethetical? Really? I find it very hard to swallow that the entire liturgy is meant to be a pedagogical exercise.
I suppose we are meant to get educated during the Liturgy of the Word and more specifically during the homily. But I would find it hard to believe that the Prayer of the Faithful, the Anamnesis, or even the Penitential Rite exist to educate us poor, dumb lay people. There has to be some point in the liturgy during which we are free to offer back to God our praise and worship for his goodness to us. And it would seem that singing is one of the best ways we can do that, lifting up one voice to the Lord.
Of course there should be some oversight in this area, but not by someone who considers everything penned after 1940 to be “inconsistent, arrogant, and ridiculous profanities.” John XXIII must be spinning in his grave.
Liturgical music is supposed to be an education in the spiritual life. Look at an Orthodox Liturgy–the Latin Rite is supposed to be that profound.
Is it?
Does this mean there will be *no* Clown Masses, or just Clown Masses with higher-quality, Latinate music?
Kathy,
I am guessing the apocolypse will soon be upon us, because you and I agree on something! I would bet that the song you tried to sing is Siyahamba, which, in its English version is, “We are walking in the sight of God.” It is a fine song, and, when sung by english speakers in english, a fine experience. However, when english speakers try to sing it in Swahili, well, as your friend discovered, the best one can do is sigh.
It seems that some believe that the very act of speaking or singing in another language makes one a better, perhaps even holier, person. That this is sheer nonsense is another thing that I think the Pope and I would agree upon.
David, I don’t do vestments.
My concern is “sing along with Father Smith.”
Joe, you’re scaring me!
Y’know, if I were really suspicious, I might think that the current trend in world music in the Liturgy is not only about multicultural sensitivity, but also about minimizing the theological content of the sung texts.
This attempt at still further centralized Vatican control ain’t gonna’ work! No way!
Most Catholics can’t sing, anyway.
Most Catholics are fed up with the Vatican.
Principle of subsidiarity is part of the “natural psychological law,” according to which “those without a vested ownership in a piece of the rock don’t give a tinker’s dam about what comes down from above.”
I can just see a pastor with parish council formally deciding there will be no liturgical singing since the parishioners can barely sing “Kumbaya” and are unable at all to sing classical sacred music.
I predict: an exercise in futility.
I’d really like to know how frequent “clown masses” or swahili hymns occur?
Folks trumpet these as symbolic of what’s wrong, but I’ve never experienced them and I wonder if others have either.
It seems to me that putting forward minimal anecdotal material as paradigmatic happens far too frequently in liturgical discussion
Bob, I agree with you about clowns and bongos, beer and pizza, but not so much about world music, which apparently has yet to peak as a trend.
Kathy wrote:
“Liturgical music is supposed to be an education in the spiritual life.”
I thought that the purpose of liturgical music was twofold: to facilitate the worship of the congregation and to help the people enter more fully into the presence of God–not to give a lesson in spirituality. Perhaps that’s splitting hairs, but it seems to me that the hymns, etc., sung at a liturgy should be a reflection of the lives of the people singing them–even as it is an expression of their spiritual hopes and desires.
Or by “an education in the spiritual life,” do you mean that the songs we sing should paint a picture of what the spiritual life is supposed to look like (or sound like), to the edification of those singing? If that’s the case, I don’t disagree. But there are many ways that can happen. I don’t believe we’ll all be chanting Latin in heaven, after all. See Revelation 14:2-3.
Kathy also wrote:
“Look at an Orthodox Liturgy–the Latin Rite is supposed to be that profound.
Is it?”
Good question, but how does one define or experience profundity? There’s more than a bit of subjectivity here. One man’s profundity is another woman’s banality. Some are distracted and even repulsed by the pungent smell of incense, while others are lifted up to the seventh heaven. Are the former heathen and the latter holy?
I have been to nondenominational charismatic worship services that have been exceedingly profound–thanks to the ministrations of guitarists, drummers, and keyboardists who wouldn’t know a Kyrie Eleison if it bit them on the nose. And I have been to high Latin Masses that have had a similar effect. There is a time and a season for both
I think that what we’re dealing with here is a eurocentric elitism on the part of some Vatican mucky-mucks, aided and abetted by a few retrojectionist Americans who want to go back to some mythic golden age of liturgical perfection.
Hello All,
I must confess that I reacted quite angrily to the following quote attributed to Monsignor Grau:
“How far we are from the true spirit of sacred music, that is, of true liturgical music,” he lamented. “How can we stand it that such a wave of inconsistent, arrogant and ridiculous profanities have so easily gained a stamp of approval in our celebrations?”
Now as many participants in the discussion already know, I was for many years in contemporary music ministry so I am aware that I might be taking some personal offense here. But if this is truly what Monsignor Grau said, I think he is making an unjust accusation here. Like Bob, I have never been present or known anyone who has ever attended a “clown mass” or an American mass with a Swahili hymn. But even if such practices are occurring somewhere, they are not expressions of profanity unless they are done with the deliberate aim of showing disrespect to the faith. Ditto for all music used at a liturgy, whether it be contemporary or classical. And I know of no shred of evidence that anyone involved with contemporary music ministry is trying to mock the faith. Frankly I think if he was accurately quoted, the Monsignor is the one who is being arrogant and ridiculous, though to be fair he is not expressing profanity.
Okay, now that I have thrown my tantrum, I guess I will second Joseph’s thoughts and ask, will this proposal have that much practical import?
Was it not Augustine who coined the mantra, “Singing is praying twice?” If everyone prays differently, why do we all have to sing the same way? Centralization of control over liturgical music seems not to be a good idea.
I have to believe that this proposal would not gain too much traction, but then again, who would have thought Rome would be so successful in mandating literalist new translations of the Mass into languages they don’t even speak?
I would think (hope) the bishops would truly hold the line against such musical oversight above all because nothing else–nothing–would anger the faithful more than being told they couldn’t have a favorite hymn sung at Uncle Joe’s funeral or their daughter’s wedding or some such.
Heck, there was already a huge outcry when a few bishops banned “Danny Boy” from funerals, and while not liturgical music, I’d take it above a lot of other choices.
Kathy: I’ll have you know that I have been humming the tune to that Swahili song all night now. It is rather catchy.
Joseph J. Regarding the claim that Catholics can’t sing, I will note that after spending some time in Protestant land, I started noticing a few things that I rarely saw in Catholic hymnals — quarter notes, eigth notes, and harmony lines! We Protestants may be gravely deficient when it comes to salvation, but we can knock out some pretty good hymns (although, Protestants were probably the first to put music up on projector screens, a damnable offense).
At one of the General Assembly gatherings of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) a liturgist who was quite taken with the imperative for inclusive langauge decided to change all of the “he” language in “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” (not friendly to quarter and eigth notes, I admit) to “God” language. Unfortunately, this liturgist did not bother to notice that in the third verse most of the masculine language refers to the Prince of Darkness. This produced quite a chuckle when it came time to follow the bouncing ball during the worship service.
One more thought, perhaps for another thread: we talk so much about the hymns we hate, but rarely about the ones we love. So, if a new office were created to guide Catholic music, I would be curious to know for what people on dotCommonweal would lobby. Since mine wouldn’t be included, I will offer the following three:
1) Holy, Holy, Holy
2) I Need Thee Every Hour
3) Were You There
Kathy: Regarding the low level of theological content in music, sometimes I thinks this is a virtue. A single idea can become mantra like, without much deep theological reflection. This, I take to be the case in the latter two on my list (not sure if Catholics even know I Need Thee Every Hour).
Sorry to do this to thread, all these posts and all, but I did realize that someone might think that an avowed adoptionist has no business liking Holy, Holy, Holy (blessed Trinity, and all). This raises a significant question regarding the degree to which one needs to agree with the theology in the hymns one loves. I like the Holy, Holy, Holy repetition so much, that I simply look past the Trinity part (not to mention the Cherubim and Seraphim, part).
Joe,
I agree with you about repetition when the words are sound; Taize ostinator refrains, usually from Scripture, for example. But what if the words are way iffy? Such as “We come to share our story/ we come to break the bread/ we come to know our rising from the dead?” I’ve been forced to sing that before. It was terrible.
What if they’re heretical, rather maudlin, and sometimes incoherent, like the most famous Lenten hymn in America?
Please chant the words in parentheses on a single note:
“We rise again from ashes, from the good we’ve failed to do [and possibly from sins of commission as well]
We rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew [nice trick if you can manage creating anything, i.e., if you're God]
If all our world is ashes, then must our lives be true [I don't know what that means, exactly, but it's obviously referring to my authenticity so I'm all for it]
An offering of ashes; an offering to you [I'm sure God is very pleased to receive the residue from our failures, but I seriously doubt this has anything to do with the biblical symbol of ashes as penitential]
I went to a hymn geek conference at Calvin College this summer. The presenter, a Calvinist, was talking about banality. Looking directly at me (the only Catholic, “from the mother ship” as one guy said) he went on and on about Gather Us In. Something like this: “The most popular song at Catholic Mass, for some time now, has been Gather Us In. Look at the words. You will find nothing in that text that would offend any Hindu who happened to walk into Mass. There’s no mention of Jesus Christ. You are presumably singing to God but God is not explicitly named. It could be any God. Nothing would offend any world religion, nothing would even strike such a person as this being a Christian song or even necessarily a religious song. This song could be perfectly at home at any Unitarian Universalist convention. A Bahai could sing this hymn quite comfortably.”
He went on and on.
Actually I think that the best hymns in English, whether they are original texts in English or translations, are very often Protestant hymns. I love “a Mighty Fortress is Our God”. The worst are the products of of postV2 RC composers who combine scriptural texts with popular music of a brainless sort. Oops! That was probably uncivil. Do good intentions lead to aesthetic achievement. I think not. As for the Bishop of Rome, I suspect I share his tastes to some considerable degree, but I don’t particularly like his attitude. Here, surely, I have achieved civility.
I should add that I have found J.S. Bach’s music a very good witness to the existence and glory of God. Pop music seems to me a bit of a counterargument.
Kathy: I (this will probably not surprise you) like Gather Us In. Jesus does show up in “Here we will take the wine and the water. Here will take the bread that is you” part of the song. Not, I am sure, what the Calvinist is looking for.
Back to dislikes. I do not care for the intense emotionalism of many newer songs such as is found in Open the Eyes of My Heart. I find it WAY too self-centered. But here is my problem, related to Alan’s post — lots of people do like this stuff, and I simply will not say that they are bad Christians for liking it. It just does not work for me. If that brings them to God, great.
BTW, two of my three picks were sung by Mahalia Jackson. I can like just about anything after hearing her sing it.
In Anglican churches one hears the most beautiful harmonic and polyphonic sounds, which are deeply spiritual too. We need to learn from them.
I think both the Schubert and the Bach/Gounod Ave Maria should be on the black list. The former is a beautiful romantic song, originally a ballad from a novel by Walter Scott — it is not suitable for the liturgy. The latter is a musical horror. If by Verdi’s Ave Maria the one from ‘Otello’ is meant, of course it has no place in the liturgy (despite its interesting use before Pavarotti’s funeral mass). A basic rule is that liturgical music should not be operatic. Even such greats as Mozart’s C Minor mass are unsuitable for this reason (as opposed say to the quite suitable Ave Verum). Music that draws immense attention to itself — such as Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis or Brahms’ German Requiem — is unsuitable, too; it tends to set up a theology of its own, which distracts from the unfolding theology of the liturgical action. Faure’s Requiem, on the other hand, seems well adapted to the liturgy.
What the people in Rome seem to forget is the musical dimension of inculturated liturgies in Africa and Asia. The lunacy surrounding the Motu Proprio may lead also to a musical lunacy that will try to promote Gregorian Chant and Palestrina at the expense of everything else. Note that even Palestrina was banished from Rome during much of his lifetime, and that whole generations of church composers were felled at one by Rome’s edict that the words should be plainly audible. Note also that Haydn and Mozart were freemasons; Beethoven a Christian whose orthodoxy could not be vouched for by the CDF; Schubert a rewriter of the words of the Creed in his mass settings; Brahms, Verdi, Faure, Janacek, Britten avowed atheists; Elgar a wavering believer.
A word on the Motu Proprio: The French, German, American and English bishops have acquitted themselves of their responsibilities as pastors with great integrity in their reception of this document that has caused so much trouble to them. They have taken very generously into account the demands of the small minority who wish to celebrate the traditional Tridentine Mass. For their pains they are lambasted by bloggers worldwide, who want more uncritical alacrity and less concern with pastoral priorities and basic common sense. Now we hear the bishops described as “instruments of the devil” by Archbishop Ranjith, whom the insidious schismatic bishop Bernard Fellay sees as his man in Rome (Fellay also told his followers that Cardinal Arinze was “a traitor”). It is unheard of for a Vatican official to pour scorn on Cardinals and bishops in this way, and I do not think that the Pope can afford to entertain his antics much longer. It is amazing to see schismatics calling on the world’s bishops to be more obedient to the Pope! And the bad ecclesiology that regards the universal episcopate as mere pawns and errand-boys is perfectly incompatible with Vatican II.
“Danny Boy” being banned from funerals is about the best news I’ve heard all week.
What kind of mother, saying goodbye to her son, would lovingly envision him coming back to find her dead and praying at her grave? Oh, yeah, an Irish one.
One of the main things I loathe about having Irish relatives is having had to listen to their maudlin, manipulative music. My mother and her dad used to knock back shots and make us listen to it and tell us sad stories about how life sucks.
Truly an upbeat upbringing for a kid who already had melancholic tendencies.
The only time I ever played “DB” in my house was to threaten my kid, as in, “Clean up your room or I’ll sing ‘Danny Boy.’” It worked really well.
Oops, rant. Sorry.
I’ve never seen a clown mass, but they have a polka mass at St. Cyril’s, the Czechoslovakian church five miles north. I guess they use accordions and tubas and stuff. I’ve always wanted to go see what it was like, just as an oddity.
“I should add that I have found J.S. Bach’s music a very good witness to the existence and glory of God. Pop music seems to me a bit of a counterargument.”
Joseph,
But Bach wrote one of the biggest hit songs of 1965–”A Lover’s Concerto,” performed by The Toys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrmzM7yT-9g
Perhaps I should have said “may have written,” since apparently some of the contents of the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach may not have been written by Bach himself.
A few last thoughts:
-lots of variety of opinion here and, I suspect, even more in the broad community. Whatever happened to “de gustibus…”? I guess I’m suspicious of the arbiters of taste being patrons of their taste.
-In liturgy, as i experienced in the workplace, there are extremes, those who will do anything they think is OK (“polka Mass?’ and tose who beleive we need to folow line by line the letter of the law (GIRM), viz. non-thinkers.
Obviously, as in all things, balance strikes me as crucial.
-Speaking of by the book, the new Archbishop of Baltimore removed a pastor yesgerday for letting an Episcopal priest join him in celebrating a social; activist funeral – the episcopal priest read the Gospel, did not participate in the canon. I guess that’s by the book but was it balanced?
I think what the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy called “the didactic” element of the liturgy is rather poorly understood generally. Liturgy teaches, but in a particular way. It is better expressed perhaps by the word “formation.” Even the Liturgy of the Word can’t really be assimilated to the “teaching” function entirely, though it’s where our minds tend to go when we try to think of how the liturgy teaches. The reason it can’t is a very good one, namely that the Liturgy of the Word is a ritual event. John Paul II called it a “dialogue of salvation” (Dies Domini) in which the faithful hear the demands and the promise of the covenant anew, and are called to “continuing conversion.”
Some have complained that what one learns by singing music that is influenced by popular and folk musical cultures is that there is no disjuncture between the sacred and the profane, the holy and the everyday. And there are those who advocate the use of such music for exactly the same reason! I think there is room for both Gregorian chant and popular hymns. I think there is room even for songs that go out of date after a while. Did we really lose a lot when “Bring Flowers of the Fairest” was retired? But it was popular in its day. Kumbaya has been gone for years, but there was a time when it did carry a heartfelt and simple prayer that was not a bad thing, nor a betrayal of the tradition.
I worry that what we learn from re-enshrining the repertoire of an age when the liturgy did NOT emphasize active participation of the assembly is that the liturgy is a performance that the faithful watch (and hear), but of which they are not truly an integral part. The same danger exists with rock groups at youth Masses, whose melody lines are very hard for a congregation to follow.
But back to the original reason for the thread. I am afraid this move at the Vatican is intended to impede inculturation. If so, this will fall rather heavily on the churches that are growing the fastest — in Africa. The pope, it would seem, wants music you can’t dance to… and the fastest growing church in our age is self-described as “the dancing church.” We are more worried about order than about evangelization, I fear.
Msgr Grau’s remarks are something of an embarassment. Like many conservative Catholics they rely on caricature rather than experience or fact. That so many MaChurch advocates can’t get off clowns, beer, and Kumbaya is telling. Nobody has those experiences.
I hold little hope for the fruitfulness of a “hymnal by subtraction.” Everybody has a most-hated hymn, and the result of such a project would be a very slim and blank little book.
Any serious student of early music (and that includes chant and polyphony, by the way) knows of the historical fluidity on the boundary between sacred and secular. “Popular” music loaned much to church musicians. I’d expect a scholar of Grau’s stature to take more care in leveling blame at contemporary music.
By the way, I know many Rome-trained liturgists serving in the US. How many PISM alumni serve in parishes, I wonder?
David
I suppose I was using “pop” as short hand for “simpleminded and vulgar”. That a piece by a member of the Bach Family is or has been popular in the sense “loved by many” does not mean that it is or was “pop” in my sense.
Joseph,
I was making a small joke (apparently very small). “A Lover’s Concerto” was a hit by one of the “girl groups” of the 1960s, The Toys. Wikipedia tells us the melody is based on “the familiar ‘Minuet in G major’ (BWV Anh. 114) from J.S. Bach’s Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach. One key difference is that the ‘Minuet in G major’ is written in 3/4 time, whereas ‘A Lover’s Concerto’ is arranged in 4/4 time.” I suspect most lovers of Bach would rather not even hear it or know it exists.
The problem can be solved easily. Recorded approved music will be the only thing allowed at Mass. Just pop in the CD and let it rip. Then the rest of us pew potatoes can go back to reading the papers, fingering our beads and day-dreaming …. just as we did in the bad old days. We could even bring back confessions during the Mass; another popular distraction from termina boredom of them there days of daze.
The only exception that I would request is a quarterly polka mass with dancing members of Weight Watchers, clad in pink spandex.
Somebody should set up autoMass.com on the Internet where, for a subscription price of 5 to 10 percent of their monthly income, to be distributed to the indicated parish of choice, people can download a personalized Mass into their iPods and take their own Mass to Church with them.
They would have personal preferences such as language (Latin or vernacular), favorite hymns, prayers of the faithful tailored to their individual needs. They should also be able to select sermons of various durations and tone (e.g., the five minute “happy” sermon on the Prodigal Son), and download announcements from their diocese and parish.
Since personalized Masses would be longer or shorter, depending on personal preferences, Communion could be buffet style presided over by EMs.
Only a few priests per diocese would be needed to transubstantiate the elements for each parish’s eucharistic buffet, thus easing the priest shortage.
The autoMass would also gather everybody together at the same time, but eliminate the embarassing and germy Our Father handholding and Peace handshakes.
It would also prevent griping about the hymns, the sermon, the hated liturgical ad libs, etc.
Someone should really think about this idea, because my guess is that a personalized iPod Mass wouldn’t connect a lot of people to God, to the Church and to teach other any less than they are now.