On the First Sunday of Advent 2011, Catholics throughout the United States will be introduced to the new translation of the Roman Missal. It is widely recognized that the new translation is a more accurate rendition of the original Latin and imbued with a splendor that renders it fully appropriate for use in the Sacred Liturgy. This monumental event marks a turning point in the English liturgy, and the change it brings will inevitably be accompanied by a period of adjustment. The Bishops of our nation have wisely given a lengthy period to allow parishes and dioceses to implement adequate catechesis. In this way they seek to not only prepare the American Church but also to instill in the people both the need for and a gratitude towards a long overdue improvement of our worship. This turning point also brings real opportunity for liturgical catechesis in general.
The liturgical movement that began in the nineteenth century and gained steam through the first part of twentieth culminated in the great 1948 liturgical encyclical of Pope Pius XII. Mediator Dei, along with the entire movement, emphasized the need for liturgical catechesis: conforming the hearts and minds of God’s people to the truth of the sacred rites. The vision of this movement was to bolster people’s understanding of both the broad nature of the liturgy and the intricate details that govern the Roman Rite. The Second Vatican Council continued this momentum in its constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, rightly calling for the laity’s authentic participation. Indeed, the people of God have not only a right, but also a duty, to understand the liturgy as an inexhaustible mystery of the Triune God and to participate in that economy of love. Nearly half a decade after Sacrosanctum Concilium it is worth asking whether the goal of authentic participation and a deepened liturgical consciousness has been realized.
The post-conciliar pattern has been very good at reiterating this goal. Yet an honest survey of the liturgical landscape shows that this era has failed to live up to the call of the Council. Once vibrant churches are experiencing an empty-pew phenomenon; priestly and religious vocations are tragically low; there is a general apathy towards the liturgy and its relationship to everyday life. But the landscape is not entirely bleak. There are many who are working towards an authentic implementation of the Council and helping to establish a reform of the reform. While other periods in the Church’s history have seen a similar apathy, our time is the only one for which we can work towards a solution. Advent 2011, in addition to marking the beginning of a new liturgical year, also gives us the opportunity to renew a commitment to liturgical catechesis. The implementation of the new translation is an invitation to finally take up the call of the liturgical movement and Vatican II.
The maxim lex orandi, lex credendi should be the driving force behind this renewal. It is no surprise that the age stricken with apathy towards the liturgy is also an age that is caught up in the throngs of moral and doctrinal relativism. Whether liturgical relativism (lex orandi) has caused this lapse in faith (lex credendi) or vice versa is not as important as the redemption of both laws. To do so requires an act of great humility from God’s people, a humility that recognizes that we are creatures, not the Creator.
Those in charge of liturgical planning must put aside any legalism that leads to reading liturgical documents under a lens that would have us do the bare minimum needed to satisfy the letter of the law. They must abandon any preconceptions and adhere to the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium read in continuity with the entire liturgical patrimony of the Church. Finally, they must approach the liturgy with a humble posture of docility and receptivity that understands the Mass not as something subject to personal opinion but rather as a mystery-gift from the same Creator who breathed life into our very souls.
While the new translation will affect all parts of the liturgy, it will most strongly be felt in the area of music, for the simple reason that choirs and congregations will need new compositions for at least the Ordinary.
St. Augustine maintained that a prayer sung is twice prayed, and for that reason the Church has in her great wisdom both recognizes and promotes the role of music in the liturgy. More than that, however, she has ceaselessly proclaimed that the Mass itself is more rightly prayed when those parts proper to it are put to song. The providence of the situation should not be lost: the area that will most strongly experience the change in the new translation is also the area that has suffered the greatest loss in the post-conciliar era. For this reason, liturgical music has the opportunity to stand at the forefront of a new liturgical movement, and the introduction of the new translation of the Roman Missal can serve as an impetus for a new beginning, one that seeks to finally implement the liturgical vision of the Second Vatican Council. The new translation contains a language that is far more dignified than the translation it seeks to replace. The new compositions should be of the highest quality worthy of the dignified language that supplies the new words of the Mass.
As a member of the laity who is deeply interested in worshiping God in a manner worthy of his infinite dignity, I address this letter to you, the music liturgists of 19,000 parishes in 194 Dioceses of the United States.
There is nothing more tragic than the complete elimination of the texts proper to the Mass. Certainly, we would be horrified if the second reading were to be eliminated and replaced with a generic faith reflection unrelated to the reading it seeks to supplant. Why, then, have we allowed the antiphons that accompany the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion processions to completely disappear from liturgical use? The GIRM, in listing the four options for the Entrance, speaks first of “the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting.” The next two options are also psalms and antiphons. It is not until the very last option that the GIRM mentions, “a suitable liturgical song.” The norms for the other proper chants reference the same principle.
Why have we made the last option the norm for our liturgical celebrations? Moreover, the songs chosen almost universally bear no resemblance of the chant texts in the Gradual. Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of the ICEL Secretariat, observes that these Propers represent the Church’s own thoughts about the readings, that they serve as a sort of lectio divina pointing us towards the mysteries and riches of the day’s liturgy. The problem with choosing hymns instead of receiving the Propers is the temptation to impose our own interpretation of the sacred texts that will be read during the Liturgy of the Word. According to Msgr. Wadsworth, “It is seriously deficient to consider that planning music for the liturgy ever begins with a blank sheet: there are texts given for every Mass in the Missal and these texts are intended for singing.”
In the age of the internet, a simple search for any one of these Propers will turn up a number of options in both Latin and the vernacular. The first option is the original selection from the Gregorian repertoire. Sacrosanctum Concilium, in continuity with the entire corpus of the Church’s writings on music, clearly calls for a “pride of place” for Gregorian Chant. Simple Gregorian settings can be easily learned by any congregation. In order to learn and appreciate the chant, music directors should ensure that the performance is of the highest quality. With that in mind, there are several pitfalls to avoid.
First, Latin is not a penitential language, and regulating these chants to the season of Lent is not giving it “pride of place.” Their use should be much wider and begin with the most solemn liturgies of the year: the solemnities. Second, with a well-trained choir leading, congregations should be able to sing these chants a cappella. If a choir is in need of an accompaniment, a light organ can be suitable, but it is critical that the organ not over-power the human voice. The accompaniment should be barely perceptible. Third, the pace of the chant must move in a manner suitable to the cadence of the words, always keeping in mind that the notes are always at the service of the text. Before introducing these chants, it is beneficial to find several good recordings widely available on the internet. Too often, the Gregorian melodies are sung at a pace half of what it should be. When this happens, the experience is more of an endless time rather than the timeless end that constitutes eternity. Finally, while a light organ can be an appropriate backdrop, it is counteractive to work against the fluidity of the chant by incorporating any percussive instrument, such as the piano or guitar.
The Gregorian compositions are not the only option for singing the propers. There are many good selections in English modeled off of the Gregorian melodies, and other vernacular pieces of varying degrees of complexity designed for either an unaccompanied or organ-backed choir sung either in unison or using a choral arrangement for mixed voices. Many of these arrangements are available at no charge as part of the Creative Commons on internet, and careful effort has gone into seeing that they respect the Psalm antiphon in the Roman Gradual.
I ask once more why we have allowed the exception in the GIRM to become the norm? Why have we unilaterally replaced the texts proper to the Mass with hymns that have little to do with those texts? With the advent of the new translation, this is a perfect time to rediscover the rich heritage of the Proper Chants.
The Catholic Church in America must free itself from the Haugen-Haas-Schutte/OCP monopoly. The hymns in this arrangement are outdated by any measure. First, they are not, and never have been, in continuity with the Church’s musical tradition. The very composing of these hymns was an attempt to create a gap between the era in which they arose and the history in which the sacred rites organically developed. Second, these hymns are not even contemporary, but are instead fossilized remnants of an era that is no more. Even many hymns written in the last decade are imbued with a style that is stuck in the 1960’s and 70’s. Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out the two opposite errors in liturgical theology: an antiquarianism that allows for no development whatsoever and a spirit of arbitrary creativity that seeks to break with the past. The Haugen-Haas-Schutte regime is unique in that it is guilty of both. In their heyday, they were the exemplar of a deliberate break from the liturgical patrimony of the Church. But now that the musical style of the day has left these hymns in the past, the proponents seek desperately to hold on to the nostalgia of a time gone by. In this sense, they are guilty of a new antiquarianism, with their “antiquity” being the 1970’s.
Any observation about the hymns in this collection applies also to the compositions that form the Mass Ordinary. As with the Propers, the compositions native to the liturgy come first from the Gregorian repertoire and second from those sources that are created in continuity with this repertoire. This is perhaps the most obvious area in which the music liturgists will be involved with the new translation. Because of the new texts, you will have to select new compositions. In doing so, consider something that is consonant with the chant tradition. The words of the Mass are to be, in their most solemn moments, a “sung speech”. Good compositions for the new translation of the Ordinary, written in a style appropriate for the Liturgy, will undoubtedly be a prominent presence on the internet. Projects are already underway to make sure that this is the case. The beauty of this is that composers who understand the nature of the sacred liturgy are also those who seek to widely distribute their work for free. Why settle for costly compositions when there are significantly better ones available at no charge.
As music liturgists, you have a tremendous opportunity, for you stand at the heart of the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Giving the texts of the Mass their very voice, you have an impossible task at your feet, one that can only be accomplished through humble obedience to God and his Church. The new translation of the Roman Missal marks a turning point in your vocation. This event provides a suitable backdrop to re-evaluate the very philosophy with which you approach your task. It provides an excuse to revisit the major liturgical writings of the Church from the past century and to listen to the wisdom of the current Holy Father and preeminent liturgical scholar, Pope Benedict XVI. Most importantly, however, it gives rise to one of those rare and defining moments in your life when the Lord is calling to you. How will you respond? Will you see the liturgy as a gift entrusted to the care of the Church? Will you abandon yourself to the her liturgical teachings, to the Second Vatican Council, and to the vision of Pope Benedict XVI? Will you rescue the forgotten texts of the Mass by purchasing publications that contain the Propers? For those that are involved with music publishers, such as OCP and GIA, will you use your influence to bring the Propers back to the liturgy by including them in your publications?
I may not be a liturgical scholar, but I am but a humble son of God who desires to see our sacred rites celebrated according to His desire. I may not be a music expert, but I am a husband and father who wants his family to experience the voices of the angels singing through the music that is proper to the Mass. I may not be a saint, but I am a sinner that needs the liturgy and its celebration to remind me that I am not my own, but that I was won at a price.
This is your moment to respond to the call: Advent 2011. Will you see it as a new beginning? Will you help bring about a new liturgical movement? May God be with you and enflame your hearts with His Spirit.
J. Jacob Tawney
Your second reading analogy would hold if Rome offered the following option: 1. The given passage from one of the epistles; 2. A passage from the Biblical studies of the doctors of the Church; 3. A passage from a saint based on the SCriptures; or 4. A modern Bible study approved by the bishops.
ReplyDeleteBut then you would have to address the problem that the proper texts are actually a bone thrown to traditionalists who wanted to retain the propers from the 1570/1962 Missal. And that these propers are not always in harmony with the Lectionary readings or even the prayers of the Mass.
Unfortunate that you refer to a "regine" of "The Haugen-Haas-Schutte." All those guys and more adopted the form of the propers in most of their liturgical music: an antiphon with a text set from the psalms or the Scripture. In many cases, musicians program the given psalm but to a different setting (still choice #1) and choice #3: another psalm setting.
A careful reading of GIRM 48 will also show that Rome ranks as first choice, the dialogue singing of the entrance chant with choir and people. And that the option of the choir singing the Gregorian proper is actually the 4th choice, just ahead of no singing at all. So, regarding your statement: "The Gregorian compositions are not the only option for singing the propers."
Good thing, too, because they are nearly the last option, unless the people sing them too.
This plea might be more plausible if it actually engaged in detail the state of the terrain before and after the Council and the practical issues involved over the course of the before-and-after period. There are reasons why the propers never took off before and after the Council (I do not count the perfunctory recitation of them in Latin by the celebrant before the Council as terribly meaningful - that was a matter of minimalist form over substance). It might help if the writer engaged them. It's a great example of the hermeneutic of continuity....
ReplyDeleteLiam,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very constructive comment, and I would love to see a detailed description of the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar terrains as well. Of course, in one post, there is only so much that can be done. For what it is worth, I agree with you - perhaps in the near future someone will offer such a description - perhaps it is already out there. Keep in mind that the audience of the "Open Letter" was intended to be the average music director working in a typical American parish (if there is such a thing). I wanted to point out that (1) there are such things as Propers, (2) they are almost universally ignored, and (3) this should not be the case. I think I covered those things. Thank you, though, for the comment and taking the time to read.
Todd,
ReplyDeleteYou raised many issues, and I will try to respond to as much as I can. First, you are correct that the analogy breaks down, as all analogies eventually do. I didn't claim that the situations were parallel, but merely tried to reframe the elimination of official texts of the Mass in terms that someone unfamiliar with the Propers (because they have, for all intents and purposes, been eliminated) can better understand. You are correct, however, in that the second reading does not have "options" as is the case for the Introit. I tried to be careful in my writing to never claim that anything other than the Propers is disallowed, but perhaps my analogy was misleading. Mea culpa.
I am not familiar with why you think that the proper texts were kept merely to appease those who would like to keep them. Perhaps you are aware of something from the history of the Roman Missal that I have not heard. I don't mean this to be patronizing - I am genuine in my admission that I am not as well versed as others when it comes to the history of these things, and if you want to expand upon this comment, I would be open to hearing it.
I am sure people will be skeptical when I say this, but I spent a good bit of time toiling over the words "monopoly" and "regime." I am not sure if they are too harsh, but I certainly understand why those who are fans of this music would think so. In the end, I kept the language, understanding that I would have to deal with the windfall from it. While I never want to generalize my own experiences in parish life to the entire American Church, there is something to be said for starting with what one knows. Here is what I know … I have been to three different parishes in the last month and every parish sang a repertoire that was dominated by these three composers. I claim nothing about the fault of those composers, but in my limited experience, the parishes themselves treat these three like they are the end all and be all, and in some cases the only choice, for music in the Mass. In your comment at the Chant Cafe, you pointed out the three publishes and how their existences contradicts the concept of a monopoly. My use of the word was not intended to be a strictly economic meaning, but more general. Again, in my limited experience, these artists and companies have a "practical" monopoly. Whether this is because of their own practices or the way in which the music liturgists treat them, I cannot say. What I do know is that, as a member of the laity, at times it seems like this is all I hear.
… (continued)
… (continued)
ReplyDeleteI am unclear about what you mean when you say that these artists employ the format of a call and response psalmody (my language, not yours). If you expand on this, it would be easier to reply. I don't think we want to limit the "structure" of the propers to an antiphon that is repeated after various verses are sung. If that were the case, then all pop music of the radio could be considered to model this style. I don't want to set up straw men here, so I will wait until you go into more detail. For my own part, the style of the Propers has not only to do with the call-and-response format, but also to the way in which is is a non-metered sung speech. The fact is that all hymns, even hymns that you and I may agree on in terms of their artistic quality, have a different structure from the Propers if only by virtue of their meter. When viewed in this light, it is hard to place the hymns of these three artists, or any hymn for that matter, in any other category than #4.
#48 in the GIRM is interesting. I should first point out that I would never want to limit the argument for the Propers to the GIRM. I quoted from it for obvious reasons, but it is one argument among many that have been offered by Jeffrey Tucker and others. As you pointed out over at the Chant Cafe, he has made much better arguments. I was not seeking to one-up the existing arguments but only to offer my own perspective on these issues. That being said, there does seem to be a difference in presentation between the four options you mention (written at the start of #48) and the four I spoke of. For those unaware, take a good look at #48. There are two "lists of four". The list you offer is presented with much less structure than the one I offered. It could be argued that the first not have an implied order, whereas the second, which actually contains numbers in a list, does. However, this is a nuance that cannot be settled by looking at #48 of the GIRM alone. For now, I don't want to go into this too much, because it is a separate point form my post. I was arguing for the inclusion of the Propers, and your list speaks of how the music should be performed. That is a discussion worth having, but it is not the purpose of the current letter.
At the risk of sounding trite, people can choose to split hairs over this or that language found in this post. I think, however, that this glosses over the larger and much more important overall message.
ReplyDeleteI think the author's point is simply this (he will correct me if I am wrong): We have before us an opportunity unlike any we've had in the last forty or so years to pray better as English speaking... and singing... Catholics. If the Mass itself is the highest form of prayer and sung worship we can offer to God, then it is incumbent upon those in positions of influence to lead the way by enthusiastically embracing and implementing the ideal rather than the bare minimum form of Catholic worship in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is high time that we learn to pray the MASS.
Nice work, Jake.
Well said Mark! I welcome the information and the Spirit in which it is stated. We as liturgical leaders in our parishes, are called to a higher understanding of the Mass and will be held responsible for leading music appropriately. That being said, as one who recently came home to Mother Church, and playing at a small(100 family) church, training and correct info are not particularly easy to come by. Thank goodness for sites like this one--not picking at details, but striving to reveal the intent--the soul--of liturgical principles, so we can use them as best we can. I am old enough to remember Gregorian chant, and love it, but trying to get the parish in which I play to sing it will be a challenge. We have a new/holy/true priest, but this parish has been singing rock music for 10 years. It has been a challenge to move them to traditional/holy/prayerful hymns. Do you have some suggestions on transitioning to chant? Is there a sequence of what is most important to transition first? You said there were free music selections--can you post some links?
ReplyDeleteMary Ellen,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. If you are looking for a resource on "how" to do this, I would first recommend that you read my post on Climbing the Musical Ladder. It outlines (and gives an example) of how a music director can move a music program from the four hymn sandwich to a complete set of Gregorian Propers (done gradually, prudently, and over time). It can be found here.
I have another example, though not as detailed, found here.
Finally, check out Adam Barlett's work on the Chant Cafe and the CMAA site, The Sacred Music Project. He posts several versions of the Simple Propers that are of use for a choir.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Jake. You have put into words what has been in my heart for many years, in a way much more eloquent than I could ever have done.
ReplyDeleteI am 63 and have lived through the living "hell" of "liturgical music", from hootenany type in the late 60s early 60s, on to the feel good type and so on. This came along with feel good religion classes, banners, which I loath, oh, the list is endless.
I love my Catholic FAith and managed to keep my balance, even though so many kept telling me it was a little thing, or you will get used to it, as they pat my hand. Then when I say, oh no I won't, because it is not right, they just look at me sadly. Many priests were not helpful either, as they turned things over to the lay people to do, when they really did not know what was correct or not, because, sadly, the priest's training was very poor, too.
It took me forever to shake hands, as the books all of a sudden said give a sign of peace according to the local custom. What local custom? There was no such thing, and then right before communion people were running all over the church, shaking hands, hugging, talking. Then there is the holding of hands during the Our Father, spreading out between the isles... oh the horror stories, at least to me.
I just want peace, the beauty of the Mass, our Lord in the Eucharist, and good hymns, that lift me vertically, and not spreading me out horizontally, so I can take that bit of heaven home with me, the graces, to help me through my day.. Oh yes, and a homily that teaches as well as makes me think how I can do better, and that I NEED to do better.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the "buildings", that look like auditoriums, no stain glass, statues or even kneelers, and then hiding the tabernacle in another room, no stations on the walls... oh my, God is so good, as we have survived with all these abuses, but now we have much work to do, and many wonderful young people coming forward to do it. THank you ALL.
Sorry I went on. This means a lot to me.
Christ's peace,
Judy
One last thing. I am a high school graduate, a mom of 9, have taken a few classes on our faith over the years, but I have found that the basic foundation laid out to me in first through 4th grade, and even in the Sat. religion classes after that, as they still were solid, helped me immensly to have a "gut feeling", as they say, that sted me well. Manytimes I found that people with degrees looked down on the ordinary folks, and the ordinary folks felt they could not say anything, since they were not educated in music, or rubrics (sp). Smugness was the line of defense with many, including the religious, again, sadly. I am a bit fiesty and most likely caused many a preist/lay person heart burn. Not disrespectful, just would not accept what they were saying. I looked it up :)
ReplyDeleteJudy,
ReplyDeleteGod bless you, dear. Your comment was so uplifting and gave me great hope for the future. I am humbled that you took the time to read through my personal ramblings.
You raised two peripheral issues. The first was one of the Sign of Peace. Just recently I had an entire piece on this very topic. It can be found here.
The second was the state of architecture. Again, at the risk of shameless self-promotion, check out my article on true art, found here.
Thank you once again.
Whatever Bugnini had in mind when he planned the Novus Ordo it was certainly not the "four hymn sandwich" which is the norm in the UK and I suspect in the US as well. He went so far as to suggest that the practice of singing hymns at Mass was now superseded. Yet the dire standard of music in the average parish is frequently remarked on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find immensely frustrating is that the situation can be dramatically improved with comparatively little effort and minimal musical resources. Every parish could put together a schola of half a dozen people. This would lead the congregation in the ordinary and provide music during the Offertory and Communion when other things are going on. If you sang Mass XVII on every Sunday of Advent I guarantee people will know it off by heart come Christmas. They may need the Latin text but most people learn music by ear, which was of course the Gregorian tradition. At a stroke you will have replaced a banal modern product, which people don't sing along with anyway, with what is by any standards great music.
The flexibility of the OF means that you don't necessarily have to sing the chants proper to the day. The Alleluia from Advent I can be repeated on the other three Sundays - it is beautiful and easily learnt, and the verse can be sung in psalm tone, even in English!
Throw in the Advent prose Rorate Caeli (neo-gregorian, but who cares?), Adoro Te or Ave Verum at the Communion, and sing Veni Emmanuel unaccompanied (perhaps alternating Latin and English). Scientia ballistae non est.
Because we have an increasing number of priests, many of them young, who want to celebrate the Usus Antiquior, I find I have plenty of opportunities to sing Chant. But it's not enough; the majority of Catholics only attend OF Masses and these are the ones we need to reach, not to mention those who after 40-odd years of sloppy liturgy and bubblegum music vote with their feet and stay away.
John,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. Thank your for the comments. In would suggest, however, tha even vernucular plainchant in place of hymns, while not the ideal, could go a long way toward the recovery of the Gregorian propers. Simply ditching the whole concept of hymns is enough to change the entire tone of the Mass (pun intended). Or, as you said, using Gregorian hymns ... Again, while not the ideal (the propers themselves would be the ideal) could go a long way.
Thanks for your comment.
Jake,
ReplyDeleteThere is a tradition of vernacular plainchant in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE which is based on Gregorian models, and a lot of Benedictine institutions have adapted Gregorian chant to English texts, but there has been little attempt to do anything like this at parish level. With the new translations coming in, we have an opportunity to make a fresh start and some of the US initiatives are really encouraging. A wholesale return to a Latin liturgy is not a practical proposition (although an increased use of Latin is desirable for a number of reasons.) But we can and must vastly improve on what we have in most places at present.
John,
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if you think I disagree or not. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree. That was one of the main purposes of this article and my piece on Climbing the Musical Ladder. The new translations provide a fantastic opportunity to rethink what liturgical music is. The ideal is, of course, always Gregorian Chant, but most parishes are not in a position to have a wholesale return to that overnight (or even over a few years). However, a transition that takes advantage of a vernacular version of Plain Chant (as in the Anglican Gradual, which I think is what you were referring to) can be quite fruitful. I agree that there has been little attempt to do anything like this at most parishes, but there are efforts under way for providing sets of simple propers in the vernacular ... again, the purpose being to give people something that can actually be done in every parish ... with an eventual eye towards the ideal. Adam Bartlett has been organizing the Simple Propers Project at the CMAA and has been writing and posting on it at the Chant Cafe. You may already know this, but if not, you should check it out. Also, take a look at the Climbing the Musical Ladder post; it explains a bit more how I envision the liturgical music improvements getting off the ground. Also, there is a followup and further example here
The new liturgical movement is complete nonsense. Worship is the work of the people. It is their sincere, modern, authentic praise of God. Our creator ain't impressed with theatrical props from the Renaissance, dead languages, dead music, dead art, or whatever else the conservatives drag out of the attic. This is not a magic act...yet that is exactly the mentality of Josef Ratzinger! Start listening to the Holy Spirt and ignore the corrupt, decadent and immoral clergy pushing this agenda.
ReplyDeleteAnon (12:43):
ReplyDeleteFirst, please leave a name. Anonymity reduces credibility. Second, that was nothing more than a polemical rant. Thank you for reading, and if you have arguments to offer to support your position, then feel free to leave me. I will respond in due measure. If not, I would ask you kindly to be more respectful, particularly regarding our Holy Father. He is, after all, the vicar of Christ on earth.
. Our creator ain't impressed with theatrical props from the Renaissance, dead languages, dead music, dead art, or whatever else the conservatives drag out of the attic. ..
ReplyDelete... I realize this is an old thread, but having read the above rant, kind of makes you wonder what makes some people tick...petulant little bugger, isn't he? In addition to which, he knows what impresses Our Creator, or at least what doesn't...unfortunately, Amchurch is loaded with whining little snots thinking equally dismal thoughts, who think they ought to run the whole show...
In the course of my 61 years, I have experienced the failings and triumph of parish liturgies in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo worlds.
ReplyDeleteAs an anthropologist, I am struck by the different cultures and religious sensibilities represented by both. I certainly remember the formalism and triumphalism of the Tridentine and I have experienced the casual informality that plagues some parishes. The short version may be that the Tridentine emphasized the transcendental and the Novus Ordo at its best emphasizes the incarnational aspects of a living faith.
I don't think that our lack of vocations has anything to do with formality in liturgy. The cultural shift toward sexuality and self-actualization challenged celibacy and has won out in the broader Catholic culture in the same way birth control has won out.
A big part of the vocations "problem" is the Council's focus on the laity. Lay people can have entire church careers at all levels. Over 50% of "seminary" students are women. Permanent deacons preach, baptize, witness weddings, and preside at communion services.
In addition the horizontal focus led to a culture of independent conscience driven discipleship influenced by Calvinism, the dominant ethic in a secular American culture. To some measure this was aided an abetted by the Council's emphasis on scripture.
Certainly, the type of material by lay people on this blog would not have been conceivable in the 50's let alone the 70's. In fact there are some who would argue that these types of exchanges should be forbidden because they confuse the faithful. As good as you are Jacob in your presentations, (I mean this very sincerely) I know of people who would say that only a priest or bishop should be issuing the types of statements you are doing so ably.
We all know how pharisaical much of the well dressed, reverential idiom of 50's liturgy and ministry could be. In similar fashion we have seen the empty "hipness" of some in the time since the Council.
There is a convention in the anthropology of religion formulated by Victor Turner that religion is a model of society and model for society. Despite official documents and manuals, worship and other forms of ritual reflect the prevailing culture. The wasteland of suburban culture is seen in liturgy done by the book that is lifeless and only saved "ex opere operato".
Personally, as someone who love Latin, I believe that it is better to use Latin in Liturgy as opposed to texts that are transliterations. I cannot help but laugh when I think of what my seminary Latin teachers in the Tridentine would have done to me for desecrating Latin literature by transliterating it. Translating "calix" from the Vulgate as "chalice" would have been greeted with derision and ridicule.
The way forward is not to focus so much on the form as the heart. People who pray the Mass with guitars or chant with their hearts on fire is what we need. I remember vividly how many schola directors in cassock and surplice killed any sense of prayer in the same fashion as lead guitarists in shorts and sandals.
The Church's teaching on evangelization focuses on "in-culturation" and subsidiarity - doing things on a local level. These are nothing new. Similarly, the "sensus fidelium" is not a new concept in ecclesiology. An approach that looks only at centrally issued directives is at variance with Church teaching and practice. It would be a mistake to look at rubrics as any kind of substitute for the experience of the Risen Christ.
Let's place ourselves in the True Presence and start there and use the options the Church provides to celebrate this unfathomable Mystery.
A deacon is not a layperson, he recieves the sacrament of Holy Order and is, therefore, ordained clergy. He is not a glorified altar boy and he is not baby priest, he is an official, public minister of the Church in his own right by the designation of his office. It's a sad shame that I actually have to devote keystrokes to point this out. So if your going to lament about laypersons working tirelessly in the fields of ministry for a lifetime with little pay and often less recocgnition from the people who should appreciate them the most, then please leave the deacons out of it.
ReplyDelete