Alcuin Reid Replies to Andrea Grillo's Critique

February 1, 2014, 3:56 am

≫ Next: Two More Candlemas Events - Palo Alto, CA and Baltimore MD

≪ Previous: Sistine Organist on Role of Benedict XVI in Music for Papal Masses

$

0

0

NLM recently published Dr Alcuin Reid’s review of the newly updated second edition of Dr Andrea Grillo’s book “Beyond Pius V”. Dr Grillo wrote a reply to the review, and critique of it, on his blog, which I then translated into English and published on Thursday. Dr. Reid has offered the following response to Dr. Grillo’s critique.

It is not altogether necessary to respond to Dr Grillo’s reply to my review of his work—a reply which, for a Professor at a Pontifical University, is extraordinary in both its attitude and tone, and in its failure to comprehend or to engage substantially with the points made in the review—as Dr Grillo’s reply itself proves many of the points made in the review. However, as others have asked for comment, I offer the following observations::

- My own detailed study of the 20th century liturgical movement, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, now available in Italian translation Lo sviluppo organico della liturgia (Ed. Cantagalli, 2013), adequately demonstrates an understanding of the movement’s emphasis on the liturgy as fons and of the growing desire for ritual reform to facilitate participation in this.

- “Far reaching transition” was not the desire of the liturgical movement or of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. As the sources demonstrate, they desired development that was moderate and organic. I have published a number of further studies on this, referenced here: https://msb-lgf.academia.edu/AlcuinReid

- One can and must distinguish between the Council’s call for liturgical reform and the rites produced by Paul VI’s Consilium which, according even to Archbishop Bugnini, went beyond Sacrosanctum Concilium, with the authority of Paul VI. The question of the vernacular is illustrative. Bugnini states clearly: “It cannot be denied that the principle, approved by the Council, of using the vernaculars was given a broad interpretation.” Whilst Bugnini states that this change was “in line with the spirit of the Conciliar decrees” and relies on “the approval of competent authority,” the departure in this and in other areas [the celebration of Mass facing the people, the reception of Holy Communion on the hand, the introduction of new Eucharistic prayers etc.] from the reform authorised by the Council itself is clear (The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 110).

- To elevate the rites promulgated by Paul VI as themselves being essential to liturgical formation and the achievement of participatio actuosa is to make idols of contingent and perhaps even flawed products belonging to a particular era. This is theologically, historically and ecclesiologically naive. It denies the reality of living liturgical tradition and the possibility of both development and/or of correction in that tradition.

- These observations are grounded in a profound respect for the “solemn deliberations of an Ecumenical Council” and of their nature—a respect not always found in the liturgical reforms enacted in its name or in their implementation.

- Regarding the rites of Paul VI as iconic, essential and untouchable (to the exclusion of the use of the usus antiquior or of any discussion of a possible ‘reform of the reform’) is indeed a position often found in Italy—today—as Dr Grillo’s book and reply ably demonstrate. So too, the liturgical proscriptions visited upon the Franciscans of the Immaculate manifest its presence in elements of the Roman Curia.

- The reference to the conviction “often found amongst liturgists and prelates in Italy” is specifically to this idolisation of the new rites today, as the text of the review makes clear, and not to the Council or Council Fathers. To confuse this indicates (at best) a lack of diligence.

- The reality of participatio actuosa, profound immersion and formation in the Church’s liturgy and apostolic zeal in communities that celebrate the usus antiquior, is no ghost. It is a vital sign of the times—a new flowering of the liturgical spirit in our day. I am perhaps more acquainted with this reality in communities in several countries than Dr Grillo. It is a reality not to be dismissed.

- My use of “beyond Paul VI”—inspired by Dr Grillo’s own title (which is provocative in its categorisation of those who celebrate the usus antiquior as backward looking)—asserts that those who believe the rites of Paul VI to be essential need to move beyond this position. I have argued in my October 2013 lecture “The New Liturgical Movement After Benedict XVI”, that principles, not the personalities or preferences of popes, are what authentic liturgical practice is based on. That includes Benedict XVI, whose particular importance in respect of the liturgy is because of his articulation of sound liturgical principles.

- I have said before and say again: I am not a traditionalist; I am a Catholic. And I am a liturgical historian. My reasoned arguments are grounded in these realities.

- Dr Grillo saw fit to publish his own argument in English. I have paid him the compliment of engaging with it and do not regard that as a waste of time.

- It may be that Dr Grillo does not read English well and that this may account, in some part, for the nature of his reply. It does not, however, excuse English-speaking commentators from reading the arguments advanced carefully.

I wish to take this opportunity to correct an error in my review. I wrote in the belief that the Liturgical Press was publishing only books intended to defend the liturgical reform of Paul VI. Their Academic Publisher informed me that they have just released a work dedicated to the usus antiquior: William H. Johnston’s Care for the Church and Its Liturgy: A Study of Summorum Pontificum and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I hope to be able to study and write about this work—a happy sign of progress—in the future.

Dom Alcuin Reid.

---

Two More Candlemas Events - Palo Alto, CA and Baltimore MD

February 1, 2014, 5:10 am

≫ Next: On Recovering the Roman Canon—Or, Bad Reasons for Preferring Other Anaphoras

≪ Previous: Alcuin Reid Replies to Andrea Grillo's Critique

$

0

0

Thanks again to Roseanne T. Sullivan, for bringing these to our attention.

In Palo Alto, California, the St. Ann Choir, directed by Stanford Musicology Professor, William Mahrt, (President of the Church Music Association of America, and Editor of the journal Sacred Music,) will sing the Missa Quarti Toni by Tomás Luis de Victoria, along with several motets. The Mass will be sung at St. Albert the Great Church, the choir's temporary home while St Thomas Aquinas Church, where they usually sing at Gregorian Sunday Masses, is being renovated. (address and times below in poster)

In Baltimore, Candlemas will be sung by the professional choir of Mount Calvary Church under the direction of Daniel Bennett Page, a music historian specializing in liturgical music in sixteenth-century England (including Byrd) and undergraduate dean at the University of Baltimore. This event offers a rare opportunity to hear William Byrd’s Propers for the Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple sung at a Catholic Mass, where they are meant to be sung, instead of in a concert hall. The Ordinary of the Mass will be Byrd’s Mass for Five Voices. According to the website, “This annual feast day rarely falls on a Sunday, and so 2014 provides a particularly apt opportunity to undertake this special project.”

On Recovering the Roman Canon—Or, Bad Reasons for Preferring Other Anaphoras

February 1, 2014, 10:01 am

≫ Next: JuventutemDC hosts Day of Recollection on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

≪ Previous: Two More Candlemas Events - Palo Alto, CA and Baltimore MD

$

0

0

A very interesting article by Fr. David Friel, "Comparing Canons," appeared last week at Views from the Choir Loft, the blog of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Readers of NLM are well aware of the problem of the introduction of new anaphoras into the Roman Rite of Mass as part of the Consilium reforms in the late 1960s. The Roman Mass could, in a way, be defined by the very fixity of its noble Canon, which is extremely ancient, having received its definitive form in the era of St. Gregory the Great (hence the term "Gregorian rite" utilized by some). In practice, the introduction of new anaphoras after the Council has virtually displaced the Roman Canon from the celebration in Ordinary Form Masses -- perhaps the most egregious of all examples of the hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity, in sharp contrast to Sacrosanctum Concilium's axiom that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing" (SC 23).

As Dom Alcuin Reid has demonstrated in a number of works, a close examination of what the Council Fathers said and did not say, as well as what the liturgical scholars were saying at the time of this Constitution, proves beyond all possible doubt that they took this provision at face value: any innovation in the reform had to come directly out of the existing Roman liturgical tradition (not out of the back pockets of scholars playing with theories of antiquity), it had to be in obvious continuity with what was already being done so that it would not constitute a violent shift or break, and -- most tellingly of all -- it had to be a reform that was not merely defensible, but one whose need was certain.

As we all know, very few things in life are certain, and that is undoubtedly why Sacrosanctum Concilium has overall a predominantly conservative and moderate tone, quite in contrast with the almost endless open playing field for liturgical experimentation imagined by Andrea Grillo. In Grillo's mind, the Council opened the doors to a wholesale revision of rites, but he will never be able to prove that from either Sacrosanctum Concilium, the conciliar deliberations, or the commentaries contemporaneous with this Constitution. It was only later, in the increasingly radicalized atmosphere of the Consilium, that it became even thinkable to violate the explicit principles of this Constitution, not to mention do violence to the entire Roman liturgical tradition.

But getting back to Fr. Friel's article: regardless of where we fall along the spectrum of views, from highly critical of the introduction of new anaphoras to highly appreciative of their availability, I would wager that the vast majority of those who promote a new liturgical movement believe that the re-establishment of the centrality of the venerable Roman Canon is absolutely necessary for the vigor and authenticity of our public prayer and for the long-term goal of rebuilding the fractured continuity of the Roman liturgical tradition.  With this in mind, I strongly recommend reading Fr. Friel's article.  It gives considerable food for thought, particularly with regard to so-called "pastoral reasons" for choosing to use anaphoras OTHER than the Roman Canon.

"Comparing Canons" by Fr. David Friel

JuventutemDC hosts Day of Recollection on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

February 1, 2014, 12:00 pm

≫ Next: Why Offer God the Finest of Human Artistry?

≪ Previous: On Recovering the Roman Canon—Or, Bad Reasons for Preferring Other Anaphoras

$

0

0

JuventutemDC continues its monthly apostolate of Days of Recollection in February with another morning of spiritual formation on Saturday, Feb. 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter.

Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, Moderator of the Community of St. Philip Neri, an Oratory-in-formation at St. Thomas the Apostle in Washington, DC, and Executive Director of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) will be giving a reflection on the feast of the day at St. Thomas, followed by Confessions and Benediction. This is the fourth such monthly Day of Recollection hosted by JuventutemDC, and continues to generate tremendous interest and turnout by area Catholics drawn to traditional Catholic spirituality. This event is free and open to the public. Light refreshments will be available at the talk.

The Recollection begins at 9:30 a.m. in the St. Thomas fellowship hall in the basement, followed by Adoration and Benediction in the main church. Priests will be available for confession during Adoration. St. Thomas is located at 2655 Woodley Road NW, just off the Woodley Park Metro Station on the Red Line, the most convenient means of access to the area. See their Facebook page for more details on this and other upcoming events being planned by JuventutemDC, at www.Facebook.com/JuventutemDC.

Why Offer God the Finest of Human Artistry?

February 3, 2014, 2:00 am

≫ Next: Practical Advice from a Successful Artist - How an Artist Can Use the 'Arrows of Beauty' to Evangelise the Culture

≪ Previous: JuventutemDC hosts Day of Recollection on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

$

0

0

(Used with permission of Corpus Christi Watershed)

In a book on the great contemporary composer Arvo Pärt, I recently read this inspiring passage:

Under Archbishop Laud (1589–1645) there was a strong move towards greater ceremonial dignity in the church. As the house of God it was to be fitted out accordingly with the finest of human artistry, and its functions were to be conducted in a spirit of deepest reverence. The liturgy, the music, the sacred vessels, the very fabric of the building, all were to serve and make manifest the beauty of holiness. This phrase, which we find invoked time and again both by writers of the period and, later, by historians, derives from Psalm 96: “O sing unto the Lord a new song… O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” (Paul Hillier and Tõnu Tormis, On Pärt [Copenhagen: Edition Samfundet, 2005], p. 61)

Laud was Anglican, of course, but it is no more than ecumenical common sense to recognize that we Roman Catholics could learn a thing or two from his devout attitude. (Need I mention the sincere hope of many Roman Catholics that the Anglican Ordinariates, by modeling that Laudian attitude and approach, will become a force of renewal for the rest of us?)

Do we not need “greater ceremonial dignity in the church”? Why are our processions in church so slapdash, casual, and quick, almost as if we’re embarrassed to be engaged in divine worship? Why are there so few processions outside of church? We could certainly use “a spirit of deepest reverence” in conducting our services. Less of the informal greetings, smiles, and handshakes—more of the reverent fear of the Lord that brings us to our knees in homage to the great King of all the earth, begging for His mercy. We need music, vessels, and architecture that “make manifest the beauty of holiness.” (In particular, we’ve all heard music that seems neither beautiful nor holy; its mawkish sentimentality, circus-like tunes, predictably syncopated rhythms, and simpering lyrics are an appalling combination from which beauty must hide her fair head while holiness flees to the mountains to bewail her virginity.)

But why must we seek to do such laudable things? For one simple reason: because God, the greatest and best, deserves the greatest and best from us. And there is a corollary: we human beings, created in His image and likeness, need to be able to offer “the finest of human artistry” to Him, lifting up our minds and hearts by means of it. If only we knew ourselves, we would see that we have a longing to give the best of ourselves to Him, not what is mediocre, humdrum, worldly, or two-faced. Doesn't an artist who takes pride in his work want to give the best to his patron? Don't lovers with noble intentions long to give the best of themselves to one another? God has given us the ability and the calling to reach out to His transcendent holiness with works of beauty that carry us along with them, past the realm of the profane into the sanctuary of divinity. As St. Thomas says, we worship God not to give Him something He does not already have, but to bring ourselves closer to Him by yielding what we owe Him. In this way we draw nearer to His goodness and grow in likeness to Him.

This explanation will always hold true for all human beings at all times. But we can say something more specifically Catholic. The whole thrust of Catholic tradition and teaching on the dignity and beauty befitting the temple of God rests on the truth that the Body and Blood of Jesus, really present, are offered in sacrifice in this building, on this altar, enacted by these rituals, sung in this music. Whatsoever we do to the least of His symbols and ceremonies, prayers and chants, that we do unto Him. This is not so much a fearful vision of the danger of making mistakes as it is a joyful awareness of how many ways, little and great, He lavishes upon us to pay Him homage and to adore Him as well as we can. But it does remind us that we are dealing with the Lord of life and death, the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is, who was, and who is to come—and (to borrow from another Anglican) He is not a tame lion.

This is why it matters, crucially, what we are doing, what we are endeavoring to do, when we worship God in public prayer. If we have got quite the wrong idea about it, we may well do that which is seriously unfitting, unworthy, and displeasing to the Lord, whom it is our great privilege to serve and to please. If we follow the lead of the Church’s Tradition and the requirements or counsels of the Magisterium, we can be certain of giving glory to God and aiding, over time, the sanctification of His people.

I remember reading about the holy Curé of Ars, St. John Vianney, that he starved himself on potatoes, but spared no expense for the embellishment of the sanctuary. He knew, like Archbishop Laud, and like faithful Christians of every age, what came first and what came second. The same was true of St. Francis, pace the falsification of his legacy by hippies who groove on Nature rather than adoring the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, Franciscan churches are some of the most beautiful in Europe, magnificently decorated—even those that were built in periods when the friars themselves were dirt-poor beggars who didn’t know where their next meal was coming from, except that the Lord would surely provide. They knew what came first; they knew that when it is God who is to be honored, the work calls forth everything in us, everything great and glorious we can muster, for His sake. This is why the Catholics of old never built cheap churches, if they could help it, and, at least on special occasions if not more often, brought together the best musical forces they could find, to provide the most glorious music they knew.

Let no excuses be made; it should not be any different for us. Take Americans: we are a wealthy and industrious country. If we had a proper religious formation combined with some education in virtue and nobility, the trite ditties of our hymnals would evaporate and our churches would be filled with music of artistic merit. We would insist that it happen; we would make it happen through personal sacrifices; we would absorb its fruits with gratitude as we let these heavenly harmonies penetrate and shape our very souls. The same would be true of the churches we build.

As is well known, Pope Benedict XVI offered theological support for this exultant and sacrificial attitude in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis as well as many other writings pre-papal and papal. No different was the message of John Paul II’s final encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, where we read:

Like the woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany, the Church has feared no “extravagance,” devoting the best of her resources to expressing her wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift of the Eucharist. No less than the first disciples charged with preparing the “large upper room,” she has felt the need, down the centuries and in her encounters with different cultures, to celebrate the Eucharist in a setting worthy of so great a mystery. … [T]he faith of the Church in the mystery of the Eucharist has found historical expression not only in the demand for an interior disposition of devotion, but also in outward forms meant to evoke and emphasize the grandeur of the event being celebrated. (Emphasis in original)

That the liturgy should be done with splendor and solemnity, in surroundings as magnificent as can be, evoking the transcendence, holiness, and glory of God, is not a “debatable question” but a plain given as far as Holy Mother Church is concerned. This is why she has always striven for and sponsored the finest of human artistry—and why the poor have always contributed to the building of churches of which they are rightfully proud. Such an unequivocal dedication to the sacred liturgy does not, of course, substitute for personal prayer, works of charity outside the church doors, or energetic efforts of evangelization. But neither can it be replaced by them; it serves as their final end, from which they derive their very meaning. Most simply, this is what we owe to God, and He comes first.

Albi Cathedral

Practical Advice from a Successful Artist - How an Artist Can Use the 'Arrows of Beauty' to Evangelise the Culture

February 4, 2014, 3:00 am

≫ Next: From the BBC: Church Fresco Depicts Tito, Marx and Engels in Hell

≪ Previous: Why Offer God the Finest of Human Artistry?

$

0

0

Aspiring artists are 10 a penny. Successful artists are rare. Successful Catholic artists who succeed in secular markets and can articulate clearly the basis of their success are rarer still. So when you get a chance to talk to one, one who does well enough that he can afford to pay four apprentices a year to work in his studio, he is worth listening to; especially when he is an eloquent speaker and understands the basis of his success.

On 22st January, Englishman James Gillick, one of the UK's most successful artists and a Catholic came to Thomas More College of Liberal Arts and spoke about his faith and his approach to business and working in a secular world.

I introduced him to a packed room and his talk was impassioned and inspiring. When he finished students gathered around asking for advice to help them as they step out in the next phase of their lives. He began by passing on good wishes from his most recent apprentice - former TMC student Jacqueline del Curto to her friends in the audience. Then he began his talk. He is the son of Victoria Gillick, whom Britons of my generation (I am 51) will remember as the Catholic who in the 1980s took the British government all the way to the highest court, the Law Lords, to try to overturn a law which allowed doctors to prescribe the contraceptive pill to girls under 16 without informing their parents (ultimately the government won). He spoke of this and what a profound effect it had on him as a boy watching the treatment of his mother and her resolve in the face of it - hostility from the government, from feminists, from from the newspapers and television and the resulting abandonment of friends; and how this gave him a sense of a mission as a Catholic that could be translated even into the work of an artist.

In regard to his own work he spoke first of the apparent hopelessness of the situation facing Catholics today. We have an aggressively anti-Catholic, materialist society in the which leading figures are the very wealthy devoted to getting more. These are the people that he must win over in order to sell his paintings. He told us of the process whereby he carefully worked out what sorts of paintings would appeal to these people. He chose subjects that suggested stability and solidity - qualities that those who work in the unpredictable world of finance wish to communicate to others, and convince themselves they possess. Consistent with this, in my opinion, his still lives particularly, through subjects such as game birds, and his portraits evoke a sense of traditional landed gentry of the Britain of Downton Abbey and before.

He described also he carefully calculated how he could paint so that his work was consistent also with the Faith. This is an assumed faith rather than something explicit, so anyone who looks at his work will see that what he has done is look first to the liturgical forms. He has picked the baroque and based his style, whether religious or mundane art, on this. I think that this is exactly the right approach: it arises from a vision of a popular contemporary culture that will subtly develop the liturgical instincts of those who do not go to church, preparing their hearts for the mysteries that are manifested in Sacred Liturgy, and stimulating a desire for it - even if initially they are not aware that this is what they seek.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote: 'True knowledge is being struck by the arrow of beauty that wounds man: being touched by reality, “by the personal presence of Christ himself,” as Nicholas Cabasilas puts it. Being overcome by the beauty of Christ is a more real, more profound knowledge than mere rational deduction. Of course we must not underestimate the importance of theological reflection, of exact and careful theological thought; it is still absolutely necessary. But to despise, on that account, the impact produced by the heart’s encounter with beauty, or to reject it as a true form of knowledge, would impoverish us and dry up both faith and theology. We must rediscover this form of knowledge—it is an urgent demand of the present hour. …'

For James Gillick, as for our Pope Emeritus, beauty is the main weapon of the artist in the secular world. Armed with it we cannot fail. As he spoke it struck me that he is talking about loving people into submission, by firing true Cupid's darts  - arrows of beauty - whose effect is not disordered desire, but a properly ordered love of God.

Gillick explained that our only chance of success is for us to be united in our worship and prayer to the source of that beauty and hope, Christ. When asked why there seemed to be such a market for ugliness, he commented that while fashion can stimulate demand in the short term for the trivial and titilating, people do respond to beauty when presented with it and that response is generally stronger and more long term. The reason that so little of it is bought, he suggested, is that so little of it is available for sale - very few artists today are capable of producing current forms that participate in the the divine beauty and have anything of the sort of lasting value that artists of the past used to be able to create.

 He spoke of his inspiration in looking at British history and the parallels he sees with today's situation. The Normans, who invaded in the 11th century, set themselves up as a brutal, self-serving class who dominated and subjugated the population of Britain. However, they were changed by the rise of the gothic culture of beauty which attracted them and transformed them and British society into a culture of beauty that was so resplendent that Britain was referred to as Our Lady's Dowry. If we engage beautifully with the secular culture, whether as artist, or musician or writer, or just Christian who lives life well and gracefully, with charity then we have nothing to fear and we can change the world. However, we do need to have a clear sense of purpose to guide us and a foundation in the Church. If we have that then today's Normans can be transformed just as those of yesteryear were.

 I have known Jim for about 15 years and what always strikes me when he talks about art is he contrast between the description of the mission that he believes he is on, and the means by which he strives to achieve it as an artist and a father. When he talks of his work is very practical and straightforward - certainly not the precious, angst ridden bohemian of the popular artist image. He talks of his belief that artists need talent and dedication so that they can work hard and produce many paintings that are good enough to sell for a high price. Only then will he be able to support his family. When he discusses his role in changing the culture and his family, he is seemingly humbled and awestruck that he can even contemplate aiming to fulfil such a high calling. But as he points out, we are called to achieve amazing things by humble work - it is Christ who can give it the seemingly miraculous result.

 From top: speaking from the podium, my introduction of him to the students; and then below talking to students afterwards.

Below that two of his paintings: his portrait of Margaret Thatcher, painted to commemorate her being Chancellor of Buckingham University (Britain's only non-government funded university); and point-to-point horses (reminiscent of George Stubbs, the 18th century English artist).

From the BBC: Church Fresco Depicts Tito, Marx and Engels in Hell

February 4, 2014, 5:12 am

≫ Next: Sacra Liturgia Summer School, 5-20 July 2014: Updated Program

≪ Previous: Practical Advice from a Successful Artist - How an Artist Can Use the 'Arrows of Beauty' to Evangelise the Culture

$

0

0

The website of the BBC reports that a church in Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro, has “sparked controversy” with a wall fresco depicting Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the authors of The Communist Manifesto, along with the post-WWII Communist dictator of Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito, in Hell. (Both photographs from Agence France-Presse via BBC) Montenegro was part of the Yugoslav state in the years of the Communist dictatorship; upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia, it remained at first united to Serbia, and has been an entirely independent state only since 2006. The majority of its population (just over 620,000) are Orthodox, and their national hierarchy is part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The church in question (seen below) is a cathedral of the “Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral.”

Tito (in military cap), Marx (with white hair) and Engels in Hell. The reportage has taken no notice of the various representatives of the clerical order and the nobility being swallowed by the Leviathan or Behemoth.

The Cathedral of the Resurrection, in Podgorica, Montenegro.

Sacra Liturgia Summer School, 5-20 July 2014: Updated Program

February 5, 2014, 4:42 am

≫ Next: Some New Vestments in Costa Mesa, California

≪ Previous: From the BBC: Church Fresco Depicts Tito, Marx and Engels in Hell

$

0

0

The website of Sacra Liturgia (www.sacraliturgia.org) has posted an updated program for the Summer School to be held in La Garde-Freinet in the south of France (Provence) from July 5th to the 20th. The full details, including the link to the registration form, information about transport, etc., are available at the website, but here is the basic program of events:

A two week (three Sunday) English-language liturgical summer school following on from the international conference Sacra Liturgia 2013, organised by the Monastère Saint-Benoît of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, in association with the Ad Fontes Institute of Lithuania, designed for families, individuals and groups of clergy and laity who wish to holiday in Provence in the South of France whilst having the opportunity to participate in liturgical celebrations according to the usus antiquior, including Solemn Pontifical Mass celebrated by Mgr Dominique Rey, the Bishop of of Fréjus-Toulon, and in pilgrimages and visits to historic sites, including the Royal Basilica and relics of St Mary Magdalen at St Maximin-La-Sainte-Baume, the chapel and relics of St Roseline of Villeneuve (†1329), and the ancient Cistercian Abbey of Le Thoronet, as well as in practical and academic liturgical formation. Training in Gregorian chant will be available for participants (including beginners) by tutors led by Adrija Čepaitė, the conductor of the womens' vocal ensemble Graces and Voices.

The mountain village of La Garde-Freinet, situated in a wine growing region some 20 km from Saint-Tropez and approximately 15 km from the Mediterranean Sea, is an ideal holiday location with mountain walks, a Provençal market, shops and restaurants. English is widely spoken in the village. Participants will arrange their own accommodation and meals and transport.

Academic Lectures:The lectures listed below are those confirmed to date. Other lectures and lecturers will be added in due course.
Liturgical Theology (2 lectures) - Father Gabriel Diaz Patri
The Twentieth Century Liturgical Movement - Dom Alcuin Reid
After Sacrosanctum Concilium: Continuity or Rupture? - Dom Alcuin Reid
Pastoral Liturgy Revisited - Dom Alcuin Reid
The Usus Antiquior: Its History and Importance in the Church after the Second Vatican Council - Dom Alcuin Reid

Practical training options:
Low Mass practice (for clergy and seminarians)
The Sacred Ministers at Solemn Mass including chants (for clergy and seminarians)
Sung Mass (missa cantata) including chants (for clergy and seminarians)
Serving low, sung and solemn Mass (men and boys)
The chant of the Mass and Office (any participants - beginners, intermediate & advanced)
Reading course in the 20th century liturgical movement (any participants)

Daily Schedule:
This schedule will change on days of pilgrimage and on July 11th & 18th. All liturgical celebrations will take place in the parish church and are open to the public. The lectures, training and evening presentations are open to registered participants.

The high altar of the chapel

Lauds: 6:00 a.m. (followed by private Masses)
Prime: 7:00 a.m.
Confessions: 8:30 a.m.
Terce: 8:45 a.m.
Sung Mass: 9:00 a.m.
Academic lecture: 10:15 a.m.
Break: 11:15 a.m.
Practical training: Chant/Ceremonies: 11:30 a.m.
Sext: 12:45 p.m.
None: 2:00 p.m.
Reading course discussion: 5:00-5:30 p.m.
Vespers: 6:00
Evening presentation and panel discussion & aperitif:  6:30-8:00 p.m.
Compline 8:00 p.m.
Latin-English texts of the Divine Office, including the musical notation, will be supplied for registered participants.

Summer School Programme:
- Sat 5 July: Registration from 3:00 p.m. (registration is possible on other days, as people arrive)
Solemn Vespers 6:00 p.m., followed by aperitif
- Sun 6 July: Normal schedule (without lecture or training sessions) Including Solemn Mass 9:00 a.m. & Solemn Vespers & Benediction 6:00 p.m. followed by aperitif.
- Mon 7 July: Normal schedule
- Tue 8 July: Normal schedule
- Wed 9 July: Normal Horarium (9:00 a.m. Solemn requiem Mass)
- Thu 10 July: Normal schedule
- Fri 11 July: No lecture or training sessions (preparation for solemn Mass) Solemn Mass of St Benedict 11:00 a.m.

The chapel of Notre-Dame de Miremer (near La Garde-Freinet- photo © Lainie Wrightson)

- Sat 12 July: No lecture or training sessions. Solemn Mass 11:00 a.m. – Chapelle N.D. de Miremer, followed by a picnic.
- Sun 13 July: Normal schedule (without lecture or training sessions) Including Solemn Mass 9:00 a.m. & Solemn Vespers & Benediction 6:00 p.m. followed by aperitif.
- 14 July: Normal schedule

The choir altar at St Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume, where Solemn Mass will be celebrated.

- Tue 15 July: No lecture or training sessions. Solemn Mass 11:00 – Basilica of St Mary Magdalen, St Maximin; afternoon visit to the cave of St Mary Magdalene at La Sainte-Baume
- Wed 16 July: Normal schedule
- Thu 17 July: Schedule as normal up to and including 9:00 a.m. sung Mass No lecture or training sessions Visit to the Abbey of Le Thoronet & Pilgrimage to St Roseline of Villeneuve (†1329).

The incorrupt body of St Roseline

- Fri 18 July: No 09:00 Mass Lecture & training sessions as normal; Solemn Pontifical Mass 6:00 p.m. (Votive Mass of the Holy Cross) Celebrated by Mgr Dominique Rey, Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon.

H.E. Bishop Dominique Rey

- Sat 19 July: Normal schedule
- Sun 20 July: Normal schedule (without lecture or training sessions) Including Solemn Mass 9:00 a.m. & Solemn Vespers & Benediction 6:00 p.m. followed by aperitif.

---

Some New Vestments in Costa Mesa, California

February 6, 2014, 6:31 am

≫ Next: A New Blog About the Rite of Braga - “Alma Bracarense”

≪ Previous: Sacra Liturgia Summer School, 5-20 July 2014: Updated Program

$

0

0

Father Claude Williams, of the Norbertine Abbey of St. Michael in Orange County, California, has sent us come great pictures of a new set of green vestments, commissioned and paid for by the parishioners of the nearby church of St. John the Baptist in Costa Mesa. The vestments were used for both a Mass in the Extraordinary Form, and another Spanish-language Mass in the Ordinary Form.

A set of green Solemn-Mass vestments was blessed and worn for the first time on Sunday (January 26th) at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Costa Mesa, California. Many selfless donations from parishioners and friends made this precious purchase a reality.

The initiative was completely driven by the regular attendees of the weekly Mass here in Costa Mesa, who first approached us requesting new sacred vestments, and offering to donate, and pray for this necessary cause. With a view to increasing the number of Solemn High Masses offered at the parish, the Norbertines soon judged it best to plan for complete sets in each liturgical color.

The olive-green fabric chosen for the first solemn set is a contemporary reinterpretation of a 17th-century style brocade. The colours, elegant in their unity and tone, complement our bright Southern California landscape and the artistic elements present in our Sanctuary. The Damask pattern offers many symbolic references to Our Saviour. The cut is “New Florentine,” essentially, a Roman chasuble, but slightly longer, with a stylized neckline and a few slight adaptations for St. John’s aesthetic.

Keenly aware that the Liturgy takes place in a local context, we decided to have these vestments made locally, choosing nothing “off the rack”, or from non-local businesses. The French-loomed fabric, for example, was purchased through local merchants. The consultant, Heritage Liturgical, is based in the Orange Diocese, and the tailors, too, are from Chagall Design here in Los Angeles County.

The extraordinary hours involved in the production of these vestments speaks to their dignity . . . the dalmatics alone took two weeks of hand work to complete! At every instance, all care has been taken to create the most worthy and noble sacred vestments available with the given means. (All photos by Mr. Rick Belcher.)

At the beginning of the Asperges

Munda cor

Preparation of the altar by the deacon

Orate Fratres

Elevation

The second Mass, in the ordinary Form - mutual enrichment!

A New Blog About the Rite of Braga - “Alma Bracarense”

February 6, 2014, 1:00 pm

≫ Next: The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 1)

≪ Previous: Some New Vestments in Costa Mesa, California

$

0

0

A new blog called “Alma Bracarense” has begun posting pictures of the 1924 edition of the Missal according to the Use of Braga in Portugal. The author includes in his posts pictures of the pages of the Missal relevant to a particular feast day, a description of the proper features of that day, and a translation into Portuguese. He intends to add English texts in the future. Braga is one of the few places in Europe that maintained its proper medieval Use after the Tridentine reform, and even into the 20th-century. The Use of Braga contains many of the classically medieval features of the liturgy, which will be familiar to those who use the Dominican, Premonstratensian or Old Carmelite liturgical books, or those who have studied the Uses of Sarum, Paris etc., but also many features unique to itself.

The beginning of the blessing of the candles, before the Mass of the Purification, according to the Missal of Braga, 1924. The chant with which the ceremony begins, O beata infantia, is not found in the Roman Rite. Photo courtesy of Alma Bracarense.

The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 1)

February 7, 2014, 1:41 am

≫ Next: Announcement of Summer Study Program in Norcia, Italy

≪ Previous: A New Blog About the Rite of Braga - “Alma Bracarense”

$

0

0

Having marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Sacrosanctum Concilium, we recently (on January 25th) passed the 50th anniversary of the committee established by Pope Paul VI to implement it, the “Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium.” NLM recently asked Dom Alcuin Reid, whose scholarship on the liturgical reform needs no introduction, about the formation of the Consilium, its activities, and the results of what it produced. His replies include previously unpublished material from his research. This is the first part of the interview; the second will be published on Wednesday.

NLM: Dom Alcuin, you have written and talked a great deal about the pre-Conciliar Liturgical Movement, and Sacrosanctum Concilium as the consummation of its ideals. Can you describe what the Council Fathers envisioned would be the result of the Constitution?

Dom Alcuin: The Council desired that all of Christ’s faithful would truly and fruitfully connect with the action of Christ in the Sacred Liturgy through full, conscious and active participation in its rites and prayers. This connectivity is what was called for by St Pius X, drawing on what Dom Guèranger and others had called for in the nineteenth century and before, and is what the twentieth century liturgical movement promoted widely.

Liturgical participation includes physical participation in the rites, being able to comprehend them, respond, sing and so on. But these external activities are means to an end and are not ends in themselves. The Council was not calling for liturgical activism, but rather for that fruitful connectivity, so that that the Sacred Liturgy would truly become the source and summit of Christian life for all, and thus bring about true renewal of the Church and of the world.

The Council Fathers and Sacrosanctum Concilium itself did not regard the participation for which they were calling as substantially different from the participation called for by Pius X, or by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. There is a clear continuity, and certainly a developing one (as seen in some of the reforms of Pius XII), in the principles from Pius X to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

At present some speak as if there is a “participation 1” and “participation 2”, where 1 = pre-conciliar and 2 = post-conciliar. That may reflect what came to pass after the Council as a result of how the reform was implemented, or it may relect what some liturgists want to be the case, but what we need to be clear about—and indeed recover—is the Conciliar concept of participation. The Fathers of the Council who debated this in October and November of 1962, who approved the first chapter of the Constitution that December, and the Constitution as a whole in December 1963, were envisaging participation in the Roman rite as it was then, moderately reformed with more vernacular and various simplifications, etc. Speaking of the Holy Mass, article 48 lays down:

“The Church…earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.”

This is participation à-la-Concile. What is essential is participation that is conscious and understanding: i.e. internal. Certainly the Council expects the faithful to be able actively to “take part” (article 30 explains how), however the Council itself does not call for or justify the complete vernacularisation of the rites, the relegation of any liturgical music in which the people cannot all immediately join in, the requirement that Mass only be celebrated versus populum, the introduction of a responsorial psalm after the first Scripture reading, of multiple Eucharistic prayers, etc., in order to facilitate this. The historical fact is that these and many other components of “participation 2” are contingent elements imposed in the name of Vatican II or of post-conciliar liturgical ideologies, but are in fact not of the Council itself.

NLM: So how did the Fathers envision that liturgical participation would be achieved?

Dom Alcuin: The Fathers of the Council foresaw that two things were necessary. Firstly, they saw the urgent need for a thorough immersion and formation of all, clergy and laity, in the spirit and power of the liturgy. This was and is the “hard work” of liturgical renewal that Sacrosanctum Concilium requires, and it has to be said that it has not been attended to as well as it needs to have been. Without laying solid foundations there is a risk of building on sand, or as the Constitution alludes at the end of article 14, without this formation hopes of realizing the Council’s liturgical vision would be “futile”.

The second thing the Council held as necessary was ritual reform. Continuing what had been begun in the pontificate of Pius XII, it called for a general liturgical reform (which had been envisaged from at least the 1940s). Specifically it authorized the increased use of the vernacular, the expansion of the lectionary, the reintroduction of Holy Communion under both species on particular occasions, the extended use of concelebration, ritual simplifications, the return of bidding prayers, etc. But we must be clear: the reason for the reform of the rites was to facilitate fruitful participation in the liturgy. The purpose of these ritual reforms—according to Sacrosanctum Concilium—is to facilitate true and fruitful connection with the action of Christ in the Sacred Liturgy. That is what is essential: not the presence or absence of bidding prayers or of some other particular ritual reform!

NLM: Is it fair to say that the document was approved in the belief that the ensuing reform of the liturgy would be a fairly mild one?

Dom Alcuin: Without doubt. Article 23’s insistence that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” makes perfectly clear that the Fathers of Council did not have a revolution, or what some like to call an “epochal shift” to some ‘form’ of liturgy that is communal in essence in a way in which the preconciliar liturgy was not, in mind. As if the liturgy hitherto was not the community of the ecclesia at worship and could not serve perfectly well as such, moderately reformed so as to facilitate greater participation, in the future!

Those who assert this sort of thing are not sound historians of the Council or of the liturgy. This is fantasy proposing a revisionist history that seeks to justify interpretations read into Sacrosanctum Concilium after the Council, in spite of its carefully nuanced language and the clear intentions of the Fathers in aula.

Let one example suffice. Article 50 (on the reform of the order of Mass) was considered from 29th October 1962. Some Fathers saw this article as a licence for revolution and protested strongly. The opening intervention of Francis Cardinal Spellman and that of Cardinal Ottaviani on the following day are noteworthy for their critical content. Those of Archbishop Frederico Melendro SJ and Bishop George Dwyer on October 30th, as well as that of Bishop Alberto DeVoto on the 31st, called for clarification. Later the same morning Bishop Léon-Arthur Elchinger intervened:

“I propose that the entire text of this article be conserved but that it may be clarified by the publication of the complete [explanatory] declaratio prepared by the preparatory commission under this article. So to ‘calm the spirits’ of those that fear a complete revolution of the Order of Mass and the death of the Roman Rite, this declaratio does not propose for us a revolution but only an evolution—a pastoral evolution—something sound and prudent.”

 In the next session, November 5th, Bishop Henri Jenny, intervened. A member of the liturgical preparatory and conciliar commissions on the liturgy (and later of the Consilium) he set forth the content of the declaratio. Before outlining the specific reforms, the assurance was given that: “Hodiernus Ordo Missae, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, certe retinendus est.” (“The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is certainly to be retained.”) The resonance of article 23’s principle—that sound tradition is to be retained whilst the way is to be open for legitimate progress—is clear.

When the text of chapter II as revised in the light of the Fathers’ interventions was presented in October 1963, a printed copy of this declaratio was given to each of the Fathers, again including the assurance “Hodiernus Ordo Missæ, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, retinendus est.” The text of article 50 had a second sentence added which included the statement that the “rites are now to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the Holy Fathers.”

If we ask what the Fathers understood and intended by this article in approving on chapter II of the Constitution, this history must be taken into account. Whilst the addition of the reference to “the vigour” had “in the days of the Holy Fathers” may have subtly opened a door through which much later passed, from the Conciliar debate and redaction of this article itself, it is not possible to assert that the Fathers of the Council intended anything beyond a moderate reform of the rite of the Mass as specified in the declaratio they were given before voting—along the lines of what appeared in the Ordo Missae jointly promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for Rites and the Consilium on 27 January 1965 with a decree mandating that it be adopted in new editions of the missal. The Consilium, however, regarded the 1965 Ordo as merely provisional.

Announcement of Summer Study Program in Norcia, Italy

February 7, 2014, 1:09 pm

≫ Next: Music of the Medieval Rites

≪ Previous: The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 1)

$

0

0

I am pleased to share with NLM readers the following announcement, received from Christopher Owens of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies.

*          *          *

Dear Friends of Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies,

We are pleased to announce that we will be holding our second Summer Program in Norcia, Italy, from June 16th-29th, 2014.

This year's theme is "By Faith in Jesus Christ: Paul's Letter to the Romans". The two-week program will consist of a thorough reading of the Pauline Epistle, as well as selected readings from the interpretive tradition of the Church, with a particular emphasis on the masterful commentary written by St. Thomas Aquinas.

In many ways, the epistle is already an early synthesis of the Faith that the Evangelists witness to, and it offers us the opportunity to explore in depth many theological questions such as grace, justification, the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New, and the salvation of the Jews, to name a few.

In addition to the academic program, we will, of course, be participating in the daily life of worship (High Mass, Divine Office) of the Benedictine monks who live and pray at the birthplace of SS. Benedict & Scholastica. There will be excursions to Assisi and to Cascia, as well as attendance at the Papal Mass in Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter & Paul at the conclusion of the program.

For more information about the Summer Program, please visit our website: http://www.albertusmagnuscss.org

We hope that you will consider joining us as we contemplate the truths of our Faith and worship the Lord together in Norcia this summer!

In Domino nostro,

Christopher Owens
Co-Director
Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies

Music of the Medieval Rites

February 8, 2014, 4:38 am

≫ Next: Reforming the Irreformable?

≪ Previous: Announcement of Summer Study Program in Norcia, Italy

$

0

0

A series of concerts devoted to the music of different Christian Rites will take place shortly. Initially conceived by Jonathan Ayers and his choir, the Capella Duriensis which featured in this post last summer, each concert will feature music from the Old Roman, Beneventan, Sarum, Braga, Byzantine, Ambrosian and Gallic rites. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is disseminating the series across a number of European radio stations including Sarrländischer Rundfunk which will be broadcasting every concert live at 20h04 German time on the dates below at this link. More information can be found at musicofthemedievalrites.com

24 February 2014
Gallic Rite
L'Académie Vocale de Paris and the Monks of Solesmes Abbey
Solesmes Abbey, France

3 March 2014
Sarum Rite
Sospiri
Merton College, Oxford, England

10 March 2014
Byzantine Rite
The Orthodox Choir of the University of Eastern Finland
Monastery of New Valamo, Finland

17 March 2014
Ambrosian Rite
Kantores
Italy

21 March 2014
Sarum Rite
BBC Singers
UK

24 March 2014
Braga Rite
Capella Duriensis
Sé Catedral de Braga, Portugal

31 March 2014
Old Roman & Beneventan Rite
Gregoriana
St Michael's Chapel, Kosice, Slovakia

Reforming the Irreformable?

February 9, 2014, 12:00 am

≫ Next: Is It Fitting for the Priest to Recite All the Texts of the Mass?

≪ Previous: Music of the Medieval Rites

$

0

0

I

T COULD BE evidence of exemplary patience on the part of NLM editor Jeffrey Tucker that I am still counted among the contributors to this blog. More than two years have passed since I posted anything relative to the ‘reform of the reform’. Although I consider myself a capable writer, I am not a fast one, which impairment makes the demands of parish ministry even less favorable to the task of unpacking my liturgical ruminations for those who might care to know them. But that only partly explains the hiatus.

I have the impression that whatever can be said in general terms about the ‘reform of the reform’—its origin and aims, its scope and methodology, the various proposals advanced in its interest (if not in its name), its proponents and critics—has pretty much already been said.¹ Although the movement is difficult to define (Is it synonymous with the ‘new liturgical movement’ or but one stage of it?),² its overall aim was nicely summed a few years ago by the Ceylonese prelate who stated that the time has come when we must “identify and correct the erroneous orientations and decisions made, appreciate the liturgical tradition of the past courageously, and ensure that the Church is made to rediscover the true roots of its spiritual wealth and grandeur even if that means reforming the reform itself…”³

Long before Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he was critically evaluating the reform of the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council, identifying those aspects of the reform which have little or no justification in the Council’s liturgical Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) and which undermine the true spirit of the liturgy.⁴ As pope it was in his power to remedy the deficiencies—the “erroneous orientations and decisions”—of the reform on a universal scale not only by his teaching and personal liturgical example but also by legislation. He accentuated the liturgy’s beauty, promoted the liturgical and musical treasures of the Western Church (including of course the usus antiquior of the Roman rite), and introduced more tangible continuity with tradition in the manner of papal celebrations (e.g., the ‘Benedictine’ altar arrangement, offering Mass ad orientem in the Sistine and other papal chapels, administering Holy Communion to the faithful on their tongues as they knelt). His successor, Pope Francis, is a different man with a different personality and style, and his priorities clearly lie with other aspects of the Church’s life. I am not holding my breath in anticipation of further official progress along the lines marked out by Pope Benedict, who has deservedly been dubbed the “Father of the new liturgical movement.”⁵

But let us suppose, practically speaking and perhaps per impossibile, that the ‘reform of the reform’ were to receive substantive institutional support. Even so, I doubt the endeavor would be feasible—if we take that term to mean the reform of the present order of liturgy so as to bring it substantially back into line with the slowly developed tradition it widely displaced. It is not sour grapes about last year’s papal abdication that prompts my saying so. Like any movement, the ‘reform of the reform’ stands or falls on its own principles, not on any one pope or partisan. No: the ‘reform of the reform’ is not realizable because the material discontinuity between the two forms of the Roman rite presently in use is much broader and much deeper than I had first imagined. In the decade that has elapsed since the publication of my book, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate (Ignatius Press, 2003), which concerns almost exclusively the rite of Mass, a number of important scholarly studies, most notably those of László Dobszay (†2011)⁶ and Lauren Pristas,⁷ have opened my eyes to the hack-job inflicted by Pope Paul VI’s Consilium on the whole liturgical edifice of the Latin Church: the Mass; the Divine Office; the rites of the sacraments, sacramentals, blessings and other services of the Roman Ritual; and so forth.⁸ Whatever else might be said of the reformed liturgy—its pastoral benefits, its legitimacy, its rootedness in theological ressourcement, its hegemonic status, etc.—the fact remains: it does not represent an organic development of the liturgy which Vatican II (and, four centuries earlier, the Council of Trent) inherited.

There are significant ruptures in content and form that cannot be remedied simply by restoring Gregorian chant to primacy of place as the music of the Roman rite, expanding the use of Latin and improving vernacular translations of the Latin liturgical texts, using the Roman Canon more frequently (if not exclusively),⁹ reorienting the altar, and rescinding certain permissions. As important as it is to celebrate the reformed rites correctly, reverently, and in ways that make the continuity with tradition more obvious, such measures leave untouched the essential content of the rites. Any future attempt at liturgical reconciliation, or renewal in continuity with tradition, would have to take into account the complete overhaul of the propers of the Mass;¹⁰ the replacement of the Offertory prayers with modern compositions; the abandonment of the very ancient annual Roman cycle of Sunday Epistles and Gospels; the radical recasting of the calendar of saints; the abolition of the ancient Octave of Pentecost, the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima and the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; the dissolution of the centuries-old structure of the Hours; and so much more. To draw the older and newer forms of the liturgy closer to each other would require much more movement on the part of the latter form, so much so that it seems more honest to speak of a gradual reversal of the reform (to the point where it once again connects with the liturgical tradition received by the Council) rather than a reform of it.

The twofold desire of the Council fathers, namely, to permit innovations that “are genuinely and certainly required for the good of the Church” and to “adopt new forms which in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23) could indeed be fulfilled, but not by taking the rites promulgated by Paul VI as the point of departure for arriving at a single, organically reformed version of the ancient Roman rite: that would be like trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. What is needed is not a ‘reform of the reform’ but rather a cautious adaptation of the Tridentine liturgy in accordance with the principles laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium (as happened in the immediate aftermath of that document’s promulgation in 1963), using what we have learned from the experience of the past fifty years.¹¹ In the meantime, improvements can be made here and there in the ars celebrandi of the Ordinary Form. But the road to achieving a sustainable future for the traditional Roman rite¹²—and to achieving the liturgical vision of Vatican II, which ordered the moderate adaptation of that rite, not its destruction—is the beautiful and proper celebration, in an increasing number of locations, of the Extraordinary Form, with every effort to promote the core principle (properly understood) of “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful (SC 14).

Footnotes

^[1]A history and analysis of the movement (if it can be called that) with a useful bibliography will appear as a chapter in the forthcoming T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy: The Western Catholic Tradition, ed. Alcuin Reid (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). One of the first studies to take up the question of an alternate reform is Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, trans. Klaus D. Grimm (Una Voce Press and The Foundation for Catholic Reform, 1993) pp. 41-61 [on the Order of Mass], 63-75 [on the Order of Readings]; Gamber held that the Ordo Missæ of 1965 fulfilled the revision of the Mass envisioned by the Second Vatican Council. The earliest typology of post-Vatican II liturgical agendas is Beyond the Prosaic: Renewing the Liturgical Movement, ed. Stratford Caldecott (T&T Clark, 1996). More recently, see John F. Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics (Liturgical Press, 2008); reviewed on NLM hereand here. Various ‘reform of the reform’ schemata can be found in the appendices of my book, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate (Ignatius Press, 2003). The only foreign-language proposal (to my knowledge) is Claudio Crescimanno, La Riforma della Riforma liturgica: Ipotesi per un “nuovo” rito della miss sulle trace del pensiero di Joseph Ratzinger (Fede & Cultura, 2009).

^[2]See, e.g., hereand hereand hereand here and here.

^[3]Archbishop (now Cardinal) Albert Malcolm Ranjith’s foreword to NicolaGiampietro, The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970 (Roman Catholic Books, 2009), p. xvi; reviewed in Antiphon 14 (2010) 312-14 and on NLM here. Ranjith was then Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and is now (since 2009) the Cardinal-Archbishop of Colombo.

^[4]The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 1986); The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000); “Assessment and Future Prospects,” in Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference, ed. Alcuin Reid (St Michael’s Abbey Press, 2003).

[5]Alcuin Reid, “The New Liturgical Movement after the Pontificate of Benedict XVI”, Address to Church Music Association of America, 15 October 2013; available hereand here.

^[6]The Bugnini-Liturgy and the ‘Reform of the Reform’ (Catholic Church Music Associates, 2003); reviewed in Antiphon 9:3 (2005) 309-10. The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite (T&T Clark/Continuum, 2010). I was unaware of the former until 2006; my review of the latter is available on NLM here. See also Dobszay’s “Perspectives on an Organic Development of the Liturgy,” in Antiphon 13:1 (2009) 18-27.

^[7]The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). See the Book Notice; my review of this volume will appear in Antiphon 18:1 (2014).

^[8]Also deserving of attention is Father Uwe Michael Lang’s essay, “Theologies of Blessing: Origins and Characteristics of De benedictionibus (1984),” in Antiphon 15 (2011) 27-46, dealing with the substantial revision of blessings in the Roman Ritual resulting from significant changes in the theological understanding of blessings.

^[9]The three Eucharistic Prayers introduced in 1968 and included in the Missal of Paul VI as alternatives to the Roman Canon are innovations which the Council fathers had not even contemplated, never mind authorized. Whatever might be said in their defense, they are not the products of organic liturgical development.

^[10]Only 17 percent of the orations of the 1962 Missal made their way intact into the Missal of 1970; so Father Anthony Cekada, The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (TAN Books, 1991). László Dobszay, in The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite, notes that “the Roman Rite is incarnated more in the Propers than in the Order of Mass” (p. 48), for the Sacramentary is “the most Roman component of the classical Roman Rite” (p. 201). I do not suggest that there is no basis in Sacrosanctum Concilium for modifying the propers (indeed there is); I simply point out the extent of the changes.

^[11]The end result, I suppose, would be something like the missals published in various countries following the release of the Ordo Missæ of 1965, with the addition of new saints and prefaces.

^[12]The ‘Tridentine’ Missal of 1570-1962 is not the only representative of the historic Roman rite, but unlike the Missal of Paul VI it differs only in minor points from the tradition which had already been alive for a thousand years when the Council of Trent codified the Roman curial rite. In this context the use of the word ‘traditional’ is wholly justified.

Is It Fitting for the Priest to Recite All the Texts of the Mass?

February 9, 2014, 9:00 pm

≫ Next: Online Latin and Greek Study

≪ Previous: Reforming the Irreformable?

$

0

0

In discussions of the liturgy, one often hears something like the following: “Granted, the changes went too far, but you have to admit that there were some things in the old Mass that needed to be changed. Sacrosanctum Concilium was asking for changes and it did issue some real (though modest) directives—and perhaps in a future revision of the traditional Roman Missal, these improvements can be made.”

Nowadays I always want to ask (and if I am on the scene, I do ask) exactly which changes the person has in mind and why he thinks they would be improvements. With few exceptions, arguments in favor of changes to the Missal's texts, rubrics, or ceremonies do not carry conviction with those who understand (and therefore love) the meaning of those texts, rubrics, or ceremonies. At this point in my life, after a long experience of knowing and loving the traditional liturgy in its purity of doctrine, poetic expressiveness, poignant symbolism, effortless integration of clergy, people, and musicians, and (not least) unerring psychology and pedagogy, I tend to have the most serious misgivings about any of the proposed “improvements” that people suggest. Such “improvements” would be obtained at the cost of harming the integrity of the liturgical rite, a cost too high to pay for debatable gains.

My view was not always thus. There was a time, years ago, when I thought that the old Mass could be improved in this way or that way. For example, I once believed that it was self-evident that the priest should not be repeating the antiphons or prayers that the people or the schola were already singing. I had read liturgical scholars who pointed out that this had resulted from the backwards influence of the Low Mass upon the High Mass and who judged it to be a superfluous redundancy, a sort of subtle clericalism that required the priest to do everything or else “his Mass” would not be complete. I remember arguing in a forum that during the Gloria and the Credo, the priest should not recite the text and then sit down, but sing it along with the people, standing all the while with them.

But I no longer agree with the rationalistic experts. I have come to see beauty and wisdom in the development that led to the priest’s personal recitation of all the texts in an usus antiquior High Mass, and while a short article cannot do justice to the topic, I would like to offer some initial thoughts, in the hopes that readers (especially priests) will add to the conversation via the comments.

Because the priest stands at the altar in persona Christi, he stands in the person of the “whole Christ,” head and body. He performs gestures and recites prayers both in the direction of Christ to the faithful, the downward mediation of sacred things, and in the direction of the faithful to Christ, the upward offering of gifts and prayers. The moment of perfect assimilation to Christ the High Priest comes at the moment of consecration, when the priest speaks as if he were none other than Christ Himself, whose living icon and instrument he indeed is: Hoc est enim Corpus meum . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei . . .

The ministerial priest’s identity is thus consumed by and hidden within the singular, all-perfect ontological priesthood of Jesus Christ. But when the priest says out loud Nobis quoque peccatoribus, there he is representing the people, the members of Christ’s mystical body—for in the head of this body there is no sin, while in its members there are imperfections that must be overcome to make their incorporation all the more definitive. Hence, in his very sacramental identity, the priest represents the whole Christ, head and body, and it is fitting that he maintain this role of complete representation from start to finish—from the beginning of the Mass, bowing before the altar in humility and confession, until the very end, blessing the people and reminding them of the sublime Incarnation of the Word, plenum gratiae et veritatis. The dramatic symbolism of the liturgy admits of no interruption, no mixed messages.

With this truth in mind, it becomes clearer why Divine Providence allowed the custom to develop that the priest recites the entire Mass—all of the propers, readings, and prayers—even when subordinate ministers, a schola, or the people are reciting or singing some of them. When the priest recites the Introit, he is standing in the person of Christ the prophet, announcing some mystery that has been accomplished in the Lord’s earthly mission. When the priest recites the threefold Kyrie with its quiet, sombre rhythm, he is beseeching the mercy of almighty God, again acting visibly in the person of the one High Priest who offers sacrifice on behalf of sinners. When he intones the Gloria, he acts as representative of the people, the members of Christ, who worship the triune God; this, too, is a priestly act, one that belongs to all the faithful but is nevertheless most proper to him, in virtue of his possession of Holy Orders. When he reads the Gospel, it is as the living image of Christ that he reads it. None of this downplays or dilutes the roles that other ministers or the people themselves have and should have; instead, it merely draws into maximal unity the liturgical action by having it flow from and return to the same Alpha and Omega, Christ Himself, whose unity of being and operation is sensibly represented by the celebrant.

Many such examples can be given from the liturgy. The priest performs gestures and recites prayers that are fitting not only to the head, Christ as High Priest, but also to the members of Christ’s body, the Church, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To repeat, he represents the whole Christ, head and members. And so it is eminently fitting that he, who has been fashioned to the image and likeness of the Mediator between God and man, should ever have on his lips and in his heart the prayer of the head as well as the responding prayers of the members.

True it is, and a wonderful mystery, that all Christians share in the priesthood of Christ: each of the faithful is baptized a priest, prophet, and king. The sacramental character indelibly imprinted upon the soul at baptism is a title to worship the true and living God, bestowing the right to partake of the other sacraments and, ultimately, to receive their fruit, eternal life. The baptismal character empowers the Christian to receive further gifts of grace, to offer pleasing worship, and, above all, to receive the precious Body and Blood of Christ. This is classic doctrine, taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, many other doctors of the Church, and the Magisterium itself. So it is no less right and fitting that the faithful sing those parts of the High Mass that pertain to them, such as the Ordinary—the dialogues, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.—and that they perform the bodily actions called for by rubric or custom, and join their fervent silent prayer to that of the priest who represents them. In so doing, they perform their priestly office. Each does that which is proper to him to do, and is united in spirit to all the others, under the headship of Christ.

...an image of cosmic and celestial hierarchy...

This, truly, is a vision of order, harmony, peace, and wisdom. It is the order we see in germinal form in the New Testament, manifested in the epochs of Church history, inherent in Catholic Tradition, unfolded in the organic development of the liturgy. As hellbent as the liturgical reformers and radicals were (and still are) to overthrow this natural and supernatural hierarchy, they are kicking against the goad, like Saul, and might as well kick against an immovable rock. It is our privilege as Catholics to be the many and varied members of the Mystical Body and to find our sanctity in serving humbly in the place to which we have been summoned by divine Providence. This includes, of course, the priest serving to the maximum in his priestly role, without embarrassment, attenuation, or dispersion.

I have not even touched the question of the subjective or personal devotional value of the recitation of these antiphons, prayers, and readings by the celebrant—a value that many priests who celebrate the usus antiquior recognize and appreciate as a precious help to their own participatio actuosa in worshiping the Lord. My argument is founded, rather, on objective facts about the very nature of the liturgy and the priesthood, an objectivity that is beautifully symbolized and enacted by the customary practice under discussion, and therefore duly impressed upon the faithful who attend the Mass.

(Photos courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed)

---

Online Latin and Greek Study

February 10, 2014, 4:27 pm

≫ Next: The Iconography of the Immaculate Conception and the Litany of Loreto - A Lesson for Today from Spanish Masters

≪ Previous: Is It Fitting for the Priest to Recite All the Texts of the Mass?

$

0

0

Due to the high demand for Latin classes, the Academy of Classical Languages is offering another online Latin I session for the month of March 2014. The text is by Hans Orberg, Lingua Latina; the instructor is John Pepino, PhD.

Meetings are Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:30pm-9:30pm CST.
Dates: 4-27 March 2014.

Also, for those of you who might be interested, the next Koine Greek session begins this March. These classes are taught by Sebastian Carnazzo, PhD.

For more information about the Latin and Greek offerings go to academyofclassicallanguages.com. 

The Iconography of the Immaculate Conception and the Litany of Loreto - A Lesson for Today from Spanish Masters

February 11, 2014, 3:00 am

≫ Next: Candlemass Photopost, 2014

≪ Previous: Online Latin and Greek Study

$

0

0

I was recently asked about Zurburan's Immaculate Conception. I was aware of the general description of the iconography of the image, but could not interpret the details of everything that he has painted. My go-to person in these situations is Dr Caroline Farey, who once again will lead the teaching on the distance-learning diploma Art, Beauty and Inspiration run by the Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas through their Maryvale Center.

The general description comes from the teacher and father in law of Velazquez, Francisco Pacheco. He wrote a book, the Art of Painting in which he describes it. His starting point is the book of Revelation: “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars,” (Revelation, 12:1-2). Pacheco wrote: 'Our Lady should be painted as a beautiful young girl, 12 or 13 years old, in the flower of her youth. She should be painted wearing a white tunic and a blue mantle. She is surrounded by the sun, an oval sun of white and ochre, which sweetly blends into the sky. Rays of light emanate from her head, around which is a ring of twelve stars. An imperial crown adorns her head, without, however, hiding the stars. Under her feet is the moon.'

Pacheco, through his teaching and writing, is hugely influential in the creation of the Spanish tradition of baroque naturalism, from which so many great painters emerged  - Velazquez, Zurburan, Murillo, Cano, Ribera. It is particularly frustrating therefore, that only a few pages of over 700 are translated into English. This is one document that does seem worth studying if you are interested in working within the baroque tradition today. As with so much else, what he wrote and taught on this matter was followed by his Spanish followers. In regard to the Immaculate Conception, artists took his guidance for a long time afterwards, perhaps changing a few details. This version, by Zurburan follows it closely but has a red rather than a white tunic. Rather than symbolise her purity directly with white, Zurburan, chose red which is usually considered as representing humanity.

Looking first at the lower section of the painting: the palm tree on the left is the standard symbol of justice flourishing (Psalm 92:12), and also a symbol of Lady Wisdom (Sir. 24:14), consigned to Our Lady. On the right side there is a view of Seville, with its two landmarks, the Torre de Oro and Giralda Tower. Seville is depicted as a port with ship sailing towards it. Zurburan trained and lived in Seville.

 On either side of the Virgin through the breaks in the heavenly cloud, there are symbols of the attributes of Mary. On the right, from the top: a flight of steps leading to a portal symbolises the Temple, and below is Mary as the Mirror of Justice. Zurburan has painted a reversed image of Mary in this mirror. In this mirror, we see ourselves as we are called to be in our Christian vocation, she presents an ideal for us, perfect exemplar of grace and virtue. I cannot see anything in the third window on the right - perhaps something has faded, or perhaps Zurburan left it blank, I don't know.

On the left, from above, are the Gate of Heaven; the Morning Star; the Ark of the Covenant, or possibly the House of Gold; and the Star of the Sea. The Ark of the Covenant, placed below the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, was God’s footstool. It contained the stones of the law, given to Moses on Mount Sinai, a sample of manna, and Aaron’s Rod. The ark then comes to symbolise Mary who bore in her womb Jesus, the New Law, our Eucharist and Aaron’s rod which budded (Numbers 17:1-8) is a type of Mary’s Child-bearing. The Morning Star symbolises the time when light is completely fresh, and when everything is still uncorrupted and pure. It is also the planet Venus and is a pagan symbol of female love now purified.

All the scenes shown in these windows correspond to Marian titles taken from the Litany of Loreto. This litany, which was approved by Pope Sixtus V in 1587, was well known in the Seville at this time. This indicates to me that this painting is intended to be used in prayer - as the Litany is recited we can look directly at this painting.

Dr Caroline Farey and I both teach the Art, Beauty and Inspiration diploma in Kansas city, taking place July 11-14, 2014. Go to the Maryvale Center website, here, for more details. In addition I will be teaching two painting courses. One the week before, and one the week after. You can sign up for either or both. If you do both, we will ensure that the second builds on what you learnt in the first. We will focus on the gothic style of illumination of the English School of St Albans, by artists such as Matthew Parris.

An article by Caroline appeared in the The Sower in April 2004

Candlemass Photopost, 2014

February 11, 2014, 11:00 am

≫ Next: Dominican Reflections on Priestly Recitation of Texts at Mass

≪ Previous: The Iconography of the Immaculate Conception and the Litany of Loreto - A Lesson for Today from Spanish Masters

$

0

0

With our thanks to all those who sent in their photos!

St. Anthony of Padua - Jersey City, New Jersey - Celebrant: Rev. John Perricone

St. Francis de Sales Oratory - St. Louis, MO

Holy Family Parish - Quezon City - Philippine Islands - Celebrant: Fr. Michell Zerudo

for many more images, see the blog Dei Praesidio Fultus

St. John the Evangelist - Calgary, Alberta

Mount Calvary Church - Baltimore MD

William Byrd's Adorna Thalamum Tuum

Wyoming Catholic College - Lander, WY

Our own Dr. Peter Kwasniewski at the head of the laity in procession.

St. Joseph's Church - Troy, NY

Holy Redeemer - Madison WI - Celebrant: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Hong Kong

Dominican Reflections on Priestly Recitation of Texts at Mass

February 11, 2014, 11:07 am

≫ Next: Pater Edmund on Mass Facing the People and Political Ideology

≪ Previous: Candlemass Photopost, 2014

$

0

0

The Priest and Deacon read the Chants and Lessons at Solemn Mass

Recently, my co-contributor, Mr. Peter Kwasniewski posted to this site a very thoughtful piece on the traditional practice of having the priest read the Epistle, Gospel, Propers, and Ordinary, even when these are sung by a choir, (and by the deacon, and subdeacon when present) at Sung Mass.  The Roman way of doing this differs from the Dominican in a number of ways, and I am not intending to address that in this post.  Nor am I interested in the "my rite is better" arguments that sometimes seem to arise when non-Roman practices are discussed here.  What I am interested in is the logic of the Dominican practices in the medieval, early modern, and post-1960 reform Mass.

There are a number of things that occur during the Dominican Solemn Mass which originated because of convenience when one or more of the ministers had to perform some function at altar during the Foremass, and it was better for the others to retire to the sedilla (a bench with no separating arms) on the Epistle side of the sanctuary to get out of the way.  This included: the procession of the subdeacon during the Gloria to the altar with the chalice and paten and their arrangement on the altar; and the arrival of the deacon to unfold the corporal during the singing of the Epistle by the subdeacon.  For this reason the priest is at the sedilla from the Amen after the opening collect until he returns to the altar for the deacon's proclamation of the Gospel.

In the medieval rite the ministers recited the Ordinary and the Propers quitely.  The theological logic for this was simple.  The ministers are all members of the community, and the community in a religious house IS the choir.  Thus the performance of those chants fell to all, including the ministers.  Since their "business" often made it impossible for them to sing along with the choir, they recited the texts.  There is no complex theological reason for this; and as this responsibility fell to all the ministers, not just the priest, it is not because of some special about the priestly office.

After the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, by which time the choir (community) has finished the Officium ("Introit" in the Roman Rite) and probably gotten into the Kyrie, the priest moved to the book and the ministers arrayed themselves to his right: deacon, subdeacon, acolyte 1, acolyte 2.  This is so that they can all recite the chants quietly together.  The priest alone takes the cantor's parts (e.g. the verse in the Officium) and all take the choir parts.  In the middle ages when the Solemn Mass was sung every day, it was expected that the ministers knew all the Propers by heart.  So the subdeacon and acolytes recited along with the priest and deacon (who had the benefit of the book).  Today, they just stand mute (unless they have memorized the texts).

By the time the ministers finished, it was time for the priest to go to the center to intone the Gloria.  All then swung back to the Epistle side to recite it with the priest and then go sit down.  The reason for this is practical.  The subdeacon needed to go to the sacristy to get the chalice and paten and bring them to the altar in procession as the choir sang the Gloria.  To clear space for arranging veil and vessels on the altar the priest and other minsters needed to get out of the way.  At the sedilla, in the middle ages, the priest and deacon read the Responsorium (Gradual), Alleluia or Tract, and Sequence (if any) from the book held by Acolyte 1.  If the subdeacon got back, he joined them in reciting.  See this happening in the photo at the beginning of this post (where yours truly is deacon).  They did not read the Epistle or Gospel.  Why? Because it is not their office: they pertain to the offices of the subdeacon and the deacon.  The ministers read these choir chants because they belong to the whole the community and they could not sing them because they will be busy preparing the chalice at the sedilla while they are sung.

After the singing of the Gospel, the priest intoned the Creed, and the procession returned from the ambo in the screen, lead by the crucifer and acolytes. They then arrived to the altar for the priest to kiss the book.  As they had been in motion and the priest was waiting to kiss the book, all were busy and did not sing along with the choir.  Rather, after getting to the altar, the priest, deacon, subdeacon, and acolytes swung to the Gospel side so that they could recite the Creed (already underway by the choir) together.  The recitation would be finished by the time they were to swing back to the middle for the Incarnatus.  After the Incarnatus, the acolytes had to escort the Cross to the sacristy, so the major ministers went to sit.  Again, the recitation is (in theory) not just the priest, and the reason for not singing the Creed is practical: the ministers are busy.

The recitation of choir parts happened again at four points in the Mass.  Again, it is not the priest, but all the ministers (in theory), who recite, because they will be busy during at least part of the chants.  At the Sanctus and Agnus, deacon and his acolyte face the subdeacon and his acolyte (so they can keep in sync) and recite with the priest.  They then get about their business as the choir sings on.  For the Offertory and Communion Verse, again at these points when the ministers will be busy during the chant, so they swing to form a line to the right of the altar (Offertory) or to the left (Communion) to recite with the priest.  Again, in the middle ages, all ministers recited these chants together from memory. Today, only the deacon and priest do, because only they can see the book.


So, the logic of the medieval practice is that what pertains to all (the Ordinary and Propers) is to be sung (or at least recited) by all.  The Post-Tridentine period muddied these waters.  About the time the Last Gospel was forced on us (ca. 1600), we also adopted a number of other Romanisms.  One was that the priest recite the deacon's and subdeacon's parts (i.e. the Epistle and Gospel).  The medieval logic of recitation could not explain this: it was adopted because everyone (i.e., the Roman Rite) did it.  As in the Roman Rite, we also developed various ad hoc theologies to explain why we did this (well rehearsed in Mr. Kwasniewski's fine essay).  This change also created a practical problem, as any Dominican who has served as priest at a Dominican Solemn Mass knows.  The reading of the Epistle and Gospel, along with the intervening choir chants, takes time.  The result is a rush to get them read, the chalice prepared (subdeacon) and incense and deacon blessed for the Gospel.  Sometimes the choir is even finished the Alleluia before the Gospel procession leaves the sedilla!

Since 1960, however, the Post-Tridentine usage is no longer required.  In the rubrical reform of 1960, it was provided that the priest (and so logically also the other ministers) need not recite the Epistle, Gospel, or other chants, "but instead may sing along with the choir."  I have discussed these rubrical changes in an article in Antiphon, also available online.  This is fine for the restoration of the Epistle and Gospel to their proper ministers as in the medieval rite.  And the liberty to not recite but sing along would make perfect sense, if the ministers are not busy during the singing, which they mostly are in our rite.  Of course, when they are busy, it is no longer required that they sing:  it says "may sing" not "must sing."  So, the result would logically be, mostly, for the ministers to neither sing nor recite.  In practice, until the more extensive reforms of the mid-1960s, the Post-Tridentine practices just continued and the ministers recited.  And the priest kept on reading the lessons.  When we continued to celebrate the old liturgy after 1970 under the 1969 Rescript, this was again the practice.  In fact, at every Dominican Rite Solemn Mass I have attended (in choir or as a minister) since my novitiate (1977), the priest and ministers have followed the Pre-1960 rubrics as to recitation.

What do I thnk of this?  This is my opinion, and nothing more, but I think that since the major ministers and servers (usually) are part of the community, and since the Propers and Ordinary belong to the community, their recitation of these texts is very suitable.  And it is permitted: the 1960 rubrical change said "need not recite" not "may not recite."  On the other hand, I think the dropping of the recitation of the Epistle and Gospel by the priest makes good theological and liturgical sense (it is not his part) as well as good practical sense (it allows time for an unrushed preparation of the chalice, etc.).

But I expect that force of habit will mean that Dominican priests keep on reciting the lessons as well as the chants at Solemn  Mass.

Pater Edmund on Mass Facing the People and Political Ideology

February 11, 2014, 9:00 pm

≫ Next: The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 2)

≪ Previous: Dominican Reflections on Priestly Recitation of Texts at Mass

$

0

0

Some readers of NLM will already be familiar with the blog "Sancrucensis," written by Pater Edmund Waldstein, a Cistercian monk of the Abbey of Heiligenkreuz, not far from Vienna. Pater Edmund often blogs about political philosophy and the arts. In a recent post he makes some fascinating observations concerning the liturgy. I have reproduced some paragraphs of the article below; be sure to visit his website for the full text.

POLITICS AND THE LITURGICAL MOVEMENT

... I don’t deny that there are some continuities between the pre-1947 Liturgical Movement and mainstream liturgical thought in the 1960s and 70s, but when I read pre-’47 liturgical theology now, I am far more struck by how different it is from what followed. I claim that this discontinuity is partly a reflection of changing political ideology, and that it is present even in apparently unchanging liturgical projects. I want to show this with the example of celebration versus populum.
          Both the pre-’47 Liturgical movement (or at least many influential figures in it) and the post-conciliar liturgical establishment (obviously) were for versus populum, but for very different reasons. The pre-’47 promotion of versus populum had to do with an anti-individualist, anti-subjectivist, reactionary politics that fit with the authoritarian and totalitarian political movements of the times; the post-conciliar promotion of the same liturgical posture was on the contrary tied to an anti-authoritarian, egalitarian ideology that reflected the egalitarian/fraternalist movements of the 1960s.
          Charles De Koninck's masterpiece On the Primacy of the Common Good provides a key for understanding what was going on. De Koninck shows that there are two opposite errors concerning the common good. The first is the individualist error (which he somewhat misleadingly calls “personalist”). This is the error of considering every common good as merely a useful good, a means to realizing purely private goods. The second error is the totalitarian error of considering the common good to be the good of a reified totality (“the nation,” “the classless society” etc.), to which individuals are entirely subordinated. The true position, which De Koninck unfolds with unrivaled brilliance, is that the common good is more truly the good of the person than any merely private good, so that the necessary and just subordination of the individual to the common good is not the alienation of the individual to someone else’s good. Now each of the two errors about the common good tends to produce a reaction toward the opposite error, and this is the key to understanding the Liturgical Movement.
          The original Liturgical Movement was (in part) a reaction against an overly subjectivist, individualistic piety that its proponents saw as being prevalent in late 19th century bourgeois society. ... In this context versus populum celebration had the purpose of letting the congregation see the objective liturgical action so that they would not be shut up in their own private devotions, but rather absorbed into the action of the Mystical Body, considered as a kind of giant individual.
          After the Second World War, however, people were understandably rather disillusioned with authoritarian and totalitarian ideas. It took a while for the reaction to set in with full force, but in by the 1960s egalitarianism was everywhere on the rise. It was in this climate that the liturgical reforms were carried out, and while liturgists continued to press for versus populum (without any mandate from Vatican II of course), the reasons had changed. Now versus populum took on an egalitarian, horizontalist, anti-hierarchical, almost anti-supernatural sense. The Wir sind Kirche [We Are Church] ideal of a happy brotherhood gathered around the table.

Read the full article . . .