Can we talk about this?

Hm? Nobody's stopping you.

As do I. As soon as we begin to discuss matters of love in terms of the enforceability of legal rights we lose the only argument worth having.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy doesn't exist in a void.

The subsequent editions of the Roman Missal were issued with papal authority. Also, there were various curial documents with norms and instructions; all issued with papal permission, and some with express papal authority. The Council does not outrank the Pope, so even if there's a gap between what the Council called for and what the Pope finally directed, we have to follow what he directed.

Umnnhhh....well, then, it seems you suggest that the prescriptions of the Council have been superceded by Papal legislation, and that they are void.

You would toss 50 years of angst?

Arthur,

Every pope since Paul VI has also insisted that we are in the midst of a great spring time of the Church......

"dad29" writes:

Umnnhhh....well, then, it seems you suggest that the prescriptions of the Council have been superceded by Papal legislation, and that they are void.

You would toss 50 years of angst?

Arthur Connick writes:

Chonak, you seem to be saying that SC is practically speaking no longer a point of reference for the liturgy of the Roman Rite. If I may hazard a guess, none of the popes since Paul VI would agree with this. They would say that SC is definitive and that there is no gap.

I think both of these comments are misrepresenting what I wrote above. If you want to challenge my claims of fact or challenge the interpretations I wrote, feel free. But it is wrong for you make up exaggerations and try to pretend that I wrote them, or suggested them, etc. I particularly object to the attempt by the so-called "dad29" to portray me as dismissing the suffering of Catholics.

[Note: I have edited my response here to tone down my expressions of offense at the above misrepresentations.--RC]

But to think that we'll canon-lawyer our way into good liturgy is absurd.

True. Add to this the fact that no one on this forum has any real authority to do anything. It is going to take bishops who actually care about good liturgy.

The Constitution is not a "constitution" in the American legal sense.

Just my 2¢, I think Chonak and dad29(and others) are having an important discussion. I don't have a dog in the fight but the question of competence in the legal sense is a serious question.

As far as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy goes, I don't see where the animus is coming from. It was promulgated by the Council and laid out ideals for the liturgy.

I don't see any animus, just that lawful church authority has permitted other ways of operating and has delegated authority away from Rome.

I agree with my namesake, PGA, I don't sense any animus thus far. I rejected the premise of IT's question because my sentiments about my professional relationships to legislation and human authority are nearly identical to yours, as described above. Non-starter for me, thass all.

MJO, I don't think that settling on one particular form of the liturgy is a practical solution. The genius of the modern liturgy is that it can be celebrated in whatever manner is ideal for the individuals or groups towards which it is directed. That's why people like it.

Regarding "accretions", the point is that the changes introduced into the liturgy in the last 50 years are accretions that took place right before our eyes! As soon as they become unhelpful, aren't they ripe for pruning? (NB: I meant Memorial rather than Gospel acclamation. Indeed the Alleluia and its versicle accreted some 1,500 years ago.)

All this is a bit like asking the following questions about the Declaration of Independence:

-Does it have any legal force? Can you cite it in court to compel others to do what you want?

-If it doesn't have legal force, isn't it just empty, meaningless rhetoric? Why write a Declaration of Independence at all if it was just going to be superseded by the Constitution and other laws?

Sacrosanctum Concilium was not intended to operate as a legal code. Rather, it was intended to provide a framework and guidelines for subsequent revision of the liturgy by the competent authorities.

About the Memorial Acclamation -
Is this or is it not a real accretion?
I know of no precedent for it in western liturgy.
Does anyone here know from where was the inspiration for it?
To me it is very disruptive of flow in the canon, + not all the choices are very 'acclamatory' but are rather commentary. On the face of it, at its best, it is understood as a genuine solemn acclamation of Christ now with us sacramentally following the elevation. This may parallel the acclamation of a new emperor by the Roman populace when he was presented to them. But some of the weepy musical settings rather defeat this ethos, as do some of the maudlin choices of acclamation. While this acclamation could be a splendid moment, I would have to side with its detractors because it is not splendid in practice, but merely a disruptive interjection which stalls the contextual flow. The best one we had was the 'Christ has died....' one, which has been dropped. It was succinct, pungent, and emphatic, in a word, acclamatory (but disruptive).

another perspective to consider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI

Well, I would say there are two points:

(1st, by the time stamp I would venture to say you did not even listen to the video) then:

1. The content of what is published
2. Your relationship to it

Curious: Since you don't believe the RC church holds councils that define dogma after the first seven, why are you interested in this topic?

Should he be taken seriously?

I find him quite entertaining.

Adam wrote:

Too many people (both pro- and anti-) read SC as if it was the beginning of something. As if it kicked off the mess that followed.

Compare the mainstream liturgical reform efforts of the 1950s to SC, and it is clear that the changes to the liturgy called for by SC were very widely accepted well before the Council. What SC did is allow these reform impulses to move forward with the endorsement of the bishops, and so in a sense it is the initiator of what follows.

But did SC, or for that matter the Concilium, cause the "mess"? Both are reflections of the time: excessive optimism in the common man adhering to the highest ideals, and abject confidence in "the assured results of science". A lot of people at the time (and today!) shared these same ideas. So who's at fault?

I take no man seriously. I only seek for what is the truth. As far as Hesse goes, I haven't found anything he said that wasn't spot on. Have you? Impressive mind.

And yet it seems that there was a project in the works during Pope Benedict's pontificate to implement SC's call for the use of Latin and Gregorian chant in the OF, but unfortunately it never saw the light of day.

Msgr. Juan-Miguel Ferrer Grenesche, one of the two former Ratzingerian under-secretaries of the Congregation for Divine Worship (who were recently purged in favor of Bugninists), in 2012 presented a paper entitled THE NEW DUTIES OF THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP IN THE PROMOTION OF SACRED MUSIC AFTER THE MOTU PROPRIO "QUAERIT SEMPER" OF BENEDICT XVI. It is available to read on Sandro Magister's website here.

He had these specific plans (pending the approval of Cardinal Bertone) to expand officially the use of Latin and chant:


". . . it is evident that in order to reclaim the issue of music in liturgical celebrations, the congregation, making its own the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI and his immediate predecessors on the matter, must guarantee:

1. the preparation of updated and official instruments in order to be able to celebrate with song the Roman liturgy in the Latin language;

2. clarity and facility for the celebration of the Roman rite in the ordinary form in the vernacular language, singing in part or in full the ordinary and/or the propers of the Mass or the divine office in Gregorian or polyphonic melodies based on the liturgical text in Latin;

3. the existence of updated criteria in order to be able to apply the principles of gradualism defined in "Musicam Sacram," both for celebration in the Latin language and for celebration in the vernacular language (directory);

4. the existence of a sure normative framework that responds to the purpose of establishing appropriate national repertoires destined to take on little by little an official value, in such a way that the use of other songs would require an authorization "ad casum" on the part of the respective ordinary: this is another matter for the future directory.

I hope with this [...] that the application of the motu proprio "Quaerit semper" may represent for sacred music a new stage of splendor and beauty: without it, the liturgy would see itself deprived of one of its most eloquent and substantial expressive elements."

Also, in the same Sandro Magister article cited above, it mentions the following:

Msgr. Ferrer announced that the congregation for divine worship will soon be endowed with an office for liturgical art and music that will finally apply, all over the world, the prescriptions of the Church unheeded until now, the rebirth of Gregorian chant first among them.

Alas, these fine plans never came to fruition, but such were the intentions of our Bavarian pope.

For Francis, all discussions of problems in the Church lead to one topic, the allegedly unfulfilled requests of our Lady at Fatima.

That's off-topic. This thread is about the Council documents.

Here is the recipe for bran muffins.

1 1/2 cups wheat bran

1 cup buttermilk

1/3 cup vegetable oil

1 egg

2/3 cup brown sugar

1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 cup all-purpose flour

1 teaspoon baking soda

1 teaspoon baking powder

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/2 cup raisins


Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C). Grease muffin cups or line with paper muffin liners.
Mix together wheat bran and buttermilk; let stand for 10 minutes.
Beat together oil, egg, sugar and vanilla and add to buttermilk/bran mixture. Sift together flour, baking soda, baking powder and salt. Stir flour mixture into buttermilk mixture, until just blended. Fold in raisins and spoon batter into prepared muffin tins.
Bake for 15 to 20 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center of a muffin comes out clean. Cool and enjoy!

This forum provides hours (mostly g rated) of free entertainment. Kudos to you all!