This brings to mind the following, from the Treatises of Cyprian:

1:3. But, beloved brethren, not only must we beware of what is open and manifest, but also of what deceives by the craft of subtle fraud. And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy, detected and cast down by the advent of Christ, after light has come to the nations ... — seeing his idols forsaken ... — to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious?

He has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way.

He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety.

This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master.

Hi ryand, thank you for saying something.
I read bits and pieces this morning over my coffee.

My main criticism is that it is not presented as "here are some opinion pieces" on these documents, but rather that this is scholarly material. If it was intended to be so, it could have been written and edited more carefully. There are some well-written portions, but then it is as though the authors felt unable to refrain from cynical asides and sweeping misrepresentations.

The SC piece began fairly well. The description of the Liturgical Movement was fairly accurate, but then...

I especially loved the part when he talks about something more than the "mere observation of the rules" as though it means to "ignore the rules". He seems to miss, as so many have, that the point from SC means that IN ADDITION to following the rules, there should be something more (and I don't mean more as in additions to the liturgy).

And then that great direct attack on the "Say the black, do the red" types. Very sad. Especially the part about "liturgical robots" as though there is no meaning to the rubrics.

But I'll let you do the full analysis here, I have bulletin articles to write.

Please also include your commentary on the "Spirit of Vatican II" piece at the back of the issue... let's say that I feel unable to bring myself to words about it at this time :)

My parish doesn't waste money on NPM any longer - a good thing. The pastor says we have grown beyond them. But I do see the Inwood articles in the quarterly magazine from GIA. You are correct that his opinions are skewed - skewed up, that is! Of course, I expect that GIA is out to sell something that it publishes, so that's a given. Large grain of salt time, folks.

PART ONE:

Paul Inwood begins by pointing out that Sacrosanctum Concilium

“was the first document issued by the Council Fathers. It is tempting to think that this must indicate that they thought the liturgy was the most important subject to deal with on their agenda. In fact this Council’s principal work was in theological, dogmatic reflection on the Church.”

It is tempting because, perhaps, it is true. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

While he begins with this downplay of the unparalleled importance of the liturgy (when properly celebrated) influencing our understanding and experience of the faith, he soon quotes the opening paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

The reform and promotion of the liturgy. Really, Mr. Inwood? To begin by downplaying the importance of the liturgy (“It might have been the first issue they tackled, but that’s just coincidence!”), and then go on to quote the council’s promotion of the liturgy is simply ridiculous.

I can’t imagine what is to follow …

Actually, I lied. I was not taken aback by a quick stab at traditionalists:

“I should add, for the benefit of those who do not accept that the Council Fathers mandated liturgical change…”

Come on, Mr. Inwood. We all know what you’re getting at. “Those who do not accept...” You’re taking a stab at the FSSP, or those who wish for a more traditional Novus Ordo … perhaps even in Latin (outrage!), as the documents call for. Of course, Inwood makes no mention of that. I add that, once again, the downplaying of the liturgy in the council’s focus is disproved by his own writings and opinions, seeing that here he retains focus on the reform of liturgy – from the council’s opening paragraph, and the first ten paragraphs of his own article.

It should come as no surprise that he writes,

“The existing power structures have been reluctant to relinquish their control over the life of the Church.”

It’s called a hierarchy, Mr. Inwood, and they are guided by the Holy Spirit. There is a reason that the bishops, and not the laity, were called to participate in the council. If one does not believe in the wisdom of Church leaders and their teachings and directives, then perhaps one ought to leave for a more democratic denomination. I hear that the Unitarians are always accepting new members.

Quoting SC11, Inwood continues,

“Something more is required than mere observance of laws and rubrics? This was earth-shattering for a Church that had never previously felt itself able to exist without legal circumscriptions. Such a willingness – indeed a permission – to go beyond rules and regulations was a hugely liberating force.”

I can only ask, “How so?” When the council says, “It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects,” I see absolutely no permission to “to go beyond” anything. Rather, it reads that pastors ought to foster an understanding, so that the faithful may “take part fully aware,” and to be “actively engaged.” Where did the permission to “go beyond” any rubrics appear?

Inwood’s opinion is on faithful adherence to the rubrics is crystal-clear.

“The then prevailing practice, which resembled liturgical robots performing an antique, complicated ritual without emotion and without true human engagement…”

I’d like to read Inwood’s opinion on why God is not deserving of a complex ritual.

Then again, maybe I would not …

What exactly is “true human engagement?” Any sports game will present an “antique, complicated ritual,” and yet those in attendance are yet engaged. As stated above, the council was simply asking for a better understanding, so that the faithful could actually be engaged in the ritual. Actuosa participatio, whether we take that as “active” or “actual” participation, can only exist with a better understanding of the ritual. Improvising the rubrics or adding “emotion” into it fosters nothing but a focus on the individuals, and does not lead one’s gaze upward toward God (away from the fixation on the individual).

A reference is made to “legitimate variations and adaptions to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands,” which ignores the following phrase, “provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved.” He tells us that the traditionalists are “comforted” by that mention of “substantial unity,” but then says that

“modern liturgical scholarship has now proved that, historically, such a concept is nothing more than an illusion.”

Really? The Roman rite has never displayed any unity between parishes? Various Catholic rites exist, and I don’t expect that the Byzantine rite will exactly mirror the Tridentine rite will exactly mirror the Novus Ordo will exactly mirror the Ambrosian will exactly mirror the Anglican-Use. Many rites exist, to be sure, but to suggest that no semblance of unity never existed between parishes celebrating the same rite, from the same liturgical books is silly. To suggest that only modern scholarship could make this grand discovery is a stretch far into the absurd.

Part three will follow next week.

[soapbox] I would offer that the rubrics direct my mind and body toward the proper disposition so that I can truly worship God in Spirit and in Truth. There's nothing like a little discipline to put one in the right frame of mind and living, and to bring under subjection the flesh that wars against the spirit. Those who spurn and cast off such things only walk in the way of the foolish. [/soapbox]

CharlesW

So true. However, we were warned about this type of thing the last hundred years or so.

rich,

I disagree. While these may seem like the same silly articles-of-old to those of us familiar with "the liturgy wars," (which Inwood decries, while inciting such arguments with his provocatively misinformed writing), there is the danger that opinions such as his might come across as "new" or "fresh" interpretations to someone reading that sort of article for the first time. Those heresies must be struck down as soon as they rear their ugly heads.

There is nothing, really, to interpret in the conciliar writings. Why have an entire magazine of opinion articles on the binding constitutions of the Chruch?

NPM would be better off just publishing the documents and letting their readers see the facts for themselves. Instead, we get a second-hand interpretation which is simply a collection of individual opinions ... misinformed and misguided opinions which focus more on the individual than on God, and more on local cultural norms than on the liturgical practice of the Roman rite and the dogmatic beliefs of our faith.

I mean ... priestesses? Really?

Maybe this is a generational difference: those of us who are old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s don't feel we need to keep fighting the boring old heresies; but maybe the younger generation is right to be cautious.

True, some people may still be taken in by "arugments" such as Inwood's, but I doubt they frequent this forum, or if they do, they can read plenty of more interesting things here. Life is short, and I just think it's more productive to basically ignore the static coming from places like PM and PT (which is fast passing away anyway) and use one's limited energy on promoting the good stuff.

(BTW - I use "rich_enough" as a username, but Sam is my real name - just to avoid confusion.)

But our resident Byzantine in Tennessee seems to think I run a storefront medical dispensary of sorts out here in CA. Never touch the stuff.

No, I don't really believe that about you. I suspect that if we ever met in person, we would get along quite well.

BTW, I am now 65, going on 12, and recently had the prescription drug conversation with the people who run my federal retiree Part D component of Medicare. It took a few moments to convince them that I don't take any medications. They seem to think everyone does. LOL.

I, too, have to wonder why anyone should care what Pastoral Music has to say.

I believe he was a charter member of Seal Team Six. I'm only half kidding, I wouldn't be surprised!
And Adam, for the future, using "Froggy" for all things French is in poor taste, unless you're talking bad Bourdeux, Burgundy or Beaujolais!

I should have specified- I thought he was a French immigrant poking fun at himself. It would never occur to me to use froggy=french on my own initiative.

ryand.
I appreciate your critique and you should continue. I didn't know the article existed and I now will look it up.
A couple of years ago when I was searching for guidance on how to pick songs and I fell into this site.
It was posts like yours that peeked my interests and caused me to come back time and time again.
This site and posts such as this have educated me and has helped me to promote sacred music when I really never cared prior.

So to all of you who think that you are just preaching to the choir on this site you are not. The WWW has many viewers and you never know who will be watching, listening and learning.

The Lord bless you

I can attest that most of the "pastoral musicians" in my neck of the woods are devoted to NPM and follow blindly. I'm a recovering pastoral musician myself since that is all I knew growing up. I think we must critique (constructively of course) because it is so easy to get stuck in the rut of "that's how we've always done things here." Music in Catholic Worship and Liturgical Music Today were held as gospel. About 6 years ago I was casually strolling through the library and Day's Why Catholic's Can't Sing jumped out at me. That let me to question a lot of what I was doing out of habit thinking that was the only way do things. I never wanted to accept the dichotomy of good music for the concert hall and mediocrity for worship, but that was the status quo. I don't have many supporters, and I may be the only local musician with a Graduale on the shelf.

We must continue to evangelize.