That is because a parish that hires a liturgist is rediculous to begin with. The liturgist IS the pastor and the priest. Period! And if they encourage or allow a 'liturgist' to be hired, it shows how far afield they are from their own vocation.

A well trained liturgist is a great help to all of the liturgical ministries. Often we need someone to ask questions of before mass. It is true that the pastor is the one from whom that authority flows, but I like having a liturgist because in a parish such as mine, (where folks other than the choir don't like to practice) it puts an obstacle between confused people and the priest immediately prior to his celebrating the mass. I have spent many years chasing people away from the sacristy prior to mass, since they are seemingly unaware that the priest is vesting and praying. I tell my folks that if we are bothering the priest within 20 minutes of mass, we have already started off on the wrong foot.

I think the important thing is that they be "well trained". While I have had to introduce a few liturgists and clergy to the GIRM and other documents, I have never had to deal with a liturgy committee. I don't see what the use of a committee is if I am the liturgical musician in the parish, trained in both music and the liturgy of the catholic church. What does a liturgy committee do? If they don't compose music or rehearse singers or play an instrument, why would I listen to anything that they have to say? In my mind, I am either qualified to do this work or I am not. If I'm not, then I shouldn't be employed. If I am, then I should be allowed to do the work without the interference of folks who couldn't do my job if they had to.

Well said, Ben. And we should note that you are talking about a master of ceremonies, not a so-called liturgist. With a priest, acolyte master, master of ceremonies, and choirmaster who know what they are doing, one of these 'liturgists' is neither needed nor even dreamed of.

CharlesW

Yes, misnamed. That is an altar guild and more aptly describes the responsibilities of such. The liturgy committees I have worked with have been given carte blanche to call the shots on every account for content in the liturgy, usually comprised of lay parishioners, have no knowledge of liturgy at all, and love to innovate to their hearts content. True name, Formal Abuse Committee.

Now, that being said, I have been on a liturgy committee that comprised all the priests and deacons, the DRE (who was more knowedgeable about liturgy than the clergy) and myself. That was really quite a good experience and our liturgies were quite beautiful, sacred and honorable.

There are liturgy committees and then there are "liturgy committees." It all depends on the pastor and his willingness (or naivete) to allow the innovation,etc. Although, sometimes the pastor is the creator of innovation and nuttiness. The worship committee where I am at is more of mechanics and logistics, making sure there are ministers in their proper roles and appropriately trained.

I also find the beating down of liturgists very disconcerting. I do consider myself a liturgist, having spent years poring over ritual books and rubrics (I have a liturgical theological education). I am counted on to bring those to the attention of my pastor. I also abhor many of my musical confreres who have no understanding of the rituals or rubrics and could frankly, care less.

Beyond the usual mud slinging and name calling, there is a real legitimate tension between the academic side of liturgy and the practice of it.

I subscribe to "Worship," the academic peer-reviewed liturgy journal. I just read an article in it before Holy Week about the origins of the foot washing ritual on Holy Thursday. The author made a very good and academic case, appealing to history, for why the foot washing should include everyone and not be limited to a small number, with their feet washed by the priest.

Of course we know that the current rubrics require. I would not take his idea and actually implement it because it is not currently lawful to do so.

But where is the line between academic study (which can inform bishops, who can in turn lobby for official change thus making a practice lawful) and practice? It can be a very thin line.

And the normal hysteria (i.e. "I know liturgy professors who just think that liturgists should be creative and make it up because they're sooooo libbbbbberal and hate orthodoxy") is not at all helpful nor genuine.

What would you say about other liturgy intensive places such as Notre Dame? I believe that there is an inherent "liberalism," i.e. open mindedness that must correspond to academic inquiry.

Of course, as I said, the purpose of study is to inform rubrics, not to change them on our own authority.

Of course I'm operating on the assumption that a liturgist so employed would be trained in an orthodox manner and be interested in promoting orthodox liturgies.

Well, now, that's a novel idea! I have never met such a person with the title of Liturgist.

You all should come visit the Liturgical Institute. Joyful and faithful! I do bear the title of liturgist, am trained in an orthodox manner (have only 2 courses left in the master's program there), and am interested in promoting orthodox liturgies, and I know many other people who would fit that description.

I second the call to end the beat-down of liturgists...really quite unhelpful to the promotion of good liturgy. Instead, why not support, promote, and seek out the right people?

I don't think that those of us who have had bad experiences with liturgists are inflicting a "beat-down" on all liturgists. Just the ones who haven't made sense. It is important to us to have legitimate and licit advice when we put together the liturgy for the faithful, and although a particular school may be dear to one of us, schools do have reputations in the relevant community and that helps people like me to make better decisions in interviewing and hiring prospective colleagues.

These days if you want to do church music any justice you must train yourself in liturgy in all its aspects. In my own case I am a member of the local Guild of St Stephen. I'm glad that most clergy whom I have worked for have been largely keen on my advice when it comes to liturgy.

There is a reason that there is a work of fiction called The Death of a Liturgist. (No, I'm not going to suggest which reasons might cause it to exist.)

Based on my own experience, both the idea of a layman serving as Director of Liturgy and a cabbal of lay(wo)men serving as a liturgy committee are bad. Is it possible that such limbs could be good? I suppose, but I've never seen it be so, and I have seen both.

"Sentire cum ecclesia", or "instaurare Omnia in Christo" or something similar should be the only question in an interview for either post.

I can think of about 1000 legitimate activities for a liturgist to do that do not have anything to do with making things up.

And creativity in liturgists isn't a bad thing either. How about someone who can figure out an entrance rite incorporating the propers that won't make the people in the pews go nuts? Might take some creativity.

Okay, this has been most instructive. Just think when you hear/read the word "liturgist" of its real definition: "liturgical coordinator." There, done, problem solved. Next?

francis, you must have uncanny powers of bi-location like P.Pio and other saints to have such first hand information on the practices of thousands of individuals and parishes! Wow.
Or maybe you're a secretive Rosicrucian? (I won't tell if you won't)

I honestly don't believe in having an entire committee for the Sacred Liturgy. Though my title has Liturgy in it, my primary function is to coordinate with the priest on how to execute the Liturgy in a way that is faithful to Holy Mother Church. Basically, he says, "I want to do this action on this particular feast. I have this idea for how to make it possible. Can you get the people to do it? If you can't, can you think of another way to make it happen?"

Too many chiefs and not enough indians is never a good senario. I think if you have a faithful priest who employs an individual to help educate the laity in how to faithfully participate in the Liturgy, then you've got plenty of manpower to get the job done.

Or maybe you're a secretive Rosicrucian? (I won't tell if you won't)

Francis a Rosicrucian? HAHAHAHA ROFL

It's that whole Vatican II thing about the Universal Call to Holiness and legitimate ministries of the laity. Not everything recent is bad.

Contrary to what some here think, Vatican II was not meant to just let everything continue exactly as it was with only a few new minor changes in personal outlook. It really was meant to change things. The empowerment of the laity is one way it did just that.

Besides, the average parish today doesn't have a Pastor and 4 associate priests who could do a lot of things. More lay involvement is needed as a practical matter.

And the normal hysteria (i.e. "I know liturgy professors who just think that liturgists should be creative and make it up because they're sooooo libbbbbberal and hate orthodoxy") is not at all helpful nor genuine.

I don't know that I would call that "hysteria", but some do have very strong antipathy toward, whether you believe in their existence or not, people in positions of liturgical authority in parishes and dioceses who do "make it up."
It may not be "helpful" to you, but for anyone to assert that someone else's reaction is not "genuine" strikes me as presumptuous and even arrogant.

I know I've told the story here before of one LitCommie who complained about my contributions to meetings, "I hate it, she always has some REASON."
But another with whom I often locked horns became a very good friend, since we were never disagreeable in our disagreements, and because she came to realize that she could get the straight dope from me -- she had been dependent for information from a diocesan hack who never met an innovation or piece of silly music he didn't like, and never did "have a reason."
Many very well-intentioned people have just been dragooned into serving on parish committees but never been given the tools for making decisions, or even for finding primary sources.

Ally, congratulations on your soon-to-be Masters, the Liturgical Institute, (ad multos annos, Fr Martis Dr McN, Linda Cerabona et al!) is a jewel in Chicago's crown.
The Liturgical Institute is itself a "restorative" to some of the liturgical silliness that has gone on in the area.
I met a young priest over lunch at a workshop there once. The morning session had more or less been about rubrics, and he told how it had taken him a while to appreciate the importance of careful celebration, since when just out of the seminary, older priests kept telling him things like, "Oh, we don't bother with the ablutions here..."
Another priest at the table said that he could top that, he had finished seminary and been ordained without having once been assigned to so much as look at the General Instruction and he wasn't even sure what it covered.
Anyway, you parish is fortunate to have you!

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Contrary to what some here think, Vatican II was not meant to just let everything continue exactly as it was with only a few new minor changes in personal outlook. It really was meant to change things. The empowerment of the laity is one way it did just that.

I totally agree that VII was meant to change everything. I also agree that the empowerment of the laity was one of the things it accomplished.

Now let's review the fruit.

While the empowerment of the laity may have been one of the aims of Vatican II, I do not believe that they intended to give free reign to some of the novelty that ensued. I am certain that the council fathers never meant to abandon us to the whims of so-called experts who invented theories about liturgy and then produced music that lived down to those theories.

How certain are you, and how do you back your claims?

BTW...are you aware of any authority that opposes my position?

The document itself, by its ambiguity, allowed for the wide interpretation it received and the implementation it underwent. To which documents are you referring? The key word in your statement is "they". How do you define "they"?

(Ah... you posted your last part at the same time I hit the Post button on mine. You beat me to the punch!)

Good point about liturgical dance. On what grounds was it even considered and by what authority was it ever introduced, allowed at all, or allowed to continue? And since it still exists, why is it allowed to continue to exist in the 'approval of silence'?

I had to review my posts to find the word "they". By they, I meant the Council Fathers. I say that they never intended to open the floodgates to unfettered experimentation because their language omits that possibility. Do you disagree?

I had to review my posts to find the word "they". By they, I meant the Council Fathers. I say that they never intended to open the floodgates to unfettered experimentation because their language omits that possibility. Do you disagree?

No. I do not disagree.

But that point is a red herring, because it's not what was originally being spoken of.

I guess one example of mass confusion (pun intended) are the many liturgies that are celebrated with a bishop, or even a popes full co-operation. If the innovations were not intended or sanctioned, then why did these prelates allow these to happen in their presence over and over and never reprimand, correct or even mention that they were abberations? What is spoken in SC does not match their actions.

SC also said that Latin should be preserved and vernacular should be introduced carefully. The opposite has been sanctioned by the actions of all.