Progressive Solemnity
-
I have wondered about how transitional that transitional missal really was. I have a copy of the 1965 and I don't recall anyone thinking it was an intermediary step. When the NO hit around 1970, most I knew at the time, including some priests, were shocked by it. Perhaps the 1965 was regarded as transitional more in retrospect than at the time.
-
It was only 'transitional' to Bugnini's bunch. As you say, the '69 ('70) version came as a near-complete surprise, as the '65 clearly fulfilled all the expressed wishes of SC.
-
Read the liturgical documents from the 1960's, read Notitiae during those years, read the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter from those years, and you will discover how misinformed the last two posters' statements are.
-
Start with Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter, 1965-2000, published by the USCCB in 2004. It reprints all the monthly 4-page issues of the Newsletter from the NCCB/USCCB's Liturgy Committee during those 35 years. The first two hundred fifty or so pages provide a comprehensive overview of what was happening liturgy-wise in the USA and at the Apostolic See in the five years before the introduction of the revised Order of Mass in the spring of 1970.
Any priest who mistakenly thought that the USA's 1965 Latin-English Sacramentary contained all the liturgical changes that had been authorized by Vatican 2 was probably not reading any Catholic periodicals of the time. -
Read the liturgical documents from the 1960's, read Notitiae during those years, read the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter from those years
Like this one?That rule [permitting vernacular hymns] has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something”, no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing during Mass.
(Notitiae 5 [1969] p. 406, as translated by the BCL Newletter in 1993)
Note the original emphasis. -
And then that got superseded by the GIRM that permitted something other than the propers. There's no silver bullet.
That still doesn't mean they are preferred. The church has always seen the importance of the propers. I was simply making a point because Fr. K was seeming to propose that the magical documents from that period were his silver bullet. -
There really is no easy answer, is there?
Yes actually, there is. Find what is authentic and stick to it. Simple as that! -
Any priest who mistakenly thought that the USA's 1965 Latin-English Sacramentary contained all the liturgical changes that had been authorized by Vatican 2 was probably not reading any Catholic periodicals of the time.
Mo' readings. OK.
Now let's deal with your word "authorized," a word which gets tossed about far more frequently than it should.
And by the way--most of us church worker-bees in the mid-'60's were not reading the stuff coming from the pen of R. Weakland or McManus. We actually had stuff to do. -
The expanded lections were given in the 1967 Lectionary. Hoping mine comes in the mail soon.
-
From the peanut gallery....FWIW
Fr. Krisman is not the problem and certainly not an adversary.
What, then, is the failure of the good to prevail? What the Real Enemy always employs first, apathy.
"The soul is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Like that has not changed over two millenia. Father, you and me are all working our salvation through the amazing gift of music the Creator endowed us. The inclination to fall backwards into politics as a solution (to what?) invites nothing but contention.
If those who frequent here want to for the umpteenth time call me a "kiss-up conciliator" (actually no one's actually said that to me exactly) for my efforts to encourage consensus, take your best shot.
I believe that the EF is the only and last ritual that God endowed us to discover and enact.
I know that I will die before that reality, if ever, will dawn upon those who are my superiors in my career and mission at our parishes. But until my last breath..... -
A few times it has been mentioned that responsibility for music was "transferred" to the episcopal conferences. That might give the impression that this change happened after 1967, so that it would diminish the status of Musicam sacram.
Instead it happened in 1965 (Sacrosanctum Concilium 39), so it appears that the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in '67, considered MS compatible with the role of the episcopal conferences. Here is how MS describes the various authorities:12. It is for the Holy See alone to determine the more important general principles which are, as it were, the basis of sacred music, according to the norms handed down, but especially according to the Constitution on the Liturgy. Direction in this matter, within the limits laid down, also belongs to the competent territorial Episcopal Conferences of various kinds, which have been legitimately constituted, and to the individual bishop. -
You have no idea.
-
Well none of it can be enforced anyway even if It is what the Church wants. Right now priests and bishops have all sorts of problems that loom larger in their field of vision. Changing the minds of current priests is the hard part. Hard of course doesn't mean give up, just be careful. Educating seminarians is the best way I have found to encourage change. I do not punish my students at the seminary if they have poor voices or problems singing in tune but a high percentage of their grade depends on attendance and they have to show improvement, it works. sometimes it takes years and it sure takes patience but at the end even the worst singers among them can sing the dialogues recto tono and even the Presidential Prayers. The fly in the ointment so to speak, is when they get an assignment as a new priest and the pastor of the church they are assigned to stops them from singing. I hope when they are pastors themselves they will sing again.
-
What, then, is the failure of the good to prevail? What the Real Enemy always employs first, apathy.
So in other words...all that is required for bad music to prevail is for good musicians to do nothing. Hmmmm, I seem to have heard something like that before...somewhere, related to some other topic. -
_____, yes, there is an answer.it is to cheat the people.
We've been cheated by priests who were writing and reading each others trash.Thanked by 1Ben -
I have the diaries of a priest who lived during this time. He wrote between Dec. of 1963 up until his death in the mid 1980s. He was a careful writer and a good historian. Because of his family's wishes, I cannot publish them, though they would make an incredible re-telling of this time. What I can say from the reading is that information flowed at a fairly inconsistent rate. Sometimes, the diocesan offices really kept the priests informed and sometimes not. I have read the notitiae and all the goings on of the BCL. They tell only part of the story. I encourage all to read the book Keep the Fires Burning to get another side of the story. Also, read the discussions about FEL publications and the copyright problems.
What I can say from reading all of these is that the political currents of the time, the socio-religious sensibilities of many in the "field", so to speak, and the remarkable drive to shed all that was "old" had a profound effect upon the reforms. I personally blame no one in particular. I think all had some blame in the mess we have inherited. The diaries I have tell incredible stories of how things were tried. In one case there is the story of a group of musicians who thought it best to borrow from their local protestant church some songs because they thought the protestants knew who to engage people to sing. They brought this music to Mass, the priest in question told them it was unacceptable but the musicians told him it would be the "only" way to get people to sing. When they began to play at the Mass, people got up and walked out, being so offended at the cacophony. This group of musicians stood firm and continued to play until 1981. They lasted some 15 years playing at mass ( they are all dead now.)
I personally am waiting for someone to write a somewhat comprehensive history of these years. I think it is more complicated than we make it out in this forum. I am also uncomfortable with the "conservative/liberal" labels in this discussion. Its not so simple. -
Kevin, you are so spot on with your story above. I recently read the memoir by my first mentor, Rv. E. Donald Osuna's HOW AWESOME IS THIS PLACE? (the story of V2 revolution in Oakland's Cathedral), and the amount of rose-tinted, wistful and the benign supposition and implication that if all that innovation had continued things NOW would be so much better for the Church universal was astounding and confounding.
Many of our generation apparently won't let go of the Church All About Me. That number also includes the few (but many) of the WW2 generation who fell for the sentimentality that got them all juiced up when they first heard Kurt Kaiser's "Pass it on." Then imagine OEW emerging a decade later....
For every account that might accurately reflect the chaos (whether for good or not) there will be an opposite anecdotal history that counters post conciliar glee with doleful tales of how bad the old Low Mass days were. And a lot of these accounts will likely come from Jesuit or Jeb-related sources.
Ruth's solution, Adam B's solution at Mundelein....there's the silver lining in these cloudy days. And I don't totally buy that bishops' and priests' priorities regarding their ecclesial duties and problems are "larger" than concerns about liturgy in the first place. If they bring little to the ambo and altar on Sundays other than perfunctory performance, and expect the externals to do the heavy lifting, then we'll continue to decline into irrevelancy.
We worship Christ, Christ worshipped His Father and repeatedly told us there is nothing more important than that, first and foremost. The rest of the commission follows that worship and reverence.
I don't know why that is so difficult for our "in persona Christi" fathers to get that first.
And the wishy-washy experts occupying Offices of Worship and who dither when giving seminars and advice to said bishops and priests aren't doing us in the trenches any favors.
End of rant. -
I have never been less than truthful on this or any other forum, francis, nor have I concurred with those who've called me this or that throughout my involvements. As Popeye sez, " I yam what I yam.
The main thing is whether here or at worship, "It's not about ME."
If someone asks me about "progressive solemnity," I'd respond simply that I expect every celebrant to chant every collect, dialogue and oration at every opportunity. There's nothing progressive about that, it's obviously doable by virtually every celebrant. And the people will follow, as they are the sheep of the pasture. Period.
All this jawing about legalism and tradition accomplishes nothing towards motivating reverends to preside with obvious Catholic reverence.
Clone Mahrt. Graft his DNA into every current and future priest. Problem solved.Thanked by 1Wendi -
Yes. Jawing about the TRUTH of TRADITION is another matter altogether and goes very far in changing the culture of the liturgy. Benedict started his jaw a movin' and now "The Jaw Is a Movin' All Over, All Over This Land!"
Truth will always emerge while lies and falsehood will always be exposed for what they are, sooner or later. The saving part of it all is that people tend to gravitate toward truth and reject falsehoods.
Cloning is a poor solution. As good as Mahrt's DNA may be, cloning him is not the solution. Cloning VII'ers is what got us into this mess to begin with. Knowing the truth, defending the faith AND TRADITION and bringing that truth to the conversion of each and every heart is our only hope. -
If they [the clergy] bring little to the ambo and altar on Sundays other than perfunctory performance, and expect the externals to do the heavy lifting, then we'll continue to decline into irrevelancy.
Quote of the day (or month, or year)?
Perhaps there was a smidgen of "rant" in the remainder of what you wrote, Melo, but not in your words that I quote. -
A "non-perfunctory performance" won't do any better. It's not the performance that matters, its the state of heart. Heartfelt worship (even silence) can be profound. The crucifixion was not a performance, per say, but it was the ultimate act of worship and obedience to the Father, straight from the heart. Too many of our colleagues think their work is a performance, which is one of the common errors of our liturgical musical praxis. Get the heart right and all else will follow.
-
francis, do you take everything you encounter literally? Get a sense of humor, man!
And yeah, a non-perfunctory performance of ritual leadership and guidance by celebrants will do a lot better for a lot of faithful. You have mistaken the meaning of "performance" for a characterization. Rituals are performed, so let's not digress into semantics.
Your desire that all hearts are predisposed properly for worship presents a chicken versus egg debate. To not recognize the personhood of the celebrant is tantamount to not recognizing Christ as at once human and divine. -
melo
Sorry. I guess the focus on so much of the 'performance' at liturgy has been stretched to the max that it often overshadows the Mass itself and is one of the reasons that this attitude that 'reaching out to the people' is such a huge mistake and actually has created a vacuum that totally lacks the sense of the presence of God. It is this non-Catholic mentality of the stage (or the TV talk show set) that has obliterated the liturgy.
My son (who is 20) went to an EF the other day for the first time in about six years, and he was literally blown out of the water by how authentic the experience of worship was for him. He said 'nothing was directed toward the people' which made it as though the entire act was directed toward God, was completely a spiritual experience (excersize) and it was a profound event. [this is what JulieCol is talking about on another thread... check that out too.]
He was so relieved not to hear any banal announcements, welcomes, hand raising by the cantor, 'reaching out to touch somebody' handshakes, performance by the choir, lack of jokes and talking to the people that it amazed him and he said it was truly other worldly.Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre -
he was literally blown out of the water
They had best check what they're putting in their fonts there.;o)
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,130
- General Music Discussion7,605
- Job Openings1,310
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony529
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,583
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong672
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements171
- General Discussion1,002
- Opinions113