A brief review/thoughts about the Winter 2014 issue of SACRED MUSIC

melofluent

Note: I will X-post this at the Cafe as well.

In another thread I quipped about having to "slog through" two articles on Viennese Masses in the most recent issue of SACRED MUSIC. In any case I did my slogging and save for Dr. Jenny's article, read it cover to cover just yesterday. There is much to ponder, both in content and as regards intent.
I was surprised and gratified to again hear Prof. Mahrt publicly mention "circumambulated" Introits as a potential betterment of the Entrance Rite that is commonly practiced. His whole article could be easily shared with skeptical celebrants wary of fussy, "traddie" musicians always yammering on about the Benedictine altar and ad orientem. His recollection of one particular Colloquium Mass (I believe Fr. Keyes was celebrant) that reflected the value of a prominent Altar Crucifix even when the OF is celebrated "versus populum" might just sway the hearts of non-stolid celebrants.
The article profiling Fr. Louis Boyer was an eye-opener. For non-academics such as myself, the revelations of ritual "sausage making" are of extreme interest. Such detail (not dissimilar to Dobszay's explication of Bugnini) gives insights by which we now can re-consider "why are we doing this as such?" Boyer's own internal struggles with the value of the Pauline Missal, on one hand endorsing SC and on the other making this incredible declaration, "What people call liturgy today is little more that this (embalmed cadaver-a reference to the pre-conciliar Low Mass one supposes) same cadaver decomposed." Yikes! What may be even more frightening is that the "slap-dash" liturgies (of the Dutch?) that were "cobbled together at the last moment by a gang of three) would be now considered "High Church" by comparison to Mass at St.Suburbs.
The articles on the Viennese Mass were informative if a tad anachronistic. What both authors could not resist were suppositions of how abuses in the 17th century among others in regions other than just Wien, automatically bring to mind comparisons to presumably all contemporaneous service music in the 21st century and globally so. There is an undeniable amount of truth in linking such denunciation, but what is overlooked is that the processes of "action/reaction" and "problem/solution" that were in process then are also in process now. Thankfully, as CMAA has a clear ethos centered around the primary and secondary genres of "genuine Roman" music, the default to those makes excursions into "what place does the Viennese Mass" have as a standard of beauty for Masses in this era a brief consideration. Msgr. Schuler's spirit lives on, but not pervasively so. But to advocate for this model of Mass to be resuscitated, well.....
The article about the very definition and nature of "art" seemed, to me, very sketchy and of dubious value. I'm just going to leave that discussion open to others. It does have some passing interest by a loose connection to the issue of free speech brought to the fore of the news cycle by the recent tragedy. (One digression as I type is the incredulity of the media gleefully exhibiting the cover art for the emerging issue of "Charlie Hebdo." Would they have done that three weeks ago?
Mahrt scores again with his brief and helpful analysis of Factus est repente by Gallus. Goes to the top of the pile for next rehearsals.
I very much appreciate the standards of SACRED MUSIC being maintained at a lofty scholastic level. Perhaps down the road, some enterprising young scholar might apply those rubrics to examining the body of music that is significantly employed not only here in the states, but in their own ways, the inculturated accretions that are routinely and generally excoriated in forums such as this one. There is no doubt that what Benedict predicted about unfettered inculturation would "do" to the "Spirit of the Liturgy" is spot on. However, I've yet to see any comprehensive discussion of inculturated musical elements that have been properly vetted and not found wanting. Now that would be interesting reading. Cheers.

JulieColl

Interesting reference to Fr. Bouyer. I read his book on the Eucharist long ago and found it quite fascinating.

Re: liturgical "sausage making," Arbp. Lefebvre once related a personal anecdote about the dubious (and somewhat comical) cut-and-paste method employed by Arbp. Bugnini when he was in the process of manufacturing the reformed rite of Mass:

"Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?

It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.

Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it's not possible!"

He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?"

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn't think of that," he said!

Afterwards another arose and said: "Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church." Well, this is what he replied: "We can always add something." Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it myself."

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories