The Restoration of a Collective Piety

JulieColl

This was one of the goals of Dom Lambert Beaudoin, one of the pioneers of the original Liturgical Movement, and it remains an open question whether, after fifty years of liturgical reform, it has been achieved on a wide scale in Catholic parishes, and also in traditional Latin Mass venues.

As Dom Beaudoin explained in 1906: "Many Christians no longer pray at all. This is the inevitable consequence of the neglect into which liturgical prayer has fallen."

He goes on to insist that "It is necessary to restore the collective soul to the social environment created by the Church for prayer. If, while there is yet time, we reanimate this benumbed body, the liturgical assembly, the Christian people will return to prayer. After the example of our divine Lord, Pope Pius X has taught his disciples the secret of true prayer."

Of course, for Pope St. Pius X and the early Liturgical Movement, the primary and indispensable source of true Catholic piety is the active participation of the faithful in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church.

Coming as I do from the EF liturgical perspective where there tends in many places to be more of an emphasis on individual devotion at the expense of the community, I am most captivated by Dom Beaudoin's emphasis on how the sense of the social nature, a sense of "the collective soul" of the assembly at Mass should be restored since this was the way the Catholic liturgy was celebrated in earlier times:

"At these assemblies, association multiplies the energies and the capacities of the individual, and creates a powerful atmosphere, which will carry along the more feeble. A collective soul permeates the entire assembly. The phenomenon of the psychology of crowds is pressed into the service of God. In the liturgy everything is so disposed as to intensify this action: pomp of ceremonies, dramatic character of the sacred functions, dialogue between priest and faithful, collective singing. What stimulating inspirations! What incitement towards God!"

However, he notes that this is no longer the case: "Alas, this "radiating warmth" has deserted our liturgical assemblies; the people are cold in our churches; they are annoyed, they come as to a forced service, and are in a hurry to get away: the entire attitude denotes that their souls are elsewhere---they no longer pray."

So, the question is, was he correct? Could the call of Pope St. Pius X for active participation in a truly traditional, received liturgy have resulted in the restoration of a collective Catholic piety?

I believe if implemented on a Church-wide scale, the restoration of the liturgy as envisioned by Pope Pius X would have been very successful but, if I'm not mistaken, the goals of the original Liturgical Movement have been realized in very few places, and the famous video of the EF Sung High Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet is the best example I've seen of what Dom Beaudoin n his early works and Pope St. Pius X were trying to achieve.

Liam

Well, one would need to account for the basis for his vision of the "earlier times" - what were the facts on the ground at that time - and how much do and could they obtain today?

I assume he is referring to early Late Antiquity - especially the 4th century. And then he's talking about the major urban centers. (Our current expectation of a continuous tapestry of territorial parishes covering Western Christendom would be anachronistic to much of it during the First Millennium. During much of the second half of that period, the major liturgical activity would have been in monasteries and cathedrals but not in smaller churches.) Well, the 4th century, widespread public Christian worship was still relatively new. It hadn't had as much of a chance to stale. And the attitude of common people to authority was perforce more docile because the consequences of questioning authority could easily be mortal or at least life-threatening. In our times, our docility to authority is more selective and idiosyncratic (it's here, but manifests differently; it's a consumerist docility).

In modern times, any liturgy that becomes the default liturgy of precept is likely to be offered...with a minimalist legal and pragmatic sensibility. Intentional communities of choice (lay monasteries, as it were) may fare better (but it's a higher risk proposition as well, because intentional communities are vulnerable in other ways).

JulieColl

In modern times, any liturgy that becomes the default liturgy of precept is likely to be offered...with a minimalist legal and pragmatic sensibility

I appreciate what you're saying, Liam, but then, what to do? Is Dom Beaudoin's goal of restoring collective piety just pie in the sky?

I must say, on the rare occasions I attend the OF for Sunday or holy day Mass, I admire greatly the collective sense, the family atmosphere, which, for some darned reason, is so difficult to cultivate in most places in the EF praxis. I believe Dom Beaudoin's description of the Mass is so appealing and true. This is what the Mass, the Supper of the Lamb, is supposed to be:

"A collective soul permeates the entire assembly. The phenomenon of the psychology of crowds is pressed into the service of God. In the liturgy everything is so disposed as to intensify this action: pomp of ceremonies, dramatic character of the sacred functions, dialogue between priest and faithful, collective singing. What stimulating inspirations! What incitement towards God!"

However, and I'm not trying to be polemical here, but so much of the improvised ceremonies in the OF are so ridiculous (e.g. the relatively new practice of all waiting in hushed, reverent silence as the song leader clicks her way ponderously across the marble sanctuary floor to the Epistle side, bows with her backside ad populum and repeats the whole ceremony after she sings the psalm) and the music generally so dumbed down and insipid that it's almost impossible to keep from laughing at some of it, and I do try not to laugh, I really do.

I just wish there was some way to take the lovely communal atmosphere of the OF and combine it with the deep content and beautifully symbolic ceremonies of the EF, or is that impossible? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one way in which mutual enrichment could be realized?

P.S. What I'm trying to say is this: generally speaking, the OF excels at creating collectiveness, or community/family atmosphere, while the EF excels at generating piety and reverence. How to combine the two?

Liam

Your chances of success are much higher in an intentionally gathered community that has a sufficient plurality of congregants who strongly share that vision.

But for a typical parish where most people are territorially assigned and who attend primarly to fulfill their preceptual obligation, the chances are lower. Even with a strong pastor. (Unless there's a substantial endowment already in place.)

I've never found a community that fulfills my liturgical desiderata,* and my spiritual discernment over many years has been that God's determined that is a want rather a need of mine, and my call in this regard is more in line with Hebrews 11:13, which is to keep moving from place to place every few years and detach from the need for a secure "home" in this plane, but rather to let God guide me to my ultimate home in his good time.

* I've come closer for several years, but then a new pastor systematically undermined it, so I left after discerning his fruits over a 3 year period. I am also painfully familiar with the pros and cons of communities that have a significant number of intentionally-gathered folks; the pros are obvious, the cons are less obvious, but no less present. I do tend to gravitate to communities that serve near universities and colleges because in my experience there's a somewhat better chance of better preaching over time, and the transient nature of the community can counteract the socio-political cliquishness of typical American Catholic parishes, especially those in the suburban areas that are relatively homogenous.

CharlesW

(e.g. the relatively new practice of all waiting in hushed, reverent silence as the song leader clicks her way ponderously across the marble sanctuary floor to the Epistle side, bows with her backside ad populum and repeats the whole ceremony after she sings the psalm)...

I have always wondered if those psalm singers come in any size besides extra large. I have learned that patterns draw attention to undesirable features and that black is not slimming. Stretchy materials - only Olympic athletes have the bodies to wear them.

Now you know one reason why my cantors are in the loft with me. LOL.

Liam

And may I ask the Christian virtue of the snarky critique of cantor's bodies or ungainliness? It's escaping me at this moment. You might instead imagine that the cantor may be already be offering up mortification for how the cantor's body or ungainliness is being critiqued (mind you, ungainliness may prevent participation in many lofts with treacherous staircases) while they offer their service. Which is worthier?

JulieColl

I apologize for the offending description; I didn't mean to imply ungainliness---it's the fact that women in high heels are required to walk across a slippery marble floor in front of 200 people and make an awkward bow that I find absurd--and not only once but twice! How can any one do any of that gracefully? Who's brilliant idea was that?

Liam

Well, the problem as described is *only* the heels. That can be solved by asking all ministers to wear dress shoes that minimize acoustical reverb and damage to flooring.

The bowing is *not* a problem. It's perfectly appropriate. For PIPS who cannot resist a temptation to critique those bowing (whether they are shapely, or look like lumps under clerical vesture, or otherwise - an all male sanctuary is far from a silver bullet in this regard, and I always find it odd that people imagine it is...), there is a perfect solution: maintain custody of your eyes.

The marble floor is *not* a problem. Carpets in the sanctuary *would* be a problem....

PS: I was particularly directing my comment at the implications the comment by another commenter.

Gavin

all waiting in hushed, reverent silence as the song leader clicks her way ponderously across the marble sanctuary floor to the Epistle side, bows with her backside ad populum and repeats the whole ceremony after she sings the psalm

I'm not seeing what the offense is at this. The alternative - congregation talking through Mass, cantor in a carpeted sanctuary ignoring the Blessed Sacrament?

If anything, this sounds like verbiage drawn from a criticism of ad orientem posture.

CharlesW

I can't see the advantage to a cantor making a deep bow and displaying what may be her worst side to the "assembly." A neck or head bow would be better.

"Whether they are shapely, or look like lumps under clerical vesture, or otherwise..."

I don't know what the "otherwise" looks like, but have seen plenty of the "lumps," along with bare midriffs, low-cut tops, and flip-flops - which make a less pingy sound on the marble, to be sure. That sounds more like the squishy sound made by the creature from the black lagoon. LOL.

Worthiness of cantor bodies: That's a difficult one. If I know the cantor and said cantor has sat on her backside stuffing chips and twinkies for years, I wouldn't have much sympathy for her. Then again, everyone in the sanctuary could wear something more uniform - not a bad thing. A neutral color among the "do-bees" could cause the priestly vestments to stand out, instead of them being one in a riot of colors. Again, not a bad thing. Perhaps what the rite asks cantors to do is simply difficult and not well thought out. Another good argument for keeping cantors and psalmists in the loft, or in newer churches without lofts, to the side.

Now, Liam, since this stirred you to such a degree. How long have YOU been hiding from weight watchers? Is this outrage in the making? ROFL.

Liam

Actually, I've not been a cantor in at least a dozen years, so it's not my body issue. I display my own body in the YMCA pool 7 days a week, thank you very kindly. I hide from nothing.

It's a larger issue about how people get in their own way. In this case, people who strive for better liturgical sensibilities. The method here snark directed at people who don't necessarily deserve it. I see this regularly in liturgy blogs, and it only makes the those engaging it in seem puny-hearted, which does zip to promote good liturgy. (I don't bother commenting on it if the snarkers appear to be incapable of reflection on the point, which is too often the case.)

Then there's a smaller issue of how men feel entitled to judge women by their appearance, without realizing how entitled they are. That's not for this forum.

JulieColl

It's not the cantors I'm criticizing, it's this silly improvised ceremony, no doubt invented in a committee meeting----symbolizing nothing more from what I can see than a desperate attempt to maximize the visibility of lay ministers. It takes longer for the walking and the bowing than it does for the entire Liturgy of the Word---or at least it does in our church which has a very large (marble) sanctuary floor. Click, click, click, click . . .

CharlesW

Then there's a smaller issue of how men feel entitled to judge women by their appearance, without realizing how entitled they are. That's not for this forum.

There are large men, too. Women judge men by their appearance and I have heard them often do it.

I display my own body in the YMCA pool 7 days a week, thank you very kindly. I hide from nothing.

I never hide from anything, although I am not Baptist enough to have any affinity for pools of water. ;-) I can be seen at the gym walking, doing calisthenics, and lifting weights most days of the week - even the Lord rested on the Sabbath.

It's not the cantors I'm criticizing, it's this silly improvised rite, no doubt invented in a committee meeting----symbolizing nothing more from what I can see than a desperate attempt to maximize the visibility of lay ministers. It takes longer for the walk and the bow than it does for the entire Liturgy of the Word.

Perhaps another case of the committee's good intentions not working in practice, or perhaps the law of unintended consequences in action.

I think the real issue is the awkwardness of the rite at this point in the liturgy, especially for those who keep cantors in front and visible.

melofluent

From one of the truly fat guys, this drift and digression brings nothing to Julie's intended concerns. I appreciate mirth just as much as does Cdub, but I suspect that left turn caricaturing a situation by using a female subject would never publicly befall a male. That is an all too real scenario in many aspects of the administration and public relations within our Church, one that is actually profoundly disturbing.
Julie and Liam had a good premise working between how the OF could benefit by aspects necessary to the EF, obviously a stated concern of SP. Could we return to that, please?

JulieColl

This whole phenomenon is an interesting study of Arbp. Bugnini's reforms. Let's just take this one thing and drill down on it a little bit.

In the old rite, for the proclamation of the Gospel, you have a procession of all the liturgical ministers, deacons, acolytes who process from the liturgical south to the liturgical north to proclaim the Gospel by singing it to the whole Gentile world, the barbarian tribes north of Rome, in order to recreate liturgically the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentile world.

Under the Bugnini liturgical reforms, however, this procession has somehow been reduced to a layperson, generally a woman, coming from the liturgical north of the sanctuary, bowing profoundly and going to the liturgical south of the sanctuary.

I have two questions: a) what is the spiritual/dogmatic/liturgical/biblical symbolism of this second ceremony and b) can someone tell me exactly how the good of the Church "genuinely and certainly require" the elimination of the traditional procession we see in the Solemn Mass to be replaced with the ceremony we all watch week after week in the Ritus Modernus?

Liam

Julie, I am puzzled by your sense of the origin of this. The lay readers and cantor belong with the congregation or choir (I know there are many parishes where they are seated in the sanctuary for convenience, but that's actually not how it's supposed to be done). They need to get up to the lectern/pulpit/ambo. If they pass the altar, which is often but not always the case, they should reverence the altar in so doing: reverencing the altar is a good thing, last I heard. I don't this is about making the lay ministers more visible. I think that is a creature more of our imaginations than reality.

Melo: understood, but I intervened precisely because of the how-we-get-in-our-own-way-dynamic was on fine display here. It's one of the obstacles to a restoration of collective piety. When we want to complain, the mirror is often a good place to start...I say that because I try to own that for myself. I judge no one from on high here. Rather, I recognize myself in what I observed and complain of in others, and if anything I am kinder on the others.

CharlesW

From one of the truly fat guys, this drift and digression brings nothing to Julie's intended concerns.

But Melo! You WERE in Weight Watchers, and were quite successful as I recall. Did you fall back into your sins? Heeheehee.

but I suspect that left turn caricaturing a situation by using a female subject would never publicly befall a male

It is fact that women dominate in these "ministries." Sad to say, but many men have retreated to items of more relevance than the Church in their lives - sleep and football - or so it appears.

JulieColl

I apologize again if anything I said was unkind to anyone personally. I was speaking about rites and ceremonies, not persons.

Liam, it's been a long time since I've regularly attended the Sunday OF, and while as I said before, I admire the sense of community present in the OF which I believe is a result of the emphasis on active participation of the people, the longer I study and pray at the EF, the more puzzling and strange I find many elements of the OF, esp. the ones that have been recently invented, on the rare occasions I see them so please forgive me for my bluntness. (I'm following the Holy Father's example of parrhesia. )

However, maybe this discussion illustrates instead how far apart the two forms of the Roman Rite are in reality and how naive I am to believe any reconciliation between them is possible.

melofluent

Liam, I didn't really have a beef with you or the drift per se. I just felt the digression was exhausted, and yours is an "E.F.Hutton" voice I want to hear always and unmitigated.
CDub, of course I backslid, still have my card active, so hope remains. That's all.

CharlesW

Melo, 30 years later, I don't remember which was harder, losing weight and keeping it off, or quitting smoking. Both were difficult. Prayers for you, my friend. Wishing you the best.

dad29

So. Back to the topic at hand. Julie, I wonder if your observations of EF/OF gatherings are not in some way related to the 'verticality' of the EF v. the 'horizontality' of the OF.

My experience with EF groups is that--AFTER Mass--they are as friendly and group-warm as are the OF groups I've been around.

At the same time, I acknowledge that the EF people are not trained to sing the responses (much less Chant-mass parts), and there had been zero effort to do so from the priest-celebrants. Perhaps that's just a local thing in this corner of the Midwest.

StephenMatthew

Julie (and others), before critiquing the ceremonies of the presently ordinary form of the Roman rite, it would probably be a good idea to invest some time in learning them (an exercise many priests, parish liturgy committees, music directors (who often double as liturgy directors without any training as such), and even diocesan liturgy offices should also be spending more time on).

The procession at the Gospel still exists, it is just somewhat rare (probably not so rare as Solemn High Mass was back in the day, something that happened in most parishes once a year only when the Bishop came to visit, the rest of the time being mostly Low Masses with the late mass on Sundays being probably a Missa Cantata with Low Mass ceremonies rather often, or so my old timer relatives indicate). Currently the ideal at the Gospel is for the deacon to receive the blessing from the priest at the chair, then go the altar where he should be met by the servers with incense and candles, take up the book of the Gospels, and process to the ambo with the thurifer going before him and acolytes with candles on either side. At the ambo the deacon should incense the book of the Gospel before the proclamation. He should then chant the Gospel. (If the bishop is presiding he should take the book to the bishop to be kissed after the reading, and optionally for the bishop to bless the people with the Book of the Gospels.) That is the ideal in the ordinary form, very similar to the older ideal. Neither one was a common thing in any regular parish, though I know of regular diocesan priests who have a full Gospel procession for every Sunday mass in their parishes. (The innovation of "ambo candles" seems to be a cheep substitute for processional candles in most places, personally I think having the Paschal Candle burning next to the ambo year round is the more sensible option for various reasons.)

The chief changes in this regard for the ordinary form are the assumptions of a single ambo for all of the scriptural proclamations (though churches with two pulpits were in theory allowed to keep both) and the assumption of the use of lay readers. Both of those are debatable in various ways, but whoever is going to go and proclaim the scripture at the ambo must get there by walking from somewhere, and if they should cross the altar in any direction they should bow to it unless carrying something that prevents that.

Now the practical solutions regarding the cantors unnecessarily long and visible walk are several options:
1. Have the cantor's stand on the same side of the altar as the ambo, perhaps farther off to the side, rather than poorly aping the old two pulpits arrangement. (The cathedral in this diocese uses this option.)
2. Have a psalmist other than the cantor somewhere nearer to the ambo who can quietly sneak away during the Gospel procession or second reading.
3. The lectors and the cantors can move simultaneously, no need to wait for the lector to get back to their seat before the cantor heads in the direction of the ambo, nor any need for the lector for the second reading to wait on the cantor.
4. Have the cantor, if in the sanctuary, wear an alb or choir robe, this will hide most visual faults, and with a bit of encouragement more practical (and comfortable) footwear should be possible now that their legs are going to be less visible. (My home parish had to adopt this after a few extremely poor wardrobe choices by cantors.)
5. The cantor really should be near to the sound source of the accompanying instrument, which may mean the cantor will be in the choir loft or the transept, but if the organ is at one end of the building and the cantor at the other, the poor folk in the back of the church (including the organist) are going to have the unpleasant experience of hearing the cantor on a noticeable delay relative to the organ, which is particularly unpleasant in a mostly empty church with reverberating surfaces, to the point of utterly ruining the music in my experience. (Go to a daily mass that doubles at a funeral in a large church with cantor in front and organ in back and sit at the back, it will likely sound awful, though less bad near the front.)

The trouble is never so much in what the liturgical or ceremonial ideal is, the trouble is the departure from that ideal. One of the ideas with the liturgical reform was to make it possible to approach the Solemn form of mass even when you couldn't quite manage all the pieces. Instead, the options that won out in practice were those that most closely mirrored the Low Mass. I keep wanting to ambush a priest belittling the "silent low mass" (which deserves some criticism, for its overuse has much to do with our current liturgical troubles) by reminding him that his masses are all basically Low Masses, just noisy ones. Somehow the Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) clergy I have met get this, they try to have the most solemn and complete celebration possible, but have the freedom to omit or simplify certain things as necessary, but none would ever dare think the simplified version was an ideal or an end point. The Low Mass reigned triumphant before the council and sadly the Low Mass mentality is the main thing that survived the liturgical reform, and this minimalist approach is damnable. Would that a council could anathematize it before it drags more souls down into the pit! Would that rather than an oath against modernism there could be an oath against minimalism, and all of its functionalism, reductionism, archeologism, and cheapness!

Adam Wood

Can we get back to a useful topic?

Like...

P.S. What I'm trying to say is this: generally speaking, the OF excels at creating collectiveness, or community/family atmosphere, while the EF excels at generating piety and reverence. How to combine the two?

JC -- Do you not feel that this is happening at your populist EF mass?

melofluent

StephenMatthew, welcome, as I don't recall any of your other posts.
Your observation of the intact Gospel Procession is spot on, we do it our here in CenCA. exactly as you describe. The only caveat might concern spatial considerations in certain churches with certain ambo dimensions.
If I may, your cantor/psalmist prescription is certainly rife with merit, but frankly I find it unnecessarily fussy. For the most part, our psalmist comes from the Epistle side transept, head bows mid-altar and proceeds to the ambo. Silence is observed, with an occasional introduction before s/he arrives at ambo. And I must confess that unless the choir is vested, the psalmist should perform their duty in appropriate mufti (Sunday dress code.) There is something to be said for the attire of the non-office laity being proper to them, and albs/cassocks etc. to the "offices" of acolytes, deacons, thurifers and so forth.

OraLabora

I just wish there was some way to take the lovely communal atmosphere of the OF and combine it with the deep content and beautifully symbolic ceremonies of the EF, or is that impossible? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one way in which mutual enrichment could be realized?

Every Sunday I attend the OF Mass at the Benedictine monastery of which I am an oblate. The Mass is simply beautiful. The Gregorian propers and ordinary are sung in the language of the Graduale Romanum; the rest is sung (including the readings) in French plainchant. The only thing not chanted is the homily. There's an entrance procession, procession of the Gospel with lighted candles and incense, very skilled Gregorian chant led by a choirmaster who was also choirmaster at Solesmes for a few years (a coals to Newcastle story... but I digress), and schola members who are accomplished musicians in their own right, and I could go on. It may not be as back-slapping friendly as a parish Mass however; after all it's a conventual Mass, not a parish Mass. Surely though, it points the way to what can be done with the OF liturgy if anyone cares to try. It's not unique either, I have been to Benedictine monasteries in France and Italy that do the same, and a small Benedictine monastery in Paris that did very nice liturgy, albeit entirely in French.

Our small Schola in Sherbrooke, Quebec, was trained by the previous choirmaster of the abbey, and we bring chant to Masses in parishes of that city; and occasionally to solemn Sunday Vespers at the cathedral. We see a lot of variety in parishes. For the most part they are all orthodox and follow the rubrics. The odd one tries to "innovate" and sometimes we get really lucky and get a priest who chants his parts. I have sung at vibrant parishes with lots of young families, a very heartwarming experience.

It's all doable with a little learning and discipline. There's nothing in the OF to prevent it. My usual advice in these cases, is to do something about it, that is, get involved. We can't make it perfect, but we can make it better, and give people in the parish a hunger for something better. And you know what, it is the younger members of parishes that are yearning for something better. Let's give it to them! (we even have a few "groupies" that follow us around; we sing at a different parish each month plus the odd concert and funeral).

JulieColl

Stephen Matthew, thanks for the very informative answer and the good suggestions. I don't know why, but it's the new thing here in most local parishes that the psalm singer is seated on the north side of the sanctuary and sings everything from there but crosses over to the Epistle side for the responsorial psalm and then goes back for the rest of the Mass. It just doesn't make sense to me.

BTW, great idea about an oath against minimalism!

Adam, yes, I do feel that is what is happening at our Mass, and I think it helps a great deal that many of the families are people who have come from the OF and also that there is a very diverse urban population, but it has taken a while for the community to "gel," and understandably so since people come from all over and there is only one Mass a week, but there is a great deal of good will and friendship among the people.

I guess what I'm concerned about is that we are such a small drop in the bucket and if anything were to happen to our Latin Mass, all that we've worked so hard to accomplish would be gone in the twinkling of an eye. The populist model is not very popular among American traditional Catholics, as I'm sure you're aware. And yet, the picture Dom Beaudoin describes of the Sung High Mass is so compelling, I just wish more people could be made aware of it as an alternative paradigm.

I think Ora et Labora's thrilling description of the OF chanted Mass is the complementary paradigm to the St. Nicolas du Chardonnet/populist EF paradigm and it doesn't take much imagination to see the possibilities for mutual enrichment between the two.

JulieColl

Just saw this on Rorate Caeli and wanted to share it since it's very relevant to this discussion:

Cardinal Sarah, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship was speaking at St. Eugene-St. Cecile in Paris today, and had this to say when asked about the desires of Pope Benedict XVI in regards to the liturgy:

Cardinal Sarah: Yes, this is the meaning of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Benedict XVI spent considerable energy and hope in this undertaking. Alas, he did not succeed completely, because ones and others have "clutched" to their rite by excluding themselves mutually. In the Church, each one must be able to celebrate according to his sensibility. It is one of the conditions for the reconciliation. It is also necessary to bring people to the beauty of the liturgy, to its sacrality. The Eucharist is not a "meal among mates", it is a sacred mystery. If we celebrate it with beauty and fervor, we will reach a reconciliation, this is clear. Nevertheless, it cannot be forgotten that it is God who reconciles, and that will take time.

StephenMatthew

Julie, I hope that was of at least some help, in hindsight I was perhaps a bit overly direct.

melofluent, thanks for the welcome, I have mostly been a lurker, I am not really a musician, rather I have a keen interest in sacred liturgy, and as a byproduct an interest in sacred music, (and I do sing in a parish choir), and I have a deeply unfilled need for the experience of beauty I once had in another time and place. Oh, how I tragically took too much of what was so good for granted, and how desperately I do miss it. I usually can't bring myself to comment on such things, because it tears at my heart. It is like going from living in a house filled with real art and then being banished to a land where no one has ever seen a decent picture and thinks that the calendar covers they framed and hung up are really wonderful! how do you even begin? all I can do is smile and nod and die inside a little.

JulieColl

It was of great help, Stephen---for example, I didn't know the gospel procession rite exists in the OF; I don't remember ever seeing it done. It is certainly very striking in the EF.

My deep sympathies on your situation and hope you will be blessed abundantly with beauty again very soon. : )

JulieColl

Re: Cardinal Sarah's consoling comments about reaching a reconciliation between the two forms of the Roman rite:

First of all, I think it's important to explore why there appears to be such a great impassable gulf between the EF and the OF and why division sometimes exists between devotees of each form.

I have been reading again then-Cardinal Ratzinger's amazing address on the 10th anniversary of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and he explains with great clarity and succinctness the false liturgical ideologies that are the underlying reason for the two opposing attitudes:

"It seems to me that the dislikes we have mentioned are as great as they are because the two forms of celebration are seen as indicating two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the Christian life. The reasons for this are many. The first is this: one judges the two liturgical forms from their externals and thus one arrives at the following conclusion: there are two fundamentally different attitudes. The average Christian considers it essential for the renewed liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular and facing the people; that there be a great deal of freedom for creativity; and that the laity exercise an active role therein. On the other hand, it is considered essential for a celebration according to the old rite to be in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, strictly and precisely according to the rubrics, and that the faithful follow the Mass in private prayer with no active role. From this viewpoint, a particular set of externals [phénoménologie] is seen as essential to this or that liturgy, rather than what the liturgy itself holds to be essential."

In very simple terms, from what I can tell, His Eminence was saying that as long as many in the OF continue to exercise unrestrained freedom and creativity and ignore the essential rules and normae generales for liturgical revision in De Sacra Liturgia and, as long as many in the EF continue to ignore the prescriptions of the preconciliar popes and of Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the active participation of the people, then reconciliation between the two forms will continue to evade us.

As he says further on in this address: "The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books."

bonniebede

"The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books."

Definitely this.

I think if most people round here saw the NO done with all its possible smells and bells they would think they were at the EF, or what they imagine the Ef to be like.

one of my friends asked a question which I think is interesting... Devotees of the EF now have a right to their rite, but we want the OF done with all its rites and solemnity, not with bits left out, nothing sung by priest etc etc... what about our rights to our rite?

OraLabora

@bonniebede:

I think if most people round here saw the NO done with all its possible smells and bells they would think they were at the EF, or what they imagine the Ef to be like.

I've been saying this for a long time. I have the privilege of attending such an OF Mass weekly, and have been to equally solemn OF Masses elsewhere (alas, all too rarely in parishes and most certainly none in my local parishes). I will be up front and say I prefer the OF, without wanting to remove the right to the EF for those who prefer it. I would just like the OF to receive the same care and attention as the EF now gets.

What we need is the same attention to good liturgy in the OF that the EF currently receives. Our local Benedictines show how it can be done.

melofluent

Xpost from my FB which also references an article about "Catholic Minimalism"

Rant alert. Random thoughts curvature ahead. You've been warned.

Ah, I just love it when the astronomical bodies all align at a particular moment.
On the heels of Cardinal Sarah's exquisite and explicit interview reprinted today, there is much kerfuffle over the same ol', same ol'- namely, "Uh, how'd we get here?" (Which is oddly reminiscent of one of my favorite Merrie Melodies cartoons that has the young vulture crying "Which way did he go, George, WHICH WAY DID HE GO?"
"Catholic Minimalism." Huh? Catholic minimalism intrinsically has the worst of intuited connotations, aka "lowest common denominator." Well, heck, unless one thinks that every grand Mass that's ever been televised, new or re-created on a silver screen reflects the Majesty, Summit, Awe and Spectacle of the Roman Rite in bygone and forlorn years, buddy, you've not looked at the other side of the coinage.
At the well known PRAY TELL BLOG Fr. Anthony Ruff vociferously spanked Cardinal Sarah's interpretation of the oft used "Hermeneutic of Continuity" as not only error, but harmful. Surely a basic reading of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy proves that the TLM (Missal of Pius V) was abrogated. Others chimed in like clockwork as well, not really bothering to see the nuance and accuracy that the cardinal also included in his remarks. But to think solely that the failure to launch either S.Pius X's or Bugnini's visions rest upon current and recently former prelates in terms of the stripped altars and "bare, ruined choirs" that are the hallmarks of Catholic Minimalism as bemoaned here, there and everywhere is to greatly miss the obvious. For all the revision of the CSL, the precision of MS and the provisions of succeeding GIRM's, isn't it painfully obvious that it wasn't "beauty killed the beast," but all the gosh-darn, dagnabit OPTIONS, with their codicils, incoherent translations (one way or the other) and all the waffling mumbo jumbo one has to wade through to get a straight answer?
Frankly Scarlett, between having "heard" hundreds of inculturated, diversely performed megaMasses (few of them beautiful or good), a number of poorly executed low TLM's, local amateur hour fests at St. Normal's while on vacation, and then a handful of nobly elegant OF's and EF's both expected and unexpected, it seems that there exists now some Frankenstein's monster of a marriage between making sure to follow the rubrics to the letter, and the impulse towards minimalist sacramentality. And it's not coming from just the bishops. It's homegrown, it's local. It's like football. "Well, we used to just wear leather helmet headpieces and now we wear Transformer body armor. But the game is still the same: score the most points, game over, go home.
Personally, I don't think the problem is one of "lex orandi." The problem is "lex credendi." In the 21st century, from the Gospels, Epistles, Didache to Eusebius to Augustine/Aquinas to Newman, Reid to Ratzinger, our people still don't know what the heck it means to call oneself a Roman (freaking) Catholic.
We can be like toddlers in a high chair, slurping up whatever His Holiness Francis feeds us lately, or spitting it back at him in disgust, but all we can handle is pablum. In the 21st century!
So, arrange the deck chairs, form the circular firing squad, put on blindfolds and describe the elephant or pin the tail on the donkey, but if you need to blame someone for this presumably sorry state of affairs, look in the mirror first. Don't point yer bony finger of righteous indignation at Burke, Lynch, Cupich, Cordileone or Dolan et al. You don't want "Gas 'n' Go" Catholicism no mo? Roll up your sleeves, get in it as HHF exhorts, and that means engage your pastors in whatever capacity you serve or choose in your own joint.
But make "dem sure" you know whereof you speak and aren't just spouting off pithy little complaints about who did this and who did that. You want Evangeli Gaudium? Then stop acting like you're part of the Mudville Nine, and don't rely or blame Casey if he strikes out.

JulieColl

Another splendid example of an EF Sung Mass as envisioned by the original Liturgical Movement. This is a video of a beautiful Solemn High Mass celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ordination of Fr. Paul Aulignier of the Institute of the Good Shepherd at the medieval Collegiate Church of Our Lady of Mantes.

Features worth noting are:
1) the vibrant participation of the people in the parts of the Mass which pertain to them.
2) ordinary sung antiphonally by choir and congregation.
3) Pater Noster sung by priest and congregation.
4) a vernacular congregational hymn sung during distribution of Communion
5) Prayer for France sung at the end of Mass alternating with choir and congregation after the Salve Regina.
6) Anima Christi by Fr. Marco Frisina at Offertory
7) polyphonic Eucharistic hymn apres Consecration
8) choir located in nave

https://gloria.tv/media/vgLhKK6Hode

"This is why it is very important to observe the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I quoted above, including when one celebrates according to the old Missal! The moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful with its beauty and its richness, then it will be loved, then it will no longer be irreconcilably opposed to the new Liturgy, providing that these criteria are indeed applied as the Council wished."
-----Address of Cardinal Ratzinger on the 10th Anniversary of Ecclesia Dei, Oct. 24, 1998.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories