but there were no chanted propers, no ad orientem, no bells or birettas or “Benedictine arrangement” of the altar. The Eucharistic Prayer was EPII.
If the bishops are supposed to model for us how the liturgy should be celebrated, I would say that at least on this occasion they did they job.
Aristotle intends virtue to be a mean between theoretical extremes, not observed extremes.
If the bishops are supposed to model for us how the liturgy should be celebrated
So is the point that there is no such thing as liturgical "fussiness"?
So is the point that there is no such thing as liturgical "fussiness"? That this is a phantom vice? That, like charity, liturgical elaboration and complexity and a concern that nothing ever deviate from saying the black and doing the red do not observe a mean? That, liturgically speaking, more is always better? It seems to be that for this to be true it would have to be the case that ritual is, like charity, an end in itself. Last I checked, this was not the case.
I would also add that what I would call fussiness is as often found among progressives as among traditionalists
...pomp, lace, and finery...
...double swing....triple swing...
Not necessarily pomp and finery, but lace is inherently fussy - also degenerate, effeminate, un-(and anti-) manly, offensive, tasteless, and disgusting. (Etc.)
As to location, I suspect almost everyone present would prefer to have Mass celebrated in a church, but the nearest parish is a 15+ minute walk from the hotel where the bishops meet, and time is tight enough with various meetings that it simply isn’t practical. They do have their opening Mass at the Basilica of the Assumption.
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.