FSSP vs. Kwasniewski on Liturgy "Purism, Elitism..."
-
Dad29,
I accept your explanation of pipples. I'm not familiar with it, but there are so many internet-related things with which I'm not familiar, so that wouldn't be hard.
Dr. K, as you point out, is opposed to arbitrary, non-organic development of the liturgy.... although you called it "change". I must insist that not all modifications of the liturgy are created equal. Not absolutely everything which tweaks the liturgy is from the ninth circle of Hell. Some years ago our altar boys went from black cassocks to what we now call Institute Blue. The color of the cassock isn't prescribed, so this isn't a matter over which to lose sleep. Yes, I also realize that this doesn't touch the substance of the liturgy. Some priests preach in chasuble, while others don't. I understand the reasons not to wear a chasuble when preaching, and I think they make perfect sense, but I don't write angry letters if a priest preaches in his chasuble. Since the sermon isn't technically part of the Mass, one could make a serious case that the priest shouldn't wear the chasuble while preaching, but those who fail to remove the chasuble aren't doing so because they're confused about the content of the Mass. Nor do they do this because they wish to mislead the faithful. They're not creating the atmosphere of "modular liturgy" as I call it, where absolutely anything and everything can/should be changed to meet the "pastoral needs" of the "worshipping community".
When we come to the first Sunday of Lent, my choir director usually replaces the full chant Tract with a psalm tone version.
This is of a different order.
Even this isn't necessarily evil.
-
I still do not understand why reading the Holy Scriptures in the native tongue of the people at an otherwise Latin Mass is such a "controversy." It has both historical precedent and strong catechetical value that both argue in its favor. But you would think, just based on the extremely hyperbolic reactions being expressed against it, that it was somehow on the same level as clowns and sock puppets at Mass.
-
PlanctusAnglorum wrote:I still do not understand why reading the Holy Scriptures in the native tongue of the people at an otherwise Latin Mass is such a "controversy." It has both historical precedent and strong catechetical value that both argue in its favor. But you would think, just based on the extremely hyperbolic reactions being expressed against it, that it was somehow on the same level as clowns and sock puppets at Mass.
Well said.
I don't favor vernacular readings at the TLM, but I feel your analysis is dead on. What you've overlooked is that the author of the article in question is known to be a provocateur, eager to stir up controversy over a (relatively harmless) practice which he clearly doesn't realize has been common in Europe for decades. Enough said. -
Planctus, Dixit,
I think the problem needs to be understood differently than you seem both to be understanding it.
The language of the Mass is Latin. The Propers (including the Epistle and Gospel) are part of the Mass, so they should be proclaimed in Latin when they are proclaimed within the context of the Mass.
Preaching (whether a sermon or a homily) is usually done in the vernacular of the place. First, preaching isn't part of the Mass, since its text isn't prescribed. Second, the target audience of the preaching is the assembled lay (or, sometimes, clerical) audience (i.e., hearers) and so it is right, proper, and logical that this be done in the vernacular. In a place where two different languages are spoken, i.e., Switzerland, parts of Belgium, swaths of the "United" States of America, one could imagine the same preaching taking place in two (or more) languages at the same Mass. If the assembled persons all speak Latin, or Greek or Hebrew and the cleric preaching knows these languages, such would be possible. If the cleric is preaching on a particular text, he may repeat all or part of what was proclaimed in Latin, this time in the vernacular because it is not part of Mass, but part of the preaching.
What Dr. K is criticizing, if I understand him correctly, is not the permission of vernaculars as I have described it, but the supplanting of Latin for the Epistle and Gospel. Simulcast use of Latin and the vernacular is also a bad idea because it makes "understanding" compete with the actual act of worship of God.
Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the whole of the liturgy (if I recall correctly) into a sacralized form of a Slavic language. The Ordinariate liturgy has always been in English -- not "every day" or "business memo" English, but English nonetheless -- and so what is proper for those liturgies can and should be respected just as the fact that Latin is the language of the Roman Rite should be respected.Thanked by 1Jahaza -
I don't favor vernacular readings at the TLM, but I feel your analysis is dead on. What you've overlooked is that the author of the article in question is known to be a provocateur, eager to stir up controversy over a (relatively harmless) practice which he clearly doesn't realize has been common in Europe for decades. Enough said.
Oh, we are up to our ears in provocateurs who love to stir up controversy. Some things never change. -
which he clearly doesn't realize has been common in Europe for decades.
First off, Dr. K. spent a number of years in Europe; don't be too quick to assign ignorance to him. Secondly, it matters NOT whether 'it is common...for decades'; if it is not provided for in the rubrics, it should not be done. That's not "provocative," that's just being obedient.
Funny thing about obedience, ya'know......laity can smell disobedience a mile away and do the goose/gander-sauce computations rather quickly. Then we all moan about how awful the laity is. Go figure. -
First off, Dr. K. spent a number of years in Europe; don't be too quick to assign ignorance to him. Secondly, it matters NOT whether 'it is common...for decades'; if it is not provided for in the rubrics, it should not be done. That's not "provocative," that's just being obedient. Funny thing about obedience, ya'know......laity can smell disobedience a mile away and do the goose/gander-sauce computations rather quickly. Then we all moan about how awful the laity is. Go figure.
…which misses the entire point.
As has been pointed out by numerous people, the rubrics do allow this. Cf. the letters by Ecclesia Dei which—no matter how we feel—is ultimately the interpreter of Extraordinary Form rubrics.
And don't be too quick to disregard liturgical custom. For example, there is nothing in the rubrics about how the laity are supposed to receive Holy Communion at the TLM. Nothing about kneeling, reception on the tongue, etc.
I've noticed that many provocateurs confuse an ill-informed "literal" reading of the rubrics (as well as legal positivism) with Tradition; the two are very different. I once encountered a musician who wouldn't sing for high Masses on certain days because the rubrics said: "the Credo is said." His argument was that the Rubrics said to speak the Credo, not sing it. -
The Tradition in my Archdiocese is that the Epistle and Gospel are said in English just before the sermon, AFTER they are recited or sung during the Mass. That is exactly the rubric which was extant in the 1950's; I know because I was there then, and sentient.
If you are telling us that PCED authorized recitation/singing of the Ep and Gosp in the vulgar instead of in the Latin, fine.
(You also know that "custom" is a specific technical term and means "immemorial custom" which--technically--requires 100 years' uninterrupted use to become licit. Thus the 'third Confiteor' is NOT "custom," as it was eliminated in the 1962 Rite.) -
I've noticed that many provocateurs confuse an ill-informed "literal" reading of the rubrics (as well as legal positivism) with Tradition; the two are very different. I once encountered a musician who wouldn't sing for high Masses on certain days because the rubrics said: "the Credo is said." His argument was that the Rubrics said to speak the Credo, not sing it.
I have met these folks and they are difficult to deal with. Despite their claims to the contrary, they don't follow rubrics unless it suits them. It doesn't matter what the rubrics say, you get a response of, "well, Snordvistle the pantywaist declared this not binding and did x,y, and z, so it is fine for me to do as I please." Too many TLM folks preach a game with rules they don't follow.
Rubrics are guides, not divine law, and I haven't heard of anyone being struck by heavenly bolts or burned at the stake over them in recent centuries. However, they should be followed to the degree possible. When the church officially changes rubrics, it isn't an open invitation to find ways around them. Tradition can be a legitimate factor, with local traditions of lengthy duration being acceptable. Custom can be less than 100 years with 25 years in a local setting qualifying as local custom. So a bishop with a canon law degree has told me. Of course, you could also appeal to Snordvistle. -
Snordvistle the pantywaist Pantywaist.
Fixed. He, of course, is my patron. (Although local custom dictates that we address him as "Padron." That, or "El Jefe.")Thanked by 1CharlesW -
As long as that patron is not St. Tritone the Tone Deaf, it's OK. Local custom dictates I address him as choir member.Thanked by 1melofluent
-
I still do not understand why reading the Holy Scriptures in the native tongue of the people at an otherwise Latin Mass is such a "controversy." It has both historical precedent and strong catechetical value that both argue in its favor.
Dr. K has offered well-considered reasons for the traditional practice of having the readings in Latin where he responds to both of your points. It's not just a matter of "following the rubrics" - which objection Dr. K. also very ably addresses in his article.
It's also not clear whether the custom in Europe was to replace the readings in Latin with ones in the vernacular, as opposed to reading them in the vernacular in addition to the Latin. The second practice is common, even in the US, while the former, even if common in Europe, could still be a bad idea. -
I don't like liturgical pastiches.
If a mass is being celebrated in Latin, then everything should be in Latin.
If it is celebrated in English, than all of it should be English.
People can be as aedified in one language as the other.
English readings in a Latin mass are as silly as Latin readings in an English one.
Consistency of language within a given celebration should be normative.
And, what happens to the argument by some that literal 'understanding' is not necessary if the mass is in Latin? It seems that this practice of vernacular readings sort of makes it so much 'hot air'.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
A clever non-snark, Heath.
I do.
Music is in music. It is not bound by any other than the language of music itself.
I think more pertinent to your non-snark is that I view motets and anthems as decorations of the ritual. They are not a part of the ritual text, but are ornaments thereto. Being decorations they may be sung in Latin, English, or German..... during an English mass, or in English, Danish, or Latin..... at a Latin mass. This will seem a 'cop-out' to some, but at least it is consistent and has a defensible rationale. The only requirement of these ornaments is that they be good music and that they beautify the ritual.
P.S. - non-snark thought - I'd like to see your adaptations.Thanked by 1Heath -
Jackson,
I get to agree with you again. The (vernacular) readings are superfluous. -
M. Jackson Osborn wrote:I don't like liturgical pastiches. If a mass is being celebrated in Latin, then everything should be in Latin. If it is celebrated in English, than all of it should be English. People can be as aedified in one language as the other. English readings in a Latin mass are as silly as Latin readings in an English one. Consistency of language within a given celebration should be normative.
- - -Music is in music. It is not bound by any other than the language of music itself. I think more pertinent to your non-snark is that I view motets and anthems as decorations of the ritual. They are not a part of the ritual text, but are ornaments thereto. Being decorations they may be sung in Latin, English, or German..... during an English mass, or in English, Danish, or Latin..... at a Latin mass. This will seem a 'cop-out' to some, but at least it is consistent and has a defensible rationale. The only requirement of these ornaments is that they be good music and that they beautify the ritual.
I hardly know what to make of this.
Are you unaware that Readings are SUNG in the Solemn Mass of the Roman Rite?
Once you realize this fact (and I'm not kidding—the readings are sung in the TLM) your argument turns to gibberish.
Are you saying sung Readings are not 'music' ?? -
-
Well, Jackson, I must admit I, too, was somewhat discomfited by your proscription. If you don't mind, and not necessarily with citations, could you state your case for a one language only consistency (as you call it?) But by the letter of your law, we would be compelled not to sing in Greek for the penitential rite and the Reproaches, among other things.
If you have in mind the horrid polyglot NO's favored by modernists to bolster your rationale, I'm afraid that isn't analogous, is it?
PS. I believe that I witness and participate in a real time expression of mutual enrichment between the NO/TLM as was advanced by SP in 2007, at our little rural parish I now attend. -
It's very simple, Charles (and I don't mind at all) -
One, and only one language for all the ritual texts of a given mass. (And that, obviously, includes the lectionary.) Of course, as you point out, the kyries are, ideally, always in Greek, regardless of the single language of the rest of the mass. Why? Because this is the only part of the mass that is said universally in the same language, and it has been so for at least about seventeen hundred or more years, an impeccable pedigree.
As for these linguistic pastiches, they have much usage (but naught else) in their favour. I've met few who are in my camp on this matter. There is no chapter and verse which bolsters my preference for a one given language, whatever that language may be, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Mandarin, Old Church English, Urdu, or Finnish, etc., for one given mass. As I pointed out above, motets and anthems are not ritual texts, but are properly understood as ornaments and may be sung in translation or in their original languages. I do not pretend that there is any law, canon, rubric, GIRM chapter, encyclical, etc., for the position I take. The basis for it is merely that of offering eucharist with a consistent aesthetic which isn't jerking the mind into now this and now that language throughout the mass. A contemplative continuum and aesthesis is a guerdon for which to be thankful and to which we are entitled.
Anyone who disagrees may pick these standards to shreds if he or she pleases, but I will stand by them - by them and also by the conviction that there should be no such thing as a 'low mass'. All masses should be sung. The Orthodox have never forgotten this*. And it goes without saying (I should think!) that that includes the lectionary.
*Indeed, the Orthodox won't even ordain a man who cannot (let alone will not) sing.Thanked by 1melofluent -
I have always considered the low mass an aberration, anyway. All masses should be sung and if Fr. Flitabout doesn't have time, then don't do any mass. However, I am approaching this from an eastern perspective where we don't begin to understand the concept of low masses.Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
-
Jackson,
Is it perhaps the polyglot Pentecost eucharistic celebration you're thinking of , as the pinnacle of confusion, the sort I sometimes encountered when I was a boy and which, I gather, is becoming popular in St. Peter's? -
Chris -
It is certainly that, also.
Any one language for all of any one mass. -
OK, Charles, here's "Custom" from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(a) Considered according to extent, a custom is universal, if received by the whole Church; or general (though under another aspect, particular), if observed in an entire country or province; or special, if it obtains among smaller but perfect societies; or most special (specialissima) if among private individuals and imperfect societies. It is obvious that the last-named cannot elevate a custom into a legitimate law.
(b) Considered according to duration, custom is prescriptive or non-prescriptive. The former is subdivided, according to the amount of time requisite for a custom of fact to become a custom of law, into ordinary (i.e. ten or forty years) and immemorial.
(c) Considered according to method of introduction, a custom is judicial or extrajudicial. The first is that derived from forensic usage or precedent. This is of great importance in ecclesiastical circles, as the same prelates are generally both legislators and judges, i.e. the pope and bishops. Extrajudicial custom is introduced by the people, but its sanction becomes the more easy the larger the number of learned or prominent men who embrace it.
(d) Considered in its relation to law, a custom is according to law (juxta legem) when it interprets or confirms an existing statute; or beside the law (prœter legem) when no written legislation on the subject exists; or contrary to law (contra legem) when it derogates from or abrogates a statute already in force.
Seems that "ordinary" custom can have as little as 10 years' use, but to become 'immemorial' it must have 100 years' use. Also, it appears that 'custom' appertains to a particular location (Diocese) or 'society' (usually of religious)--which also appears to bar that 'custom' from being imposed on another Diocese or society.
Hmmmm. -
I will stand by... the conviction that there should be no such thing as a 'low mass'. All masses should be sung.All masses should be sung and if Fr. Flitabout doesn't have time, then don't do any mass.
Yes, and why we're at it, why don't we simply insist that priests and clerics in major orders are never allowed to recite the breviary but must always sing the entire Office in choir? What are they thinking by having the temerity to imagine any part of the Liturgy can be said and not sung? Damn their impertinence and laziness.
How dare anyone think that offering the Mass - when no-one else is present - has a value and is pleasing in the sight of the Lord?
Let's take all priests out of parishes and put them in religious communities where they belong so that they can sing the Office and Masses all day long. And if people want the Mass, they can damn well go to the abbey.
On a serious note, I think we must revise the bible.Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a [music minister], and the other a [simple priest].
[11] The [music minister] standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this [simple priest - who has the temerity to offer Low Mass and recite the Office]. [12] I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. [13] And the [simple priest], standing afar off, [offered the Sacrifice of the Mass without others present].
OK, I think I have exorcised my snark now. -
Es gingen zweene Menschen hinauf in den Tempel,
Einer ein Musikaner,
Der ander ein Priester.
Der Musikaner stund und betet bei sich selbst
( und der Priester stund von ferne,
wollte auch seine Augen nicht aufschlagen gen Himmel, )
schlug an seiner Brust und sie sprachen:
Ich, ich danke dir Gott dass ich nicht bin wie andre Leute,
(Gott sei mir Suende gnaedig,)
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwA31uqKYnQ
-
Let's take all priests out of parishes and put them in religious communities where they belong so that they can sing the Office and Masses all day long.
And while those priests are there, give them the training they should have gotten in seminary.Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
CharlesW,
I'm sure St. John Vianney is eagerly awaiting to hear from you all of the miscues he made as a pastor of a parish church, which presumably will center on the fact that he didn't sing enough per your wise counsel. You can console him by letting him know that it was the fault of his seminary formation. -
He barely made it through the seminary. LOL.
Clearly casting pearls beyond this point... -
He definitely worked around some liabilities. A source noted:
He was tonsured in 1811, and in 1812 he went to the minor seminary at Verrières-en-Forez. In autumn of 1813, he was sent to the major seminary at Lyons. Considered too slow, he was returned to Abbé Balley. However, Balley persuaded the Vicar general that Vianney's piety was great enough to compensate for his ignorance, and the seminarian received minor orders and the subdiaconate on 2 July 1814, was ordained a deacon in June 1815, and was ordained priest on 12 August 1815 in the Couvent des Minimes de Grenoble. He said his first Mass the next day,[6] and was appointed the assistant to Balley in Écully.
It seems Latin gave him the most trouble. But his gifts in the confessional and for touching the hearts of people, were the secrets of his success. -
.
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 Discussions21,106
- General Music Discussion7,594
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- 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
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113