...we'll be celebrating Holy Week in York, Pa., in the traditional (pre-1956) form...

Well, for starters, before the rites of Holy Week were reformed by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the mid-1950's, the Triduum liturgies would all have been celebrated in the morning before dawn. The church would have been pretty much empty, except for the priests and seminarians whose presence was commandeered. So your planned historical "reenactment" of liturgies with evening and midday starting times won't be historical at all. Just ideology. Please, shut it down before it hurts people.

Fr Krisman,

I'm genuinely curious: why will the praying of the office, even not at the canonical hour, hurt people?

GSharpe,

I'll let Fr. Krisman address most of what you've written, but the question of Tenebrae being celebrated early in the morning is quite well established. The celebrating of the rites in the evening of Holy Saturday is the anomaly.

I do not understand why the word "reenactment" appears in quotation marks in Fr Krisman's comment when no one else had used that word prior to him.

I'm sure that gsharpe34's parish is not planning a reenactment -- i.e., a play-acting simulation -- but a sincere celebration of the liturgy according to the norms permitted to it by ecclesiastical authority.

[UPDATE: See my comment below for revised thoughts on this. --RC]

What church are these services at? I’m in Carlisle, but I’m moving during Holy Week, my wife would probably kill me if I tried to run down to york for a midday service

Hi all. A few replies:

1. Many thanks to chonak for the objective input. Appreciate it very much.

2. In response to davido and trowland87, the church is Ss Peter and Paul downtown York and Palm Sunday is 9am - a tad early if you're traveling, but it's the standard Sunday time so I think the intention was to leave all as-is.

For purposes of candor and full disclosure, I serve as music/schola director at two places, both "semi-full time."

The connection with York is, quite honestly, principally a fruit of their following the pre-56 calendar and liturgy, as a consequence of which they hosted my priest friend, my singers (mostly my family), and myself in 2018 and 2019 when our regular venue became non-viable owing to my being transferred to the Md/DC area for work. In response to the charity and openness of the church to our giving them sung Holy Week for the first time in their history (and providing us a place to go), we've maintained a connection and I handle sung masses for them monthly or perhaps once every six weeks. (I can send a few pictures of the church and the spartan but effective and efficacious Holy Weeks we've done there in the past if of interest.)

Other weeks when not away visiting friends (which is rare), I direct a schola (and more or less the same choir singers) at the new SSPX venue in Upper Malborough, MD.

As others have said elsewhere on the forum, I hope none of the foregoing is off-putting or offensive - but I know these days that it can be, owing to our sad political/liturgical divisions.

Thanks to all for continued consideration of this request and any possible help.

Is this an independent chapel? Or is it run by the SSPX? Their web page seems a bit ambiguous and perhaps a touch red-flaggy. See below...

"Our priest was only laicized from the Novus Ordo Church and this was done without any formal charge of a crime and without a canonical hearing."

I'm genuinely curious: why will the praying of the office, even not at the canonical hour, hurt people?

The answer should be clear by now.

The CMAA’s purpose is the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority.

I personally do not hanker after the pre-VII Triduum, but it is permitted, even in the pre-1955 form. And the forum does not exclude people who are not in communion with the Pope, or others who are clearly wary of "competent ecclesiastical authority".

Without commenting on the other points and derailing the thread too much, might I say that I think CCW mischaracterizes a previous posting on this forum by Fr. K on the Confiteor? Both the post by itself and the entire thread make it clear that he did not claim that the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were sung. Rather, he seems to have said that the modern Confiteor is a descendant of the first Confiteor, not the second....and that any musical tones were for the Second Confiteor......

It's important to disclose that to people who might be travelling some considerable distance and giving up attendance at a parish or oratory in full communion with its ordinary and for whom that might be a concern. Ut unum sint, after all. It's not a mere technicality.

Fr. Krisman,

I stand by my question, but I will rephrase: can the praying of the Divine Office ever be a bad thing, intrinsically?

Selfish people can do seemingly good things in a bad manner or in a grace-obstructing manner. That fact doesn't make the thing itself bad. Communion in the hand isn't evil intrinsically, since we know that it was practiced for some time in the early years. Nevertheless, the manner in which it was introduced in the modern era, and the staggeringly bad context in which it takes place make it clearly a practice to be avoided. Is this, roughly, your argument: that while the Divine Office is, itself, a positive good, the folks who are involved in promoting it are obstructing whatever graces they might otherwise call down from Heaven, and that this context makes it clearly something which should be avoided?

GSharpe,

I don't mind at all that you've interposed yourself between my question and Fr. Krisman. I've never met him, but he is a priest of some renown, and he may be too busy to come back to this conversation right away or be too tempted to incharity by those who disregard his admonition to have nothing to do with your exercise. (How many of us, laymen, are tempted toward incharity by things we perceive to be stupid which others have said?)

I'm a little troubled by your argument that since His Holiness Pope Francis requires tolerance of pagan rituals, the obviously Catholic Divine Office should be treated not as the bastard child but as the kissing cousin of the Pachamama nonsense. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Now, to Fr. Krisman's point, though, I think his objection isn't to the Divine Office per se, but to what he perceives (accurately or inaccurately) as the desire to shun the church's instruction on how to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours. It's not completely dissimilar to the cardinal who said that one could attend the traditional liturgy and fulfill one's Sunday obligation unless one's desire to attend the old form was motivated by a desire to be disobedient or disrespectful of legitimate Church authority.


On a final note, how does the expression "independent Catholic chapel" make any sense?

For a church under the pastoral care of a religious institute properly speaking (in full communion with the ordinary possessing jurisdiction), that would be an oratory unless it was a parish entrusted to its care by the ordinary.

For those keeping score, the EF is available in multiple locations in the Diocese of Harrisburg in communion with Rome, all within driving distance of York, PA. One of these is the chapel of the Harrisburg cathedral, which chapel is staffed by the FSSP.

Mr Osborn - Thank you. I can certainly assure those less enthusiastic that our aims are completely devoid of it any schismatic spirit or desire to flout ecclesiastical law. Precisely the contrary - for what it may be worth, we are firmly convinced that we have the full benefit and protection of both law and custom, which, in admittedly rough paraphrase of St. Thomas and the ancients he relied upon, is an even stronger sanction.

On this subject, in insufficiently brief reply to Mr Garton-Zavesky, my only point in bringing up the tolerance of non-Catholic rituals was a legal one. In again very rough and admittedly not very nuanced outline, law of any form for a public society (like the Church as well as the state) has for its object the protection of the common good, and public authority is justified in restricting "freedom" when the actions it proposes to restrict would harm one or more compelling interests relating to that common good, and which, therefore, that authority has a right to protect by way of positive law and the coercive penalties attached to it.

In the hypothetical event that those of us singing the office during the Triduum and Easter, and following the rituals that do require a priest by way of recourse to a priest who is validly ordained but has fallen out with the local authorities over their refusal to permit use of the traditional, received rites of the Church, were hauled into canonical court, what would the canonical charges be? Hard to formulate - especially in view of the fact that we'd all swear under oath that we were not

motivated by a desire to be disobedient or disrespectful of legitimate Church authority

(I've never heard of anyone attending any old rites, regardless of how far outside of "communion" with the Catholic authorities - even the extreme sedevacantists - on the basis of that motivation, and in any process possessing even a modicum of due process I submit that it would be almost impossible to prove absent compelling extrinsic evidence.), but were, in point of fact, motivated by precisely the opposite.

The relevance to the pagan rituals is simply this: if Church authorities were to claim that we were perpetuating some kind of harm to the common good by participating in fully Catholic rites with fully Catholic intentions with fully Catholic officiants/celebrants, but that our failure to secure approval beyond that which is afforded to us already by the never-banned (as Benedict XVI finally conceded after some fifty years) liturgical books were somehow harmful to the public and human element of the Mystical Body, what would that harm be? And could such a charge even be made without insincerity, given that the same authorities have expressly sanctioned public attendance or participation in public Catholic spaces, the harm and impropriety (to say the least) of which are manifest? That was my only point - not to compare (as I hope would have been obvious) pagan rituals with Catholic worship.

Finally, it is probably worth saying candidly that an assessment of the value (or not) of what we're doing - not the intrinsic value of the liturgy itself, but of our practical execution of it - probably depends upon one's view of how much power the Church has over the liturgy not in its initial development but in the context of rites that have been endorsed by the highest authority in the Church and used for centuries, raising, as mentioned, the issue of the authority of custom. Our view, naturally, is that notwithstanding new rites that may be fabricated wholesale by liturgical committees and made permissible by act of positive law, Church authorities cannot possibly forbid recourse to a series of rites - such as those for the Triduum and Easter - that have had the sanction of centuries worth of authoritative protection and usage. Analogous to the point about pagan rituals, it is indeed ironic in this era of decentralization, tolerance, freedom, personal expression, and accommodation of nearly every person's unique preferences, for anyone in authority to invoke strict legal arguments against the lawfulness of what we are doing - the irony being that those arguments seem only to be trotted out when they are submitted as impeding celebration of the old rites - and by old, I do not mean the 1961 (not 62) "EF", but the unadulterated liturgical books as they were well established before Trent, confirmed by Trent, and passed down following Trent until the mid 1950s (leaving to one side the controversy over Pius X's reform of the calendar in 1911).

For davido - are the numerous "EF" venues following the missal as it existed before the temporary reform of Pius XII in 1956 (codified later in 1961 by John XXIII)? Because, if not, the EF options you offer are (for us and anyone wanting the "traditional" Holy Week) not options at all. Again, no judgment upon those wishing to go that route - none whatsoever. I've been following and studying the old rites for some 20 years (and studying the justification for following them), however, and the shock of going even from 1950 to 1961 is simply overwhelming. I submit respectfully that unless you've been immersed in the old Triduum (to include Tenebrae, the morning Vigil, and Easter Matins & Lauds) to the point where it is natural, there is no way to appreciate the stark contrast between it and the modern "EF."

Apologies for the length, but thanks to anyone who read this far.

Are you Catholic?
Not Catholic but something else - which something else should be specified.
Are you disaffected Anglicans?

I reinforce what I said above that what you are doing is good and beautiful - more so than what is being done in too many canonically Catholic churches.
But - Chonak is also right - very right - 'it would be best for you to identify' where you are coming from.

I found this link on the "Mission" website which starts by telling part of the priest's story:

http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN LETTERS/WATERS_SULLIVAN_CHAPUT_EXCHANGE/11_APPEAL_to_ROME_ARGUMENTS_SIGNATURE_PDF_SIGNED.pdf

It says that Fr. Waters left the priestly ministry in 2000 after having a crisis of faith. Some years later, it seems he had a re-conversion experience (thanks be to God) and became a traditionalist. It seems he was involved with the SSPX for a time, but parted ways with them and now acts independently. Since the website has a number of criticisms of the SSPX's current leadership, this suggests that perhaps he was more sympathetic to the faction that was expelled a few years ago: that is, the bishop Richard Williamson and his supporters. I haven't read enough to confirm whether that's quite the case.

While I hope the church can find some generous, merciful solution to bring the priest and people back into peace with the diocese, I think that the voluminous public arguments posted on their website about a hundred different topics are not a way to work toward such an arrangement.

It is sad that a group of people would insist on remaining aloof from living in peace with the Church, and present as their justification their position about the pre- and post-1955 Holy Week differences. After all, most of these relate to services that -- despite their prominence -- no layman is required by law to attend.

Surely being in peace with the bishop and with the Pope is of more value than having your way about everything.

“Fog in Channel - Continent cut off.”

Europe is an island off the south coast of England.

@chonak

I do not think that the majority of traditional Catholics would claim that the 1962 books are "unacceptable." However, it is true that an increasing number of them are starting to realize that they nonetheless (after the 1955 Holy week and 1910 and 1955 Calendar changes) represent the beginning of discarding of traditions that there was no reason to universally impose on the Roman Rite.

It is true, I think, that the 1962 is "hardly distinguishable" from the 1955 in all essential ways (aside from Holy Week), except to those who go out of their way to study the differences. But at least in my own experience, I do not prefer the pre-1955 practices (for the whole liturgical year, not just Holy Week, and if I did not pray the monastic breviary, I would add pre-1910 in some instances for the sake of the Roman Breviary) just because I notice every little difference compared to 1962; I prefer them because they represent the last practices that seem to have been organically handed down from generation to generation instead of universally imposed from above, usually on questionable antiquarian, utilitarian or supposedly pastoral grounds.

You initially had my full sympathy, but as Chonak suggests, assumptions are best spelled out. An invitation addressed to

Fellow chant and liturgical-music enthusiasts:
…intended to solicit singers from around the National Capital Region and DC-Philly-Harrisburg-Baltimore (etc) metro areas whose interests range from simple psalmody to melismatic chant and even classical polyphony.

… to solicit another voice (or voices) for at least the male side (we alternate male-female voices for the psalmody of Tenebrae).

… with the hope that there may be one or more individuals who are interested in experiencing the fullness of the old Holy Week and not otherwise engaged or, perhaps not having any other viable options, looking for a place to go this year.

All are welcome

might reasonably be interpreted to include the excellent choristers and enthusiasts of sacred music I know who are Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and atheist, let alone Protestant. Shouldn't they be forewarned if you have a don't-ask-don't-tell policy?

Wow... A simple point I was Also trying to make (on another thread) you have made well

"We" shouldn't suppress (and, indeed, actively work to destroy) any high culture for fifty years, pretend that musicians are hobbyists who don't deserve any compensation for their duties, reduce the schola cantorum's historical place to merely "leading the congregation", and leave a vacuum since the seventies of complete musical turmoil and absolutely no compositional lineage - and then wonder why professional Catholic musicians aren't scampering to fill the choir lofts. Most of any skill simply assume that "church music" is something downright juvenile (save any High Protestant experience they may have had), and write off the Catholic Church in their musical careers altogether. Those few who are left and can put up with how dismissive of their art much of our clergy are indeed do admirable work - but compared to the Anglicans &c., we have a tiny pool of musicians from which to draw, plus usually 3-5x the services where music is necessary (1 Eucharist a day is somewhat easier than providing solid music for a myriad of Masses, to say nothing of the LotH)

Change is happening in the seminaries and occasionally in the pews (though most of us would vomit if we saw what was happening in the schools), but if we're going to restore the choir to its rightful place of a liturgical office of the faithful, we need to acknowledge (and work to change) the reality that our church doesn't have the human resources at present to achieve the music ministry it deserves. Hiring of non-Catholics, liturgically careful or not, is an unfortunate but (in my opinion) legally excusable compromise in this age.

@Richard Mix - Sir, I don't know if you are intentionally missing my point or the fault is mine in lack of ability to communicate. I made no reference to the CMAA membership criteria, but rather to its quasi-mission-statement comment about ecclesiastical authority and the requirements that said authority imposes (unless these requirements no longer apply) for participation in the liturgy insofar as one is fulfilling a clerical office.

If you would care to look over what I actually wrote rather than perhaps (my fault) what I unintentionally implied (or, your fault, what you want to read in to my comments), I neither criticized nor questioned the reality that this

forum has a wide assortment of members and perspectives on our common interest in sacred music and chant and, wisely I think, does not scorn the contributions of Anglicans, Orthodox, or purely academic enthusiasts.

Because in the case you cite we are talking of participation in a professional forum, not of participation in public religious worship where the role a singer (in the context of schola member, not pew-sitter who can "observe" and "sing along" as, in effect, a religious "outsider," strictly speaking) takes on is a formal, official, and canonical one.

Furthermore, your unfortunately sarcastic question -

Should I have reacted to a sincere interest in the music I love with horror and denounced him to our tradie hosts?

- with the regrettable term "tradie" for (presumably) Catholics attached to tradition (there is no such thing as Catholicism without tradition, insofar as that is the unique source of our - I assume our - faith which Protestants deny) - begs the question, or mixes what should be distinguished. A workshop is one thing - arguably delimted by the question of art, i.e., the technique of rightly making music (in this case). Worship is another - and, without meaning to offend, if one accepts that the schola fills a liturgical role, I will answer your question with another question (which I don't expect you to answer, but which may be useful for anyone still hanging on in this sadly sidetracked series of posts...) - if it became apparent that non-Catholic persons insinuated themselves into liturgical roles such as acolyte or MC or subdeacon, is that something which (to use your overly melodramatic term) should be "denounced" with "horror" and reported to proper authority? Bottom line: does one have to be a Catholic to perform an official role in Catholic liturgy? (I hope there are some who are wondering why the question even has to be asked....)

I would humbly implore you to focus on the distinction between welcoming collaboration in perfecting an art and welcoming participation in a liturgy founded on the belief in a true religion as distinguished from false ones.

And as an aside, the original invitation is not "moot" at all - and I don't know why you would come to such a conclusion. By all means pass on the invitation to your African friend (who, I gather, is not a Catholic), but let it be with candor about how the Catholic liturgy works and what the boundaries are. I would think if the situation were reversed we would owe him the same respect.

PS As I understand it, the appelation "notenfresser" is not a particularly flattering term, though it does imply mechanical facility with sight reading - your use of it is thus interesting here. Perhaps you could explain.