Did Vatican II Open The Floodgates?
-
Meanwhile, Generalissimo Francisco Franco
I'd heard his condition remains stable.
There's a Wikipedia article that expands Liam's summary and has pointer to further reading, if our friend is interested. -
That link should be a URL to the page; not the title of the page.Thanked by 1Richard Mix
-
Since I live in a country where not everyone can afford books, and some number have a rather basic level of literacy, I'd like to put a word in for people who don't have high levels of literacy or lots of money: they aren't hapless oafs sitting in the pews with their mouths agape wondering why on earth they are there watching some guy in a robe wave his arms around!
They know their faith far better than I in many cases. In cultures where reading and books are not available people learn by ear and by memory. It's actually a skill that can be learned, and functions excellently once developed.
How can you not know what part of the Mass you are at, if every day you hear the Confiteor or Kyrie, or the Last Gospel? You are catechized by nuns and priests and parents, you spend your life immersed not only in the liturgy, but in a home and community life of processions, festivals, devotions, and prayer.
Of course some large number of people sit in Mass thinking about lunch. Haven't you? Doesn't developing a deeper spiritual life require some engagement and effort? That book that sparks your attention, that homily that surprises you, that aunt who comes to visit and has a lovely way of praying to Saint Joseph, that renewed determination to pray the rosary every day, the friend who joins the youth group and invites you...God draws us along in personal spiritual life in whatever context we are in.
-
We live, Catherine, in a world where The Innerlekshuls (they know who they are and they'll make sure YOU know, too) are going to save the un-washed, the neanderthals--the ones who do not know Latin.
Because the un-washed neanderthals cannot save themselves, you see.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
As to Franco: he was the Catholic who fought the Communists. Too bad that he's gone. Some should learn their history from sources other than Chevy Chase.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
I first learned about the Spanish Civil War from the memoirs of my grand-teacher, Pablo Casals. Franco liked to boast he would cut his arms off at the elbows when he caught him, which indeed sounds like something Neanderthals might approve.
An oral history by Colin Hampton, my cello teacher, has also been made into a book. His discussion of discriminating between "correct intonation", "fine intonation", and "perfect intonation" is particularly engaging, even if it sheds little light on what the numeral 'seven' has to do with hydraulic engineering.Thanked by 1Liam -
Old Franco did one or two worthy things throughout his harsh tenure -
at least for me and my fellow monarchists -
1. He restored the monarchy.
2. He got rid of the communists.
Speaking of Casals - the last time he gave an after-state-dinner recital at the White House was when Kennedy dwelt there.. I shudder to think what gruel his successors have offered to our guests.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Protestant thinking: People who can't read can't go to heaven.
Modernist thinking: People who won't participate by reading, by responding as prompted by the person at the nearest microphone and by taking the white wafer-thingy can't go to heaven.
NEITHER is the position of the Catholic Church -
1976-1980: The most important musical event of the Carter administration was the inauguration of the first PBS series of five hour-long programs broadcast nationally and throughout Europe from the East Room. Initiated by President and Mrs. Carter in 1978, the first series comprised Vladimir Horowitz, Leontyne Price, Mikhail Baryshnikov with Patricia McBride, Mstislav Rostropovich and Andres Segovia.1989-1992: President and Mrs. George Bush arranged for a variety of performers to appear in the East Room after state dinners, including singer Maureen McGovern and Harry Connick, Jr., cellist Mstislav Rostropovic, violinists Itzhak Perlman and Isaac Stern, and the Harlem Boys Choir.
Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
me and my fellow monarchists
Ach, Jackson, between the Danish and the North Korean models you give yourself too much wiggle room to shock anyone ;-)Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
Ach, a clever riposte, but I don't see the connexion to the 'hermit kingdom'.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
It sure is easy to throw stones at the glass houses of Franco and Pinochet etc., while forgetting the horrors of the previous regimes that they countered.
As for us we condemn the Aztec and other pagans, forsacrificingmurdering thousands of people at their temples, while we have our own temples protected by OUR laws, funded by OUR taxes, that kill millions of children.
Some in our midst agree with Liberté, égalité, fraternité while forgetting this was the source of the first modern genocide in the Vendee, and the root cause of many genocides perpetrated since... -
I've much appreciated the intellectual tone of this forum's rubrical and musical discussions, and I strive not to be the first one to exhume Confederates or Phalangists, but sheesh, talk about floodgates …
-
And to the point about the Ordinariate: I'm not buying it, not with the lectionary being the new one, which has virtually no relationship to the old, an express violation of the conciliar mandate nevertheless ratified by the church.
Well, I am no friend to the new lectionary and would love the Ordinariates to recover what is their rightful lectionary (that from the BCP), but this seems to be a trivial matter to me.Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
Anyway, it seems clear to me there are problems even in the very text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, such as the suppression of Prime. Some mandates were not very clear and could be revised today. This of course should surprise or scandalize no one: prudential decisions of the Church cannot be said to be binding on all faithful as an infallible statement on doctrine or morals is. We do not have to believe refusing the vernacular at Trent was a wise choice, or that the permission to use torture at Vienne in 1311 was a good decision. We evidently don't.
On the other hand, what people (especially trads) tend to forget is that SC was approved by an overwhelming majority of bishops; this means most bishops in the Church believed there was an urgent need for reform. Now, they arguably disagreed about what reform was needed, but they agreed that a reform was needed. This alone should prevent us from simply wishing to go back to the 1962, 1955, 1948, 1911, 1900, 1570 books. Don't get me wrong: there were some bad reforms back then which we need to correct, such as the disastrous Divino Afflatu revision of the Office; but do we simply need to do that? I don't think so.
So what can be keep from SC? I would say the most part: it's magnificent theology of the liturgy; a wise, albeit prudent, simplification of the Sacred Liturgy; the use of the vernacular, while keeping Latin as the main language of the Latin Church, it's default language so to speak (just like Slavonic is the main language of the Slavic Byzantine Churches, while allowing the use of other languages); more readings, especially on weekdays, along with perhaps a two-years Sunday readings cycle (as suggested by late Prof. Lazslo Dobszay); the restoration of the hymns, something which the current Liturgia Horarum only did to a limited extent.
More specifically, I think there is a way to keep most of the Council's mandates while respecting the integrity of the Roman rite, as SC clearly ordered on article 23. Dobszay's works on this matter give us an excellent way so to do. For instance, SC orders to have "the psalms [...] no longer to be distributed throughout one week, but through some longer period of time" (article 91). Dobszay suggests a two-week or even a four-week psalter could be used for laypeople or for a recited Breviary, while keeping the traditional psalter for choral services.
And to the main question at hand here, I would say Vatican II as such did not open these floodgates which eventually were opened and, I would suggest, would have been opened anyway. -
I think I'll reverse my answer -
Yes, VII opened the floodgates in the nick of time. Had it not done so the ensuing flood/schism would have been worse in Europe than at the time of Luther and Calvin. -
PS for younger folks who don't remember: Chevy Chase's joke was not about Franco. It was about news.
-
Jehan,
I can't agree that the introduction of the vernacular was a positive change, even in the smallest degree. It balkanizes the Church and the public worship of the same. Parishes (such as in the United States*) which serve multiple language groups have -- in effect -- multiple parishes under one roof. Even within one language, we have competing groups all insisting that their own style of music must be used at some particular liturgical celebration. Further balkanization is everywhere in evidence. Independent of all that, however, vernacular languages are in the state of development, which means that a new version of the text of Mass must be produced every few years, and those who don't like the produced Mass text (which is out of date before it makes it to publication) will merely edit it on their own.
* = I know the name of the country hasn't changed, but "United States" is no longer an accurate description of the country, any more than "People's Republic of China" describes the Chinese Empire . -
FWIW, typical parishes in the United States even using English at all Masses may frequently be characterized as having multiple parishes under one roof: the regular attendees at each time slot on the Saturday evening/Sunday Mass schedule.
The wonderful thing about the vernacular is that it made continued use of liturgical Latin of the Ordinary more plausible. (If someone objects that singing, say, the Gloria in Latin is a problem of comprehension, a perfectly valid response is: the people are well versed in its English meaning, so they already know the vernacular translation.) -
How does vernacular deny anybody anything? Those who understand the language will benefit, those who do not understand are no worse off. Apart from those who are fluent speakers of Latin and not of the particular vernacular, I suppose, but the average congregation will contain none such.
And of course for the chant of the Ordinary in areas where there is a diversity of mother tongues Latin should be used as directed by SC. -
@a_f_hawkins
How does vernacular deny anybody anything?
It denies everyone the actual text of the Mass, as approved by the Church, does it not?
It substitutes a translation for the actual text, which might be adequate, or it might be wonderful, or it might be sub-standard. But it is not the actual text.
Thanked by 1tomjaw -
When the vernacular is approved by the bishops and Rome according to legislation, it is *also* the *actual text*. Latin is not magical.
-
KARU27 - the problem with that can be illustrated with the word actuosa.
We don't seem to know what "De liturgica institutione et de actuosa participatione prosequendis" really means! -
One recent view: https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/03/13/how-to-misunderstand-active-participation-a-users-guide/
There are others as well. -
If you insist on the actual text of the mass, then you should at least do it in Greek, if not Aramaic.
What's all this "Latin" stuff? Revisionist heresy! -
Hear, Hear!, Charles!
Vernaculars, from the very beginning, from the inception of Christianity (which is an Eastern religion which was brought to the West by its Semitic missionaries) were not and never have been problematical to the Orthodox. Whence this fixation on Latin? As a matter of well-known fact, it was Greek, not Latin, which was the language of the Western Church at least up into the late third century. I am but one of many who treasure Latin for its intrinsic beauty and its definitive place in Western civilisation, but do not share this fixation on it as the only imaginable language for mass. The near myopic zealotry of some makes of it a thing to be argued over and creates a negative and polarising atmosphere. There are many ancient hieratic tongues throughout the East, there is Coptic in Egypt, there is Latin and Old Church English in the West, and there could be a New Church English if the Church had the conscience and perspicacity to commission one from eminent poets of our time. God does understand languages other than Latin - each of them beautiful, sacral, and they all 'rise like incense' to God's throne on high. Latin, though holding the existential place it does in Western civilisation, is but one among many historic sacral languages that the Church - and God - speaks. -
Further to my earlier posts on active participation, I have started to read through the Sacrosanctum Concilium. In this document it says:30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
This is what I have always understood to be active participation. -
Chris,Independent of all that, however, vernacular languages are in the state of development, which means that a new version of the text of Mass must be produced every few years, and those who don't like the produced Mass text (which is out of date before it makes it to publication) will merely edit it on their own.
I don't think so. Most modern languages have not really evolved for some time.
Even if they did, then I would have no problem having a vernacular liturgy celebrated in an older version of a modern language. The language of Bossuet, Lemaistre de Sacy, Pascal or Marot is easy to understand, even if a bit old-fashioned; the same could be said of the BCP English. A vernacular liturgy could include this. In fact, I would much prefer a Mass said with Bossuet's language than with today's French translation of the Mass. -
Liam draws attention to a very important point. The English of SC §48 is not an accurate translation, according to Grillo. The active participation called for is not the actions - acclamations ... bodily attitudes - those are proposed as a means of achieving spiritual engagement with the mystery, they are not the ends. The action we are called to is to raise our hearts and minds to God.
600 x 181 - 32K -
We still used some Old Church Slavonic as long as we had people who understood it. They are gone to their great rewards now, so we use English.
-
The action we are called to is to raise our hearts and minds to God.
The "and" is vital. Too many stop at "hearts"....forgetting that it is faith AND reason....
Or from another angle more familiar to this forum: the music also must engage the mind. Schlock does not engage the mind--or in reverse, if the mind is not engaged, the music is deficient.
That's one reason Chant is the superior vehicle. -
From the perspective of the first half of the 20th century, with parishioners buried in their rosaries oblivious to what was actually happening around them, the Council's desire for the faithful to actually participate in - and comprehend - the Mass was undoubtedly necessary. Whether such a concept extends to literally every liturgical action within the Mass is another story, of course.
-
perhaps a poor choice of words or assessment of the situation thereofburied in their rosaries oblivious to what was actually happening around them -
Has anyone ever wondered, if, perhaps, some adjustments were useful to public parish comportment and ritual, surely it was not necessary to disrupt monastic life? Yet some of the most radical changes happened in monastic orders and convents, greatly disrupting the life of religious. Why not just gently adjust some parish practices but leave the religious houses alone?Thanked by 1ServiamScores
-
Active participation wise: sometimes I'm sad or introspective and find the constant 'participation' disruptive, noisy, and distracting to my quiet reflection on the prayers of the Mass. Shouting and making gestures makes me think of kindergarten, not prayer. That said, many people seem to find it fun and engaging, and I hope it helps them grow in intimacy with God. But it's nice to have quiet options for those who aren't boisterous.
A priest tells a joke about a Brazilian who went to Portugal. When he came back he said, "Father, it was so sad! No one knew the Mass responses! I had to shout them for everyone!" (The Brazilian Mass has many more responses than others, plus hand gestures imitating the priest, though those gestures seem to be fading out with the older generation or morphing into charismatic renewal gestures in some places.)Thanked by 1Arthur Connick -
francis - Fortescue wrote :
, though it was customary in England, and required of us as servers in the 1950s. This changed with the 1962 Missal, which does lay it down :The rubrics of the missal say that the Sanctus bell should be rung at the Sanctus and at each elevation.^ There is no authority in the missal for ringing at the prayer Hanc igitur, or at Domine non sum dignus^
But why did people need this? Surely to alert them to the approach of the consecration because up to then they had not been paying any attention to the progress of the Mass.Minister paulo ante Consecrationem campanulas signo fideles moneat.
CatherineS - Monasteries were in the forefront of the Liturgical Movement. The fussiness of the rubricists tended to drain the life from both Office and Mass. The official texts even added prayers seeking God's pardon for inadvertent violation of the rubrics. The problems came when the Council called for reform/renewal, but the central machinery took a decade to deliver it. -
with parishioners buried in their rosaries oblivious to what was actually happening around them
Kinda judge-y, no?because up to then they had not been paying any attention to the progress of the Mass.
Or maybe the sotto voce plus incense-smoke and no electric lights, no artificial vocal amplification made it difficult to know what's going on?
Kinda judge-y, no?
I hope you pray for all those souls who missed Mass every week--in your opinion. -
dad29 - whaddya mean - incense? There weren't no incense at Low Mass!
On Sundays and Holydays Low Masses were packed, Solemn Mass 10:30 no problem getting a seat. 12 noon standing room only, you had to arrive early to get a bit of wall to lean on. To fulfill the obligation I, with scores of other men, have spent Mass standing in the forecourt, with no sound or sight of proceedings, the only clue when those who could see through the open doors knelt at the consecration.
No question about their piety and devotion, plenty of question about how this fulfilled the instructions of the Council of Trent. Yes it is judge-y "Woe to the shepherds ..."
-
One of my issues is this:
We've established that "active participation" is incumbent upon every person. Ok, fine. I'm good with that.
But it's also incumbent upon the liturgy to foster a prayerful atmosphere. As things stand now, I literally have to plug my ears while I'm kneeling to pray at many masses. That should NEVER happen. We also have to remember that the liturgy—traditionally understood—was not strictly linear. That means that the priest and deacons could be doing one thing while the congregation does another (offertory preparations anyone?).
The old liturgy allowed for this symbiotic (and dare I say, "symphonic") approach to the liturgy. The new liturgy does not.
I'd also like to politely posit that it was probably much more beneficial for all involved when people were kneeling praying the rosary (even if they weren't paying attention at moments other than the consecration) to the current praxis of zoning out sans rosary.
Regarding the bells, we also have to remember that in the olden days many altars were behind rood screens (sometimes it would be more appropriate to call them rood "walls") and it might have been impossible (or barely possible) for the laity to even see the actions at the altar. England's cathedrals are prime examples of this. Bells also solemnize that action; I know full well what's going on but I love hearing the bells. I think the old "had to ring so people knew what was happening" trope might be a little stretched, even if there is a grain of truth in it. -
I hope you were at least praying a rosary joining your prayers to that of the priest.I, with scores of other men, have spent Mass standing in the forecourt, with no sound or sight of proceedings, the only clue when those who could see through the open doors knelt at the consecration. -
Kinda judge-y, no?
When that is the attitude that was promoted - merely showing up because it was required of them as an obligation - it is hardly judgy.
Besides, to posit that as an ideal is absurd. There is a distinction to be made between the depraved, ugly nonsense that occurs today aimed at encouraging "active participation" on one hand, and literally desiring the TLM caricature of the clergy performing elaborate choreography up front while the people have zero clue what's actually happening.
Has catechesis of the liturgy actually improved since Vatican II? Of course not. That should be our goal, though - not pining for the most illogical aspects of the past. -
Before you get too carried away criticizing rood walls and screens, remember that they were there to mark the boundaries of the "Holy of Holies" as in the Jerusalem temple. That area was never the domain of the laity in either place. The original St. Peter's in Rome had those walls around the altar.
Bells aren't so bad. Far better than, "let us turn to page 45 and join our celebrant in proclaiming...whatever." The bells were more articulate than many of the priests mumbling in bad Medieval Latin.Thanked by 1ServiamScores -
Reflecting on Charles's comment just above, one might note that the west's rood screens (which are topped by a rood) and choir screens (which aren't) have their origin in the east's iconostasis, behind which was the sanctuary and altar, which the people never entered and where the consecration took place completely out of sight. The people? They stood around in reverence or went about doing reverence to icons. This was first imported to the West as an actual wall which evolved into a pierced screen to which a rood was later added. A look at some of the English cathedrals will illustrate that many of there choir screens were quite heavy and thick and high walls, often with the organ placed atop them (as, for instance, seen at King's or Westminster Abbey, These were quite substantial, and in Sarum usage four choir boys would intone 'Alleluia' from the rood loft.
It seems that we (the West) got quite a bit more from the East than the faith itself. There are, as I'm sure many here know, even Eastern influences in much of our 'Gregorian' chant, as brilliantly presented in Egon Wellesz's analysis of the subject. It is one of the agonies of history that we owe so much more than we realise to the East (we wouldn't even exist but for Eastern missionaries), and yet can get along with them only as 'separated brethren'. They are the original Church!
And the bells at Sanctus and the Consecration originate only in the late middle ages as a warning to the assembled people (who would have been milling about in noisy conversation - not to mention animals running all over the place) to shut up and be attentive so that they could 'see God' lifted up on high - but not receive him. -
Jackson,one might note that the west's rood screens (which are topped by a rood) and choir screens (which aren't) have their origin in the east's iconostasis, behind which was the sanctuary and altar, which the people never entered and where the consecration took place completely out of sight. The people? They stood around in reverence or went about doing reverence to icons. This was first imported to the West as an actual wall which evolved into a pierced screen to which a rood was later added. A look at some of the English cathedrals will illustrate that many of there choir screens were quite heavy and thick and high walls, often with the organ placed atop them (as, for instance, seen at King's or Westminster Abbey, These were quite substantial, and in Sarum usage four choir boys would intone 'Alleluia' from the rood loft.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. From what I have read, the Rood Screen is not so much an inheritance from the iconostasis than one from the Jewish Synagogue. The iconostasis is more like a development of that primitive Jewish "rood screen", which was kept in all it's original simplicity in the West and in a few non-Byzantine Eastern Churches like the Maronites (untill quite recently for both of them). -
If you haven't seen this, take the tour of first the exterior then the interior of the Constantinian St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. You can also hear some old Roman chant. That "rood screen" looks suspiciously like a wall to me. Msgr. Gamber in his book, "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy" also has an artist's rendering of the altar area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5AqQtlm4MY
Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
From a cursory googling, it does look as though the origins of the screen are obscure, one source suggested synagogues adopted them from Christian churches! What seems clear is that the word chancel derives from the Latin for a lattice, or bars, and need not be more substantial than altar rails, it was at first intended to demarcate sacred space not to inhibit communication. [clarified]
-
You have to watch the exterior part which comes first, then toward the end of the interior part you get a clearer view. Also, quite clear in the Gamber book. It was a wall.
-
Many thanks for that, Charles -
The chant is particularly noteworthy. That is real chant. Those are real cantors. That is what a cantor should be - but we'll never see it in this society. I rather think that it would be a very good thing if we still had the Constantinian basilica. Too bad it was thought shabby and was torn down to satisfy renaissance and papal vanity - all at the expense of indulgences sold to credulous peasants all over Europe. Just think - it would be over 1600 years old by now. Still, the 'new' St Peter's is an architectural marvel and a profoundly sacred space. -
I've much appreciated the intellectual tone of this forum's rubrical and musical discussions, and I strive not to be the first one to exhume Confederates or Phalangists, but sheesh, talk about floodgates …
The reds currently in power already exhumed Franco, quite literally.Thanked by 1CharlesW
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 Discussions21,227
- General Music Discussion7,645
- Job Openings1,331
- Management of Music Programs834
- Choral Matters520
- Church Documents and Rubrics508
- CMAA Notes291
- Events655
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody827
- Gregorian Chant: General2,589
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis356
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong674
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire416
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,212
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry152
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism725
- Amusements171
- General Discussion1,003
- Opinions113