Responsa ad Dubia concerning Traditionis Custodes
-
There used to be two very different looking forms of Mass, Low Mass and Solemn Mass. At Low Mass, which was overwhelmingly the more common, the Priest was directed to approach the altar with eyes downcast, to keep his eyes downcast when turning towards the people and speaking, and to return to the sacristy with eyes downcast. That naturally led both priest and people to imagine that the people are not involved, that it was an exclusively clerical action. (The servers were imagined to be stand-ins for minor clerics). From 1903 Popes were pushing to change this bit by bit. I suspect that talk of clericalism and rigidity is to a significant extent a fear of a return to that problem.
-
As I think I've said before, if clergy before were not well trained, and clergy today are not well trained; and lay people back then were ignorant, and lay people today are ignorant, then changing the liturgy didn't solve a bigger problem thst still needs to be solved. or, I'd propose, it may be a problem that cannot be solved by human rules and rigor, but only by grace and sanctification. And God does that part.
-
Come, Charles, saintly bishops and popes have always been rarities apart from Popes in the last century or so .
-
But Hawkins, didn't you know all the popes since Vatican II except Francis have been canonized. Well, not JP first but they are working on it. Benedict was/is rather saintly so I wonder if he will get left off the list.
-
It isn’t necessarily a matter of one group of priests being trained better than others. Sometimes, different emphasis is placed on what function the priest will be asked to perform in his current milieu. It could be argued that priests after the second Vatican council were excellently trained to be administrators. There are some that view this fact as a success, in trying to “streamline the charisma” of public ministry; others might equate this function with that of the hireling. (Perhaps the best description of what ministry should be can be found in The Soul of the Apostolate .)
-
A thought which has been recurring to me over and over throughout this whole mess is how little are observed the tenets of subsidiarity (as laid out by Pope Pius XI of Bittersweet Memory) which could help smoothe over a great deal of the mess that’s going on. Bishops know better than Rome what is going on in their particular dioceses, and priests have an even clearer picture of their congregations. For example, Latin masses in smaller dioceses (which often have only one location) are going to have less ‘homogeneous’ viewpoints than those in larger dioceses, where more than one apostolate may exist, which means different communities can form according to the different tastes. (An acquaintance of mine from Chicago told me recently he could always tell which parish he was in due to the Coffee-time conversation. One revolved around Christmas decorations, the other around the Alta Vendita.) Now, rooting out the wheat from the chaff is difficult in any situation, but obviously the way issues are handled in the rural parish versus the big-city conglomerate is going to differ in each case. But now, thanks to the pressure from Collegiality and (God help us) Synodality, members of the USCCB are expected to follow the example set by all the others, especially those trying to fit into the “Inner Circle”.
The divide right now is a problem, yes. But it’s obviously not going to be solved by some one-size-fits-all policy. It’s going to take a long investment of working in case by case bases. Getting to know fellow Catholics. Finding common ground, because it’s there, believe it or not. I sometimes agree with Sartre that “Hell is Other People”, but I also agree with Churchill that if you’re going through Hell, keep going. It’s worth it. -
At Low Mass, which was overwhelmingly the more common, the Priest was directed to approach the altar with eyes downcast, to keep his eyes downcast when turning towards the people and speaking, and to return to the sacristy with eyes downcast. That naturally led both priest and people to imagine that the people are not involved
People say this. I've never found it to be true.
Growing up, the Masses we could get to were overwhelmingly Low Masses. The idea that silence and reverence = "why am I even here?" is nonsense.
The priest at a solemn Mass is still not supposed to be making eye contact with people. It isn't a performance. Catching Father's eye doesn't help anybody. "Facing the people" doesn't require choosing someone to "see."
It seems to me that many who "remember" pre-V2 lost the TLM before they'd had much of any catechesis or appreciation for anything that didn't revolve around them. And i don't mean that as an insult. If someone ever grows out of thinking the world revolves around his own wants and needs, it's usually not until they're in their teens, if not later. Everyone matures at different speeds, and girls tend to before boys, but each in his/her own way.
Even as a choir member, I can greatly appreciate a Low Mass.
And most of us, as church musicians, never make eye contact with Father or anyone not in the choir during Mass.... so, how can we really argue this V2 version of "active participation" nonsense, when we know that our interior disposition / participation is what makes the Mass what it is for us, and not specifically our vocalizations? If we take a weekend off to sit with our family, or if we have lost our voices, are we no longer really "participating?
"Active participation" isn't actually an argument specifically in favor of Vatican II. I think we all know this. -
IIRC, Melchizedek's history did not include singing, kneeling, (etc.) from a congregation, and as pointed out above, the Temple sacrifice purposely excluded 'laity.' The Easterns still close a gate so that the Faithful cannot see what happens during the Sacrifice (Canon.)
-
(The servers were imagined to be stand-ins for minor clerics)
That may be, but as we servers were told in the mid-'50's, we were stand-ins for the congregation. And we were not imaginary. -
Personally, my favorite part of particularly “active” participation at novus ordo masses are when PiPs mouth along every single word to the canon as though they are concelebrating. I’ve seen it many, many times.
-
I suspect that talk of clericalism and rigidity is to a significant extent a fear of a return to that problem.
That problem never ended, so there's nothing to "return to". From what I can see, the issue has actually been exacerbated by the Novus Ordo insofar as the choice it's many options are rarely if ever based on anything other than the personal preference of the priest; and in my experience, priests tend to dislike things that take away their feeling of importance. Ad orientem being an example: I can't count the number of times I've heard priests complain that if they said Mass with their backs to the people then the people can't see them---well, yeah; that's part of the point.
One issue I have with all the talk of clericalism and rigidity is (in my experience, which admittedly is limited) the disingenuousness of those that constantly prattle on and on about it: those that condemn clericalism the most are the most clerical; those that condemn rigidity the most are the most rigid; those who talk the most about inclusiveness and diversity are the least open to it in any way that is more meaningful that words on a felt banner; etc., etc., ad nauseam. They might be cheerleaders for the Novus Ordo, but they are so clericalist and rigid they make Archbishop Lefebvre look like boiled spaghetti, while projecting their own issues onto others. As one very astute priest I know said: Freud would have a field day at a deanery meeting.
I don't have time for clericalists, whether they wear a Watts & Co. cassock or a J.C.Penny golf shirt. -
Yes dad29, we were well taught too, but I know people who were not, and I encounter contributors of comments on NLM who hold the mini-clerics view now. Within the last year I had to send a picture of the Sarum Missal text "Orate, fratres et sorores, ..." to a prominent & respected commentator who was claiming that the request/direction was addressed only to the ministers.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
Besides, using the same line of argument, and considering that the TLM, when properly lived out, calls for the faithful to participate in the recitation / singing of the ordinary.
I have a question relating to this. Yes, the people are supposed to sing the ordinary. However, if the people's singing the Gloria matters, why doesn't the priest sing it with them? He intones it, then recites it by himself and goes to sit down while the people finish singing. To me, at least, this kind of doubling the prayer gives the impression that the people's singing doesn't matter. -
Why would you say that the people’s singing doesn’t matter? I don’t follow.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
Nathan,
Explain this again?if the people's singing the Gloria matters, why doesn't the priest sing it with them?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
If the people's singing of the Gloria didn't matter... Why would he be waiting on them to finish it?
If it didn't matter at all, he could opt for a recited Gloria.
The priest has his cues, we have ours. The priest prays the entirety of every Mass, no matter what. How is this not seen as a good thing?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
If the people's singing of the Gloria didn't matter... Why would he be waiting on them to finish it?
If it didn't matter at all, he could opt for a recited Gloria.
The priest has his cues, we have ours. The priest prays the entirety of every Mass, no matter what. How is this not seen as a good thing?
Because the more salient action in this case is not what liturgically "matters", and this excuse has been used to justify a vast amount of inappropriate music under the argument that what the priest is saying is what "really counts". -
He intones it, then recites it by himself and goes to sit down while the people finish singing.
This is a somewhat disjointed practice, but I can understand the practical aspect of it.
For a plainchant Gloria, the priest would likely be standing about two minutes; and for young and strong priests, that's not a lot. But for works of polyphony or orchestral Masses, this could become much longer; and it would not be fitting for the priest to sit down while his rendering of the Gloria was incomplete.
-
Indeed; I have sung various orchestral masses in Vienna where the Glorias ranged a matter of some 5 mins or more. Little wonder the priest goes to sit down.
That said, I can certainly understand why the gesture appears odd or even disconcerting when one is unaccustomed to it. -
I don't really understand how his sitting, respectfully, while the singing of something that can easily be quite long is somehow considered bad or disrespectful.
How do we feel about the priest sitting during the gradual + alleluia, which he also reads and prays on his own?
Is that also bad?
- - - -
What about Father holding onto the scooter he's about to "recess" on, as he gives the final blessing? At least he stood and sang the Gloria with the congregation? -
It makes it seem like the priest's recitation of the Gloria is what counts, and then the congregation singing it is an add on. A polyphonic setting would be different due to the timing of things. But, if they are doing one of the chant settings such as Orbis Factor, why doesn't the priest just sing it with the choir and congregation? Why does he recite it separately?
As CCooze points out, the priest reads the gradual and alleluia separately from the congregation. This, I feel could be similar to a polyphonic ordinary, since they would likely be too hard/impractical for the priest to sing along.
Please note, I'm not trying to attack the TLM. This is a genuine question, and I'm trying to understand the rubrics regarding this. I don't support abuses such as the use of scooters during mass or other similar nonsense. Just because I think there are some things in the OF that are good, does not mean I support abuses that have happened during an OF mass. It's quite annoying that people assume that because I'm asking a question, I'm attacking the TLM. Am I not allowed to ask questions to understand something? -
We had a pastor who in his later days, was so impaired he had to sit behind the altar during the consecration and could barely walk even with a walker. He was clearly in pain much of the time. At the time, it was either him or no priest at all. Our priests were spread rather thin at the time and there wasn't a pool of "reserve" priests who could fill in. Yet this priest put service above his own comfort. If he had used an electric scooter - impossible in that 100-year-old building - I think I would have admired him no less.
-
Nathan - As far as I recall at the Low Mass (daily Mass) the priest and congregation do speak these things in unison, whereas on Sundays or feasts where there are usually musical versions the custom arose of the priest doing his parts while the musical elaborations (which may vary widely)continue on in their own time. I'm usually in Latin countries so there may be cultural/regional variations but that's my experience.Thanked by 1Nathan_the_Organist
-
Has anyone personally had anything change in their TLM as a result of these declarations from the Vatican? I have not yet seen any direct impact except one location was moved from a shared parish church to a chapel that only serves a confraternity instead. Which might be good as our time slot at the parish was very short and we didn't have time to sing the propers.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
I had one priest explain the TLM as a “symphony,” which is to say that it is a complex piece of interwoven choreography that combines together to create a cohesive whole. The Priest, servers, schola, people, and the organist all play their part just as the conductor, strings, winds, brass, and percussion all do theirs. The novus ordo, by contrast, is a much simpler and more linear affair.
-
The first instruction changing liturgy after VII (Inter oecumenici ) 26 Sep 1964, says48. ...
a. the celebrant is not to say privately those parts of the Proper sung or recited by the choir or the congregation.
b. The celebrant may sing or recite the parts of the Ordinary together with the congregation or choir. [my emphasis]
...
The US bishops were so keen to get started with revising that they imposed these changes from the First Sunday of Advent 1964. The decree of publication of the Missal Nuper edita Instructione only came out on 27 January 1965 and implementation became effective on First Sunday of Lent 1965. -
I think that perhaps the priest singing the ordinaries along with the congregation (assuming they are chant or at least singable) might have been a reasonable reform to implement in some way. This is simply my opinion though.
-
I mean, the priest taking the time to sing the ordinary, with the exception of the Gloria and Credo, really just makes everything take longer, though.
And goodness knows, people seem to like complaining when Mass takes "too long."
Why shouldn't the priest say privately those parts of the Proper sung by the choir or congregation?
Could we at least get a "fair" rubric, stating that PiPs shouldn't say privately those parts of the Mass belonging to the priest, and especially shouldn't emulate his postures that don't belong to them, either?
How is that (48a) a rubric that makes sense? -
What about Father holding onto the scooter he's about to "recess" on, as he gives the final blessing? At least he stood and sang the Gloria with the congregation?
I don't understand why you continue to bring up these incidents as if they have anything at all to do with the conversation at hand. This isn't a sports match where you have to cheer for everything that one side or the other does. -
@Nathan_the_Organist
In the N.O. 'we' are used to the idea, of a dialogue between priest and people, in some ways they are equally important, some parts of the Mass are said by the priest, and then the people respond. Each have parts of the Mass proper to them, we need both parties to say Mass. Also some parts are said or prayed in unison.
In the TLM we have a more complex set up, We have a priest, we have ministers, we have a choir, and an optional congregation. Each have their own parts to play in the Mass, these actions could be oral in saying or singing a text, or an action. To have the normative form of the TLM, we must have a priest, ministers, and choir. Each have their own jobs and some jobs are Proper to them. So instead of a series of actions one after the other as seen in the N.O. we have a symphony, of words and actions going on simultaneously.
A friend studying theatre, noticed when he came to his first Sung TLM that it was following the rules of perfect theatre. I think he wrote a dissertation on it. -
@JaredOstermannI really do get the appeal of the TLM, but I would personally prefer to see more colleagues putting energy into reform of Novus Ordo praxis, rather than drifting out and into the EF because the NO is complex and equivocal and frustrating to work in a lot of the time.
From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) the majority - if not the vast majority - of those in the CMAA and those on this Forum are doing exactly this, week in and week out, and there are any number of regular discussions on how to improve the NO at a practical level. The president of the CMAA is a great champion of this model, perhaps the most passionate and articulate one I see out there today. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but very few articles in Sacred Music apply exclusively to the older form of the rite. Perhaps you are extrapolating more from discussions here on the Forum than from the overall membership and direction of the CMAA?
Having said this, I would agree that the Reform of the Reform (or whatever you want to call it) has lost much of its appeal among some CMAA members. But as I see it, this due to the fact the TLM embodies the very things the RotR is striving for - not as an option but in its very makeup as a rite. So there is a fundamental reason for this shift which is bound up with the rites themselves; it's not simply that some have found the NO complex and frustrating.
Couple this with the entire system of clerical training as we know it today, which simply isn't invested in supporting such a model for the NO - and in many cases is much to contrary, as we all know - and you have a situation where a rethinking of one's musical and liturgical values is almost forced upon you.
I think these two factors are the root of the "EF vs. OF" discussions we see here on the Forum; there is more to it than old vs. new or personal preference.I do think that improving the music and ars celebrandi of the normative form is a worthy goal. I do think, and have experienced, that yes, a more traditional celebration of the Novus Ordo can be beautiful and will attract many people. Those places that aim for worthy NO liturgy seem, to me, to very often thrive.
I would agree with this in principle, and also from some experience, but as myself and others have pointed out on this Forum many times, this model is very difficult to sustain, for reasons outlined above. Yet another parish near me which has had a worthy NO liturgy for decades is in danger of becoming another casualty of "the system." So it's an uphill struggle for most of us. -
Since Charles brought it up, I would have no issue with that priest using a scooter. There would clearly be a medical need for it.
There is a difference between medical necessity and theatre during mass as in the video CCooze posted. -
Why the "congregation", the "assembled lay faithful" are optional at a TLM:
"Will you also leave?"
"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life".
Think of the context: John 6 presents the absolutely uncompromising teaching of Our Lord on the Holy Eucharist. When people walk away, He doesn't say, "Wait. Come back. I need to learn to be more inclusive, welcoming of diversity" or any such nonsensical thing. We must choose to associate ourselves with Christ, and then play the role He gives us. The sacrament goes forward whether you and I, mere laymen, like what happens or not.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
I would agree with this in principle, and also from some experience, but as myself and others have pointed out on this Forum many times, this model is very difficult to sustain, for reasons outlined above. Yet another parish near me which has had a worthy NO liturgy for decades is in danger of becoming another casualty of "the system." So it's an uphill struggle for most of us.
Sad, but true. There are parishioners of a certain age who resist these "reforms" (read: restorations) with a verve that seems almost incomprehensible. They often hold positions of authority, be it formally or be it via purse strings, and can have surprising sway. Then there are the hoards of ambivalents who aren't a hindrance, per se, but aren't a help either. They are just as quick to abandon as they are to passively float along, so they are, in essence, no help to the cause. -
The "clericalism" in the TLM is something many have noted and I remember it being a big issue right after Vatican II. I can see why it developed. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestants emphasized that many actions, such as the consecration, required the assent and participation of the congregation to be valid. They over-emphasized the audience participation to the point the church in addressing this issue, over-reacted to the other extreme. Perhaps there is a happy medium between those two extremes. Will we find it? I don't know since the positions on either end are hardened and no one wants to compromise.
-
CG-Z but if you and I, mere laymen, do not take part we do not have eternal life. Both Trent and Vatican II laid great emphasis on the participation of the laity in the Holy Sacrifice. Those who have a cure of souls imperil their own if they are lax in discharging their responsibilities "Woe to the shepherds ..."
tomjaw - I echo Flannery O'Connor "well if it's perfect theatre , to hell with it".
I realise that you and others do not mean to exclude me or yourselves from participation, but Satan uses those arguments to destroy our pastors. And our pastors give us the liturgy they think appropriate for us. [Shocking thought, isn't it?] -
Hawkins,
It behooves the laymen to engage in the liturgical action in a manner which is proper to them. It behooves them, also, to engage willingly in what is their duty before God.
If we separate ourselves from the truth, we can not be with Truth Himself.
You're absolutely right, "woe to the shepherds", but a cook belongs in a galley, and a weapons officer at the launch controls -- and not vice versa. By encouraging us (as some do) to attack "clericalism" by reducing the priesthood to mere functionality, they put their own souls at risk, as well as ours.
You've misrepresented Flannery O'Connor or Tom or both. They would agree with each other. Mere ceremony, just like perfectbut non-productive theatre is wicked in both O'Connor's and Tom's universe. If you merely undergo the form of saying you're sorry and the priest merely goes through the words of absolution,.... and nothing happens.... ... it's said that you can confess all over Facebook, but you can receive absolution only from a Catholic priest with faculties. -
“Do I despise the Commandments? No. I follow them, but not as absolutes.”[38]
Let the will of Pope Francis when he legislates or gives instructions be clear. If not even the Ten Commandments are absolute, Church norms made by men are even less absolute.
IMPORTANT STUDY—“From Traditionis Custodes to the Responsa ad Dubia: On the Hermeneutics of Our Holy Father Francis’s Legislation” -
Corinne,
Yes, I'm always puzzled why those who claim that everything is relative insist on the absolute truth that everything is relative.
I enjoyed the article at Rorate Caeli, which I found before you listed it here, or even Fr. Zuhlsdorf listed it at his site.
Maybe we should translate TC (or Amoris Laetitia) according to the principles of Comme le Prevoit? -
Although it is tempting to read these texts (TC and RAD) in a fundamentalist fashion, above all we must avoid interpreting or applying Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad dubia rigidly. We must take into account the specific way Francis asks us to interpret and live the law. We must do exegesis in the way the Pope himself has asked us to, with freedom and discernment, giving priority to charity. Above all we must avoid rigidity, insofar as, according to him, “Rigidity is not a gift of God.”[1]
The Holy Father points out that one must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort, and acceptance, rather than imposing [upon needy souls] straightaway, as if they were a rock, a set of rules [be they liturgical, canonical, or disciplinary] that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy.[2]
Indeed, many souls (both laymen and priests) feel abandoned by the Church in the face of the publication of Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa.
This guy gets it. -
Interesting argument! I just wonder whether the author is serious about the 'discernment'-way of interpreting rules (abundantly quoted from 'amoris laetitia') really being a good thing... smileys might have disappeard in the HTML formatting process.
A bit lengthy though, could have been more than
in translation, but luckily the author realised this himself and boldfaced about a quarter of the text; so the reader can skip more quickly through the essay without missing anything.slightly abridged from its originalThanked by 1tomjaw -
Hmmmm. I heard from someone who is well connected in the vatican...
He believes that Pope Francis' agenda was to eliminate priestly celibacy, and was going to do this on an encyclical...however, Benedict came out with that book with the other cardinals, opposing this, nixing his plans. This well connected person thinks that Francis was incensed and is rather vindictive, and thus TC was a backhand swipe at Benedict.
Just passing this on... -
Ghmus,
Surely vindictiveness seems unsuitable as a character trait for one who sits on Peter's seat? Your source must be wrong. -
Chris, there have been some pretty rotten individuals who have sat on "Peter's seat."
-
Charles,
Yes, I know. -
So, these things are happening in Chicago, and yet I'm sure there's valid reason for Cdl Cupich to be restricting TLM & ad orientem.... how, exactly?
Why isn't anyone dealing with actual liturgical issues, rather than finding ways to suppress Traditional liturgies?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Why isn't anyone dealing with actual liturgical issues, rather than finding ways to suppress Traditional liturgies?
Because while we suppress the Latin Mass, things like this have to go on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0RRWJNNos0 -
I'm not sure if that is even considered a mass.Thanked by 1tomjaw
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 Discussions21,503
- General Music Discussion7,773
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes292
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry154
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115