SttL: Seeking other input

David Andrew

Colleagues:

I am now in the process of carefully vivisecting sections of SttL in preparation for discussion with our liturgy committee and also the parish council. (See this thread: http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=172&page=1#Item_14 for more info).

I have several issues that I'd like to take up on this board, hoping to get a broader discussion and understanding of some of them.

The bigger questions are:

1) In para. 5, line 6, beginning "Good" ; this seems to be a watered-down version of what appeared in MCW at para. 6. The new statement adds the word "can" (Good celebrations "can" foster), and removed "and destroy" (Poor celebrations may weaken "and destroy" it). Why did they remove the strength of this language? Are they denying the fact that for the last 40 years, the poor celebrations and liturgical abuses have in fact "destroyed' the faith of many Catholics? (I'm not trying to poke the beast, I'm asking a very frank question).

2) Sacrosanctum concilium, para. 14 gets quoted several times, apparently still stuck with the poor translation of "actuosa participatio populi." Are there any good articles out there that take on the issue of the "party line" translation versus one that is better explained? I know that "active" isn't a good translation of "actuosa," I'm looking for an article to back up my understanding.

3) Section II D seems to use the expression, "gathered liturgical assembly" with greater frequency than "congregation." Is there a deeper impact, not unlike the difference between "presider" and "priest celebrant", or "cup" versus "chalice", "bread" versus "blessed sacrament"? I don't want to get distracted by something that is inconsequential; on the other hand, words can be subtle tools for re-forming thoughts and attitudes. Any comments?

4) Section II D, para. 27; I have to wonder if cognitive pedagogy is the point of the liturgy or its component parts. This paragraph seems to suggest that the music should be brought down to the lowest common denominator.

5) Para. 46 and 47: I'm not sure what the purpose or motivation behind the inclusion of these paragraphs was. As with anything, there must have been some attitude or prevailing problem that needed to be addressed and corrected, I'm just not sure what the bishops are on about in these paragraphs.

6) WARNING: THE REAL HANG-UP IS HERE! Section II, H and I. Wow! I don't know where to begin with this. Let me just ask people to read these two sections and give me their take. I will say that I'm troubled by Para. 57, where we read:

"Even as the liturgical music of the Western European tradition is to be remembered, cherished, and used, the rich cultural and ethnic heritage of the many peoples of our country MUST also be recognized, fostered, and celebrated." (Emphasis obviously added).

Note here that the word "rich" isn't even connected with what Roman documents describe as the "treasury". The references to the Western tradition employ inactive, past tense words that imply "old, museum-like, nostalgic, irrelevant, tolerated" while the references to the rest use active (almost dynamic), present tense descriptors that imply "new, relevant, worthy of cultivation." And not just encouraged, this stuff MUST be recognized. No such imperative is used with respect to the music of the tradition. Look at the last word, "celebrated." We "trot out the old Gregorian chant in Latin and the Palestrina as a patronizing tip of the hat to the nasty old Euro-centric past which we tolerate, while we CELEBRATE other cultures, and must do so under some imperative. Am I being too sensitive to the impact of the PC movement on this document? Or, is the next section on Latin in the Liturgy a welcome mitigation? I think not. I think that the section on Latin in the liturgy continues in the "we'll tolerate this, but it ain't the norm" vain, which, to my reading, flies in the face of much of what has come out of Rome in recent years, and is revisionist in its portrayal of curial instruction beginning with SC.

I also note that the section on diversity is suspiciously lacking in any references to documents apart from "Welcoming the Stranger" , and two rather tepid quotes from GIRM and SC.

I'm looking forward to hearing other people's reactions, as there was a brief burst of discussion at the outset of the release, but not much activity thereafter.

G

I suppose "gathered liturgical assembly" means everyone, priests, ministers, etc. included, not just the PIPs.

"This paragraph seems to suggest that the music should be brought down to the lowest common denominator."
I agree.
Generally in the document the idea of striving for excellence is given short shrift. Lip service is paid to the advisability of Latin, or to chant, for instance, and then immediately negated with some variation on "except if it's too hard."
Never, "except FOR A TIME, if it is too hard NOW," no indication that while it is permissible to do something less than the ideal it is not permissible to just let it go at that, and not try over time to improve.

Ah well.... perhaps Bsp Serratelli, after he settles into the office, will issue a revision that might even pass muster to gain recognitio.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

awruff

Dear colleagues,

Greetings to everyone. I am happy to join this discussion forum. Since I was on the drafting committee for STL, I thought it might be helpful for me to reply to the very good questions posed by David Andrew.

1. I think this was for doctrinal reasons, so as not to give too much power to the human aspects of our liturgical planning and rendition, and to affirm that faith is a gift of God, always made possible by his grace and not by our doing. Yes, God is acting in the liturgy, and yes our way of celebrating the liturgy has an effect on people, but I think you see the point.

2. The translation “active participation” is used because that is the Vatican-approved translation in English documents (e.g. the catechism). I think that is a good and accurate translation – after all, the phrase comes from Pius X, who wrote “attiva participazione” in the Italian original of TLS in 1903. “Attiva” from the Italin became “actuosa” in Latin and “active” in English. Frankly, I think all of this is a red herring, and it would be more fruitful to go with “active participation” and then push the point that active doesn’t mean “activist,” and it can certainly include active listening (to the readings, to the schola, etc.). Two of the best treatments of this issue (sorry, both in German) are a shorter article and then a huge 2-volume book:
Emil J. Lengeling, “Was besagt ‘aktive Teilnahme’” (“What ‘Active Participation’ Means”), Liturgishes Jahrbuch 11 (1961), 186-188.
Schmid-Keiser, Stephan. Aktive Teilnahme: Kriterium gottesdienstlichen Handelns und Feierns. Bern: Peter Lang, 1985.

3. “Gathered liturgical assembly” is used at the urging of the Holy See. Their point is that the worshiping congregation isn’t just any old assembly or civic or secular group, but an assembly gathered by Christ and at his initiative. This is an interesting case of pretty pure motives coming across to others (some US bishops, and also to me at first) in exactly the opposite manner, as if it were overly congregationalist.

4. I agree, this section could be (mis)read in a lowest common denominator fashion, but I think (or at least hope) that this isn’t the intention of the bishops. This is just a practical point – when you keep throwing more and more unknown music at the people, they can’t join in very well. And this problem happens more with contemporary music than with classical, I hazard to say, since more contemporary music is in use today. I regret the word “comfortable” in STL 27, which gives the wrong impression, but I don’t think it’s that big a deal.

5. I read STL 46-47 as an affirmation of lay ministry, which after all was being done by musicians before anyone else. I think this is coming from all the discussions about lay ministry, standards, pay scales, receiving a mission from the church, and it was thought appropriate to bring STL into that conversation. Note that the bishops’ document on lay ministry is oftentimes quoted.

6. Well the whole issue of diverse cultures is complicated! I will try to be brief. I think STL tries to affirm both the traditional heritage (which it does WAY more than previous documents like MCW) and also to affirm the resources of all the local cultures. STL means both and is sincere about both. Maybe it’s not helpful to compare the exacting wording in each case to see “who got more” or “where they use a slightly stronger word.” STL affirms both because both are affirmed in all the many documents coming from the Holy See, starting with Vatican II (see e.g. SC 37-40 on inculturation, or the whole tenor of Gaudium et Spes).

I hope my comments are helpful. I had this conversation in mind this morning as I said Mass at the county jail, and I offered Mass for the intention of a good spirit of cooperation in the area of sacred music.

Pax,

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB

G

Welcome aboard, Fr Ruff.
You know, of course, that some of us are... okay, ME, I am dying to ask for insider scuttlebutt about the entire affair.
There is a fairly widespread notion that the document was the work of two hands, or two factions, leading to the appearance of waffling, or to the suggestion that at crunch time too many amendments were shoehorned in.
Any truth?
Anyway, good to see you posting here, I hope you will contribute to the conversation.
Geri

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

G

p.s. Can you tell the CDW, (nee BCL,) that PDF format is pretty much despised when its used for simple text documents?
Maybe I'm projecting... never mind.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Steve Collins

PDF has a disticnt advantage of NOT being able to have the contained text "corrupted" accidentally or otherwise. Our contracts for organ building are always sent out in PDF. The ONLY thing the customer can do is sign it. It's really the safest way to share documents today.

Jeffrey Tucker

Fr. Ruff writes: "this problem happens more with contemporary music than with classical..."

What does classical mean in this context? When I hear the word classical, I think Mozart. In this case, we sing nothing that is classical.

Almost everything we sing (Propers and Ordinary from the Gradual) is new to people who have been fed a steady diet of 1970s music and almost nothing else.

And it's remarkable how much people sing. Wilko Brouwers from the Netherlands was with us this morning and he was highly impressed at how much people sing.

janetgorbitz

Can't wait to hear how your workshop went, Jeffrey. Any chance of some video postings as with last year?

Jeffrey Tucker

Well, I'm too tired right now to write about it. But let me summarize that it was marvelous beyond anything I could have expected. I keep composing posts in my brain but I can't get my fingers to work just yet.

awruff

Dear Geri,
I don't think I have any scuttlebutt (I appreciate your curiosity!), but I think I can say that the reality is rather less dramatic. It was a rather standard drafting process, with the whole committee looking at every article and everyone working together and then able to "sign off" on the whole thing - although final approval of course rests with the bishops. There was wide consultation beyond the committee membership as well. The bishops submitted an amazingly large number of amendments, and clearly these were the result of consultation within their own dioceses. My own judgment is that the amendments that got approved were good improvements to the committee's draft - better writing, clearer, or wiser. Although it did all happen so fast that it might have been good if there could have been a final round then of looking at the whole thing to see if everything fit together after so many amendments came in. As for the inconsistencies - I don't see these as the result of factions since there really weren't any to speak of in the whole drafting process. Rather, they are to be traced (imho) right back to the creative tensions found within all the Roman documents including Sacrosanctum Concilium. The directives of the Roman magisterium have a creative tension between tradition and innovation, and I think STL as a whole reflects that. Later drafts of STL were shared with Roman authorities (this was when a recognitio was still being considered), and the reaction was favorable with high praise for the US church's attention to sacred music; no objections were raised although of course Rome would reserve the right to raise them if STL had gone to them for recognitio. Even though one could expect that Roman approval would not have been a problem, the decision to make it guidelines instead of particular law was made in the US entirely because of the sense of what the conference would more readily approve, and not because of any concerns about Rome's reaction.

Pax,

Fr. Anthony, OSB

G

Thank you very much for taking the time to satisfy my curiosity so thoroughly, Father.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

awruff

Dear Jeffrey,

You know, you're right, "classical" isn't quite the right word. (Even though words have many meanings and "classical" can mean things other than the stylistic era of Mozart in the 18th century.) I meant something like "serious, traditional, informed by the tradition of Western music." But any label you use can have the unfortunate effect of being an implied judgment on what is excluded - as if pop or contemporary music isn't serious or informed by the past in its own way. And of course styles like "pop," "contemporary," "classical," "serious" etc. all overlap. One can find the exact same chord progressions with e.g. major seventh chords in easy listening, Langlais, Messiaen, Rutter, Howells, Debussy, and light jazz.

I was hoping you'd know what I meant, but I'm sorry my terminology wasn't clearer.

Pax,

Fr. Anthony

David Andrew

Fr. Anthony,

While I'm no expert on sacramental theology, I've done a bit more digging with respect to my querry regarding the apparent "watering down" of the old MCW paragraph 6.

You said in your response: "I think this was for doctrinal reasons, so as not to give too much power to the human aspects of our liturgical planning and rendition, and to affirm that faith is a gift of God, always made possible by his grace and not by our doing. Yes, God is acting in the liturgy, and yes our way of celebrating the liturgy has an effect on people, but I think you see the point."

I have to ask then, what is meant by paragraphs 1123-1126 of the Catechism? Para. 1123 reads, "The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it."

It seems to me that while God is the principal actor of the liturgy, it is exactly those elements (words, and by extension music, and objects) within the control of human action (planning and rendition) that nourishment, strength and expression can aid in fostering the faith or hasten to destroy it. If the liturgy is poorly prepared (it's already planned in the official liturgical books of the Church) and sloppily rendered, while valid and licit, is it not perhaps dangerous to simply presume that "the grace is sufficient"? Is this not what is meant by lex orandi, lex credendi (or, legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi)?

By watering down the assertion that "Good celebrations foster and nourish faith; Poor celebrations may weaken and destroy it", which seems to me consistent with the teaching contained in the Catechism, is it then easier to dismiss criticism surrounding poor music and liturgical abuses?

Gavin

David, my boss had a good way of explaining it that he said to me once: The Mass has graces because it is the Mass. Nothing that doesn't make a Mass invalid can change that. However, we CAN do things that make those graces harder for the faithful to obtain. Bad music, liturgical abuses, etc. block the grace from the participant. So I'd tend to agree that it's iffy at best for MCW to claim the Mass can "weaken or destroy" faith.

Gavin

I should add that bad celebrations certainly can and do scandalize, but that is different from damage to faith. Perhaps a warning as to that should be in a document. The point is that the St. Louis Jesuits might make people feel like they're in Hell, but they won't send anyone there :P (I'm just making an example based on a popular topic, not making specific judgments on people or their works, list of SLJ songs I like, blah, blah, blah...)

Cantor

Dear Fr. Ruff (or Dr. Ford, if you are following this thread),

What is to be made of the following excerpt from SttL:

159. Songs or hymns that do not at least paraphrase a psalm may never be used in place
of the Responsorial Psalm.

(emphasis added)

There is a footnote that says to see GIRM 61, the pertinent section of which reads thus:

61. ... In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

Does SttL now grant rubrical legitimacy to, say, Haugen “Be Merciful, O Lord” to be sung in place of today’s responsorial psalm from the Lectionary? Or is it that the bishops must still approve any such paraphrase psalm collections?

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories