Fr. Ruff's article on the Liturgy under Benedict XVI
-
Has anyone read this article in the current (Ash Weds - Pentecost) issue of GIA Quarterly? Fr. Ruff seems to try to understand Pope Benedict's rationale regarding liturgy. Some interesting points are raised. One statement he makes, which I tend to agree with, is "When liturgy becomes contested, as it is now, it becomes especially difficult to interpret the meaning of the Second Vatican Council. Various factions in the Church are able to appeal to their favorite passages, while conveniently overlooking passages which are not to their liking."
-
Liturgists are always making darlings of certain passages in documents, such as when paragraph 75 of the RCIA eclipses all others. But that doesn't mean the documents are difficult to interpret. The plain meaning of SC is certainly clear.
-
The "plain meaning" is not clear when a document is self-contradictory, nor when various interpreters to do not share common perspectives or experiences which constitute an "interpretive community." Fr. Ruff's article, in my view, attempts to enlarge the circle of perspectives to create a context in which folks with divergent views can become an interpretive community. Let's all read the article, then talk.
Kevin Vogt
(Vogt is an alpine-Germanicization of the Latin "advocatus." I share this in the interest of transparency...and I'm much less likely to be snarky if my identity is known.) -
Is SC self-contradictory? Details, Kevin, we need details.
Is the article online somewhere? I flipped through my copy of the GIA Quarterly rather quickly before tossing it. -
Take Article 36:
1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
[DS commentary: How can Latin be preserved and the vernacular extended at the same time?]
Take Articles 114, 116, and 119:
114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40. Therefore, when missionaries are being given training in music, every effort should be made to see that they become competent in promoting the traditional music of these peoples, both in schools and in sacred services, as far as may be practicable.
[DS commentary: What are churches in "certain parts of the world" supposed to promote? Gregorian chant or the traditional music of local peoples? Or is this a situation in which "other things" are not equal?]
In both cases, the meanings of the words are clear, but the tension in these passages is also clear. I don't know whether or not this constitutes a self-contradiction but passages like these make interpreting the document a muddy enterprise. Perhaps what is abundantly clear in the document is its focus on the "pastoral" judgment of local/territorial ecclesiastical authorities (a phrase that appears no fewer than 12 times throughout the piece). -
I think it is easier now than ever to understand Roman documents. Granted, those issued before the Council had more direct language in general. Still, SC is not so difficult to understand when reading it *in light of what came before it*. You can see what was expanded, though considerable latitude is given as to how to apply these expansions.
Perhaps the largest problem we face today is how to 'dial back' changes that were never explicitly called for,as well as priorities (chant should have pride of place?) that were turned upside down.
What bothers liturgists of the previous generation is that anyone from
average folks to the pope are able to scrutinize Council documents and point out where we took strange turns and
where we haven't nearly reached the stated vision of the Council.
More and more, it is clear that tensions lie mainly in the realm of ecclesiology. Without assigning blame or ascribing motive, it is evident that the redefining of the Church was attempted through the sacred liturgy. Benedict is attempting to correct this, and the errors associated with this chapter of history. -
"SC is not so difficult to understand when reading it *in light of what came before it*.
That is what our Holy Father has been saying all along. Many people who didn't have any chance to study and learn Traditional Mass we have now probably have hard time understanding the document. Isn't that one of the reason he not only freed the Traditional Mass but also publicly recommended for ALL the parish, not some, to have at least one regular Traditional Mass a few years ago? http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803186.htm
(It would be nice if the faithful listen and pay attention even when he speaks softly.)
What I surprised to find out from working with many different priests from various parishes in this area is that most of them really don't know anything about the traditional Mass. (Some even seemed to be confused about the options of OF also.)
Musicians know when we go to a music school as a music major we have to study music of all the periods starting from Medieval music, regardless of our preferences. This way, even if one chooses to focus on modern music, he has a more comprehensive knowledge and is in a much better place to interpret it.
The Mass didn't start in 1968. Mass is the summit of our faith and the summary of Catholic theology. I don't understand how a priest can understand Mass without studying and having knowledge to celebrate the Traditional Mass. I get the impression that study of Mass is very neglected in the seminary, at least in this area, and continue to be so in parishes where they are busy with so many other things. Therefore their interpretation of the document (I don't even know they are even familiar with any documents on Liturgy than Sing to the Lord.) and pastoral judgment seemed to incline towards things are easy, convenient and makes people happy, rather than helping the parishioners to truly experience the Holiness in the Mass which might take much longer than he wishes to, as well as more efforts and sacrifice.
I am not trying to be critical of our priests. I just want to address the problems that I have experienced as a schola director of multiple parishes, because these have been the biggest stumbling blocks and frustrating part for me. But I try to communicate with priests with much respect, follow their wishes, share articles and books about sacred music and Liturgy, and help them to chant their parts, starting with simple and the parts they know, if they want congregation sing more. Actually it has been a blessing that all the priests even those who have not been been familiar with chants are starting to show appreciation of Gregorian chant and want to do more for their parish Masses. -
Well, how about "both ... and ..." ?
Instead what happened was "one or the other".
The Church does not change, it develops.
And I do think the documents are clear,
when read in continuity with those that came before.
It is a matter of overlay in many cases, like shellac;
it is not a strip-and-paint job. -
I agree with the above points, but taking a step back and comparing what Mary Ann, Mia, and Eft wrote to what Kathy wrote, the discussion goes something like this:
Statement 1: X is easy to understand.
Reaction 1: But X has several seemingly troublesome/ambiguous/contradictory (?) passages.
Statement 2: X is easy to understand in the light of Y, Z, A, B, and C.
If statement 2 is true (and I absolutely believe it is), then we can't take it for granted that statement 1 is also true. The US Constitution, in my opinion, is much easier to understand than SC, but the history of law in the United States (and in Britain, too, because US common law extends back before the Revolution) demonstrates that the constitution isn't exactly easy to understand on its own. Tea Party advocates would like us to believe otherwise, but the Constitution raises more questions than it answers--as does SC.
As a historian, I am bothered by the suggestion that *any* utterance, no matter how small, much less an 8,000+ word Latin constitution written by Roman Catholic clerics, has a "plain meaning" that is "certainly clear." It doesn't. If we need Y,Z,A,B,and C to understand X, what exactly makes X so easy to understand?
Having taken the discussion far afield from the original post, hopefully I will get my hands on Fr. Ruff's article. Regardless of his liturgical proclivities, I think Fr. Ruff is someone who wrestles with issues and asks at least as many questions as he tries to answer. -
What the Church and Her tradition instruct us in regard to the liturgy is also in the reality of spiritual matter, not merely reasoning and intellect.
My understanding got better after I read The Spirit of the Liturgy by J. Ratzinger, and attend Traditional Mass (it took a few years to understand it though. Even now I am learning more and more about the Holy Mass.) -
"As a historian, I am bothered by the suggestion that *any* utterance, no matter how small, much less an 8,000+ word Latin constitution written by Roman Catholic clerics, has a "plain meaning" that is "certainly clear." It doesn't. If we need Y,Z,A,B,and C to understand X, what exactly makes X so easy to understand?"
Doug,
The reason is that when all the dust settles, a Council's teaching lies in the documents. It's not about the angling, or the politics, or the editing. The documents are the lasting teaching.
I agree with you that there is a certain tension in prescribing both Latin and the vernacular, both Gregorian and native chant. But is that really a contradiction? If my doctor prescribes both rest and exercise, that's not a contradiction. There will be a need for discernment of times and places, but that shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for grownups to do.
No, the problem with interpretation occurred immediately after the Council, when the documents were largely ignored and progressive commissions ran full speed ahead on reforms. The momentum--the historical moment--overran the plain text. -
Kathy, I agree with you, and I was careful to suggest that the differences weren't necessarily contradictions, as Kevin asserted. My point is that if we need 8 keys to unlock one door, the door isn't easy to open.
I have only two other main thoughts. The first is that if the documents were ignored, there wasn't really much interpretation going on. That's a major problem, but it isn't one of parsing minutiae, much less a holistic discernment.
Second, I agree wholeheartedly that discernment, not a set of readymade prescriptions (take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning), will make the the liturgical reform a reality. But if discernment were so easy, why all the partisan posturing? Why all the cherry picking of passages, coming from all sides, that still dominates much intellectual and internet discourse about the reform, and the reform of the reform? In my own reading, which isn't as wide as I would like, I've found that very few people actually have a wide angle lens on these issues. Fortunately, the people who matter, like Benedict XVI, do. But couldn't we argue that JPII differed in his interpretation of SC? Read his address on the 25th anniversary of SC. It is relatively laudatory of the reforms that had already taken place, despite all the decrying going on in "conservative" circles. If popes can come at the issues from different angles, where does that leave us?
You are probably right that discernment "shouldn't" be exceedingly difficult to do, but it has been and apparently is for most. These are the people who think they have all the answers. -
Forget about the interpretation, as such, of legislative documents. A few years ago, someone had an article in "Sacred Music" about the translation of documents into English, which the Vatican website saying one translation, and the Vatican Polyglot Press saying another. (I don't have the article in front of me now.) Don't think translations matter? Think again. If we can't even get this right, then interpretation is a yard away.
(I'll dig the article out tonight and show, using the author's arguments, why it does matter, which is what the author said. It is the same issue with translations of Holy Scripture---it is Catholic teaching that Scripture is only inerrant in it's original languages. In like fashion, it would be best if we read the legislative documents in it's original language---is it Italian? or Latin?) -
I second that, Paul, re: "interpreting" translations, which are already filtered through a layer of interpretation! Excellent point.
-
The point about translation is very crucial, Paul.
An illustration, if I may...
I have been greatly blessed to have a holy, liturgy loving bishop as a liturgical mentor. This man speaks Latin. When trying to get to the bottom of the permissability of a silent Canon in the OF, he went to the original Latin. The sentence in the GIRM that seemed to rule out a silent Canon in the OF? Wait for this.......
DID NOT EXSIST in the Latin. It was, for some reason, added.
My question to him, "Doesn't that make you a little nervous?"
His response, "I've been nervous for a long time." -
I do want to make another point about the clarity of documents, and reading them in light of what preceeded them.
By 'what came before' I mean BOTH the documents that came before, as well as a study of EF.
Before I would jump into Fr. Ruff's article, I'd consider it my job to be well versed in those things. Otherwise, I'm just letting another liturgist think for me. It's not that I don't care what Fr. Ruff has to say, it's that I would prefer to throw noodles (opinion) against the wall (documents, missals, etc.) to test for doneness. -
Read some of the liturgy documents in French and you get a whole other possibility. Having read the English and the French together is asking yourself if they were translating the same document. Even taking into consideration the cultural questions, its very apparent that there are problems.
The point about translation is extremely important. -
DougS, Kathy, et al.,
Perhaps I should have written "seemingly self-contradictory." I certainly read SC as embodying values held in tension, and acknowledge that this tension is ensconced in the Council's teaching. This is in fact one of the points raised in the article that was supposed to have been the subject of this thread. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in objecting to the dismissal of Fr. Ruff's comments ("Liturgists are always making darlings...") without considering them in the context of the article. I had hoped to redirect the thread back to a reading and critique of Fr. Ruff's article. Is there no one who read the GIA Quarterly before tossing it in the trash? -
Tension, schmension. Over the last 20 years, what I've been hearing from progressive liturgists is nothing but rules. You can't have teaching in RCIA, haven't you read paragraph 75? You can't use the word "adore" in a Eucharistic hymn, because you have to reference the actio of the assembly. You can't have a tabernacle on the axis because it distracts from the actio. You can't say thee, you can't have a choral Sanctus, you can't use Latin, etc.
A little acknowledgement of the inherent tension of liturgy would be nice. -
Sorry I didn't read the publication in question. Nor did I read the Sunday advertising flyer from Kroger today.
-
I understand that Kroger in Auburn had Blueberries on sale today according to a FB comment from a friend in West Point, GA who is making muffins. Sorry you missed that, Jeffrey.
-
I think Miacoyne made two good points: 1. musicians study music from the very beginning to the present (and all Priests should study the Mass from the very beginning, too) and 2. the Mass did not begin in 1968!
-
Amen Henry and Mia!
Are you knowledgeable in ALL the documents or just the one that errs toward your personal preference or a particular flavor of Christianity? (Catholics call them other denominations). If a priest is truly a priest, he must primarily be a defender of the faith... (all of it!) And that requires he first must know it, and second, believe it, and then just as importantly, live it and promote it and defend it. If he can't do that at a minimum, how can he protect the flock from error? -
I have been greatly blessed to have a holy, liturgy loving bishop as a liturgical mentor. This man speaks Latin. When trying to get to the bottom of the permissability of a silent Canon in the OF, he went to the original Latin. The sentence in the GIRM that seemed to rule out a silent Canon in the OF? Wait for this.......
DID NOT EXSIST in the Latin. It was, for some reason, added.
For what it's worth, this is incorrect. The IGMR states:
32. Natura partium «praesidentialium» exigit ut clara et elata voce proferantur et ab omnibus cum attentione auscultentur.(44) Proinde dum sacerdos eas profert aliae orationes vel cantus non habeantur, atque organum vel alia instrumenta musica sileant.
(The nature of the "presidential" parts demands that they be offered with a clear and raised voice and be listened to by all with attention. Therefore while the priest offers them other prayers or songs are not to be had, and the organ or other musical instruments are to be silent.) -
Mark
What is the year of publication and paragraph of the edition you are quoting? -
Looks like 2002 to me.
-
What did the earlier IGRM report? ...if we really want to unlock the mystery, that is.
-
Mark's point, which I've been wondering about lately, sent me back to the document. Here's the paragraph that defines "presidential prayers":30. Inter ea quæ sacerdoti tribuuntur, primum locum obtinet Prex eucharistica, quæ culmen est totius celebrationis. Accedunt deinde orationes, idest collecta, oratio super oblata et oratio post Communionem. Hæ preces a sacerdote, qui coetui personam Christi gerens præest, ad Deum diriguntur nomine totius plebis sanctæ et omnium circumstantium. Merito igitur “orationes præsidentiales” nominantur.
[Official translation: Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ. It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the "presidential prayers."]
The English translation is inconsistent: it renders prex in the first sentence as "prayer", then oratio as "oration", but in the last sentence, it renders oratio as "prayer". It creates a verbal connection between "Eucharistic Prayer" and "presidential prayers" which does not exist in the Latin. More consistently rendered, it would be:
[Another translation: Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ. It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the "presidential orations."] (emphasis added)
It's plausible to think that the presidential orations only include the second type of prayer listed in para. 30. But that's just based upon the bare text. If CDWDS has ever clarified the point via a dubium, that would resolve the question. -
Sorry to veer back to a hornet's nest- was just trying to make an illustration about translations to echo Paul's point.
Mark, it was another section as I recall...
Honestly, I don't see a huge controversy about a silent Canon, and have little need to worry about it, working in an EF parish. But follow through is fair, so I'll ask the good bishop and repost elsewhere on the forum. It'll be on my list of things to do after this baby (Dominic) arrives. Any week now. :) -
It is a matter of overlay in many cases, like shellac;
it is not a strip-and-paint job
Nice figure, well-placed. -
"It's not that I don't care what Fr. Ruff has to say, it's that I would prefer to throw noodles (opinion) against the wall (documents, missals, etc.) to test for doneness."
MayAnn, I love that. One day I actually want to try the noodle, when kids are not around :-)
Will pray for your baby's arrival. 3 boys? (I have 4 and finally a girl) Keep up with your energy. Probably you are going to need it.
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