NPM Convention 2012 - A Review
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    As I mentioned in a previous discussion regarding the convention, this year's convention had a great lineup of speakers and presenters. I went to Pittsburgh with high expectations for it. I came away mostly satisfied.

    The choice of Pittsburgh was a good one, as many from CMAA know after having held the colloquium there. The city is great, the hotels downtown are plentiful, and the church music scene provides for a wealth of experiences and learning.

    I had the pleasure of attending Fr. Anthony Ruff's chant intensive. Father Ruff is, of course, very knowledgable in this area. He did a great job at the intensive of balancing the remedial and basic teachings of chant with the more advanced tidbits for those of us who already knew the basics. He also was a great advocate for the use of chant in the parish. I was glad to have attended his session.

    The Keynote Address to open the convention was titled "The Universal Call to Holiness." The speaker was Fr. Ronald Raab. He focused his talk on the ways that holiness permeates the everyday, citing numerous examples from his work in inner-city Portland, OR. Although there was nothing particularly objectionable about anything that Fr. Raab said, he was mostly lacking in inspiration and passion, although there were a few moments in which he made thought provoking points. His talk probably would have been easier to receive later in the week rather than as the very first address. As one person attending the convention put it, "The Keynote speaker is supposed to fire us up and get us excited about the week. He kind of just depressed me."

    The breakout session on Monday that I chose to attend was called "Chant as Vehicle for Vocal Production and Choral Sound," and was led by Robert Strusinski. To my pleasant surprise, Mr. Strusinski was not only wonderfully informative but he was also an advocate for the use of chant during mass as well. Yes, the man who taught David Haas and who has commissioned works by him actually asked how many of us regularly use chant in our parishes and when most of us raised our hands said "Very good!" I learned a lot from him.

    Throughout the week there were other chances to attend breakout sessions. I chose two led by Ann Labounsky from Duquesne. What a great organist and teacher! Her sessions on improvisation and on the music of Jean Langlais alone were worth attending the convention.

    On the concert front, there were wonderful offerings. Hector Olivera offered a recital at St. Paul's Cathedral that I count myself as truly fortunate to have heard. I'm not exaggerating when I say that one seldom hears playing like Olivera's. At the end of the recital, the entire crowd was on their feet cheering. The ovation was clearly heartfelt and not merely convention or politeness. In particular, Olivera's improvisation on "Veni Creator Spiritus" was stunning and nothing short of amazing.

    Other standout concerts include J. Michael Thompson's choral ensemble and Adam Brakel's noon time organ recital. Adam plays with wonderful virtuosity. I can't possibly exaggerate when speaking of Adam's abilities.

    I wish that I could be as positive about the plenum addresses. On Wednesday we heard from Msgr. Kevin Irwin of the Catholic University of America. It is truly regrettable that fidelity not only to the teachings of the church but to the mind of the church and the teachings of the Pope do not seem to be pre-requisites to teach at our nation's only ecclesiastical university. Msgr. Irwin denigrated the latin mass, implied that the Church under Pope Benedict is losing its way, and bemoaned the state of the priesthood today, noting the particular liturgical preferences of priests emerging from seminaries today.

    Thursday brought a plenum talk by Sr. Barbara Reid. The beginning was quite scholarly, and I learned quite a bit about the Magnificat and Canticle of Zechariah from a scripture professor's point of view. Unfortunately, sister just couldn't help herself. By the end of the address, she went on a mini tirade about women in the church not being listened to and outright said that perhaps the men of the church need to be silenced so that women's voices could be heard more freely. NPM, as a Catholic organization, should absolutely not be allowing and promoting dissenters to speak to their conventions. That they do is truly lamentable.

    The convention liturgy was brilliantly planned. I unfortunately did not get to actually attend the mass because of an emergency, but perusing the booklet revealed that the entrance chant was chanted in latin. The mass ordinary used was Christopher Pardini's New Century Mass, currently in use at the Cathedral in Philadelphia. In order to appeal to a large segment of attendees, Haugen's Eye Has Not Seen was used, which I consider to be at least on of his better pieces. The Communion song was a latin text set by Michael Joncas. Cheers to Fr. Chepponis and the rest of the planning committee for a job well done.

    All in all, the week was a success and a great learning experience. I will likely return to another NPM convention in the future, but I sincerely hope that more orthodox plenum speakers are given that platform.
  • Sounds like a lot of positive developments.
    I'm especially glad to hear the session with Fr. Ruff was fruitful.

    Please clarify for me, though, was there only one Mass without a chanted ordinary or chanted propers while there were three organ recitals? If so, that's perplexing. Were any authentic Gregorian chants used during the sacred liturgy? Was any simplified and/or vernacular chant used?
    Thanked by 1Ryan Murphy
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    NPM does only one Mass during the week. There are daily Masses advertised for those that wish to go, but the convention itself only has one Mass.

    The Mass included many of the chanted sections from the Roman Missal, including the Domine non sum dignus...

    The really positive change was seen in the way morning prayer was celebrated. It included a tremendous amount of chant.

    All of the plenum addresses that I attended included some remark or other about the Tridentine Mass or belittling today's seminarians and newly ordained. That was very troubling.

    The CMAA, SEP and Richard Rice's work was mentioned at countless workshops throughout the week. If only there were a booth at the convention where those books were being sold, I'm sure that those who were in those breakout sessions would have went and purchased them....

  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    It's troubling but not surprising that there were so many belittling remarks about things like that. What is interesting is that the remarks are there because those plenum speakers are starting to feel THREATENED by things like the TLM and devout seminarians! {cheers!}
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    No, I think those plenum speakers are more threatened by reverent, by-the-book celebrations of the NO by well-formed priests. The Tridentine isn't widespread enough to really threaten them.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    If it's not widespread enough, then why would they even waste their breath criticizing it?
  • redsox1
    Posts: 217
    I'm very encouraged by the young priests coming out. I'm from the Archdiocese of Detroit-we have had WONDERFUL associates who are very reverent, truly sing the Mass, and are very supportive of the music program at our parish. They also don't have any axe to grind-good music and a reverent worship style are simply what they have been exposed to and what they know. These men are fine priests and are loved by the parish. Our pastor, who is much older and has some different thoughts about liturgy and music, has been very supportive of them and has let them be themselves. I greatly admire him for that.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Marajoy, I think they are more concerned that its atmosphere will "infect" the NO that they know. Granted, what they know isn't the NO as it should be. Then there is all the music and, of course, Latin associated with the EF. The aging "progressives" are terrified of both.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Redsox1, my thought is that we are seeing the fruits of JP II's work to reform seminary education.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    We're focusing too much on the negatives here.

    Morning prayer every morning was FULL of chant. This amount of chant would have been unfathomable at the same convention just a few years ago.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Matthewj, it will be interesting to see how next year's convention goes. Will it be like this year's, or will it revert to older forms under different organizers? This year looks good, however, and is really encouraging.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    Also I must say, on the polyphony front - Christopher Walker did a fantastic job with a polyphony breakout. Pieces by Victoria, Monteverdi, Byrd, etc... in 6 part voicing. Walker kept the rehearsal moving at an epic pace and really expressed his undying love for polyphonic music.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Thanks for this review.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Charles,

    It may not be widespread, but where it is, it seems that it's influence is often felt. Many a time, people come from far and wide to attend a weekly EF Mass on Sundays. I have friends who drive quite a distance just to attend low Mass on some weekdays as well.

    And it certainly seems to be growing and spreading too, even if it's not as widespread at the current moment. Not only in the number of Masses, but in (semi-)general acceptance and even a love among people that can't (like me) or don't attend it regularly.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Ben, I don't quite see that locally. The good effects here are from the revised missal. Most of the folks at the other masses don't know or care that there is an EF mass on the weekend.
  • Heath
    Posts: 933
    "We're focusing too much on the negatives here."

    Yes, probably, as the experiences at this year's NPM is *much* different from the one I attended back in 2004. No chant to be found at that one, IIRC.

    And now for some negativity from me . . .

    "Thursday brought a plenum talk by Sr. Barbara Reid."

    This is terribly unfortunate. I had Sr. Reid for a biblical studies course at Catholic Theological Union about 8 years ago or so, and it was a travesty. She was kind and very knowledgeable, but it was heresy-ridden, to say the least. Very sad that they chose her to speak at this conference. (And as far as I know, she has no musical expertise . . . hmm.)

  • I'm genuinely surprised to hear your take on Msgr. Irwin's talk. I studied under him at CUA and never got that impression of him. I thought his class on liturgical theology of the Eucharist was very fulfilling.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Well Andrew, I can qualify it by saying that he wasn't actually ... "venom filled?"

    He DEFINATELY made the comment that the Extraordinary Form NEEDS to remain EXTRAORDINARY, which got chuckles and a round of applause. He followed it up with a comment on new seminarians who seem to be worshipping the RITUAL and not the God of the ritual. This also pleased the audience.

    I suppose that in the interest of going out of my way to give him the benefit of the doubt, either of those comments could be made in other circles and be much more innocuous observations. However, he definately seemed to be playing to his audience, which was filled with peope who actually ARE much more venom filled towards all things orthodox than he may be.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    "He DEFINATELY made the comment that the Extraordinary Form NEEDS to remain EXTRAORDINARY,"

    {insert comment about "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion...}
  • Um... about worshipping the ritual. I'm wondering if the types of persons alluded to here are, really, the only ones who are guilty of 'worshipping ritual'. I would suggest that while not any where near all Extraordinary Formists do not, in fact worship ritual, there is yet a very human cadre of those who do, whether innocently or overtly.
    However, I would suggest that even though it is a little fashionable to toss this epithet their way, and only their way, I suspect that it could be hurled as well towards so-called 'charasmatics' (who aren't any where near the only real charasmatics) who often give the impression that their liturgical praxis is on a particularly worshipful level, judged against which, other liturgy is no liturgy at all. Yes, one has encountered these attitudes, the only name for which is......... ritual worship. Humans are humans: no group is free from anything that they accuse others of! So, look to the bean in your own eye and try to refrain from casting the first stone. There are those few who, no matter what their liturgical preferences are, could be said to worship their own ritual.

    As for the Extraordinary Form: actually I am no fan of it. I wish that our Holy Father had taken more concrete steps to make of the Ordinary Form a universally more sacral, non chatty, a profoundly reverent ritual without the extra-ritual running commentary and announcements and antics, and graced with our musical heritage, the ONLY music mentioned specifically and commended in the documents of VII.

    But, our Holy Father did what he did, so I (and I hope, we all) respect the results of what he did. I appreciate the Tridentine rite as one of our historic rites that we have been asked by the Holy Father to give a revered place in our liturgical life. Having said that, I, as an Anglican Ordinariate Catholic, think that there should be a similar place for the Sarum Rite. In fact, why not revisit numerous historic rites from time to time?
    (Not, of course, to 'worship ritual' (everyone should stop at this moment accusing anyone of so shallow a spirituality), but to profit from the spiritual genie that is a part of each and could but enrich us all.
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • The Extraordinary Form wouldn't be as popular as it is, or as fervently sought after, if:

    1. It were felt that priests/liturgists/liturgical committees could be trusted with the liturgy.
    2. The Novus Ordo were implemented in light of the Mass of Trent and a hermeneutic of continuity.
    3. There were anywhere else that the liturgically sensitive could spend Mass not worrying about the liturgy.

    That's something that gets lost in these discussions: The liturgically sensitive, largely, don't like being liturgically sensitive, and they don't like feeling like aesthetes, and they don't like having to close their eyes during some formalized abuse to avoid wondering what the hell Mrs. Whosits is doing up in the sanctuary thus distracting themselves from the best reason for being at Mass. Even the liturgically sensitive would rather just be at Mass. So they go somewhere they can trust Father, somewhere tied to the whole patrimony of the Church, where they can just concentrate on worship. (Instead of Worship.)

    If EF-ers grouse over donuts afterward, they finally, at least, don't feel like grousing during Mass.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >> The liturgically sensitive, largely, don't like being liturgically sensitive, and they don't like feeling like aesthetes, and they don't like having to close their eyes during some formalized abuse

    Right on.

    Whenever something weird (wrong, ugly, poorly done, whatever) happens at Mass I have the same succession of thoughts:
    1. Good Lord, what were they thinking!
    2. Now, now- don't be unkind.
    3. Focus on what's important here, it's not about [insert thing being done wrongly]
    4. Ok, I'm okay with it... worshiping... worshiping...
    5. But what about the other people who are being bothered?
    6. What about the people who can't get over it as well as I can?
    7. If we were really an open and welcoming parish, we wouldn't do this crap because it's so off-putting.
    8. It's not just about my tastes or liturgical rubrics. This is about evangelism! This is about the salvation of souls!
    9. Oh crap! Did I miss the cue for my entrance?

    There's a trend in certain circles of planning liturgy to accommodate the needs of people with certain emotional or sensory disorders, such as autism. I think this work (when it doesn't delve into the truly weird) is laudable. But what about those of us who just have a hard time ignoring things that are awful.

    (Maybe we can get "overdeveloped sense of good taste" into the next edition of the DSM.)
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Jackson writes: "I appreciate the Tridentine rite as one of our historic rites that we have been asked by the Holy Father to give a revered place in our liturgical life. Having said that, I, as an Anglican Ordinariate Catholic, think that there should be a similar place for the Sarum Rite. In fact, why not revisit numerous historic rights from time to time?"

    This is a very interesting thought. As I've said before, no one talks about the lack of continuity between the Pius V missal and what was going on before it. I wonder if in 1612, people were still complaining about the loss of centuries of sacred music and texts that were excised in the new missal.
    Thanked by 3kevinf Gavin CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    E_A is spot on. While there are many who simply love the EF for itself, there are many more, including myself, who simply attend some or all of the time because they know reverence is vurtually guaranteed. My home parish's OF masses are great, but when we go on vacation, I've pretty much tried to go to the EF exclusively, since I've had so many bad experiences by simply dropping in on random parishes Mases. That's simply the reality at this time.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    As for the Extraordinary Form: actually I am no fan of it . . . . Having said that, I, as an Anglican Ordinariate Catholic, think that there should be a similar place for the Sarum Rite.

    What is this "Sarum Rite" you are speaking about? Are you referring to the "Sarum Use" ? Sarum is hardly a "Rite," and Adrian Fortescue permanently put this silly notion to bed for good in a way only he can.

    As I've said before, no one talks about the lack of continuity between the Pius V missal and what was going on before it.

    There are numerous books that address this very point, and the Tridentine reform is generally viewed positively, for instance, "trimming" hundreds of poorly composed, long, flowery sequences which had cropped up for almost every single Mass. Five of the very best sequences were left.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    There is also the school of thought that the actual Roman Rite had ceased to exist by the time of Frankish domination. The argument goes that what came out of Trent was not the Roman Rite that existed from early times into the, what, 9th century of so. I am not sure of the dates on that.

    Also, Fortescue is a child of Trent, so to speak, and likely to find little fault with it. Some of us view Trent as a complete over-reaction to Protestantism that may have made matters worse than they would have been otherwise. It seems to me to have been on the order of if the Protestants do it, we at Trent will stick out our tongues at them and go, "nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you" - then do the opposite. I think this is what befell the Sarum Rite, and Fortescue was dead wrong.
    Thanked by 2DougS Gavin
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    JennyH, that's exactly my point. The post-Tridentine "reforms" *are* viewed positively today, but Sequences had been a part of the Mass for nearly 700 years prior to the Pius V missal (I think it's useful here to distinguish the fact that the Pius V missal was promulgated after the Council of Trent, much as the Paul VI missal was after Vatican II). Put yourself in the mind of a worshiping community for whom Sequences were an integral and important part of liturgical life for centuries. Don't you think you'd be pretty upset about these changes? That the post-Tridentine reforms are viewed positively by many in certain circles but the post-Vatican II changes are not (in the same circles) is a massive dissonance for me as a historian.

    Also, I would be curious to hear what "numerous" books discuss the Pius V missal from the point of view of continuity vs. discontinuity. Thank you in advance for your recommendations.

    (And I thought the Pius V missal included only four sequences and that the fifth was added nearly 150 years later, but I could be mistaken on that point.)
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Exactly, Charles. If we approach these issues from a more objective standpoint, all the post-Vatican II fuss, especially 50 years out, seems a bit overblown. Give it a few centuries and then we'll talk, right?
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    Also, Fortescue is a child of Trent, so to speak, and likely to find little fault with it.

    That's an interesting way to look at it.

    I had not thought about that approach before.

    Another way to put it would be, "Adrian Fortescue used the Roman Rite, so he could not possibly have anything meaningful to say about the Sarum Use."

    I was always taught to look at what he actually said and cited, rather than simply dismiss him out of hand because he offered the Roman Rite. I had always been taught to look carefully at the documents he cites and the arguments he puts forward.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Works for me, Doug. :-)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I don't dismiss him because he offered the Roman Rite, but because his biases came through clearly in his writings. The reaction to Sarum by Trent was because the English Protestants were using it, so it couldn't possibly be worthwhile.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I agree completely with Adam. I really wish I didn't care about liturgy. I wish liturgical abuse didn't matter to me. I wish I could go to church and not have the entire experience ruined by two words, "good morning". I wish my family and friends could tolerate being at church with me and didn't have to endure me muttering about every "abuse" that I see or hear.

    The problem IS liturgical abuse. But the problem is also ME.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    JennyH, I don't mean to step into this other conversation about Fortescue because I don't really have one view or another on it, but what I teach my own graduate students is that they should consider who wrote something (and what frame of mind she or he might have approached their writing) over and above what a person actually says. If a type of thought or a paradigm of thinking wouldn't have occurred to a person because of the particular circumstances in which he or she was living, then we absolutely can and should interrogate "what was said" at a deeper level. This way we get beyond the words on the page and move into an interpretive dimension that means something to us now. But, like I said, that's just how I approach things as a historian. There are other ways of reading.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    The suggestion that some EF supporters worship ritual -- that they are idolators -- is really an arrogant and cowardly insult. Arrogant because it presumes to know the intentions of men's souls; divisive because it sets his audience against EF supporters who are sound Catholics; cowardly because it accuses no specific person and therefore lets the accuser dodge any requirement to stand up like a man and prove the charge.

    A speaker who plays such games wounds the Church and brings shame on himself.

    (I stand back from naming the man here because I did not witness the act, but if the facts are as stated above, it applies to the conference speaker.)
  • The EF is something of an arranged marriage for most EF partisans. (This is a deliberate metaphor: Arranged marriages tend to stick.)

    That said, the wide use of the EF done well can, these days, only enhance the worship in the OF. This will continue to be true right up until folks finally make peace with the Church "before" Vatican II. The EF will continue to be relevant and important and crucial at least right up until the wider visible Church reconciles with Catholic liturgical patrimony. It does not matter so much that the Church universally uses ad orientem and altar rails as the visible members of the Church stop hating ad orientem and altar rails.

    It's like a bad soap opera, or the parable of the two sons. Kid moves out of his house, hating his parents and wishing them the worst. Being a dumb kid, he screws up royally and falls into a great deal of trouble. But, even when he pays off his credit cards, and no matter how well he shapes up afterward, this episode of his life will not be over until he comes back home and makes peace with Mom and Dad. Just so, the "post-Vatican II Church" needs to reconcile with the "pre-Vatican II Church."

    (Yes, I don't like those terms either. But it'll do for now. This is an Internet comment, and you know what I mean.)
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • Three cheers for Chonak!!! Spot on.

    ...
    If I take delight in God's laws, as the psalmist says, am I worshipping the laws, or God? God, Whom I love and seek to please.

    It is the same with the minister observing the rubrics of our public prayer.

    Most of those rubrics are subject to change, of course. Nonetheless, a humble servant seeks to joyfully and obediently fulfill the letter and spirit of authoritative law.

    Why bag on that, anyway?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    MCW, one guess is because want to soothe any possible guilt they may have from completely ignoring said rubrics.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I agree with what Chonak and MaryAnn have written above, but how would you respond to someone who says something along the lines of, "I would resist any changes to the EF with all of my being?"

    I think I've read more or less those very words on this forum in the past, and they sound very different from MaryAnn's interpretation and experience of the EF.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I know a gentleman who raised the roof, because he suspected the priest used a host consecrated at a NO for an EF Benediction. I said, "Didn't you agree to accept Vatican II and the NO when I assembled those petitions to ask the bishop for permission to have the EF in this diocese?" (Obviously, before B16's time) His answer was, "Yes, but I had no choice in order to get the mass. I didn't really believe it."

    The one thing the EF and NO have in common, is that nuts can be found at both.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    Many of the "I only go to the Tridentine Mass," crowd would probably very happily attend a non-stadium Novus Ordo presided over by the Holy Father.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • NO vs. EF -
    I'm really asking to find out:
    What is it that actually makes the EF more, shall we say, 'resiliant' to botching than the NO? But for an unfortunate '... these or similar words' here and there, is there anything otherwise inherent in the rite that makes tackiness permisable? It doesn't seem to me that there is. And, not to put bad ideas into anyone's head, but what, precisely, prevents inserting 'good morning folks', etc., into the EF. I have often observed that if Vatican II hadn't happened, given the rebellious climate, quite a few people would have found ways to trash the Tridentine rite... perhaps with guitar music propers and who knows what else.
    It doesn't seem to me that the NO is inherently any more congenial to klutz than the EF. What am I missing. Where did it originate that the NO could be celebrated as though it were the Ed Sullivan show? Certainly not in the rubrics or anything else offficial that I know of.
  • MJO, I think there are weakness in the OF that do not exsist in the EF.

    1) The multiplicity of confusing options creates, unintentionally I believe, an atmosphere of "there are so many options, anything goes". How many priests or music directors even know all the options?
    2) The OF is also newer, and therefore more open to interpretation simply by virtue of it's age.
    3) Another key difference is language. One language for the Mass is more stable than a myriad of vernacular languages. The revised missal, which will need updating and revision, is evidence of that instability. Multiply that by dozens of vernacular languages, and you get a scope of the challenge.
    4) Musically speaking, the newer lectionary presents a larger challenge to scholas trying to fulfill the ideal of the Gregorian propers.

    And please note- I'm not saying the OF is bad, or that the EF didn't need reform, just that I feel the OF is more inherently unstable for these reasons.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    MCW - I think one more reason is that in the OF, the priest addresses the congregation at the beginning, and since, for whatever reason, most OF Masses are versus populum, that almost inexorably tends toward extemporaneous additions. In the EF, the priest does not address the people until he sings "Dominus vobiscum" before the Collect (unless you count the intonation for the Gloria).
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Wow. That's some impressive thread drift you have going.
  • Good catch, Greg.
    MACW, regarding observation-
    1. There remain options, so to speak, in the observance of the ritual expressions within the umbrella deemed the EF. I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the OF providing, de facto, an "anything goes" climate that invites imprecision or abuse by virtue of your comparison. There is anecdotal evidence a-plenty that "laizze faire" attitudes insofar as preparation, performance and coherency existed well before the 1962 Missal and well after the 1970/73 Missal. The coalescence we've experienced with increasing evidence that the OF is being scrutinized and systematically cleansed of accretions not to be found in thte documents. And Cantius, FSSP parishes elsewhere, CMAA colloquia Masses, and churches blessed with pastors such as Frs. Keyes and Pasley, are helping to define what the reformed OF actually is. The faultiness doesn't lie in the form, but the preparation, care and performance provided the form. We may look for external shifts as "indicators," such as ad Deum, but we've SEEN the altar crucifix mitigate the celebrant "addressing" issue quite successfully by none other than the Holy Father and as local as Fr. Keyes.
    2/3. Tho' it's somewhat of "chicken/egg" issue, the effect of the councils' addressing of the Church's role in the emerging global village that was a needed effort to reconcile certain aspects of ecclesiology to "modernity." The horse called "Vernacular" had occasionally been sanctioned to roam free from the barn at various points in time and around the globe. But, at critical moments there were "cowboys" who rode Vernacular not only out of the barn, but outside the fencelines of the ranch. Add to that the "convenience" of reinforcing evangelization in faraway places by celebrating the rites in those languages, the prospect of re-orienting the horse back to the barn becomes a daunting challenge, even if just tring to explain the rationale and benefits.
    4. Collective memory of the role and existence of any, much less, Gregorian Propers flew out the window likely just before the Holy Spirit supposedly flew into the council.

    Ergo, WE are going to have to be evangelists and missionaries in our own parishes in any scenario, OF or EF. And the first step is to convince pastors that their fullest attention needs to be focused upon what happens at the altars of the Word and Sacrifice on the Lord's Day in the Divine Liturgy.
  • Sorry for the drift- just trying to answer MJO's honest question about what makes the EF more resilient, as I've had the same question and the ability to attempt answering after working for a few years almost exclusively in the EF.
    Greg, yes- ad orientem is a huge factor! It is an option in the OF, and not in the EF.

    To take a hands on approach in answering MJO's question by placing missals side by side, and cross-checking with the GIRM, the over optioning in the OF becomes very clear.
    As to the vernacular, I submit that English speakers may be among the most attached to their language. The problem of Latin being the language of our Rite is not so big in the wider Church. One close example is Mexico- when writing an article about the chant camp at our parish, a local Catholic reporter familiar with both sides of the border scrubbed mentioning Latin in the English version but said it wasn't such an issue for the Mexican Catholics in general. He thought lots of Americans were hung up on having their own language used for Mass, whereas Catholics from most other cultures are more accepting of a sacral language. I found that interesting, and I've heard it before from Kenyan, French, Lebanese, and Iraqui friends...
    Now I'm so adrift from the topic I can't remember from whence I drifted. At any rate, I think MJO's question about resilience is key to stabilizing the OF.
  • Wow. That's some impressive thread drift you have going.


    (Hard to starboard, because I think we've had enough of the port.)

    That there was so little for any of us to kvetch about is really the best news we've had all week. So --- hurrah! Reform of the reform, renewal of the renewal. Brick by brick we are rebuilding, slowly but surely.

    This is a great time to be a Catholic liturgical wonk!
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >> ad orientem is a huge factor! It is an option in the OF, and not in the EF.

    Is it REQUIRED (by law) in the EF?
    Or is it simply a custom that is so ingrained no one ever departs from it?

    (For the record, I'm a fan of not departing from customs which are that ingrained.-
    I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just curious- because I was under the impression that there were some sanctuaries, including St. Peter's main altar, where ad orientem was not possible.)
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    A question: Why does there seem to exist among some on this board a breathlessly desperate desire to receive recognition or acceptance from the NPM?

    I was at one time a card-carrying member of the organization. What PGA has reported is actually nothing new. The last convention I attended was in 2007; the pre-convention events began literally the day after Benedict XVI promulgated Summorum pontificum. At that convention there was one or possibly two breakouts that dealt with chant, Fr. Columba Kelly OSB brought a small schola of monks from St. Meinrad and they sang a demonstration/concert of sacred music and English language-based chants that he had been developing, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB conducted a chant intensive, and I even recall that a bit of chant (in English) was incorporated into an otherwise horrifying "convention Eucharist" that featured typical Broadway/Hollywood-style faux-traditional music, liturgical dancers and a whole host of other troubling abuses. I recall attending a breakout for the anniversary of Musica sacra, led by three "liturgical experts" who all basically agreed that it was an irrelevant document that had little value or application to the current Mass and that it should be ignored.

    So, one must ask just how far the NPM has come along in its embrace of the principles and values held by the CMAA? Clearly, not far at all. 1 - 2 % of attendees seeking out the breakouts PGA described while the majority hear the likes of Msgr. Irwin making such denigrating remarks about the Holy Father and the character and nature of young priests coming out of seminary is far more telling.

    And that, you see, is my real point. Sacred music as envisioned by the Church and advanced and promoted by the CMAA doesn't exist in a vacuum. For me, at any rate, it is part of a total package of orthodoxy and orthopraxis that a group like the NPM never has and simply never will embrace, as evidenced by the attitudes advanced by their keynote and plenum speakers past and present, the content of the majority of breakouts, the types of music used for their liturgies and the availability of materials from so-called musical, liturgical, sacramental and theological "experts" that are shot through with destructive, dissident or downright heretical (yes, I said it) viewpoints.

    They have always believed, and continue to believe and promote the notion that chant and sacred polyphony is little more than a choice among equal choices, and not what the Mind of the Church sets forth as the quintessential music of the Mass. Their history informs us of their intent, and the fact that what happened at this convention is no different than what happened 5 years ago demonstrates that they aren't advancing chant and polyphony, they're merely throwing us a bone, meager scraps, in the hopes that we'll accept the gesture as one of appeasement and respond in kind.

    Has the CMAA truly earned the respect of the NPM, or are they merely ensuring that enough of us believe that their intentions and actions vis-a-vis chant and sacred polyphony are noble and genuine so as to turn a blind eye to the remaining drek they peddle? Has the NPM truly engaged in actions that merit the respect of the CMAA, or am I justified in being suspicious and cautious?
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    It isn't possible in St. Peter's. Gamber goes into why in his book, mentioning that the current altar is positioned over the altar of the original church and the apostle's tomb. Evidently, the current church is considerably larger than the original. He also mentions that in the time of, and in churches built by Constantine and his mother, everyone turned to face the rising sun during the consecration through a doorway in the east wall of the church. If you haven't read his book, I would recommend it highly.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    David Andrew, it is possible to so desire respect, that we actually fawn over - forget fawn, since we are being honest - to suck up to another person or organization. Is that the case with us vs NPM? Not sure.

    I used to belong to NPM as long as the parish paid for the membership. The pastor said, at one point, that he believed we had grown beyond what NPM offered, so he dropped the memberships. I didn't want to belong enough to spend my own money on it.