Kathy,

With all due respect, is this really the proper forum to raise this discussion? I know Fr. Ruff to be a firm supporter of chant, the sacred arts, and beautiful liturgy. That is in full accord with the principles of CMAA, and it does not do good to denigrate him on this site. If you have problems with other aspects of his ministry, perhaps it would be better to engage in respectful discussion on another forum.

There is no timeless, unchanging, “accurate” translation.

And that is one of the main reasons Latin WILL BE the official language of the Church until the end of time. It is why serious composers of sacred music will always defer to Latin as the standard for composing... timeless, unchanging, universal. The FAD and NOVELTY of the heavy emphasis on the use of vernacular at Mass will over time, disappear.

"Continuity" is not an agenda; it was the basis on which the Church was established and developed over the entire history of its theological praxis. "Discontinuity" was the irregular heart beat that occurred in the entire life of the church, and "continuity" is the church returning to a normal pattern of living.

Even if vernacular is here to stay, it's not normative for the Mass, according to the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It's allowable, but not normative.

The views of Fr Ruff (and I agree with doneill that we should be respectful of a true scholar of chant and proponent of sane liturgy the likes of which are rare and almost worth their weight in gold) as perceived through the limited examples of his verba which Kathy offers above, would indeed seem to be representative of that post-modern relativism against which Holy Father Benedict spoke at the beginning of his papacy. All meaning (and, perhaps, reality itself), as I understand this stance, is relative to the individual's or the community's experiential understanding, and, thus, there is no objective truth. Thus, 'et cum spititu tuo' (for one example) has no objective positive nor negative, nor immutable sense other than what a given person or group would make of it within the quite limited environment of his/their own experience or understanding. This makes all of us and all our societies into, essentially, provincial, atomised, entities, each of which is a (very relative) law unto itself (one thinks of Aristotle's folk viewing shadows in the cave). This makes it impossible, ultimately, to assert any ontological categories, or that they even exist; outside of the contextual experience or thought world of one or more like-minded persons there is no reality, no objective truth. This has obvious implications for the veracity of the Church's witness and teaching (assuming that the idea of veracity is expressive of some reality). Hence, for some 'Christians' of today, the resurrection is the 'resurrection event', which may or may not be the same thing as an actual resurrection (assuming that there is such a thing). I am not at all comfortable with labelling Fr Ruff as such a person. It would SEEM, though, that the quotations rendered above would lend themselves, perhaps out of context, to such an interpretation. I genuinely respect him think that we should ask him for clarification, rather than make conclusions which may not be accurate assessments of his thought.

(As a brief footnote, I am moved to observe that it seems to me that those who dislike and detest 'and with your spirit' as a translation of 'et cum spiritu tuo' are really upset at the projection of this meaning into our consciousness and public worship. The ontological references are rather indisputable, the meaning plain as day; further, if the Romans had meant the rather stupid sounding and inept 'and also with you' they would have said 'et tecum' in no uncertain words.)

ISTM there is a difference between talking about a quote you came across on the interwebs, and turning it into a discussion of this person's personal "liturgical sense," or "philosophy."

is not so much a product of development as of engineering. It's not a populist movement at all

This.

Most "populism" is that way.

Adam, respectfully what does "fellow progressives" mean? I'm confused, and maybe it has nothing to do with the thread...

We write too much about Fr. Ruff's eternal angst. Sturm und Drang, Sturm und Drang.

But there can be too much of a good thing - bad things too.

Can you have storm without stress? Good theological question? Some here routinely visit that infamous blog which must not be named, and get their shorts tied in knots over what the dark lord says there. Don't read it. I don't and my stress level stays lower.

I just played some Vernie (Lou Vernie) at church this morning...

Lou Vernie is good stuff. I am playing his Marche Episcopale soon. One of my favorite postludes.

.

Comme le prevoit again?

A priori analysis is quite rare, though, and since we do have the "de fructibus" test, and we know its pathetic results...

Hmmm. Did I say that?

It was not the people that wanted the Mass in the vernacular. If it had been it would not have happened, just as today we are unable to get chant back in the church as it should be.

Just like today's episcopal church in which, when asked, TN episcopalians said they did not want an openly gay bishop to be installed...and the TN priests voted to have him installed.

The priests run the show today and did then as well. They made their bed and lie in it while we complain...and most of them do not care. I worked at a parish in the 70's with 5 priests, 4 young. Three of them went folk, identified with the people, bought campers and motorcycles and wore boots and flannel shirts as they came into church in front of the people on the way to vest for communion and today the three are long gone from the priesthood. The old priest pastor could be found mopping the church. He was a great guy. The other one may still be being groomed to be a bishop, a real politician...

No one ever, in my parish in the 1950's/60 expressed any interest in vernacular...and of course, they were never asked.

My favorite associate priest 1965 went on sick leave twice and was assigned to a hospital as chaplain both times. In 1971 I was enrolling at a college and he was in line behind me...and the counseling center he founded now carries his name. It was impressive that he determined what he should be doing in life and did it. He never married, just moved on to where we was doing what he wanted to do. He's the one when he came out on the altar during advent and lent we were able to turn the organ off. He gave me his Liber then....guess I should have figured something was up.

The opposite position, Catholic Choirbook, can't be demonstrated. It's like saying "Demonstrate that the people wantedthe priest to face them for all of Mass, or "Demonstrate that the people wanted an end to Meatless Friday".

"The people" is an amorphous blob used by all sorts of people, so that their own opinions can appear to be acceptable.

Well stated MJO.

MJO you are right on the money as usual.

Since he's a monk, he's Fr. Anthony, not Fr. Ruff. Just saying.

I think a lot of folks quietly voted with their feet, whole branches of families left entirely. Where the liturgy was considered causal or trite it sent (sends) the message of "why bother? This is ok, bu nothing really special". People just leaving would help explain the emptier churches. Ok, that and more (most) Catholics using birth control.

I suppose what is most troubling to me, and perhaps one cannot attribute this to Fr. Ruff, is the way the liturgical culture of our time is not so much a product of development as of engineering. It's not a populist movement at all. It has been imposed. I can't imagine any reason why such a contrivance should take precedence over long-standing, slow-developing tradition.

I take issue with this statement, though not its author, so please correct/enlighten/elucidate: the Mass of Pius V, the fruit of the Council of Trent, was itself an answer to the liturgical reforms of the Reformation. Let's take care how we use terms like "engineer" and "contrivance."

It implies elevation of local ideas above those of the normative form, through which our faith is transmitted and of which Rome is ultimately the guardian. It also begs the question of the appropriate locality. The Anglo-sphere? North America? The USA? Minnesota?

IanW, this is exactly the issue for Fr. Ruff, I expect: it's really a question of ecclesiology. It's obvious that he favors local over normative, even if he would deny it. It's really Kasper vs. Ratzinger ideas here, especially if you read the recent PT discussion on the new wording of the baptismal ritual.

"****** it" [Anglo-Saxon vernacular]

I've often thought that swearing should be "excused" with the phrase "Pardon my English."