Is the Reform of the Reform a real possibility?
-
I have been considering the Reform of the Reform movement quite a bit lately, and have been thinking back to a series of articles on NLM about the Reform of the Reform by Fr. Cipola, Prof. Kwasniewski, Mgr Elliott, and many other remarks concerning the RotR movement I've heard over the years. I have been wondering, Is it really even a possibility?
While I have always believed in the goals of CMAA - sing the Mass, don't sing at Mass - I have come to believe that the Novus Ordo Missae is, except in the hands of a certain elite, completely incapable of being celebrated according to the wishes of Vatican II and the tradition of the Church.
We are told that the treasury of sacred music, especially Gregorian chant, is a treasure of inestimable value, and is to be given first place in liturgical services. Obviously the Council Fathers had more in mind that the mode vi Easter Alleluia and Sanctus XVIII when the said this. We are also told that sacred polyphony, especially of the Roman School, is to be esteemed -- but the only polyphony heard are short motets plugged in by a choir to replace one element of the Four Hymn Sandwich.
I was thinking, we are to hold these to things in highest esteem: Why? What is so wonderful about these to repertories of music to make them so important? What are the crowning achievements of these repertories? I believe that the crowning glories of the Gregorian repertoire are the Gradual and Alleluias - the chants between the readings, and that the crowning glories of the polyphonic repertoire are the great Masses written by so many Masters. And yet: apart from a few specialist cases: Solesmes, Brompton Oratory, CMAA Colloquiua, these are never used. Why? Because the Novus Ordo is, on account of its truncation, its insistence on brevity, on 'clarity', its democracy in completely incapable of bearing the weight of this repertoire. It is too hierarchical, too transcendent, too 'vague', and, above all, too substantial to be borne by the Novus Ordo Mass.
The focus, particularly of the chants between the readings has changed: We no longer speak of 'meditation chants' that help us into a spirit of recollection, of repose; We speak of the Gospel Acclamation, a short respond that says 'here it comes' and we are annoyed at the delay of having to endure the final repetition of that simple three-fold Alleluia, that we can't get on with it -- on to the important thing.
The same is true of the Kyrie and Sanctus and Gloria (less the Agnus since the fraction takes place during this) -- Of any piece of music that happens for its own sake: It's only in interruption of the liturgy: we have to stop the liturgy for this interminable chant: Kyriieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeleyson. 'Can't we just get on with it?' Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanctus. 'Here they go again'.
These chants were developed, these masterpieces composed, with a different spirit that that of the Novus Ordo. They are too transcendent, too beautiful, to truly find a place in the 'banal, on the spot product' (Joseph Card. Ratzinger) that is the Novus Ordo Missae: They do not fit. O, they may work in the hands of a few specialist clerics (Pasley, Ratzinger, Sample, Wadsworth) and congregations (Oratory, CMAA), but they do not work in the mainstream.
After Colloquium 2012 someone, I can't remember who, opined on the internet that they didn't see why the Novus Ordo had to be celebrated like the Old Mass - couldn't it just be what it is, without resorting to 1962? This is the problem: the Novus Ordo is so FAR removed from the Liturgical Tradition of the Roman Rite, that it is simply impossible to insert the music of that Tradition into it, it simply doesn't work: not with the average priest, the average congregation. It does not suit the spirit of the Paul VI Mass. And I don't think that this spirit of banality and brevity is simply on account of a mis-reading of the documents: I think it is part of the very nature of the thing.
As much as I had hoped that Reform of the Reform will be successful, it cannot be, because what our goals are is to force the Novus Ordo to be something it was never meant to be: Transcendent. -
I believe that the crowning glories of the Gregorian repertoire are the Gradual and Alleluias - the chants between the readings, and that the crowning glories of the polyphonic repertoire are the great Masses written by so many Masters. And yet: apart from a few specialist cases: Solesmes, Brompton Oratory, CMAA Colloquiua, these are never used. Why?
I wonder how widespread these things were prior to the Council. My sense is.... not very.
It seems to me that it is not the Ordo itself that limits their use. -
Rogue63: Ven. Paul VI was well within his right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean that it was prudent. I don't think that liturgical reform is a matter of faith and morals - previous popes issued liturgical reforms that were implemented, deemed not to work for various reasons, and then revoked by their successors.
Of course more people are being received into the OF than the EF, because there are more OF parishes - just as there are more people being received into the OF than the Ordinariate Use, or the OF than the Dominican Rite - I don't think that that's a valid argument.I wonder how widespread these things were prior to the Council. My sense is.... not very.
Adam: you're right there, it's true, but at least the chants of the Graduale were designed for that rite, even if simpler alternatives had to be employed for various reasons.
What my feeling (gosh I hate that word) is, is that the Novus Ordo was designed/composed/whatever, without reference to the chants of the Graduale - I think that this is evinced by the fact that the majority of the texts of the Missal/Lectionary and Gradual for any given mass are completely different, there is little connexion betwen the two books, and it gives the impression - which most people hold - that the Graduale Romanum is of complete irrelevance to the Novus Ordo.
I know what I'm trying to say, but I don't know if I've phrased it properly. (I am not a philospher, though, if I had kept my mouth shut, you might have thought I was.) I just think that RotR is an impossibility, the rite was not written is such a way as to bear the weight of this music.
[Also, before anyone accuses my of being some kind of sede vacantist: Francis is the Pope, all of the rites promulgated by Paul VI are valid, Vatican II is part of the magesterium of the Church, and St John Paul II and St John XXIII were validly canonized.]Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
What is very unclear is what Salieri means by the words "Reform of the Reform". Typically, what CMAA means by them is the normalization of the first (and arguably most excellent) options in the Ordinary form: Propers, Choral Ordinary, Chanted Mass, celebration facing East, use of Latin, etc.
What Salieri seems to mean by "Reform of the Reform" is a re-writing of the Ordinary Form altogether into something that will more closely resemble, both in theory and in practice, the Extraordinary Form. He is NOT alone in this view, nor in using the label to refer to this view.
We should be clear when using such a vague word. I think most people, especially here, see the "Reform of the Reform" as being my first interpretation. It seems to me sort of an (hopefully) unintentionally misleading tactic to refer to reform of the actual books as RotR. It gathers up allies who don't necessarily take that position. For example, I would guess that most people here, while perhaps being not unsympathetic to a change in the Missal, do not strive after this.
As for the question, "possibility" is a big word. Probable in our lifetimes is a smaller way to look at it. The RotR #1 is more a process than a result. And we have seen the success of it, though that success has been limited. To be blunt, just as Pope Benedict led the cultural trends that made this success possible, Pope Francis is leading a culture in the Roman Rite that will hamper continued progress, or even undo the progress we have seen. The best hope for us is for the next pope to simply stay out of the way. If that happens, and if the RotR #1 crowd can work entirely on grass-roots energy, we may see successes again after Francis's reign ends.
RotR #2 will not happen in our lifetimes. Few in the curia have an interest in changing the Missal in such a way, or so radically. And even if there was curial support, the pope would oppose it. I suspect that even if there was a Pope Burke (God forbid) he would not support radical reforms of the Missal. Even he would know that there would be a revolt in parish churches everywhere if Latin were mandated, or if ad orientem were defined as the only option. -
Gavin, you hit it, maybe not intentionally, but you did:As for the question, "possibility" is a big word. Probable in our lifetimes is a smaller way to look at it. The RotR #1 is more a process than a result. And we have seen the success of it, though that success has been limited. To be blunt, just as Pope Benedict led the cultural trends that made this success possible, Pope Francis is leading a culture in the Roman Rite that will hamper continued progress, or even undo the progress we have seen. The best hope for us is for the next pope to simply stay out of the way. If that happens, and if the RotR #1 crowd can work entirely on grass-roots energy, we may see successes again after Francis's reign ends.
If the success RotR#1 (which is what I had in mind) seems to hinge solely on the personal flavour of a particular pope, what is there that makes the Ratzinger-Mahrt paradigm for the OF more valid than any other paradigm, especially as it seems to me that certain parts of that paradigm (of which personally I am in complete favour) seem out of step with the spirit of the Bugnini Liturgy. Maybe I'm rambling, but I do have these nagging doubts as to the validity of RotR (#1 or #2). -
Henry, I believe you have fleshed out your concerns quite coherently and passionately.
At a certain moment I also believe each of us realizes to some degree that as regards ars celebrandi goes, it all boils down to "think globally, act locally." Theoretically that IS antithetical to "catholicism," but as Adam pointedly reminded us, it's likely been (the think maxim) this way since day one. The Epistles themselves inasmuch say so.
But between the two judgment paradigms: 1.Liturgical/Pastoral/Musical; and 2. Sacred/Universal/Beautiful? I will choose the latter every time and believe that ipso facto satisfies the former. -
and if the RotR #1 crowd can work entirely on grass-roots energy
I think you're onto something here, Gavin, and I think this was Pope Benedict's plan as well and in a sense replaced old ROTR movement: allow the two forms of the Roman rite to co-exist and inform each other on the local level and, while it may be uneasy and awkward for a while (since adherents to each form feel obliged to guard their respective turfs) eventually a working relationship will evolve between the two and mutual enrichment can take place (as we see happening every day on this forum!)
This is my own personal belief: I think the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" as envisioned in Karol Wojtyla's seminal work, Sources of Renewal basically called for a shift in attitudes and not at all a shift in doctrine and liturgy, if that makes sense, and if that Vatican II spirit of solidarity, or "community" could just be imbued into the framework, or body, of the Extraordinary Form, then you'd really have something: the solemnity, majesty and profound Scriptural symbolism of the old combined with the outward focus and original enthusiasm, solidarity, welcome and emphasis on participation of the new.
An honest recognition and assessment of the strong points and weak points of each
is required if progress is to be made in reconciling the two forms of the Roman rite, and I think that's the challenge Pope Benedict left for us.
Re-reading Summorum Pontificum is very instructive, esp. this:There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.Thanked by 1Salieri -
Okay, everyone, it's my bride's 60th birthday, and I found her two perfect dresses on my own! It may not be a good day for Melo in MSF Land, but I'm enjoying being married to the world's finest wife. So there!
And continued prayers for Chuck's lovely Patricia, FNJ's LN, G and Wendi's respective Himselves and all spouses without whom we couldn't have achieved whatever level of competence in our lives and careers. -
I think that this is a conversation that needs to happen among those of us who are members of CMAA and exponents of the so-called 'Reform of the Reform' - just what exactly is it that we are trying to do, and is it even possible to do it (whatever it is), and is it (whatever that may be) what should be done.
I know there are excellent resources out there now, not least among them Adam Bartlett's work, but will they actually gain any traction? Or will LCSG simply sit on the library shelf next to the Offertoriale Triplex and the Barenreiter Urtext of Josquin Masses, gathering dust, while the Old War Horses of the Four Hymn Sandwich ride into battle again? -
The confusion of music is only a symptom of an ontological problem--the questioning of the entire body of Catholic theology. All things (music) we produce at this time that are outside of the traditional Mass are all novelties on some level or another, either looking back or looking forward, but novelties just the same, and will suffer sway by hierarchical personalities who tend this way or that. This is why I do not participate in composing anything in English, and refuse to subscribe to the alius cantus aptus, of which hymnody falls to the 'number four'. It all is a very temporary situation, and why the church is in 'eclipse'.Thanked by 1Felicity
-
I think that depending on the exact definition of Reform of the Reform, change is possible and is happening all over.
We don't sing much Haugen, Haas, or even Joncas at all. On occasion, but such occasion is rare. We use contemporary settings of the propers by Motyka, Tietze, and others. We have taught the congregation to sing the Salve Regina and Regina Caeli in latin, and they sing both VERY WELL.
If all of that doesn't point to progress from what was happening in this very church ten years ago (I have the liturgy sheets, so there's no question what was being sung), then I don't know what progress is.
Will our priest ever say mass facing the East? Probably not. Will we ever move to using exclusively Latin ordinaries all year round? I doubt it. Will we ever stop singing hymns at mass? I can't imagine it.
But where is the victory? We have reintroduced - with great success - a real sense of the sacred into the mass. And with our venacular settings of the propers, and the chanting of the dialogues at our choir mass, we are making real strides in SINGING THE MASS instead of singing AT the mass.Thanked by 1bkenney27 -
I should add, on rare occasions we also use polyphonic settings of the Ordinary, and on a very regular basis we use a choral Agnus Dei and Kyrie. This practice should not simply be lost to time.
But I don't share the OP's view that it is sad if these practices become mostly neglected. I think choral Ordinary settings should not be the norm. Vatican II really DID intend to change some things. And I think that yearning for days that may or may not have really existed in the past when the choir sang an excusite 10 minute Sanctus while the people zoned out or prayed the rosary is misplaced nostalgia. Just my point of view. -
I think that too many conversations about the RotR (and too many people involved with it, probably) suffer from a progressivist viewpoint- that things can be fixed if only everyone (or enough of the right people) agree to a program which can be implemented. That this is discussed variously as a grass-roots movement does not make it any less of a program.
The core problem of the 20th Century - in economics, politics, religion - is precisely this idea, this progressivist desire for implementing programs.
It is how liturgy got off the rails of organic development in the first place.
And I fear the programitization of the traditionalist trend/movement into THE REFORM OF THE REFORM ® - complete with goals, tactics, camps, parties, and leaders - will be the efficient cause of its demise.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
Another thing to keep in mind is that in our modern culture of "I want it and I want it now" is not the way the RotR will happen. This is a large ship that needs to make a 360 deg turn. It will happen if you keep the rudders turned in that direction but it takes a long time to do get 'er done.
We certain should not expect to have it happen in our gen but maybe in the next or the next after that.
I think Adam Bartlett is doing it the exact right way. He is taking the documents at face value, creating simple melodies in the vernacular based on the original melodies and making them available to the masses. But he doesn't stop there. I hear he is helping out in one of the most "liberal" (for lack of a better word) minded seminaries in the US. He is taking the message and the works and teaching it to the priest who will be using it in decades to come.
Or how about at St. Annes in San Diego where there is a Chant Camp that nearly 150 children will be in attendance this year.
These are positives that will continue to change the landscape. The rudder is turned and we are just starting to move the ship. Be patient and do something, anything in your area to promote a more Sacred Liturgy.
I started a Chant Camp in my own Parish this year. Even though there are only 6 people signed up, I only thought I would get 2 or 3. The Pastor has aslo signed up.
We sing propers at the 8am Sunday Mass for Entrance, Offertory and Communion and We sing the Marian Antiphon in Latin every week.
Let keep the ship a movin'
and give it time. -
Adam: you're right there, it's true, but at least the chants of the Graduale were designed for that rite, even if simpler alternatives had to be employed for various reasons.
In the average parish it could have been true that most of the time.
But it is essential to understand that there was a trickle down effect.
In the monasteries and seminaries the complex chants WERE sung. This then provided a model for future priests (and nuns who ended up running music programs) to attempt to achieve in the local church. And some did this very, very well. Cathedrals were often more apt, as well, to be more faithful to the ideal.
The NO people cut off the training for all of this and that's why it is gone.
The local efforts, the wonderful chant camps and all, ARE going to have an effect, not on the existing priests, but when these kids end up in the seminary or the convent. Chant camps have the ability to create future priests and nuns. In earlier times, the contact with sisters in the school created sisters and nuns, just as priests came out of altar boys.
Here in the south of the US many priests are converts so they have no Catholic tradition from childhood. -
360 hmmm...
Going around in circles with no sense of direction?
or
A group of people with the same political ideas, sitting in a circle looking inward?
And that is without the circular firing squad so popular with Traditionalists.
N.B. I describe myself as a Traditionalist. -
"Traditional is the new trendy."
There is a grass-roots movement towards a greater sense of tradition at the moment. It is found in two main groups known as the "Return" and the "Reform" schools of liturgy.
The "Return" school of thought is to abandon any Vatican II reforms to the liturgy and remain exclusively in the EF liturgy.
The "Reform" school of thought is to go back to the source documents and see that the reforms called for in Vatican II were actually quite moderate.
Adherents to these two schools of thought are usually fighting it out against each other, but don't realise just how much they have in common. More would be achieved if people from these two schools would co-operate.
Both schools of thought call for things such as:
1. General restoration of Gregorian Chant
2. Return to traditional gestures, music, etc
3. Getting rid of various silly novelties and abuses such as "clown masses"
4. A greater sense of Catholic identity
5. An end to false ecumenism
The "Reform" school is a real, and definite possibility. It is already happening very much at a grass-roots level where people have gotten sick of the happy-clappy music of the 70s and 80s and have realised that the "Christian Rock" of more recent times isn't actually prayerful.
In many places there has already been a return to more traditional hymnody, and other things such as vestments, traditional architecture, ceremonial, etc.
Late last year I co-ordinated a small choir for a wedding. A young couple specifically requested Missa Orbis Factor, Palestrina's "Sicut Cervus", The Gregorian Chant "Gustate et Videte" and "Soul of My Saviour" for their nuptial mass. Quite astounding, as they are a young couple, never had any connection with the Latin Mass communities or anything, but really loved the sound of chant and polyphony.
Like I keep saying: "Traditional is the new trendy."Thanked by 1ryand -
Perhaps we're not going to see your average suburban parish singing a Gregorian Chant ordinary every week, but there are a few places where this happens. Westminster Cathedral in London is an extraordinary place. I was there a few years ago and was astonished to hear 2,000 people singing the whole Orbis Factor from memory along with the Cantor and Organist.Thanked by 1JulieColl
-
There's another approach: the EF becomes the Monastic/Conventual liturgy, celebrated mostly in intentional communities devoted to it.
I am of the sense that, the gradual decline in regular sacramental participation by the faithful in general in the age between Late Antiquity to the High Middle Ages (the so-called, "Dark Ages", time when "parishes" as we think of them were not common outside cities) had varying fruits, and that the resacramentalization of the faithful in general in Pius X's sacramental revolution was very likely to eventually play out in an undermining of the long monastic/conventual foundation of "high" praxis in the liturgy. -
Adam is really in his own way expressing the thought of Cardinal Ratzinger. Remember, Card. Ratzinger called for the establishment of a New Liturgical Movement because he believed the old one had been hijacked.
He didn't, however, believe that this problem could be legislated away, and as Adam says, it was precisely the fact that we moved away from the centuries-long practice of organic development in the liturgy that got us into trouble in the first place.
Look at the two things Card. Ratzinger did as Pope:
1) he gave almost complete juridical FREEDOM to the old rite, ritual and breviary.
2) he led by example as far as the new rite is concerned, i.e., beautiful vestments, beautiful music, the Benedictine altar and Communion kneeling and on the tongue.
So, his program consisted of freedom for the old rite and leading by example for the new.
Really, quite beautiful and wise when you think about it. It gave people the space they needed to have a calm reappraisal of things, and in that freedom, probably much more was accomplished then if it had been mandated. He reached people's hearts that were open and gave encouragement to those looking for another option. -
What is Papa Francisco doing for either of the rites? At least is there music happening?2) he led by example as far as the new rite is concerned, i.e., beautiful vestments, beautiful music, the Benedictine altar and Communion kneeling and on the tongue -
gradual decline in regular sacramental participation by the faithful...
Liam would you please explain what you mean by this phase. I do know that here in England that participation in the liturgy was common. But the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament was not common, mainly due to the reverence that the average PIP had for this Sacrament. -
Communion on the tongue has been retained as the mode of distribution at papal Masses at Vatican City; see for example, the instruction being given on Palm Sunday 2014:
http://youtu.be/jBQ3E91S0TQ?t=1h58m35sThanked by 1JulieColl -
There are plenty of explanations for the decline in church attendance which do not have their origins in the liturgy. I've spoken with a number of people who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s and they inform me that there was something of a "general rebellion" in the attitudes of most people. If your parents told you to do something, then you didn't do it. There was also the rise of several other forces such as Communism/Socialism, Feminism, secularism, the sexual revolution, etc which all worked against people going to church.
To say that the new mass was the cause of everything is a bit of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument at times and requires one to completely ignore what was going on in the rest of the world at the time. -
hartleymartin: requires one to completely ignore what was going on in the rest of the world at the time.
True.
I would appreciate seeing posts here with URLs to any resources
that provide timelines to facilitate stacking up different disciplines
and more clearly seeing the full picture. -
I dunno, is it possible?
This person seems to think so!
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2015/2837.html -
In other words..
Come join the revolution. -
"...we are making real strides in SINGING THE MASS instead of singing AT the mass."
Just to add some historical perspective, this strikes me as exactly the mantra preached to me in my thoroughly modern liturgical music program, ca. 1990 (and based on theology more ca. 1975, if the back issues of Sacred Music assigned as extra reading are anything to go by). Of course, that Mass had nothing to do with Propers, and I suspect the singing of Propers (usually) by a schola/choir would strike my profs as a perfect example of the latter, bad practice. As anyone who has tried can tell you, implementing the singing of Propers, in any language, requires first establishing the Propers as an integral part of the modern Roman Rite. Until seminaries change significantly, that will remain an uphill battle.
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 Discussions21,107
- General Music Discussion7,594
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,001
- Opinions113