The spiritual and theological riches of the OF
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    Did Cardinal Heenan ever explain what it was about the 'kind of ceremony' that he thought would be so destructive? Bugnini implies that it was the emphasis on music.

    The ceremony was intended to represent a parish Sunday Mass
    congregation, small choir, lector, cantor, and two servers. One celebrant.
    Chant from Graduale Simplex, and thus congregation expected to participate.
    Bugnini : "It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success." Not, he thought, because of the performance, but the venue, and congregation (of prelates) was not disposed to imagine themselves into the role of ordinary parishoners.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 798
    Latin masses wouldn't have made much difference

    This seems an argument against the changes, if (in effect) the huge disruption and effort needed to switch rites was more or less a waste of time.

    While the litany of chaos is valid, what is routinely overlooked is that the reform itself also dates from this same period. Yet somehow it magically escaped all the misguided notions, poorly thought-out mantras, foolish assumptions and harmful theories so prevalent in those days?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    Remember that apart from most offshore bits, almost all Europe had experienced conquest and occupation by foreign armies in the early 40s. Eire, Portugal, Switzerland, and Sweden were the only countries that had not engaged in war. The people who came of age after that were not inclined follow the ways of their fathers without question. Very few Anglophone people had this experience, though there were many families with fathers away at war.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 238
    And as far as Germany is concerned, the youth of the 50s and 60s had the vague notion that the generation of their fathers might not have given them a good example to follow.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    the assertion in the Gospels that Jesus was fulfilling the prophesies is fundamental, but pretty meaningless if you don't hear the prophets.


    IIRC, priests could actually do the homework and draw the connections during the sermon. But they didn't, did they? So .........pin the tail.........
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    dad29 - and your point is?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    @a_f_hawkins
    Did Cardinal Heenan ever explain what it was about the 'kind of ceremony' that he thought would be so destructive? Bugnini implies that it was the emphasis on music.

    He did, but I don't think it was ever written down, Colin Mawby has related a number of conversations he had with the Cardinal on this topic. If I remember correctly the Cardinal was not happy with the fussiness of the new form, the micro managing of the congregation, you must do this you must do that, you must all do the same thing.
    Bugnini : "It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success."

    Bugnini was right once and has even shown a measure of foresight... purple text end...

    Anyway the Cardinal was correct our churches here have been emptied of young men...
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    Yes Heenan foresaw correctly, but I have never seen discussion focus on the issue of 'micro-managing'. It suggests that our fussing over orientation, language, texts, the pedigree of the rubrics, musical style etc. is either missing the point, or tackling them from the wrong angle.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    [rant]

    When the priest(s) turned around, he got his pantys all in a wad about the people... LOOKING at the people, WORRYING about the people, ENTERTAINING the people, THINKING about what they were doing, how the people were PARTICIPATING, what they were SAYING or worse, NOT saying, what they were SINGING, what their BODY was doing, how they were INTERACTING with each other, what they were WATCHING and if they were picking their noses, etc., etc, and et cet er a. The priest(s) should just turn (around) back to God and mind their own (and God's) darn (or other D word) business.

    [/rant]
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,516
    I seriously doubt most priests are even looking at the people. They are looking at what they are doing just like they did facing the other direction. Follow apostolic practice and both face true east and you won't have any problems.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    @CharlesW

    Come to our parish and see! Props during homilies (for instance) and group participation aids and directions for children to clap and stomp their feet. God deliver me. Those are some of the spiritual riches of our OF.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,516
    No, that's your crazy arse parish, not just the OF. We don't do any of that and our priests wouldn't put up with it.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins GerardH JL
  • Charles,

    Is what your parish priests do their own personal restoration, such that Francis' parish and yours are merely illustrating that there isn't a stable form of the rite, since what is permitted (or even required, Francis?) at one parish is forbidden at another?
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 478
    ..
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,516
    We make an honest effort to follow the rules and regulations as closely as humanly possible. We know the difference between good music and music that is not appropriate for sacred space and celebration. We decided some time ago that we can't fix the world or the church, but only do what we know is right in our own place.

    On an individual level, it can mean not soothing everyone's feelings or singing the mind-numbing ditty they heard at the more trendy parish. It has meant making it clear that "Let Us Entertain You," is neither our goal nor function. If that means being called cranky and curmudgeonly, I can live with that.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 873
    Any "riches" should/would be those passed on from the TLM.
    Enjoy this short (3ish minutes) video by our rector:
    https://www.facebook.com/137399903019092/posts/3013081102117610/
  • I like his analogy about grandparents (of course, that may strike home for me recently because I'm newly a grandfather, but it's a valid analogy independent of that) and I appreciate his description of grandparents' role in transmitting civilization!
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    And had the TLM practice conformed to what Trent called for, particularly in Session XXII, Ch VI and VIII there would have been less pressure for reform (here). But the riches were largely concealed from the faithful.
    What was added of value, in the opinion of Pope Benedict XVI was the choice of Eucharistic Prayers. "noteworthy for their inexhaustible theological and spiritual richness. (Sacramentum caritatis)", and as I said above the richness of the Old Testament readings, including the Psalms. I have, or had 65 years ago, enough Latin to unpack the Roman Canon, but actually hearing it in my own language 'in real time' was marvellous.
  • Hawkins,

    I dislike having to disagree with you and Pope Benedict at the same time, so I will try not to do so. It seems to me that the new Eucharistic Prayers, if they added "inexhaustible theological and spiritual richness", did so in such a way as to allow the wretched translations we had for decades. I haven't heard the new translations of these prayers, so I will refrain from disagreeing on that point. I have the Latin of these prayers at home, so I must consider whether there truly are theological and spiritual riches there.

    I'm unimpressed by the claim that there is much richness in the choice of new OT readings, in part because of what has been removed elsewhere. We shouldn't confuse quantity with quality.

    Could you explain what you mean by
    had the TLM practice conformed to what Trent called for, particularly in Session XXII, Ch VI and VIII there would have been less pressure for reform


    My history may be lacking in important respects, but there was no clamoring for reform of the Mass between 1900 and 1962 of which I am aware, except in houses where the faith was taught deficiently.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    Trent said
    the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people
    that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the young children ask bread, and there be none who shall break it unto them, the holy synod charges pastors, and all those who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound, either by themselves or others, some portion of those things which are read at the mass,

    But the rubrics did not provide for it, and pastors did not do it. We had a sermon at just one of the Sunday Masses, and that was more likely to be about a moral issue of the day than the prayer offered by the church or the readings.
    In England I believe there was little clamour for liturgical reform, apart from a small measure of the vernacular. However the situation in seminaries was probably different judging from what the clergy did once the changes had come in. As I pointed out above, in the European countries which had been fought over there was very considerable demand for change. And if there was little demand for reform, how come Baltimore forbade any use of Latin in 1967, as soon as the English translation of the TLM was complete?
  • Hawkins,

    I'll go look up the Trent session, to see what context there is.

    The rubrics didn't provide for expounding, and it didn't take place, although Pius V's Missal was the fruit of Trent. It would be worth exploring why.

    As to the question of Baltimore, most Catholics I know (so, it's anecdotal, not evidentiary) didn't receive any explanation before the altar rails were ripped out, or the altars destroyed, or other mauling of the churches or the expression of the faith took place. They didn't clamor for the vernacular, and were horrified at the time, even if they have adjusted to the vernacular now.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    CGZ - LOL The views of the laity have never been relevant. Until they absent themselves and their wallets, by which time they are no longer an obedient flock. LOL duh
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Hawkins,

    Acknowledging the two truths you write, (that the bishops only pay attention when the collection plate is empty; that no one consulted the laity before engaging in reform in the name of the people) I must take issue with the unspoken claim: that the sensus fidelium is irrelevant.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    CGZ - so would I reject that claim (unspoken, unthought).
    I would say that I find very little appetite in the congregation for discussing liturgy, apart perhaps from music. In a congregation of 900 or so on Sundays, having a liturgy group/committee with membership open to anyone we rarely got a dozen, including the DM, the organist, the organiser of the readers, the chief usher, the head sacristan and one of the clergy; so four or five of us not ex-officio. How can one discern the sensus fidelium?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • OF or EF? If EF, the committee should be exactly three people: pastor, choirmaster, organist. Very occasionally (or, depending on specific circumstances) an MC should be present.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,119
    All riches go back to a common source, if one looks far enough. But since we're comparing 1962 & 1970, how is the permission to use Orlando Gibbons, JSB or the vernacular Cantique de Jean Racine not an enrichment?
  • Richard,

    That same permission also gives (in practice) much loathsome swill.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 7,287
    ...permission...much loathsome swill.
    Except, Chris, there really is no permission for all the stuff you mean by 'swill'. The truly sad and piteous truth is that neither 'Rome', nor 'The Vatican', nor successive popes seem really to have cared or to have been bothered about the chaos and disobedience, the '...loathsome swill'. They did nothing about it. Or, are they really powerless? Why did no 'Rome', nor any pope, nor anyone else speak up and say 'Stop! This is the opposite of what the Council said. There is no authority for what you are doing. You must do what the Council said to do'.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Jackson,

    You understand (he said, smiling) that by "swill" I don't mean the collected works of Ralph Vaughan Williams, Harold Darke, Sir Edward Bairstow, Herbert Howells,all that Anglican stuff, right?

    The documents were written with what we now understand were deliberately vague phrases, so that they could allow exactly what happened, and then some, but also allowed plausible deniability.

    The popes aren't bound by that wretched stuff, but they seem to have bound themselves, for reasons I prefer not to explore just for the moment.

    Thanked by 2tomjaw CCooze
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 7,287
    Chris -
    ...deliberately vague...
    Um, am I dense? What, pray, is vague about 'chant shall be preserved and fostered', our 'patrimony of choral music shall be preserved', 'choirs shall be assiduously cultivated', 'the people shall know their parts of the mass in Latin', etc., etc., plus, in all the Council's documents only one instrument (only one! - the organ) is mentioned as most suitable for Catholic liturgy. No other instrument, not one, is so much as mentioned. I see nothing vague, no ambiguity, at all. All I see is disobedience and deliberate wreckage of the Council's clear commands. I see authority to do these things. I see not even an inkling of authority to do just the opposite. I have heard more than one priest say 'I don't care what the Council said, I want....'. No one at the Vatican or elsewhere has the spine (or the desire?!) to set these disobedient monsters straight. They are really not 'Vatican Two People'. If they were they would be concerned to do what the Council actually said.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    From an old thread about a USCCB Directory for music.
    benedictgal January 2011
    The 2006 directory is still sitting at the CDWDS. It reminds me of that old ABC School House Rock jingle, "I'm just a bill and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill." When I went to the Gateway Liturgical Conference back in 2008, I commented to then-Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth (now Cardinal) who as secretary of the CDWDS at the time, about how a lot of the music used in the United States does not seem to jibe with the ars celebrandi that he spoke about in his address. He told me that the CDWDS was going to issue something soon that would address the issue that I brought up.

    Liturgiam authenticam #108 (28 March 2001)
    Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, ... Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Jackson,

    You're not being dense, no. These are the clear statements. I'll see if I can assemble a smattering of the relevant statements, however, to show that these clear, unambiguous statements can be relativized away, and that this was the intent of those who composed the documents. Someone may beat me to it, of course.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. ....
    The Church runs on individual responsibility, so it needs to be charged to 'each diocesan shall ensure that within his diocese ... ' It also needs the relevant Dicastery to take responsibity for enforcement, nobody seems to hold bishops' feet to the fire for the failure to ensure the teaching of Latin to every seminarian, as required by law.
    Can. 242 §1 In each country there is to be a Charter of Priestly Formation. ...
    Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, ...
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 873
    ...hold bishops' feet to the fire for the failure to... ______


    If one tries to tell one's bishop what Canon Law says about this and that - what he isn't supposed to be doing, and what he is supposed to be doing - one could very well be attacked on many fronts, because "bishops are chosen by God!" "YOU are not the bishop!" and "the bishop is in control of his diocese!"
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 7,287
    Mrs Cooze is, of course, correct in her assessment of bishops. However, when they do things that they have no authority to do, and do the very opposite of what they do have authority to do, someone needs to set them straight. They really are not little gods. They are, indeed, little humans who have thumbed their noses at the Council and are in need of some very stern disciplining. Their superiors, the pope, 'The Vatican', the Council have not done so out of not caring or sheer cowardice. Few beside us care.