I guess I’m a bit puzzled by the question asked at the Pray Tell blog: given the reform of the reform (and, implicitly, the renewed interest in the old form of the Roman Rite), what is the future of the liturgist? The post asks: “Will the Reformers of the Reform send us ‘back’ to a day where such professionals and scholars could never make a living as full time liturgists?”
I had a hard time following the question actually. If one is a liturgist, that would presume a specialization in liturgy and, in particular, rubrics, music, liturgical items, vestments, and all that is associated with liturgy. Why would a shift toward greater solemnity and greater seriousness about liturgy (which is how I see the “reform of the reform”) threaten that job? After all, so far as I can tell, there is a huge shortage of competent Masters of Ceremony right now; they have to be flown across several states whenever there is a solemn high Mass right now. We could many more, not fewer, MCs.
I suspect there is some sociological history behind the way in which the author of the post is using the term liturgist here.
I suspect their idea of liturgy requires a creativity that professional liturgists are supposed to be trained for. In this respect, the reform of the reform would imply a stifling of that creativity, a return of rubricism.
The problem with creativity in that sense is that decisions must be made as to which segment of the clientelle is to be favoured. If you design a hootenany Mass, then I would expect you are excluding those who appreciate the beauty of Palestrina polyphony. Creativity to suit the majority clientelle normally excludes the minority.
This can be compared to the TLM, which is the same for kings as well as peasants, for professors as well as little children, etc. No matter where the TLM is celebrated it is always the same, a communion for all Catholics dead and living through the ages. Each word of the rubrics is like an angel that is a messenger of holiness for the celebration.
As for the Pray Tell blog, I do not know why you concern yourself with it. There is so much intollerance of contrary opinion there that I doubt there are any more traditionally minded folks participating in the discussions.
The sooner the custody of the Mass is returned to its rightful rubric-minded steward, i.e., the priest, and taken out of the hands of the banal lovers of the trite, the better.
Because of the fact that Pray Tell is an anti-Catholic blog, I suggest you do not add legitimacy to its protests and bleats by posting here about it.
A professional notion of the liturgist as a creative (for creativity's sake) person isn't to be found among progressives.
I think Rita Ferrone's comment on that thread is most helpful. As for "a specialization in liturgy and, in particular, rubrics, music, liturgical items, vestments, and all that is associated with liturgy," these would be the roles of the sacristan, except for the musical part.
My sense of the liturgist's role in the parish is to function as the pastor's representative–as a teacher and pastoral minister. The specifics of liturgical reform and initiatives for the parish would be part of a liturgist's job, or ministry, if you will. I think that job description might include the roles of sacristan and master of ceremonies–mine has. Most parish liturgists do what the pastor wants them to do. It varies from place to place, but essentially I think the role will be with us for another few decades.
Long-term, I have my doubts about it being a keeper.
Todd, were your pastor to tell you he wanted to begin celebrating Missa Cantatas according to the EF and eventually work towards Solemn High Masses and then Pontifical Masses, would you do the required research and become an MC? Or would you leave your post?
I'm very curious as to how you would move forward, were that the direction said Pastor wanted to move.
All the best – your loyal reader.
Well, I could do the research and function well. I would have to be persuaded it was a better use of my time and talent than managing volunteers, supervising a student liturgy team, teaching, meeting with married couples, and the other things I do that I think forward the mission of the parish and the Gospel on our campus.
I also think a spiritual discernment would be in order. I don't believe any of us serve in lay ministry for our own sakes. If another person could do the job better than I, that would be a strong consideration for leaving.
Curiosity satisfied?
Mine's further piqued, Todd. What does your "student liturgy team" do, and what is the nature of your supervision?
Our parish has five active student teams, each for one of five areas of ministry: liturgy, social justice, outreach, community life, and a new 5th one for international student events. Except for the new one, each has a peer minister who convenes and leads.
The team assigned to liturgy oversees student involvement at two Masses per week, one on Sunday, one on Thursday night. They also plan and carry out various events connected to the spiritual life of students.
I suppose I find these questions themselves curious. I don't have a problem answering questions–it's a large part of my role in the parish. And I'm happy to engage in a civil conversation on this site. I guess I wonder why these aspects of parish life would be so surprising. What is it that you think we would do at the Catholic parish assigned to a large public university?
Thanks for the answer, Todd. Conversation about liturgy is frequently hindered by misunderstanding of terms – either one party doesn’t understand what the other’s talking about, or worse still both parties mean different things by the same word (it could be worse – at least we’re not Anglicans). Hence my questions about your use of the term ‘liturgist’, and Jeffrey’s piece under which this discussion is taking place. In respect of Catholic liturgy, I believe I see the label applied to three types of individual: the scholar with a specialism in liturgical history; the layman charged with organising the practicalities of liturgical ritual (who would be known hereabouts as an MC or sacristan); and the active proponent of a particular approach to the liturgy.
I thought about suggesting as a fourth type those with a particular interest in current liturgical rubrics, but as that would or should describe any of the three – or indeed, any priest – it’s not really a category in its own right.
I would be interested to know which of these categories the responsibilities of your student liturgical team puts it into; and which you use when you suggest the Holy Father isn’t enough of a liturgist to make the right decisions about liturgical policy and practice.
Thanks for the response, Ian. I appreciate the penetrating questions.
I'd observe that parish liturgists operate in a not so clear-cut set of delineations. Speaking for myself, my academic specialty is systematic theology (that's what my alma mater would tell you) I've made a serious study of liturgy. You should be able to tell from my website that my interest is in the practical or pastoral side of liturgy, so that certainly includes your fourth type.
I oversee those in my parish who function as MC's and sacristans. I don't see my role as a doer, necessarily. We are a teaching parish in the sense that we prepare students for adult life in their future Catholic parishes. So the pastor agrees my priority is to get students involved as widely and as deeply as they are willing. Some serve as music directors, others as masters of ceremony. But most are just getting their feet wet in lay liturgical ministry. And that's an important aspect, too.
If parishioners were doing this instead of me, then I would see my role evolving to something different. Or potentially, I would move on to implement a full lay involvement in another parish.
In addition to some of the above, the student team also works to discern and enact policy. One matter we plan to look at this coming year is the significant student involvement as lectors versus a relatively light involvement as ministers of Communion. Strangely enough, we have many students involved as sacristans. But it's curious we don't for select other ministries. Why? I have a few guesses. But in this case, I want the student liturgy team to think about it, consult their peers, pray about it, and come up with answers, but also a strategy to welcome more students to involvement.
Also, at the risk of opening up another flare war, I'm going to say your last paragraph doesn't quite match what I've said about the pope and the curia. I'd prefer to take that discussion off thread. Contact me by e-mail (you can find it on my site) and I'll respond in length.
Ted, anon: Mr. Tucker reads Pray Tell so the rest of us don't have to, a service that I find invaluable. It's good to know what the other side is plotting.
I'm going to say your last paragraph doesn't quite match what I've said about the pope and the curia.
With all due respect, Todd, I accurately reported your views on the Holy Father's competence in matters of liturgical policy and practice (I didn't comment on your views on the Curia): you wrote that he is unable to "inspire a renewed look at the reformed liturgy" because he "is no liturgist". I found this judgement so breathtakingly wrong (not distressing) that I began to look for an explanation in your definition of the term, and was encouraged in my search by Jeffrey's post, which seems to have been sparked by similar considerations. I have concluded that you use the term 'liturgist' in in a special sense of my third category: one who is an active proponent of progressive liturgical ideas.
I suspect that's a fairly common assumption amongst those who speak of the need for liturgists, but it doesn't really get us anyware: the argument that His Holiness isn't competent to make decisions that aren't considered progressive, because he isn't a liturgical progressive, is circular.
Maybe I've missed something. If I have, please accept my apolgies. I'll drop you a line, as you suggest, to give you the opportunity to put me right!
Thanks for the response, Ian. Rather than put your own admitted interpretation, let me clarify:
My observation is that Pope Benedict is advised poorly on the situation of liturgy in the world. Repeatedly in his statements in books and what is quoted on conservative websites I find to be out of keeping with what is actually happening in parishes. This is not a surprise: the CDWDS itself welcomes negative views from people all over the world, rather than count on the more difficult path: actually getting out into the parishes and making assessments in person. They are slaves to the Culture of Complaint.
For a man with a remarkable grasp of Scripture and of many theological strands, I find very little of depth in the pope's writings on liturgy. Compared to other liturgical scholars, I think he comes up short. But he's the pope, and as such, he has other duties and responsibilities to the Church. But I use the term "liturgist" in the academic sense of a scholar. As a priest and bishop, he is obviously a "practical" liturgist. But liturgy or liturgical knowledge isn't really a prerequisite of either role, is it?
I'm of the opinion that the Roman Rite continues to need reform, both in the spheres of legislation, as well as policy. I don't think that's happening with this pope. Catholics need to be more inspired to come to liturgy, and once there, to return regularly. Stilted language and aristocratic table settings on the altar aren't up to the job. We need a better emphasis on ars celebrandi, on better preaching and music, and on evangelization. Maybe we're getting something of the latter with the new dicastery. I hope.