Much to my own delight and, to some extent, shock, the reform of the reform has become the most exciting and operative movement in the liturgical world today. After having been in the planning stages for longer than a decade, and even several, the reality has swept upon us with an astounding speed. The most conspicuous sign is the new translation that is to be implemented this coming Advent, but there is even more to it than this. The reform is touching every aspect of the liturgical face of the Roman Rite.
Let me take a step back and explain why this has come as quite the shock and why it represents the fulfillment of something seemingly impossible.
Since the first days of the first liturgical reform, the reaction has been mixed and contentious. Some were happy, some so disgusted that they walked away, some were indifferent, and there was a last group that stuck around but has been very disgruntled. Among those in the last group, there were two warring tribes: those who believed that it was possible to do better within the context of the reformed liturgy and those who saw no choice but to completely revert to the previous release from 1962.
These two sectors of people who saw the profound problems associated with the first reform were seriously at odds. Within Catholic punditry throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was a complete war zone. You had to choose sides, landing firmly in one camp or another. The split occurred down family lines, and Catholic magazines and institutions had to decide one way or another. Very few in those days had the vision of Benedict XVI, who imagined a peaceful coexistence between the camps, which is the vision embodied in Summorum Pontificum. Such a possibility was just not an option in those days.
For my own part, living in what is now called the ordinary form world, I was pretty sure that the traditionalists were correct, and my judgement was based on personal experience with the way bureaucracies work. For years I had heard arguments about how the reform of the reform should take place. Some imagined the re-institution of the Last Gospel while others say that portion of the liturgy to be completely unneeded. Others surmised that the real problem was just that celebrants were improvising too much; if they would just stick to the books, all would be well. That same time of argument persisted in nearly every aspect of the reform, from the choice of language to the choice of vestments.
Given this situation, I figured that a consensus would never arrive. I imagined a room of liturgists arguing about these finer points and never coming to any kind of agreement. The result would be deadlock and a decision to just keep the current structure and also translation in place as is, simply because the status quo is always the result of bureaucratic deadlock. To my way of thinking, the reform opened the can of worms and they multiplied to the point that no one would ever get them back in again. Hence, the only way forward was the way backward: straight to 1962 as the goal.
I can recall the moment when my thinking began to shift. It was about eight years ago when I first sat down with William Mahrt who asked me a very pointed question. “Is it your view,” he asked, “that Gregorian chant and polyphony can never be restored within the reformed liturgy?” I said, yes that is my view and cited a host of sociological and structural reasons. He paused. Then he said bluntly: I disagree. That got my attention! He proceeded to explain how had had managed to do this in his own parish and how he sings the full propers of the Graduale Romanum with his choir in a regular parish, and how the congregation sings from the Kyriale, and how he also uses full Mass settings in Latin from the Renaissance. And he showed me his repertoire list to prove it.
That one conversation made realize something important. As I had become more “hard core” on issues of liturgical politics, I had become gradually less able to envision opportunities for reform within the reformed liturgy. Maybe I had been making excuses for myself to do nothing? For all the differences in the new rite, it is still the Roman Rite and hence it embeds a sensibility that is crying out to be united with its native music. The relationship had been broken asunder mostly due to cultural convention and convenience; we had a job to do in going forward. I gradually began to see the light here and began the hard work of making some contribution to the effort.
Also, I began to realize something about any long-standing choice with regard to reform: dreaming of some idyllic past can be easily coupled with a casual despair to create a kind of gloss on lethargy. The real hard work comes with embracing a realistic hope and committing time and energy to make it happen.
Apparently much smarter minds than mine had been thinking along the same lines and for a much longer time, and I thank God for this. For in our own time, we are about to experience the biggest upgrade to the reform yet. The new translation is absolutely thorough and pervasive from the first words to Mass to the end. It is dazzling to compare what we’ve lived with for so long with what we are about to experience.
For one thing, if you look through the critiques of the reformed rite of 1969/70 – some profoundly sensible and some unnecessarily vitriolic – you find that a major portion of them deal with the language that is about to be abandoned in favor of a translation that actually reflects the content of the Latin. Whole libraries of criticisms of the Novus Ordo Missae are about to be made defunct with this one action. That’s not to say that there are not remaining problems in the Latin or the forthcoming English Missal. It is only to say that the most dreadful issues of all are on the verge of being eliminated.
About the current translation of the Missal, I’ve long been a critic, some would say bitter critic. But let me say this. There is a way in which the current translation it is brilliant. It likes the active voice. The sentences are short. It eliminates repetition. It speaks very plainly and is always to the point. It is also humane and connected to our lives. This is good writing, excellent writing. It is perfect for novels, newspapers, scripts, and advertising. Would that more people would write this way. However, as a method of liturgy, it doesn’t work. The idea was to make the liturgy more directly communicative; but the approach did not stand the test of time and, in the end, managed only to make the liturgy tedious. It was a brilliant but colossal error.
The adoption of a new framework for language has already given life to a new approach to imaging new and beautiful things within the ritual structure. I’ve received countless notes from directors of music who are planning dramatic changes with the new Missal, starting with the adoption of the Missal chants themselves. The Simple Propers Projects fits in nicely here. Many priests have written with great excitement about how the new Missal will give them a fresh start with their musicians, liturgy teams, and every manner of lay volunteers. In my own parish, many people have given money specially earmarked to make this transition possible.
In short, one way to look at the current moment is that the reformed liturgy is being given another chance to succeed, and this time it is happening at a time when the ritual of 1962 is more pervasive in the lives of Catholics than it has been in 45 years. Traditionalists have always been correct on this point: the Mass of the Ages must be the guiding framework, the bedrock from whence all reform must flow. In liturgy, there is no such thing as starting from scratch. Many people apparently forgot that somewhere along the way.
Thus are we experiencing the reform of the reform even as we are seeing a flourishing of the old rite. The ordinary and extraordinary rites are living side by side in a way that hardly anyone really imagined could happen back in the 1980s. More than that, the ordinary form is on its way to being worthy of being held up as a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite, and recognizable as such to any generation. As to people like myself who doubted that this could ever happen: we should all take note of our onetime lack of faith and observe that glorious things are possible with work and prayer.
I think a different approach is called for. My own sense is that the so-called reformofthereform has aimed, in part, at a translation that was rejected three decades ago. Late to the party, one and all.
At the core of the discussion is how we interpret not SC, but the Gospel, namely Mark 2:27.
Latin, chant, polyphony, the style of the vernacular, and all the human artistry that goes into the Mass all serve the people in the pew. The worship of God is a given, and wel also know from the testimony of nearly three millennia ago (Isaiah 58, Micah 6, John 13) what sort of service pleases God.
Hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide, including any number of artists with the lyrical word, and we're stuck with a lame one-year cycle of prayers that doesn't even work in concert with the proclamation of the Word of God. It's a scandal.
I can get on baord with Jeffrey in promoting the absolute best possible music for liturgy. But I also must promote and insist on the absolute best possible vernacular texts for the Mass. God asks something more of us than tired retreads from a former rite, and the people ask nothing less of us.
And you speak for the people how?
Never asked you to speak for me, Todd. Get off it.
Thanks.
"Hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide, including any number of artists with the lyrical word, and we're stuck with a lame one-year cycle of prayers that doesn't even work in concert with the proclamation of the Word of God. It's a scandal."
Huh???
Todd:
Chant, isn't about "what's old" versus "what's new." It's about "what endures." Chant, like other beautiful art, endures. Just as chant succeeded in preserving the Word of God through well over 1,000 years of turmoil, artists will compose Chant for the 3-year cycle of prayers. God will be pleased. Millions will rejoice.
Anyone who thinks that the corpus of chant is not well suited to the 3-year cycle of the lectionary needs to take a long and hard study of the 1974 Graduale Romanum. In fact, a close comparison of the antiphons of the Gradual and of the Missal of Paul VI will show that the Gradual texts are more harmonious with the lectionary readings than those found in the Missal. It seems crazy, but it is true.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46330596/Christoph-Tietze
This also may be of interest, on the topic of the relationship between antiphons and lectionary readings:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/02/two-sets-of-propers-in-ordinary-form.html
Jeffrey, this is a very nice writting. I admire your enthousiasm.
Nonetheless, I fail to see a reason to keep two forms of a single rite in the long run. Does it make sense?
So what exactly is a reform of the reform? Making the new form survive? Making the two forms look like each other?
Is the EF only meant to be a OF booster or is it meant to be back as The Roman Rite?
Many many questions …
I am still waiting for the entire Novus Ordo to be chanted (including the priest's parts)IN LATIN, in all parishes. Now, that will be the reform of the reform.
Tod, don't include me in your'us.' My faith is in the Church which all our humble saints and martyrs served, not following your ideas and pride.
beautifully written and inspiring, Jeffrey!
Among those in the last group, there were two warring tribes: those who believed that it was possible to do better within the context of the reformed liturgy and those who saw no choice but to completely revert to the previous release from 1962.
When Pope Benedict promulgated SP, I could not help but think that one of the consequences would be to settle the controversy between these two groups and re-direct the reform effort where it is most needed.
Todd said:
At the core of the discussion is how we interpret not SC, but the Gospel, namely Mark 2:27.
And if we were to interpret Jesus's words, what would they say about ad orientem worship, or the re-establishment of the liturgical chant tradition? Would your expectation be for everyone to understand that the references to the Pharisees in the preceeding passage be understood to mean liturgical traditionalists? Or would your expectation be merely that we would arrive at your point of view? Are you trying to say that your position is supported by scripture, and that's enough to disregard the Liturgical Constitution of a Church Council?
Latin, chant, polyphony, the style of the vernacular, and all the human artistry that goes into the Mass all serve the people in the pew.
Again Todd… I think this is a statement that might require some clarification. I (and I would predict at least some fellow commenters here) generally think of the aspects of the liturgy that you mention as serving God, not the people in the pews. The object of liturgical worship is God, not the people in the pews. You conclusion that The worship of God is a given seems to be saying that the form of worship is irrelevant. If that's what you mean, I would have to very strongly disagree with you on that point.
"Brilliant but colossal error" strikes me as grandiose overkill. Unnecessary and unhelpful to your own goal.
If in argument one can imitate the restraint of chant, one might be more successful.
Liam, in the future, I'll do my best to make my writing less sincere and more boring. 🙂
Please do. The Internet is saturated in wit and rhetorical overkill. If one really wants to advance an argument, they don't help in the long run.
Todd:
I think (although I'm not 100% sure) that my view of liturgical praxis is more similar to yours than it is to Jeffrey's.
And yet…
I recently drove six hours from Fort Worth to Houston because JT was appearing at a CMAA Chant Workshop. (Which was A BLAST!, by the way). And the CMAA has had a huge impact on my thinking and practice over the last couple years.
Why? Because they're so damn excited about everything they're doing. Listen to JT talk about the new Missal translation- he can hardly contain his excitement (and makes no attempt to). Scott's beginning chant class was one of the funnest educational experiences of my life. Jeff Ostrowski is an absolute riot over at the forum with his historical (hysterical) musicological scandal-mongering. Composers, arrangers, and text writers are producing new chants, new hymns, new arrangements and editions of old things – from Bartlett's Simple Propers to FNJ's Choir Book to Kathy's hymn translations to Francis' new tune to my own text…
I know it sounds trite and all, but seriously- you can catch more musicians with honey than with vinegar…
(And keep in mind as I say this Todd- I like you.)
I believe that the difference between Todd and Jeffrey is representative of what is fueling the RotR right now, and what makes it so attractive to the "swing voters." While, for years, the traditionalists were simply complainers and curmudgeons, we've arrived at an era where the champions of chant have all the qualities of happy progressives: an anti-establishment approach to copyright laws, a revolutionary approach to information dissemination, boundless enthusiasm for the cause, a sense of being a part of a great movement, a camaraderie that transcends the usual in-fighting of passionate partisans…
Meanwhile, the people who represent "contemporary music" and the original reform of the liturgy speak and act in ways that seem anything but contemporary. Vision is replaced with defensiveness, enthusiasm replaced with vitriol, ideals replaced with mean-spirited attacks on other people's intentions.
In the movie South Pacific, Emile the French planter refuses to join the Americans on a spy mission. They beg him, saying "We're against the Japanese." His response: "I know what you are against. But what are you for?"
The traditionalists are increasingly winning over people – even people like me – because it is clear they are "for something." And meanwhile, they're also having a whole heck of a lot more fun.
Vimeo video of Priest speaking about the crisis in the Church. Very good.
http://www.vimeo.com/19003461
JT;
Personally, I like the "grandiose overkill" in your writing. Too many people try to avoid definitive and forceful arguments these days, preferring to allow themselves an 'out" if they are opposed. Nonsense… the current translation may have been well-intentioned, even brilliant, but it was certainly an error… one might even say a mistake. Mistakes need to be corrected, yes, but real progress won't come until the mistake is admitted.
Adam;
An excellent assessment of the current liturgical climate. Like the political protesters and activists of the 60's, the liturgical progressives have become the "defenders of the old way" that they have always claimed to stand against. That's why they are sad.
Adam W,
I suspect I am somewhere in between you and JT in my personal tastes. I appreciate your comments. I agree with you that enthusiasm is winning the day for fence-sitters. I certainly have found that my own enthusiasm for good liturgy has won over parish liturgy leadership on MR3. So there is something to be said for it.
I think Jeffrey alienates more people than he needs to with his over-the-top rhetoric. Liam offered a sound point, and less then three minutes later the response was probably more sarcastic than called for.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if Jeffrey and I have lived in alternate universes. I recognize very little in the history he presents. I do realize that all personal history is subjective. But church events do form us and inform our perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors.
And the ever-present anonymous probably does more damage than anyone to the cause. I've found that as long as one employs a polite agreement that traditionalist-leaning musicians are engaging enough. But throw a David Haas into the mix and it gets ugly darn fast. Honestly, I don't know what to make of that. In my own experiences, I find chant musicians engaging, and I've known many–Fr Ruff, Larry Heiman, and the musicians at Conception, Gethsemani, St Meinrad's, and a few other places. The difference is that they don't need to bad-mouth people with whom they disagree. They present chant. They do it well. They don't even need outward enthusiasm–you just go and pray with monastics–what can be more convincing?
What you seem to be saying is that when Jeffrey and others just present the chant, and only the chant, they're working on a groovy thing, and everybody's happy. Too bad some commentators feel the need to stick a knife into the proceedings: telling other people what they feel, what they did, what they are.
Where the discussion sticks to excellent music, we're all pretty much smiling, enthusiastic, and making people happy. Too bad it's not always like that.
Todd: Too bad it's not always like that.
As merely a constant everyday kibitzer here (rather than a real participant) it seems to me that it is always like "that".
That is, most everyone positive and enthusiastic, even effervescent in sharing their own excitement and feelings, but without criticizing or alienating others. (For which we can all thank Jeffrey for setting the tone.)
With the exception of one frequent commenter, who at least is not anonymous.
Henry, thanks fro the response.
I do appreciate that Jeffrey and the other contributors here do indeed manage to present a largely positive discussion. The pieces on chant history, style, and the music presented–all enjoyable, edifying, and educational. I would recommend them to any of my students–and do. When the Chant Cafe sticks to the positive and enthusiastic, there is no better promoter of plainsong on the internet.
This is a hugely superior forum to CMAA where I dropped in on a tip from a friend about a month ago to note a full-scale evisceration of David Haas in progress. Like it or not, that forum did not need me to find otherwise decent church musicians descending to levels of un-Christian unprofessionalism. Unlike the Cafe, I can recommend neither that site nor the organization behind it.
You are not, my friend, privy to private discussions I have with Jeffrey, Charles, and to a smaller extent Adam W where I'd say we have a rather participatory relationship, sharing books, music, and tales of ministry. I don't need to pick up pom poms (which I don't see others here doing on my web site) and lead a cheer to publicize my regard for Jeffrey's generosity, Charles' good cheer and honesty, or Adam's thoughtful and sensitive reflections.
Unfortunately, Jeffrey does criticize and alienate people. I take it as I would take ribbing from my brother or good friend in a bar. People who do not know him probably don't take it as well. And to first-timers here, it can come across as angry conservativism.
Jeffrey knows of my standing offer to collaborate in a positive and effective way in promoting excellence in church music. That offer has been on the table in many circles with conservatives, traditionalists, and progressives alike for many years now. So if your comment about kibitzing/participating is serious: make me an offer I can't refuse. Otherwise, get off the soapbox about it, please.
Please realize that many of us have very strong, if not contrary, opinions, feelings, beliefs, and thoughts. It doesn't spoil the music, the coffee, the beer, or the friendship. Unless we let it.
It all depends on the purpose of the communication: if it's meant to rally the like-minded or like-inclined, grandiose overkill is fine.
If, however, it's actually intended to persuade those not yet persuaded, grandiose overkill is best reserved for more intimate situations, not for broadcast news.
Liturgical musicians, of all people, should be sensitive to matching text, tune, space, and audience.
Saying something was a mistake is simple, direct and forceful. (Reminder: I am not a fan of the original translation approach. I think it devalued musicality in favor of immediate comprehension. I am still waiting for translation principles that place more emphasis on euphony and musicality. I am not holding my breath, but I suspect it might happen later in this century.) Nothing defensive or hedged about it. But it's also not grandiose overkill. The greater the presence of grandiosity, the more likely a place may be written off as a ghetto for the like-minded. That's sad, but it's just the way people are. Some writers might care to avoid that fate.
I like pungent commentary. I've even been known to employ it. But pungency is a condiment. Its effect fades when used too frequently.
The difference is that they don't need to bad-mouth people with whom they disagree.
I suspect this has a lot to do with your perception of what is fair criticism and what is "bad-mouthing".
For some time now, I have been going in the opposite direction to Mr Tucker's passion for a reform of the reform. I am less convinced than ever that the Novus Ordo can be reformed to display to the same extent the Beauty in the old Mass. This is because the more I study the new Mass, the more I am convinced that it was the result of a certain mindset that began just before WWII, and culminated into an ideology that was suitable for the "culture" of the 1960's, but not of today. The historical exegesis of the experts at the time that was invoked to justify the changes in the name of "updating" the Mass was clouded by this mindset, if not just totally mistaken. In short, the new Mass was stripped of too many things that made the old Mass beautiful, and what made the old Mass beautiful was those non-rational elements that spoke in a timeless language to the souls that seriously wanted to listen. I do not want to bash the new Mass, but it seems patent to me that in the new Mass, there is too much turning away of our heads from the heavenly realm towards this world.
As for the chant, the 1974 Graduale reflects this, and is too often a hodge-podge of chants taken out of context so as to conform to the new 3 year lectionary. Take last Sunday's introit. It is more suitable for a feria during the 4th Sunday in Lent under the umbrella of Laetare Sunday, than for preparing us to understand the Beatitudes. The old Mass understood that this world is a valley of tears, that there will be martyrdom in proclaiming the Gospel, that the Beatitudes will likely be realised in their totality only in the Kingdom. Thus, the Beatitudes were placed in Alcuin's Mass, the Feast of All Saints, which speaks of the joy in the heavenly realm. The Communion antiphon also was part of that awesome joy expressed in the other chants of All Saints Mass, not an addendum to what has now often become an occasion for preaching a "social Gospel" a la late 1960's. The GR 1974 is an excellent work in trying to give the new Mass the ancient chants of our forefathers, but of necessity many chants are reorganised to fit the context and mindset of the new lectionary, which too often destroys their original intended meaning.
Opinions, feelings, beliefs, and thoughts are all good and valid.
However, when it comes to liturgy, they're all null and void, as the Church demands something very specific.
As a liturgist, you know this already.
Ted K, as regards the reordering of chants, I'm not prepared to argue against you. As I wrote, the old rite will always be the standard, the light. But we deal with the world we inherit.
"I suspect this has a lot to do with your perception of what is fair criticism and what is 'bad-mouthing'."
Not at all. Liam characterized a comment as "grandiose overkill." The response was sarcastic, without addressing the point made. You don't find sarcasm in a monastery liturgy or guesthouse.
I don't know how you could take my kibitizing (like the chess term!) here. Is Jeffrey enough of my friend that I consider his writing important, and important enough to offer a loyal opposition? There are others here I don't engage any more/at all.
To be fair, criticism has to be accurate. Many internet commentators are out of their depth on liturgy. Their critique is hit and mostly miss. Bad-mouthing certainly comes into play when people openly question personal aspects of others–their faith, motives, morality, orthodoxy, etc.. It happens all too frequently. Thomas Aquinas had something to say about being silent when others are persecuted:
"To bear with patience wrongs done to oneself is a mark of perfection, but to bear with patience wrongs done to someone else is a mark of imperfection and even of actual sin."
Todd-
I guess my issue with your comments is similar to what you point out about JT: if you know him, it's all in good fun. If not, you might construe him as an angry conservative.
If all I knew about you was your comments here, I would not think very highly of you. The various anonymouses who are constantly attacking you are evidence of that. While it isn't your fault that some anons are just mean and stupid, and don't take time to know you, I suggest that there is a way in which you could bring to your commenting and discussion here more of your love and enthusiasm, and a fuller picture of what you are about.
Ted,
Of course, the Beatitudes are still very much the proper Gospel of All Saints.
But their eschatological nature is not only about life after death, but about life in the new creation that Christ began and that will be fully completed at the parousia.
In the Gospel of St Matthew, of course, they have the effect of taking the Decalogue to a new place. In our examination of conscience, we not only bear in mind the Decalogue, but the Beatitudes: How have we failed to be poor in spirit? To make peace? To hunger and thirst for righteousness? Et cet. All of these things point eschatologically.
Given that the earliest readings for the OT cycles lay out Christ's proclamation of the Kingdom, this is quite appropriate to be placed where it is, in addition to All Saints. It's not worldly.
Interesting that Todd has not commented on what I said earlier.
-(Anon @ 3:33)
Anonymous
Todd does not typically reply to anonymous comments. He has a story about that he's told before, though I doubt he'd repeat it here. Suffice it to say he has just reasons.
Oh a note on Todd's comment. I've gradually come to realize that our minds really do inhabit completely different historical narratives, which is very interesting to me, and I have no doubt that his is as sincere as mine. Interestingly, we don't disagree all that much when it comes to practical musical application; I could innumerate 12 issues going forward on which we completely agree. When I get him riled up is when I tell a story he finds unrecognizable in his lived history. In some way, if there is going to be a disagreement as long lasting as ours has been, better than it be about the past. I have benefited (believe it or not) from reading and coming to terms with his narrative; it has helped me understand complexities I might not otherwise have contemplated.
Liam,
Your point about the importance of euphony in liturgical translation is an important one. I would not, though, think it more important than accuracy, any more than I would go with Fr. Z when he emphasises accuracy at the expense of euphony (apologies to both of you if I've over-simplified). There is a necessary balance.
The liturgy is one of the main ways in which Holy Tradition is transmitted down the generations. Belief is one of its more obvious elements, and within the Roman Rite it is the prerogative of Rome to make or authorise changes to texts that impinge on it. Rome usually thinks long and hard about doing so (the events of 40 years ago notwithstanding), not least because good judgement requires the perspective of time and experience. There is a danger that too much latitude in principles of translation will threaten Tradition by encouraging or facilitating divergence of belief. Accuracy is a bulwark against this.
That said, liturgy is more than text: it is a cultic ritual that, at its best, combines intellect, senses and art in heightened communion with God. Without euphony it is diminished.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
IanW
I can accept what your saying, but with the important caveat that the Latin text is not magical – that is, it does not denote a magical boundary between orthodoxy and heretodoxy. While for the past two generations we've had the problem with improvisational liturgy, the longer term problem for the Roman rite has been magical treatment of the Latin text. So that's a meta-balance that must also be struck.
"Todd does not typically reply to anonymous comments. "
Interesting. I believe Anonymous is a licit option in this site, although it's at the bottom of the option list 🙂 I thought he values bottom option as the top one as long as it's licit and well done ('wel ldone' in his opinion). His idea of relativism seems to be very biased. I'm another Anon, and I enjoy being as Anon as much as he enjoys being Todd. I don't know him, and he remains just as Todd as I remain as Anon, and I make observations from his posts, nothing personal.
If Anon, annoys him, I also want him to know that his attitude towards the Church and the Pope that are expressed in his posts as not competent and their ideas as not good as his truly annoy many faithful here. Probably he doesn't really know that yet?
It's shame that his knowledge and some 'brilliant ideas' are not well accepted here, because on the foundation of his ideas there is a big hole, the humility, the basic Christian virtue. He may say things politely, and even when he find faults of others, especially picking on Jeffrey T. (and he doesn't have any mistakes of his own in his posts), but I don't sense the same humility from the writings of saints and holy Fathers or even many people who serve our Church with humble hearts. I'll go with that even if they make human mistakes that Todd has been busy pointing them out here.
Nothing personal, but you judge him empty of humility.
Good luck with that.
"Interesting. I believe Anonymous is a licit option in this site, although it's at the bottom of the option list 🙂 I thought he values bottom option as the top one as long as it's licit and well done ('wel ldone' in his opinion)."
Very clever. Cleverness is a commodity that, more often than not here, can backfire quite nastily upon its source. And that includes cleverness that had no other intent but to advance or illustrate a well intentioned point. People seem to simply read whatever they're predisposed to believe that's either a plus or a minus on their Ben Franklin orthodoxy chart, and then fire away indiscriminately.
It is sickening, and an insult to the Body of Christ.
Yes, quite clever with the "last option" thing.
Anons all, I echo Liam's statement above, and add a reminder that at a certain juncture of all of our lives, we won't be afforded that option any longer.
Thank you for the responses, Liam and Charles. You are free to judge or make an observation to my posts as I do to Todd's.
The real problem I have with "Anon" comments is that it opens up the possibility of commenters being a sort of "Dark Sock Puppet" to negatively portray the opposition. I suspect this to be happening in a number of instances on a variety of blogs, and it can only damage the efforts at discussion. While I realize that there are a great many opinions out there, both moderate and extreme, I have to raise an eyebrow when in the midst of an unrelated discussion on a more liberal-leaning blog, an "Anon" commenter suddenly inserts a comment like "We need to dump the illegitimate Novus Ordo monstrosity and return to the Mass of The Ages"… I know that such views are out there, but such comments then become convenient reference points to portray all advocates of tradition as extremists. I often doubt that these comments are being made by actual people with those views…
To the extent that we can distinguish you from the surprising number of those with the same name, Anon! It does help conversation to know who people are, even if that identity is an online one. The added advantage is that in some cases the name at the top of the comment tells us that what follows is doubtless worth reading. In others. of course … 🙂
As another anon, I must agree with the previous anon's assessment of Todd's criticisms towards Rome, although I would not go so far as to judge him void of humility. I am continually in awe of the wise/restrained speech that comes from the hierarchy. Even when a slight human error might be present in what they are saying, they are very CAREFUL about what is said, and HOW it is said. Reading through any papal writing on music, from Pius X to Benedict XVI, one really has the sense that their thoughts are guided by the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, reading through lay-writings on liturgical music is often (not always) the exact opposite. There is so much opinion in the recipe, so much personal taste, so much (subconscious) emotional baggage influencing what's going on, that we realize its not a discussion of truth but of aesthetics.
The beauty of Catholicism is the (theoretical) unity of prayer by the faithful, throughout the ages. When we pray the hours, we pray in unison with the church across the world, and throughout all of time. Why should this not be the case with Sunday liturgy, the central celebration of our faith? Because the liturgist at our church knows better than the pope? Because someone's personal tastes & musical aesthetics are not in line with the physical and spiritual realities of chant? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The "mind of the Church" is very clearly understood, but we'll always have the Todds who know better than Rome what Rome is really saying. They give us small concessions, to allow for the reality that not everything can reach the ideal over the next week or the next year, but then we get stuck in that "in between" of doing whatever we want and doing what we really should be doing.
Todd gives us his modus operandi in the patronizing statement, "Many internet commentators are out of their depth on liturgy." He uses smoke and mirrors in twisting lower-level church writings to support his aesthetics, and makes liturgy seem like something very complicated with an incalculable number of variables. Only an expert like him could possibly navigate the depths of liturgy. Precisely in that, he shows that he himself is "out of his depth" on liturgy, because the liturgy has none of this. It is the liturgy. There are rubrics. The music is already prescribed. Yet we still fight over "how" the mass should be celebrated because of those who would make it more complicated than it really is, and talk down to us who are apparently out of our depth.
Those who would do what the Church asks have their feet in a bucket of water, but Todd is telling them that they're drowning. I'm breathing just fine, actually, and enjoying the rosy aroma of a beautiful new translation in the breeze.
Speaking only for myself, though I read into Liam's remark a sympathetic POV, the point is I would avoid making judgments about the personhood and dignity of anyone here or elsewhere, though "free" to do so.
And, in full disclosure, I fail misterably at that avoidance.
Todd is extremely knowledgeable, but unfortunately, for the value he brings to the discussion, he sometimes comes across as condescending and pedantic when you don't support his view. Too bad. Too bad also that doesn't seem to think Sacrosanctum Concilium isn't authoritative. It must be a remnant of his "sola scriptura" past.
Liam:
The Beatitudes have always been understood to have a worldly component, not just because they speak of the sanctity of the Christian in this world, but also because they can have their own material rewards here on earth as the Holy Father explained this past Sunday. But as the Holy Father also explained, they also open the kingdom of heaven to the Christian.
My curiosity is why after at least 1200 years are the Beatitudes now re-used so that, in the context of the other readings for that Mass, the worldly component is stressed. It was certainly not because of St Augustine's view of original sin which makes it impossible to realise the City of God here on earth.
It seems to me that the old Mass stressed the Beatific Vision, leaving it for the homilist to explain how a Christian can achieve this Vision through his life here on earth. The new Mass readings more directly turn attention towards this world for the sake of "social justice". I am not saying this is necessarily wrong, only that there has been a shift, a shift that was needed for the 1960's.
During the 1960's many people in society particularly in Europe were enamoured with Marx and Lenin and they effectively criticised Christians for being concerned more about the heavenly realm than this world with all its injustices. The hoards of students, for instance, who were protesting so much during the 60's had much more respect for the immediate effects of socialism than the first of the great commandments.
But injustices have always been part of the world, as the Christian martyrs have testified throughout the ages. The old Mass pretty well acknowledges that the greater commandment of the two is the first, that justice and peace are really gifts from God.
Ted
You are overinterpreting this, confecting a big theory that affirms your assumptions (confirmation bias) but is belied by the facts.
The Lectionary cycles for the Sundays in Ordinary Time tend towards a course reading of passages following Jesus' return from the desert (Cycle B gets interpolations from the Gospel of John, of course). Because the narrative flow of the early parts of the course of reading naturally focuses on Jesus's proclamation of the Kingdom, the Beatitudes in Matthew and Luke fall within the early Sundays of Ordinary Time.
There's not a whiff of Marx, Lenin or Alinksy in this (except in the imagination).
Just Christ.
Btw, the proof of this is the Sermons fall sufficiently late in the post-Epiphany course of readings that they fall within the four-to-five Sundays of OT that get displaced by the movable calendar. Any Marxist would have ensured they never got so displaced, right?
Thus, your problem is with the Evangelists who put the Beatitudes relatively early in their narratives of the public ministry of Jesus.
(Btw, I don't recall Christ ever telling his disciples that, because of Original Sin, they should stop proclaiming that the Kingdom was at hand – There will be none of that release of prisoners agitprop, boys! – and just wait for death when it would really happen. Catholics don't share the Augustinian pessimism of the Protestant Evangelical and Calvinistic Reformers, even while Catholics likewise don't share the utopianism of the Radical Protestant Reformers.)
Liam:
I am not "confecting" a big theory, just stating the facts, that Marxist and Leninist thought was popular and pervasive during the 60's and early 70's, although not as much in the English speaking countries. It had an effect in the Church, and it certainly had a huge effect on the rest of the institutions of human civilisation at the time. It was at that time the Protestant social gospel doctrine entered into the Church with the publication of Populorum Progressio (1967;) it was at that time that the Hegelian notion of "community" entered into the basic design of the new Mass which up until that point had always been the "communion of saints". Surely you have seen posters of Christ as the revolutionary calling the people to overthrow the puppet governments being propped up by the USA in Latin America at the time.
I still maintain that there was no reason to re-use the Gospel on the Beatitudes last Sunday other than to put it in a more worldly context because that was specifically important during the 60's. SC called for more scripture readings, and what was done here was the opposite: to re-use the Gospel of All Saints. The Gospel was re-used but now the new readings specifically put it in the context of a social gospel.
Ted
Your facts just happen to be irrelevant to how the Lectionary course of readings were constructed. They may coincide, but you've given zero proof of causation, and it's unjust to infer it.
Btw, this is not the only example of duplicated pericopes in the cycle of gospels.
I stand by my observation.
Btw, what you're alleging is analogous to the following: imagine I over-interpreted your hostility to the misuse of the social justice banner as something that was inspired by the apostate Glenn Beck (whose rantings against clergy, especially Catholic clergy, who've espoused social justice, is just one of his perennial themes), and that therefore your perspective here was a thinly disguised attack in the service of Mormonism.
The more you have a reform of the reform.
The more you end up with the older form.
There is no other place to go.
In that sense they're not at odds.
I respect those who make the most of what they feel forced to celebrate. But ultimately, the everything old is new again.
Ultimately all forms that are made up by committees are heretical. The more we realize this the better off we are.
Dogma is not only an intellectual system apprehended by the clergy and expounded to the laity, but a field of vision wherein all things on earth are seen in their relation to things in heaven, first and foremost through liturgical celebration
"Given, therefore, that the sacred liturgy is not something arbitrarily devised by theologians but theologia prima, the ontological condition of theology, the Church’s teachings must always be in harmony with the beliefs that the traditional liturgical texts express.
The present liturgical chaos in the Western Church is due in no small part to the emphasis that Latin Christians have always placed on dogma, with the consequent tendency to regard the liturgical texts as a mere locus theologicus, a means to an end, rather than a living source of doctrinal truth. Thus orthodoxia, which originally meant ‘right worship’, gives way to orthopistis ‘right believing’, or orthodidascalia ‘right teaching’.45 When taken to the extreme, this exclusive emphasis on the rational culminates in that heresy which rejects the living components of tradition in favour of the written records of the Early Church, the Bible and Patristic writings, and which we know as Protestantism and full-blown Jansenism. The rejection of the liturgical tradition thus implies a rejection of the Church itself.
From the traditionalist standpoint, it is an abuse of power for the modern Papacy; however orthodox in its dogmatic teaching, to Command the faithful to accept an anti-traditional liturgy in the name of obedience to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If the Papacy, in an official document, can reverse a fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity by totally subordinating the liturgy to the interests of new ‘orientations’, one is forced to conclude that recent Popes, in turning their backs on their own past for whatever noble motives, have placed themselves above Tradition and abused their position as the supreme legislators in disciplinary matters. " – Dr. Geoffrey Hull