Author: Mr. C

Dear Celebrants, Deacons, Liturgists and Musicians,

When you meet, could you thoroughly discuss how each of you has approached the “changes” with regard to preparing the people. We should consider (and we are not alone) whether we have adequately prepared the people in the pews for both the acceptance and the implementation of the ritual language changes. It is difficult to assess that, even though celebrants have valiantly taken up the ritual language with acceptance, whether we have adequately prepared our congregations sufficiently to both understand why and what the changes exactly ask from them. This needs to be addressed from a united front from all of us immediately. We can allow and allot ourselves a cushion that “change” will take time, years even. But after two weeks, it is painfully apparent that we have not done enough preparation.

It is not enough to simply “give ourselves a break” and say “let time take its course.” The very structures of the church local and Church demand that we step up and take responsibility for how we prepare ourselves and our Faithful for “the Liturgy” This would still be true under previous or future editions.. One retired “seasoned senior” pastor’s remark that he has regarded this fourth version of the Missale he’s “endured” through his priestly tenure as an opportunity to learn how to pray anew is so very apt and encouraging. What a remarkable perspective. Each of us has also taken a pro-active role in assimilating this change as an opportunity, rather than an inconvenience. But we who are at the top of the liturgical food chain need to remember than the people cannot assimilate these shifts by osmosis, unless we are resigned that if they get “it” after sufficient repetitions that rote learning and recitation is the hallmark of “right worship” of God Almighty. That rationale is a death knell for worship of the Creator of creation in this cynical, wary era. We have to do more, each and every one of us.

Deacons, you’re not exempt: you have to prepare yourselves for your responsibilities to all your important duties to liturgy in advance. Taking a cue from the celebrants’ need to review their new orations, you all should avoid the inclination to “wing” the Universal Prayer on the fly. You have to study the syntax, the phraseology, the prepositions, the names of the deceased with determination to understand each intercession with precision.. It really is inconsequential whether each of us assumes that we have fulfilled our liturgical roles simply because we keep a regular schedule and have accepted and know our basic “responsibilities.” Souls are at stake; we cannot waver, rest on our laurels, or our personalities, or our legacies over time, assuming that we have satisfied our rubrical roles and the rest is up to everyone else. We have to risk more, each and every Sunday, more not less.
Celebrants and Deacons- we have to cross the first beach-head, that after two weekends, we must admit we have not presented a united mission to the faithful, and in many situations we have abysmally failed to prepare ourselves, much less they whom we guide. We have not been able in so many documented anecdotal recollections been able to elicit a fairly pro forma response to “The Lord be with you.” This second weekend has provided many accounts that this inability was more evident than the first week. I don’t think this indicates “revolt” or “revulsion” towards the new Missal. I think it reflects our own casual approach to helping our Faithful adjust. Each celebrant and deacon ought to consider reviewing and practicing the manner in which he elocutes the “Dominus vobiscum” or “The Lord be with you.” We’re not talking about the theology of that invocation and its response, we’re talking just how to perform it so that the response is “called for.” Have you considered whether you have continued to orate “The Lord be with you” with the normal, expected cadence that has been in place for 45 years? Five syllables, “ Bada bing boom boom.” And what happens? The people aren’t afforded a cue, a clue or a context to offer the proper response because the celebrational medium likely didn’t change, so they literally fall into the convenience of the former response. Despite the fairly well-documented and easily acquired access of online and other pedagogical guides, how many celebrants actually took to heart the notion of “singing the Mass?” So many accounts of successful workshops offered by the likes of Dr. Paul Ford and Dr. Jerry Galipeau, when crunch time finally arrived, how many of those who heartily endorsed both the efficiency and beauty of chanting the orations, backed away from that goal for whatever expedient reason provided a rationale for abandoning any enthusiasm for that noble effort. However it’s clear that with some modicum of preparation and setup, tasks musicians do all the time, week after week, whether sung or recited, presiders can help the faithful to take up the new responses deftly:
“The Lord (pause for a beat) be WITH you.” “And WITH your spirit.” It’s about knowing something about dynamics, emPHAsis, and contextual clues so that the people get a sense they’re being led to the elevation of the new semantical responses.
Lastly, it is an expressed concern that the Church’s primary witness to the world, not to mention our own local community, is centered upon how we worship. Despite local indications that might offer us all a cushion to rest upon and think that because our numbers, attendance, etc. are better than our neighbors, the Church is in serious crisis. We need to re-evaluate our priorities vis a vis Sunday worship. Should we not capitalize upon this moment to clarify the meaning of worship for our people, and that means it is not about “me, us, the community, feeling redeemed and happy etc.”? There is nothing intrinsically wrong about singing “rejoice and be glad” or reminding the faithful during homilies that “GOD IS HERE” and “all will be well.” Sure, we’ve heard that for two generations. But we are the Church where the corpus is still on the cross. Suffering is still part of the equation, and we cannot pretend that this mystery is an either/or story. It is a “both/and” story. We should have no problem with celebrating the concept of corporate redemption and that should elicit a demeanor of joy and hope. But reality has a very efficient way of intruding upon that in each of our lives, and we need words (already present in our rituals and our scripture) that should acknowledge that life is a struggle, and that Jesus calls us, each and every one of us, to improve our disposition through prayer, deeds and DISCIPLINE so that we can help others to recognize Christ in US. That cannot be encapsulated or canned in any one type of corporate response such as singing a “happy, familiar” song or laughing at an illustrative joke or anecdote.

Our Church’s future, in the largest sense as well as local, is at a critical crossroads. And all that is being proposed and advocated here is that we all “up our game.”
Where Catholicism goes, so goes Christianity. Christ promised us that holding the keys would prevent the gates of hell (and the Enemy) from prevailing, ever. May each of us consider all the vows and covenants we’ve made to point souls towards Christ without any illusions or excuses.

There may be much, much more to our dear friend Kathy’s analogy about we LitMusicGeeks being more like frustrated Broadway “performers/composers/conductors” than first meets the eye. The days before Nov.27th and now after are rife with the Monday-morning quarterbacking, the 20-20 hindsight, the “I told you so’s” from all quarters. For those who remember the early film musicals, the playwrite, the director, the producer, the cast, everyone had to grab the first newspaper out of the earliest bundle to hit the skids at the newstands to GET TO THE REVIEW! That was then, this is now: talking heads everywhere in every medium, still talking passed each other, some holding their ground even if it means some, uh, revision; others harumphing that no one died (!) and this, too, shall pass. Still others still insist the sky is either “Gold, Jerry, I tell ya, gold” or “Falling! It’s falling I tell ya, you just wait.” I think what’s most disconcerting is that the very notion of some of “us” dusting our sandals off and voting with our feet is playing out still, while others find it totally appropriate to take some victory laps: “Yay, Us!”
This is my take on “yesterday….”

First Sunday of Advent-Lectionary: 2
READING 1 IS 63:16B-17, 19B; 64:2-7

You, LORD, are our father, our redeemer you are named forever. Why do you let us wander, O LORD, from your ways, and harden our hearts so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your heritage.

Now that “it” has come and is another day and date for the books, despite many invocations, pleas, approbations and no small measure of anxiety and arrogance from all sides over the implementation, what struck me about yesterday were these readings. How they indict any and all who regard God in or as an abstract? How much energy that could have been directing serving God’s people truly in need was wasted by hardened hearts who seemed so convicted that this liturgical priority was the paramount missio, and abandoned both the word and deed that are our true gospel imperatives? And how could any critic, pro or con, not call upon Him to help them discern the nature of their service, and how best to realize their relationship to “the tribes of (His) heritage.”? Heritage is so much more than inheritance. It is about relationship not value. And how many relationships have been injured by putting the Lord on hold during the years of this rancorous conference call?

Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, with the mountains quaking before you, while you wrought awesome deeds we could not hope for, such as they had not heard of from of old. No ear has ever heard, no eye ever seen, any God but you doing such deeds for those who wait for him.

Does anyone remember about the man who climbed to the roof of his house as it floated down and away in a river during a raging storm? He eschewed the help of a neighbor who called from a rowboat; “No, I’m fine, God will save me.” Then he sent a police rescue motor-launch elsewhere, again declaring “I’m fine, God will save me!” Finally, when a Coast Guard helicopter dropped a rescue basket, he waved them off, shouting “I’m okay, go on, God will save and rescue me!” His house soon dissolved into the deep and he drowned. At judgment, he cried to the Lord, “God, why did you forsake me and not save me when I was so faithful?” “My son, what did you expect? I sent you a rowboat, police and a helicopter!”
In the midst of the storms of mistrust, intrigue, doubt, perseverance, did no one remember that MR3 did in fact tell us “I AM come down. This is, and always has been awesome what you can do in My Name.” But don’t argue over boats, helicopters, earthly authority or ingenuity, opportunities seized or missed. Do not wait in your indecision, call upon Him and then trust. It’s called “faith.” It is one of the greatest gifts.

Would that you might meet us doing right, that we were mindful of you in our ways! Behold, you are angry, and we are sinful; all of us have become like unclean people, all our good deeds are like polluted rags; we have all withered like leaves, and our guilt carries us away like the wind. There is none who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to cling to you; for you have hidden your face from us and have delivered us up to our guilt. Yet, O LORD, you are our father; we are the clay and you the potter: we are all the work of your hands.

Behold how angry we all likely got at some point. And we own no such right, as “we” are not “He,” we are sinful. And don’t rest upon any laurels that anyone’s side has prevailed. “All our good deeds are like polluted rags….”
If we are clay, and clay we are, then He will write His Name upon us time and time again, until time is no more. Time isn’t measured in decades, half-centuries or even millenia. We are the clay, we are not the potters.

It’s been an interesting couple of years in our merged parishes. A sesquicentennial of our Mother Church, the founding of our fourth parish, too much to recall in a sitting. That’s primarily why I haven’t been keeping up with my ruminations here; lot’s of bowling pins to keep juggling and life keeps adding to their number!
But this found its way into my emailbox this week.
Thank you, Lord. Thank you, young lady. Amen.

Dear Charles,

I am a 19 year-old (some-what) ‘revert’ to the Catholic Faith. Along with certain truths, music has played a big part in bringing me back to a traditional faith with such inherently beautiful worship as we “join with the choirs of angels and saints’”singing in the heavenly liturgy. I have wanted to thank you many times after Mass for displaying music in such a lovely way. My friends and I went to the Mozart Requiem at St. Mary’s last year, and we would all like to extend our gratitude for that also…our souls were suffocating with near satisfaction.
I grew up going to Masses which either had no music at all or contemporary music during liturgy. The worship music never seemed to match up with God’s heavenly character, but was (seemed) accommodated anthropomorphically to us parishioners. Human taste somehow had won over Heavenly taste, sadly. I later attended our local Christian high school (Reformed Protestant) and lost more respect for ‘worship’ as modern music was rarely about God, but was about ‘me’ and ‘my’ entertainment. I was filled with selfishness and lost Christ amid of this ‘rock and roll’.
As I sought out faith, I was recommended to attend Masses for which you were responsible for music ministry. Since then, I have been felt a greater resistance towards modernity in worship music (which is) music that (frankly) I can turn on in my car and hear out of the radio anytime. Not only did I meet more Catholic genuineness and adherence at these Masses, but my soul was in tune with Christ just as the music was. I believe many people can owe this ‘in-tuned’ experienced to people like your choir members and musicians who uphold our traditions.
I soon left for college in Fresno, where my roommates and I took Music Appreciation and fell in love with classical music and realized that the beautiful history of music of the West was founded within the Catholic Church. Our Fresno parish had Traditional Latin Masses with Gregorian chant, and this music uplifted our souls and strengthened our worship of our Lord and our relationship with Him (as He is other-worldly, like the almost supernatural music He has given inspiration to the musical arts within the Catholic Church over the centuries. I don’t think anyone objects that traditional music deepens the beautiful mysteries of Christ and our faith. Perhaps this is why I loved my last couple of Christmas and Easter seasons more than ever…as your parishes’ music direction even freely and more so captured these mysteries.
I became very worried when I came back to Visalia for the summer and present time (for I’m preparing to attend a Catholic college next year) and found a predominance of modern music at our new church. I was very saddened but have recently been giddy with joy as I’ve found that most of the Masses have not distanced themselves from our beautiful worship. I’ve attended the peaceful 6:30 am Masses, and for the first time ever…the 8:00am alternating Gregorian chant masses at Holy Family. It has been wonderful and I thank you and all those working to sustain this lovely aspect of the Mass. I also thank you for taking time occasionally before the Masses to explain our role in singing and worship, particularly since we are facing some changes in the Missal language this month.
I attended the recent Vigil Mass at St. Mary’s for All Saint’s Day. This was by far one of the best experiences. The congregation seemed in awe of the heavenly music coming forth from the loft. After mass, the attendants were raving about such beautiful music and thanking Father and the ushers on the way out; the ushers also said “we have also never heard the music and responses sung this way…this was the first we’ve heard it…absolutely beautiful…etc.” It was obvious that everyone was simply moved by the music and it complimented our experience of Christ in the Eucharist greatly!
My soul has simply been reveling in the music sung in concert with the angels and saints; I must express my appreciation for this (and on the behalf of others as well). Obviously, the Mass has innate beauty as it is the heavenly liturgy centered on Christ. It will always be beautiful as Christ is Present. But the traditional music compliments this so much. It is easy to distinguish God-given music that transforms the soul, from man-made music meant to stir the emotions. I am aware that the contemporary movement is meant to appease my age group, but my roommates and I argue that worship of God must be as far away from our generation’s music, for then there is distinction. We go to mass to meet something different. The problem is when we can’t distinguish worship from a concert! I’m glad that the traditional music gives me no reason to think ‘I should just sing to Christ in my car and at home”. For I meet Christ more deeply at traditional types of Masses rather than ‘taking the Mass into my home’. I’m praying that people like you advocate for us and not urge taking ‘normal modern music’ of the secular society into the ‘heavenly tradition-rich music’ of the highest Eucharistic worship in the Mass. Thank you for preserving this musical tradition at the Church of Visalia, as much as you have. I wish you a wonderful week and will keep you in my prayers!
Sincerely in Christ,
Marisa ________

Realizing that our friends’ voices over Fr. Ruff’s blog still continue to re-voice the sentiments and protestations that continue to bubble up among primariy the non-American English conferences regarding the reception and adoption of the third edition of the Roman Missal translation, I thought a few choice quotations and reflections from our equally loyal opposition might be beneficial to the vitality of the dialogue.
In the October edition of the periodical “MAGNIFICAT” (Oct.2011, Vol.13, N.8), Professor Christopher Carstens (visiting faculty, Liturgical Institute, Mundelein, IL:., director of the Office of Sacred Worship, La Crosse, WI.) added an essay to an ongoing series about preparing for the implementation in the states, “The Roman Rite’s Collection of Collects.” As the current gauche phrase goes “You had me at….,” Carstens’ first line, the famed quote of Augustine “Singing is a lover’s thing,” certainly piqued my interest. He then reminds us that in worship we, the Bride of Christ, “sings from her heart to her loving bridegroom, Christ the Lord.” He continues, “From the Introductory Rites (of the MR3) of the beginning of Mass, the Church prepares the faithful to join in this great song of love.”
Now I’ve personally been reminded and scolded that being a career pastoral musicians does not me a liturgist make; I’ve got that. But in musicans’ defense, is there another, more apt way to engage in a deliberation of the affect of this expression of sacral love and language in the din of the recent debates? Carstens invites us to listen for three particular aspects of the Collects, the first of which is “The Structure of the Collect.”  As just a teaser I’ll report that he outlines: 1. the address; 2. a short relative clause describing God; 3. the petition itself; and 4. the conclusion addressed to the Trinity. He then claims this structure “connects each thought, sentiment, and petition back to God….” whereas in previous editions most Collects use two sentences rather than this series of phrases within one, which he concludes “leads us and our intentions more directly back to God.”
The next aspect he comments upon is the “Language of the Collect.” Carstens restates much of the obvious intentions behind MR3, again much deconstructed and debated here and elsewhere, and presumably familiar to liturgy blogophiles. But it is important to note that many, if not most, subscribers to the “Magnificat” periodical likely fall outside that demographic. So he emphasizes “value and importance” to the traits  of “linguistic register.” Carsten points out that every person “employs different registers on a daily basis.” As much as I would love to associate the word “register” to its most musical interpretation, Carsten simply means how “we speak to our pets, our friends, our bosses, our loved ones, our slow computer, and our God…” How simple, how elegant a depiction of the importance of the “tone” (pun very much intended) with which we unfold the language of love to our Creator. And paradoxically, how often all of us seem to impugn a negative “tone” in our internet discourse without first thinking that we really cannot “register” our expressed thoughts audibly in this medium.
The author then illustrates this aspect by citing the Collect from the Vigil of Pentecost. Towards the singer and poet in us all I will skip his exegesis that clearly portrays the relationship between translation and register and get to a specific example he cites. The Latin “contineri” he says “could be translated “surrounded” or “contained.” But he offers that “encompassed, though, is a more extraordinary term…evoking for the reader (I wish he’d said ‘listener’ instead) the image of a compass, pointing to all directions…” I would ask the singer in each of us, before deciding upon the richest depiction of how far the Paschal Mystery extends out from Calvary’s cross, to audition: “surrounded….contained……encompassed.” Which is the symbol crying to be sung?
Finally Carstens lists the third aspect, “The Sources of the Collect” as they are presented to us from scripture and tradition. He alludes the Collect for the 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time to St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in which the apostle reminds us “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him.” The Collect now is rendered “O God, who have prepared for those who love you good things which no eye can see, fill our hearts, we pray, with the warmth of your love.” He infers that this Collect intones the Pauline excerpt literally almost verbatim. He declares “The ‘vernacular’ of the Church….is Scripture: especially at prayer, it is Bible that is spoken.” (Again, I wish he’d used “sung” rather than “spoken.”)
In this brief article I believe the professor argues for the nuance and registral context of language “off the page” to be fulfilled best within the union of poetry and song, the singularly unique sacral language, not music, that is the heart of chant. If, as he asserts, we are attentive as a start to the structure, and then to the richness within the language used, and its sources, then we can better enjoin our voices in “the eternal song of love between Bride and Bridegroom, the Church and her Lord.”
A couple of post-scripts: I believe this is also a concept that is shared by Dr. Paul F. Ford in his presentations to clergy and laity regarding the Missal implementation. If celebrants accept the clearly stated intent (just check out the default settings of all orations in the new editions of subscription missals!) that they, at least, acknowledge that by chanting this orations and Collects, they are most effectively abetting full, conscious and active participation of all the gathered Faithful at Mass.
Secondly, it’s somewhat ironic that this muse struck me this evening as I have been seriously contemplating taking a “sabbatical” from blogdom and forums on the WorldWideInterLinkCyberWebs! There seems to be a great confluence of increased rancor, whose tone is unmistakeably contentious, as well as a movement of a great number of major blog authors to new domains. I’m still undecided, but I think I need to take a breather for a while, my friends. Thank you for putting up with the barrage of verbiage for so long.

So, let me show the scaffold of a so-dubbed eclectic Mass music order:
*Introit: chanted in either Latin or the vernacular from any number of sources, in coordinated combination with:
*A congregational Entrance Hymn/Song, propers-based, scriptural allusion or action designated.
*A chanted Kyrie (Greek/vernacular) accessible to PIPs.
*A polyphonic, strophic or choral Gloria, accessible to the congregation according to the setting.
*The responsorial of the day from the psalter of the hymnal/missal at use in the parish; a chanted simple version such as AOZ is compiling, or a vernacular version or emulation of the gradual.
*Gospel acclamation: same criteria as the psalm
*Offertory: probably the most variable moment for options-
    Hymn/Song of the day approach
.   Choral Motet or anthem, either verbatim from the Offertorio or scriptural allusion
    Chanted Offertorio in Latin/English
    Strophic version such as found in Simple Choral Gradual
*Sanctus/Memorial/Amen- I believe that whatever style or form, these three should be uniformly related.
    ICEL/Jubilate Deo/Graduale Ordinary Chant settings/”new chant” ala St. Sherwin/Arrowsmith
    Chant-based emulation- The Lee setting, Proulx’s Simplex, Psallite (Ford), Warner “Charity&Love”
    Homophonic: Schubert/Proulx “Deutsche,” O’Shea “Mediatrix,” Proulx “Oecumenica” etc.
    Others that do not juxtapose or challenge the sensibilities of the mix of styles: such as using a Leon   Roberts Gospel setting, or a setting that is mechanical or simplistic that bespeaks a “utilitarian” rather than artistic merit. That, of course, is a taste-based assessment, so if I say I’d choose an Andres Gouze setting over Proulx’s “Community,” well, that’s how I’d make the judgment call. I also believe in a necessary priority of actualized, sung participation of all the faithful for the Sanctus, which second to the Pater Noster and collect responses, I believe is afforded to the congregation by Musica Sacram as a rightful priority. The occasional employment of a polyphonic or other classical choral Sanctus as is practiced by Prof. Mahrt twice or so per year doesn’t intrude upon that maxim seriously.
*Lamb of God/Fraction – I’m partial to either
   a chanted version in Latin/vernacular, or
   a superb choral version, either language option, of appropriate duration
*Depending upon the number of congregants, priests/deacons, EMHC’s and whether Eucharist is offered and received under both forms-
   The chanted Communio of the day, whether from the GR, or from other revised/alternative collections
   The homophonic or metered Communio from composers such as Rice, Tietze, P.Ford etc.
   Alius cantus aptus versions closely aligned to the Communio that are worthily set.
   A polyphonic Communio which either/all then could transition to a
*Communion processional hymn/song/antiphonal psalm setting.


I’m going to cut off my remarks here, as the issue of whether to program special choral pieces prior or after the Communion prayer is sung by the celebrant is generally a local issue, not to mention the specific need for silent prayer and contemplation. And the choice of using a sung dismissal hymn or song versus an organ or instrumental postlude, or even silence is also a local issue.
So, what are the holes in approaching programming an order of music in the survey, or Grout mode?
Do tell.

Recently, Jeffrey provided me a golden opportunity to review a Mass setting that crossed his desk that caught his eye, Mass of the Mediatrix by Dr. Patrick O’Shea. And that was a gift that is going to keep on giving, as we read it thoroughly in rehearsal last week, and it confirmed that yes, Virginia, there are great Catholic composers out there not named Kevin Allen. (Joke, just a joke.) But as Jeffrey, myself and others took note, this setting’s pedigree line is tenuous, at best, to the chant ethos; it is decidedly a choral Mass, an incredibly worthy, singable and beautiful choral Mass.


In my review of the Glory, I made a very slight observation that I didn’t quite understand the necessity in the very opening phrase to have the soprano/alto sections singing “Glory to God in the highest,” while the tenor/bass voices omit “in the” ostensibly to set up the suspension in the tenors cleanly. I get that. I’ve done that in my composed companion Gloria to Proulx’s Oecumenica Mass with the women declaiming “You are seated at the right hand of the Father” and the men following in canon, but with “You are …. at the right hand of the Father.” These are the oblique concerns involved with multi-part text setting that, as Jake (Tawney?) pointed out below composers have had to figure out how to parce out since polyphony made its- (choose one) 1. ruinous; 2. miraculous- debut, doubtless first in what is now “France.”

 Pax Christi et Soli Deo Gloria.