Posts

Posted on by Revd Fr Christopher Smith

The Sacraments: Sign and Reality

In any sacrament, we can identify four important elements. The first is the form by which words added to actions become the vehicle for grace. The second is the matter, which consists of the material object or action which, when united to the form, becomes the vehicle for grace. The third is the intention by which the minister of the sacrament intends to do what the Church does in celebrating the sacrament, the condition for its validity. The fourth is the signs which accompany the celebration of the sacrament. Form, matter and intention are all necessary for the sacrament to be valid. Some theologians argue that all three are revealed by Christ in their specific form and as such are necessary for validity. Others have held throughout the ages that Christ has revealed their matter, but the exact words which accompany the form can and have been modified by the Church. Validity then depends on matter, intention and form as proposed by the Church.

In any sacrament, we can also identify two other important elements by which we can better understand what the sacraments are: the signs of the sacrament, which include, in some cases the matter of the sacrament and in other, the explicative symbols which point to other aspects of the theological reality celebrated in the sacrament; and the reality of the sacrament, namely what the sacrament is and what it does specifically for the human person.

All of the sacraments give grace. They increase sanctifying, or habitual grace, by which we are united to Christ and become partakers in the divine mystery. They also have a special sacramental grace unique to each one. They also can be vehicles for those transient, or actual graces, such as when someone who sees the reception of a sacrament by another and is moved to conversion.

The sacraments are celebrated in the context of a liturgical rite accompanied by ceremonies which are rich in content and symbolism. In fact, the sacraments speak a many-layered language on many levels of various distinctions. The liturgical rites and ceremonies are created by the Church, and as such are subject to the disciplines laid out for them by the Apostolic See. This authority of the Apostolic See does not extend to the matter, form, intention, or reality of the sacraments. The Apostolic See cannot change those. But the Apostolic See can modify the liturgical rites and ceremonies, as well as the signs, when they are not part of the matter necessary for validity. The Apostolic See can also depute Episcopal conferences, individual Ordinaries or even Pastors to modify these in accord with the laws set down by the Church.

The signs by which the Church celebrates the sacraments are powerful, and it is certainly inadvisable to adopt a parsimonious or mimimalist attitude toward those signs. Those signs can also be the occasion for actual graces, those transient helps which inspire a life of grace and devotion. But those signs are not the reality, even as they point to the reality.

Let’s take an example. Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism for the remission of sins and the elevation of its recipient to friendship with God. The form of the sacrament is “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the of the Holy Spirit.” The matter of the sacrament is water, which signifies the washing away of sins by Christ’s grace. The intention necessary for the validity of the sacrament is that the person who baptizes intends to do what the Church does, namely unite the matter and form of Baptism administering it to someone who has not already been baptized. The reality of the sacrament is that it remits original and personal sin and incorporates its recipient into the Holy Trinity by the gift of sanctifying grace.

There are three levels of sign associated with the sacrament of Baptism. The first is the pouring of natural water, which is the matter of the sacrament, necessary for its validity. The second is the complex of explicative rites with the Church surrounds the Baptism to signify other elements of this mystery: the lighting of a candle, the clothing with the white garment, the anointing with oil. The first can never be omitted, without endangering the validity of the sacrament. The second can be omitted for reasons laid down by the liturgical books themselves. A third level of sign, however, is how the matter is conceived of in the celebration. For example, baptism can be celebrated by infusion, our directly pouring over the head, or submersion of the whole body into the water. Both fulfill the sign required by the nature of the sacrament for validity. The Church has also allowed for both, although in the West, the first rather than the second is common. It could be argued that the second is a more complete sign of how Baptism also causes one to be buried with Christ so as to rise with Him in grace. But it does not affect the reality of the sacrament. It does not increase sanctifying or sacramental grace. At the most, it could be said to increase actual grace insofar as someone could be moved by the sign towards the reality it signifies. The second and third levels of sign are under the authority of the Apostolic See to explain, modify, and legislate, the first is not.

With the Sacrament of the Eucharist, however, how the Church views this tripartite level of signs is a bit more complex. In the Eucharist, two things must be distinguished. The first is the sacrifice by which the sacrament is confected and the Paschal Mystery is re-presented in the here and now in the context of a liturgical celebration of the Church. The second is the communion by which the faithful share in the fruits of that sacrifice.

The Church has always maintained that, for the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the matter is bread and wine, the form are the words of the institution narrative as presented by the Church and taken from the Scriptures, the intention is to unite the matter and the form as the Church does, and the reality is the whole Christ present. The first aspect of sign is the bread and wine, which are also the matter. The second aspect of sign is the Mass itself, the complex of liturgical rites and ceremonies which accompany the liturgical celebration of the sacrifice and communion. The third aspect of sign, is how the bread and the wine, changed into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, are shared to the faithful.

The way in which the priest who confects the Eucharist in the sacrifice is different from the way the faithful share in the fruits of the sacrifice in communion. Because the Eucharist is not just an object but a liturgical action, the Paschal Mystery, re-presented in the Sacrifice of the Mass, requires that the Priest not only validly confect the sacrament, but he must also consume the sacrament.

In the post-Tridentine period, the validity of the confection of the sacrament (the union of the matter and form) was considered apart from the validity of the Mass considered as a sacrifice. The cycle by which bread wine were transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ was completed by the consumption by the priest of the transubstantiated elements. To incarnate the sign value of the one bread and the one cup, the priest consumed one entire host and the contents of one entire chalice. This was considered so necessary for the validity, not of the Communion given as the fruit of the sacrifice, but of the Mass, that another priest had to come in to “finish the sacrifice” if the priest happened to die or be taken ill between the consecration of the elements and his reception of them.

The enactment of this entire cycle, from consecration to consumption, was not considered necessary for the faithful. The priest had to complete this entire cycle for the validity of the sacrifice, of the Mass considered as the liturgical action accompanying the sacrifice. The faithful, on the other hand, did not participate in the sacrifice in the same way. They shared in the fruit of the sacrifice, the Holy Communion.

Because the priest stands in persona Christi capitis during the Mass, his actions must be entirely in conformity with the form, matter, intention, reality, and signs on all three levels. When the LORD commanded His disciples, “Take and eat, take and drink,” at the Last Supper, the sign of eating and drinking, as united to the reality of the sacrifice and the sacrament the LORD was giving to His disciples, was considered necessary for the validity of the sacrifice as re-presented in the Mass.

Catholic doctrine teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is inseparable from the priesthood which offers the sacrifice. So she has seen the Last Supper as in some way constituting the disciples as priests of a different order to perpetuate a sacrifice of a different kind from the order of the Mosaic priesthood and the sacrifices of the Law. The apostolic succession would guarantee the perpetuation of that one same sacrifice until the consummation of the world. The LORD Jesus would often in the Gospels put some of His disciples, the chosen Twelve, in the position of intercessors between Himself and His People. In the miracle of the loaves and fishes, for example, He performs the miracle, but He then asks the disciples to distribute the miraculously multiplied gifts from God. In this way Christ prepared the Church for the role of the priest to participate in the sacrificial actions of Christ in a unique way, and then distribute the fruits of those sacrificial actions to the faithful.

The faithful are not united to the sacrifice in the same way as the priest is. They do not pertain to the validity of the sacrifice at all. But they share in the fruits of the sacrifice. How they share in the fruits of the sacrifice does not have to take the same form as the way the priest does, dictated as the latter is by the direct command of the LORD in the context of the establishment, not only of the Sacrament of the Eucharist as sacrifice and communion, but also of a priesthood to perpetuate the sacrifice which would be different, not just in degree but kind from the priesthood of the faithful who share in, but do not confect the sacrifice.

As such, the signs which accompany the sharing in the fruits of the sacrifice by the faithful can be changed by the Apostolic See for a variety of motives. The mode for the distribution of the fruits of the sacrifice, of communion, has often changed throughout the centuries. The faithful have received from both leavened and unleavened bread; they have received the Precious Blood by drinking directly from a chalice, through a tube, or not at all. They have received the Sacred Host alone, having been dipped into the Precious Blood, or by a spoon dipped into the Precious Blood. The dizzying variety of the practices by which the faithful have received communion contrasts with the uniform way in which the priest completes the cycle of the sacrifice by his mode of reception of the elements in obedience to the LORD’s command.

It could be argued that, for the faithful to unite themselves as closely as possible in every way to the sacrifice, their communion should take the same form as the priest’s. But the very fact that the priest communicates himself while the faithful are given Holy Communion points to another truth. The priest communicates himself in virtue of his being in persona Christi capitis at that moment. The faithful are given the fruits of the sacrifice in Communion as a gift, as the Body of Christ, the Church receives all it has from Christ. This explains why the Priest gives Holy Communion as an ordinary minister, because he is Christ giving to His Body, the Church, the gift of Himself.

But no matter how the faithful receive Communion, the mode by which has often changed throughout the centuries, their participation in the Mass and indeed in the priesthood of Christ is different in kind, not just in degree, from that of the ministerial priest. The signs have value. They should never be interpreted without generosity. But the relationship of the signs to the sacrifice in the ministerial priesthood and the relationship of the signs to the communion which is the fruit of the sacrifice for the faithful are two different species of relationship. Either way, the way the signs are interpreted by the Church, or modified, or lived, does not in any way affect the reality of the sacrament. No fuller expression of the sign value will increase sanctifying grace, because it is not the sign, but the reality, which accomplishes that. The reception of Holy Communion under both kinds may have a fuller sign value, just as the submersion of the body in the saving water of Baptism may have a fuller sign value. But fuller sign value is not equivalent to the grace given, and not pointed to, by the reality.

Posted on by Adam Bartlett

The Propers of the Mass: Then and Now

 This is a lecture given yesterday by Fr. Mark Daniel Kirby, OSB, at the liturgical symposium “Council and Continuity”, hosted by Bishop Thomas Olmsted in the Diocese of Phoenix. With thanks to Fr. Kirby we offer here the entire text.

The Propers of the Mass: Then and Now
Fr. Mark Daniel Kirby, OSB 

Introduction

Until the approval of The New Roman Missal by Pope Paul VI on 3 April 1969, there had existed for four hundred years a substantial unity between the texts of the Proper of the Mass contained in the Graduale Romanum and those given in the Roman Missal.  The Missal, in effect, reproduced the complete texts of those sung parts of the Mass that in the Graduale Romanum are fully notated.

The Missal takes the text of the Chants of the Proper of the Mass from the Graduale Romanum, and not the Graduale Romanum from the Missal.  The Missal, in fact, contains the very same texts found in the Graduale, but in the Missal they are printed without the musical notation that allows them to be brought to life in song and, in a certain sense, interprets them in the context of the liturgy.  The melodic vesture of the texts functions as a liturgical hermeneutic, allowing them to be sung, heard, and received in the light of the mysteries of Christ and of the Church.

Originally Mass was always sung.  Not until the eighth or ninth century did the so called Low Mass or missa privata come to be celebrated at the lateral altars and private chapels of abbatial and collegiate churches. The Chants of the Proper of the Mass were not omitted at these Low Masses; they were recited by the priest alone.  This fact, of itself, suggests that well before the eighth century, the Proper Chants were, in effect, considered to be constitutive elements of the Mass, deemed indispensable to the very shape of the liturgy.

What are the Propers?

Let us, then, review what the Proper Chants of the Mass are:

Introit

Were one to open the Roman Missal at the first page, finding there the Mass of the First Sunday of Advent, the very first element proper to that Mass, and to all others, is the Introit.

The Introit is composed of an antiphon; a verse taken from the psalm corresponding to the antiphon or, occasionally, from another; the Gloria Patri; and the repetition of the antiphon.

The Introit as presented in the Roman Missal appears in a somewhat truncated form, though all the essential elements — antiphon, psalmody, and doxology — are present.  Until about the eighth century the entire psalm would have been chanted, or at least the greater part of it, with the antiphon repeated after every verse, and this until the celebrant reached the altar, at which point the cantors would intone the Gloria Patri, and after the final repetition of the antiphon, end the Introit.

The purpose of the Introit in the tradition of the Roman Rite is not didactic; it is contemplative.  The Introit ushers the soul into the mystery of the day not by explaining it, but by opening the Mass with a word uttered from above.  The text of the Introit signifies that, in every celebration, the initiative is divine, not human; it is a word received that quickens the Church-at-Prayer, and awakens a response within her.

Concerning the Introit, Maurice Zundel writes:

[The soul] has but to listen, her sole preparation an eager desire for light, to catch the interior music of the words, and understand that Someone is speaking to her who was waiting for her.

He calls the Introit,

. . . a triumphal arch at the head of a Roman road, a porch through which we approach the Mystery, a hand outstretched to a crying child, a beloved companion in the sorrow of exile.  The Liturgy is not a formula. It is One who comes to meet us.

Sung examples:  Ad te levavi, Introit of the First Sunday of Advent, and Resurrexi, Introit of the Mass of Easter Day.

Gradual

The Gradual received its name from the Latin word gradus, meaning a step, because a cantor would sing it, standing on a step leading up to the ambo.  The structure of the Gradual is an initial phrase, nearly always from the Psalter, followed by a verse entrusted to one or several cantors.  The first part may be repeated.

The musical treatment of the Gradual is melismatic, that is to say, lavish, and characterized by great flights and cascades of notes that stretch and embellish the sacred text.

Maurice Zundel writes:

What really matters about words is not their strictly defined meanings which we find in the dictionary, but the imponderable aura wherein the unutterable Presence in which all things are steeped, is faintly perceptible.

It is in the silent spaces which poetry and music open within us that the doctrinal formulae can be heard with their amplest resonance.

It was therefore natural to invoke their aid after the reading of the Epistle.  For its message must be allowed to bear fruit in our personal meditation until we make contact with the Presence with which the texts are filled.  We must hear this single Word which is their true meaning and which no human word can express

The chanting of the Gradual provides this interval of silence and this time of rest in which the teaching just received can unfold in prayer, in the sweet movement of the Cantilena distilling in neums of light a divine dew.

Sung example:  Laetatus sum, Gradual of the Fourth Sunday of Lent.

Alleluia

The Alleluia, a cry of jubilation at the approach of the Bridegroom King who will arrive in the proclamation of the Holy Gospel, is a chant full of mystery, in that it quits the zone of mere concepts and words, and takes flight to soar into the ecstatic vocalisations of one seized by an ineffable mystery.

Saint John relates that the Alleluia is a heavenly hymn.  It is the song of the saints in praise of God and of the Lamb.  The Alleluia is universal; it is found in all the liturgies of East and West.  This universal presence of the Alleluia in Christian worship attests to its great antiquity.

A verse or phrase, generally, but not always, from the Psalter, follows the Alleluia.  After the verse, the Alleluia is repeated.

Sequence

The sequence prolongs the jubilation of the Alleluia, by gathering up the neums that shower out of it to organize them into a syllabic melody, and by giving free reign to a poetic expression of the mystery being celebrated. 

Five sequences remain in the Roman Missal: the Victimae Paschali Laudes of Easter; the Veni Sancte Spiritus of Pentecost, the Lauda Sion Salvatorem of Corpus Domini; the Stabat Mater of September 15th; and the Dies Irae of the Requiem Mass.

The Roman Missal of 1969 retains only four of these; the Dies Irae having been removed to the Liturgy of the Hours where it serves as a hymn for the last two weeks per annum.

Sung example:  Veni Sancte Spiritus, Pentecost.

Tract

Whereas the Alleluia is the expression of a joy defying all expression, the Tract is characteristic of a liturgy marked by godly sorrow and compunction.  It is found in the Mass, notably, from Septuagesima until Easter.

Originally the Tract was sung by the deacon from the ambo, in the manner of a lesson.  It was rendered from beginning to end without the interjection of a refrain by the choir; it is from this mode of execution that its name appears to be derived.

The Tract prepares the congregation for the hearing of the Gospel, not by inviting it to stand on tip-toe in joy, as it were, at the arrival of the Bridegroom, but by inviting to a profound recollection.  The Tract, more than any other Chant of the Proper of the Mass, illustrates that the Roman Rite is a school of audientes, a school forming listeners to the Word.

The substitution in Lent of an acclamation addressed to Christ for the Alleluia — a way of expressing the Alleluia without saying the word — impoverishes the Roman Rite which, in the usus antiquior demonstrates that one can prepare for the hearing of the Holy Gospel in the silence of a godly sorrow and compunction, as well as in jubilation.

Sung example:  Qui habitat, First Sunday of Lent.

Offertory

The Offertory Antiphon, already at the time of Saint Augustine, was sung to accompany the offering of bread and wine by the faithful and clergy.  Pope Saint Gregory the Great gave to the chant at the Offertory a form not unlike that of the Introit: an antiphon and several verses from the Psalter.  The antiphon was repeated before each verse; the singing lasted until the priest signaled to the cantors that they should stop, after which he would turn to the faithful for the Orate Fratres.

Even after the Offertory procession, as such, fell into disuse, the Offertory Antiphon continued to be sung, shorn of its verses.  The Offertory Antiphon is, as a rule, taken from the Psalter, although occasionally it is taken from other Books of Sacred Scripture.  In a few cases as, for instance, in the Requiem Mass, it is an ecclesiastical composition.

As for its musical characteristics, the Offertory is one of the richest and most expressive pieces in the Gregorian repetoire.  Dom Eugène Vandeur, a Benedictine monk of the first half of the last century writes:

More mystical and profound than either the Introit or the Gradual, it disposes our souls to recollection that thus they may fittingly assist at the Adorable Sacrifice about to be renewed.  The Offertory [Antiphon], then, more than any other part of the Mass, is a sublime and inspired prayer rising to the throne of God.

Sung example:  Sicut in holocausto, 13th Sunday per annum.

Communion

The Communion Antiphon with its psalm, structured like the Introit, accompanies the distribution of Holy Communion.  The Communion of the faithful ended, the Gloria Patri is sung, after which the antiphon is repeated.

While the greater part of Communion Antiphons are drawn from the Psalter, a certain number are taken from the Gospel of the day.  These particular Communion Antiphons, sung especially during Lent and Paschaltide, signify that the same Lord Jesus Christ who speaks and acts in the power of the Holy Ghost in the Gospel of the Mass, gives Himself to the communicants to fulfill in them what the Gospel proclaimed and announced.

Sung example:  Lutum fecit, 4th Sunday of Lent.

The 1965 Missale Romanum

The 1965 revision of the Roman Missal maintained the Chants of the Proper in their integrity as found in the Graduale Romanum.  Even as The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was being implemented, the place of the Propers was not called into question.  They remained constitutive elements of the Mass, having a structural and theological rather than a merely decorative or didactic function within the overall architecture of the Mass.

The Missal of 1969

Four years later however, the fate of the Chants of the Proper of the Mass appears signed and sealed.  Concerning the Proper Chants, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI, Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) is curiously misleading.  It says;

The text of the Graduale Romanum has not been changed as far as the music is concerned.  In the interest of their being more readily understood, however, the responsorial psalm (which St Augustine and St Leo the Great often mention) as well as the entrance and communion antiphons have been revised for use in Masses that are not sung.

With all due respect to Pope Paul VI, what the Apostolic Constitution neglects to say is:

1.  that the very form of the Introit has been changed to correspond to the Opening Sentence common in Protestant orders of worship;
2.  that the text itself of the revised Entrance Antiphon will no longer correspond to the text of the Graduale Romanum and, in some instances, will be an entirely new text susceptible of being integrated into the didactic opening remarks that, in the new Ordo Missae, may follow the salutation.
3.  That even the vestigial psalmody of the traditional Introit will disappear entirely from the reformed Missale Romanum;
3.  that the traditional texts of the Gradual, Tract, and Alleluiatic verses will be found henceforth only in the Graduale Romanum and will not appar alongside of the Responsorial Psalm as a legitimate option in the reformed Lectionary;
4.  that the Offertory Antiphon will disappear entirely from the new Roman Missal entirely, and will be found henceforth only in the Graduale Romanum;
5.  that the Communion Antiphon will, like the Entrance Antiphon, become something akin to a Communion Sentence, and often will no longer correspond to the text of the Graduale Romanum.

Thus began the radical deconstruction of the Mass of the Roman Rite.  If one posits that the Chants of the Proper of the Mass are not merely decorative, but constitutive of its architecture, then one must admit that by tinkering with them, or removing them altogether, one is weakening or removing supporting beams of the entire edifice, and risking its collapse.

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, also promulgated in April 1969, in a single phrase –sive alius cantus– effectively invited the termites to come in and finish the job.  Jesting aside, the Latin text of the General Instruction provided three options for the Chants of the Proper of the Mass.   These are:

1.  The antiphon with its psalm as given in the Graduale Romanum. 2.  The antiphon with its psalm as given in the Graduale Simplex. 3.  Another chant (alius cantus) suited to the sacred action and to the character of the day or season, the text of which is approved by the Conference of Bishops.

The 2002 American Adaptation of the GIRM

The 2002 American adaptation of the same General Instruction on the Roman Missal broadened the options and, in so doing, caused the text of the Proper Chants of the Roman Mass to appear as remote accessories that are, in any case, not indispensable to the architecture of the celebration.

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
The choices are given in order of preference.  The Roman Gradual, which hitherto was the primary reference, falls into second place. The first choice is the text of the antiphon given in the revised Roman Missal; the American “adaptors” were assuming that these texts will have been put to music.

The second choice is the antiphon and psalm in the Roman Gradual; the American adaptation adds, rather tellingly, either in the chant setting or in another musical setting.

The third choice is the Simple Gradual.  The Council Fathers had, in fact, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, article 117, mandated the preparation of a Simple Gradual, better suited to use in smaller churches.

The fourth choice, a collection of psalms and antiphons approved by the Conference of Bishops or by the Diocesan Bishop, does not, to my knowledge, exist anywhere in the U.S. or elsewhere in the English-speaking world.

The fifth choice — clearly the last resort — is a suitable liturgical song (here, there is a departure from the psalms and antiphons found in choices 1 through 4) similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or by the Diocesan Bishop.

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal continues:

48. If there is no singing at the entrance, the antiphon in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector; otherwise, it is recited by the priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. above, no. 31).

Article 48, by suggesting five different ways of reciting the antiphon in the Missal, including its mutation by the priest into an introductory explanation — note here the primacy of the didactic — puts the final touches on a insidious operation by which the Proper Chants of the Mass, even in the minimalistic form of texts recited by the celebrant, routinely came to be omitted altogether.  The Proper Chants, that in 1964 were still considered to be constitutive elements of the Mass, deemed indispensable to the very shape of the liturgy, were, by 1969, well on their way to being replaced by other compositions alien to the Roman Rite, and erased from the collective liturgical memory.

Conclusion

Allow me to formulate a principle, perhaps even, with a nod to Anton Baumstark, a law of liturgical evolution.  It is this: elements of the rite tend to be neglected and, in the end, disappear altogether, in direct proportion to the number of options by virtue of which they may be replaced or modified.

To my mind, one of the most urgent tasks of what has been called The Reform of the Reform is the suppression of the provision for an alius cantus aptus, and the restoration of the traditional texts of the Proper of the Mass, taking care, at the same time, that the texts given in the Missale Romanum correspond to those in the Graduale Romanum. (I would also argue for the restoration of the text of the Offertorium [Offertory Antiphon] to the editio typica of the reformed Missale Romanum.)  The replacement, in the current Missale Romanum of the venerable sung texts of the Graduale Romanum with texts destined to be read, was an innovation without precedent, and a mistake with far reaching and deleterious consequences for the Roman Rite.

In conclusion, I would further argue that a wider use of the Missal of 1962, and a careful examination of the so-called interim Missals published prior to 1969, in whole or in part, would be among the most effective means to the rehabilitation and reappropriation of the Proper Chants as indispensable theological and structural elements of the Mass of the Roman Rite.

Posted on by Jeffrey Tucker

How Does One Pronounce Latin Words?

After the concert, the organist from La Sainte Trinite (where we had performed earlier in our trip) offered to introduce me to the conductor.  Here was my chance to ask the chant director at Notre Dame in Paris about period pronunciation of Latin!  Perhaps I would finally put to rest what at the time had been a heated debate with one of my colleagues.  So I went up to the maestro, told him how much I had enjoyed the performance, and asked (in my best French) why it was that some words were pronounced as if they were French.  Was it for historical authenticity? issues of vocal technique? acoustical considerations?  He smiled and said (in English), “Why?  It is because my singers do not listen to me.”

More at the hilariously named euouae.com

Posted on by Jeffrey Tucker

The Eastman School and the Living Tradition of Organ Improvisation

The Eastman School of Music announced the tenth annual Eastman Rochester Organ Initiative (EROI) Festival that will be presented in conjunction with the 16th annual American Guild of Organists (AGO) Conference on Organ Pedagogy. The Festival, themed “Improvisation and Organ Pedagogy,” will take place November 10 through 14 in Rochester, NY.

This year’s festival will present the topic of organ improvisation through a variety of compositional techniques and styles. The conference will alternate master classes featuring students at a variety of levels, panel discussion addressing the teaching of improvisation, and sessions that will provide attendees with resource material in the pedagogy of improvisation. The scholarly portion will include panel presentations on a variety of topics.

The concerts will be heard on organs throughout the city, including several church organs and a Wurlitzer theater organ. The organists will be asked to improvise on a theme (anything from a nursery rhyme ditty to a classical work to a pop song). All of the concerts will include a Gregorian chant. The performers’ improvisations will be tailored to each individual instrument, to demonstrate the aesthetic of the style in which the organ was built.

More

Posted on by Revd Fr Christopher Smith

Communion Under Both Kinds From Church Documents

The lively debate which has come about as a result of my recent article on Communion Under Both Kinds has been interesting to watch. I think it might be useful here to reproduce the pertinent sections of two Church documents about it to guide our continuing discussion. Emphases are only my own, in light of the discussion.
From Redemptionis sacramentum (2004):
11. The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured.” On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.
16. “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”
40. Nevertheless, from the fact that the liturgical celebration obviously entails activity, it does not follow that everyone must necessarily have something concrete to do beyond the actions and gestures, as if a certain specific liturgical ministry must necessarily be given to the individuals to be carried out by them. Instead, catechetical instruction should strive diligently to correct those widespread superficial notions and practices often seen in recent years in this regard, and ever to instill anew in all of Christ’s faithful that sense of deep wonder before the greatness of the mystery of faith that is the Eucharist, in whose celebration the Church is forever passing from what is obsolete into newness of life: “in novitatem a vetustate”. For in the celebration of the Eucharist, as in the whole Christian life which draws its power from it and leads toward it, the Church, after the manner of Saint Thomas the Apostle, prostrates herself in adoration before the Lord who was crucified, suffered and died, was buried and arose, and perpetually exclaims to him who is clothed in the fullness of his divine splendour: “My Lord and my God!”
45. To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain “clericalization”, while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful.
100. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
101. In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned. With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.
102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
151. Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.
152. These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.
158. Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
160. Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.
From the Norms on the Reception and Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (2002)
15. The communicant makes this act of faith in the total presence of the Lord Jesus Christ whether in Communion under one form or in Communion under both kinds. It should never be construed, therefore, that Communion under the form of bread alone or Communion under the form of wine alone is somehow an incomplete act or that Christ is not fully present to the communicant. The Church’s unchanging teaching from the time of the Fathers through the ages—notably in the ecumenical councils of Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican II—has witnessed to a constant unity of faith in the presence of Christ in both elements. Clearly there are some pastoral circumstances that require eucharistic sharing in one species only, such as when Communion is brought to the sick or when one is unable to receive either the Body of the Lord or the Precious Blood due to an illness. Even in the earliest days of the Church’s life, when Communion under both species was the norm, there were always instances when the Eucharist was received under only the form of bread or wine. Those who received Holy Communion at home or who were sick would usually receive under only one species, as would the whole Church during the Good Friday Liturgy. Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we “receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.”
20. at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum: Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.
21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”
24. The General Instruction then indicates that the Diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The Diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the Priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice. Norms established by the Diocesan Bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, “which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups.”
25. When Communion under both kinds is first introduced by the Diocesan Bishop and also whenever the opportunity for instruction is present, the faithful should be properly catechized on the following matters in the light of the teaching and directives of the General Instruction:
a. the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
b. the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
c. the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, whole and entire‐‐in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
d. the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration; and
e. the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the eucharistic assembly.
27. In every celebration of the Eucharist there should be a sufficient number of ministers for Holy Communion so that it can be distributed in an orderly and reverent manner. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons distribute Holy Communion by virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
28. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, Priest, or Deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, Priests, or Deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, “the Priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, that is, duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been duly deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the Priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.” Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should receive sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation to fulfill their role with knowledge and reverence. When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. In all matters such Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should follow the guidance of the Diocesan Bishop.
Posted on by Jeffrey Tucker

Tribute to Applegate

Blake Applegate, 40, was destined to become a guardian of sacred music.

In 1983, his father Dean began the Portland liturgical choir Cantores in Ecclesia. Young Blake would sit outside the rehearsal room and listen to Renaissance polyphony and Gregorian chant issuing forth, thrilling him.  

After years of singing and then assisting his father as conductor, the younger Applegate is now director of Cantores. The choir, which has won medals in Europe, sings for 7:30 p.m. Mass every Saturday at St. Stephen Church in Portland.
Years in, the task has not lost its appeal.

“I have the music in my blood,” Applegate says.

After 25 years, the father stepped down and it seemed natural for the son to step up.

“It’s kind of a humbling role to assume,” says Applegate. “My father formed my musical identity. I just knew that keeping the tradition going was important.”

Read the entire article