Paul Ford here, not feeling very confident about how to make extensive replies to many but not all of the replies thus far to The CMAA Colloquium—a report. I’d love to know how Fritz makes use of the <div> </div> commands in WordPress. I thought just to make the following an extensive thread in the conversation but then I didn’t see how I could bold and italicize various things. So forgive me for what might appear grandiose (writing about myself in the third person and drawing more attention to this than it deserves.)


@#2 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald
“In terms of the OF’s enrichment by recovering some of the “reverence” of the EF, I don’t think that much has to be done, other than good chant, a good style of celebrating and some energy and warmth from clergy and laity alike for the rites.”

PF agrees but does not prefer encouraging kneeling at communion or communion by intinction. The former disrupts the processional character of the communion and the latter prevents the fullness of the sign of drinking.

@#5 by Jack Rakosky
“You have saved me the trouble of checking it out for myself.

PF thinks that many Catholics, clergy and lay, would benefit from attending the CMAA colloquium or something like it, wishing that NPM would make an EF Mass available at every convention, an OF Mass fully chanted using the first alternatives in GIRM 48 and 87, an OF Mass fully chanted using the second alternatives in GIRM 48 and 87, and an OF Mass fully chanted using the third alternatives in GIRM 48 and 87.

“The Reform of the Reform is about spirituality, e.g. kneeling at communion and receiving on the tongue.”

PF agrees.

@#7 by Bruce Ludwick, Jr.
“I suppose I don’t understand the opposition to ad orientem in this situation (The wise presider gets himself out of the way by directing his attention to the assembly, to the word, to what he is doing, and to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.), since I am sure the priest addressed the dialogues, etc., to the people in the proper posture (facing them).

PF wants to explain the parenthetical remark, inspired by an essay by Fergus Kerr, O.P., “Liturgy and Impersonality” New Blackfriars 52 (1971), is his (PF’s) abbreviated version of the ars celebrandi.

“I’m a little confused as well why the “treasury of sacred music” is more appropriate for the concert hall than the parish. In moderation, it seems to be a flowering God’s grace in the liturgy, encourages prayerful meditation upon the liturgy, and discourages us from treating the liturgy in a utilitarian manner.”

PF thinks that the operative words here at “in moderation.”

@#8 by Karl Liam Saur
“[t]he Pope’s preferences regarding kneeling and tongue have been over-interpreted as rules rather than his preferences and that he has in fact not treated them as rules in his own practice.”

PF agrees.

@#12 by M. Jackson Osborn
PF thinks your remarks about the monstrance are immensely helpful.

@#17 by Charles Culbreth
“1. I love the expanded collection of Eucharistic Prayers, especially when they are sung with the people responding. We don’t do EF, but our celebrants do cantillate the orations at our parishes. Now you know that
 2. I love the expanded lectionary, three readings and three year cycle. As do I. And I respect
them especially when they, too, are cantillated well, which has yet not evolved in our parishes. And, because I can’t get my tablet to work properly, we do chant the responses to the Universal Prayer in the OF at most of our 18 Masses.
 And 3. I love the Prayers of the Faithful with a sung response.”

PF agrees, and will have more to say about #3 soon.

@#18 by Bill deHaas
“Paul Ford – can you provide some history of the CMAA?”

PF can’t.

“[W]as there anything in this conference that touches on these types of “introducing change”, chant, antiphons, etc.? Why does it seem to always be an either/or choice – have had my best experiences of worship when a diverse musical choices and instruments are used that focus more on scripture, church seasons or feasts, etc.?”

PF thinks that there will be more of the practical next year and agrees that we need to inject the Catholic AND 
into all of our conversations.

@#20 by Jonathan Day
”I have no doubt that fine sacred music can go hand in hand with ‘modern’ liturgical and even theological sensibilities, because that was what I first experienced in a parish where William Mahrt, a long-time leader of the CMAA, had built up a beautiful sacred music programme. We had the normative Mass in Latin, but celebrated in an open, accessible style: an altar very close to the congregation, priest facing the people, lively exchange of the peace, communion in both kinds and in the hand, etc., etc.”

PF had the same experience at the same parish! Perhaps you were there when he visited with Bob Hurd!

“To lay my cards on the table, I think that Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae were big mistakes in all sorts of ways. I have wondered, for some time, whether a “bi-ritual” parish could really work. And yet this interview from the CMAA’s blog suggests that it can – the parish in question even calls itself “bi-ritual”. Some issues need to be resolved on first principles, others more empirically.”

PF agrees.

@#21 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald
“Where I remain frustrated is not with the EF’s influence on the OF, but the lack of promoting in any serious way the OF’s influence on the EF. By that I mean active singing and participation by the laity of the parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word facing the congregation and in the vernacular, that the sung Mass be sung by priest and laity alike.”

PF agrees.

@#23 by Randolph Nichols
“Simply put, [the colloquium this year in Salt Lake City] was an edifying week of top notch music instruction, singing, and liturgical music-making free from the commercial pandering that afflicts so many other liturgical music gatherings. Although many of the top church music talents were there, I was surprised to meet so many people, mostly from small communities, who as amateurs just stumbled into a church leadership role. The solid grounding in the basics of chant and choral singing, not to mention the exposure to a wide variety of wonderfully executed liturgical music, must have been both an inspiration and revelation to them. 
The emphasis on the extraordinary form liturgies at this year’s colloquium was intended I believe to reveal the profound beauty and mystery of the old rite when well done, and in that they were successful. There were many attendees though who expressed the wish that the colloquium had placed more emphasis on the practical, strategic dimensions of improving parish life as it really is with demonstrations of carefully crafted ordinary form Masses. (As my wife was quick to notice, having no female altar servers would be a non-starter in our area.) 
If there is one issue that defines the CMAA and its membership and separates it from detractors it is the conviction that there is such a thing as music with a “sacred” character. That is why so many, liberals included, enthusiastically align with the CMAA.”

PF agrees.

@#24 by Todd Flowerday
“I wasn’t impressed with the text of Msgr Wadsworth’s address at all. He may be a fine musician and theologian, but I couldn’t tell.

PF thinks that Wadsworth is a fine musician and linguist.
PF has been trying to finish a response to Wadsworth’s address—stay tuned to Pray Tell.

@#27 by Fr. Robert C Pasley, Chaplain CMAA
“The Colloquium is not just a music conference. Sacred Music cannot be learned and experienced properly and fully except in the Sacred Liturgy. The Colloquium is a musical, liturgical, spiritual experience. We bend over backwards to make sure that it remains that way. We want an atmosphere that is retreat-like and yet sociable.”

PF thinks you succeeded admirably and thanks you for writing on Pray Tell.

“We have also chosen to use liturgical options that are absolutely legitimate and yet ignored or even demonized by many.”

Not by PF.

Ad orientem worship, according to the GIRM, is equal to facing the people. Someone may not like it and that is their preference, but many other have never experienced it in the OF and have a right to. It is not forbidden.”

PF invites everyone to look again at GIRM 299: “299. The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” May PF ask to be directed to the places where the GIRM says “is equal to”?

“Second, the sign of peace is not optional and was given at every Mass, but it does not have to be offered to the congregation. We do this on purpose to let people see that it is absolutely not required.

PF says that the Greeting was given at every OF Mass, but the sign was not in evidence.

“The Prayer of the faithful is also not required every day. It is ‘desirable’ which does not mean that it is mandatory.”

PF says yes, but adds that the GIRM 69 couples ‘desirable’ with ‘usually.’

“Like Benedict XVI we have chosen to emphasize, once again, Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. We never make it mandatory for anyone and explain that it is an option. A person is free to stand and receive in the hand.”
Finally, you might think from some comments that almost every Mass was EF. Out of 6 Masses only 2 were EF – The Requiem Mass and Sts Peter and Paul; the rest were OF. Would that we did have more EF Masses. Whether one likes it or not both are equal forms of the one Roman Rite. Not everything revolves around ones personal tastes, likes and dislikes.”

PF agrees with you that 
“Not everything revolves around one’s personal tastes, likes and dislikes,”
even the tastes, likes, and dislikes of the Holy Father, about which PF has written and will write again on Pray Tell in August. PF disagrees that the two forms are equal. ‘Equal’ is not to be found in Summorum Pontificum or the accompanying letter of the Holy Father. Article I establishes the Ordinary Form as ‘ordinary’ and ‘normal’ and the Extraordinary form as ‘extraordinary.’

[Next there took place a three-part dialogue about desiring an internet directory of the kinds of Masses and texts and music to be experienced in parishes and chapels around the country: @#28 by Jack Rakosky, @#29 by Charles Culbreth and @#30 by Richard Chonak; Richard ended:] “Incidentally, Dr. Ford, I had hoped to attend your workshop on BFW at the Colloquium but as the scheduling worked out, it couldn’t happen. Did you distribute any notes for the session?”

A PDF version of PF’s presentation is herePF also distributed copies of the Simple Gradual ICEL 1968 translation and his Responsorial Tones Complete.

@#31 by Arlene Oost-Zinner
PF appreciates the wonderful work of Arlene Oost-Zimmer and her words: “ . . . The programming challenges – many of them practical, many intellectual or spiritual – are endless. On which calendar days will our liturgies fall? (Sometimes the week for the event has to do with when venues are available – very mundane stuff!!) Shall we choose OF or EF for any given day? Which form on a given day will provide more teachable moments? Since there are many, which teachable moments shall we choose this year? For the OF, shall we use Latin or English? Why? How much? What about personnel available celebrating and serving the Masses? 
What is permitted or customary in the given venue? Has the local community much experience with traditional sacred music at all? Is it better to ease participants into a new experience or should they just be hit over the head with something big? If they are hit over the head, will they run screaming or will they be touched to the very core of their beings?
There are as many right answers here as there are reasoned opinions, gut reactions, and doctoral theses. We try to improve and fine tune and serve every year. We are always a work in progress. And we are always learning.
. . . ”

Send to Kindle