A GIRM Compendium?

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is apparently preparing a document that is a sort of “how-to” manual for celebrating Mass.

I always thought that the GIRM served that function. So is this a kind of compendium of the GIRM? Is it “spin” on the GIRM? Is it an end run around the GIRM?

Perhaps the more significant question: will it make any difference?

P.S.

I am glad to know that Cardinal Cañizares thinks it’s OK to do the readings at Mass facing the people. And that he likes gypsy music. Maybe he’d even like Adam Wood’s Shaker setting.

Share:

69 comments

  1. Great news. Hopefully it will clear up some things, including the entrance, offertory, and communion chant conundrums, the issues relating to gestures & other practices carried over from the EF. The obligation to adhere to Vatican II’s SC #’s 36.1 & 54.

  2. Saw this also, Deacon, and, of course, one of our commenters triumphantly copied and pasted from this piece while adding his own *clairvoyant* perspective.

    Sorry, find this ROTR advocacy does the church a disfavor. It is unhistorical, opinion masquerading as correct historical interpretation; ignores 50 years of church experience; ignores much of factual events from the passage of SC going forward. And just love the – don’t make liturgy into a show – really, and what about EF High Masses complete with frills, bells, and smells (Faure, no less)?

    Here is a tongue in cheek appraisal:

    “Prefect Warns Against Making Liturgy Into a ‘Show’

    The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is preparing a booklet to help priests celebrate the Mass properly and the faithful to participate better, according to the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

    In particular, Cardinal Cañizares stressed the importance that Sacrosanctum Concilium gave to the sacred liturgy, through which “the work of our Redemption is exercised, above all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist,” adding that “God wants to be adored in a concrete way and it’s not up to us to change it.”

    The cardinal criticized the effort to make the Mass “entertaining” with certain songs — instead of focusing on the mystery — in an attempt to overcome “boredom” by transforming the Mass into a show.

    He added that the Council did not speak of the priest celebrating Mass facing the people, that it stressed the importance of Christ on the altar, reflected in Benedict XVI’s celebration of the Mass in the Sistine Chapel facing the altar. This does not exclude the priest facing the people, in particular during the reading of the word of God. He stressed the need of the notion of mystery, and particulars such as the altar facing East and the fact that the sacrificial sense of the Eucharist must not be lost.

    Rules and Regulations:

    1. Priest must be male celibate dress to the nines in the latest Roman ecclesiastical finery with lots of gilding and flowing vestments according to their clerical status. And don’t forget that priest must wear black cassock underneath vestments and biretta on head.

    2. Mass will begin when priest leaves the sacristy, announced with ringing of entrance bell by male server, and then proceed to foot of altar to begin prayers.

    3. It is mandatory that the Priest must face altar at all times and will only face the congregation when giving homily, then only in the local language, and it must be full of hell fire and brimstone. No jokes or stories are permitted, only dogma and doctrine is permitted to be used. The Temple Police will report any infractions to the local bishop immediately.

    4. All prayers of the mass are to be exactly recited only in perfect Latin and with proper German accent and vocal intonation of Benedict XVI.

    5. Priest may give communion only on the recipients tongue, while recipient is kneeing outside the railing separating the congregation from the sanctuary, and only if recipient is in a complete state of grace and has deposited offertory envelope in collection basket. Communion can be given to women only if they have their heads covered by a veil and are properly dressed with skirt length below the knees. Rosary in hand is also required.

    6. Only those ordained may touch the sacred vessels used during the mass and distribute communion to the congregation. All non-ordained my wear white gloves when required to handle sacred vessels.

    7. Generous use of incense at all masses is mandatory, with lots of bell ringing. Low Masses are to be offered only with two beeswax candles burning. High Masses require 6 extra tall beeswax candles. All other adorations must have multiple candelabras.

    8. Ushers are require to poke those in the congregation who may have nodded off to sleep during mass.

    9. During the mass the priest may not step beyond the line separating the sanctuary from the congregation, nor may any lay person enter the sanctuary during the mass, except the young male altar servers.

    10. If someone looking like Jesus of Nazareth should walk into the church during the mass, the priest is to give explicit orders to the ushers to remove him immediately and lock all church doors and windows.”

    And catch the *concrete way that can not be changed* – really, guess he doesn’t understand liturgy, theology, much less Vatican II.

  3. There are priests who already are quite attentive to GIRM, other liturgical documents and decrees and are faithful to them. For them, a compendium is really unnecessary. There are priests who freely adapt the liturgy in a way they feel best expresses their own theology/beliefs and which also might best address the needs of their congregation. For them, a compendium is useless.
    In our current situation, bishops are happy to allow both priests to continue presiding as they see fit. If fallen into the hands of laypeople, a compendium might cause some to ask, “Why does Father….?” or “How come Father doesn’t….?” and thus cause even further confusion.

  4. Another concession to the secular age. There’s no challenge/opportunity that can’t be reduced to a degree of rationalism and ideology, and further weaken the unity of the Body. In other words, if one GIRM isn’t enough, then several must be better.

    What might be more informative is a compendium of best practices from around the world. One suggestion: anything on television (for an audience) is automatically excluded.

    1. @Todd Flowerday – comment #4:
      Agreed – especially, anything on television (papal masses) is automatically excluded.

      Well, there goes Allan’s approach to liturgy:

      From the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord in Rome –

      “As I type this, I’m watching the “Baptism of the Lord” Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Sistine Chapel with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. Of course this Mass is celebrated at the historic Sistine Chapel altar and thus ad orientem. It is glorious to see this of course.
      At the Our Father, the Holy Father used the introduction from the Rite of Baptism tying baptism into Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. I’ve not done that when I’ve had baptisms at Mass because I didn’t know I should. It is good to see the Holy Father model the right way!
      There is very little wrong with the Ordinary Form of the Mass when celebrated by the book, using Gregorian Chant or Sacred Music that is a derivative of it, and doing it completely including the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons, using the Benedictine Altar Arrangement and returning to ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and kneeling for Holy Communion.”

      The fact that he didn’t know that he could use the intro to the Our Father from the baptismal rite in a eucharist that had baptisms says it all (or that we have to wait until we get papal permission or that only the pope can model this for us).

      It gets to what you frequently note, Todd, that SC, Consilium, Paul VI, etc. tried to develop an approach in which the priest/liturgy directors have multiple options so that they can better the liturgical experience for their community. Liturgy is not STBDTR but the art of leading, encouraging, making choices, etc. to enhance the communal eucharistic liturgy. (thus, your compendium suggestion)

      1. @Bill deHaas – comment #6:
        The fact that he didn’t know that he could use the intro to the Our Father from the baptismal rite in a eucharist that had baptisms says it all

        I had hoped this were so, but alas, it appears not to have been the case.

      2. @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #30:
        Thanks, JP but of course you don’t mean it that way – guess you will just have to be disappointed, again. Now we have more opinion masquerading as fact (#31….again, personal experience morphing into how the church behaves everywhere).

        Catch the use of *official* implying that the fourth option outlined by Fr. Ruff above is obviously less *official* and, of course, he ignores the complicated history and differences between the Romanum Graduale and the missal; the oft cited posts here at PTB which highlight that the antiphons may have little connection to the three year lectionary, etc. Consistency of style – really?

        Lord of the Dance seems to have really pricked a couple of opinions:

        Let’s see – a) the music is from an early Shaker tune; the words by Carter should be rejected because he stated that it was heretical and dubiously Christian. Lyrics written in 1963 but first recorded with the Shaker tune, Simple Gifts, in 1967; also, Carter stated that it was partly inspired by Jesus and partly by the statue. He later stated, “I did not think the churches would like it at all. I thought many people would find it pretty far flown, probably heretical and anyway dubiously Christian. But in fact people did sing it and, unknown to me, it touched a chord … Anyway, it’s the sort of Christianity I believe in.”
        “I see Christ as the incarnation of the piper who is calling us. He dances that shape and pattern which is at the heart of our reality. By Christ I mean not only Jesus; in other times and places, other planets, there may be other Lords of the Dance. But Jesus is the one I know of first and best. I sing of the dancing pattern in the life and words of Jesus.
        Whether Jesus ever leaped in Galilee to the rhythm of a pipe or drum I do not know. We are told that David danced (and as an act of worship too), so it is not impossible. The fact that many Christians have regarded dancing as a bit ungodly (in a church, at any rate) does not mean that Jesus did. The Shakers didn’t… ” – quite different from the retort and spin provided above.
        And would wager that you could say and find this same type of situation across many composers, their music, what inspired them, etc. Is there some type of test you have to pass before a composer can provide music?

      3. @Bill deHaas – comment #32:

        Lord of the Dance seems to have really pricked a couple of opinions:

        Bill,

        Given that your criticisms are largely in light of my response, I’ll field it a bit more.

        The whole matter of what is “appropriate” ends up becoming very subjective.

        When it comes to some songs — “Lord of the Dance” and “Sing a New Church” are two great examples — some people just don’t like them. For my part, I don’t like them. Someday, when I’m a pastor, I’ll probably ask the music director to not use them. The melodies (“Simple Gifts” and “Nettleton” respectively) are both fine — but these two hymns built on top of them grate at me (and the only thing worse than hearing them once at Mass is hearing them at each of 4+ Masses on a weekend).

        Anything that I’ve learned about Carter and his personal life and belief that found their way into his lyrics only underscores my judgment.

        Unless we begin speaking about a hymnal that has some sort of “official” standing with a bishops’ conference, there really is no “test” for what passes as suitable hymnody. In most places, it’s going to come down to some agreement between the music director and pastor for a ‘corpus’ of hymns that are actually used in the parish — something very subjective.

        Musical quality may or may not be a factor; orthodoxy (or perceived orthodoxy) of texts may or may not be a factor; whether or not the pastor/music director/congregation “like” the music may or may not be a factor. The personal life of the composer really need not be a factor — except in how it affects the resulting texts.

        That said, I cringe at the thought of what an “Official Hymnal” for the US would look like if it were created today — there are still too many “scholars” and “experts” who have the bishops’ ears.

      4. @Clarence Goodwright – comment #35:
        Thanks, Clarence. Sorry, your approach scares the dickens out of me – especially, the part about what you would choose to do if you are ever a pastor.

        You judge Carter – okay, let’s flip to Allan’s hero, Faure, a serial adulterer who publically maintained a mistress for years – very high profile. His requiem had little to do with faith or the catholic church – it was a means to make money, period.

        Sorry, we do have multiple ways of judging hymns to be appropriate – first, for liturgy period; second, at any specific Sunday liturgy; don’t recall any publication that lists *orthodoxy*. (Thanks to Rachel – interesting that you, Clarence, seem to be unaware of these published liturgical documents and yet you make statements with complete certitude. Sorry, your comments tend to align you with what some call *The Temple Police*.)

        Jack, et alii – in terms of lay professionals/clerics……understand that today in some (most) large parishes you probably have lay professionals who are more educated in theology, liturgy, music, finances, organizational development, leadership, etc. than the assigned clerics.

        (BTW, Todd, it is Macon, GA not South Carolina)

      5. @Bill deHaas – comment #44:

        understand that today in some (most) large parishes you probably have lay professionals who are more educated in theology, liturgy, music, finances, organizational development, leadership, etc. than the assigned clerics

        One of the complexities of liturgical life in parishes is that there are so many people with so many different claims to “liturgical expertise”

        Some years ago when I pulled together a diocesan VOTF Mass for victims of sexual abuse I quickly found I had too many “experts”

        1. a woman pastoral staff member who was very knowledgeable about sexual abuse issues who had a choir willing to lead us.

        2. a musician and composer who was very knowledgeable about sexual abuse issues but who could not offer us a choir

        3. a voluntary leader in a parish well known for its outstanding liturgies but who could not offer us their choir.

        4. While I “outranked” these (and probably most of the priests of the diocese) in the number of graduate level courses in liturgy, I quickly convinced everyone that the simplest thing was to the let the woman with the choir put everything together. We ended up with a Mass that pleased people involved in the sexual abuse issue but would have been “at home” in most parishes.

        In local parishes I usually give my opinions behind the scenes to people in charge and support them publicly rather than make life complicated for them. As one music minister once put it “I have three very different priests to please and I don’t need anyone else.”

        The problem in parishes is that we have much “liturgical expertise” but no good way of processing it for the benefit of the parish. The process is heavily stacked in favor of the existing people who control the liturgy. Some times that is the priest(s), sometimes paid lay ministers, sometimes volunteer lay ministers. Yes the volunteers can be just as turf protecting as anyone else.

      6. @Bill deHaas – comment #44:

        You judge Carter – okay, let’s flip to Allan’s hero, Faure, a serial adulterer who publically maintained a mistress for years – very high profile. His requiem had little to do with faith or the catholic church – it was a means to make money, period.

        So what? Do the words or the music promote or reflect his beliefs on adultery? No. There’s nothing about it that renders it suspect. As to whether it should actually be used, the other questions to judge it will be sufficient (and in most parishes, the conclusion would be that it should not).

        Sorry, we do have multiple ways of judging hymns to be appropriate – first, for liturgy period; second, at any specific Sunday liturgy; don’t recall any publication that lists *orthodoxy*.

        No publication lists “orthodoxy” as a criterion per se… but that should be an assumed part of judging its pastoral appropriateness. Let’s look at STTL 130 (on “The Pastoral Judgment”):

        […] Does a musical composition promote the sanctification of the members of the liturgical assembly by drawing them closer to the holy mysteries being celebrated? […]

        If the text is heterodox, then the answer to this question MUST BE A RESOUNDING “NO!” Ensuring that correct doctrine is taught is part of pastoral charity. Hymns that express incorrect doctrine have no part in any liturgy, even hymns that are incredibly beautiful and “speak” to people.

        interesting that you, Clarence, seem to be unaware of these published liturgical documents and yet you make statements with complete certitude.

        I missed one… I’m still learning too. However, I don’t regret my certitude, in light of what I just said about orthodoxy above.

        Thanks, Clarence. Sorry, your approach scares the dickens out of me – especially, the part about what you would choose to do if you are ever a pastor.
        […]
        Sorry, your comments tend to align you with what some call *The Temple Police*.

        Thank you. Coming from you, especially, I will take this as a badge of honor.

  5. Well, the liturgy is a ‘show’ insofar as it’s a drama or ‘the drama’ of salvation. A drama, however, not LIVE with Kelly.

  6. And just love the – don’t make liturgy into a show – really, and what about EF High Masses complete with frills, bells, and smells (Faure, no less)?

    You can debate about “frills” and “Faure” I suppose, but “bells and smells” are ancient and required parts of the Solemn EF liturgy. They don’t make that liturgy a show, they’re a required part of that liturgy.

    There are priests who already are quite attentive to GIRM, other liturgical documents and decrees and are faithful to them. For them, a compendium is really unnecessary. There are priests who freely adapt the liturgy in a way they feel best expresses their own theology/beliefs and which also might best address the needs of their congregation. For them, a compendium is useless.

    OK… but there are other priests who are maybe not “quite attentive” or who have missed a few of the finer points and appreciate summarys, tips, continuing education etc. and who aren’t just “freely adapt[ing]” and, in fact, this would likely be useful even for the latter group, as ideally they “freely adapt” from a position of knowledge and not from a position of ignorance.

  7. Such a lot of ad hominem argument, surely generating more heat than light. To take up but some of the liturgical features held up for criticism…Jewish temple worship at the time of Our Lord would have featured (most, but not all scholars would agree) an exclusively male priesthood, wearing vestments from a long bygone age, directing worship in a language that was no longer current on the streets and which had to be taught specially, accompanied by clouds of incense. That Jesus was so vehemently opposed to such practices can readily be seen by the importance the evangelists gave to preserving Jesus’ criticisms of it…just struggling to find chapter and verse to substantiate that claim. All I can find is advice on what to do with a pound of pure nard if someone should choose to lavish it upon you. Ah well, I suppose nard advice will do in lieu of lace, brocade, gilding, bells and smells advice.

  8. The Bishops of England and Wales published Celebrating the Mass (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/CTM.pdf) in 2005 as a “Pastoral Introduction”. It got a favourable mention in the Commentary on GIRM (Foley et al.). This at least suggests room for another type of document. I would hope that the primary liturgical documents would continue to be the focal point, though the recent article in Worship on communion from the chalice suggests that there are possibilities for confusion on this point.

  9. The fact that he didn’t know that he could use the intro to the Our Father from the baptismal rite in a eucharist that had baptisms says it all…

    Bill, I’m a bit unclear on the “all” that it says. I myself was unaware of this — though I suppose if I had thought about it I would have figured it would come under the “or similar words” provision of the old translation. But I don’t think the new translation still has the same provision at this particular point, so the fact that it is allowed is at least worth noting.

    1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #11:
      We don’t normally have the Sacrament of Baptism modeled for us on video anywhere (when celebrated during Mass). The Holy Father modeled it beautifully last Sunday with about 20 babies being baptized. Yes, he also modeled adaptation for other parts of the Mass when a baptism takes place during it. In addition to using the intro for the Lord’s Prayer from the baptism ritual (which I know of no document or rubric or GIRM that indicates one can do this) he also used the three fold solemn blessing from the baptism ritual that included blessings for both the fathers and mothers.
      It was a rather splendid celebration in the Sistine Chapel, ad orientem and all!

      I should also add that at major celebrations, such as the Easter Vigil, the Holy Father’s Mass does have a commentator explaining what will take place and in a variety of languages.

      In terms of current day distress for some Catholics in terms of the Liturgy and it usually hinges now on the type or selection of music, a commenter on my blog wrote of his experience of Mass just this morning:

      “Sadly, the “spirit” of Vatican II stuck in the 1970s timewarp is still very much alive and kicking. At my parish today, the enterance hymn was “Sing A New Church”, perhaps the most offensive and perverted hymn possible. The Communion hymn was “I Have Loved You With An Everlasting Love”, a very pretty love song… but that’s just it… it’s a secular love song. The closing hymn was the ever annoying “Lord of The Dance”, the very definition of nails on a chalkboard. All through it, our “musical” director seemed very proud and kind of arrogant about his hymn choices. The progressives may be shaking in their boots, but the still have a very strong death-grip on their power in the Church that probably won’t be broken in the typical suburban dioceses for a few more decades.”

      So when someone says “when they paint with a broadbrush and decide that the reformed liturgy failed because of some experiences they may have imagined happened two or three decades ago” that person isn’t being truly honest about present day experiences that so many still have, but growing smaller we pray!

      1. @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #14:

        Models of good liturgical practice are always welcome! The directives on the celebration of these rites are often scattered throughout the liturgical books and details are easy for a busy priest to miss!

        The use of the special introduction to the Lord’s Prayer is indicated by the rubrics in the ‘Rite of Baptism for Several Children During Mass’ (Rite of Baptism for Children, n. 112)

        The ritual book for baptism also gives solemn blessings that may be used at Mass (Rite of Baptism for Children, n. 114). The possibility of using these is also indicated in the ‘Ceremonial of Bishops’ (n. 447).

        Another adaptation when baptisms take place within Mass is the use of the special formulas in the Eucharistic Prayers (these are found in the Roman Missal with the Ritual Masses ‘For the Conferral of Baptism’).

      2. @Fr Kurt Barragan – comment #16:
        Thanks so much, hopefully when the rest of the liturgical books are retranslated and updated there will be easy to find norms and options for sacramental celebrations within Mass to compliment the new English missal.

      3. @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #14:

        Following from my last post… It’s easy for us to miss liturgical directives like these that can be truly pastorally useful. In an ideal world, we would all have made a careful study of the various ritual books. Even then, it’s easy to forget things that we haven’t had an opportunity to put into practice.

        It would be great if someone could compile a quick, easy to use and accurate reference work where these details are found all in one place. I’m sure a lot of us could benefit!

  10. Thanks, Deacon. Guess your response surprises me but let’s seek some clarification.
    Thanks to Jonathan in the post above – open that link and go to number 78. So, Deacon, do you think that this basic liturgical principle and directive has been abrogated by the *new translation*?

    Again, was following up on Todd’s comment – what discourages me is that the reformed liturgy of VII provided an infinite number of options and it was the responsibility of the liturgy directors/presider to make choices (it was never meant to be a cookie cutter choice or already pre-set). Unfortunately, these directives and this principle appear to have either been lost or never fully implemented. As one of my classmates is wont to say – it is not that SC/VII failed; it is that SC/VII have never really been tried. So, it pains me to see folks knee jerk to EF, etc. when they do not understand fully the reformed mass; when they paint with a broadbrush and decide that the reformed liturgy failed because of some experiences they may have imagined happened two or three decades ago.
    Think of some recent posts on PTB about use of intros for scripture (see Paul Ford’s weekly input to presiders) – have we not lost this part of the the reformed liturgy (and how many priests ordained in the last five years even know about that directive; much less, trained to act on it?).

    Mr. Howard – strongly support the use of *smells* when appropriate. Bells – yes, please use in music; use the church bells but let’s not focus on the *old* bell ringing at the words of institution (aren’t we well past that).

    Allan – find hypocritical folks who say one thing on PTB and then borrow/copy/paste from PTB elsewhere while denigrating folks’ opinions, contributions, etc. Not only hypocritical but a form of talking behind someone’s back. Where is the integrity, truthfulness, etc. and thus why would anyone take your words at face value? What are you hiding behind?

  11. Some here may be reading more options into the post V2 missal than are really there. We do see some limited options but these are certainly far from “infinite”. One of the pastoral problems arising after the liturgical reform mentioned in the letter to the bishops accompanying SP seems to have its genesis in this mistaken (IMHO) view that liturgical directors would take it upon themselves to craft options on to the liturgy that are simply not there.

    “…in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.”

    For example, some would suppress the “Gloria” in Ordinary Time and omit the Penitential Act on other occasions. Some would suppress the Lavabo and other ceremonies during the Offertory. We see this approach in the “98 translation where they invent a whole series of options toward the Introductory Rites.

    I don’t understand some people’s seeming distaste for the “sacring” bells. The sacring bells are retained in the reformed missal and the mentality that “we are past that” is simply not pastoral IMO because it is seems unjust to suppress what the missal permits based on one’s own perceptions of propriety or, more typically, due to one’s personal piety & preferences. The liturgy does not belong to the “director” anymore than it belongs to the celebrant.

  12. The blogger who called himself the Renegade Trad wrote an insightful piece some time ago on the emergence of what he termed “lay clerics”: laypeople whose main profession is outside of church work, outside the academy, but who are surprisingly knowledgeable about theology and especially liturgy. They know things and have a point of view. The Internet and the ready availability of documents has given them (us) opportunities both to learn about liturgical matters and to sound off.

    And so when some issue of liturgical practice comes up on the highly-visited blogs, no matter how abstruse the question, the “lay clerics” will jump in in huge numbers, quoting not only the GIRM but Guéranger, Dominicae Cenae, Mediator Dei, Aquinas, etc.

    I think the emergence of these non-accredited “lay clerics” is generally more positive than negative. But it is very significant for the Church.

    If the “booklet” promised by Cardinal Cañizares is not prepared with some care and sensitivity for all concerned, “trads” and “progs” alike, it will provoke problematic reactions. The CDW should certainly not provide the liturgical mutaween from either camp with further encouragement to monitor Masses and delate priests whose liturgies they don’t like. That is something the Church emphatically does not need.

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #15:
      the emergence of what he termed “lay clerics”: laypeople whose main profession is outside of church work, outside the academy, but who are surprisingly knowledgeable about theology and especially liturgy.

      This isn’t really new although the internet may have made it more visible.

      As the Zwicks have documented in The Catholic Worker Movement: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins , Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day had a grasp of what was going in areas of theology, philosophy, history and literature that was likely far superior to the average rectory or chancery office, maybe even of a lot of Catholic colleges.

      In a public high school in the 50’s, one of my math professors introduced me to Merton’s Seeds of Contemplation. One of my English professors during college was very involved with the Catholic Worker movement and the intellectual activity that accompanied it. There have always been intellectuals within and outside of academia that have had a wide range of interests including the many intellectual aspects of Catholicism.

      What is different in recent decades is that more and more professionals in whatever profession live in multidisciplinary worlds and regularly cross disciplinary boundaries, engaging people from other disciplines, challenging their thinking.

      Studies done of organizations such as Voice of the Faithful have found the vast majority of the people are nonchurch professionals. Unlike many Catholics in the pew they are not intimidated by church professionals.

      All organizations and all disciplines should recognize that there exist outside their boundaries sufficient, indeed an abundance of expertise that if it gets organized and motivated can provide a substantial challenge to an organization or discipline.

      Few Catholics however are motivated by translation issues, Latin, chant, the EF, etc. However, a substantial percentage would probably like to have greater input into the hymns at Mass, the homilies, and the general shape of the liturgy at their parish.

      The GIRM Compendium will probably be like the Compendium on the Social Teachings of the Church (maybe that is where they got the idea) something to occupy the Curia.

      1. @Jack Rakosky – comment #29:
        Jack, two points here.

        First, on the “lay clerics”: I agree that there were highly knowledgeable “lay clerics” before the current era, but I would argue that they were far less common in the Catholic Church. There was less impulse to become knowledgeable about the liturgy in an environment where the assembly and the ministers were only loosely connected, perhaps until the bells that Jack Feehily mentioned momentarily reconnected the two communities.

        The general expectation was that a man who was interested in these things would become a “real cleric”: when Thomas Merton met Catherine Doherty (like Dorothy Day, herself a “lay cleric”), she immediately said: “Tom, are you thinking of becoming a priest? People who ask all the questions you asked me in those letters usually want to become priests …”.

        Those earlier Catholic “lay clerics” were also restricted in their ability to speak by the system of censorship, nihil obstat, etc. Tolkein was, reportedly, deeply upset at CS Lewis for writing about theology, not primarily because he disagreed with Lewis’s views (though in many areas he did disagree, very sharply) but because he thought it entirely inappropriate for Lewis, a layman, to be publishing and speaking about such things.

        Second, on the “Compendium”: my impression is that Fritz gave it that name. The Zenit article refers to a “booklet”. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church weighs in at 480 pages — something altogether more hefty than a “booklet”.

  13. “The CDW should certainly not provide the liturgical mutaween from either camp with further encouragement to monitor Masses and delate priests whose liturgies they don’t like. That is something the Church emphatically does not need.”

    Jonathan, I’m fully in agreement. The CDW is an excellent example of a Vatican dicastery that, in concept as well as in practice, has outlived its usefulness.

    In concept, because (1) by default it tends to focus on occasional outright abuses than on the far more widespread ignorance of what public prayer is, (2) SC charged bishops’ conferences and other non-central bodies with most of its functions, and (3) the highly representative and accountable Consilium of the 1960’s achieved comprehensive reforms outside the CDW structure.

    In practice, because (1) it has been co-opted so easily in the last 20 years by well-placed individuals with personal agendas, and (2) its heads and their subordinates have yielded to the temptation common to all bureaucrats to leave their personal imprint on the society they are supposed to serve. Thus the last three prefects have given the Latin-rite church unsolicited orders concerning the way to translate the Latin texts, a new and unsolicited commission for implementation (Vox Clara) and now an unsolicited set of glosses on (or perhaps superseding?) GIRM.

    What would it take to eliminate CDW? A runaway synod? The U.S. Constitutional Convention was an example of this; for the Curia, Vatican II was another. The world’s bishops have reason enough to chafe at all this meddling over trivia. And they are certainly aware of the non-accredited folks (at least Abp. Chaput has gone on record about their shrillness) and the clout they have in Rome. I would not be surprised to see it happen within a decade.

    In the meantime, a personal peeve: Does Canizares have any admonition about priest-presiders who make a point of turning missal pages when they are supposed to lead the assembly in prayer? And go on facing the missal instead of praying with the people?

  14. Fr Kurt Barragan :The use of the special introduction to the Lord’s Prayer is indicated by the rubrics in the ‘Rite of Baptism for Several Children During Mass’ (Rite of Baptism for Children, n. 112)

    I must have an out of date baptism ritual, since mine doesn’t seem to have this.

    1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #20:
      How strange. I’m using the edition approved for use in England and Wales but I think that the only difference from other editions relate to scripture translations and music. It says that the text of the rite is copyright ICEL 1969.

      It all underlines the gap in the market for a good summary of the options scattered around the liturgical books – and how best to employ them.

  15. This may be a small point, but worthy of comment. The practice of ringing bells during the EP is not adverted to in RM3. There is a brief mention in the GIRM. This practice makes no sense in the Novus Ordo in which full, conscious, and active participation is a given. These bells were used in the TLM to alert worshippers to get ready for the “main event”…. the consecration. Adding them because the priest (or bishop) likes the sound borders on the absurd. Why not bells during the gospel acclamation or just before the distribution of Holy Communion. I would be more open to suggestions as to improving the ars celebrandi of the NO were it not for such ideas as ringing bells. I thought we were past that. BTW, I’m in favor of doing away with CDW solely on the basis of what recent prefects have inflicted on the church.

    1. @Jack Feehily – comment #21:
      Right Jack. Less and less the traces of what was held dear, the better. Better not even give them the crumbs from the table of what was, they’ll only want more!

    2. @Jack Feehily – comment #21:
      A good point about the bells. Now that the assembly is typically following the liturgy more closely, even in celebrations of the Tridentine Mass, there is less need to alert them to fall silent, look up from the rosary beads, etc., at the consecration.

      I don’t see why the symbol of the ringing bell cannot be preserved (we continue to have it at our Sunday Latin Novus Ordo Mass, where the canon is sung aloud), but its rationale and function in the liturgy are different. It needs to be reinterpreted, recontextualised.

      We recently celebrated the requiem Mass of a dearly loved priest. There were many concelebrants in the sanctuary, and it was impossible to reach the bell, which had not been moved from its normal place. But by some miracle, the consecration fell exactly at noon, when the church bells automatically ring the Angelus. So a deeper and more solemn bell rang through the consecration prayers, both in the church and outside. It was an incredibly moving moment, remarked on by many afterwards. But it wasn’t at all in the plan for the Mass!

      1. @Jonathan Day – comment #40:
        The Orthodox have an elaborate custom of bell ringing.

        The Patriarch of Moscow, with the cooperation of the Moscow Bell Center and Pyatkov & Co., has issued a standard of Typikon for Church Bell Ringing

        Today, however, although bell-towers are coming back to life, the continuous network of bell-ringing that characterized pre-Revolutionary Russia is hardly even conceivable to us. Moreover, in new countries like America, this culture never existed in the first place, so we really have little idea what to do with the bells we have.

        Therefore, this 80-page booklet, a distillation of all that is known of Russia’s vast and reviving culture of local and universal bell traditions, is indispensable, especially in America where we have almost no other guidance. It sets forth the basic principles as well as the rules for all occasions during the church year. It also contains wise instruction on safety and on the care of bells. A future edition will contain the complete service of ordination of a bell ringer, and it presently contains a service of consecration of a bell which differs in interesting ways from the one provided elsewhere on this site, taken from our standard Book of Needs and augmented from other sources.

        Our understanding is that this booklet is a preliminary edition, which is to be revised and corrected in the light of the experience of actual zvonars, and with further input from local traditions, in a definitive edition to be published a couple of years hence.

        http://www.kurskroot.com/orthodox_bell_ringing.html

        The purpose of ringing the bells is to call the faithful to services, to inform those absent from divine services of the various important liturgical moments of the services, as well as calling the worshippers to concentrated attention at these same moments. It is also used to signal the arrival of the Archpastor at the church or monastery

        Check out the many further links listed under On Orthodox Christian Bells on the above page.

  16. I can’t help myself; I’m going to take the bait.
    Re #14: Fr. McDonald reports that a commentator on his blog complained about the music at this morning’s liturgy: “[T]he entrance hymn was ‘Sing A New Church,’ perhaps the most offensive and perverted hymn possible. The Communion hymn was ‘I Have Loved You With An Everlasting Love,’ a very pretty love song… but that’s just it… it’s a secular love song. The closing hymn was the ever annoying ‘Lord of The Dance,’ the very definition of nails on a chalkboard. All through it, our ‘musical’ director seemed very proud and kind of arrogant about his hymn choices.”

    How is passing along such “commentary” (and I use the term loosely) helpful to this discussion on PTB?

    I picked hymns for this weekend, and the above weren’t among my choices. But somebody has to make those choices, and the chance that all the 3-5 hymns used during a weekend liturgy are going to make everyone happy is probably close to zero. Maybe you can please everybody in the assembly on Christmas Day, but they’re probably arriving at church in a better mood than normal.

    I’m looking at the words to “Sing a New Church” right now, written by the quite respected Sr. Delores Dufner: “Let us bring the gifts that differ, And, in splendid, varied ways, Sing a new church into being, One in faith and love and praise.” Offensive and perverted? Really?

    And to call “I Have Loved You” a “secular love song” is ridiculous. The refrain is quite obviously based on Jeremiah 31, and each verse includes the phrase “seek the face of the Lord and long for him….”

    As for “Lord of the Dance,” it is a time-honored hymn, used in several Christian traditions. It does not relfect “nails on a chalk board” for many people. And I daresay that none of those choices violated any principles of musical selection.

    I can go to any internet site I want and read comments that are disrespectful, but I’m not interested in that. I read PTB to learn!

  17. Rachel, don’t be so sensitive. People come to Praytell to hear their voices echoed back quite often enough. Sometimes the liberal inanity here is as bad as traditionalists or conservatives would have it for themselves. Learning here, like elsewhere, often means to learn for the service of a pre decided program that is itself rarely examined in anything they care to post.

    Look at Jack’s post above: we are ‘beyond’ sanctus bells, apparently. Too bad for the rest of us raised on a certain outdated Eucharistic piety! We better catch up with the times! Mother Church has evolved past us. Yet, you so hate to hear that you yourselves, the heralds of the new church so suddenly ‘sung into being’, might be in your own way ‘outdated’.

  18. Thanks, Rachel – well said, well written and on point. (only reinforced by DeJonge’s retort)

    If you knew or worked with some of the composers of these *named* songs, it would be even more distressing.

    I Have Loved You – Fr. Michael Joncas
    Lord of the Dance – “Lord of the Dance” is a *hymn with words written by English songwriter Sydney Carter in 1967. He borrowed the tune from the American Shaker song “Simple Gifts”. The hymn is widely performed in English-speaking congregations and assemblies.

    It follows the idea of a traditional English carol, “Tomorrow Shall Be My Dancing Day” which tells the gospel story in the first person voice of Jesus of Nazareth with the device of portraying Jesus’ life and mission as a dance.*

    It is a not so subtle dismissing of folks who have dedicated their lives to improving liturgy and communal worship (based, again, on Allan’s one highly opinionated reference – which means what?)

    He ends by quoting from me – “So when someone says “when they paint with a broadbrush and decide that the reformed liturgy failed because of some experiences they may have imagined happened two or three decades ago” that person isn’t being truly honest about present day experiences that so many still have, but growing smaller we pray”. (BTW – it is rich for Allan to allege that someone is not being truly honest given his documented contradictory and hypocritical opinions on both PTB and his own blog (including one retraction to date – would guess that he doesn’t even know that Fr. Michael is the composer of one hymn he mentioned – but Allan never passes up a chance to shoot from the hip)

    He actually only highlights and emphasizes my initial point – he proves it with his own quoted blog reference – take an uneducated opinion stated with malice and decides that it proves his opinion that *liurgical mistakes/abuses (his words)* continue even today. Really – as Fr. Ruff consistently reminds him – taking a solitary personal experience and leaping to broad caricatures is really not doing documented research; or in your words, *learning*….it is circular logic or, better, illogic. (and some here repeatedly state that EF should be allowed as a sign of flexibility for the few who desire it…yet, the real agenda for some (Allan or DeJonge’s *outdated* comment) is seen in the last sentence – *…growing smaller we pray* – thus, a ROTR movement because we all know that the OF was deficient when developed; illegally authorized; growing outdated, etc. YAWN

    (Also, this is cited by Allan who thinks Faure’s Requiem is as close to the second coming as anything. Requiem for the pre-VII mass in latin composed for orchestra/soloists (not a congregation) at the end of the 19th century. First done at the Madeleine Church in Paris (built as a temple in honor of Napoleon’s Army). First used in the US in 1931 but in a secular setting. John Rutter produced a version in 1989 …the professional publication, Music and Letters, judged the Rutter edition, “makeshift and lacking in the standards of scholarship one expects from a university press”. Hard to see Faure’s Requiem as some type of *ultimate* celebration of the eucharist)

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #25:

      Bill,

      If you’re going to rip off Wikipedia to look something up, at least do it accurately:

      1) Carter wrote “Lord of the Dance” in 1963, not 1967.
      2) While based on the traditional English carol (which I would be happy to see in my parish if music can be found), Carter’s work was partly influenced from pagan, syncretistic, and post-Christian ideals — nothing that belongs in the Catholic Church. While hinted at in his Wikipedia page, it is made clear in his obituary in The Telegraph. Some relevant quotes:

      Carter himself genially admitted that he had been partly inspired by the statue of Shiva which sat on his desk; and, whenever he was asked to resolve the contradiction, he would declare that he had never tried to do so.

      he admitted to being as astonished as anyone by its success. “I did not think the churches would like it at all. I thought many people would find it pretty far flown, probably heretical and anyway dubiously Christian. But in fact people did sing it and, unknown to me, it touched a chord. . . “Anyway,” Carter would continue, “it’s the sort of Christianity I believe in.”

      And from his obituary in The Guardian:

      Later, he said that he saw Christ as “the incarnation of the piper who is calling us. He dances that shape and pattern which is at the heart of our reality. By Christ, I mean not only Jesus; in other times and places, other planets, there may be other lords of the dance. But Jesus is the one I know of first and best. I sing of the dancing pattern in the life and words of Jesus.”

      The People of God deserve better than this. The situation for this is much worse than any of the negatives that you have pointed out about Faure’s Requiem. I am happy to reject it based on Carter’s own analysis: “far flown, probably heretical and anyway dubiously Christian.”

      In short, I would propose we use what the Church has asked us to use: The antiphons that are in the Missal.

      1. @Clarence Goodwright – comment #27:
        Charles, thanks for the info on “Lord of the Dance.”
        You’re overstating things when you say that “the Church has asked us to use the antiphons that are in the Missal.” The GIRM is clear that there are 4 options for entrance and communion, and the 4th of these is a hymn. This is not a “substitution” there, BTW, it is simply another option (albeit the 4th). The Holy See recently approved an official collection of vernacular hymns for Italy, and many (in fact most) of these are hymns intended for use at Mass. The Holy See is in the process of approving the official congregational hymnal for Austria and Germany, and it too is packed with hymns for use at Mass. The US bishops in Sing to the Lord say of hymns at Mass that because such “hymns are fulfilling a properly liturgical role, it is especially important that they be appropriate to the liturgical action.” (115)

        Some have argued for propers because of the statement in Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 that Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place. But note that the Roman document Musicam sacram of 1967 says that Gregorian chant has pride of place in liturgies celebrated in Latin (no. 50) – I take this to be the official Roman interpretation of SC. And of course the antiphons in the Missal are not always the same as the antiphons in the Graduale Romanum. The former are for use at spoken Masses, according to the GIRM.

        There is inherent complexity and diversity since the liturgical reform. Church legislation allows for a variety of options. It is not helpful to spread bad information, as if the church is asking us to sing only antiphons from the Roman Missal. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t true.

        I write as one who loves antiphons and does them often – sometimes in Latin with Gregorian Chant schola, sometimes in English, e.g. from Psallite. But I also love hymns. I’m glad the church affirms and allows both.

        awr

      2. You’re overstating things when you say that “the Church has asked us to use the antiphons that are in the Missal.” The GIRM is clear that there are 4 options for entrance and communion, and the 4th of these is a hymn. This is not a “substitution” there, BTW, it is simply another option (albeit the 4th)….

        It is not helpful to spread bad information, as if the church is asking us to sing only antiphons from the Roman Missal. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t true.

        Fr. Anthony,

        I did oversimplify that statement, to the point where I stated it incorrectly. Hymns are a completely legitimate option, and the way I wrote my statement didn’t acknowledge that.

        Also, regardless of where the GIRM lists them as preferences, hymns are the lived reality in most American parishes (and I would assume the same holds true in most other countries).

        That said, the challenges that Rachel mentioned concerning choosing hymns is one that cannot be ignored. In any parish, there will be a group that will groan at hymnody written before 1965, and another at hymnody from after 1965. One person’s “time-honored hymn” is another’s “nails on a chalk board”.

        Many of the hymns are just plain tired — “Lord of the Dance” is 60s folk music; even Fr. Joncas’ “I Have Loved You” is dated. For a Millennial, like me, they’re just as much ancient history as chant — but chant is our timeless patrimony as Latin Rite Catholics

        I hope that you would agree though that Chant (be that English or Latin) is virtually nonexistant in many Latin Rite parishes, even though it is our patrimony.

        I find it hard to believe that relegating Chant only to Latin-language liturgies is giving it the “Pride of Place” that SC demands. To be giving it a serious “pride of place” in worship would seem to demand that we either have more Latin-language Masses (where it would have pride of place) or to use it more often in vernacular Masses (either in Latin or in vernacular).

        Certainly I misspoke when I made it sound like the Church is asking us to sing only antiphons… BUT, we as a post-Conciliar Church have done an extremely poor job in conveying that chant (especially Latin Gregorian Chant) is part of the living heritage of the Church.

      3. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #28:
        It seems to me that the most recent GIRM gives us a clear contemporary Roman interpretation of SC. In section II on Different elements of the Mass No. 41 states

        “The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.”
        There is no suggestion that Gregorian chant or polyphony are limited to Masses celebrated only in Latin.

  19. In my diocese I don’t know of any parish where the actual “propers” or antiphons are sung as a matter of course in place of hymns or anthems. Every parish that I am familiar with sings hymns in place of the official introit, offertory and communion antiphons, including my own with the exception of what evidently is only partially kosher in that our cantor chants what is in the Roman Missal prior to the singing of the Entrance hymn and the same is done for the offertory and communion antiphons. We always have additional music at communion to cover the action of partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ.

    The bigger conundrum within the context of what indeed is allowed in the GIRM is style of music that are hymns or anthems, not the chants. Chants are a given, whether simple or complex, Latin or vernacular. There is a consistency of style although certainly there are different sounds depending on the tradition. Anglican Chant is chant but sounds different than Gregorian chant but it is of the same genre and similar in that sense.
    Hymns, however, like Lord of the Dance compared to “Holy God, We praise thy name” are both songs, but very different in style and theology of what prayer set to song should be within a liturgical context. Some of what is sung at Mass would be far more appropriate in a devotional venue but not necessarily at Mass–but that is all personal opinion, thus we have the main issue that will be very difficult to resolve, what style of music and its theology is appropriate for Mass? I happen to believe that some very good Protestant hymns are far more appropriate for the Catholic Mass than some of the more contemporary Catholic ones whose ethos is more hype than substance. But again, that’s opinion and there seems to be very little authority to challenge the current status quo except those who are promoting chant such as the CMAA and others of their vision for music in the liturgy.

  20. Maybe we could let the evangelist say it all:

    “Then to what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?
    They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another,
    ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance.
    We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.’
    But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”. Luke 7:31-2, 35

  21. RE: post #35

    From “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship” (USCCB), Chapter IV, Section D, Judging the Qualities of Music for the Liturgy, #126/The Three Judgments: One Evaluation:
    “In judging the appropriateness of music for the Liturgy, one will examine its liturgical, pastoral, and musical qualities. Ultimately, however, these three judgments are but aspects of one evaluation, which answers the question: ‘Is this particular piece of music appropriate for this use in this particular Liturgy?’ All three judgments must be considered together and no individual judgment can be applied in isolation from the other two….”

    The document goes on to delineate rather concretely the Liturgical, Pastoral, and Musical Judgments. It also underscores the necessity of “cooperation, consultation, collaboration, and mutual respect” among those involved, including the pastors.

    However, “I don’t like them” is not listed as a reason for excluding a particular hymn. If “Lord of the Dance” and “Sing a New Church” speak to the assembly and bring it “closer to the mystery of Christ” (133), should the preferences of an individual pastor stand in the way?

    1. @Rachel Barber – comment #36:

      First, remember that Sing to the Lord is an instructional document. It is a document that the bishops use to teach about music in the liturgy and to provide some guidelines on how to carry out the various authoritative documents… but its instructions are only as authoritative as the underlying documents themselves.

      Also, before putting too much stock in the document and how it ought to be followed, you would do well to consider how serious we have been about following the other parts of it. You are willing to defend STTL 126 and following, but are you willing to defend STTL 61-66 on Latin in the Liturgy and STTL 72-80 on Gregorian Chant with the same zeal? If we are going to take the guidelines seriously, we need to take ALL of them seriously.

      Second, judging the substance of the text and the quality of the music fit quite well into the evaluation of the criteria of Liturgical, Pastoral, and Musical judgments. A hymn whose text could easily be misconstrued into something wrong (what exactly does “Sing a new Church into being” mean?) isn’t something that I want forming the People of God on my watch. If such a text “speaks to the assembly” it probably isn’t saying something that should be said.

      “I don’t like them” is not listed as a reason for excluding a particular hymn.

      This is true. If this were taken as strongly as a criterion as the others, then the end result would probably be no music at all, because of the differing opinions of all of the persons involved.

      But, on the other hand, the pastor is a member of the Faithful as well — his preferences are not without some merit. And sometimes this means that we shouldn’t force Father to listen to a hymn that he can’t stand for the two Saturday evening Masses and three Sunday morning Masses, even though it “speaks to the assembly.”

      ———-
      P.S. Thank you for pointing out STTL to me — I’m going to read through it so that I can take it seriously.

  22. “I am happy to reject it based on Carter’s own analysis: … dubiously Christian.'”

    Theologians like Thomas Aquinas and popularizers like Robert Barron seem to have no problem with the appropriation of non-Christian material for the good of the Gospel.

    No propers in South Carolina? Most Catholic parishes are light years ahead of fifty years ago in terms of singing Scriptural texts at Mass. I’ve yet to be convinced the propers give us any advantage over what we’re singing these days.

    1. @Todd Flowerday – comment #38:

      Theologians like Thomas Aquinas and popularizers like Robert Barron seem to have no problem with the appropriation of non-Christian material for the good of the Gospel.

      Neither do I.

      However, both St. Thomas and Fr. Barron are quite happy to make distinctions and reject the parts that are incompatible with the Faith. They don’t just leave the non-Christian material sitting out without comment — they explain how it connects to the Gospel, and point out the problems with it

      And beyond this, the fact that they are using those non-Christian works for the good of the Gospel has no bearing on whether those works have any place in the Liturgy. As highly as I regard Aristotle, he has no business anywhere near the Liturgy of the Word.

  23. Yes, chant is part of the patrimony of the church but it was, in fact, seldom used in parish Masses. If one paid a little extra for a sung daily requiem, the parish organist would wail the kyrie, dies irae, etc. In some parishes there was a high mass on Sunday where the men’s or mixed choir would provide the chanted parts. This mass was avoided by most folks because it was longer. The ROTR advocates seem to think they are restoring something that was lost from the good old days. When the bishops at VII called for the retention of Latin and gave a preferential nod to chant, it is highly likely it was because of their personal affection but rather a tip of the miter to what they thought of as traditional. I personally am uplifted by chant of various kinds. I am also uplifted by many of the hymns composed since 1965. De gustibus non disputantem est.

  24. I think we’ve exhausted all the issues about Carter’s hymn “Lord of the Dance.” Discussion on it is now closed.
    awr

  25. Indeed… back to the topic at hand.

    Having gone back and re-read the Zenit article, it’s hard to tell which parts pertain to the upcoming document, and which were only dealing with the address on the theme of continuity and evolution in Liturgy.

    Fr. Anthony poses a good question about its relationship to the GIRM:

    I always thought that the GIRM served that function. So is this a kind of compendium of the GIRM? Is it “spin” on the GIRM? Is it an end run around the GIRM?

    It will be almost impossible to know for sure what this document will be until it is published. Remember that the GIRM is a legislative document, giving us norms that have the recognitio of the Holy See. It is unlikely that the mentioned booklet will have that weight. I think this can put to rest any notion that it will be an “end run around the GIRM”. If CDWDS really wanted that, it would be easier to compose and seek recognition on a new GIRM.

    Zenit makes it sound as though this may be more of a popular work — “a booklet to help priests celebrate the Mass properly and the faithful to participate better”.

    Depending on exactly what it says, I suppose one might consider it a “spin” on the GIRM. The fact that it came up in the course of this talk, which by Zenit’s reporting sounds very much in the RotR spirit, seems to suggest that the booklet might be more in this spirit as well. Without the full text of the talk, this is hard to discern (because Zenit may have selectively chosen the more RotR-leaning topics).

    In my own reading of it, it sounds like this booklet is seeking to “move the center” in such a way that some of the liturgical practices championed by the RotR (chant, bells, incense, ad orientem celebration, prominent (central) placement of the tabernacle) are again seen as part of the mainstream — while not moving other legitimate options (hymns, contemporary music, versus populum celebration, inculturated liturgy) out of that mainstream.

    I doubt it will contain much that is truly “new”.

    I would hope that it ends up seeking balance more than anything. Would that be a win for proponents of the RotR? Yes. But it doesn’t mean that it has to be a loss for anyone else.

  26. Thank you immensely for that. This thread might be the first ever on PTB that I’ve skimmed through because it was obviously rife and ripe with as much musical irrelevancy as any could imagine.
    And frankly, the Hatfield/McCoy salvos between Bill and Allan are so counterproductive to anyone trying to fathom how to improve, ultimately in very incremental and small steps, the “state” of sacred music in one’s own parish. Both of you to opposite corners to consider how:
    A pastor so committed to the cause of sacred music would have been caught unawares by such a musical ordo under the management of a first class DM, and on the heels of a chant intensive, that he would want to publicize his irritation at it after the fact on an extremely widely read blog?
    And why his nemesis would feel it so necessary to denigrate both the careers and persons of two first-rate composers with little real analysis of either their catalogues, their scholarship, and worst of all the import of the musical work in question? Rutter may not be everyone’s ideal church composer, but he is a first rate Fauré scholar, despite the trivial dismissals to the contrary. I sure as hell trust Paul Salamunovich’s opinion on Rutter’s editorial and scholastic examination of Fauré’s opus than the fishwrap quote offered by Bill. Which, by the way and along the path of “who cares?” about Fauré’s personal failings, remains woefully ignorant of an almost ineffable beauty that does quite stand unique among few other Mass settings in terms of its luminous transcendence movement to movement. And if there is a better depiction of the dichotomy and cosmology of a Sanctus, Bill, feel free to share it with us all.
    If all the ersatz musicologists in this thread want to wax on, try sending your stuff to the ACDA Choral Journal, or deconstructing it for an issue of “Sacred Music.” Otherwise, put up or….
    And lastly, I offer my sympathy to Dcn. Dr. Bauerschmidt, whose topic was so hijacked by the usual whipping mule of the “music wars.” .” Everyone here knows how to deal with negotiating peace with that nonsense, “roll up your sleeves” and teach someone to read music, read neumes, listen critically, sing together with blend, balance and beauty. But it’s high time to stop behaving like some petulant second rate Cecil B DeMille who really hasn’t a clue or a plan.

    1. @Charles Culbreth – comment #52:
      Thanks, Charles – actually love Rutter’s compostions, have sung many of them, and quoted the fishwrap in terms of Faure not Rutter – you misread my comment. Also, have no issues with Faure (actually like the requiem just don’t think that it is the second coming of Christ – again, think you misread my comment – *denigrate – where, pray tell? You then go on for 10+ lines? Is this about me or your midreading what was said?). Did not engage Allan at all – did mention some of his opinions (he retorted with a snide comment – sorry, you don’t like the Hatfield/McCoy routine), as you say but the point is – *how could someone (pastor be caught so unawares, or behaving like some petulant second rate Cecil B DeMille who really hasn’t a clue or a plan*, etc…..(my expression was *shoot from the hip*)

      May I ask why you used my name three times but only mentioned Allan once – and yet his & Goodwright’s (as you say) *irritation* is why I commented. My initial comments are all directed at Deacon’s original post. Please note that the tone and thread changed starting with #14 – again, we get a mindless comment from his personal blog that is, at minimum, disrespectful; at worst, just plain opinionated ignorance. Note that Fr. Kurt and Rachel both responded to Allan with good points. My response in #25 was to correct those who misquoted, took out of context, and continued to discredit certain composers.

      So, to clarify:
      – like Rutter; have sang his compostions since 1989 (regret if I misled you)
      – like Faure’s requiem (have used the Dies Irae) – plz note that my use of Faure was in response to Goodwright’s moral judgments of composers (Carter) (not sure I agree with your Santcus judgment but that is neither here nor there)
      – like Lord of the Dance (when appropriate and judicious use)

      Charles – let’s at least be fair about the contributions on this topic

      Agree, sorry to have hijacked Deacon’s topic and agree – roll up your sleeves..

      1. @Bill deHaas – comment #53:

        Please note that the tone and thread changed starting with #14 – again, we get a mindless comment from his personal blog that is, at minimum, disrespectful; at worst, just plain opinionated ignorance.

        Bill,

        That was hardly a “mindless comment” from Fr. Allan’s blog– it served as an anecdote to flesh out that there is a continued need for this ‘compendium’, because the “Spirit of Vatican II” still holds far too much sway in some places.

        This means that the GIRM on its own apparently wasn’t enough to define exactly how liturgy ought to be carried out; nor have the other documents and examples given by the Holy See in recent years been entirely sufficient. This is why I said what I said in #51 — The movement is away from the “Spirit of Vatican II” camp and toward the “Reform of the Reform” camp, and I think this booklet will give more momentum to that movement, and hopefully to a stable balance point between contemporary needs and traditional identity as Latin Rite Catholics

        Even if nothing is changed in liturgical law (and I suspect no changes there will happen), it will embolden some pastors who want to promote RotR-style initiatives but to this time haven’t been confident enough.

        Let’s roll up our sleeves, indeed.

  27. I appreciate your responses and positions, Bill. But quoting one publication’s summation of Rutter’s edition of the Faure upon initial review hardly sums up nor reflects either Rutter’s own devotion to the Requiem nor his own body of work. (I have conducted the Rutter/Faure three times and have not found the edition wanting.) Off the page, I myself was quite put off by Rutter’s own requiem setting, confirmed he (like your charge against Faure) that it was a brief notch above the pretensious Lloyd-Webber. But better minds than mine convinced there was a there there (thanks Gertrude Stein.) So, I reminded myself not to judge a work by either its composer’s autograph, nor even off the page or at the keyboard.
    Insofar as criticizing Allan, I tend to do that very activity more often at his blog where these “discrepencies” actually occur. You’d have to trawl the comboxes but I assure you, they’re there.
    But I try to be fair. FRAJM only brought up that sorry ordo for Lord knows what purpose. But I didn’t see a need for you to respond by opening another can of worms about Faure/Rutter failings if only to illustrate Allan’s inconsistencies.
    I could bore the world (and often do) railing on about how great Gesualdo’s “Absolon” motet is, even tho’ he was personally a schmuck and likely murderer. This sort of commentary is best left to good writers of such page -turning histories like Tom Cahill, John Zmirak and Garry Wills. Cheers.

  28. Thanks, Charles – sorry for the confusion and enjoyed your comments (okay, I like Lloyd-Webber – seen on London stages).

    Clarence – you just don’t get it. The comment was opinionated in the worst way and only reinforces the fact that your ROTR opinion is just that:
    – there is a spirit of VII (whether you agree or not or find it negative)
    – as others have said – Xenit article doesn’t really clarify compendium or another GIRM or whatever – you are assuming
    – ROTR – again, your opinion, dream etc. but does it really help Unity or is it just folks who, as you say, “….will embolden some pastors who want to promote RotR-style initiatives but to this time haven’t been confident enough” What does this have to do with VII, with scripture, sacramental theology, with the mission of the Church to the poor, marginalized, depressed, hungry, thirsty, spiritually deprived,etc. Or is it about more than just permission to use the unreformed liturgy? (an agenda)

    Latin Rite Catholics – sorry, Vatican II has called us to go beyond this; the church is a world church; the church is called to be ecumenical; the church is called to be on mission (external; not inward focused on the past). The Church is not frozen in time nor ritual nor practice; it is always reforming and developing. We were once the Jerusalem Church; then the Roman Church; then East/West; Latin, etc. Would hope that our faith journey is not so narrow as to be contained in the term – Latin Rite Church.

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #56:

      Of course I’m assuming — I admitted as much in #51 before speculating on anything else. PLEASE READ what I ACTUALLY WRITE.

      If Fr. Anthony’s post didn’t seek to solicit discussion and speculation on what this document might be/should be/could be…. then why did he post it?

      What does this have to do with VII, with scripture, sacramental theology, with the mission of the Church to the poor, marginalized, depressed, hungry, thirsty, spiritually deprived,etc.

      What does all of your whining about Fr. Allan or about some EF bogeyman have to do with any of those things? What does the “Spirit of Vatican II” have to do with any of those things?

      The RotR is seeking beautiful and dignified liturgy using the best that the Roman Rite has to offer — how does that not benefit everyone to whom the Church seeks to minister?

      Or is it about more than just permission to use the unreformed liturgy? (an agenda)

      Nothing I said had anything to do with the so-called “Unreformed liturgy”. The RotR is all about reforming the ORDINARY FORM of the Mass. So this is not about “more than just permission” for the EF because it ISN’T ABOUT THE EF!

      And as far as opinions and agendas go: each and every one of us here has one — you included.

  29. From Fritz’s original post: “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is apparently preparing a document that is a sort of “how-to” manual for celebrating Mass.”

    Didn’t they already do this, less than a decade ago?

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

    And a generation or so ago?

    http://www.adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html

    And don’t bishops, and national conferences, have a say in this?

    http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-9.cfm

  30. My concern with any CDW manual is the possibility that the style and tone of instruction will resemble de defectibus (the Tridentine constitution on errors in Mass celebration and what to do in the event of an error). Liturgy should not be casuistry, unless clergy become disabled in liturgical questions which do not impinge on the validity and licety of the Mass. In other words, there needs to be some “wiggle room”.

    A large part of me wholeheartedly agrees with Cardinal Cañizares about ad orientem celebration. Part of me would like to see versus populum disappear as an “experiment gone bad”. But another part of me realizes that Mass facing the people is very important for the spirituality some assemblies. “Doing away with” versus populum, which a great many liturgically conservative Catholics dream about, would unnecessarily aggrieve some of the faithful for the “benefit” of others. Let’s not go down this road again. This road only ends in animosity and unchristian behavior.

  31. Two questions.
    Why is this document being produced, since we already have, beginning with GIRM, as has been pointed out, more than enough documentation from Rome?
    What will be its canonical status?
    Here in Japan we are still in discussions(?) with the CDWS on translation and inculturation issues, with little understanding of the local situation and its needs being shown from Rome.
    Hopefully it will be merely advisory, then we can shelve it and let it gather dust till we get a new Prefect or the next pontificate.

  32. Jim & Jordan – excellent comments.

    Yes, Jim, they did and that is why some here have commented with both concern and questioning (or, in my initial case, tongue in cheek). See Fr. Brendan’s excellent points (Fr. – just think if you had to also add in what Clarence wants?)

    Clarence – from the original post and Canizares, there are a list of suggestions (his historical interpretation about this is more opinion than fact):

    Portions of the list included things such as ad orientem, sacrifice, mystery using the liturgical forms of the pre-VII, unreformed liturgy.

    You add: “Nothing I said had anything to do with the so-called “Unreformed liturgy”. The RotR is all about reforming the ORDINARY FORM of the Mass. So this is not about “more than just permission” for the EF because it ISN’T ABOUT THE EF!”

    Sorry, but you will have to really explain this approach – ROTR is about making the VII reformed liturgy like the EF (period). It is expressed via things such as altar rails; kneeling for communion; intinction; decreased lay roles in liturgy; ad orientem; increased latin; more emphasis on sacrifice/atonement and moving away from meal/community; more *sacred* translation; some want to add back foot of the altar or the last gospel; others only want a one year lectionary; others want to suppress hymns and only allow chanted antiphons; emphasize the vertical vs. horizontal. All of these come from somewhere (oh yeah, the pre-VII liturgy (EF)) or did they just appear one day from the *spirit of ROTR* in continuity). Sorry, this ignores the theology, the sacramental approach, the ecclesiology upon which the reformed liturgy was built upon.

    You can try to make a distinction as if some future liturgy will combine the two forms of the one rite but it is based upon what – not Vatican II theology, ecclesiology, or liturgy; not on any respected, professional historical/liturgical investigations; not on the fact that any worldwide episcopal conferences are asking for this; nor on the fact that 90% of catholics do not want this. It is an *alternative universe* – so, keep saying:
    “Nothing I said had anything to do with the so-called “Unreformed liturgy”. The RotR is all about reforming the ORDINARY FORM of the Mass. So this is not about “more than just permission” for the EF because it ISN’T ABOUT THE EF!”
    What’s sad is that you have convinced yourself of this. Yes, it is an agenda.
    Yes, my agenda is hoping that the reformed liturgy of VII will be eventually completely & fully implemented and not aborted by those who are fearful; don’t understand; have to exert power, or need the security of the past.

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #61:

      It is an *alternative universe*

      Mock it if that helps you to sleep at night.

      But I’m afraid that you’ve been at this too long. You’ve been focusing on your own personal interpretation of VII for so long that you can’t see where the Holy Spirit is moving the Church.

      I started discerning seminary in 2004, not long after I became serious about practicing the Faith. I’ve watched as the things that were most frustrating and disheartening about liturgies (overemphasis on the horizontal, underemphasis of the Real Presence, uninspiring Missal translation, disregard for the musical and lingustic patrimony) all began to melt away. In those days, the idea of the EF being liberated so any priest would have been considered impossible.

      Had someone told me in 2004 that by the time I would be ordained a priest, that people would be having serious discussions about reintroducing chant and using Latin (in moderation); or that the Missal translation would be improved; or that I would be able to say Mass in the EF without getting special permissions — I would have told them that they were in an *alternative universe* as well.

      This movement IS happening, even if most Catholics don’t care, and some of the ones who do care are shaking in their boots. And it’s happening with tacit (and sometimes not-so-tacit) approval of the Holy See.

      It’s funny that I too am hoping that “the reformed liturgy of VII will be eventually completely & fully implemented and not aborted by those who are fearful; don’t understand; have to exert power, or need the security of the past.” It’s too bad that we don’t agree on what the past is that needs to be moved beyond or of what full implementation actually consists of.

  33. At the risk of continuing to muddy the waters by this late entry on the scene (I have been on the road), there are three versions of Gabriel Fauré’s Requiem.

    The one most often sung today is Version III, of which I, along with the late Dr Roger Fiske, produced the definitive edition in the mid 1970s (published as an Eulenburg miniature score). In it we mentioned that it would be good to have a definitive edition of Version II as well.

    In the fullness of time John Rutter did produce an edition of Version II, which is what was referred to further up this thread. (There would have been little point in him producing another edition of Version III.) Alas, it turned out that Rutter’s Version II was not a very good one, as Music and Letters pointed out, so castigating Bill deHaas for citing this opinion is not justified.

    Paul Salamunovich, a choral conductor for whom I have the greatest respect, may not have agreed with this assessment, and I have no knowledge of the basis for his view. All I can say is that when Rutter is on form his editions and recordings can be excellent and of high scholarly quality. Sometimes, though, he allows his personal prejudices and opinions to shine through and takes editorial positions which seem to rely on shortcuts through the scholarship.

    And I must admit that my eyebrows shot up several feet when I read that Sr Delores Dufner’s Sing a New Church was perhaps the most offensive and perverted hymn possible. I can think of a number of others that might possibly merit that condemnation, but Sr Delores’s text is not among them. Perhaps we should start a new thread on this topic — it would doubtless be highly diverting.

    1. @Paul Inwood – comment #63:

      Paul,

      I don’t think the discussion of Sing a New Church should be moved away from the sentiments of Cardinal Canizares:

      “The cardinal said that there is talk of a renewed Church, which must not be understood as a mere reform of structures, but as a change starting with the liturgy, because it is from the liturgy that the work of our salvation is effected.”

  34. Well, Jim and Paul – start with comment #14 and then add comment #62 – alternate universe in which they clearly believe that Rome’s ROTR will return us to the proper liturgy as VII articulated in continuity (oh, and this has nothing to do with the EF). And this is *clairvoyant* and is sadly announced in another blog:

    “A commenter on another post described the following hymn which they sung in his parish this past Sunday in the following way: “Sing a New Church was perhaps the most offensive and perverted hymn possible.”

    I’ve never heard this song sung at Mass; In fact I don’t think I’ve ever heard it. I like the traditional melody but don’t care for it set to instrumentation apart from organ for church use.

    But the words! Egads! It is the horizontal, all about us, triumphant congregationalism that really grates the soul! There is very little about God in this song, its all about us doing this, that and the other and making Utopia here on earth by our own efforts. I think there is a name for this heresy, in terms of we doing for ourselves what only God can do for us and by His love and grace. It is what He and the Church give to us that make us who we are, not through our own pitiful efforts.”

    Reinforced earlier with this dribble:

    “CATHOLIC PROGRESSIVES ARE SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS AND RABIDLY ANGRY AT THE HOLY FATHER AND THE ASCENDANCY OF THE REFORM OF THE REFORM IN CONTINUITY! THUS WE KNOW WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK! GOD IS GOOD!”

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #66:

      From the (now removed) response to Daniel McKernan’s very good (but also removed) response to this post:

      Daniel – your ignorance; confusion in terms of historical liturgical rites; and interpretation of SC and VII is breathtaking.

      You might want to become educated – access Rev. Thomas Richstatter’s Liturgy classes at St. Meinrad’s

      Bill,

      I think this underscores the nature of the problem. you seem to think that YOUR interpretation, the one shared by a body of experts that happen to agree with you, and that those who disagree with you are need to “become educated” or are in an “alternate universe”.

      News flash: YOUR interpretation of the Council and its documents and reforms is NOT the only one, nor is it the only one among the experts.

      The progressive interpretation holds little sway among the “Benedict XVI generation” of seminarians and priests. We’ve come to appreciate a more moderate approach to the interpretation of Vatican II and the liturgical reform (and nearly all of us are moving in the direction of the RotR whether or not we’re willing to claim the movement proper).

      Bill — you and many others here would do well to be more humble and charitable in your response to these differing views on liturgy. If it can and should be done on the very weighty matters surrounding cases like that of Fr. Flannery, then it certainly should be done concerning liturgy, where the Church is permitting a breadth of viewpoints.

      (I won’t waste much time generating any more substance to this response until I’m sure that it will be left up — the fact that such a substantial post vanished is more than a bit suspicious.)

      1. @Clarence Goodwright – comment #67:
        Clarence – will ignore your condensending remarks and judgments.

        Here is an excellent article by John O’Malley in terms of a *moderate* approach to the interpretation of Vatican II and liturgical reform:

        http://americamagazine.org/issue/article/misdirections

        It basically refutes and questions your opinions:
        – progressive interpretation holds little sway among B16 seminarians/priests (no facts; just your opinion based upon what – more anecdotal stories?)
        – YOUR interpretation and one shared by a body of experts (sorry, but will stand by my comments since those are based upon documented research, accepted theological, ecclesiological, and scriptural methods of study…yep, your alternative universe is based upon subjectivism, unhistorical opinion, etc.)
        – all of us are moving in the direction of the ROTR – really? can you document and prove that or is that another anecdotal, imaginary conclusion?
        – humble and charitable – agree and expect to be treated the same way which McKernan and now your comments do not do

  35. Jim McKay, # 65 —

    Jim, I wasn’t suggesting that discussion of this hymn be moved away, but rather that we start a new (and amusing) thread entitled “Your 100 Most Perverted and Offensive Hymns”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *