In Koch’s view, the readmission of the celebration of Mass in the preconciliar form is “only the first step,” but “the time is not yet ripe” for further steps. Rome can take further actions only when there is readiness among Catholics to consider new forms of liturgy “in service of the Church.”

According to Koch, “the pope suffers from accusations” that he wishes to go back on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). On the contrary, the pope wishes to take up statements of the Council on liturgy which have not yet been implemented.

Koch maintains that not everything in today’s liturgical praxis can be justified by the texts of the Council. He named as an example the priest facing the people during the celebration of the Eucharist, about which the Council said  nothing.

In Koch’s opinion, further development of liturgical forms is necessary for an inner renewal of the church. “If the crisis of church life today is above all a crisis of liturgy, then the renewal of the church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy,” he said.

The cardinal’s remarks provoke several reflections.

It is not the case that the Second Vatican Council exhaustively defined the parameters of liturgical reform. Much of this was left to the Consilium to carry out after the Council closed. The Council never mandated versus populum (priest facing the people), nor has any Church document since the Council, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the practice an illegitimate development. Scholars such as Fr. John O’Malley have demonstrated that there is a “spirit of Vatican II” opening up new vistas for the Church. It is to be expected that responsible and creative implementation of the Council would lead to possibilities not yet foreseen at the Council itself. Whether versus populum is one of these can remain an open question. Which is to say, the fact that it isn’t mentioned by the Council doesn’t really answer the question.

I suppose it’s inevitable that any interpretation of Vatican II will emphasize some passages more than others. Ratzinger and Koch and others can point to a few statements of the liturgy constitution (Gregorian chant is to have pride of place, Latin is to be retained) to buttress the claim that they wish to implement the Council’s statement that have been ignored up until now. Fair enough – but specific directives of the Council have to be ever reevaluated in within the broader context of ongoing liturgical development. Within this context, it is difficult indeed to see how the Council fathers ever intended that an unreformed rite of Mass would remain in use alongside a reformed rite. And there is no denying that Liturgiam authenticam, the 2001 Roman document on translation, introduced centralism and thereby undoes the explicit directive of the liturgy constitution that translations are to be prepared and approved by bishops (not Rome).

Finally, I would be very interested in the cardinal’s thoughts on liturgy and ecumenism, not least because he is the head of the Holy See’s ecumenism department. How does he understand his liturgical proposals to contribute to the work for church unity? Some theologians believe that Roman decisions in recent years have been a setback for the cause. What would Cardinal Koch say?

awr

I did not view the liturgy, so I have only the booklet to go on. A few comments:

Office Responsories

Mass is preceded by the Office of Readings in Latin. The great responsory “Hodie nobis caelorum” (36) is printed in four-line notation for the assembly to sing! Because this is taken from the 1983 Liber Hymnarius, it is in the revised notation following the semiological prinicples of Fr. Eugene Cardine of Solesmes. I hope everyone in the basilica stayed together on the augmented liquescents (eg. caelorUM) and the torculus with weak beginning (VIRgine) – did they all follow the conductor? They got another chance on the responsory “Hodie nobis de caelo” (41).

Mass Propers for Everyone

At Mass, the assembly was given notation to sing along on the Latin introit Dominus dixit (57) and communio In splendoribus (104). Historically, responsories and Mass propers were sung by the schola, not the congregation. The innovation here of giving the antiphon to everyone no doubt comes from a laudable desire to foster active participation in song. Perhaps St. Peter’s is one of those rare places where there actually are clergy, religious, and exceptional laity in the congregation able to join in. But I suspect for the vast majority of participants by far, no thought was given to singing along. (It’s hard to hold your camera in one hand and your booklet in the other, trying to watch the conductor out of the corner of your eye as you focus your camera on the center aisle – all the while translating the Italian translation of the Latin text for spiritual benefit.) Printing music for the proper entrance and communion is a highly interesting decision, considering that the General Instruction explicitly allows these chants to be sung by choir alone.

New Chant Notation

A very interesting change has been made to the chant notation, also reflecting the semiological principles of Fr. Cardine. First, a bit of back story. In 1908 the Graduale Romanum was printed in the Vatican edition without any rhythmic signs such as the dot or ictus or horizontal episema. The Solesmes editions reprinted identical melodies, but with rhythmic signs added according to “Old Solesmes” semi-equalism. One was always free to sing from either edition, but probably about 99% used the Solesmes books. After Vatican II no Vatican edition of the reformed Gradual was published, only a directory (in 1972) listing where to find the chants for the reformed liturgy in the old books, and printing of a few chants brought back into use. Solesmes published a Graduale in 1974 with all the chants in the right place – ironically this meant that the only Graduale in print now was one with the Solesmes rhythmic signs, though scholarship had long since moved beyond that interpretative approach. The Graduale Triplex in 1979 gave the 1974 book with the early lineless notation from ancient manuscripts copied in. This allowed one to see one every page how the old Solesmes rhythmic signs didn’t match the earliest rhythmic manuscripts.

Are you still with me? Here’s the change. The Vatican’s Christmas leaflet reprints the entrance and communion antiphon with altered rhythmic signs, obviously based on the early lineless notation from 1979. The horizontal episema over MEus, for example, extends over both notes of the clivis, not just the first. There is an episema on HOdie. By underlining this word, the original rhythm emphasizes the TODAY character of the events of salvation – Our Lord’s saving work is made present to us NOW in the sacramental mysteries.

Don’t Sing the Responsorial Psalm – Just Listen to the Gradual

The gradual Tecum (68) is sung by schola alone at the Pope’s Mass – no more is there a Responsorial Psalm refrain for the people. Do you know about The Great Responsorial Psalm/Gradual Debate? The official documents from Rome allow either one after the first reading, but state clearly that the Responsorial Psalm is to be preferred because it better matches the readings of the postconciliar 3-year lectionary. The General Instruction says that the people listen to the psalm and generally sing a response, except when it is sung straight through without a response. Reform-of-the-reform folks prefer the preconciliar gradual, sometimes citing official documents about the primacy of Gregorian chant to make their case.

I’m not sure what the significance of the Roman shift in policy is. That the gradual psalm is sung by choir alone is not contrary to the postconciliar directives, since the responsorial psalm or gradual can be sung straight through without a congregational response. That the text is the gradual rather than the lectionary psalm is a bigger issue, since the Roman directives clearly prefer the lectionary psalm. But the gradual text is still permitted, to be sure.

The shift seems to strengthen the hand of the reform-of-the-reform folks, many of whom don’t care much for the postconciliar 3-year lectionary. It seems to emphasize that participation can also be by listening, not only by singing, which is certainly true. But to be fair, the entrance and communion antiphons are now given to the people for their singing, so there doesn’t seem to be an agenda of silencing the people. Does the change intend to slight one of the great successes of the liturgical reform, the responsorial psalms of the reformed lectionary? I hope not.

Alleluia, no Offertorium, Amen, Strophic Communion Hymn

The Gospel acclamation “Alleluia” (70) is congregational, as the directives say it must be, which means that the chant alleluia from the Graduale Romanum is passed over. The acclamation makes clever use of the tune Resonet in laudibus – a rare gesture of recognition toward the popular piety of Christmas carols.

The proper offertory antiphon Laetentur caeli is replaced by another piece, “Hode Christus natus est, noe, noe” (85).

The Amen of the people concluding the Eucharistic Prayer (96) begins with the simple chant Amen of the missal, but it is made three-fold by the addition of two more Amens in meter. Since this is where the assembly gives assent to the Eucharistic Prayer, it is nice to see that an enhanced version is used. There are people around, believe it or not, who argue that it is not permitted to sing three Amens since the missal has only one. But now we see that even the pope does it – whom will they report him to?

“Adeste, Fideles” is sung after the communion antiphon – the only strophic hymn within the order of Mass. But be it noted – since this too is a sticking point with some folks – that a strophic hymn is added to the liturgy.

Some Questions

This liturgy is mostly in Latin – only the readings, homily, and intercessions are in a vernacular. Chant predominates. Is this appropriate and only to be expected for a papal liturgy in Rome? Is it the best solution when the participants have dozens, if not hundreds of varied vernacular tongues?

It would open a Pandora’s box to bring in more music from cultures throughout the world. It would be exceedingly difficult to select which music from which cultures. Not all English-speakers live in the U.S., and so on with all the world’s languages and cultures. Including some means excluding others. Is it wiser to keep most everything in Latin and exclude (so to speak) everyone equally?

On the other hand, difficult decisions are made about which language to use for the readings and intercessions, and all sorts of languages are necessarily excluded. Should the risk be undertaken to do the same with the music so as to give at least some expression to the wondrous diversity of the universal church?

Someone from the U.S. probably shouldn’t raise this next question, but I will anyway. In the fourth century the Roman church shifted from Greek to Latin because Latin had become the predominant language for most of the people. Should the Roman church now begin moving toward English as one of its liturgical languages? Should the pope use English for, e.g. the Eucharistic Prayer? (Does anyone know how many of the world’s Catholics understand English? Do most Spanish speakers, e.g. also understand English? I don’t know.)

I welcome your thoughts.

awr

Profession of faith is an act both personal and communitarian. It is the Church that is the primary subject of faith. In the faith of the Christian community, each individual receives baptism, an effective sign of entry into the people of believers in order to obtain salvation. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: ” ‘I believe’ is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during baptism. ‘We believe’ is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers. ‘I believe’ is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both ‘I believe’ and ‘we believe’.”

Since then, the discussion has drifted somewhat confusingly to the point where a “hermeneutic of continuity”— which is not quite the same thing as a hermeneutic of reform — is held up as desirable. Benedict himself contributed to the confusion by referring to a “hermeneutic of continuity” in his post-synodal exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis. This imprecise contrast of discontinuity and rupture on the one hand, with continuity on the other, has now become common in the discourse concerning changes coming forth from the Council. Reform must include both continuities and discontinuities, but the multi-dimensional subject of “reform” has slipped into the background as “continuity” has risen to take its place.

Simon A. Schrott has competently charted the territory of these terminological confusions in a recent article in Studia Liturgica (“The Need for Discontinuity: Considerations on a Hermeneutic of Liturgical Reform According to Sacrosanctum Concilium,” Studia Liturgica Vol. 41, No. 1, 2011). He concludes that Benedict’s earlier formulation of a “hermeneutic of reform” corresponds more closely to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. His evaluation and conclusions are sound; there is no need to reproduce that discussion here. I raise it simply to acknowledge the importance of the point: we need greater clarity and precision – and we need to speak of reform, with both continuity and discontinuity contained within it.

Let us now turn to another aspect of the developing discussion, one that has remained constant, namely: the word “rupture.” This word is freighted with universally negative associations. A rupture is a life-threatening emergency when it happens to your appendix; the rupture of a water main causes floods and property damage; rupture is what happens in human relationships when trust is broken and angry words fly. We can find people who will argue for discontinuity, but who could praise rupture?

I would like to say a word in praise of rupture. A single word, but an important one.

Birth.

Quite simply, none of us would be here if it weren’t for rupture.

Let’s not lightly assume that “mother church” suffers no pain in the process of childbirth, nor that the new life brought into the world by Vatican II could have gotten here in any other way than via rupture.

But perhaps we can all agree that the music played as the Pope censed the altar during the stadium Mass in Germany was absolutely wretched: Opening of Berlin Papal Mass.

I particularly like the expression on the Pope’s face at the end.

Hat tip to Rocco Palmo.

No use keeping you in suspense. Here are the results. While the minority said it “deepens the meaning” of the Mass and is “more reverent,” most characterized the changes as “unnecessary,” “confusing and meaningless,” and “a backward step and pre-Vatican II in language style.” The negative responses topped the charts by a wide margin. Out of 180 replies to his survey, 17% were positive and 83% were negative. The article listed specific phrases that came in for the most criticism and concern. These included: “and with your spirit,” “under my roof,” “consubstantial,” the wording of the Confiteor, and the use of the word “men” in the Nicene Creed.

Bishop Campbell noted at the beginning of the article that “in the Vatican II document Presbyterorum ordinis, clergy are exhorted to

…listen to the laity willingly, consider their wishes in a fraternal spirit and recognize their experience and competence in the different areas of human activity, so that together with them they will be able to read the signs of the times.

He also commented at the end that “We need to take heed of what Pope Benedict has been saying. It is encouraging to see him quoting with approval the principles for translation proposed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Verbum Domini:

A translation of course is always more than a simple transcription of the original texts. The passage from one language to another necessarily involves a change of cultural context: concepts are not identical and symbols have a different meaning, for they come up against other traditions of thought and other ways of life.”

The article concludes with a call to “consult with the people of God and hear them.” This is the first time in the translation saga, of which I am aware, that a bishop has actually proposed listening to the people on this subject. Well done, Bishop Campbell.

Many of the people who have told bishops their concerns (in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, and the United States) have, to date, been met with either contradiction or silence. I have interpreted silence to mean a refusal to listen. I now begin to wonder if a different interpretation might be placed on the silence: namely, “Wait and see.”

The article is subscriber-only content. I would encourage those who can get a copy to read the article in full.

Source: KIPA.

My daughter returned last night from World Youth Day and, though we have not had much time to catch up on her adventures, I did ask her what it was like going to Mass with 1.5 million people. She said that, of course, they could not really see anything except what was projected onto giant screens. She also mentioned that as far as she could see there was no attempt made to give communion to most of the people there, which she found disappointing.

I suspect that some attempt was made to give communion to some of the young people, and she was simply unlucky enough to not be in that group. Still, this raises the question in my mind of whether the Mass is really the most appropriate form of worship for such gatherings. The word on the street for some time is that the Pope is not crazy about such mega-Masses with thousands of concelebrants, though he seems to be tolerating them for the time being. But one might ask: if you cannot offer communion to those who are properly disposed to receive it, is this an indication that perhaps you should not be celebrating Mass at all?

I take it as given that it is a good thing to gather young people from around the world to pray with each other and with the Supreme Pontiff. My question is whether it is possible to celebrate the Eucharist in a worthy manner at such an event. And if so, how would one go about doing this?