Reginald wrote:I think the phrase that Pope Benedict used to the Curia in 2005 was interpreting Vat II with a hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture.
Not quite, I think. "Hermeneutic of continuity" seems to be a kind of shibboleth for conservative Catholic bloggers and their hangers-on, but Pope Benedict's own phrase was "hermeneutic of reform", which has distinctly different connotations.
On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us.
In any case the idea of an ungoodthinkful "hermeneutic of rupture" is a double-edged sword, it seems to me. Those who exercise it the most are those who look at today's renewed liturgy, and fail to see the connections with 1900-odd years of liturgical history and development that Pope Benedict himself evidently does see.
Foot in both camps here - as I'm sure most members of the forum are aware.
mcb wrote:In any case the idea of an ungoodthinkful "hermeneutic of rupture" is a double-edged sword, it seems to me. Those who exercise it the most are those who look at today's renewed liturgy, and fail to see the connections with 1900-odd years of liturgical history and development that Pope Benedict himself evidently does see.
Some time soon the conservatives are going to realise that he's not as much on 'their side' as they think, and the liberals (forgive the clumsy pigeonholing) are going to realise that he's not as much 'against them' as they like to think. There is a third way, but are any of us able to drop our prejudices long enough to take the first steps along that path?
In the aftermath of Summorum Pontificum there was a discussion (possibly at the very blog to which you allude) in which it was counselled that the laity should, if they wish to make the responses to the Extraordinary Form, make said responses under their breath. Far cry from the vision outlined in "The Spirit of the Liturgy". Likewise, given that the permission for the readings to be in the vernacular already existed, there was little need for it to be cited unless B XVI wanted it to be used...subtle maybe, but there nonetheless. In the same manner there was a message on 13th Jan from the Sistine Chapel that many 'liberals' will choose not to see, Mass in the vernacular, Euch Prayer II but with the Eucharistic Prayer and Rite of Communion said facing the same way as the people.
I think that the Holy Father is setting us all a very good example. My own experiences of the liturgical reform were very unhappy. In the parish I grew up in no one admitted to liking any of the reforms. Numbers started to drop from the introduction of the first little elements of english, and the dropping of the opening prayers. The decrease in numbers when the new mass arrived was immediate and large. In the end we changed from having three masses to two to make our church look full again.
At the same time I was at a catholic grammar school, and no one liked it there either. When I finished school I went to a university. The chaplaincy had recently been taken over by guitar strummers and dancers, and I felt repelled. I went to the local parish church, where mass was said with dignity, and found far more catholic students there than at the chaplaincy. When I finished at university I again found myself in the company of people who did not have any happy memories of the changes and little affection for the new.
Twenty five years ago I moved to my present parish. The priest had been selective in implementing reforms. He said the new mass in english, facing the people, but always used the first penitential rite and EP1. He only allowed organ music, although he did not regulate the organist's choice, and distributed communion to communicants kneeling at the rail.
Ten years ago he retired and his successors have removed the altar rail, introduced Extraordinary ministers, guitars, and dancing. The result is that our congregation is only 40% of what it was. The canges in our parish are, however, considered to be a great success.
This is why I personally question the success of liturgical reform. However, there is now almost two generations who know only the new. To change forcibly to anything might provoke as big a walkout as the last reform. I think therefore the Holy Father is correct just to make the old available again as an option, and write and speak urging us to keep our liturgy dignified, and to set a good exaple.
For us I think the message is for us to encourage broadly acceptable liturgy in our parishes. As musicians I think we need to avoid mediocre words and music and to strive towards a good standard of performance. I suggest that if you think someone might be upset by something you think of doing, then it is probably best not to do it.
Finally, in case anyone is wondering, I do find the strength and support I need from a well done new rite mass. I am not personally in favour of significant changes right now.
Like any other reform, this one was done both badly and well, depending on where you were (un)lucky enough to be. One major problem was that it was badly introduced, indeed mostly not properly introduced at all. The bishops did not form their clergy, so the clergy did not form their people...... and we're reaping the harvest of that. Things were changed on the hoof, with little or no explanation beyond the fact that "the Church/the Bishop says we've got to do this, so let's do it." How very childish, in retrospect.
And before anyone jumps in and says that the Bishops did not really know what they were voting for at Vatican II and certainly wouldn't have wanted all the reforms the Consilium pushed through, read Archbishop Piero Marini's recent book "A Challenging Reform", which gives chapter and verse for many of the changes that Bishops' Conferences all over the world pressed for (and which the then Sacred Congregation for Rites tried to prevent them from having!).
In my view, a significant amount of blame for the drop in Mass attendance has nothing to do with the liturgical reforms and how well or badly they worked. Rather, the root of it is to be found in Paul VI's unfortunate encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968. Many Catholics voted with their feet. They knew before it came out that the discipline was going to change - and then it didn't. Those that stayed at that time soon grew up and realised that it was OK to think for themselves. Sometimes, they found that the institutional Church did not have all the answers, but did not stay around long enough to realise that the pastoral Church might be different. We're still going through that today. Catholics are educated, intelligent, and not afraid to ask questions. They no longer accept "Because we say so" as a valid reason. And it's important that they be encouraged to question things. If they don't know why they believe something or do something, in a sense they're going through the motions. Obviously there is a leap of faith, but there must be a heck of a lot there to underpin it. That is what formation is all about.
We're still teaching people liturgical basics forty years after Sacrosanctum Concilium. It's almost scandalous that this teaching was not done at the time. In that sense, the reform has not been a success - yet. We need to keep plugging on with remedial education and formation to fulfil the vision that SC sets out before us, even if some are trying (as they see it) to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I totally agree about Humanae Vitae. To compound matters it is the children of that 60s generation who are now unchurched. When I talk to the pupils about the church in the Catholic Secondary where I work it is seen as a complete irrelevance to 95% of their lives. They have no contact with the Church at all apart from in school. The majority come from fractured and re-formed families. Many are not baptised, and the most faithfully religious are the Muslims. They are not even AWARE that the liturgy changed, and when they are told (for GCSE) it is akin to discussing Star Wars. Sadly for us, the more we get hung up on formulations and minutiae of language, the more laughably irrelevant we seem to those who we should be addressing. Alan
Well said Alan. I have just finished organising a course on Understanding Islam at the cathedral and I am humbled by the devotion shown by Muslims. We need to teach our young the importance of prayer!!
Very much so. On our visit to the mosque I observed everyone taking a full part in the prayers by following the communal movements. Individual prayers are said when washing and preparing to take part in the communal activity. There was also a strong commual feeling wiht people greeting each other afterwards far more than we sometimes see in our churches! I recall on my a synagogue visit that eevryone seemed to eb doing their own thing at times - reciting the same prayer but not joining as one.
No singing when we were there! A section of the Quran was chanted from memory and we were told that some small boys knew the whole Quran by heart at a very early age.
Probably because they don't have people going on about how they shouldn't have to bother with all that archaic foreign language stuff and how much better a vernacular Liturgy would be
No Sadly, this is because they go to Mosque school after school and they are beaten if they do not learn or they mess around. It is the place where Child Protection Laws and procedures are not acted upon. But just the boys, the girls go to play on the swings. Wise Islam, to exclude the gender that would ask silly questions and gossip and disobey.
Given the title of this thread, I thought I would ask for some advice/ info on active participation in planning the parish music. We had a liturgy meeting- quite well attended, a few weeks ago, and the one thing to come out of it was that a planning group should meet and plan music a month at a time. This group has not yet been formed and we are pretty close to April, with nothing planned. (PP is in Lourdes since straight after the last Easter Sunday Mass ) The main proposer of this for this did not want to be involved with HW&E planning, and I work closely with PP and choir on it anyway. What is really being suggested is a 'more interesting' liturgy, - alternative Creed, paraphrased Mass parts etc. Though she leads the music on my week off each month and often plays and sings with the regular choir, neither she nor three other regular musicians joined in the Vigil or Easter morning. They sat in the congregation. She also does not think choir practices are necessary except for 15 minutes before Mass. I know family commitments make practices difficult but....
I wonder if any of you have found if planning by group meeting is workable.
When I played with a music group in another parish the four of us used to plan together. It was not a great experience and called for much diplomacy, even though we all got on really well. Invariably someone would suggest a hymn, someone else would say "Oh I don't like that one". We ended up finding music that was all to everyone's taste, or more often, music that no-one objected to too much. As a result it was frequently mediocre and samey. I found there would be a word or phrase which would be seized on because it suggested hymns, even if that wasn't the message. For instance on one Sunday (28A) we have psalm 23 because it refers to the banquet prepared for us. It is not at all a sheepy Sunday. Planning by cmte didn't make the liturgy more varied, better or more relevant; it made it less so. It was better if I'd taken time beforehand to study the readings and antiphons and draft some suggestions. But better in this case means closer to what I would have chosen if left to it
What would be the make up of a planning group? An open invitation is likely to bring in people with axes to grind but who have no idea about (and maybe no interest in) liturgical good practice. A closed invitation could well do the same. To make it work would need an inordinate amount of liturgical catechesis (and presupposes folk are open to that catechesis) so that we didn't have "my favourite hymn" or "paraphrased mass parts".
Its a great idea in theory, but loaded with pitfalls.
Thanks Docmatt, I have a feeling that you are right. And then again, I wonder if I am worrying about nothing and maybe it's time for someone else to do the job anyway. It is very difficult to say to some people that some Mass settings are not used because the Church prefers the straight words. At least Fr says we should try it for a month at a time rather than other leader's suggested two months. I think it will be a group of three so far,-some others at the original meeting have told me they would find it rather a stressful task,- and liturgical formation is not popular. I suggested that readers may find it useful to look at the SSG Planning page each week and it was thought not to be necessary, or just me being critical.
