Post-Conciliar discontinuity

[nazard]

...
I believe that this thread should be taken seriously, because I feel that there is a real danger now that the music, traslations, and liturgical reforms of the last 40 years or so which have enabled many to gain access to the word of God (particularly psalmody) will be replaced by poor-quality meandering neo-gregorian music, and transaltions that people do not understand.

This, combined with, for example, banning communion wine and altar girls, virtually eliminating scripture (the EF mass / latin), the priest facing the wrong way etc., in my view leads away from the Gospel.

Do we really want Fr. Z &, the NLM the LMS to be setting the agenda?

Whatever happened to Christ being the centre of all liturgy?

I think you overestimate the successes of the last forty years. You rightly praise the reform of the mass readings, which I agree have been a great success. However, they still represent only a small fraction of scripture. The faithful need, as they always have needed, to read the bible for themselves. The music is much less clear cut. Unless you are a fan of the vaguely contemporary style which has become widespread, contemporary church music does not appeal. In the past, people like Gregory Murray have stuck their necks out and tried to predict what would last, and got it completely wrong, so we will just have to see what happens. You have criticised the neo-gregorian style as meandering, which is exactly the criticism I would make of Haugen etc. Give it time to develop. You don't need to sing any of it until it gets better.

The traslations, transaltions and, indeed, the translations have been a disaster. The old ICEL took it on themselves to further reform mass for the English speaking world. A lot of what they did was just plain wrong. Phrases like "and also with you," "which earth has given," and "I shall be healed" are just incorrect - 0/10 see me, as schoolteachers say. That said, although there are good points of the new translation, it would have been a good idea to let an educated English speaker, or even Enoch and Eli, do a red pen job on it before it went to print.

Communion under both kinds is a positive development, as are altar girls. Keep harping on about them in case anyone thinks we would rather be without them.

The priest facing the wrong way was a fad of the early sixties. Deo gratias, it is now being seriously questioned, and, Deo volente, may die out. Pray for a good outcome.

As for Fr. Z &, the NLM and the LMS, are they any worse than Pray Tell, for example? I don't think much to either pressure group.

You do seem to think that Christ is not the centre of the Tridentine mass and traditional catholic practices. Ask yourself if it is really likely that the church had two thousand relatively successful years without Christ at the centre of its liturgy, and then suddenly found Christ?

[alan29]

People have likes and dislikes. They of course appeal to higher authorities to authenticate them.
Local communities develop their own musical traditions - largely depending on the resources at hand.
These things are not carved in either marble on one hand or in perspex on the other.
I have come to welcome the possible diversity in worship - that seems a thoroughly Anglican solution to the problem of meeting personal preferences.

[musicus]

Non torsii subligarium! GF

Hmm. See http://latinsayings.info/LatSayings3.php (near the foot of the page).

[Gedackt flute]

It's good to see such a heartfelt love of tradition (irrespective of how recent & local it is).

Absolutely - there is very little more traditional than scripture.

Also 'Here I am Lord' has become a (not so recent) classic and is now published all over the world in hymnals of different denominations. (It recently appeared as the featured hymn in CMQ.)

[Gedackt flute]

In some parishes the Novus Ordo is dire. The music is often trite, what you would call a ditty, that vacuous Eucharistc Prayer 2 is virtually universal, the homily is often anodyne, the priest makes gormless asides in the liturgy, and so on.

This is regrettably true. However, EP2 is a great prayer (although it can be over-used). As far as I am aware, V2 did not call for trite music.

[Gedackt flute]

You do seem to think that Christ is not the centre of the Tridentine mass and traditional catholic practices. Ask yourself if it is

No - I am not saying that. Christ is the centre of all liturgy. Just considerably less so in the above mass. (E.g. 17% NT, rather that 70%, and 1% OT, rather than 14%.)

[nazard]

No - that is the proportion of scripture read. Whether Christ is at the centre is a separate issue.

[Peter Jones]

Is there a danger of this happening now.

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.


Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.


GF - IF the above is what is underpinning your concerns, possibly in regard to one particular priest, and the above norms (particularly 5 - as you do not seem to have "a stable group of faithful")) are potentially being distorted, then your best route of expression - carefully and truthfully worded and with accurate evidence - is a polite letter to the Vicar General, in my opinion, rather than veiled anxiety in this forum, resulting in a somewhat nebulous topic.

[Peter Jones]

...........the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish.............

That does not mean that a small "stable group" of faithful has a right to take over the principal celebration on a Sunday (the ordinary pastoral care of the parish), for example.

[Peter Jones]

That said, although there are good points of the new translation, it would have been a good idea to let an educated English speaker, or even Enoch and Eli, do a red pen job on it before it went to print.

But they did, nazard. Not Enoch 'n Eli - Vox Clara.

[nazard]

...That does not mean that a small "stable group" of faithful has a right to take over the principal celebration on a Sunday (the ordinary pastoral care of the parish), for example.

Is that the small stable in Bethlehem?

[gwyn]

Do we really want Fr. Z &, the NLM the LMS to be setting the agenda?

That's be nice, at least then Father would be less inclined to invent additions at his own personal whim.

Whatever happened to Christ being the centre of all liturgy?

No change, He was and remains so.

Shame about the 1965 missal, that would have resolved so many issues.

[Southern Comfort]

...That does not mean that a small "stable group" of faithful has a right to take over the principal celebration on a Sunday (the ordinary pastoral care of the parish), for example.

Is that the small stable in Bethlehem?

However, the thing about "stable" is that it is an inaccurate translation. In the Latin original of the document, the adverb was indeed stabiliter, "which has existed in a stable manner". In the final text of the document this adverb had been changed to continenter, quite a different thing: "which has existed continuously".

In other words, the correct phrase ought to be, not a "stable group" but a "continuously-existing group". Unfortunately the English translation (including the Vatican's own) never caught up with this editorial amendment and has perpetuated the initial translation.

(This was discussed in detail at the time on a private international liturgy network, including two posts by distinguished canon lawyer John Huels, before anyone asks for sources to be quoted.)

[Peter Jones]

However, the thing about "stable" is that it is an inaccurate translation. In the Latin original of the document, the adverb was indeed stabiliter, "which has existed in a stable manner". In the final text of the document this adverb had been changed to continenter, quite a different thing: "which has existed continuously".

Summorum pontificium - vatican website:

Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium stabiliter exsistit......

Universae Ecclesiae

15. Coetus fidelium dicitur "stabiliter exsistens" ad sensum art. 5 §...........

Sorry SC but I cannot find continenter in the Vatican website, Latin editions . It's a good point you make though, if you can find the text for us.

[Peter Jones]

By the way - anyone looking for Latin originals that are too deep to dig for on the vatican web site - http://www.gcatholic.com/documents/ might get you there with greater speed.