Tradition - Traditionalism

[nazard]

You have had me looking up Donatism. I have come across people who hold the view that they represent the real church and that everyone else is some sort of heretic, but I don't think they are a significant force on either side.

I think that much of the venom associated with the subject is caused because people talk and write about the extremists. At one end modernists are considered to favour the new mass with lots of ad libbing, changes to words and rubrics for the very best of pastoral necessities, experimental music and incense with copious amounts of hallucinogenic substances added. On the other hand, traditionalists want silently watch and listen to the tridentine mass with lots of gregorian chant, and then to go out and organise the election of the real successor to Pius XII, if not Pius V.

Both these views are extreme caricatures. Most people who consider themselves modernists just want the new mass with light-ish modern-ish music. They have no desire to smash up altar rails, or whatever the plural of reredos is. Most people who are traditionalist just want easy access to tridentine masses in convenient places at convenient times, and to sing a bit of chant now and again.

Surely our job as parish musicians is to try to keep as many people coming to mass as possible. Anyone who tries to ignore either the popularity of some more recent music, or the growing popularity of chant, is putting his (non inclusive language, or is it?) in the sand. The total suppression of the tridentine mass caused a lot of people real pain. It was a very charitable act when JPII wrote in Ecclesia Dei that the church was to make full and generous provision for those attached to older forms. Let us do that, and never be so uncharitable as to get to the point where a pope feels it is necessary to write to the church asking for a fuill and generous provision to be made for those attached to 1970s forms of worship.

Could we have no more mud slinging please? The supply of mud on both sides is infinite, so it could get very messy.

[oopsorganist]

I have very little to add to this thread because I have not encountered "Traditionalism" or whatever that is. I do remember going to church wearing a hankie on my head and wondering what on earth people were saying. Funny old times they were. But the world has changed. Change is fast, faster and speeding up. We never imagined that The Man From Uncle's gadgets would soon be in the hands of children in the playground. This is such a different world. The good news is that there is progress and development in liturgy, religion and such like. Otherwise no one would care. At least people care enough to lather on about it.

What would Jesus do? (That's what me irreverent house kids say when stumped). I leave this to fester.

How can people question what a previous pope's vision delivered to us? I don't understand that.

[NorthernTenor]

There are two important issues here. One is the insult and bile coming from one side of the debate on this board, over a number of threads (though not from all its proponents). It is quite as unattractive as its mirror image elsewhere on the other side of the debate, and those involved should be deeply ashamed of themselves. It brings to mind the closing scene of Orwell's Animal Farm, in which the animals look from the pigs to the farmers, and from the farmers to the pigs, and realise how difficult it is to tell them apart.

The second is the nature of Tradition, which is no more or less the foundation of our belief. Tradition is the Church's collective memory and mind. A healthy and mature mind will exhibit broadness of perspective and continuity of development. It will not be swayed by every passing cultural phenomenon. New ideas and circumstances will be tested against and interpreted in the light of hard-won knowledge and experience. In the context of the post-conciliar interpretation of the Council, this means that we will not ignore its quite clear pronouncements on chant and polyphony, as some here so disobediently do, the more so because those teachings are a reiteration of practice from the times of the Fathers, and have been repeated by Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI . It will also mean that we will not insist on rapid change of practice and ideas, such as the abolition of Latin from the liturgy and the re-ordering of our churches, when such changes have no basis in the Conciliar documents, and represent a major discontinuity with long-established tradition.

That said, I don't believe these problems should concern us over much. At heart, they reflect a crisis in Western liberal culture that came to a head between the 1960s and 1980s. The Church is bigger than this narrow time and place, and a new generation of priests, scholars and musicians has begun to help the Church get a grip on itself and move on. I genuinely worry, though, for those who have put their heart and soul into that brief religious and cultural dead-end. It can't be easy for them to adjust a second time, and I recognise in that the source of the vitriol and abuse that periodically disfigure this Board.

[mcb]

I genuinely worry, though, for those who have put their heart and soul into that brief religious and cultural dead-end. It can't be easy for them to adjust a second time, and I recognise in that the source of the vitriol and abuse that periodically disfigure this Board.

I haven't seen too much disfigurement, not in comparison to what routinely appears in the comments on WDTPRS or NLM (which, for the uninitiated, are both conservative Catholic blogs). I do think it's possible to solicit vitriol, though, carelessly or otherwise, if contributions (from any point of view) seem unduly patronising or insufficiently connected with the facts.

It's possible to make the same point too many times, as well, and I suspect that's the case in connection with the you-should-be-using-chant-because-the-Council-said-so trope, which I feel I've been subjected to enough times. Like you said, NT, the Church is bigger than this - a hallmark of our catholicity is our cultural diversity, and I for one am happy that chant is alive and well in the Church, staple diet in some places and exotic appetiser in others. Antagonism achieves nothing except hostility to your ideas, and rightly so. The real target for our energies should be the places where liturgical music doesn't rise above the level of slum culture, and if we only stopped to think about it we'd realise that there's enough common ground between us to make this our obvious common cause.

[Hare]

The real target for our energies should be the places where liturgical music doesn't rise above the level of slum culture, and if we only stopped to think about it we'd realise that there's enough common ground between us to make this our obvious common cause.

Hear, hear Martin.

Quite the most perceptive point I have seen made for a long time.

[NorthernTenor]

I genuinely worry, though, for those who have put their heart and soul into that brief religious and cultural dead-end. It can't be easy for them to adjust a second time, and I recognise in that the source of the vitriol and abuse that periodically disfigure this Board.

I haven't seen too much disfigurement, not in comparison to what routinely appears in the comments on WDTPRS or NLM (which, for the uninitiated, are both conservative Catholic blogs).

This isn't either of those two blogs, and what does or doesn't happen there is no excuse for ignoring what has happened here. And really - a number of now deleted posts, including some by commenters present on this thread, were quite equal to anything I've ever seen on either of them (though I'm not a frequent reader of WDTPRS).

I do think it's possible to solicit vitriol, though, carelessly or otherwise, if contributions (from any point of view) seem unduly patronising or insufficiently connected with the facts.

Ah - the "he asked for it" defence, combined with insult. I'm afraid your standards are slipping, mcb.

It's possible to make the same point too many times, as well, and I suspect that's the case in connection with the you-should-be-using-chant-because-the-Council-said-so trope, which I feel I've been subjected to enough times. Like you said, NT, the Church is bigger than this - a hallmark of our catholicity is our cultural diversity, and I for one am happy that chant is alive and well in the Church, staple diet in some places and exotic appetiser in others. Antagonism achieves nothing except hostility to your ideas, and rightly so. The real target for our energies should be the places where liturgical music doesn't rise above the level of slum culture, and if we only stopped to think about it we'd realise that there's enough common ground between us to make this our obvious common cause.

Chant and those who support it are criticised and insulted here with considerable frequency, as are other traditional practices. To expect no response on a Catholic comment board is unreasonable, especially when that response is made with reference to the Church's teachings. You might as well criticise tradition, the Council and subsequent documents from Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI for having banged on about the matter. Chant is not an optional extra, as one post-modern choice from a boxful of others: it is the Church's own music, which in the words of the Council is to have "pride of place" in the liturgy (though it does not follow from this that other styles cannot also have a place). To argue otherwise - or worse, to have some responsibility for liturgical music and to ignore it - is to deliberately put oneself outside the Tradition. That is not a Catholic approach.

[MaryR]

I've been a member of this forum (in various guises) since it began. Though sometimes the debate has been heated and, once or twice, exchanges have become unacceptable (and have been duly stamped on by the moderators), on the whole, I find this forum informative, witty, entertaining and, above all, friendly. I occasionally read other Catholic blogs and forums, but have never felt the urge to join them, mainly because of how downright rude and insulting many of the posters are.

IMHO, chant receives no more criticism on this board than other genres which do not appeal to certain posters. And guitar music is often maligned, but you don't hear the guitar playing members throwing insults about.

I suspect I'm off topic as I've not mentioned tradition or traditionalism. There! Back on topic!

[monty]

Chant and those who support it are criticised and insulted here with considerable frequency, as are other traditional practices. To expect no response on a Catholic comment board is unreasonable, especially when that response is made with reference to the Church's teachings. You might as well criticise tradition, the Council and subsequent documents from Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI for having banged on about the matter. Chant is not an optional extra, as one post-modern choice from a boxful of others: it is the Church's own music, which in the words of the Council is to have "pride of place" in the liturgy (though it does not follow from this that other styles cannot also have a place). To argue otherwise - or worse, to have some responsibility for liturgical music and to ignore it - is to deliberately put oneself outside the Tradition. That is not a Catholic approach.

Where is chant criticised? I have the impression that most readers of this forum sing or play chant but not all the time.

What is criticised is comments such as "chant is not an optional extra". In the real world some of us are struggling to have music at Mass in any format at all. Others are fighting to break away from the 4 hymn sandwich.

If this bickering could stop we could have some really useful, informative discussions.

[NorthernTenor]

IMHO, chant receives no more criticism on this board than other genres which do not appeal to certain posters. And guitar music is often maligned, but you don't hear the guitar playing members throwing insults about.

I guess if the guitar had "pride of place" in the Church's musical-tradition tradition, but that place was being ignored and disparaged by Catholics who disliked it because it was felt to represent something they thought the church ought to have left behind in the 1960s * ... the point being that there are certain elements of the tradition that can be objectively identified, and Chant is one of them, like it or not (though there's plenty to like!).

Alas, the attitude to chant is symptomatic of a wider problem. Traditional liturgical practices per se are frequently disparaged, and integrity traduced, with barely a reference to justify it. I know the reverse happens eleswhere, but that's my point: those who indulge in such criticism, and who take offence when it is questioned and another point of view suggested, are awfully like those frightful people next door. it really is just like the closing scene of Animal Farm.


* come to think of it ...

[SOP]

on the whole, I find this forum informative, witty, entertaining and, above all, friendly.

I was thinking along those lines last night so looked up some old threads and enjoyed myself.

I have faith we will soon be back on an even keel.

[contrabordun]

Chant and those who support it are criticised and insulted here with considerable frequency

I dispute this, as a matter of fact.
Please give, lets say, five examples over, let's say, three months of insults to chant.

[alan29]

I am one who has criticised the performance of chant in the past, and have quibbled about what actually counts as chant.
Belting out De Angelis and Credo 3 - which is about as good as the "chant" repertoire got in most parishes is hardly laudable. Who would want to return to that? Do they really count as plainsong anyway? The odd sung response hardly counts either.
There is a fantastic repertoire of chant to be explored. But much of it is totally unsuitable for parish use, coming as it does from monastic/cathedral backgrounds.
NB I thought that Tradition has a specific theological meaning - to do with the churches understandng and handing down of its core beliefs. That is a whole different animal from traditions/traditionalism. I feel it is a bit of wool-pulling when Tradition is hi-jacked by traditionalists. Not altogether honest.

[VML]

So if Missa de Angelis, Credo III, and the Doxology and Easter Alleluia don't really count as chant, then I've learnt very little and taught the parish only Salve Regina, and sung the Te Deum, (but only at the closing of our old church and opening of the new in 1992) which also may not even count either. Does the Pater Noster count by your reckoning? It seemed to do so with Pope Paul.
I learnt Cum Jubilo at school, but haven't managed to pass it on. They are now learning 'Godhead here in hiding' which seemed a good idea as the words have a pretty good provenance, - Aquinas in the Gerard Manley Hopkins translation.

What is a parish MD to do with only three technophobe barely music reading over 60s as the only regular attenders at practices. I thought it was a minor success when PP was persuaded that the plainsong doxology was far simpler than Chris Walker's Celtic one. He's been singing it since Easter. Tiny steps.. but now - it 'hardly counts.'

Where do we go?

[nazard]

...Where do we go?

We are perhaps just a bit better off than you, although none of our choir can read music. I'm going to try the english version of the Advent Prose from the NEH, and mass XVIII in latin from the Kyriale and in the english version by the nuns of New Hall. They look like an easy progression, and being a bit modified from tradition could be counted as "living tradition".

[VML]

Ah, living tradition, aka the folk process.