Prophetic

[Cam42]

I find this to be a very interesting article....my emphasis in red. And they are based upon recollections of conversation with the author before he passed away.




[center] SACRED MUSIC
Volume 117, Number 1, Spring 1990
From The Editors


ORDINARY OF THE MASS
Monsignor Richard J. Schuler

That term, "ordinary of the Mass," is rarely seen today in liturgical
writing,[color="#FF0000"][it is more and more being seen][/color] and yet it remains in musicological parlance as the classical
description of a musical form which for a thousand years produced
masterpieces of music in every period of western music history. For the
music student, the term "Mass" -indicated a composition of five or six
movements based on the unchanging texts of "Kyrie," "Gloria," "Credo,"
"Sanctus-Benedictus" and "Agnus Dei." The immutability of the texts was
contrasted to the variety of musical settings accompanying them. [color="#FF0000"][interesting to note the term immutable] [/color]Every age
left its treasury of compositions written by a multitude of composers who
undertook to use the form of the "ordinary of the Mass" for the glory of
God and the edification of the faithful. It is, for the most part, this
emense library of polyphony which is meant by the "treasury of sacred
music" that the Vatican Council refers to and orders to be fostered, used
and further enriched by new compositions, both in Latin and in the
vernacular languages. [color="#FF0000"][for anyone who is serious about the Divine Liturgy, it is known to be true and an honest look by anyone else will also find it to be the case.]
[/color]
And yet, the past twenty-five years have seen fewer attempts at
composition in this form than any previous ages since the fourteenth
century. [color="#FF0000"][Hmmmmm...can anyone say musical ignorance and lack of true Liturgical application of ideals and methods taught?][/color] Both in the vernacular and in Latin the setting of the ordinary
texts of the Mass has almost completely fallen off. [color="#FF0000"][Except for the occasional J. Michael Joncas, Marty Haugan, and David Haas tripe][/color] The liturgists have
discouraged the singing of those texts and have even eliminated them from
the Mass. Composers have not chosen to write when their work would not be
performed; publishers have not printed works for which there is no market
for sales. [color="#FF0000"][Amazing how money has overridden the need for apt, accurate, and honest Liturgical music]
[/color]
Why has this happened? Basically, it is because there is and continues to
be an attack on the ancient "Missa Romana cantata." The Mass as a musical
form is a very Catholic and very Roman thing. [color="#FF0000"][And what are we? American Catholics or Catholics in America?][/color] There is no doubt that a
false ecumenism, filled with an anti-Roman spirit, has been at the basis of
much of the attack on the Roman liturgy, even if ostensibly its ultimate
intentions were to extend the faith. In destroying the "Missa cantata"
Christians in the west, both Catholic and non-Catholic, were deprived of a
cultural form that for centuries was its heritage. [color="#FF0000"][Ding, Ding, Ding][/color] Innumerable people have
been attracted into the Church through that musical heritage; to push it
aside is a mistake as one can clearly see in the reaction (not only among
the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre but more widely even within the
Church) that the present interpretations of the conciliar reforms have
produced. [color="#FF0000"][Ummm...notice the above reference to Haas, Haugan and Joncas?]
[/color]
On a personal note, I have experienced how the Latin Mass, celebrated with
Gregorian chant and the masterpieces of polyphonic settings, has attracted
great numbers to attend and many to become Catholics and some even to
become priests. The presence at the solemn Mass on Sundays at my parish of
university students and many young people demonstrates the attraction of
music, ceremony and dignity in worship. [color="#FF0000"][It is what drew me to the seminary...above all else...and had nothing to do with me leaving, btw...][/color]

Involved also in the disappearance of the ordinary of the Mass is the
false attack leveled against choirs and artistic choral music. If choirs
are not to be allowed, then by whom will settings of the ordinary be sung?
If they are not sung, then why publish them? This ridiculous notion that
choirs interferred with active participation wrought incalcuable harm to
liturgical music, and particularly to the singing of the ordinary parts of
the Mass, the very core of most choirs' repertory.

There can be no denial of the unhappy state of the liturgical reform in
the United States today. While few will admit it, the tremendous drop in
Mass attendance must be laid in great part at the feet of the misguided
liturgists; the Tridentine movement finds its cause in the abuses of
liturgy foisted upon our Catholic people; parishes where a sound
implementation of the reforms of the council has been accomplished are
flourishing. The vocational crisis, the disintegration of orthodox
catechesis, lack of preaching about the essentials of the faith, indeed a
loss of reverence for the holy and a denial of sin can all be attributed to
some degree to the failure to implement the liturgical decrees of the
Second Vatican Council in this country. [color="#FF0000"][What can I say? We are talking about Vatican Council II....NOT Trent.][/color]

It is naive to think that a restoration of the Tridentine Mass will bring
about a thorough renewal of the Church. [color="#FF0000"][PROPHETIC.....it isn't about the restoration of the Extraordinary form....it is about more than that. The Extraordinary form is ameans to return to traditional values in regard the Liturgy and life of the Church.][/color] It is equally naive to think that a
revival of choirs and the composition of more settings of the ordinary
parts of the Mass will cause such a renewal either. [color="#FF0000"][Yes][/color] But all these things
together can start a new beginning. Only when the decrees of the Second
Vatican Council are seriously and conscientiously implemented "in toto"
will we see the flowering the Church so earnestly seeks. [color="#FF0000"][And this was an article written 18 years ago][/color]

The history of the Church records a gradual development with each
generation building on the work of the previous ones. The great challenges
of the reforms of Vatican II were intended to rest on the past. The Mass is
indeed "for all times" and our Mass today is the same as that of the
Council of Trent and the early middles ages, indeed of all the centuries of
the Church's life. We need not throw out the past to achieve our goals. In
fact, it is only upon the tradition of the past that the present and the
future can be created. Let without tradition, new efforts can only fail, as
we have so painfully learned. [color="#FF0000"][WOW!!!][/color]

[/center]

[Resurrexi]

Cam, I respect you and I also have a great love of the Ordinary Form of the Mass when celebrated with the Reform of the Reform in mind, but why is it that you constantly to make it as if the EF wasn't an end, but only a means to an end? Why is it that the EF in and of itself couldn't bring about a liturgical renewal in the Latin Church? It just seems that you are downplaying the importance of the EF per se and see it only as a way to make the OF better.

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1630245' date='Aug 17 2008, 09:45 PM']Cam, I respect you and I also have a great love of the Ordinary Form of the Mass when celebrated with the Reform of the Reform in mind, but why is it that you constantly to make it as if the EF wasn't an end, but only a means to an end? Why is it that the EF in and of itself couldn't bring about a liturgical renewal in the Latin Church? It just seems that you are downplaying the importance of the EF per se and see it only as a way to make the OF better.[/quote]

Neither Mass is an end in and of itself. Sacraments are signs instituted by Christ to bring about Grace, which is the end. Now, even though the Extraordinary Form is acceptable and it is to be held in the same esteem, the Ordinary Form is still the Normative Form. Even by the language of Benedict himself.

The EF can bring about liturgical renewal, if and only if it is done in an authentic manner. That is what I am talking about and it is what Schuler was talking about. Unfortunately, [b]most[/b] of the implementation of the Extraordinary Form prior to last year was not authentic, but rather it was done in a divisive way (ie. SSPX and various sedevacantists). Since the liberalization of the EF, we can see that there is a genuine and authentic move toward this means, but let's not ever forget that the Sacraments are means to the end which is Grace.

So....please don't think that I don't have the utmost respect for the EF. I do. But I also understand that the OF is still the normative Mass even with the liberalization of the EF.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1630531' date='Aug 18 2008, 10:45 AM']Neither Mass is an end in and of itself. Sacraments are signs instituted by Christ to bring about Grace, which is the end. Now, even though the Extraordinary Form is acceptable and it is to be held in the same esteem, the Ordinary Form is still the Normative Form. Even by the language of Benedict himself.

The EF can bring about liturgical renewal, if and only if it is done in an authentic manner. That is what I am talking about and it is what Schuler was talking about. Unfortunately, [b]most[/b] of the implementation of the Extraordinary Form prior to last year was not authentic, but rather it was done in a divisive way (ie. SSPX and various sedevacantists). Since the liberalization of the EF, we can see that there is a genuine and authentic move toward this means, but let's not ever forget that the Sacraments are means to the end which is Grace.

So....please don't think that I don't have the utmost respect for the EF. I do. But I also understand that the OF is still the normative Mass even with the liberalization of the EF.[/quote]

You're right. The EF Mass isn't an end. It's a means to both the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

I think, though, by you using the term "normative" rather than "ordinary," which was the term used in the motu proprio itself, you are downplaying the EF's significance. According to Cardinal Hoyos, all Latin Catholics should be acquainted with the EF, while you seem to imply that it should be rarer than that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1630819' date='Aug 18 2008, 03:43 PM']You're right. The EF Mass isn't an end. It's a means to both the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

I think, though, by you using the term "normative" rather than "ordinary," which was the term used in the motu proprio itself, you are downplaying the EF's significance. According to Cardinal Hoyos, all Latin Catholics should be acquainted with the EF, while you seem to imply that it should be rarer than that.[/quote]

Nope, I am not saying that at all. Remember, even in the motu proprio, the Ordinary form of the Mass is to be the normative form. The form that is used "normally."

[quote name='Summorum Pontificum']Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.[/quote]

Notice that this is the same language that I am using. However (and this is key to understanding), the term Ordinary means the very same thing as Normative. The fact that the Extraordinary Form is allowed doesn't mean that it is to be afforded the very same privileges of the Ordinary Form, UNLESS there is a group of faithful who are STABLE. Otherwise the Ordinary Form still has pride of place. This is consistent with Article 5.

[quote name='Summorum Pontificum']Art. 5. 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. Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.[/quote]

Again, notice the need for it to be, not simply because it should be there. If there are parishes where there is not a STABLE group, the Normative Mass is the Ordinary Form, and by the language of the Holy Father, even where there is a want and need, the Extraordinary Form is not becoming the norm in the parish as a whole, but simply an addition.

There is no question or debating the fact that the Missal of John XXIII is another form of the same Rite. I accept, happily, I might add, that this is the case. But said Missal is not to be the normative Missal, unless in an existing EF parish already.

Does that make sense?

[Nihil Obstat]

Thank God for Pope Benedict!!!