Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
The reality that Mass attendance was already in decline before the Council might point to the notion that perhaps the execution of the 1570 Rite wasn't always beautiful or uplifting.
In a way, those who celebrated the reformed rite poorly are persisting in a groundless trust in pre-conciliar rubricism.
- Just change the Mass and it will all be fine.
- Just follow the directions faithfully and it will all be fine.
Sounds like two faces of the same argument to me.
But in playing the "beauty card," we might well ask why (or even if) Gregorian chant is the most beautiful song, the organ the most beautiful instrument? What if I can play the guitar more beautifully than you can play the organ? Or my small schola (folk group, if you will) sings more beautifully than your full choir? The argument is, of course, absurd, even if what I say is true. The Church is best off with a both/and resolution, not an either/or.
The "1570 rite" as you call it (it was not the creation of a new rite let it be noted) was indeed not always well executed in the past. Still, one thing you can say in such cases, even when done not well, its objectivity at least helped prevent some of the problems we have today in the liturgy, and at very least it maintained its theocentricity.
But come now Todd, I know of various liberal liturgists (by no means fans of the old rite) who will admit that the revolutionary liturgical changes that swept through did do damage to the faithful and resulted in losses. They'll even tell you the experience of some in their family. It seems like anyone with any Catholic family whatsoever can tell you such stories. So let's be honest and just admit that the liturgical reform wasn't handled very well and move on from that point. It doesn't mean that liturgical reform is somehow not appropriate or even unnecessary, but it does say something about why the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had always gone by the tried and true method of organic liturgical development.
As for music, that the Church has identified particular forms as having a prominence is a matter of textual record and fact of course. This ought to be taken seriously.
As for modern forms, what needs to be looked at it what the Church has decreed in their regard.
Indeed, let it be both/and where the Church has given the both/and option, but let it be both/and in the manner in which the Church would have it be both/and. Namely, with a retention of the tradition (Gregorian, etc.) and with new forms growing from and in the spirit of the tradition. Perhaps an example of something like this would be Taize chant for instance? I haven't heard much of it, but enough that it at least seems to plausibly be an example of something that fits the bill.
Wait a minute! I was born in 1943 and it is not treue that mass attendance was declining before the council.In 1962 mass attendance had climbed in the USA to 80% in the average amarican parish.It was after the novus ordo was introduced that the attendance began to fall to where it is now 30-35% in a parish.Perhaps attendance was falling prior to 1962 in Europe but I doubt it. I was fortunate to attend an elementary school inDetroit in the 50s where every week mass was sung by the student body.
Each of the half-dozen parishes that I attended in several states prior to Vatican II had a well-executed sung Mass every Sunday. No such statement could be made about any of the numerous parishes I've attended in several states during the past 35 years. A person with nothing but my own personal experience would be likely to conclude that
-- the traditional Mass can be done poorly, but is designed to be done well, and usually is;
-- the new Mass can be done well, but is designed to be done poorly, and usually is.
And that the present normative liturgy is therefore in urgent need of reform to somehow ground it in the traditional liturgy of the Church. Where would he then be going wrong?
At the end of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the priest prays a concluding prayer at the Ambo of the church, which includes the following words:
Bless those who love the beauty of Thy house; glorify them in return by Thy power, and forsake us not who put our trust in Thee.
Thus, for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, we do not play the "beauty" card (whatever that might mean, Todd); we believe rather that those who love the beauty of the Lord and His house are worthy of blessing, glorification, empowerment, and protection by the Lord God.
It is a great pity that you should seem to think otherwise, Todd.
Beauty is extremely important in divine worship, not for its own sake, but rather as part of our offering to God, as representative of God's splendour (and He is the source of all beauty), and as an evident tool to reach and stir the human soul.
Todd was kind enough to e-mail me privately, and to show me that I was terribly mistaken in doubting his concern for and belief in the role of beauty in worship.
I would like to offer an apology to Todd, and to this estimable weblog, for my mistake.
12 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
