No Liturgical Masters
The statement from the Synod of Bishops XI Ordinary General Assembly Synod, insofar as it impacts on liturgy, is not different in substance from what the Vatican has said for 30 or so years: there is a serious problem in the Roman Rite with the way the liturgy is rendered, and the solution is a stricter adherence to the norms. Perhaps because it comes from the Bishops Synod, it will have a greater impact this time around. There is good reason , however, to continue to hope for something more specific and more effacious than a continued accumulation of statements of the following style:
Thanks, New Liturgical Movement.
Forty years after the Second Vatican Council we wanted to examine to what extent the mysteries of the faith are adequately expressed and celebrated in our liturgical assemblies. The Synod reaffirms that the Second Vatican Council provided the necessary basis for an authentic liturgical renewal. It is necessary now to cultivate the positive fruits of this reform, and to correct abuses that have crept into liturgical practice. We are convinced that respect for the sacred character of the liturgy is transmitted by genuine fidelity to liturgical norms of legitimate authority. No one should consider himself master of the Church’s liturgy. Living faith that recognizes the presence of the Lord is the first condition for beautiful liturgical celebrations, which give a genuine “Amen” to the glory of God.
Thanks, New Liturgical Movement.
7 Comments:
Jeff,
You are right to point out that this kind of language from Rome is not all that different from documents of the recent past. I really don't think that any statement of the Synod of Bishops is going to change anything.
Concrete measures are what is needed. The establishment of a good, solid liturgical practice at the Vatican Basilica, including high standards in sacred music, would be worth more than a million documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
Thanks for passing this along. And isn't The New Liturgical Movement website a wonderful gem?
"good, solid liturgical practice at the Vatican Basilica, including high standards in sacred music, would be worth more than a million documents "
Amen! Can we please hear some compositions other than the "Missa de Angelis" and the pseudo-polyphony of the Sistine Chapel's director of music?
" ... there is a serious problem in the Roman Rite with the way the liturgy is rendered, and the solution is a stricter adherence to the norms."
That would not be the conciliar view. SC 11: "Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects."
It's a matter of seeing liturgy as part of the spiritual life, not following a cookbook recipe.
"It's a matter of seeing liturgy as part of the spiritual life, not following a cookbook recipe."
There are times when I, like St. Teresa of Avila, need the cookbook recipe. One one's spirituality is dry it is precisely the adherence to the script that can and does provide comfort. By the way, how can one judge the spirituality of a celebration? At least adherence to the rubrics is, for the most part, a objective experience. Judging the spirituality is a slippery slope (i.e., "Eagle's Wings 'spiritual', polyphony 'dry').
Mark, I see a difference in the spiritual life and the more subjective notion of an individual's "spirituality."
I would see liturgy, ideally, as the communal expression of the parish's spiritual life. I concede the truth that some parishes find themselves in dry times spiritually or liturgically, it seems more likely the parish and/or priest would turn to people who are not experiencing aridity at times like that when good homilies, good music, etc. are still neede
And I'm not saying that rubrics aren't important, because they sure are. I question the current emphasis on them as a panacea for liturgical problems. The council bishops seemed to discount that notion. Perhaps we should consider their testimony in SC 11.
"I question the current emphasis on (rubrics)as a panacea for liturgical problems."
The pendulum swung way too much in the direction of "do your own thing," especially in the 1970s and 80s. Now it is swinging in the other direction but a lot of priests still haven't received the memo. Our parish has lay EM's pouring the Precious Blood during the Agnus Dei while the priest is standing there or, worse, when a concelebrant is available. My perception is that you'd find this abuse okay but a choral Sanctus would be gravely wrong.
Todd,
You said the following in response to another poster saying we need stronger adherence to the Missal:
"That would not be the conciliar view. SC 11: 'Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.'"
What is said here does not contradict what the other poster said.
By saying some more is required is not to say that it isn't itself required, or is optional. Rather, it is saying that there is more *in addition* to adherence to the rubrics. (Documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum and those coming out of the synod, as well as in the catechism confirm this direction by constantly noting we are not to consider ourselves masters of the liturgy.)
It's rather like saying this: "Something more is required than mere avoidance of sin." A statement like that would not be suggesting that therefore we don't need to worry about avoiding sin. In a Christian spirit, it would rather be saying that in addition to avoiding sin, following the commandments, etc. we must also seek to evangelize, we must seek to practice and acquire virtues, etc.
<