ITV: In Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II's Decree on the Liturgy), it indicated at Mass, pride of place must be given to Gregorian chant. But the reality is that few Catholics under the age of 50 would ever have heard a Te Deum sung in their parish church. Liturgical music today is largely guitars and tambourines, etc. Is this an appropriate form of musical expression for divine worship?
ARINZE: For music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage. It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere.
But, the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music. There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the Bishops Conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.
The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a Liturgical Music Commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference.
But not individuals just composing anything and singing it in church. This is not right at all. No matter how talented the individual is. That brings us to the question of the instrument to be used. The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used.
I will not now pronounce and say never guitar. That would be rather severe. But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, the visit of a special group, etc.
The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way. Also, because there are other instruments in many countries which are not used in Italy or in Ireland, for instance.
But music should nourish faith, burst from our faith and should lead back to the faith. It should be a prayer. Entertainment is quite another matter. We have the parish hall for that, and the theater. People don't come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need. Those are the reasons for Mass. When they want entertainment, they know where to go. Parish hall, theater, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view.
Complete thy work, O Lord,
and as Thou hast loved me from the beginning,
so make me to love Thee unto the end.
Q. It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.The Cardinal's tactful comments concerning apparent bias by L’Osservatore Romano against matters related to the traditional Roman liturgy -- viz., the delay in publishing Pope John Paul II's speech in September 2001 to the Congregation for Divine Worship commending the "very fine prayers" of the Missal of St. Pius V, and the total suppression of reporting on the Cardinal's celebration of the 1962 Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore in May 2003 -- are also well worth reading.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them.
Q. Are many bishops against?
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At times the pastoral anxiety of a bishop leads him to think that granting permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass in his diocese may create confusion among the people of God. And when believers who ask for this type of celebration are very few, the perplexity can be understood. Whereas when it’s a more substantial group wanting the mass, it’s up to the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei» to remind the bishop, honestly and kindly, that the wish of Peter’s Successor is of be generous in responding in favor of these believers. And I see with joy that, day after day, there are ever more who so respond.
Una Voce in Hungary?
Some Theses
1. The Tridentine Rite is a XVIth century variant of the pristine Roman liturgy. The Roman liturgy has developed over the centuries in an organic way, through a series of small changes, all the while living and growing with local variations from diocese to diocese and from order to religious order. The liturgy we have from the ages which produced the earliest documentary evidence did not, with the passage of time, undergo any essential change in respect of historical periods and local traditions, either, though these individual “colours” or “shadings” constitute a valuable treasure trove of the liturgy. The Tridentine Rite is but a new redaction of the so-called Ritus Curiae Romanae, the rite of the Roman Curia adopted in the papal court (but not in the great Roman basilicas) between the XIIth and the XVIth century.
2. The first attempts at deviating form the continuous tradition of the Roman rite appeared in the XVIth century. They were alien to the organic historical development, for they were created artificially on the basis of personal views and theories. Three “waves” of such “creative” liturgies are known in history. The first was the group of proposals inspired in the XVIth century by Humanism, for example the Breviary of Cardinal Quignonez, which influenced Thomas Cranmer. The second wave comprises the many fabrications produced in France during the XVIIth/XVIIIth centuries, the so-called “Neo-Gallican” rites. And the third wave is in the neo-Roman liturgy constructed after the Second Vatican Council, essentially in the spirit of the neo-Gallican predecessors.
3. Today, the neo-Roman liturgy is the official legal rite of the Roman Church, and it must be regarded with due respect, without any doubt concerning its validity.
4. On the other hand, many a critical remark has been directed against the new (allegedly ‘conciliar’ but in fact individual) liturgy, stressing the fact that it separated itself from the liturgical tradition of the Roman Church, thus rupturing the organic continuity of the liturgical tradition. (The merit of these criticisms is beyond the scope of the present theses.) The Holy See, respecting the wish of those persons who were discomfited by such a profound disturbance in liturgical practice, permitted in 1988 that such Catholics could follow the “traditional” or “Tridentine” Roman liturgy, using the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum. To facilitate this process, a new curial office was established under the name of Ecclesia Dei with a Cardinal at its head. Today the traditional Roman rite has been introduced all over the world in a growing number of dioceses, religious orders and priestly fraternities which celebrate the “Tridentine” rite instead of (or sometime parallel with) the “Novus Ordo.” The Holy Father, along with important Cardinals and respected Bishops has more than once expressed high appreciation for the values of the traditional liturgy; indeed, many of these prelates have themselves celebrated it publicly. For such public celebrations the permission of the local Ordinary is required (except when it is a “private” celebration which depends upon the indult given to the individual priest). If the permission is denied by the local authorities, one may appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which in most cases gives a positive reply to just petitions.
5. The restoration of this traditional Roman rite is promoted in an organised fashion by the Internal Una Voce Federation, groups of layfolk encouraged and also approved by various Prelates. The Federation offers assistance, informationand advice to the member national organizations, supports them in various other ways, and promotes fruitful contact amongst them.
6. A third possible way has also appeared after the last Council: a development of the Ordo Antiquus which presents opportunities for the restoration of valuable particular traditions of orders and dioceses within the traditional liturgy on the one hand, whilst on the other hand combining such restoration with a “modernisation” without any rupture of the tradition, indeed rather promoting its re-vitalisation. Initiatives of this nature, as in some religious orders, or the archdiocese of Paris, have thus far remained isolated and in most cases have not achieved a structured form sufficient to maintain continuity.
II. Prospects
7. Since the Roman Church is an hierarchically ordered body, the last word belongs to the Pope or central authorities acting in his name. But church history both ancient and modern attests the fact that the vox populi likewise plays a part in preparing important decisions. The liturgical provisions of the last Council were prepared by scholars, spiritual writers, priests, and groups of the faithful; neither the restoration of the Tridentine rite nor the papal breve Ecclesia Dei adflicta originated in a Roman dicastery. They were instead the answer the initiatives coming “from below.” Only when one takes into account this duality can the discipline of obedience and the inspiration of the Spirit Who “bloweth where He listeth,” be kept in balance within the Church.
8. Many persons who reflect upon matters liturgical (chiefly the older generation for whom the changes occurring in the wake of the Sacred Synod, when they themselves were young, were an emotionally decisive experience) accept only one rightful liturgy in our Church today: the Novus Ordo. Every other rite they condemn, or regard as a short-lived, nostalgic movement. However, if they acquire a deeper theological, historical and liturgical foundation, they would have to accept that the “reform” was not the renovation or re-formation of the Roman rite, but much rather its rejection, and many doctrinal, spiritual, emotional and pastoral values were lost in this process.
9. Others regard the new liturgy as but a passing episode in the life of the Church, so that we should direct our efforts toward the goal of seeing that the Ritus Tridentinus first of all be permitted far and wide, parallel with the Novus Ordo; and secondly, after gaining strength by existing and spreading its influence, become once again the only legal rite, with all the concomitant blessings for the faith and for true devotion, as well as for repairing the moral and spiritual damage done by Modernism and ecclesiastical Liberalism. Of course, once they gain a deeper appreciation of the rich content of the liturgy, such persons would have to accept that the last Vatican Council recognized and acknowledged many justifiable wishes and desires. The Tridentine rite was not and will not be identical with an eternal, unchangeable Roman liturgy, and yet the re-vitalisation of those very features makes right reforms necessary.
10. Only a few others, again, choosing the dynamic historical view of unity and diversity in the Roman liturgy, think that this liturgy must be preserved not only in its Tridentine form, but also in a manner which takes into account those of its elements which though originating in Christian Antiquity or the Middle Ages, were lost in the revisions of Trent. They are convinced that the inclusion of such elements (without of course changing the essential ones) might not only aid in a true “inculturation,” but also make a useful contribution to the true (failing) reform. Such persons, however, would do well to bear in mind that the peculiarities can be understood only in the light of the common tradition, and are capable of enriching the life of the Roman rite (which in the last resort is the same in time and space) only if common directives are followed.
11. Consequently, the long-term solution cannot be any other than a synthesis of these three approaches or tendencies. No doubt, we have to turn back from the path of the 70s. We have to return to the point at which we lost the right direction. The last sure point was certainly the Tridentine rite. But it is not necessary to halt this return at that point, much rather to begin there on that path of reform which was intended earlier, but owing to many kinds of expected and unexpected historical events, has not been implemented.
12. On the one hand, this perspective is of course not a long-term schedule, but on the other hand it is not completely disconnected from what we can and should do now, to wit:
13. The neo-Roman liturgy should be followed with well-disciplined behaviour. At all points where the law allows alternative choice (or can be interpreted as doing so), the choice or decision must be: solutions according to the best traditions. Thus, for example, it is important that the use of the vernacular (translations, musical settings) promote and foster not the destruction of the Roman liturgy or the relativisation of its content, but rather its transmission in the fullest and most authentic way possible.
14. Parallel with this, the use of the Tridentine rite should also be revived by taking advantage of the indult Ecclesia Dei and making a great effort to promote the active participation of the congregation, and this not only in the sense of any kind of external activity, but interiorly, consciously and in a fashion worthy of genuine liturgical spirituality (see Liturgy Constitution art. 14). The re-introduction of this rite is desirable not only for the efficacious representation of its values, but also because it can help the true spirit of liturgical adoration and veneration, as a remedy against the devastation of some recent developments in rebus liturgicis.
15. The third element is to rediscover the ancient traditions of dioceses and religious orders and to re-introduce these (within the parameters of a good-will interpretation of the laws: cf. Liturgy Constitution 37), not only to enrich the liturgy of our own day, but also as elements to be integrated into a further ‘true reform.’ The presence of these particular traditions (which represent, in fact, a wider sphere of universal Roman tradition) is the more important, since one may hope that church authorities display a benevolent attitude of respect for local traditions, because these are not strictly linked to the use of the 1962 Missale and the Latin language as is the case with the Tridentine rite.
16. The co-existence of these three tendencies offers a modus vivendi for at least some years, whilst preparing a reform which can combine unity with respect for local differences, traditionalism with up-to-dateness, adherence to the absolute values with a conformity to the varying circumstances of daily life.
Theses 17/27 are omitted here, since they are chiefly concerned with the concrete pastoral-liturgical situation in Hungary, which differs in important ways from the American conditions.
28. To summarise: under present circumstances we desire to adhere to the liturgical laws and the liturgical books promulgated since the last Council, with the additions mentioned above: benign interpretation, choice of the most traditional alternatives, integration of the Esztergom use – in the hope that the future will bring the solution to the problems and reconcile antagonistic tendencies.
29. Finally, we regard future perspectives a little differently than does Una Voce. We desire the Church to return in the long run to the traditional Roman liturgy – and not simply to the 1962 Missale Romanum. The reason is twofold: on the one hand, because we hope the full Roman (more than “Tridentine”!) rite will be taken into serious consideration. One the other hand, since we still await a true reform envisioned at the Council but still unfulfilled, perhaps we do have to return to the 1962 Missale as the last fixed point before the great break. But that should not be done for the sake of stopping there, but rather as a starting point of departure to begin a genuine reform that is in harmony with the many centuries of previous organic development (Liturgy Constitution art. 23), and yet is able to make the noble tradition of the Roman liturgy alive and enlivening for a new epoch.....the Roman liturgy, and not something else!
Sacred Music, the quarterly journal of the Church Music Association of America, now under the editorship of William Mahrt of Stanford University, is accepting article submissions.| CMAA Announcement List: | ||
| groups.google.com | ||