Friday, September 28, 2007

Why it is hard to respect our elders....

Or at least, an example thereof:
The liturgical reform of Vatican II suppressed the distinction between the low Mass and the sung Mass in order to open to [sic] the door to “the full, conscious and [sic] active participation” of the assembly (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 14).
(Joseph Gélineau Liturgical Assembly, Liturgical Song)

....and if we check the CSL §14, we find this hard-hitting denouncement of the distinction between sung and spoken Masses:
14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has decided to enact as follows:


Am I missing something? Where does that paragraph do away with sung/spoken Masses?

And I could go on by bringing in Musicam sacram and (IIRC) elements of the GIRM that recall the distinction. But I won’t. I am tired of this stuff. I bought a book by Gélineau so I wasn’t just reading Schuler and disciples, but it’s so chock full of propaganda and twisted thinking that I can’t get through it.


At Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've often said that the problem is that people look to the RESULT of Vatican 2 as though it is the ACTION of Vatican 2. "Vatican 2 abolished chant/Latin/organs." "Vatican 2 flipped around the altar." Or the trads, "Vatican 2 did away with reverence." In this case, it seems Gelineau is mistaking the popular result of that paragraph for the actual text.


At Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:14:00 AM, Blogger Dad29 said...

What the Council wanted was more singing from the Faithful, ideally of the Ordinary parts as well as the short responses (in Latin, by the way.)

The "Low Mass" was aberrative, in a way, but certainly not "wrong" in any sense. However, until the "Dialog Mass," it was not 'participative' in the sense that the congregation did not "actualize" their internal participation in the Sacrifice.

So we went from a 2- or 3- hymn sandwich to a 4-hymn sandwich!

At Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's as if for the last half of the 20th c. a huge segment of the leadership in the Church either didn't understand what a primary source was, or was under the mistaken notion that no one else knew, or would ever look at the primary sources, and let them get away with... well, the politest word I can think of is "prevarications."

Read MCW sometimes and track down the references to authoratative documents -- so many of them are bogus, it's hard to believe it was simple ignorance or random mistakes.

My diocesan O of W sends out letters all the time which purport to tell us what the GIRM or RS says about some practice... read the find print and the money quotes turn out to be full of misleading ellipses, from "authorities" like John Huels, or just wishful thinking on the part of the O of W.

We're now riddled with self-credentialed liturgists and DREs who quote each other as if they were magisterial, and who are genuinely clueless when you point out the facts, quoting chapter and verse from CVII dos or the GIRM.

At Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:12:00 PM, Blogger Cantor said...

Gavin wrote:
In this case, it seems Gelineau is mistaking the popular result of that paragraph for the actual text.

Agreed, but what gets me is that this is not Fr. Newbie. This is friggin’ Gélineau - whose influence was responsible for what we now call the Memorial Acclamation. How can such a prominent figure get away with such an overt misreading of a document that one presumes he would know pretty d**n well??

At Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:53:00 AM, Blogger Scelata said...

It is hard not to draw the conclusion, in all charity, that there is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth in order to advance an agenda.
As you say, this is not someone who fell or was coerced into a position of authority with insufficient training
I am thinking of the "Liturgist" at a parish where I recently worked who did not know of the existence of a document called the General Instruction. I hasten to add that she was delighted to learn of it.
The pastor had thrown her in the deep end... to continue the metaphor, Gelineau touted himself as head of the Life Gurad Training Program.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home