Posted on 01/01/2003 5:13:54 AM PST by ninenot
"Catechesis" on Liturgy varies widely in US dioceses
Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estévez's letter of October 25, 2001 to the USCCB, commenting on proposed American Adaptations to the IGMR, said the following:
"In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses".
At present, different interpretations of liturgical rules from one diocese to another -- a "balkanization" of the Church in the US -- is causing very serious and very widespread confusion. It is a source of grief for Catholics in dioceses where draconian measures are taken to eliminate kneeling or other traditional gestures of reverence. People are especially distressed (and perplexed) at the harshness of the directives of some bishops, and find themselves torn between their wish to obey the bishop (some bishops are invoking obedience to enforce their directives) and their profound desire to express bodily their reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
As we have said elsewhere, this is a conflict no Catholic should be forced to encounter.
Below are a few samples from the past few months:
In Arlington there has been a crisis at Christendom College, where it has been customary to kneel at the altar rail to receive Communion. Bishop Paul Loverde objects, and has ordered the practice to cease, as he states in an article in the November 14 Arlington Catholic Herald: "...Although no one would be denied communion if he or she knelt, the proper norm is standing and any other posture is really an act of disobedience to what the liturgical discipline is providing".
(http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2002homilies/homily1114.htm)
Saint Cloud Bishop John F. Kinney wrote in June 2002 that people should stand during the Eucharistic Prayer ("a 'resurrection' posture"). He said "kneeling visibly expressed reverence in former ages and other places (for example, in the medieval courts of European monarchs). Now, in our culture, standing seems to more clearly express respect and honor".
The diocese produced a set of liturgical directives, bound for reproduction as parish resources for "catechesis", mostly written by liturgist Father Dennis Smolarski, SJ, or "based on" materials on the BCL web site. These publications freely interpret liturgical rules. (In his book Liturgical Literacy, Father Smolarski defines "liturgy" as referring "to any official form of public worship" [p.140]).
The priests of Wichita received a communique from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and the Office of Worship in June instructing all the faithful that they "must" kneel from the Sanctus to the Great Amen and they are "encouraged" to kneel after the Agnus Dei. There are many other good signs in the communique. Father Shawn McKnight, STD, is the Director of the Office of Worship and has put together and excellent overview of the principal changes in the new liturgical instructions.
Monterey Bishop Sylvester Ryan, in "The Sign of Unity" - a two part letter published in March on the diocesan web site, invoked his episcopal authority (saying that the GIRM "designates and empowers the diocesan bishop" to regulate the Liturgy). In the letter he forbids people to kneel after the Agnus Dei, and orders people to assume the "orans" posture ("extend the hands in the same way that the celebrant does") for the Our Father, "the opening prayer, the prayer over the gifts and the prayer after Communion". The bishop also expressly forbids genuflecting or kneeling to receive Communion.
Lafayette Bishop William Higi wrote in his columns in May that kneeling "dissents from the mind of the Church", and "rather than reverence, the emphasis will be refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican for the United States".
He expressly forbids any gesture other than a bow of the head: "A person is not to genuflect before receiving nor are they to kneel to receive. Rather, standing before the Eucharistic Minister, they are to bow their head.... If a person chooses to kneel, Eucharistic Ministers of this Diocese will be instructed to say quietly to that individual: 'the proper posture is to stand, please'".
Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is more liberal. He issued a letter this summer permitting Catholics in the Lincoln diocese to either kneel or stand for Communion, and he does does not forbid genuflecting.
The Archdiocese of Boston responded to an inquiry in May, saying that communicants are free to choose their posture for receiving Holy Communion.
Archbishop Thomas Kelly, OP of Louisville issued a directive to parishes, "New Gesture of Reverence Before Receiving Holy Communion", effective the first Sunday in Advent 2002.
An accompanying flyer from a parish expands the "catechesis" on posture of the people during Mass:
"The posture for reception of Holy Communion is to be standing. There are some who prefer to kneel to receive Holy Communion. While no one will be denied Communion if they choose to kneel, for the sake of uniformity throughout the Archdiocese, all are called to 'humble obedience'.
"Remember that we are not 'pick and choose Catholics'. If some can choose to kneel to receive Holy Communion, then why can't others choose to stand for the Eucharistic Prayer?
"The 'gesture of reverence' is a simple bow of the head before receiving the Sacred Host, and also a simple bow of the head before receiving the Precious Blood from the chalice, if one chooses this option.
"There are some who prefer a more solemn sign of reverence, such as a profound bow or a genuflection. Again, for the sake of uniformity, all are called to 'humble obedience'. We are not 'pick and choose Catholics'.
"The communicant is reminded to respond 'Amen' to the words 'The Body of Christ ... the Blood of Christ'. No other response is appropriate, such as 'Thank you' or 'I believe"'.
The directive states that "The USCCB voted that the posture is to be standing and the gesture of reverence will be a bow of the head before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ. The Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship approved this decision.
The Louisville directive states that during the 10th century "people became so focused on the awesome reality of the presence of Christ in the consecrated Body and Blood that they believed themselves to be unworthy to receive. Awe and reverence dominated over the actual reception of Holy Communion", and it links this with other liturgical issues. "The emphasis on confession before Communion, the fast from midnight, and the age when a child could receive Holy Communion (adolescence), were just a few of the practices that supported this decline of the faithful's reception of Holy Communion".
Not so today. No longer feeling "unworthy", Catholics now "receive the Body of Christ to become the Body of Christ for the world", the directive says.
I am reasonably certain that you would not use this cite unless you were fed it by a liturgy liar. Were you to read the rest of it you would be aware that the cite has to do with the "overly-penitent" types--who were perhaps pushing the envelope towards "look at me, I'm penitent..." As to the other cite, I will be back to you.l
Des will speak for herself, but allow me a couple of 'background' observations.
Methinks that you have read far too much of the "modern liturgical" literature which sets up a false dichotomy: that one can either 'participate' or 'listen.' To one degree or the other, this dichotomy has been used to browbeat otherwise well-meaning people into "sing, jump, say, repeat, shake, rattle, and roll" activities---none of which are necessary.
The phrase "actuosa participatio" used in the VII document on the liturgy does NOT mean "active participation." Rather, it means a metanoia--conforming one's mind to the action of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and His prayer life.
This 'conformance' allows for several possible routes, among them being intense prayer (with the priest simply by following the text he reads,); one's own self-offering at the Offertory; and thanksgiving after Communion.
Now the nature of genuine liturgical music is "that which elevates the minds and hearts of the Faithful to God" (Pius X.) In brief, this music MUST: 1) use acknowledged 'sacred' texts (eg from the Scripture or text of the Mass;) 2) be 'holy, beautiful, and universal' (also Pius X) and 3) thus be truly art.
Properly speaking, then, this music SHOULD transport the listener (who listens actively--thus participates actively) to God, or at least FROM the world.
Therefore, liturgical music as defined above, serves the purpose of encouraging or helping the listener "to raise his mind and heart to God."
In fact, this IS ACTIVE PARTICIPATION, or conforming one's mind to the Mind of Christ, as Beauty is an attribute of God.
Please pardon me if this is a bit abstruse, but it is important.
It is also important to know that the church choir serves BOTH as representatives of the laity AND as representatives of the angelic choir (cf. Ratzinger and Pius X, Pius XII.) Thus the choir (and delegated singers therefrom) are singing not only 'for' you, in which activity you can join mentally, but 'to' you (eg at the Sanctus, which is a DIRECT quote from the angels' words as recorded in Scripture.)
All to help YOU "lift your mind and heart to God."
SO much for false dichotomies.
Now the nature of genuine liturgical music is "that which elevates the minds and hearts of the Faithful to God" (Pius X.) In brief, this music MUST: 1) use acknowledged 'sacred' texts (eg from the Scripture or text of the Mass;) 2) be 'holy, beautiful, and universal' (also Pius X) and 3) thus be truly art.... where music often devolves into various renderings of Puff the Magic Dragon and where the assembly is often asked to sing along but the three part harmony is tough for us non-musically inclined :-)
Our staff tenor is ex-Santa Fe Opera and a voice teacher . . . he's kind enough to coach those of us who are interested . . . bless his heart, he does the best he can with me working on proper breathing and support techniques. (When my daughter was two, I introduced him to her as "Prince Tamino". Her eyes got big as saucers, and she said, "I'm so glad you're all right. I was SO worried about you." She thought he really WAS Tamino until she was about 5.)
I utterly and totally loathe and despise clapping in church. Fortunately our congregation never applauds sacred music during the Mass. Unfortunately the line has not been held for awards, appointments of vestry, etc. that occur either right before the service begins or during the sort of lull right after the Peace that is used for announcements. (My personal opinion is that announcements should be made before the service or afterwards. Too disruptive during, even after the Peace.)
Now for your other question. Two aspects: practical and philosophical.
1. Practical. The church I now attend was founded in the 60s, with all of the touchy-feely nonsense that pertains to that era. One of the original rector's less than bright ideas was based on just your objection - that a "trained choir of unsanctified singers" detracted from community worship, and that all singing should be congregational. In practice, it meant that nobody sang. Part of the problem was that the acoustics of the very radical 60s-architect-designed building were so rotten that you could only hear the person to your immediate left and right. If THEY weren't singing, you got embarassed and mumbled to a halt. Since nobody could hear anybody else, EVERYBODY mumbled to a halt. Thankfully when our current choirmaster came on board he got a first class choir organized, and then agitated for an acoustic reworking of the sanctuary that turned into a general renovation. The congregation is much happier now (they can hear each other, and they have a choir to lead the singing.)
2. Philosophical. The problem with music is that to be well done (and a work done in honor of God SHOULD be well done to the best of ones ability) it requires talent, training, and intense concentration. Music that is simple enough for the average non-musically-trained member of the congregation to sing along, will be less than the best that the trained singer can offer to the glory of God. The best composers of sacred music have offered to God music that can ONLY be sung by a well-rehearsed group of trained singers. To discard the choir would be to discard not only an entire body of music by Bach, Mozart, Palestrina, Byrd, Dowland &c. &c. &c., but to discard the God-given talents of those who sing.
That said, the singers have a responsibility to sing the music sensibly, well, and sensitively to the role they play in the service. Think (for an analogy) of the difference between a singer at a baseball game who gets up and sings the "Star Spangled Banner" clearly, plainly, on pitch, and as written, and the hatchet job pop singers who get up there and howl, hang on the high notes, add all sorts of trills, octaves, and other flashy fireworks not in the music, and generally mess around in order to show off their "voice" or their "style". The first is honorable and does honor to the National Anthem, the second is not because it moves the focus from honoring America to paying attention to the singer. Same rule applies in church.
My choirmaster calls this "Jump for Jesus Music." The Music Department has managed to quarantine it into the Folk Mass, which is perpetrated on the congregation on alternate Sundays at the 9 am Mass.
Now before you think I'm ratting on the Folk Choir because I'm in the Parish Choir, I have identifiable and provable objections to this sort of music: (1) It is objectively BAD music - trite, repetitive, simplistic "pop" settings of badly written, cheap, sentimental poetry. It neither uses sacred texts nor is it holy, beautiful or universal. (2) Because of its badness, it is difficult to sing it well. (3) The people who lead the singing at Folk Mass are the people who WANT to sing but can't sing well enough to make the Parish Choir, they are the very people who CANNOT sing this sort of music well. So you wind up with bad texts set to rotten music, performed by people who cannot hold pitch, keep time, or remember the words and watch the director at the same time.
Might I suggest that you have forgotten Gregorian Chant, specified as a "model" of sacred music by Pius X, and explicitly encouraged by both VatII and Paul VI.
ANY congregation can sing ANY Ordinary in Chant, with a bit of 'hear-sing' training.
<> Although you are reasonably certain, you are, nevertheless, wrong. I read that in Jurgen's "The Faith of the Early Fathers" long before I read "The Mass of the Roman Rite" by Fr Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., whose reputation, contra your personal objection to him, is secure as an excellent scholar and whom Cardinal Ratzinger publicly praised as one of our generations great liturgical experts.
I am not sure how you became such an astute critic of Jungmann's having not read the text in question, but, I am sure there exists an explanation...<>
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
HAMMOND.
Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other ohservances which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally practised upon the authority of tradition. "We consider it unlawful," he says, "to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day; we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4. Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which, as given by Augustine; and others, was to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured. This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance formerly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is indifferent, and not commanded directly or indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so: "In order that all things may be observed in like manner in every parish" or diocese.
HEFELE. All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles(xx. 36 and xxi. 5) that St. Paul prayed kneeling during the time between Pentecost and Easter.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars III, De Cone. Dist. III. c. x.
<> Now, you may or may not like this fact exists, and you can attribute to it any rationalisation for its existence you desire, the fact remains kneelinG WAS prohibited and that was the proof you demanded.
. Again, the ball has passed you by and kicked up the chalk at the intersection of the sideline and the baseline.
40 lOVE<>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.