Also, the congregation did not kneel during the Canon until the choir had finished with the Sanctus. And this created a bit of incongruity, since the priest made it to the Consecration before the choir finished. At that time, the altar boys knelt down, but the congregation was still standing. Now, the priest waited to do the actual Consecration until the choir finished, but it was strange to have the congregation standing while the altar boys knelt.I haven't been to sspx in some time, probably 3 years, and they were doing this then.
Also, the congregation did not kneel during the Canon until the choir had finished with the Sanctus. And this created a bit of incongruity, since the priest made it to the Consecration before the choir finished. At that time, the altar boys knelt down, but the congregation was still standing. Now, the priest waited to do the actual Consecration until the choir finished, but it was strange to have the congregation standing while the altar boys knelt.
I haven't been to sspx in some time, probably 3 years, and they were doing this then.
Also, the congregation did not kneel during the Canon until the choir had finished with the Sanctus. And this created a bit of incongruity, since the priest made it to the Consecration before the choir finished. At that time, the altar boys knelt down, but the congregation was still standing. Now, the priest waited to do the actual Consecration until the choir finished, but it was strange to have the congregation standing while the altar boys knelt.Yes, the SSPX has been doing that in Saint Marys, for what I am told, over 20 years, but in California I have seen the people kneel during the Sanctus at a High Mass, but that was during the Fr. Ward days.
We're only a few steps away from full-blown Novus Ordo here. Not to mention that the congregation overall were very poorly (i.e. casually) dressed. Even one of the ushers was dressed casually. Very few were in their Sunday best, and I felt "overdressed" compared to everyone else in wearing my suit and tie.I've noticed this as well. I've only been attending Society Masses for about 5 months. Today for a mission, I noticed many of the teenage boys in sweatpants, tennis shoes, t-shirts, hoodies etc. It wasn't a Mass but still, entering into a church we should have relatively formal attire on. I think maybe for some people growing up "trad", they don't fully realize how blessed they are an take for granted being able to go to Latin Mass their whole life.
The question is, how serious a thing is it?
I was told that the "synagoga" part ("the ѕуηαgσgυє", but also St. Peter, Judas, Pontius Pilate, etc.) could be sung by a layman or schola in cassock.
Ladislaus is right that liturgically speaking the Gospel is the special privilege reserved to deacons and higher. Especially if the priest isn't also reciting it (liturgically). There is a big difference between liturgical chant and "hymns sung during Mass". Women can sing the latter; never the former.
What would be a step lower would be for a mixed choir to sing the part. I've only seen it sung by men though -- it's like they do know it's liturgical. For example, the singer(s) have to be in cassock -- again, that is why women are excluded.
I know many things are done in an ideal manner at a seminary, but most chapels don't have spare priests or deacons around. Unless the priest is a chant/music nerd (I use that term in a neutral to positive sense), it seems like a lot of priests want some help singing it -- at least the synagoga part.
I thought the SSPX-printed booklet addressed this issue.
Long story short, the thinking is probably similar to the situation with altar servers: Ideally, only a seminarian who has received the first 4 Minor Orders (Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte) has a right to serve Mass. But since most chapels don't have seminarians available, boys in cassock take the job.
Ideally only a Lector or higher would raise his voice to be Cantor (intoning the first line of psalms, hymns during benediction, or singing lessons, the Martyrology, etc.). But even Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer wanted me to be Cantor for Saturday Compline about 14 years ago at our local SSPX chapel. We had just finished a marriage prep class of some sort with several other couples. You need 2 people to do public divine office: the priest and a cantor. We only had one priest and a bunch of laymen.
But the exceptions didn't end there. I remember being Cantor several times at the seminary, even though I never made it to Lector. For example, at the end of the year a bunch of upper years go on retreat, and liturgically the seminary becomes very short-handed. Ditto for over the summer vacation, when there were mostly "first years" manning the place.
I've noticed this as well. I've only been attending Society Masses for about 5 months. Today for a mission, I noticed many of the teenage boys in sweatpants, tennis shoes, t-shirts, hoodies etc. It wasn't a Mass but still, entering into a church we should have relatively formal attire on. I think maybe for some people growing up "trad", they don't fully realize how blessed they are an take for granted being able to go to Latin Mass their whole life.Wait until you see prostitute shoes, flip flops, short skirts, second-skin blouses, nightgown dresses, theatre makeup, massive Jєωelry, and postage-stamp-size hair coverings.
With the exception of Lasance, whose directions are not as precise as those of his contemporaries and could therefore be interpreted either way, Fortescue, O’Connell, Reid, Sheen, and McManus state categorically that people should remain standing until after the Sanctus and Agnus Dei are said or sung, and rightly so, because these prayers are the Ordinary parts of the Mass that the Church has appointed specifically for the faithful’s active participation.
The Rites of Holy Week by Fr Frederick McManus, published in 1956 by the St Anthony Guild Press, Paterson, NJ, states that, the "Passion is divided into 3 parts: the narration (C for Chronista), the words of Christ (+), and the words of the crowd or of anyone else (S for Synogoga)...The choir (even of lay persons) may take the part of the crowd; the 3rd deacon then sings only the words of individuals (i.e. Pilate, Peter, etc)."
Wait until you see prostitute shoes, flip flops, short skirts, second-skin blouses, nightgown dresses, theatre makeup, massive Jєωelry, and postage-stamp-size hair coverings.They do that at your SSPX chapel too or do you also go to Assumption Chapel in St. Marys, KS?
The children dressed improperly are a sign of the parent's lack of respect for Almighty God.
X: The SSPX officially teaches in its Liturgy I class that the liturgical movement was no longer operating on Catholic principles no later than 1920.
I am not at all knowledgeable about the "liturgical movement." But is it absolutely necessary that the average Catholic like myself should be? I leave that to others. That the Church, though, should have abandoned Catholic liturgical principles by 1920, is a bit of a shock, even to someone like myself who is not overly interested in the subject.
Of more interest to me is the identity of X. Why? Because knowing who he is and something of his background might influence some of us, anyway, to evaluate more objectively the things that he writes, and his basic Catholic orientation.
But X might offer a clue to his past here. What is taught in an SSPX Liturgy 1 class is probably not common knowledge to most of the sspx rank and file, cerainly not to me. It's reasonable, now, to speculate that he may have been an sspx seminarian, or even an sspx priest no longer attached to the organization. In any case, he might have used a user name like 'xseminarian,' or 'xsocietypriest' But no, he chooses to double down on anonymity with the simple letter "X."
I'll stay tuned.
Long story short, the thinking is probably similar to the situation with altar servers: Ideally, only a seminarian who has received the first 4 Minor Orders (Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte) has a right to serve Mass. But since most chapels don't have seminarians available, boys in cassock take the job.
They do that at your SSPX chapel too or do you also go to Assumption Chapel in St. Marys, KS?I havent been to an sspx chapel in a few years. When i did, i wasnt in KS.
I think your anonymity is irrelevant. Hollingsworth is anonymous too. Your sspx posts aren't going to be "more" true just because we know your name. Facts are facts. Don't reveal your name if you don't want to.
I think Matthew might be scratching his head over this one. He knows me;and he and other older members of the forum should know me from the past. It is not that I have ever hidden my identity. It has been revealed several times over in the past. Matthew and others can probably verify that.Matthew might know you but I don't. How many others do? Why does it matter if I know you, Matthew does, or not? Why does it matter if we know who X is or not? Everything X has posted has been self-evident, but important facts.
The question is, how serious a thing is it?I have a liturgical book for holy week with the chant written out for all the group parts (the "ѕуηαgσgυє"). Note that deacon part that sings these also sings lines for individuals, for which the chant is not written out in this book. Seems clear to me that the book is intended for laypeople to sing the group parts. Book was printed in 1956. Years ago I was at a SSPX chapel that did exactly this - the choir sang the group parts and only the group parts, and it made sense.
I was told that the "synagoga" part ("the ѕуηαgσgυє", but also St. Peter, Judas, Pontius Pilate, etc.) could be sung by a layman or schola in cassock.
It has been suggested that O'Connell was a Modernist due to a connexion with the liturgical movement (I don't know if this connexion existed but I will assume that it did for the sake of argument.). I find this hard to believe considering how particular he is about the rubrics, especially those which Modernists would generally consider to be ridiculous (such as those governing the correct conclusion of a collect). Even if he were a Modernist, he cites so often the rubrics that it would be difficult to insert his own opinions without it being obvious.
First of all, there are no rubrics for the lay faithful, so there is no compulsion to kneel or stand at the Sanctus. However, there are rules for the choir, and these are seen by some as suggestive for the lay faithful. What do older sources say about kneeling with regard to the Sanctus?
Pio Martinucci, Manuale sacrarum caeremoniarum (1879) writes: “Chorus alternatim recitabit Sanctus methodo pro Kyrie descripta, tum in genua procuмbet” (177). (The choir will recite alternately the Sanctus in the method for the Kyrie described, then they will fall upon their knees)
He continues: “Elevatione peracta, assurget Clerus et stabit” (188 ) (When the elevation has been completed, the clergy will rise and stand)
M. l’abbé Falise, Cérémonial aux romain et Cours abrégé de liturgie practique (1865) writes: “Pendant la messe on est à genoux : … à partir du Sanctus récité jusqu'après l'élévation du calice” (III.5). (During the Mass, one is on his knees … from after the Sanctus is recited to just after the elevation of the chalice)
M. l’abbé Falise also writes in the same work that the choir stands during the Preface and the Sanctus (III.6).
1) The choir exercises a liturgical role; the congregation does not.Point well taken.
2) Consequently, the choir’s postures would be regulated, same as the altar boys and celebrants.
3) The implicit suggestion that choir directives would apply to the congregation, thereby blending the two, is suggestive of congregational singing: An error which led to the dialogue Mass, and one of the faulty principles of a deviated liturgical movement:
4) “Well, if the whole congregation is now a choir, and therefore exercising a liturgical role, why not have them make the responses?”
5) One sees evidence of the SSPX heading down this aberrant track, for example, by placing a choir leader at the communion rail in the Florida (USA) priory, removing him from the loft, and transforming the entire congregation into a choir.
Due to travel, I assisted at Palm Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel, and was struck by one particular innovation.Is that the same chapel in Florida that has the choir conductor lead the laity from the front row?
While the priest sang most of the Passion, occasional verses were "performed" by a layman up in the choir loft. Now, the Passion can be broken up into parts, but that was only Traditionally done by assigning the parts to a priest, deacon, or subdeacon. So now we have laymen participating in singing the Gospel. How many steps away is that removed from lay lectors? Answer: zero steps. This was in fact a lay lector, and singing not only an Epistle, but the actual Gospel. During Mass typically only a priest or deacon could sing the Gospel, not even a mere cleric with the Minor Order of lector.
When I was 10 years old and still in the Novus Ordo serving Mass, the priest once asked us (the altar boys) to say parts of the Gospel. I refused by saying, "Father, the Gospel is only for the priest or a deacon." So how does a 10-year-old boy in the Novus Ordo have more sense than a neo-SSPX priest?
We're only a few steps away from full-blown Novus Ordo here. Not to mention that the congregation overall were very poorly (i.e. casually) dressed. Even one of the ushers was dressed casually. Very few were in their Sunday best, and I felt "overdressed" compared to everyone else in wearing my suit and tie.
1) The choir exercises a liturgical role; the congregation does not.
2) Consequently, the choir’s postures would be regulated, same as the altar boys and celebrants.
3) The implicit suggestion that choir directives would apply to the congregation, thereby blending the two, is suggestive of congregational singing: An error which led to the dialogue Mass, and one of the faulty principles of a deviated liturgical movement:
4) “Well, if the whole congregation is now a choir, and therefore exercising a liturgical role, why not have them make the responses?”
5) One sees evidence of the SSPX heading down this aberrant track, for example, by placing a choir leader at the communion rail in the Florida (USA) priory, removing him from the loft, and transforming the entire congregation into a choir.
1) The choir exercises a liturgical role; the congregation does not.
2) Consequently, the choir’s postures would be regulated, same as the altar boys and celebrants.
3) The implicit suggestion that choir directives would apply to the congregation, thereby blending the two, is suggestive of congregational singing: An error which led to the dialogue Mass, and one of the faulty principles of a deviated liturgical movement:
4) “Well, if the whole congregation is now a choir, and therefore exercising a liturgical role, why not have them make the responses?”
5) One sees evidence of the SSPX heading down this aberrant track, for example, by placing a choir leader at the communion rail in the Florida (USA) priory, removing him from the loft, and transforming the entire congregation into a choir.
When priests are change agents, you will see change after change over time. They reveal themselves that way. When I was visiting the Florida priory where the lay "conductor" acts, that was a new one on me, never seen that in my trad life. The people also stood for the Sanctus. Then the next day, at the weekday Low Mass came the final clear proof of an innovator, a change agent, being in charge, the people stand for the Preface and the Sanctus at Low Mass.I'm generally skeptical of the "sliding into modernism" position (as I mentioned before), but this is pretty compelling evidence to rebut my skepticism. I feel sorry for the people there that they have to deal with that. I moved my family halfway across the country to be near an SSPX chapel and school -- I'd be rather indignant if these sorts of things began to happen after we'd made such a sacrifice.
Are HE Dolan and Fr Cekada preparing their congregations for the Novus Ordo? Because they have lay members of the choir sing some of the responses of the Passion, in particular some of those of the Synagoga.
It is also worthwhile to consider that prior to the reforms of Pius XII, the Passion was not the Gopsel of the Mass. The three deacons of the Passion did not say the Munda cor meum, and the actual gospel was sung by the deacon of the Mass. The priest read the Passion at the Epistle side and the Gospel on the Gospel side, saying the Munda cor meum as the subdeacon moved the missal. So while the singing of the Gospel at Mass is the role of the deacon, the singing of parts of the gospel at other times can fall to others. For example, when the Communion verse is taken from the gospels.
Are HE Dolan and Fr Cekada preparing their congregations for the Novus Ordo? Because they have lay members of the choir sing some of the responses of the Passion, in particular some of those of the Synagoga.
Hello EA-You do realize I was asking a rhetorical question? That I don't actually think HE Dolan and Fr Cekada are preparing their congregations for the Novus Ordo?
I sent your comment to Fr. Cekada, and received an immediate response:
“Dear X-
He’s an idiot. See:
http://www.uma.es/victoria/pdf/Pasion_San_Juan.pdf (http://www.uma.es/victoria/pdf/Pasion_San_Juan.pdf)
You really shouldn’t waste your time with people like this.
Fr. C.”
You do realize I was asking a rhetorical question? That I don't actually think HE Dolan and Fr Cekada are preparing their congregations for the Novus Ordo?
EA-Oh, I think liturgical incompetence is very much possible. After all, Écône used 1965 through the 70s. Even after the mandate to use 1962 that led to the departure of the Nine, they still don't actually follow 1962 in a variety of ways: e.g., the Confiteor before Holy Communion, bows to the cross, St Joseph in the Canon, the door ceremony on Palm Sunday, the special gospel tone on Good Friday, the strepitus at Tenebrae, etc.
My question would be, “To what do you attribute the widespread change of praxis in the SSPX, if not for preparation for incorporation into the conciliar church (which has already announced its intention to bring the TLM to something very close to the 1965 Missal)?”
It would seem the only other option is to imply liturgical incompetence for the previous 40+ years (ie., it is today “correcting” that which it has been doing wrongly for decades).
Neither option instills confidence.
Oh, I think liturgical incompetence is very much possible. After all, Écône used 1965 through the 70s. Even after the mandate to use 1962 that led to the departure of the Nine, they still don't actually follow 1962 in a variety of ways: e.g., the Confiteor before Holy Communion, bows to the cross, St Joseph in the Canon, the door ceremony on Palm Sunday, the special gospel tone on Good Friday, the strepitus at Tenebrae, etc.
Concerning congregational singing, Bishop Sicardo of Cremona, writing in the late eleventh century, expected the people to sing the Kyrie and respond to the Agnus Dei. He instructed the Pax to be sung aloud "so that the people who wish can respond." He also writes that the laity would sing Amen, Et cuм spiritu tuo, and Deo gratias. However, since the Credo was more difficult, the people sang Kyrie eleison afterwards.
See Sicardo, Mitrale, 3.2, col. 101A; 3.4, col. 107D; 3.5, col. 114B; 3.6, col. 134 ; 3.6, col. 138B; 3.8, col. 143B; 3.8, col. 139
Source: http://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/1155-1215,_Sicardus_Cremoniensis_Episcopus,_De_Mitrali_Seu_Tractatus_De_Officiis_Ecclesiaticis_Summa,_MLT.pdf
Ad primam proceditur. I made no claim. I asked a question.
Ad secundam proceditur. I do not advocate. I offer evidence of congregational singing as a tradition of the Roman rite, but only one piece of evidence. I am working to gather more, such as the fact that Pope St Sergius I, who added the innovation of the Agnus Dei, decreed that it be sung by the clergy and the people, as can be found in the Liber pontificalis. This is of course relevant because Pius V, in his liturgical reform, sought to restore the Roman rite to the way it was in the days of the fathers. In fact, Bishop Sicard (who was of the Roman rite) would have been one such father, but that is a small point. What is the point is that Pius V altered the liturgical practice that had organically developed so as to restore it to a more authentic form. This included the removal of liturgical texts, such as many sequences and tropes, the removal of feasts of non-Scriptural saints and newer saints (e.g., St Anthony of Padua). I wish to ask, what exactly is archaeologism, if all this is acceptable? Perhaps you think Pius V was ultra vires in his reform.
If returning to the past is archaeologism, then what are we to make of the reforms of St Pius X? The reform of chant undertaken by the monks of Solesmes is nothing but archaeologism, attempting to reconstruct chant as it was sung in the Middle Ages (at the time of Bishop Sicard, in fact). In a similar way, was not the restoration of chant a reversal of the organic development of the Roman rite, in which other musical forms had become common? Or when Pius X broke with the development of the Sistine Choir by removing castrati and replacing them with choir boys? Was this restoration or antiquarianism and the overthrowing of organic development? When Pius X, in his reform of the Divine Office, sought to remove what he called the squalor of oldness from the traditional Roman rite, was he restoring or engaging in innovation?
Ad tertiam proceditur. Vide supra responsum ad secundam.
St Pius X, who destroyed the ancient liturgy of Rome and replaced it with the product of a committee, did not engage in archaeologism, that is true.
Then explain to me, please, how the restoring of the rite of the Fathers, the criterion of Pius V's reform, which I presume you accept, is not antiquarianism.
If it is your intention to defend the new praxis of the modernized Mass postures at SSPX chapels (and attempt to do it by appealing to the anti-liturgical principle of archaelogism to justify the illegitimate innovations of the liturgical movement now being implemented), brother, I am fully inclined to let you do so:Although, of course, Dom Guéranger wanted to restore the medieval monastic liturgies in his house of Solesmes (not antiquarianism, of course, to restore practices that had ceased centuries before). The Sacred Congregation of Rites refused him, which so upset Dom Guéranger that he refused a personal invitiation of Pius IX to attend the First Vatican Council.
An apologist defending the changes highlights much more effectively the morphing of the SSPX than me having to gather information to prove the same.
Now as regards your post above:
Where you previously appealed to the book of an obscure 11th century bishop in support of your opinion, you now appeal to an obsolete measure of an 8th century pope?
But that's not archaeologism?
Here is what Dom Gueranger had to say regarding your incessant appeal to antiquity to overturn the liturgy (and somehow, I doubt he considered himself to be contradicting St. Pius V; neither was he later denounced by St. Pius X; and of course, he was affirmed by Pius XII):
"Thus, all the sectarians without exceptions begin with THE VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANTIQUITY. They want to cut Christianity off from all that the errors and passions of man have mixed in; from whatever is “false” and “unworthy of God”. ALL THEY WANT IS THE PRIMITIVE, AND THEY PRETEND TO GO BACK TO THE CRADLE OF CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.
To this end, they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encuмbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.
Every sect undergoes this necessity. We saw this with the Monophysites and the Nestorians; we find the same in every branch of Protestantism. Their preference for preaching antiquity led only to cutting them off from the entire past. Then they placed themselves before their seduced people and they swore to them that now all was fine, that the papist accretions had disappeared, that the divine cult was restored to its primitive form . . ."
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/antigy.htm (http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/antigy.htm)
I would say you have definitely shown this tendency.
Although, of course, Dom Guéranger wanted to restore the medieval monastic liturgies in his house of Solesmes (not antiquarianism, of course, to restore practices that had ceased centuries before). The Sacred Congregation of Rites refused him, which so upset Dom Guéranger that he refused a personal invitiation of Pius IX to attend the First Vatican Council.
Although, of course, Dom Guéranger wanted to restore the medieval monastic liturgies in his house of Solesmes (not antiquarianism, of course, to restore practices that had ceased centuries before). The Sacred Congregation of Rites refused him, which so upset Dom Guéranger that he refused a personal invitiation of Pius IX to attend the First Vatican Council.
Ever heard of Pius XII?Yes, he destroyed Holy Week, ruined the Assumption, moved a feast of the Apostles for a feast he invented to placate Italian laborers, removed many illustrious octaves, attacked the calendar, allowed the dialogue Mass and the singing of vernacular hymns, and was a generally disastrous pope.
Yes, he destroyed Holy Week, ruined the Assumption, moved a feast of the Apostles for a feast he invented to placate Italian laborers, removed many illustrious octaves, attacked the calendar, allowed the dialogue Mass and the singing of vernacular hymns, and was a generally disastrous pope.
Sophistry: The monastic houses, ravaged by Jansenism, had lost their rites which had fallen into disuse. Gueranger did not attempt to create new ones, but to recover those which had been lost.Aha. I think we are getting somewhere. So it is legitimate "to recover those which had been lost" (although the SCR evidently diasgreed).
He also condemned antiquarianism (apparently without, as you assert, violating Quo Primum or the reforms of Pius X).
Aha. I think we are getting somewhere. So it is legitimate "to recover those which had been lost" (although the SCR evidently diasgreed).Then it is not legitimate for you to justify liturgical innovations of the 1910's-1940's on the basis of obsolete usages of the 8th and 11th century.
I am glad he condemned antiquarianism, as he should have done. It is to be condemned.
So how do we distinguish between "those which had been lost" from "obsolete usages"?
Pius XII answers: An obsolete usage is one which is "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."Sir, you are incorrect. Guéranger wanted to restore medieval monastic liturgical uses in his house of Solesmes (not just Gregorian chant). If one reads Guéranger, he clearly saw the Middle Ages as the height of Catholic liturgy.
Consequently, it would be an example of antiquarianism/archaeologism to return to 8th or 11th century usages which are at variance with prevailing laws and rubrics (as, for example, would be congregational singing and faithful reciting the parts of the Mass).
As regards "that which has been lost" in the case of Gueranger, we are speaking of the recovery of Gregorian Chant, not of a rite of Mass.
Sir, you are incorrect. Guéranger wanted to restore medieval monastic liturgical uses in his house of Solesmes (not just Gregorian chant). If one reads Guéranger, he clearly saw the Middle Ages as the height of Catholic liturgy.
Pius XII answers: An obsolete usage is one which is "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."You refer to Mediator Dei 59. I think you misinterpret the Holy Father. He writes (or at least so the English translation claims): "This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof." He does not denounce the revival of obsolete rites in se but rather "the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."
Consequently, it would be an example of antiquarianism/archaeologism to return to 8th or 11th century usages which are at variance with prevailing laws and rubrics (as, for example, would be congregational singing and faithful reciting the parts of the Mass).
As regards "that which has been lost" in the case of Gueranger, we are speaking of the recovery of Gregorian Chant, not of a rite of Mass.
You refer to Mediator Dei 59. I think you misinterpret the Holy Father. He writes (or at least so the English translation claims): "This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof." He does not denounce the revival of obsolete rites in se but rather "the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."
To view the Middle Ages as the height of Catholic liturgy is one thing.Geoffrey Hull writes in The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church (2010): "In 1856, the Congregation of Rites rejected a special liturgical order he [Guéranger] had drawn up for his monastery based on medieval Cluniac and Benedictine texts" (172n62). This is not the recovery of "true" chant (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the restoration of obsolete rites "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."
To seek to introduce innovations from antiquity into the Mass "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics" is quite another.
That it is you who are in error should become evident when you recall that antiquarianism/archaeologism was the 5th proposition of the anti-liturgical heresy condemned by Gueranger himself:
But according to you, it is this same man who condemns this principle of the anti-liturgical heresy that has himself sought to introduce that very method?
Gueranger wanted to recover true Chant, per the old monastic usage in that domain, not tinker with the Mass.
You are struggling now:Then perhaps you can point me to the paragraph in the docuмent in which the Holy Father defines an obsolete rite as one which is "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics," because Paragraph 59 is not such a case.
By definition, an obsolete rite is one which is "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics."
That is to say, it is precisely this quality of being out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics which causes the former rites to become obsolete:
The former rites are not obsolete because they have fallen into disuse: They have fallen into disuse because they are obsolete (i.e., because prevailing laws and rubrics, through organic liturgical development, codified by law, have made them obsolete).
This was the case with St. Pius V's Quo Primum, with regard to those rites which were not yet 200 years old.
Consequently, it would be an example of antiquarianism/archaeologism to return to 8th or 11th century usages which are at variance with prevailing laws and rubrics (as, for example, would be congregational singing and faithful reciting the parts of the Mass).I'm at a loss to see how "congregational singing" would be contrary to the "prevailing laws and rubrics" of the Roman Rite.
Shaking off the dust, and wishing you all the best,
-X
EA-I never claimed Guéranger wanted to restore chant. You did. I provided evidence from a scholarly source to support my claim. You did not.
I awoke this morning to see that you had drifted off again, this time confusing confusing disciplinary measures with liturgical rites: The change in Communion age is an example of the former, whereas we are discussing the latter.
You did the same with Gueranger who, according to you wanted not merely to recover Gregorian chant, but tinker with the Mass rubrics.
You implied Quo Primum instituted a new Mass based on ancient and primitive usage (manifestly false).
You argued for congregational singing by noting convents of nuns chanting Divine Office (using a logic which resulted in the introduction of altar girls).
You rely on 1 obscure 11th century bishop, and 1 8th century pope to make your case, while denying archeologism.
With reegard to the latter, you reject Pius XII's condemnation, even as you claim to support it, and then read back his own words of condemnation verbatim as alleged proof of you position (i.e., he condemned it in general, but not per se was your argument).
All of this adds up to a mind which is not able to focus, and a will which is not open to instruction (as manifested by 3+ pages of rejection).
Shaking off the dust, and wishing you all the best,
-X
I never claimed Guéranger wanted to restore chant. You did. I provided evidence from a scholarly source to support my claim. You did not.
I did not imply Quo primum “instituted a new Mass based on ancient and primitive usage.” Your inference is incorrect. I was pointing out that the criterion for their reform of the missal was looking back at older (not just ancient) sources.
I presented two pieces of evidence for congregational singing. I will provide more later, but all the evidence in the world won’t convince you anyway because you will reject it as antiquarianism.
I have shown that your understanding of antiquarianism as the restoration of obsolete rites is without nuance at best.
Final response:
1) I never attributed to you the fact of Gueranger’s desire to recover true Gregorian chant. That is my argument, not yours. Your argument is that Gueranger desired much more (ie., That he allegedly supported the illegitimate principle of archaeologism, despite your illogical refusal to define importing ancient usages of obsolete rites as archaeologism).
I only mention your imagining my attributing of my own argument to you as evidence that you are not able to concentrate well enough to be arguing this subject matter;
2) Your (erroneous) comments on Quo Primum were that there was no antiquarianism in going back to pick ancient usages from obsolete rites, lest I accuse Pius V of antiquarianism.
That was more or less your argument.
The implication was that Pius V created a new rite based on obsolete usages.
If that was not your implication, then your comments on Quo Primum were completely irrelevant (once again).
3) To cite an 11th century bishop (of what rite?) and an 8th century pope as authorities on the rubrics and usages of the Roman Rite is certainly devoid of value (except from an historical perspective), since Quo Primum made those usages obsolete, (Pius XII having explained this principle quite clearly);
Consequently, to cite obsolete usages, and desire to incorporate them into the current rite against which they are at variance (eg., congregational singing), is archaeologism.
Here is an article by Dr. Byrne showing Pius XII caving in to the uncatholic liturgical movement and himself incorporating archaeologism which he had condemned just a decade earlier, allowing for congregational singing:
https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htm (https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htm)
In an article by a (defunct) indult society -which is actually quite good- they appear to have disregarded Pius XII’s innovation, and highlight that according to even in their 1962 transitional missal, all the singing of the responses is to be done by the choir (which also conveniently answers Smedley’s question about how congregational singing is at variance with current laws and rubrics, at least as of the time of Pius XII’s 1958 innovation).
https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htm (https://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f151_Dialogue_68.htm)
But as you are determined to argue your point, rather than accept instruction, you will have to carry on without me; I don’t have the time to waste which you apparently do.
Pax tecuм,
-X
What changes exactly are you trying to defend or implement EA?Congregational singing of Gregorian chant
Congregational singing of Gregorian chantThe congregation are the men, women and children in the pews, you want them to sing Gregorian Chant?
The congregation are the men, women and children in the pews, you want them to sing Gregorian Chant?Yeah, sure, why not?
What I really want to do is get rid of all pews, restore the rood screen, and restore the minor orders to prominence in parishes. Let the people visit various side chapels and light candles during Mass or read books or sing or whatever.Before you do that, I'd suggest you start small and take the first steps, and get out of your pajamas and out of your parents basement and get a job. Fr. Cekada hit the nail on the head with his instant response:
Hello EA-
I sent your comment to Fr. Cekada, and received an immediate response:
“Dear X-
He’s an idiot. ...You really shouldn’t waste your time with people like this.
Fr. C.”
It is well-known that pews are a Protestant invention.I thought what you said above about removing pews and putting in a rood screen was a joke or sarcasm.