It has been revealed that the Vatican is releasing a 4 CD set of Pope Benedict reciting the Rosary... IN LATIN!! From the ZENIT article on this....
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi said requests from the faithful motivated Vatican Radio to release a four-CD set with all 20 mysteries of the rosary led by Benedict XVI in Latin.
Father Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, explained on the radio station that faithful accustomed to praying the rosary with CDs featuring John Paul II wanted the same thing with the German Pontiff.
“During his last years, Pope John Paul II was not able to pray the rosary live, but since there were various recordings, the listeners, the faithful, could use their cassettes of the rosary led by the Pope, thus facilitating their prayer and devotion," Father Lombardi said. "With the new pontificate, there was renewed interest in praying the rosary with the Holy Father.
"Father Lombardi said Benedict XVI decided to record the CDs in Latin because “we have received requests not only from Italy but from places such as Germany and other countries. So we have used this language for the rosary which everyone understands easily and because it is the universal language of the Church.”
What an AMAZING way to introduce the faithful worldwide to the use of Latin in prayer...!! Of particular importance in this release is Benedict's decision to use Latin... because it is the universal language of the Church. Rather than release the CD's in Italian, English, German, etc... (which Benedict could have easily done)... Benedict decided to use Latin because it is universal and easily understood by everyone.
The Holy Father is ending us a message here.... It's time to stop building the Tower of Babel.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Another Thread Unravels
An interesting article came to light these past few days. An interview with the aging Papal Master of Ceremonies Virgilio Cardinal Noe.... the MC of Paul VI and Pope John Paul II in the Italian paper Petrus. The upshot of the interview was Cardinal Noe's claim that Pope Paul VI's reference to "The Smoke of Satan" so oft quoted was, in fact, referring to the increasing experimentation and innovation taking place in he liturgy.
Noe goes on to explain that such innovation was never envisioned by the Holy Father, and that the "blame" has been wrongly laid on him for the development of the liturgy in that direction:
///
Noe: He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.
Petrus: It is thought that Paul VI was the real culprit as the cause of all the ills of post-Conciliar liturgy. But based on what you have revealed, Eminence, Montini compared the liturgical chaos, even if in a veiled way, actually to something hellish.
Noe: He condemned craving to be in the limelight and the delirium of almighty power that they were following the Council at the liturgical level. Mass is a sacred ceremony, he often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied adequately, respecting the canons, no one is "dominus" [lord] of the Mass. Sadly, in many after Vatican II not many understood him and Paul VI suffered this, considering the phenomenon to be an attack of the Devil.
///
OK... there has been a lot of discussion about this claim, most specifically why he is coming forward with this now. Cardinal Noe, now 86 years old, has nothing to gain from coming forward with this (at least nothing we know about... a future book maybe?) and he makes the point to th interviewer that this is a "scoop" for Petrus. This is something that the Cardinal wants to get out into the news.
Towards the end of the interview, the Cardinal makes another point that may give some clue as to why this statement and why now:
///
Noe: Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous with scorn and sloppiness. Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted. Now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are an example of correctness and dignity.
///
There is a lot packed into this brief statement that can give one pause. The first is the connection of this issue to Pope Benedict and his efforts concerning the liturgy. True, this is an interview with a Cardinal, and it the interview focuses on liturgical issues, but the reference to Pope Benedict is something of a non sequitur in the context. Also strange is the insistence of the Cardinal that something must be done, and in a hurry. This brings us back to the question of why this statement, and why now?
Consider the impact of the Cardinal's statement on the debate (war?) of the past 40 years between what has come to be known as the "Hermeneutic of Rupture" and the "Hermeneutic of Continuity". The "Rupture" camp has, to a great extent, built their argument on the claim that the reforms of the 1970 Missal of Paul VI came about as a result of Pope Paul VI's desire to reform the liturgy in the "Spirit of Vatican II", and they further claim that the reforms that developed in the coming years were, if not specifically promoted by the Holy Father, were at least supported by him. In other words, the reforms that resulted had the approval of the Pope. As such, the argument with the "Continuity" camp has always been one of "Our Pope" versus "Your Pope"... a no-win situation.
Cardinal Noe's statements would indicate that this is not the case at all. Rather, they present a scenario in which the Holy Father Paul VI not only opposed the innovations and experimentation, but saw them as inspired by evil forces. Consider how that affects the argument of the "Rupture" camp.... "Their Pope" believed that the liturgical innovations were the work of Satan. Hmm...so there is a continuity of the Holy See condemning the development of the liturgy since 1970? And the "Father of the Reform" himself saw it as inspired by evil forces? That would mean that the liturgy war of the past 40 years is not a "civil war" between opposing camps within the Church, but is a war between the Church and Satan.
Perhaps this is why Cardinal Noe is somewat insistent that ...now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Clearly Cardinal Noe understands the nature of the conflict, and has made it clear that there are not two legitimate Catholic positons on this issue, but that there is a Catholic position and the position of Satan.
Something for the "Rupture" camp to consider.....
Noe goes on to explain that such innovation was never envisioned by the Holy Father, and that the "blame" has been wrongly laid on him for the development of the liturgy in that direction:
///
Noe: He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.
Petrus: It is thought that Paul VI was the real culprit as the cause of all the ills of post-Conciliar liturgy. But based on what you have revealed, Eminence, Montini compared the liturgical chaos, even if in a veiled way, actually to something hellish.
Noe: He condemned craving to be in the limelight and the delirium of almighty power that they were following the Council at the liturgical level. Mass is a sacred ceremony, he often repeated, everything must be prepared and studied adequately, respecting the canons, no one is "dominus" [lord] of the Mass. Sadly, in many after Vatican II not many understood him and Paul VI suffered this, considering the phenomenon to be an attack of the Devil.
///
OK... there has been a lot of discussion about this claim, most specifically why he is coming forward with this now. Cardinal Noe, now 86 years old, has nothing to gain from coming forward with this (at least nothing we know about... a future book maybe?) and he makes the point to th interviewer that this is a "scoop" for Petrus. This is something that the Cardinal wants to get out into the news.
Towards the end of the interview, the Cardinal makes another point that may give some clue as to why this statement and why now:
///
Noe: Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous with scorn and sloppiness. Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted. Now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are an example of correctness and dignity.
///
There is a lot packed into this brief statement that can give one pause. The first is the connection of this issue to Pope Benedict and his efforts concerning the liturgy. True, this is an interview with a Cardinal, and it the interview focuses on liturgical issues, but the reference to Pope Benedict is something of a non sequitur in the context. Also strange is the insistence of the Cardinal that something must be done, and in a hurry. This brings us back to the question of why this statement, and why now?
Consider the impact of the Cardinal's statement on the debate (war?) of the past 40 years between what has come to be known as the "Hermeneutic of Rupture" and the "Hermeneutic of Continuity". The "Rupture" camp has, to a great extent, built their argument on the claim that the reforms of the 1970 Missal of Paul VI came about as a result of Pope Paul VI's desire to reform the liturgy in the "Spirit of Vatican II", and they further claim that the reforms that developed in the coming years were, if not specifically promoted by the Holy Father, were at least supported by him. In other words, the reforms that resulted had the approval of the Pope. As such, the argument with the "Continuity" camp has always been one of "Our Pope" versus "Your Pope"... a no-win situation.
Cardinal Noe's statements would indicate that this is not the case at all. Rather, they present a scenario in which the Holy Father Paul VI not only opposed the innovations and experimentation, but saw them as inspired by evil forces. Consider how that affects the argument of the "Rupture" camp.... "Their Pope" believed that the liturgical innovations were the work of Satan. Hmm...so there is a continuity of the Holy See condemning the development of the liturgy since 1970? And the "Father of the Reform" himself saw it as inspired by evil forces? That would mean that the liturgy war of the past 40 years is not a "civil war" between opposing camps within the Church, but is a war between the Church and Satan.
Perhaps this is why Cardinal Noe is somewat insistent that ...now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Clearly Cardinal Noe understands the nature of the conflict, and has made it clear that there are not two legitimate Catholic positons on this issue, but that there is a Catholic position and the position of Satan.
Something for the "Rupture" camp to consider.....
Monday, May 12, 2008
Changing Catholic Music Reqires A Correct Understanding of the Mass
While enduring this Sunday's "Pageant Mass" (Pentecost/ Mother's Day) and the various activities that took place within the Mass, my thoughts turned briefly to how it would be possible to incorporate actual Sacred Music into such a fiasco. This began me thinking seriously about the relationship between various aspects of the liturgy and how they come together to form a complete entity. My attention was caught by one particular snippet of this week's scripture -
"As a body is one though it has many parts,
and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body,
so also Christ."
How true this is for the Mass... all of the parts; Presider, Lectors, Music, Assembly, Vestments, Decoration... all of these have to come together to form a coherent whole. I've always felt that there is a serious problem when one or more of these parts conflict in style.
Consider a Mass in which the Priest wears beautiful and appropriate vestments, perhaps goes the extra mile and makes use of incense and chants his dialogues with the assembly. Does it really "work" to use Though the Mountains May Fall complete with strummers and drummers as the Processional? How jarring is it to have the chanted "Through Him, with Him and in Him..." followed by the "Amen" from the Mass of Glory? There is a strong sense that something is wrong, particularly when the music conflicts with he attitude and "style" of the Priest.
A good example of this is the "Teen Mass", complete with Evangelical praise songs, song leaders walking throughout the assembly with hand-held microphones and perhaps even the ubiquitous "song projector" screen behind the altar. Although I cringe at the thought, if the Priest processes in clapping his hands to the music, stopping to greet the teens in the pews during the procession, and completes the entrance with a resounding shout of "How's everybody doing tonight... are we ready to meet Jesus?"
then the Presider and the music are on the same page, stylistically speaking. The breakdown occurs when an elderly retired priest has to cover for the "hip" priest at this Mass. I'm sure you can imagine the stylistic train wreck. I don't have to imagine...I've actually seen this happen on more than one occasion, and it isn't pretty.
To make my point here, think of it this way. As long as the Priest presents the Mass as a social event in which we come together to seek and recieve mutual support for a comon cause, whether that cause is social justice, community action, world peace or whatever, the music at Mass will be more like the music at a 1960's Peace Rally than anything else, because that style of music is appropriate to that setting. A Mass in which the attention is focused on what WE are doing has no place for music or prayers directed to God. Music in this setting has to be about us and our cause.
Truly beautiful Sacred Music will only return when the Mass is understood to be about God, not about us. When the Priest leads us in the worship and praise of God through the sacrifice of the Mass, Sacred Music becomes necessary because the music in this setting must be about God and our worship and praise of Him. There is no place for music about US when the Mass is understood to be about God.
"As a body is one though it has many parts,
and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body,
so also Christ."
How true this is for the Mass... all of the parts; Presider, Lectors, Music, Assembly, Vestments, Decoration... all of these have to come together to form a coherent whole. I've always felt that there is a serious problem when one or more of these parts conflict in style.
Consider a Mass in which the Priest wears beautiful and appropriate vestments, perhaps goes the extra mile and makes use of incense and chants his dialogues with the assembly. Does it really "work" to use Though the Mountains May Fall complete with strummers and drummers as the Processional? How jarring is it to have the chanted "Through Him, with Him and in Him..." followed by the "Amen" from the Mass of Glory? There is a strong sense that something is wrong, particularly when the music conflicts with he attitude and "style" of the Priest.
A good example of this is the "Teen Mass", complete with Evangelical praise songs, song leaders walking throughout the assembly with hand-held microphones and perhaps even the ubiquitous "song projector" screen behind the altar. Although I cringe at the thought, if the Priest processes in clapping his hands to the music, stopping to greet the teens in the pews during the procession, and completes the entrance with a resounding shout of "How's everybody doing tonight... are we ready to meet Jesus?"
then the Presider and the music are on the same page, stylistically speaking. The breakdown occurs when an elderly retired priest has to cover for the "hip" priest at this Mass. I'm sure you can imagine the stylistic train wreck. I don't have to imagine...I've actually seen this happen on more than one occasion, and it isn't pretty.
To make my point here, think of it this way. As long as the Priest presents the Mass as a social event in which we come together to seek and recieve mutual support for a comon cause, whether that cause is social justice, community action, world peace or whatever, the music at Mass will be more like the music at a 1960's Peace Rally than anything else, because that style of music is appropriate to that setting. A Mass in which the attention is focused on what WE are doing has no place for music or prayers directed to God. Music in this setting has to be about us and our cause.
Truly beautiful Sacred Music will only return when the Mass is understood to be about God, not about us. When the Priest leads us in the worship and praise of God through the sacrifice of the Mass, Sacred Music becomes necessary because the music in this setting must be about God and our worship and praise of Him. There is no place for music about US when the Mass is understood to be about God.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Mass at D.C Nationals Stadium
By now, the Mass is 4 hours past, and I can't recall any event, save possibly for the release of Summorum Pontificum, that has generated so much comment on the litrgi-blogs. The consensus seems to be that the music was appalling (and that is a serious understatement in my opinion). Besides just being in poor taste, the greater problem is that it contradicts everything that Benedict has written about and proclaimed in terms of liturgical music. As such, this music's appearance at a Papal Mass becomes a sort of political statement about obedience and respect for the Holy Father. Of that, we should be ashamed.
Word is that the USCCB Weblog for the Papal Visit is a sham... the moderators are deleting all negative comments, the result being that there are no comments at this time. That sorta says something, doesn't it? Why would they be unwilling to post the negative comments? I can understand that some of them were no doubt unprintable on a Church-related website, but many were posting the comments they posted on other blogs such as WDTPRS and NLM, and many of the comments were eloquently worded and very respectful, although most certainly critical. It is my hope that this wave of criticism will eventually get back to the Holy See, and more specifically to Msgr. Marini whose office oversees these events.
Frankly, I think we will hear something about this Mass from the Holy Father, either directly or indirectly, in the months to come. I don't think it's possible that he doesn't have a negative opinion about the day's events, and he has a history of making his feelings known in the form of positive action rather than criticism.
One aspect of this that has not been widely looked into is the similarity between the issue of music at mass, and the issue of the Latin Mass. Both are the cause of considerable divisions in the church, and serve to emphasize rather than reduce the divisions between the orthodox and progressives in the church. Benedict chose to resolve the conflict created by the Latin Mass situation by doing what was right...and appealing to our history and tradition to demonstrate why it was the right course of action. I believe it is a strong possibility that he will take a similar course of action regarding liturgical music. Especially after today....
Word is that the USCCB Weblog for the Papal Visit is a sham... the moderators are deleting all negative comments, the result being that there are no comments at this time. That sorta says something, doesn't it? Why would they be unwilling to post the negative comments? I can understand that some of them were no doubt unprintable on a Church-related website, but many were posting the comments they posted on other blogs such as WDTPRS and NLM, and many of the comments were eloquently worded and very respectful, although most certainly critical. It is my hope that this wave of criticism will eventually get back to the Holy See, and more specifically to Msgr. Marini whose office oversees these events.
Frankly, I think we will hear something about this Mass from the Holy Father, either directly or indirectly, in the months to come. I don't think it's possible that he doesn't have a negative opinion about the day's events, and he has a history of making his feelings known in the form of positive action rather than criticism.
One aspect of this that has not been widely looked into is the similarity between the issue of music at mass, and the issue of the Latin Mass. Both are the cause of considerable divisions in the church, and serve to emphasize rather than reduce the divisions between the orthodox and progressives in the church. Benedict chose to resolve the conflict created by the Latin Mass situation by doing what was right...and appealing to our history and tradition to demonstrate why it was the right course of action. I believe it is a strong possibility that he will take a similar course of action regarding liturgical music. Especially after today....
Friday, February 29, 2008
Another Brick In The Wall
In a bold move today, the Vatican effectively denounced the whole of Feminist Theology within the Catholic Church:
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," is not a valid Christian sacrament.
The invalid formula, the Vatican statement points out, arises from feminist ideology, and an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic.
If either formula -- recently initiated in North America to avoid referring to the Trinity with masculine names -- was used, the person is not yet formally a Christian and any subsequent sacraments the person received also are invalid" said Cardinal Urbano Navarrete in a commentary commissioned by the doctrinal congregation. (VIS News release)
Well... there you have it! The "inclusive language" phenomenon has now resulted in the invalid baptism of countless persons. Mind you... these are not merely "non-licit"... they are INVALID, meaning that the persons baptized using this formula or any similar inclusive language or irregular formula must be baptized again, regardless of how long ago or whether they were aware of the invalidity or not.
This is a big deal... these persons, and the numbers could be bewildering, would also have received a)INVALID Eucharist b)INVALID Confirmation c)INVALID Matrimony as all of these Sacraments depend on valid Baptism to be valid Sacraments. The CDF was very specific in the remedy:
"Persons who were baptized or will be baptized in the future with the formulas in question in reality are not baptized," the cardinal wrote. If they are now adults and want to be baptized, they must receive the instruction prescribed for all preparing for baptism and they should receive baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist during the same Mass," he said.
In other words, they must go through the RCIA or RCIC process, depending on age, and recieve all initiation Sacraments together. And all because some people felt that it was demeaning to refer to God as "Father". I guess Jesus was misinformed when he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Let's hear it for Feminism!
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released a statement on February 29 saying that a baptism "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," is not a valid Christian sacrament.
The invalid formula, the Vatican statement points out, arises from feminist ideology, and an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic.
If either formula -- recently initiated in North America to avoid referring to the Trinity with masculine names -- was used, the person is not yet formally a Christian and any subsequent sacraments the person received also are invalid" said Cardinal Urbano Navarrete in a commentary commissioned by the doctrinal congregation. (VIS News release)
Well... there you have it! The "inclusive language" phenomenon has now resulted in the invalid baptism of countless persons. Mind you... these are not merely "non-licit"... they are INVALID, meaning that the persons baptized using this formula or any similar inclusive language or irregular formula must be baptized again, regardless of how long ago or whether they were aware of the invalidity or not.
This is a big deal... these persons, and the numbers could be bewildering, would also have received a)INVALID Eucharist b)INVALID Confirmation c)INVALID Matrimony as all of these Sacraments depend on valid Baptism to be valid Sacraments. The CDF was very specific in the remedy:
"Persons who were baptized or will be baptized in the future with the formulas in question in reality are not baptized," the cardinal wrote. If they are now adults and want to be baptized, they must receive the instruction prescribed for all preparing for baptism and they should receive baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist during the same Mass," he said.
In other words, they must go through the RCIA or RCIC process, depending on age, and recieve all initiation Sacraments together. And all because some people felt that it was demeaning to refer to God as "Father". I guess Jesus was misinformed when he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Let's hear it for Feminism!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Going to the Chant Intensive
I took the opportunity a few weeks back to register for one of the 17 remaining openings for the Chant Intensive with Scott Turkington this coming June. It looks like quite a rigorous schedule with events from morning until into the night. I've sat on the fence for a while about taking part in one of these training sessions, but finally I have come to realize something. If we are going to undergo an "authentic update" of liturgical music in the Catholic Church, it is people like me who are going to have to lead the way.
While it certainly is important to have supporting legislation and documents from the Holy See, and we continue to pray that such will be the case not too far in the future, the fact is that the music will have to change at the parish level. The recent USCCB document, while rather impotent as far as its actual force of law, takes a new view of liturgical music, renewing interest in the actual Church documents from the Second vatican Council. While it doesn't open the door for the Church's treasures of Sacred Music to come back into the liturgy, it at least unlocks the door. The next move is up to those of us who are in charge of the music in parishes around the country.
Could we use some help? It would be a HUGE help to have some kind of statement, preferably from Rome, about the central role of music in the liturgy. Parish Music Directors need to have a seat at the table, not just an office in the choir room. Also, some kind of descriptive treatise, perhaps in the tradition of Tra le solicitudini, that would lay out some definite parameters for what music is appropriate for use in the liturgy would go a long way towards fighting the use of secular or secularized music at Mass. It may be hoping for too much to see a "ban" on things like guitars and drums at Mass (although it's not out of the question...) given their prominence in the current organization. However, they could well be marginalized if the liturgical style develops in the direction of "chant-based" liturgical music, particularly if unaccompanied singing becomes more prominent.
And so... I'm going to the Chant Intensive in June to brush up on my skills and perhaps get some new ideas to bring to my work. My graduate degree work was heavy on the study of polyphony and conducting, and an appreciable amount of study of chant, although it focused on the historical and musicological aspects. It was more than enough to get me through my AGO exams, but after that I have had little practical use for most of that knowledge. I guess I'm feeling at least hopeful that I might be able to dust off these skills (after more than 20 years...) and actually use them. There is something exciting in that hope.
While it certainly is important to have supporting legislation and documents from the Holy See, and we continue to pray that such will be the case not too far in the future, the fact is that the music will have to change at the parish level. The recent USCCB document, while rather impotent as far as its actual force of law, takes a new view of liturgical music, renewing interest in the actual Church documents from the Second vatican Council. While it doesn't open the door for the Church's treasures of Sacred Music to come back into the liturgy, it at least unlocks the door. The next move is up to those of us who are in charge of the music in parishes around the country.
Could we use some help? It would be a HUGE help to have some kind of statement, preferably from Rome, about the central role of music in the liturgy. Parish Music Directors need to have a seat at the table, not just an office in the choir room. Also, some kind of descriptive treatise, perhaps in the tradition of Tra le solicitudini, that would lay out some definite parameters for what music is appropriate for use in the liturgy would go a long way towards fighting the use of secular or secularized music at Mass. It may be hoping for too much to see a "ban" on things like guitars and drums at Mass (although it's not out of the question...) given their prominence in the current organization. However, they could well be marginalized if the liturgical style develops in the direction of "chant-based" liturgical music, particularly if unaccompanied singing becomes more prominent.
And so... I'm going to the Chant Intensive in June to brush up on my skills and perhaps get some new ideas to bring to my work. My graduate degree work was heavy on the study of polyphony and conducting, and an appreciable amount of study of chant, although it focused on the historical and musicological aspects. It was more than enough to get me through my AGO exams, but after that I have had little practical use for most of that knowledge. I guess I'm feeling at least hopeful that I might be able to dust off these skills (after more than 20 years...) and actually use them. There is something exciting in that hope.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
When Can We Expect The new Missal Translation?
I had the opportunity recently to talk at length with one of the members of the committee that has been given the task of drawing up the Catechetical Program that will proceed the implementation of the new Missal translation. Although I had heard several times before from different sources that such a program was being prepared, this was the first time that I have spoken someone who is actually working on this project. In the course of our discussions , I learned several things about this whole project that were news to me.
To begin with, the Catechetical Program is being planned as an "active" rather than passive program, meaning that it will be in the form of seminars or training sessions, both for Bishops and for Priests, much like the "Protecting God's Children" sessions, or the "Safe Environment" training that was mandated several years back. This program would proceed the implementation date of the new translation by as much as a year.
The committee has asked that the draft and outline for this program be completed by October of 2009 for review. The program is tentatively scheduled to be completed and ready-to-go by October of 2010 to begin Advent of 2010.
To begin with, the Catechetical Program is being planned as an "active" rather than passive program, meaning that it will be in the form of seminars or training sessions, both for Bishops and for Priests, much like the "Protecting God's Children" sessions, or the "Safe Environment" training that was mandated several years back. This program would proceed the implementation date of the new translation by as much as a year.
The committee has asked that the draft and outline for this program be completed by October of 2009 for review. The program is tentatively scheduled to be completed and ready-to-go by October of 2010 to begin Advent of 2010.
If this is correct, and it seems to be a reasonable timeline for the scale of program they're considering, then it would seem that the new Missal translation is foreseen as being implemented Advent of 2011. While that seems like a long time from now, the other news concerning this project (at this point, it is more like rumor... well informed but still rumor) would make it seem as though we might need more time!
There is talk that this Catechetical Program could address liturgical issues in addition to the new translation, such as music at Mass (remember that the new music document stresses the role of the Priest and the central importance of the Priests texts being sung), the homily (recall the scathing criticism in Sacramentum Caritatis and the call for improving the quality of homilies), and the incorporation of Latin in the liturgy (yet another issue from Sacramentum Caritatis). Addressing these issues in such a program would require input from a number of different sources, particularly if music is going to be addressed. Such issues could also be affected considerably by developments between now and 2011.
Also in the course of this discussion, I learned that there is growing anxiety about the status of the "Directory for Music and the Liturgy".... that almost forgotten document that was mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam and sent to Rome for recognitio in November of 2006. That document is something of a cornerstone for Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, the guidelines for liturgical music approved by the Bishops in November of 2007 that replaced Music In Catholic Worship. There has been a lot of talk coming from Rome about liturgical music, and none of it bodes well for the proposals in the Directory for Music and the Liturgy. If that document should be eventually rejected by Rome, it would be back to square one for the guidelines in SttL, which now appears to have been a last-ditch effort to head off more restrictive regulation of music from Rome.
There is talk that this Catechetical Program could address liturgical issues in addition to the new translation, such as music at Mass (remember that the new music document stresses the role of the Priest and the central importance of the Priests texts being sung), the homily (recall the scathing criticism in Sacramentum Caritatis and the call for improving the quality of homilies), and the incorporation of Latin in the liturgy (yet another issue from Sacramentum Caritatis). Addressing these issues in such a program would require input from a number of different sources, particularly if music is going to be addressed. Such issues could also be affected considerably by developments between now and 2011.
Also in the course of this discussion, I learned that there is growing anxiety about the status of the "Directory for Music and the Liturgy".... that almost forgotten document that was mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam and sent to Rome for recognitio in November of 2006. That document is something of a cornerstone for Sing To The Lord: Music In Divine Worship, the guidelines for liturgical music approved by the Bishops in November of 2007 that replaced Music In Catholic Worship. There has been a lot of talk coming from Rome about liturgical music, and none of it bodes well for the proposals in the Directory for Music and the Liturgy. If that document should be eventually rejected by Rome, it would be back to square one for the guidelines in SttL, which now appears to have been a last-ditch effort to head off more restrictive regulation of music from Rome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)