Father Longenecker commented on reform the current form of the Holy Sacrifice that the Church offers. In his commentary, he remarks about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and how, currently it is not for "average Catholics". Although I've never been to one, I will disagree with him.
One of the reasons he gives is that often the music, being so beautiful, draws our attention to it rather than the Sacred Action on the altar. Does it need to, though. I reject the idea that beautiful music shouldn't be used to celebrate the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven because it might "distract" someone. A good liturgical composer knows that the music is meant to accompany and compliment the Holy Sacrifice, as opposed steal the show. Focusing particularly on the Gloria and Sanctus, the music should, especially during Christmastide and Eastertide, most especially for ALL Solemnities, reflect the nature of these prayers. For goodness sake, both of these prayers in particular focus on God's greatness. There is a series of Christian Music CDs called "My Utmost for His Highest"; this is what we are asked to give to God: our utmost. So our utmost is so beautiful we can't present it to God for His glorification? Listen to any of Thomas Tallis' or Giovanni Paletsrina's liturgical settings, and tell me they are not astoundingly beautiful. Do that and I will attempt to have you committed. They are beyond beautiful, they are borderline angelic. And we can't have this at Mass why?
I will admit, having a professional choir (or even a very well trained choir) sing Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli for the Ordinary Form would seem more than a little out of place. The music is elevated to fit the elevated ars celebrandi of a High Mass in the Extraordinary Form. There is no High Mass in the Ordinary Form, nor is there a Low Mass. It is all the same, with options to make the celebration more special depending upon the "pastoral needs" of the community. In addition, the current paraphrasing of the Latin is very, well, elementary, basic, as if Mass is not anything to write home about. Most definitely, the new translation will help matters, and make the presence of elevated music more fitting.
Another reason Father gives is the Latin itself. He argues that most pew-sitting Catholics wouldn't take well to Latin, and be turned off by it. He's got a point. The unfortunate thing, however, is that excuse has been around for hundreds of years, and yet, the Mass thrived. People knew what was going on, aided and abetted by the music (or lack thereof) and silence (of which there was plenty). All of this can be avoided, however, by putting Latin/English pew missals in the pews. If we have Spanish, Korean, or "other" hymns with translations in Glory and Praise and Gather and that is fine, than having Latin with English side-by-side shouldn't be such a bad idea.
The problem with the Old Mass wasn't the Mass itself, but rather the understanding of it by the priests who were celebrating it. Their understanding of it boiled down to "Say the Black, Do the Red", in a rigid sort of way. Elsewhere, Father Longenecker discusses the theology behind the procession. He admits that it is essential to understand the whither-tos and why-fors of liturgical actions so that the liturgy can reflect, more accurately, the Divine Action that occurs during the Holy Sacrifice. The result is a reverent, uplifting procession that elevates people's minds and hearts toward the Lord. What if the priests of a certain generation had that understanding of the Mass they were celebrating? Would they have been so willing to abandon the beauty of the Divine Action for what occurred immediately after the Council? I tend to think not. If you know the value of what you have, you are afraid to lose it.
No comments:
Post a Comment