HURDY GURDY UPDATE BELOW THE VIDEOS OF THE FOLK MASS MUSIC VIDEOS!
Somehow, this reform of the reform of the altar when the priest faces the people simply doesn't cut it; it's horrible in fact. Wouldn't it be better for the altar candles to be on either side of the altar, floor standing, or behind the altar on a reredos?
The Reform of the Reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass must take into account the Second Vatican Councils decree on the liturgy. Any subsequent directives immediately following the council, even from Pope Paul VI are relegated to this document and must be revised if not faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium. What cannot be questioned is the authority of the Council, Pope and Bishops and thus the Universal Magisterium, acting collectively in an ecumenical council of the Church which in fact called for the "reform" and "revision" of the Order of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
However, there may be two generations or more of Catholics who knew nothing of the actual "praxis" of the Catholic Mass prior to and during the Second Vatican Council. They are either too young to know, or are converts to Catholicism after the reforms and may well have converted because of the revised Order of the Mass.
In fact at the age of 58, my generation of Catholics (baby boomers) may be the last generation to actually have known first hand what the pre-Vatican II Mass was like as well as the pre-Vatican II Church, warts and all! Our testimony cannot be discounted. There was a reason why so many baby-boomers embraced the reforms of Vatican II with such reckless gusto. The Pre-Vatican II Church was too authoritarian and rigid, especially if (and most of us were) one went to Catholic school were discipline, both corporal and otherwise was well dished out and childlike fear of the Church and of God reigned supreme.
But it is also the baby boomer generation who knows first hand the silliness that occurred in the post-Vatican II Church that was destructive of Catholic liturgy and belief and thus Catholic identity. We know well the connection between the sexual revolution and how this affected the clergy and religious of the Church as well as the laity. We know well the connection between "gay liberation" and the homosexual sub-culture that developed in the priesthood that thrived off of this liberty and led to the abuse of so many adolescent boys which cannot be classified as pedophilia but as homosexual men acting out with adolescent boys who looked like adults.
Therefore the genius of Pope Benedict in allowing for the more liberal celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass helps more Catholics to know which Mass the Council was directing its reform and helps more Catholics today to experience in the Tridentine Mass its glories, some of which were unnecessarily discarded, and its vanities, duplications and remoteness, which should have been revised. A second look and experience of the Tridentine Mass will lead to a better reform of it today or in the near future.
One may argue about the translation into English of "active participation" but this is the official translation from the Vatican Website:
"14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy."
This does not mean that we abandon interior participation and spirituality but that each person during the celebration of the Mass take the parts that are assigned to them and make the most of them internally and externally, spoken and sung! To be quite frank, my experience of the Tridentine Mass as a child was non-participative. My parents taught me to say the Holy Rosary during Mass--that was praying during Mass. When we were allowed to participate with the 1965 missal--it was truly a blessing to pray the Mass, not the Rosary and to do so out loud like the altar boys and choir! English facilitated this greatly!!!!
30. "To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
Let there be no doubt that the Second Vatican Council directed the laity to do these things in #30!
34. "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation."
Let there be no doubt about "noble simplicity" which today needs to be truly clarified as this can have multiple meanings and hasn't always been carried out in the modern liturgy in any sort of noble way!
"The Mass should be unencumbered by useless repetitions." Just what did this mean. We can only understand that in light of the "useless repetitions" that were eliminated in the modern Mass. These are:
1) The double prayers for priest and laity, such as the Confiteor and absolution
2) The double communion rites for the priest and people
3) The repetitions of the "signs of the cross" over the oblations prior to and after consecration
4) The repetition of the Dominus Non Sum Dignus for the priest and then again for the laity
5) The added Confieteor for the laity prior to Holy Communion
6) The added prayers after the added "Last Gospel"
35. "That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
1) In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy."
The Tridentine Missal's lectionary was good for a year but did not give a wide exposure to the Bible, in fact almost no Old Testament Readings were read at Sunday Mass. The revised lectionary certainly followed what Vatican II explicitly directed. Does this lectionary need further revision. I'll leave that to others for I like the three year cycle. My only concern is that perhpas too much is proclaimed at Mass thus diluting what is proclaimed. Perhaps we only need a first reading, psalm and Gospel. Perhaps we could have the Tridentine Lectionary as Year A and the current lectionary divided differently over the course of an additional year or two where Old Testament readings are spread differently and at different seasons of the year to allow one of the first two readings to be eliminated but all heard over the course of several years.
Once again, the daily Mass lectionary today is far superior to the Tridentine Mass which relies too heavily on "saints' readings" and thus the same readings are read day after day!
36. 1. "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
The preservation of Latin has been abysmal in the post Vatican II Church because most people like the vernacular. Even Pope Paul VI lamented its loss so quickly after the Council. He wanted the laity to know how to sing a particular Gregorian Chant of the Latin Parts of the Mass in a little booklet published called "Jubilatio Deo." It had the Greek Kyrie, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. These should have been mandated to be sung in Latin throughout the Latin Rite, but this did not occur.
107. "The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery."
As a priest celebrating both forms of the Mass today, I must say that I prefer the revised Roman Calendar and classification of memorials, Memorials, Feasts and Solemnities. What I don't like is the term Ordinary Time, but that could easily be adjusted without changing anything else by calling Ordinary Time, Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost. We also need to restore the Octave of Pentecost and the "Gesima" pre-Lenten Sundays as well as Ember Days. That would be very simple!
116. "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."
The chapter on Sacred Music is lenghty and opened the door to all of the abysmal music that has developed in the Mass including the use of other instruments apart from the Organ. It asked that these instruments be suitable for the Liturgy and its spirituality. But the judgment of this is so arbitrary, that ultimately it allowed for any and every kind of instrument, many of which are not suitable for the spirituality and devotional quality of the liturgy.
The styles of music allowed today for the Liturgy which began with the horrible stuff allowed in the late 1960's has caused more harm to the post Vatican II Mass than any other experimentation, even the more wild forms of experimentation because most parishes implemented horrible music into the liturgy while not all parishes celebrated Mass in the most absurd ways possible.
In my opinion the following instruments are not suitable and should be forbidden from the Sacred Mass and Liturgy of the hours. These could be used for devotional music outside of Mass of course:
1. the guitar, electric or otherwise
2. the snare drums and corresponding cymbals and bongos
3. the saxophone
5. harmonica and mouth harp
6. Piano--I love the piano, but don't think it is good for the Liturgy as well as the sounds that many electronic keyboards can make.
7. The Hurdy Gurdy I think could be used in some cultures, (I'm fascinated by the instrument and only learned now about it!) but I don't think the Bag Pipes are appropriate for the indoors or for the Liturgy--fine outdoors and at grave side committals.
Certainly classical orchestral instruments should be permitted, including strings,woodwinds, brass, timpani, harp and the like.
The Council explicitly asked that Gregorian Chant and presumably in Latin be preserved. What happened?????? We went gunge-ho with what was only vaguely allowed by arbitrary judgments and forbade that which was explicitly requested be preserved.
We need the Pope to tell local bishops how the Revised Liturgy should be celebrated and there needs to be explicit instructions about Music and instrumentation in particular. There needs to be a national hymnal for each language group which includes "universal Gregorian Chant" that must be used in the Liturgy, i.e. Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons as well as parts of the Mass. Hymns need to be scrupulously studied by local bishop's conferences and then submitted to Rome for further examination before these are to be admitted into any formal liturgy of the Church, i.e. Mass and Liturgy of the Hours.
The current Mass needs to be revised as I suggested in the previous post. I'm not advocating anything radical, just a revision of the Penitential Act and restoration of the Introit to its proper place and the maintaining of the Kyrie in its nine fold format. I simply asking for Ad Orientem but not to preclude the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Universal Prayers, Post Communion Prayer, Blessing and Dismissal from the Presiding Chair.
This is an Appendix to Sacrosanctum Concilium which I will copy without my comment:
A DECLARATION OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN ON REVISION OF THE CALENDAR
The Second Ecumenical Sacred Council of the Vatican, recognizing the importance of the wishes expressed by many concerning the assignment of the feast of Easter to a fixed Sunday and concerning an unchanging calendar, having carefully considered the effects which could result from the introduction of a new calendar, declares as follows:
The Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent.
The sacred Council likewise declares that it does not oppose efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil society.
But among the various systems which are being suggested to stabilize a perpetual calendar and to introduce it into civil life, the Church has no objection only in the case of those systems which retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact, unless there is question of the most serious reasons. Concerning these the Apostolic See shall judge.