Four resources and an essay

In sliding down the 'web, I've found several items that may be of value to a number of people.

In particular, I have begun a conversation with Daniel Muller, who really should start his own web page, if he hasn't already. In the course of that conversation, we have both decried the lack of learning in Latin and Greek which is present among Catholic bishops. I suppose it ridiculous to ask them to start learning, when we ourselves do not, and so I've been looking into ways of correcting that. One means of correction is a marvelous resource for obtaining free public domain latin and greek primers, grammars, courses in Homeric, Attic, Septuagint, and NT Greek, and many translations of classical texts.

I also found a central web page for learning Classical, NT and Modern Greek, as well as a lovely online course for modern Greek, with wav. and mp3 files of vocabulary and dialogue.

Finally, while reading through The Recovering Choir Director's webpage, I found an excellent set of links for those interested in Roman Catholic liturgical studies. While perusing that excellent list of links, I found an essay by the eminent Eastern liturgical scholar Fr. Robert Taft, S.J., published by that Sterling Silliphant of Catholic (We)blogdom and all around dear soul, Gerard Serafin, at his web site, which itself is worth reading, along with his weblog.

The essay is basically an analysis of the Byzantine liturgical tradition, and its value of itself and to the west. It is perhaps the most reasoned and perceptive critique of Byzantine liturgy that I have ever seen, showing its strengths, but also, its weaknesses. But he also gives an encomium of Western traditional spirituality that I have not seen before, and recommendations which I think are quite appropriate. I have taken the liberty of quoting the last portion of that essay, and giving emphasis to particular sections of it:

Let us rediscover where we came from before it is too late. The west does not need to turn east, nor does it need to return to a medieval or Tridentine past. It needs to return to its roots. Latin Christianity is just as apostolic, ancient, traditional, patristic, spiritual and monastic as that of the east. I am not really convinced all Catholics know and believe this.

That does not mean we have nothing to learn from the east. One can learn from everyone. If the eastern churches are beginning only now to face the problems of modernity, it is the fault of the circumstances in which these churches have been forced to live, either as minority confessions in an at-best tolerant Islamic world, or for the past three generations under Communist persecution.

But it would be wrong to think that eastern Christianity does not have within itself the spiritual means to cope with modernity. As we have seen, eastern liturgy--and liturgy is simply the mirror to eastern Christianity's inner world--has preserved from the storehouse of its past elements that are not only desperately needed, but also of great appeal to modern men and women: an attachment and profound rootedness in what is best in its own past; a deeply reverential spirit; a sense of the utter transcendence and holiness of God; a high Christology; the only truly integral and effective pneumatology in Christian history; an emphasis on the local church; and the consequent synodal or sobornal structure of church koinonia and governance.

But the east also needs the modern and typically "western" virtues of flexibility; the ability to cope with change as a law of our modern culture; objectivity, openness, fairness, self-criticism; and a sense of the unity of modern global culture in which no one is or can remain an island. If Christianity is to survive as a viable lifestyle attractive to modern men and women, it will not be as an obscurantist, anti-intellectual culture of folklore and ritualism, sustained by the rejection of modernity and change.

This is true for all of us: the choice is there for those able to make it. In the meantime, what the west needs to do is not turn nostalgically to the east for solutions to its own problems, but to penetrate once again into the riches of its own storehouse, to bring out from it things both old and new. A Christian culture that produced Chartres and Mont Saint Michel, Cyprian, Augustine and Cassian, Benedictine monasticism and Citeaux, Francis of Assisi and Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, John of the Cross, Charles de Foucauld, the two Saint T(h)eresas and Mother Teresa, and Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, does not have to apologize to or imitate anybody except Jesus Christ.

Delays, Delays.

I have been delayed from more postings for two reasons: my work, and volunteer transcription for the Professor of Liturgical Music at the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Seminary. He is doing marvelous work, in my opinion, in setting Carpatho-Rusyn chant into English. I am helping him by transcribing the Resurrection Matins Canon Odes in most of the eight tones (Tone One was complete before I offered my services). It is neat work, and I look forward to the results. More later.

Liturgical Extremism, The Latin Mass Society, and Todd

Sometimes we get foretastes of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. One happened to me on the Saturday after the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (I believe Westerners call it Christmas). On that day, my wife, who is a manager for a local crafts chain store in Torrance, California, had to open the store at 6 a.m. I drove her there, and as I had no work that day, I was tempted to go home. Something prompted me, however, to go instead to my office a mile away to check my e-mail. I’m very glad I did.

I had gotten a message from a dear friend of mine, an assistant choir director for St. Innocent’s, an Orthodox church in Tarzana, who that Friday night had written to say that she was getting together a group on Saturday morning to sing the Nativity liturgy in Slavonic for the benefit of Russian émigrés, who came once a month for the service, and in honor of her 80 year old father, who for many years had been the lead cantor at the (Eastern Catholic) Ruthenian Cathedral in Van Nuys.

Five minutes after getting this news, and after having googled the address of the church, and gotten directions via Yahoo Maps, I was on my way to Tarzana. I made it there by 8 a.m., just as everyone in the choir was gathering for practice. All eight of us were either choir directors or cantors, and as there was only one other tenor and two basses, I was Tenor For A Day. We practiced from 8 to 10, reading through the music (perhaps two thirds of which I already knew), and then sang the Liturgy from 10 to 12. All through the experience, both of competent singers working together, and of the Divine Liturgy itself, I was reminded of the words of the envoys to St. Vladimir regarding the Orthodox liturgy: “We did not know whether we were in Heaven or on Earth, but this we know: That God dwells here.”

I had another such foretaste about a month later, when I, my wife (who is a competent alto) and a dear friend of ours (a concert pianist with a lovely soprano voice), were invited to the same church to record the music that had been sung for Nativity. This time, while we did not have the transcendant beauty of holiness of the Divine Liturgy, yet in the fellowship of the twelve of us, we were able to put aside the enmity which, unfortunately, has so often separated Eastern Catholics from Orthodox.

On that occasion, I was again singing tenor with the Orthodox choir director of a church in Oxnard, an excellent musician, composer, linguist, and liturgical scholar, who effortlessly negotiated the Slavonic, Carpatho-Rusyn, Russian, and Ukrainian texts we sang. During a break in the recording (which went on for five hours), I mentioned to him that of all the liturgies I had studied or had served, I found that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was the most spiritually mature of all. He nodded, and then said, “But you know, the Tridentine rite of the Roman Church is a close second.” We both smiled, nodded, and returned to our work. I had found a friend and colleague.

* * *

Much of this experience has been at the back of my mind in reading what the dread Todd has written in his recent blast of the Latin Mass Society. I must say that I am more of a mind with my friend than I am with Todd. Nonetheless, I thought it best to give Todd the benefit of the doubt, and go look at the website myself.

But rather than finding an intolerant, ignorant, and triumphalist website (rather in the manner of www.catholic-clayeaters.com, as Todd had intimated), I found instead the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, a well-designed, literate, intelligent and moderate page. But Todd had not bothered to put a hyperlink on the particular text to which he was objecting so vociferously, and I could not immediately find it.

So I looked at their Documents page, and found their focus statement: A Guide to the Latin Mass Society In the initial section, UNITY WITHIN THE CHURCH, the statement began by stating the Society’s legality under Canon law, its legitimate apostolate to preserve the tradition of the Church, its obedience to the Vicar of Christ and the hierarchical church in communion with him, and its obedience to the sacramental, teaching and governing authority of that Church. This does not appear to be the impulse toward schism which Todd tries to present, and its statement of obedience is more than I have so far found in reading anything written by Todd.

In point of fact, the Guide makes a statement so appropriate as regards the attitude that Todd has taken that it might be appropriate to quote that section in its entirety:

“Although the Society is not separated from or in opposition to the rest of the Church, the value of its apostolate is not generally recognised by the liturgical establishment which tends to view its activities as bearing adversely on the status quo. Thus a partisan spirit has developed which automatically opposes, as a matter of policy, the regular and frequent celebration of the former rites.

“It was to correct this obstructive pattern of thought that Pope John Paul II wrote:

“It is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety. (Ecclesia Dei 5a)”

So much then for Todd and his attempts to assert that the Novus Ordo, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, is the only legitimate liturgy for non-schismatic Roman Catholics. If we were to follow his oh, so tolerant attitude, we would probably also have to abandon what remains of the Gallican, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Dominican rites, and in particular, my beloved Byzantine rite, as some backward Irish bishops had attempted to do in the United States in the early 20th Century. The result of that misguided effort was a schism which drove hundreds of thousands of Eastern Catholics into the Orthodox Church. Let us hope that the intolerance that Todd appears to exhibit will not occasion another such.

The remainder of the Guide deals with a number of topics, including the Society’s apostolate for Sacred Music, for the Traditions of the Church, a listing and description of the indults regarding the use of the old Latin Mass, and the many movements, faithful to the Roman Catholic Church, which are maintaining its use. It is a thoughtful, reasoned, and historically and theologically well-informed apologia. It is a pity that Todd’s critique fails to address it, or to measure up to it.

Getting back though, to the text that Todd had so objected to, I continued looking in the documents section of the Latin Mass Society webpage, but what I found instead was a history of that Society, where the members petitioned for an indult to permit the Old Mass to continue to be served in England. The member list of the signators to that petition are an honor roll of the poets, authors, essayists, musicians and singers, actors and actresses of England of the time, including Vladimir Ashkenazy, Agatha Christie, Kenneth Clark, Cyril Connolly, Robert Graves, Graham Greene, Cecil Day Lewis, Yehudi Menuhin, Malcolm Muggeridge, Iris Murdoch, Joan Sutherland, and Philip Toynbee. This does not appear to me to be the effort of obscurantist and reactionary schismatics, as Todd would suggest.

I looked further for the document to which Todd was objecting, and looked under resources. While, again, I didn’t find the text, I found the following:

-A guide or instruction to how to read Ecclesiastical latin;

-A plain man’s guide to the celebration of mass;

-A guide for priests in the celebration of low mass, with an explanation of the Requiem mass;

-An explanation for servers (or altar boys);

-Questions and answers regarding the traditional mass;

-The ordinary of the Mass in latin and in English;

-and the propers in Latin and English;

-A comparison of the texts of the old and new masses in English;

-But most important of all, from my point of view, is a large set of translations of the Fathers;

As well as a webpage which has a set of the Fathers and other Catholic writers over the last 2000 years, in chronological order, and including such 20th Century luminaries as Dorothy Day, G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Thomas Merton, etc.

In short, I found a wealth of material for anyone who might be looking for a rubrical, linguistic, traditional, and theological understanding of the Old Latin Mass. This is not, to say the least, what I was expecting as a result of Todd’s blast.

Finally, after looking everywhere, and finding an embarrassment of riches of information, I found the section to which Todd was referring:

And finally, upon reading it, I understood what Todd apparently does not get: this is not a know-nothing, reactionary, and intolerant rant, but a call to arms, written in the same spirit, and with the same nobleness of heart and mind, as the call to Orthodoxy and Catholicity that we have seen in the best modern English Catholic writers, including John Henry Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and Evelyn Waugh. It is a pity that Todd apparently has neither the knowledge nor the wit to see this.

But like the beginning of this essay, when I wrote of the finding of a new friend, Todd has at least introduced me to a new and dear friend, The Latin Mass Society, and I owe him a debt of gratitude for this at least. Because of this, I will forgo writing the really nasty, and perfectly accurate, things I was going to say regarding Todd.

A wonderful teaching tool for Byzantine Chant

I take part in several e-groups for Orthodox choir directors, and one of the contributors sent in a web site which appears most useful.

Basically, Holy Cross Seminary (the American Greek Orthodox Church's major seminary) and Hellenic College has developed a program for learning the Byzantine chant for the apolytikia hymns of the major feasts, in both Greek and English, with good recordings of the psaltis who sings the hymns, the text in Greek and English, western musical notation, and (modern) Byzantine neumic notation. There is also a wealth of information as regards the ikon of the feast, the theology behind feast, hymn, and ikon, and the scriptures and other readings associated with the feast.

As far as I can see, the only thing it lacks is instruction in how to read the Byzantine neums, and it looks as if that is currently in the works.

While one has to register in order to use the program, it appears that the registration process is free. Do please give it a try.

Return: What did Musicam Sacram intend, and what is "active participation"?

Sorry I have been away for so long, but a number of things have been brewing. Nonetheless, the precis and analysis of the Constitution on the Divine Liturgy will be coming along "real soon now".

It also appears that Paul Rex and the redoubtable Todd have been mixing it up of late as regards what a progressive is, and as regards the efforts of "traditionalists" actually to implement Vatican II's Musicam Sacram in liturgical life in this country.

Todd appears in his weblog to be stating that Musicam Sacram simply says that "Gregorian Chant is to be given pride of place, all things being equal." He appears also, like most so-called "progressives", to give greater weight to the latter phrase, rather than the former.

However, this appears to me to be a misreading, or at least, an incomplete reading of what the Vatican II document actually had to say. If I am reading it right, then Musicam Sacram basically says the following:

1. In all liturgical gatherings, Gregorian Chant is to be given pride of place;

2. That the whole treasury of sacred polyphony is to be preserved and cultivated;

3. That in context with the above, the songs or hymns of the people are to be encouraged.

It would appear that rather than looking at everything through the looking glass of modern sensibilities, if the words "pride of place" mean anything at all, then not only does it mean that where there is a choice between chant and polyphony, or chant and modern hymnography, that the preference is toward chant, but that the focus of sensibilities should be on the esthetics and theology of chant, and not those of modern hymnography. This would also appear to be both what Popes Pius and John Paul the Great have emphasized in their respective treatises on sacred music.

Further, it would appear that if the dictates of MS were followed, then the esthetics and theology of chant should inform both the preservation and cultivation of sacred polyphony, and the encouragement of modern hymnography.

This appears to be far from what the "progressives" are doing. I wonder whether RC liturgical traditionalists understand this either?

Another point: progress in essence means travel toward a goal. What goal are so-called progressives moving toward?

One goal which they state openly is the "active participation" of the people, one of the few statements from Vatican II that they appear actually to be following. By this, they appear to mean that the people have to sing everything. This appears to have been the rationale for dismantling choirs. This also appears to be the rationale for throwing out chant, polyphony, and even traditional hymns as being "too difficult" for the people, with the subsequent Kumbayazation of the modern American RC Church.

I suggest that we may have another model for what "active participation" is, from Scripture and from Eastern Tradition.

Orthodox liturgical theologians are united with the Fathers in the teaching that the Divine Liturgy is the icon of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the various commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy, the commentators, from Dionesios the (Pseudo)Areopagite to Germanos, all agree that the various ministers, people, and even implements are icons of particular persons or functions within that Kingdom: The priest is the icon of the sacrificing and the sacrificed Christ; the deacon is the icon of the praying Church; and the singers and people are the icons of the angelic choir. This last is set out plainly in the Cherubic Hymn, sung during the middle of the Byzantine Liturgy:

Let us who mystically represent the cherubim, and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the uncreated Trinity, now cast aside all earthly care. Amen. That we may receive the King of all, Who comes invisibly upborne by the angelic host. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

From Isaiah and the Revelation of John, we know that the angels constantly sing in praise of God. From the Psalm (whose number I have temporarily lost as a result of "Old-Timers Disease"), we know that "the angels declare to one another the glory of God." At any rate, it does not appear from Scripture that the angels minimize worship to a "said mass." If the worshiping choir and congregation at Liturgy are the icons of that heavenly choir, then neither should we.

But in looking further at the psalm verse, it appears that they are singing or even teaching one another. There appears to be a double process of listening and singing, rather than a single one of simply singing.

This process appears to have been manifested in monastic practice, where from the second century on, the monks would gather into two groups, and would sing the Psalms and other hymns to one another. This also appears to be the case in earliest Feasts of the Eastern Church, such as Nativity (Christmas), Theophany (Epiphany), Ascension and Pentecost, where the stichera hymns of Vespers were repeated, ostensibly so that each group could sing the hymn, and each group could hear it.

This process of listening and singing appears also to have been maintained in the full monastic practice of Mount Athos in Greece, where the monks maintain the practice of singing in alternation. It was formerly the case that all domestic liturgies at church were also sung by antiphonal choirs or cantors, but this practice seems to have lapsed, at least in the United States.

Nonetheless, in addition to the example of active participation as expressed in both listening and singing, there is also the dialogic character of the Byzantine (and other) liturgies. In the litanies, for example, there is a sung dialog between the deacon, who prays on behalf of the church, of the people who pray for God's mercy, and further, a dialog between the priest, who offers the blessing of God, and the people who respond with their "Amen".

This dialogic character is present throughout the Liturgy, in the antiphons, the litanies, the hymns, the readings from scripture, and the creed, achieving its climax with the anaphora, or the eucharistic prayer. But through all of this, there is chant and response, where all have their part, all can sing, but all also can hear.

Finally, at least in Eastern liturgy, there appears to remain the understanding that in the Kingdom of Heaven, there are hierarchies of angels, from those nearest to the presence of God to those farther off, each order teaching the next. One thing to be noted in the angelic hierarchies, however, is that they are not those of earthly power, in which the lesser served the greater, but those of knowledge and diakonia, in which the higher orders of angels serve and teach the lesser. It appears to be a pity that few Westerners these days read Dionesios the Areopagite, who had taught both about the divine hierarchies, and concerning divine worship as participating in that hierarchy.

This hierarchical understanding of liturgy informs the Byzantine Liturgy, and once informed the Tridentine rite of the Roman Church. In terms of vision, the priest, deacon and servers, with their robes, symbolize (or to coin a word, iconify) the procession of the Kingdom of Heaven and the heavenly host into the midst of humankind. In terms of sound, the priest initiates the chant, which the deacon takes up, and which resounds among the readers of the Epistle/Apostle, the psalm readers, the cantors (or choir), and the people, each teaching and informing the other.

Thus, from Scripture and Eastern Tradition (which I believe has a common source with the West), there appear to be three principles within divine worship: 1) an active participation which involves singing and listening, or to put it more briefly, call and response; 2) dialog between and among those who serve, those who sing, and all the people, with all raising their prayers to God; 3) hierarchy, where the higher orders serve and inform the lesser. These principles have informed and enriched the Eastern Churches; they also informed the Western Latin Church, until they were forgotten and/or abandoned.

As a last word on the subject, it should be common sense that if one sings everything, one hears nothing. That would appear, rather than being participation, to be self-indulgence.

I suppose that the next question would be: How may these principles be used for an actual reform of the Roman liturgy? But that is another story.