Not counting myself as a progressive, I'm probably one of the least qualified to attempt such a thing. However, after reading a recent discussion about microphones at Father Keyes' blog, I felt that some confusion over this issue warrants further discussion.
I can understand why sincere progressives don't deserve all the blame for poor use of microphones, but I think one would be pretty hard-pressed to claim that those who started using them would not have identified with a progressive understanding of Liturgy. Granted that fiddling with acoustics may result in a requirement for mic's, but that does not explain why mic's were introduced in churches with traditional architecture and no acoustically-affecting modifications. It probably is, to a large extent, ignorance, and trying to imitate contemporary models. For example, if a pastor says to the parish youth, "Go organize a musical group for Mass," it's pretty clear it would be modeled on whatever forms they are accustomed to.
So let's agree that there are modern progressives, who are serious about doing Liturgy properly, and have agreed to back off from the mic's. They should be distinguished from those who modernize Liturgy for the sake of producing more enjoyable entertainment. It makes sense, since they are rightly trying to promote congregational participation in singing.
Some years ago, I belonged to a West Coast diocese whose weekly publication was called "The Progress". I always bristled at that name, because it brought to mind several questions, "Progress from what? Progress to what? How will we know when we get there? What happens then?" Just the thought that the diocesan motto centered around movement, in no apparent direction, was troubling to me. As you can imagine, the contents of the paper promoted all things modern and discouraged all things traditional. Experience in the parish to which I belonged bore this out.
But what exactly is a progressive, if not as my experience has shown? In terms of twentieth century Church teaching on liturgical music, it seems to me that those with a traditional understanding of liturgical music are the only ones who are interested in all that the documents are saying. Progressives seem to glean through them and quickly pick up on anything that promotes activity, participation, or any sort of choice; and conveniently skip over and ignore all the rest that promotes Latin, chant, instrumentation, etc. How can we talk about progress in liturgical reform, even according to Vatican II, when progressives have progressed away from Gregorian chant having "pride of place".
In the late 60's, progressives had no qualms about ramming changes through, on questionable authority, regardless what the parishioners thought. I find it disingenuous to hear today, from those claiming to advocate progress, that we can't do what a hundred years of documents have advocated because the people don't want it. What in the world are we progressing to if not what the Council Fathers had in mind?
I would define progressives as those who think that Church teaching can change over time. This is not the same concept as development of doctrine. Their concept is more like the denial of doctrine in favor of modern sensibilities.
Liturgical progressiveness is not always tied to those who are progressive on doctrine, but largely these two coincide.
Peace, Paul.
I agree with you that traditional-leaning Catholics are less qualified to define "progressive." Taking your tack of looking to a dictionary, my Webster's gives twelve definitions, a few of which catch how I would define my approach to faith and ministry as a progressive Catholic: moving onward, continuing by successive steps, and improvement (as through reform).
The first appeals to our basic Christian sensibility as pilgrims on earth: that mortal existence and portions of it are transitory, and not things to be held to rigidly or to the detriment of the spiritual journey. In other words, focusing on the forest, not the trees.
The second and third together speak to what many Catholics believe is the proper state of the Church: a stepwise adjustment as time moves on, hopefully an improvement in how we conduct the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Church. Granted, some items are untouchable and are a given: faith, the Paschal Mystery, basic moral law, etc.. Other items, such as particular stylings of sacred music, details of governance, etc., are not matters of faith and morals. These can and should change in light of the eventual goal of the Christian life: union with Christ.
Example: the use of microphones predates the second Vatican Council. Their advent was spawned by technology and the basically good desire to have a speaker heard. Not every parish could afford (or wanted to) effect a natural shell for speech projection over the pulpit. Electronic amplification was cheaper and more aesthetically pleasing. And if a mic had worked for Father in the 50's and 60's, why not for a small group of singers?
I remember the use (and misuse) of mics in the 70's, and I think many (though not all) church performers modelled what they did on what the priest did: flip the switch and gather close so people could hear. The sins of poor mic use are more attributable to ignorance than political viewpoint, though I understand it can be somewhat comforting to some to try and loop one's collective bugaboos together.
Todd, I thank you for your input, and I most appreciate your comment on "stepwise adjustment". It is certainly true that, in the grand scheme, the Council Fathers did intend to set up a framework for the Church that could effectively cope with the need for change in the future. As you admit, some things can change and some cannot.
However, when it comes to liturgical music, alternative views seem to have left us at an impasse, since there seems to be disagreement firstly on whether liturgical music needs to be "sacred" at all (i.e. some believe "celebratory" music is adequate); and even when agreed, there is disagreement on what constitutes music that should be called "sacred" (i.e. holy, set apart, not profane).
Addressing the central issue of "sacred" music, as well the twentieth century liturgical documents on music in a general way, would you be able to provide a condensed overview of how a thoughtful progressive would approach liturgical music in light of those documents? In other words, given that traditionalists seem to have come to a consensus that those documents demand a return to the books of Solemes, the Graduale Simplex, or at the very minimum, some form of vernacular chant, how does a progressive interpret those requirements that a typical traditionalist would see as obvious?
I know this sort of probing question is well within your sphere of competence, since I have read comments from you in the past that discuss your understanding of twentieth century liturgical reform as an over-arching and on-going process. I would appreciate your insight from a progressive's point of view.
All this talk of what defines a progressive fits in very nicely with something I was thinking about the other day. As Catholics, we are blessed with a heavenly liturgy; it was preordained in heaven, and cannot and should not be tampered with. It can, in fact, be compared to our very human existence, and even Church doctrine. It is our obligation to develop ourselves internally and over time, reaching ever closer to Christ. We were all given a body and mind, a perfect creation of God's, and it is up to each of us to find clarity in his own heart. The same goes for church doctrine - it is unchanging, but may be developed in a sense that the unchanging truths become more clearly revealed. The church gives us directives on Liturgy, and it is not the responsibility of the progressive to tamper with these directives. Progress should be internal. What progressives ought to be concerned with is searching for beauty and truth within the perfect framework handed to us by the Church. They ought not be concerned with developing it by importing new and worldly ideas and forms of expression, rearranging its components, or imparting new meanings to the roles of actors in the liturgical drama. What the Church recommends, musically and otherwise, and adherence to the rubrics, is a glorious gift to all of us, and one that is too often overlooked. Liturgists must look within themselves and go beyond taste and ego and realize this truth. Only then can the rest fall into place, and only then will heaven be revealed to us in the Mass.
Peace, Paul and all.
Permit me to ponder Paul's question and post on my blog. Let me also comment on Arlene's thesis that "... we are blessed with a heavenly liturgy; it was preordained in heaven, and cannot and should not be tampered with."
It depends. And I don't say that to be cute or evasive. Does bowing, signing, or incensing in particular ways impact on the preordained portion? Does the language used -- the original Greek, the "vernacular" Latin of the 4th century, or the numerous vernaculars of today impact the preordained? I would suggest it does not. Does tampering mean changing anything, or does tampering only cover altering the bare essentials?
The Prayer to St Michael is one big example. Some Catholics view its loss as tantamount to heresy. But it is not essential to the meaning and celebration of Mass. So when the Concilium dropped it, were they reforming or tampering? Depends on whom you ask.
In reply to Todd's comments, I would like to offer that what we are talking about here is purely academic. I agree with Todd that much depends on whom you ask. But as invested as we all are in wanting to get it right, it makes no sense to argue over whether the Mass said in the vernacular or the 4th century Latin has positive or negative effects on the preordained. At the heart of the problem in a discussion over the meaning of the word progressive is the lack of theological formation in our country- from liturgists right on down to average parishioner. With 60% or more of Catholics no longer believing in the real presence, or understanding that the Mass is in fact a heavenly liturgy, a representation of the Sacrifice, and something very different from a Protestant, feel-good worship service, discussions over details of posture and language and types of music become irrelevant. We all want to participate in beautiful, heavenly liturgies, and our real problem is not whether the St Michael prayer is included, or whether the Mass is said in Latin or the Vernacular. The real problem goes beyond academic questions; the real problem is a modern one: lack of confidence in the truth. Secondly, and probably more compelling, is our lack of confidence in those who claim to espouse it: liturgists across the country, and even in the Concilium, whose theology must stand firm.
Peace, Arlene.
Thank you for clarifying your point. I would not share your pessimism about belief in Real Presence or in the current State of Liturgy.
You mentioned, "At the heart of the problem in a discussion over the meaning of the word progressive is the lack of theological formation in our country- from liturgists right on down to average parishioner."
I'm not sure I would say a real liturgist could lack formation in theology. My own academic background is in systematic theology, not music. However, there are some who would take exception to my education. And regarding parishioners and their formation, I think you'll need to take a number. I hear from church staffs all the time wishing that the ordinary laity had better knowledge of the Bible, better knowledge of social teaching, more understanding of stewardship and tithing, more familiarity with the saints, with devotions, even with the basics. Are we church professionals just too picky? Or do the Catholic laity have a general lack of everything?
Though I've had a breaking-in period in just about every parish I've served, I think I've been relatively successful in bridging the confidence gap, as you put it. I've followed some very good liturgists who made it easier. I've followed one or two who were less than good. The gap, as you say, is very real.
I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of confidence in the truth." I think there are some doubters, certainly, among the laity. Even among professionals, there is doubt, some in procedures, and some in basic approaches to liturgy and theology. I think I would agree that some liturgy professionals carry themselves with less confidence than others, some lack leadership qualities, some lack vision, some lack basic people skills to get others to follow them or to do things. But this is not a bane of our time alone; it has always been so and will always be in this life.
Todd replies in his own blog here.
I would not automatically object to the title "The Progress," on principle. (Not a comment on any objections to the paper's content you had.) Hopefully we ARE all making progress, we are all on a "journey," we are all trying to follow The Way.
And speaking strictly to liturgy, it seemes to me, you, and AAE, and Maggie Hettinger, and Daniel Mueller, and Fr. Keyes, and all the rest of the "Traditionalist" denizens of blogdom are certainly "progressives" -- after all the status quo is inauthentic, lacking in solemnity, ignorant of (or at least disregarding of,) both the spirit and the letter of what was called for by the Council, filled with cheap music -- we'd better HOPE we're going to progress from that!
Oh Miss Geri,
You are so flattering. You must not know that my master's degree is in catechizing for revolutions! With a significant amount of "feminist Christology" mixed in. And if you think that I was closed-minded, you may ask my Christology instructor, who claimed that no one could write the exam as I had without cheating! (I accepted a "B" so that he could save face; I did not realize he would even afterwards exact total revenge for a private joke I had made about Hegel and the Jesuits.)
You are certainly right to point out that it is easier to accept the status quo, such as it may be, rather than to work for reform.
"You must not know that my master's degree is in catechizing for revolutions!"
First hints that you are a former punk rocker, and now this!
My head is spinning!
(We're all bundles of contradiction, aren't we?)
Anyway, thank you, Paul, Todd, Arlene et al for the interesting conversation.