Dismissives

Co-opt all you want. While not all liturgical progressives are theological progressives it comes pretty close. I have yet to be in a Church that was progressive liturgically that was not also progressive theologically.

And your example of "You know, I really don ...." is spot on. This is something never said.

I would be curious to know though how many choir directors actually know what Vatican II said on this issue.

Jeff, by and large, they do know what it says, but there is always an excuse why they do not have to implement it. Every directive is counter-acted, in their minds, by some other statement with sufficient ambiguity to neutralize and vacate the original directive.

"'You know, I really don ....' is spot on. This is something never said."

Not literally those words, but I did, in debate with a fan of... I won't mention the names of the Minnesota "composers" on question, but you know who they are....

Anyway, in conversation with someone who wanted to know why I insisted on using chant, psalm tones, etc., the music she "could tell" I "liked best" I did explain that no, I actually like baroque choral masses, and if we were going to indulge in dance rhythms for liturgy, I was partial to tangos.

But chant is normative, I said. You know, like having baptisms during Sunday Mass, which let's face it, lots of, perhaps MOST people HATE, ("It takes too much time, it's not the way we USED to do it!") but it's NORMATIVE, so we don't take a poll and see what most people prefer, do we?

(And just to be honest, I do love chant, but it's not my absolute, favorite form of ear candy, you know?)

Peace, Paul.

Struck again by "Don't like the pipe organ? Dismiss it. Don't like chant? Dismiss it." and struck enough to suggest:

Don't like people who think differently than me? Dismiss them. Don't like their opinions and tastes? Dismiss them. Don't like how they conduct their musical affairs in church? Dismiss them.

What you describe in fronting the label, "dismissive," my friend, is not a quality of progressives or liberals alone, but a quality of the fallen human race, which yes, even traditionalists run the risk of embracing.

Additionally, it is one thing to be dismissive of things, of policies, of opinions. Another thing entirely to commit sacrilege against the Body of Christ by applying such "non-Body part labels" to those who are your sisters and brothers, no matter what sins and failures have crossed their actions or thoughts.

In case you don't read the redoubtable Michale Gilliland, he posted this from CSLewis, and it seemed pertinent.

"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."

Todd, friend, I am filled with sorrow to see you accuse yourself by your own words. I did not dismiss persons. I only spoke of how others dismiss ideas and things. Your dismissals, on the other hand, have people as their object.

I do agree with your statement that all are at risk of being dismissive. However, I will let my written record stand in that I have actively sought common ground and a common understanding in Ecclesial directives on liturgical music, and have not dismissed anyone. On the other hand, it's pretty hard for me to avoid interpreting your explanations as being dismissive of both organ and chant, even though you say you find them meditatively enriching.

"I think I'm still on secure ground in rejecting Pius X's and your quotes as insufficient on both musical and pastoral grounds for the present-day Church."

In this comment, you have put your interpretation of liturgical directives ahead of what they plainly say, which is what the Church has repeatedly reinforced throughout the twentieth century. We've previously discussed pastoral realities, and that's not my point. The point is that you have "rejected" (i.e. "dismissed") the directives in principle, on some vague notion that the creation of any music can be imbued with the same spirit as Gregorian chant. With that line of reasoning, I could say that any heavy metal (or other style) composition that talks about God is liturgically appropriate.

Is that what you are saying? If not, then where is the line drawn? Our discussion has revolved around what constitutes sacred liturgical music. I've read the Church documents and formed what I believe is a clear picture of what they say. You on the other hand, have read the same documents, and concluded that what I recount is erroneous. It's inconceivable that clear directives can be given, followed by some qualification that nullifies the original directive.

If I am being dismissive of anything, it is the common practice of ignoring liturgical directives, either based on a mentality of free-choice, or based on some imagined higher principle that supercedes what the framers of those directives plainly desired to be done. As for the people who hold these beliefs, I have nothing but charity toward them, and I pray for their conversion.

BTW, the quote I attributed to Todd was not made here, but on his blog in the discussion that followed his post of June 1st: "Interpreting Vatican II's call for sacred music".

Peace, Paul.

"On the other hand, it's pretty hard for me to avoid interpreting your explanations as being dismissive of both organ and chant, even though you say you find them meditatively enriching."

I cannot say how easy or difficult it is for you. All I can say is that I have no problem with organ music and chant being part of the Catholic musical firmament. I think we disagree on the interpretive point of "how much."

I said, "I think I'm still on secure ground in rejecting Pius X's and your quotes as insufficient on both musical and pastoral grounds for the present-day Church."

And you replied, "In this comment, you have put your interpretation of liturgical directives ahead of what they plainly say, which is what the Church has repeatedly reinforced throughout the twentieth century."

No. I think later documents have further nuanced Pius X's encyclical.

"The point is that you have "rejected" (i.e. "dismissed") the directives in principle, on some vague notion that the creation of any music can be imbued with the same spirit as Gregorian chant."

The directives I begin with are stated in the council documents of Vatican II, and move from there. While I think Pius X gives important witness, in a case where his writing appear to be in conflict with a council, I think benefit of the doubt should be given to a council's interpretation. And yes, theoretically, it is possible for music to be created that possesses the spirit of Gregorian chant. On one level, all things are possible with God.

"With that line of reasoning, I could say that any heavy metal (or other style) composition that talks about God is liturgically appropriate."

You could say that, but I wouldn't.

"If not, then where is the line drawn?"

On the sense that the faithful might find music spiritually edifying. Chant is spiritual not because liturgical authority has told us first. Early Christians found it so. Centuries of reinforcement confirmed it. Later Church authorities told us what we already knew.

"You on the other hand, have read the same documents, and concluded that what I recount is erroneous."

On specific points, my friend, but not on the whole reading of them.

"If I am being dismissive of anything, it is the common practice of ignoring liturgical directives, either based on a mentality of free-choice, or based on some imagined higher principle that supercedes what the framers of those directives plainly desired to be done. As for the people who hold these beliefs, I have nothing but charity toward them, and I pray for their conversion."

Agreement with you, but I don't bother to voice the last thought you mention.

"The directives I begin with are stated in the council documents of Vatican II, and move from there."

Todd, I'd be very interested to hear how this view you espouse is reconciled with the Letter to the Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plainchant of 1974, "whose purpose is to facilitate the observance of the recommendation of the Second Vatican Council '...steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to chant together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.' (SC 54)"