As I await Todd's response in Catholic Sensibility to my open-ended question from a previous post, I continue to ponder the idea of progress, in general. I have just finished reading a book called Flee to the Fields, a series of essays from the 1930's, which discuss the fragility of the world economy, and the ultimate necessity of return in large numbers to rural life - for the stability of the family, sustainability of the economy, and a re-birth of Catholic culture. I'm at a point in my life where I was ready for it, so most of the ideas resonate quite readily with me right now. You may or may not agree with its central thesis, but I think it speaks to a great deal of the uncertainty and instability of the modern world. I'm not talking about technology per se, rather the industrial behemoth that produces it.
One of the ideas dealt with in the book is that of indefinite "progress". This commonly held ideal traces its roots at least as far back as Darwin's Origin of Species. Here are a couple of telling quotes from the book:
And here we touch the master delusion of the nineteenth century for which Ruskin's name "the elect pattern of perfect Folly, for a warning to the farthest future" (Fors V. 1871), no longer appears extravagant. The notion of Progress reached this pitch of inconsequence: man is descended from an ape; Venite adoremus. The last word thereon may well be Maritain's: "The idea of a necessary historical progress is not less contradictory, fundamentally, than the idea of a square circle. To speak of historic progress is in effect to speak of evolution in time; to speak of evolution in time is to speak of matter; but to speak of matter is to speak of radical appetite for the new, appetite for what is different, as such, and not what is perfect, and so the absence of necessary progress or of necessary tendency to the more perfect. The myth of progress is an excellent type of a pseudo idea, an idea at once 'clear' to our emotions and fundamentally false in itself" (Théonas, 1925, p. 127).Is the liturgical "progressive" infected with the same unquenchable thirst for novelty? Clearly, applying labels across the board does little justice, but it seems reasonable to me that those who advocate progressivism have received more than a little influence from the historical "progress" movement. Maybe, instead of some vague "progress" in liturgical music, we can try to coax out of the progressives precisely what it is they are progressing toward. Then, at least, we can start a dialogue on goals we have in common. I suspect, however, that progressives do not like being pegged down to a specific goal, because that would restrict their ability to make further progress after that; which would render them, in their mind, well, less "progressive".
Another penetrating comment, made some ninety years earlier, by Lacordaire, the more remarkable as coming from one who hoped for a modus vivendi with Liberalism, is well worth recalling today. "Predestined as we are to enjoy the infinite, the infinite is our want, and we pursue it everywhere. Now, novelty is the only thing here below which gives us some sensation of the infinite. As soon as we have considered an object, we say: It is enough. Who will turn the page? Novelty turns it, and in turning it, disguises its feebleness to our intelligence by a false gleam of progress, which enchants us." (Jesus Christ, Eng. trans., 1875, p. 107).
Granted, according to the wisdom of the Council Fathers, some cautious progress needed to be sought in how we do Liturgy. However, I'm certain they did not advocate an open-ended, ongoing progression of changes.
Dear Mr. Rex:
I believe that one goal which progressives are in fact working towards is the "active participation" of the people. With the presupposition that "active participation" equals "the people singing everything", they appear to have come to the conclusion, and the practice, that in order to have the people singing everything, that choirs, chant, polyphony, traditional hymnody, Latin, and a score of other things must be dropped like an active hand-grenade.
Regarding an alternative view as to what constitutes "active participation", may I recommend a recent posting from my new web journal?
Peace, Bernard,
I would be cautious about your presupposition on "active" participation. Chant and traditional hymnody should be the people's music, certainly and primarily. And I have no objection to choirs, cantors, or groups of sizes and instrumentations in-between doing "performance music" such as polyphony, so long as the liturgical demands of the rite are maintained and musicians aren't going off half-cocked horning in on what the people should sing.
I will be happy to review your interpretation of "active" participation, given the understanding that you are best equipped to speak your own viewpoint, and lacking specific quotes from quotable sources, not as well equipped to speak on behalf of those you might not represent.
Todd makes a good point. I believe the general rule of thumb is that the congregation should be singing the Common parts of the Mass, accompanied by the choir, if present. And the cantor/choir combination should be singing the Propers, as appropriate.
The one exception I can see depends on whether a Gradual is used versus the optionally substituted Responsorial Psalm. As is commonly the case in the Novus Ordo Mass, this is a good opportunity to have a chanted dialog between the cantor/choir and the congregation, which is one way to introduce the people to the idea of chanting the Hours.
I don't believe the exclusive use of the choir, even with a prayerful but silent congregation, is consistent with the intention of the Council Fathers. The problem is that, instead of teaching the people to chant the parts appropriate to them, the liturgical mainstream seems to have whizzed past that, implementing the Conciliar mandate of active participation, but without using the traditional chant the Council had envisioned, and Pope Paul VI had exorted to be used.
Here is an excerpt from the Letter to the Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plainchant, "Voluntati Obsequens", from the
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, April 14, 1974. "Our congregation has prepared a booklet entitled, 'Jubilate Deo', which contains a minimum selection of sacred chants. This was done in response to a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the 'Gloria', the 'Credo', the 'Sanctus', and the 'Agnus Dei'." (emphasis added)
This is where I see the discrepancy arise. It's not whether and who should be singing. It's in what is chosen to be sung.
Dear Mr. Rex (by the bye, would you prefer me to call you Paul?) and Todd:
If I recall correctly, the point that I made, both in my comment here and at my web journal, was that "active participation" should take into account three factors:
1) that it involves listening as well as singing;
2) the dialogic character of the Liturgy;
3) the hierarchic character of the liturgy.
Todd, how one can proceed from these statements to the "presupposition" of no involvement of the congregation is beyond me. These are not things that I said, and as a matter of fact, they are in fact the opposite of what I intend to write in my web journal. I would appreciate your not attempting to put words in my mouth, or attributing to me things that I have not written. From my reading of your comments to others, or your weblog, you appear to have a nasty habit of doing just that to everyone with whom you appear to disagree. Please stop.
While I will be going into more detail in my web journal as regards the practice at St. Andrew Church (where we have, with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, an "ordinary" of around forty parts), it may be good at this point to inform you that the practice of most Eastern Catholic churches, including St. Andrew's, is to consider the choir or cantors to be the leaders of the congregation in prayer and song, and not their replacement. At St. Andrew's, and most other EC churches, the congregation assists in singing everything.
Bernard (please address me informally), not that Todd can't defend his own comments, but I just wanted to let you know that, when I read your comment, "choirs...must be dropped like an active hand-grenade", I too was unsure whether or not you were advocating that you would prefer choirs always sing to a silent congregation, which would be contrary to the will of the Council Fathers.
BTW, I thought I'd point out that, especially when using the voiceless text of the comment box, it is very easy to misinterpret another's words. I, too, am guilty of this, and need to keep reminding myself. If we try to comment in charity, and give the writer the benefit of any doubt, I think we would be treating each other with the respect they deserve, and we also stand the best chance of gaining from each other's knowledge and experience.
Paul,
Thank you for your most recent comment. I am sorry if you got the impression that I favored participation only by the choir. That is far from, if not the exact opposite, of what I want, and what I have worked for as singer and choir director.
Your comments on misunderstanding are spot on. For my part, I will attempt to apply them, and attempt to treat possible misunderstanding more charitably. Another tool for reducing misunderstanding is the judicious use of questioning. Rather than in effect saying "When you say X, I assume you mean Y.", it might be better for all of us to ask "When you say X, are you meaning also Y?" For my part, I will attempt to use that as well in future.
In returning to the subject at hand, however, I have found that a number of people have gone at the goal of congregational singing from the point of "How do we make the congregation sing?" This method of approach appears to have been and continues to be less than effective. At St. Andrews, and for many eastern Catholic churches, the focus appears to have been "How do we encourage the congregation in singing?" I believe we have found some answers which have been fairly effective. If you would be interested, I would be happy to share what I, and others, have learned.