Category Archives: Roman Catholic

Confessions

I had a “Duh–obvious” moment this morning–you know, one of those moments where something that you’ve always known bubbles up in a new and interesting way and makes a bunch of connections that you’ve never quite seen before…

My recent thinking about the sacraments–especially Baptism and Eucharist–has been moving very much to their communal nature and the importance of the covenant community both signified and enacted through these rites. What struck me this morning is how much the Confiteor participates in these same ways of ritual sense-making in ways that the more usual Anglican forms of general confession don’t.

For those unfamiliar with the Confiteor, it is a form of general confession that within the old (pre-Vatican II) liturgical paradigm would be used at least three times a day: at Prime, at the prayers at the foot of the altar prior to Mass, and at Compline.

My first point is that in its normative form, it’s a conversation between the principal (priest, abbot, or other) and the congregation that goes beyond the basic dialogue format found in most modern confessions. That is, it establishes communal patterns up front.

Even more than that, though, the text is redolent with community. It functions by naming elements of the community, bringing them to the attention of those gathered, reminding them of the constitution of the assembly that includes the invisible as strongly as the visible. Here’s the text:

First, the person of the greatest dignity (technically known as the Foremost or Prelate, ie. not a Bishop only, but in a Choir of layfolk any Priest who happens to be present, or in a Choir of Priests, the Superior, etc.) says the Confiteor, thus:

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, * to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brethren, * that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, (he strikes his breast thrice, saying:) through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault. * Therefore I beseech Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, * the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and you brethren, * to pray for me to the Lord our God.

And the choir answers with the Absolution, thus:
Almighty God have mercy upon thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to everlasting life.

To which the Foremost responds:
R. Amen.

After which the Choir says the Confiteor, thus:

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, * to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father * that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, (they strike their breasts thrice, saying:) through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault. * Therefore I beseech Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, * the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and thee, Father, * to pray for me to the Lord our God.

And the Foremost then says the Absolution, thus:
Almighty God have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to everlasting life.
R. Amen

And then he signs himself with the holy Sign (as does the Choir) as he says:
The Almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, † absolution, and remission of our sins.
R. Amen.

In the full form, then, the sequence of the communion of the saints all the way from the Trinity, the angels, down to the local community is not invoked once but four separate times. In doping so, the liturgy grounds our action—here our sinful action—in terms of the whole. In what we have done, we have reflected badly upon all, not just on ourselves. However, then we affirm the care, concern—mercy, really—and intercession of the whole on behalf of the individual.

Compare now the Anglican version, first in the classical form:

 

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us in sundry
places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we
should not dissemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly
Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to
the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and
mercy. And although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before
God; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to
render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set
forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those
things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul.
Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me
with a pure heart and humble voice unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying
after me:

A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation
after the Minister, all kneeling.

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred and
strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and
desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left
undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things
which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us: But thou, O Lord,
have mercy upon us miserable offenders; Spare thou them, O God, which confess
their faults, Restore thou them that are penitent, According to thy promises
declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord: And grant, O most merciful
Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober
life, To the glory of thy holy Name.
Amen.

The Absolution or Remission of sins to be pronounced by the
Priest alone, standing: the people still kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his
wickedness and live; and hath given power and commandment to his Ministers, to
declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and
Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent
and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant
us true repentance and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which
we do at this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and
holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ
our Lord.

 

And now a current form:

The Deacon or Celebrant says: Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbor.

Silence may be kept.

Minister and People: Most merciful God,we confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed,by what we have done,and by what we have left undone.We have not loved you with our whole heart;we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,have mercy on us and forgive us;that we may delight in your will,and walk in your ways,to the glory of your Name. Amen.

The Bishop, when present, or the Priest, stands and says
Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in eternal life. Amen.

While the texts are in the first person plural—“we”—it could just as easily be “I” with no change of meaning or theology… In contrast with the Confiteor, these come across as very, well, individualistic. It’s me and Jesus and while there might be a bunch of other people kneeling around, it’s still pretty much just me and Jesus…

I’ll have to chew on this a bit more to draw out the implications. My initial thought, however, is that the Confiteor seems to do a much better job of placing action, repentance, and forgiveness in view of the whole gathered covenant community, integrating it all much better in the context of the Body of Christ.

(Sources: Confiteor, 1662 MP Confession, and ’79 Eucharistic Confession.)

Liber Usualis On-Line!!

Here’s a tender little-known fact from our courtship days lo these many years ago: the first big purchase that M and I made together–before we were married–was a Liber Usualis reprint from St. Bonaventure Publications. (That probably comes as little surprise to those who know us…)

I’m happy to pass on the news today via NLM that the CMAA is now offering the Liber as a complete PDF download.

What is the Liber, you ask? It’s a big collection of helpful and important plainchant settings for masses throughout the year and the Sunday Offices (and Lauds of Feasts) according to the Roman Use as of 1953. Here’s the technical details from the introduction:

This Edition with complete musical notation includes the following:
1. The Kyriale with Cantus ad libitum.
2. The Mass of the Sundays and Feasts including those of double rank throughout the year, with Vespers and Compline for the same.
3. Prime, Terce, Sext, None, for Sundays and Feasts of the First and Second Class.
4. Matins of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; Lauds for Feasts of the First Class.
5. The Litanies: the Mass of Rogation Days, Ember Days, Easter and Whitsun weeks; the Vigils of Christmas, Epiphany and Whitsun.
6. The services of Ash Wednesday, the Triduum of Holy Week and Easter Day.
7. The principal Votive Masses and the Offices for the Dead.
In the beginning of the book will be found the Common Tones of the Mass and Office. Chants for special occasions, e. g. the Blessing of the Holy Oils, Ordinations, etc, are included in the Appendix.

If you do anything or have any interest in chant–you need this!! (And at this price, why not? :-D) It is, of course, in Latin with square notation but it has a fine English language introduction to the basics of chant and a full explanation and presentations of the 8+1 psalm tones.

While the Liber is very helpful for people doing research in medieval liturgy, I must warn you that anything you find here must be backed up by properly contemporary evidence as this really is the 1953 rite. For instance, its hymns are the hacked-up reformed versions promulgated by the Renaissance pope Clement VII.

Motu Proprio On the Way?

Lurkers on NLM and other traditionalist Catholic sites will only have heard this rumor about 278 times before–but this one seems more solid than the usual run of the mill.

For those not in this particular loop, motu proprio is a term for a document that the Pope produces of his own accord–not as the result of a meeting or council or something. For a while now, we’ve been hearing rumors that B16 has been preparing just such a document for the liberalization of the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962–an edition within the stream of the Tridentine Rite. Remember, even the mass commonly referred to as the Tridentine very rarely is the authentic “Tridentine”–there were a lot of revisions even to that liturgy through the years. Furthermore the official language of the current mass, the Novus Ordo is, technically speaking, Latin. Yes, any Roman priest in any parish can celebrate a Latin mass at any time he chooses–as long as it’s the Novus Ordo.

As I’ve thought more and more about this eventuality coming to fruition, two questions keep raising themselves in my mind. First, what kalendar and lectionary will it use? Vatican II and the rites promulgated after it made some major changes in both. Will Septuagesima come back? How about octaves? Will it use the three year or one year lectionary? Can a single local worshiping body responsibly use two “official” lectionaries and kalendars at the same time or will it create more problems than it sets out to solve?

Second, the rumors I’ve read have involved the Traditional Latin Mass… And that’s totally in keeping with current Roman piety. But what about the Breviary? Will use of the pre-Vatican II breviary also be liberalized allowing one of them to satisfy a priest’s obligation? And if so–which breviary? As we’ve discussed here recently, there are major differences (not least in psalm allotments) between the “Tridentine” Breviary and that of Pius X.

Not being Roman, the release or non-release of such a document will effect my day to day life not one whit. And yet, as one interested in both ecumenism and liturgy, I’m watching the proceedings with great interest. In considering the various Anglo-Catholic “tribes,” some follow Rome because Rome was the keeper of the tradition and some follow whatever it does because it’s Rome. Many in the second group do a “Novus Ordo” Anglo-Catholic mass (like Smokey Mary’s–case in point being their celebration of Corpus Christi on Sunday rather than today). Many in the first group, however, have never forgiven Rome for Vatican II and are–in many ways–more “Roman” than the Romans. All that is to say, what Rome does does matter to us–despite whether the local Roman parish starts doing a TLM or not…

Any movement in any major church towards a more dignified, more reverent worship of God (which is the point of this move) is a good thing in my book–all the more so if it means cool liturgical and chant books become more easily available!

The Current Office in the Roman Church

I recently came across a fascinating article from Musica Sacra by a Roman traditionalist* that answered some of my questions about the state of the Daily Office in the Roman Church. For instance, I knew about the changes of Vatican II–the introduction of the Office of Readings, etc. But I knew that *something else* had happened as well and was not sure when or how that had come about… That is, I know the early medieval Office patterns from my research on monastic liturgies. I also know the Anglican Breviary–and that it is a translation of the pre-Vatican II Offices. …But the medieval monastic Offices and the Anglican Breviary have quite a number of differences–some of them major. I thought the answer might lie in that the AB was a secular use rather than a monastic one, but I had my doubts…

This article cleared them up for me. There was a reform at the beginning of the 20th century that changed things.

This author explains the old system and doesn’t just describe elements, rather, he speaks of the spiritual trajectory of the Office through the day, then explains how the early 20th century reform damaged this trajectory, then how the Vatican II one squashed it. Many of his points resonate strongly with some things I’ve been feeling especially as he emphasizes both singing and memorization–something I’ve been experimenting with recently.

I especially like how he ends it–so well so that I’ll quote it here. He apologizes by stating that he knows that he is writing for “insiders,” but I love the way he defines that term:

To my mind, the “insider” is not the scholar of liturgy, though when a decision is required, some knowledge of liturgical matters is undoubtedly called for. By “insider” I mean one who lived and lives in the liturgy, who is rooted and implanted into the permanency of the Church’s worship, who has learned in his own case how much the Office — its shape, the conscious and unconscious experiences gathered from the Office — can contribute to spirituality: how profoundly he was formed and educated day by day when taking part in the Office. Let us recall : Chorus facit monachum [ed: The Office-experience makes the monk]– and not only monachum! The “insider” may experience how the words spoken in the Office convey the great tradition of the faith itself; he observes that the “how” of the Office, the radiation of its actual order, may influence our approach to faith and salvation. He feels the difference between the two: when we turn spontaneously to God, and when we join with the ecciesia orans, the praying Church. Such a Christian desires to know that he is not following the new ideas of some persons, solely by reason of obedience, but he desires assurance that the mature experience of the praying Church comes to him from the anonymity of the Great Times, in jib tempore, and that it is a great honour and privilege to follow this current of prayerful praise, to adapt his heart and mind to the words placed upon his lips, following St Benedict’s rule so frequently forgotten today: ut mens concordet voci, that the mind should follow what is expressed by the voice.

* Warning: As a traditionalist, he uses the Vulgate numbering for the Psalms. That is, if it’s over 10, add 1 to the number until you get to 145 or so… So whenever he talks about Ps 118, for instance, it’s the BCP/KJV/NRSV Ps 119.

Organic Development

There’s been some discussion on my Periodization of the Liturgy piece over at Young Fogey’s place. One of the key issues is the discussion about whether the Roman Novus Ordo (the post-Vatican II mass) can be considered an “organic development” from the Tridentine Mass.

Not being a Roman, of course, I don’t have a dog in that hunt nor a lived experience of both (I’ve only ever attended one TLM, though many NOs). Where the question comes home to roost for me is with the American ’79 BCP…. Is it an organic development from the ’28?

And to push the envelope further–What’s the relation of the American ’28 to the English 1662 through the 1559 to the 1552 to the 1549?

Needless to say Laud’s would have to fit in there as well…

All that is to say, with the tangled webs of Anglican liturgies, what does it mean to talk about continuity and organic development?

Communio Project Completed

The communio is the music and texts appointed to be sung during the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament in the Roman Rite. The texts tend to be a combination of psalm texts and other parts of Scripture interwoven with one another. As such, they represent a classic form of interpretation through juxtaposition that is at the heart of the Western liturgical tradition of biblical interpretation. That is, the meaning of the biblical texts is neither declared nor forced upon the singers/hearers, but instead is coaxed forth by the apposition of two or more texts joined by context and experience.

NLM reports the final completion of a project of its mother organization, the Church Music Association of America, that I will reproduce in full:

The Communio Project of putting all communions with Psalms online is now finished. You can see them here. This the one place where you can find the music for the communion antiphon sung in the manner recommended by the General Instruction. They were typeset by chant master Richard Rice. At last, the full collection is available to the world for instant download and, we can hope, singing every Sunday forever more.

Do visit and check out these treasures. While they are listed for ease of convenience on the site in alphabetical order, the index file at the top shows their proper liturgical ordering. They are in Latin with the traditional square notation, but the scripture references are included and the second page contains an English translation of the text. I’ll offer one here in the spirit of the season.

Vatican II and the Destruction of the Western Liturgy

Vatican II was the last straw that swept away the elegant construction that was the western liturgical tradition. But not how you think.

It has nothing to do with the vernacular or even with the move away from the Tridentine Mass. It’s about the final destruction of the balance and the mutual relationship between the Mass and Office, the links between the missal and the breviary. Because the classical Office is so little known these days, what happened is not fully known or understood. Here’s my take on things.

The western liturgical tradition is about the whole-body experience of the liturgical year. The seasons teach us and train us in the Christian affections. They do this through the rhythms of the Mass and Office. The way that this formerly worked was intimately connected to the use and application of Scripture. To remind, there were three biblical readings that really shaped things. One was the Gospel at the Mass. This was the primary key of the cycl. These readings were both selected to fit the season and, in turn, actively shaped the season. In connection with this was the Reading, also at Mass. (We’re used to calling this the Epistle because it predominately came from the Pauline or Catholic epistles but fasts had readings appointed from the Prophets.) The third was the reading at the Night Offcice. There, the whole of the Bible, excepting the gospels, were read every year. Again, these were keyed to the seasons. These were the main building blocks but interweavings happened from that point. The various texts of the Mass like the prefaces, collects, and benedictions incorporated elements from the Gospel and the Reading. During the week elements from the Gospel and Reading from the Mass of the Sunday would appear in the propers of the Offices. Bits of the Epistle would show up as Little Chapters; verses from the Gospel would appear as antiphons for the Gospel Canticles at Lauds and Vespers. Thus, the theological messages that grounded the seasons as found in the Sunday Masses were interlaced through the rest of the week in the Offices. The Scriptural content created the lived reality of the seasons as interpreted by the surrounding versicles, hymns, etc.

Hence, I repeat my charge: Vatican II was the last straw that wrecked this. It wasn’t the vernacular that did it in but the three year lectionary… Formerly the Mass and Office were on a common one-year calendar. No longer. The current ’79 BCP shows how the aftershocks effected protestant liturgies: We now have a three-year mass lectionary that is completely disconnected from our two-year office lectionary.

If the motu proprio does come out (yeah, here’s how this is connected to the previous post…) and restores a Tridentine Mass, will it also restore the Tridentine lectionary? Because if not, even the Roman traditionalists will face what we face now, a system wherein the appointed Gospel may have resonances with the rest of the Mass texts maybe once every three years but where it has nothing to do with the Offices.

Ah well–it was an elegant structure but was fundamentally a house of cards… The three-year lectionary seems to be here to stay. I wish we could recover again thesekinds of connections. There are ways but they would be complicated. Essentially, the next revision of theBCP would have to incorporate a three-year cycle of liturgies that wouldcohere with the three-year lectionary. Too, something would have to be done with the Office and with the Office lectionary.

Actually, though, it’s the Offices where something of the old system could be recaptured… Ever read the rubrics after the Offices carefully? Antiphons for the Psalms and the GospelCanticles are permitted, especially those that come from Scripture… You know what I’m thinking? A three-year “antiphonary” that would tie the mass readings into the Offices as antiphons. It’d be another book to juggle but I wonder what it would do to recapture our sense of the liturgical year…

Thoughts on the Latin Mass, Relativism, and the Answer

I’ve been doing some reflecting about the reputedly forth-coming motu proprio. For those out of touch with current Roman doings, the traditionalist blogs have been abuzz with rumors that B16 may release a document (possibly) in the next week that reinstates the Latin Mass and celebrating ad orientem. I greet this news with mixed feelings. I’ll probably split my thoughts into two posts–this and the next.

A few weeks ago I was leading a section of New Testament on ideological criticism, particularly feminist and socio-economic readings. I was in a small group that happened to be populated by several very intelligent conservative evangelicals. They spent about 30 minutes trashing ideological critism as a form of eiegesis–importing one’s own politics into the text. Now–I’m not a huge ideological kind of guy so but at that point one of them said something to this effect: “There’s no reason to try and make everything so political. Care and concern for the poor and women are already in the biblical text. Why do some people feel they have to go looking for it everywhere since it’s already there?” At that point, I could contain myself no longer.  I explined to them that there was a reason why they thought it was already there–because every class they had taken at seminary was so thoroughly imbued wiuth the principles and the benefits of ideological criticisms of one kind or another that they had forgotten that they had read the text any other way. I reminded them that for centuries the guild of privileged white men had read the text without ever finding the women or the over-riding concern for the poor that they took for granted. I pointed out the irony of trashing an interpretive system from which they had already reaped the benefits–especially one of the more vocal critics who was a woman… There seems, to me, to be a certain dishonesty there, rejecting with one hand the very structures that enable your own flourishing.

In the advance of the rumored motu proprio I have read quite a number of folks who are more than ready to jettison the insipid banalities of the English Novus Ordo and to return to the purity and power of the Latin Mass. (By the way, the rumors haven’t quite decided if the “Latin Mass” means the Tridentine ot the Latin Novus Ordo…) Personally, I love the idea of the Latin Mass and certainly wouldn’t mind of our Roman brother brought it back. BUT–I say that with full awareness of three things: 1) I know Latin. No, I don’t have the killer Latin linguistic skills of certain lurkers on this blog but my Latin is certainly good enough to follow the Mass prayerfully without parallel English. I also know I’m in the huge minority of Americans–let alone citizens of the world. 2) I’ve never lived under a Latin Only regime. And from what I can glean, neither have most of the people who seem to be pushing for it the hardest. 3) I honestly don’t have a dog in this hunt. I’m not Roman and my life won’t be changed by this decision whether it ever comes out or not.

From  where I sit, it seems that the most vocal critics are the privileged few who not only have had the ability to study Latin but–even more important–have had the advantage of growing up with the Mass in the vernacular. Even those with sketchy Latin will know the general meaning of what the priest is saying because they’ve grown up hearing it in their own tongue.

Now, my understanding is that this document will not signal a return to the Latin Mass; I don’t think that vernacular Masses will be abolished, only that Latin Masses will be more widely allowed. I fervently hope that this is the case. For as much as Ilove the idea of the Latin Mass, people need to hear the liturgy and be formed by the liturgy in their own mother tongue as well.

When I mentioned  the document to a Roman of my acquaintance, his response was interesting. He asked me if I knew what was driving it. I responded, “Yes, small t-traditionalism. That traditionalism that believes that tradition is defined as ‘how they did things when I was a kid’ or that defines it as ‘they way things used to be before my parents’ generation f’ed everything up.'” He said, “No. That may be why lay groups are for it but the Vatican doesn’t care about that. It’s about a ressurgent clericalism, pure and simple. Putting the power and knowledge–by means of a language known primarily if not exclusively by the priests–back into the hands of the priestly class and drawing the deep distinction again.” His response is shaped by the experiental knowledge of the vicious conflict in the years immediately after Vatican II when his order went through power struggles that were ostensibly about languge and liturgy but really ran much deeper.

I’ve been thinking about his response for  several days now.  When studying history, particularly WWII, I often wonder what could possibly make otherwise sane and intelligent Germans vote for Hitler and the Nazis. Why would people want any form of totalitarian system? The answer that I keep coming back to is that people prefer strong and decisive leadership over chaos. And what wasn’t emphasized enough in the hiostory lessons that I received is the chaos and breakdown of the Weimar Republic: the catastrophic inflation, the breakdown of law and order. A vote for the Nazis was a vote for some kind of stability and structure (despite the downsides that most didn’t really grasp) in the face of overwhelming chaos.

Why would people–people who *aren’t* priests, that is–want to embrace a form of clericalism? Perhaps the same dynamic is at work. In an age of relativism, people looking for truth live in the midst of philosophical chaos. Where and how is big-t Truth to be found–and how will you know it when you find it? The denominations and organizations that seem to be growing the most in America are those who are perfectly happy to give clear-cut answers. Your local Vineyard or Southern Baptist or, yes, Roman church will be more than happy to supply you with a big-t Truth. And I can definitely see the attraction. It would be nice to have clear-cut answers, clean lines and boundaries. As Devo once put it, “Freedom of choice/ Is what you’ve got/Freedom from choice/Is what you want…” Because the alternative is uncertainty.  Especially when it comes to the realm of spiritual truth, how do you know when you really have it right? When it’s something as important as divine realities, who can really afford to be wrong?

But that’s the kicker isn’t it–because someone says they have the Truth, how do you know they do? At some point, we are still stumbling in the dark, adjudicating competing claims as best we can. The choice as I see it, is either selecting one of the groups who claim to have the Answers or affiliate with  one of those that affirms that Answers exist but they’re not going to insist complete conformity.

At some point we who are Christians must ask–what of the Spirit? Does it move in and through people or only in communities–or only in one community? And yes, I have now been talking for a while about the Great Unpleasantness. To my mind, one of the chief virtues in both people and in institutions is humility. A willingness to confess that they do not have all of the answers or, perhaps, that they do have the Answer but not the details. And that is where I prefer to stand. I do have the Answer but, to be completely accurate, that’s not really it. Rather–the Answer has me. Through Baptism. I have been united in a death like his and rise in a resurrection like his. I know that the Answer is Jesus and I take comfort that he has me.