"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" and the Dignity of the Mass « The Recovering Choir Director

Next: Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year B »

"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" and the Dignity of the Mass

Zenit presents a week-long series on the liturgical aspects of Pope John Paul II’s recent encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia“. Anything that mentions music specifically will be highlighted here.

The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration by Fr. Edward McNamara, LC

…I would say that the Holy Father’s profound intuition is that theology is the key to understanding the purpose of the art and music surrounding the Eucharist, just as theology is at the heart of almost all questions regarding the human condition.

When the greatness of the eucharistic mystery is grasped in its vertical aspect as Christ’s gift to man, then it necessarily inspires an art, architecture and music which soars in response to the mystery. If, on the other hand, theological priority is given to horizontal concepts such as the Eucharist as shared meal, the artistic results are often flat, mediocre expressions in search of an illusory egalitarianism foreign to authentic Christianity.

This said, the encyclical, while extolling the artistic and musical splendors of earlier ages, does not endorse any particular style, nor does it recommend a revival of Gothic, Baroque or any other artistic school, and even contemplates the possibility of adaptation to different cultures (see No. 51). It insists, however, that we recover the sense of mystery that brought these earlier masterpieces into existence…

…The Church continues to recommend Gregorian chant and classic polyphonic works as eminently suitable for the Eucharist. At the same time, the liturgical reform has created a real need for new compositions capable of elevating the soul and witnessing to the faith.

Of the thousands of medieval Latin musical compositions known to exist, many were well intentioned, but musically and literarily poor and, like their authors, have been mercifully forgotten. In all probability a similar fate awaits much of what has been produced in recent years. This should not deter composers from seeking to express the mystery of salvation in a true spirit of service to divine worship, in the hope that at least some will eventually be numbered among the brightest and the best…

Words of hope indeed.

Posted 05.31.2003
by Aristotle Esguerra
6 comments.
Filed under: Relevant Reading.

6 Comments

I thank you heartily for the link and will use the article at our next liturgy meeting (to combat the lady whose goal is a liturgy of “catchy tunes that the kids’ll like.”)

Me
06.01.2003 @ 1:21 am #

Peace, all.

I’m interested in why one would choose to use a commentary article instead of the real deal. The encyclical is not terribly dense or hard to grasp. And the documents Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Intro to the Roman Missal are available and also digestible in reasonable portions. Using McNamara’s commentary is no better than anyone else’s pet liturgist’s spin on postconciliar liturgy.

Todd
06.01.2003 @ 2:13 am #

You don’t understand (not that any explanation is owed you.)

Yes, the new document is wonderfully clear — yet many (on the RPI boards, for example, I have seen when I read there) seem to fail to grasp its essentially conservative, if not traditionalist message.

These are people who constantly have “experts’” commentaries to explain what authoritative documents REALLY must have meant (never, in their eyes, what they seem to actually say). (Love that split infinitve.)

It is helpful when talking to them to have ones’ own glibly phrased rebuttal.

Something with which they can identify (a spun, if you will, article by a — ooooh!— professional liturgist!) is needed to counteract the non-Catholic (yet ordained priests, strangely enough) commentators our diocese hires to instruct the parish litrugy directors, who say things like (this is an exact quote) “We need each other — since the Acension, we are the only physical presence of Christ we have!”

The encyclical is not, as you say, dense — but many modern liturgists seem to be.

And just to allay your worries, I have read sections of SC at meetings, and been told, laughingly with mcuh shaking of heads, “Oh, they don’t expect us to do Latin chant HERE.”

Me
06.01.2003 @ 2:20 pm #

Peace, “Me.”

Actually, I think I understand quite well. As with most encyclical letters, the language is parsed carefully, and does not overtly lean in one direction or another. Traditionalists seem to be as needy as progressives to have the letter spun “properly.” If the letter is “clear” as you suggest, interim commentary is not really needed. I’d be far more interested in what my parishioners have to say about it, unlensed through Fr. McNamara.

I really confine my “worries” to my own parish. We have had very little interest in the letter or in an offered discussion group for it

And as an aside, your chant detractors might be alarmed at the amount of plainsong they actually do. Most people are. Good way to sing the liturgy, but not the only one.

Todd
06.01.2003 @ 8:40 pm #

No, they have had it explained to them that they actually do chant (not Latin, though, English and Greek,) and that week after week they get better participation on the Lord’s Prayer and the sung response to the General Intercession than on the latest tune.

Slow learning curve.

Like many, they don’t accept evidence that doesn’t support their beliefs.

They’d make great research scientists for Phillip Morris!

me
06.02.2003 @ 11:20 am #

I read the comments on EE with interest. I love this document!

I find myself in the position of taking up Scott Hahn’s unspoken challenge and giving a talk on EE at a women’s group. Mr Hahn expressed fears that this document would never make it into the presence of the laity.

I’m very excited and nervous. And I pray I can do it justice.

Sometimes the commentary of others is helpful because it can clarify or expose a point which escaped me. The writer may also make a statement which BEGS a rebuttal!

Wish me luck!

Jaye

Jaye
09.25.2003 @ 2:25 pm #

« Previous: Turn down the volume…

Next: Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year B »