On "Trentecostalism"
Francis Cardinal George’s statement in John Allen’s “Word from Rome” of last Dec. 5 has been fermenting in my mind.
George said that much contemporary liturgical discussion is dominated by two rival anthropologies. The Enlightenment anthropology affirms reason as the ultimate test of truth; Romantic anthropology emphasizes imagination, sentiment, and sense experience.
The reality is a complex one, different in different places, but liturgical polarization between a rationalist and a romantic position is common, and few people have the tools necessary to move beyond the present impasse, George said.
Canon lawyer Peter Vere of Catholic Light and Envoy Encore introduced me to the concept of “Trentecostalism”. Peter, besides being a canon lawyer and Catholic revert, is also a “traditionalist” in support of Ecclesia Dei. His thoughts on the matter are contained in his piece, “The Trentecost Experience”*, and his summary of “Trentecostalism” is contained in the final paragraph.
This approach to traditionalism is the only way to go for this soul, and the only way to successfully promote traditional forms of worship, etc. This Spirit-filled traditionalism is found most readily in the through-sung High Mass. In Why Catholics Can’t Sing, Thomas Day neatly summarized the “Trentecostal” aspects of sung worship without calling it as such:
Anyone who has ever attended a Latin High Mass in an old-fashioned Benedictine monastery has really attended a charismatic event. This style of worship makes us realize that the early Christian church had taken the wild fires of charismatic zeal and compressed them into the intense flame of monastic chant. The monks do not simply move from one place to another in the sanctuary; they really dance. They do not speak their religious sentiments; instead, they utter them in this strange singing, unlike any other singing on earth. Through the medium of music, the monks become “filled with the Spirit.” They are madmen, breaking out in a focused, unified, musical glossolalia. [p. 12]
People may argue from reason and emotion that the 1970 Mass and its multivaried trappings make more sense to them, or are more intimate for them; I don’t begrudge this preference of theirs. Others, like myself, can contend from those same lines how the 1962 Mass or a traditionally-styled 1970 Mass makes more sense to us, and is more intimate(!) for us.
Though one sort of expects it from proponents, “just because”, it’s amusing to see how opponents of a wider application of Ecclesia Dei can get so seemingly “medieval” in their attitude when talking about how the New Rite is the only way to go.
I find it noteworthy that I haven’t found anything yet in Peter Vere’s writing that in any way disparaged the new Rite. May I follow suit, at least starting now.
In the “Trentecostal” approach I see and feel the synthesis of the two rival anthropologies mentioned by Cardinal George. Maybe I’m projecting my ideals and emotions onto an old, dead thing. But I doubt it. Comment away.
*Please note the transcription error towards the end—Lefebvre’s act of defiance occurred in 1988, not 1958.
Leave a Reply
23 Comments
I am attracted to the idea (altho the terminology can be confusing… is “Trentecostalism” Tradition + Pentecostalism, or Trent + Pentecostalism?)
Unfortunately, I have yet to attend a “sung-thru” Latin Rite. Most parishioners of the Latin Rite I had attended were content to let the choir do all the work. And it’s just so rare to find one nowadays. I’d love to give it another chance, but not at the expense of being vocally stifled.
Nick
Where the above comment says that most parishioners were “content to let the choir do all the work,” does it mean that they choir sang polyphony–during which people participate through prayer–or that the choir sang chant and the people did not join in? If the latter is the case, the silence from the pews doesn’t prevent a parishioner who knows and loves chant from joining in, even on the propers (no one is prohibited from buying a Liber and taking it to Mass). The ordinary chants and hymns are much easier–and people do sing these at many old rite liturgies–but getting to know them well enough to sing them is a matter of many months of repeated Mass attendence. It’s not like singing “praise choruses” that are designed to be picked up in one verse (and grow tiresome just as quickly).
A person who attends a sung Latin Mass only one time with the hope of joining in the singing will probably always feel “stifled”–just as someone who knows nothing of Catholic theology will find the entire Mass something of a puzzle.
As to George’s comments, they are very interesting. For a vigorous critique of rationalism in liturgy, see Catherine Pickstock’s After Writing–I might suggest that Pickstock would reject both rationalism and romanticism in favor of the “middle voice” of liturgy itself.
Re: choir comments…
I apologize for being repetitious, as some folks on this board have already heard me bellyache about this. I did not recognize what the choir did as polyphony, but a chant that was pretty complicated and beautiful. There was no music sheet. There was no announcement saying where to buy a “Liber” (in fact, I’ve never heard of such a thing).
But had there been (1) music notation available to the congregation and (2) interpretation of the Latin phrases available… then perhaps I would have had a shot of being able to participate both vocally and mentally. As it was, I was shut out.
At least with a praise chorus you don’t need the music notation, and you can very easily integrate that into prayer. With multiple praise choruses rotating around it won’t get tiresome. If chanting was left to the mass parts and the Psalter, the congregation can join in.
And that’s what I’m shooting for. Congregational participation, as promoted in the GIRM, but without all that narcissistic junk that has marred many a prayer experience.
Nick
Q.E.D. on the issue of how much “uplifting” and “transcendant” have in common.
“At least with a praise chorus you don’t need the music notation, and you can very easily integrate that into prayer. With multiple praise choruses rotating around it won’t get tiresome.”
So a praise chorus would be superior to a choir singing Gregorian chant or polyphony alone? Where, O where in the documents is this stated? Moreover, I don’t think you like choral music and therefore you get bent out of shape if the choir sings alone.
Actually Mark, you have it all wrong.
I love choral music. But I want to follow the GIRM norms, which specify that the ideal is to have a singing congregation. That is, a singing, and praying, congregation.
Peace to you, dude.
Nick
“Liber” is a reference to the Liber Usualis.
One of the beauties, the GLORIES of the Church Universal is that there should be no need to wonder or guess what the music director or liturgist has taken into his head to have sung this week, at this point in this Mass.
It is prescribed.
“But I want to follow the GIRM norms, which specify that the ideal is to have a singing congregation.”
The GIRM makes ample provision for the choir to sing alone. It’s not an either or proposition in terms of choir vs. people but both having a role in a liturgy.
The materials on the GIRM on this site are tip top, and also from the St. C Schola there is this
summary of its musical content that our schola uses. Feel free to pass around. Very useful for parish purposes.
Again, in the Italian and German liturgical traditions, there has long been conregational singing, there is nothing in the Tridentine missal at all that discourages congregational singing, it is just the influence of the Irish Bishops in the US pushed a low mass metality. I would say little has changed, at the parishes I have been to that use typical OCP style praise songs, the participation is maybe just 10% singing.
Also just because people are not singing does not mean they are not participating. My opinion, I am for the most part content to do the choir do the singing, and reflect in silent prayer.
Peace, all.
We get into trouble when the role of the choir usurps that of the rest of the assembly at worship. That has been a worry across Christian traditions at various times.
There are moments appropriate for silent reflection at Mass. Or meditation. And while I would have no objection to an individual making a choice of non-involvement (not receiving Communion, not singing at appropriate times, arriving late, leaving early, snoozing) I think the overall movement in liturgy should be to encourage active participation as underscored frequently in Sacrosanctum Concilium and subsequent documents. The fact that many assemblies have given up on singing at Communion still does not give the choir pride of place during that time.
From GIRM 87:
In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86 above. This is sung either BY THE CHOIR ALONE or by the choir or cantor with the people.
A serious and practical suggestion for anyone who is sitting in the pews seething that the choir is singing alone and he or she is not: join the schola. Most parishes are desperate for singers. Of course that all means accepting responsibility for doing something constructive rather than just complaining all the time.
Firstly, I do not think anyone ‘gets into trouble’ when the choir ‘usurps’ the assemblies role, because I do not think it happens.
I think much more trouble is gotten into by the frequent attempts to prevent the choir from taking their rightful place.
And secondly, I believe despite the seeming preference by many (perhaps even most,) liturgists for a song by the congregation, the preference of the Church is otherwise; according to the General Instruction the choir DOES have ‘pride of place’ at the communion song.
Peace, all:
Might I venture a guess about the conflicting sensibilities here. Todd is not just operating on the exhaust fumes from the spirit of Vatican II, but rather from Music in Catholic Worship (1972) and Liturgical Music Today (1982), from the US bishops committee on liturgy, which placed high value on the congregation singing during the communion procession.
That being said, it appears the new GIRM provisions for the U.S. now specify modify that approach (the GIRM would trump those earlier documents, as it is later and specific on the point), and now provide explicitly for the choir to sing by itself.
Actually, I think the approach laid out by the GIRM allows each community to find what works best for it, and in that I rejoice because it tees up the issue more squarely and honestly than the situation that sometimes obtained before this.
I hate rigidity on this point; I am pretty rigid about that, perhaps?
There are times in many communities with the choral resources that a choral anthem during the communion procession would be most appropriate; I myself prefer an antiphonal psalm or canticle, but that is not a strong preference. And other times (for example, Advent and Christmas, where there are not enought places for the people to sing all of their favorites), I’d argue for plain old congregational hymnody.
However, an approach where the choir always sang alone during communion while the choir was in season would not be anywhere near the top of my choices. (I would at least like the choir to periodically choose anthems or hymns where the congregation can join in at some point).
Liam, I don’t think it is just the new GIRM that names “the choir alone” as the first option to sing the communion song, the previous edition was worded that way, wasn’t it?
MCW and LMT, while interesting documents, never had any authority to contradict the GIRM, I would have thought.
Benny,
I suspect the problem is with the order in which things occurred. The US adaptations to the 1975 GIRM were awkwardly adopted and published, and the comparative timing and status of MCW and LMT were taken formally or informally by many US bishops as particular liturgical adaptation; this ambiguity is eliminated in the current state of affairs.
Good point, Liam.
They are still doing things a bit backward, though, aren’t they, with the English translation of the General Instructions being promulgated before the English translation of the Missal on which they instruct us?
And the US adaptations seemed to be available before the actual document to which they were to be applied.
The internet certainly has changed awareness of and access to these documents for the layman.
Peace, all.
I think Liam’s approach is sensible. IGRM lays down options, four of them, and the order these options is no accident. Generally, one finds options listed in the order of preference. In addition to the IGRM, one would need to consult the actual text of the Roman Missal (when released) to see exactly what it says about singing.
One example: in my 1975 Sacramentary, the rubric spells out that the “people” are to sing the Sanctus. No option for choir alone. The first preference here is for the entire assembly to sing, and I would submit that only under rare circumstances would it be permissible to use a choral setting that excludes the assembly.
Personally, I think performance Masses are undesirable, but I wouldn’t mind them if the church was kind enough to include a score for me to sing, if I were to go to one.
I’ve known many occasions on which the choir usurped the role of the people, but these are fewer as the years go on.
Nick, I’m sorry that your experience with Gregorian chant at a Mass was so bad. If you ever make it to Spokane during the university school year, come to Gonzaga’s chant Mass. We have ample materials provided for the congregation with the text and melody of the ordinary chants, and provide the Latin text and translation of the Propers. Perhaps your next experience with chant will be a better one.
(And as I’ve said before, some of us do need the notation to enable us to sing a praise chorus, if we’re sufficiently unfamiliar with the genre. Giving the music notation to the congregation is just a good plan in general.)
“I’ve known many occasions on which the choir usurped the role of the people, but these are fewer as the years go on.”
Yes, if we just got rid of those tiresome choirs (like so many parishes have) everything would be great. If all the energy that is poured into keeping the choir at bay were devoted instead to the improvement of sacred music, we would be in much better shape today.
The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved. Todd: you are fixated on keeping the choir’s role absolutely to a minimum. You probably would prefer that the choir sing alone only at the Offertory (and not even do this every week). This is a modern-day Calvinism under the guise of liturgical renewal.
Peace, Mark.
You seem fixated at taking my remarks out of context and assigning a boogeyman’s nightmare interpretation to them.
Choirs have been on the upswing for decades now, and that’s not just speaking from personal experience. At one parish, we started with one group and in less than two years, I was happy and fortunate to have them at every Mass except the earliest Sunday liturgy, which had its own rotation of musicians and singers. Another thing: none of the choirs there ever took the summer off, and even the “big” choir stayed on “duty” in various combinations.
I have two spanking new choirs this year, and my eventual goal is two more to complement the four present choirs the parish supports.
The point of the post is that choirs know better their role in liturgy these days, thanks to educated and prepared directors who understand liturgy, and are sensitive to worship.
Sheesh.
Does anyone know how to contact Peter Vere? I’d appreciate your help. Thanks!
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
Last 5 Comments