Sticking to the book?
David Ancell writes:
In my parish, the music ministers had the audacity to replace the Memorial Acclamation (after the Consecration) with the chorus from We Remember. Excuse me, but where in the Roman Missal is that? Stick to the book!!
If Gather Comprehensive or RitualSong was their book, they were sticking to it. The chorus from Marty Haugen’s “We Remember” is listed is an optional Memorial Acclamation for his Mass of Remembrance.
I wouldn’t chalk this error up to the audacity of the music ministers as much as the audacity/ignorance of the GIA editorial board. (Mr. Haugen is listed as having assisted in the development of both hymnals.) At best, the music ministers were liturgically ignorant.
Informed instinct tells me that the Roman Missal is the book that should be stuck to, not an unsanctioned innovation found in a hymnal. Now remains the issue of how to fraternally correct the music ministry so the error doesn’t occur again.
Anyone with greater authority want to speak to this point?
Leave a Reply
22 Comments
Actually, our hymnals are the “We Celebrate” book. I don’t believe they are published by GIA, but they have GIAs materials in them. This has happened repeatedly at times. This isn’t the only problem with our music ministry, though the others have to do with someone who picks out music that no one can sing.
My general impression is that musicians with genuine liturgical knowledge tended to be those with genuine musical skill, and found themselves no longer interested in (or welcomed by) TPTB in many Catholic parishes.
The crop that took over, with the best will in the world no doubt, were not particularly knowledgeable and trusted the quasi-official “Catholic” music publishers.
They are the ones who failed.
The casual, often untrained, even more often unpaid musicians naturally assume that what is published by a Catholic publishing house is suitable for Catholic liturgy.
And it isn’t always.
One can’t, I suppose, even blame Editor Haugen for being ignorant of Catholic practice, ignorant of Catholic doctrine, etc.
My copy of GIA’s “Gather” doen’t bear an imprimatur, as far as I can see — just “published with ecclesiastical approval, Archdiocese of Chicago, September 14 1994.”
So whom do you think bears the blame for Mass settings that make up their own words, hymns that deny Catholic truths, etc?
Peace, all.
Alternate memorial acclamations sprouted up in the 60’s during the experimentation period, and in some places were never retired. “Keep In Mind” was listed in many missalettes even into the 80’s and is probably the most popular of all.
It could be considered an American sensibility. Be thankful we didn’t latch onto the Vatican practice (still approved for choir tours as a friend relates) of singing a short anthem instead of the psalm, or of substituting for the Gloria or Agnus Dei.
While I don’t think “We Remember” is a gross deviation from the intent of the Mysterium Fidei, I don’t see the point of using alternate acclamations. It’s a quirky thing, something like a slightly intoxicated brother-in-law singing a little too loud, as opposed to committing a public act of indecency.
“Be thankful we didn’t latch onto the Vatican practice (still approved for choir tours as a friend relates) of singing a short anthem instead of the psalm,”
On the contrary, I have heard this many places in the US. Shepherd of Souls, or Haugen’s Shepherd Me, O God turn up as the “psalm” at funerals all the time.
“or of substituting for the Gloria or Agnus Dei”
Again, I think you may be out of touch as to what is common praxis — I could count on the fingers of one hand Masses I have attended in recent years, from New Jersey to Florida to southern California to Minnesota where other words were NOT substituted for “Lamb of God.”
In what I believe is hyped as the most used Catholic hymnal in America the majority of the Mass settings and service music substitute other words.
I especially like that lyric credit - “ICEL with additional text by….”
Wasn’t it an early film of Taming of the Shrew, “written by William Shakespeare, additional dialogue by Sam Taylor”?
I’m sure Willy was smiling in his grave, thankful for the greater wisdom and skill that Mr. Taylor brought to the table.
Peace, bennet.
In one instance you mention (psalm settings), recent practice has been the use of several various translations (Grail, NAB, ICEL) and the allowing for metrical or other versions (Music in Catholic Worship 63). One might quibble with the specifics of MCW 63, but lacking specific guidance from either IGRM or the local bishop, a paraphrase such as “Shepherd Me O God” would be in keeping with church documentation on the use of the psalm.
Likewise the practice of adopting various tropes for the Agnus Dei: IGRM states this litany may be extended to accompany the liturgical action. It is a disputed point if Lamb, Bread, Lord, King, Cup, etc. ending with Lamb is a “substitution” or an “extension.”
However, the Italian practice of substituting entirely different hymns for psalms and liturgical hymns is an abuse on another scale.
Your “lyric credit” is a reality of copyright law. It would make sense to use familiar refrains and acclamations as the basis for a piece of music, then adapt texts of cantor or choir parts to “fit” the music. A composer would smile at your suggestion of impropriety there, given that due credit was given in the publishing sphere. ICEL, also, appreciates the association with Shakespeare.
Dear readers:
AAE has stated the problem: “how to fraternally correct the music ministry so the error” of making unwarranted emendations of the Divine Liturgy “does not occur again.” He has also asked anyone with greater authority to speak to the issue.
As regards whether I have authority to speak to this issue, this is an open question. If what I say has any value, then I hope that will be authority enough.
I must begin by suggesting, however, that the problem does not begin with the music ministry, but rather with those who are called “liturgists”. It appears that these people have made the assumption that they may control the Divine Liturgy, and may make whatever alterations in it which they believe to be appropriate. The music ministry is only following their example, often apparently being counseled by the liturgists to do so.
Having observed liturgists of various western theological confessions (e.g., Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, United Methodist, and Presbyterian) and having compared their assumptions and behavior with Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgical theologians (the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Bishop Kallistos Ware, and Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.), and the liturgical praxis of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches, I have come to the conclusion that western liturgists have based their (to my mind, mistaken) assumption of control upon the following:
1. Early in the liturgical movement, Dom Gregory Dix, an Anglican Benedictine monk, in his excellent work, “The Shape of the Liturgy”, attempted to correct the passive approach of most laity, who went to “hear” Mass. He attempted to correct this by pointing out that the early Church Fathers, in writing about the liturgy, spoke about “doing” or “making” the liturgy (Gk. “poiein”), rather than simply hearing the liturgy.
While Dix’s attempt to correct a mere passive approach to liturgy was praiseworthy, I fear that it had the effect among western liturgists of creating in them the assumption that they could “do” with the liturgy what they wished.
On the other hand, Orthodox theologians and worshipers (for the Orthodox, the two cannot be separated) hold with the majority of the Church Fathers, and with the universal practice of the Church until recently, that liturgy is neither something that we hear, nor something we simply “do”, but is something that we *serve* (Sorry, no italics here). (Latin “servare”, Gk. “diakonein”). Because the Orthodox hold this distinction, they are protected from the wish to fiddle with the Divine Liturgy to suit themselves.
2. Western liturgists are apt to point out that the word “Liturgy” itself is derived from the two Greek words “leit” and “ourgos”, basically meaning “the work of the people”. From this, they assume that the liturgy is something that they can work with, or more to the point, on.
While the Western liturgists’ approach was perhaps a fair beginning, it was neither conclusive, nor very accurate. Anyone with a good knowledge of Greek, or at least, access to the Greek Lexicon of Liddell & Scott, knows that the Greek word “Leitourgia” was originally a legal term, used by the many Greek city-states, delineating the duty each citizen to keep his portion of the city clean and in good repair (sorry for the uninclusive language, but in those days, the franchise of citizenship was limited).
When the Alexandrian Jews were making their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint, or LXX to us westerners), they decided to use the word “leitourgia” for the Hebrew word meaning “worship”. Thus, the word “leitourgia” was for them and for the early Christians who used the Septuagint, extended to the duty we have in building up the City of God, and not simply “the work of the people”. As many Orthodox are either Greek or at least are far more knowlegable of Greek than most western liturgists, they were preserved from this error as well.
3. There appears to be in the West the idea that Christians are the People of God. This, combined with the democratic ethos which drives the minds of most moderns, with the result of a belief that the majority (and among liturgists, the agenda of the so-called “informed majority”) may decide how we are to worship.
As should be obvious to those knowledgable in Scripture, the clearest indication of the expression “People of God” leaves no doubt that a democracy is not implied in the term. The psalms of entry, including Ps 95-100, are those statements, but they are always interposed with the statement that the Lord God is King. Perhaps the clearest statement is Ps. 100.2: “Be ye sure that the Lord He is God. It is He that has made us and not we ourselves. We are His people, and the sheep of his pasture.”
The Orthodox have been protected from this error by their clearer reading of Scripture, and their belief that the Divine Liturgy is a manifestation of the *Kingdom* of God on earth. In consequence, they appear to be more ready than western liturgists to be alive to what scripture and tradition have taught as to the Kingdom of God, and in faithfully preserving this knowledge in their worship.
I suggest that until and unless people are disabused of their ignorance in these matters, they will continue to believe that the liturgy is something that we “do”, or something that we have control over, and the liturgy will continue to be impoverished by these mistaken views.
Peace, Bernard.
I’m not entirely sure your essay hits the mark. Excluded from your summary would be the pragmatists, those who alter liturgy not from an artistic sensibility, but from a clock-watching one: priests who omit creed, gloria, or other aspect; musicians who cut at two verses, etc., people who attend only at christmas and Easter, or only until they have received Communion, or only until they are asked to sing, etc..
Liturgy can be something of a “tailored” cloak, as it were: something which can be lawfully and pastorally adapted to particular circumstances, recognizing that the “sabbath is made for people,” not the other way around. Is God offended by a psalm paraphrase permitted by the USCCB? Maybe not as much as people who have rules and would like to see them followed. On one hand, a person can argue in good faith that only the RNAB should be used for psalmody. But that position would not be supported without contest from existing documentation. Then there are more clear cut substitutions we both would question.
As a practical matter, liturgy is indeed something we have control over. Choices of music and preaching color the daily and geographical variety of worship. Individuals can perform ministries so well as to be transparent to Christ (the ideal), or so poorly they call unwanted attention to their ineptitude. And as pew people, we bring our own gifts and failings to liturgy, being more or less open to the grace God provides.
However the Greek verbs play out in modern English, I would think that “hear,” “do,” and “serve” all fall short of the totality. In my mind, the ideal would be to say simply we “pray” the liturgy, setting aside the connotations of functionality and action (as you suggest) and emphasize the communal act of worship.
“the problem does not begin with the music ministry, but rather with those who are called “liturgists”.”
Amen and amen.
“Your “lyric credit” is a reality of copyright law. It would make sense to use familiar refrains and acclamations as the basis for a piece of music, then adapt texts of cantor or choir parts to “fit” the music. A composer would smile at your suggestion of impropriety there, given that due credit was given in the publishing sphere. ICEL, also, appreciates the association with Shakespeare.”
That was a comment on the hubris of the persons providing the “additional,” not a comparison of the quality of the originals. (Let’s face it, lots of the ICEL’s work was pathetic at best.)
I think it takes a colossal chutzpah for the composers or the publishers to have taken it upon themselves to screw around with the words of the mass.
“a paraphrase such as “Shepherd Me O God” would be in keeping with church documentation on the use of the psalm.”
No, it wouldn’t.
Using some of the same words to express a different meaning is not a “paraphrase.” A confident expression of fact is transmogrified into a wishy-washy plea.
It’s practically one of those “scared bunnies” songs that entertaining blog that was going around a while back referred to.
Peace, Bennet
“Let’s face it, lots of the ICEL’s work was pathetic at best.”
Nope. But ICEL did improve when they had the time and resources to put together the rites.
“I think it takes a colossal chutzpah for the composers or the publishers to have taken it upon themselves to screw around with the words of the mass.”
Some would say it takes guts to just compose for liturgy.
“No, it wouldn’t.”
Actually, by the rules of 1986, it would.
“Using some of the same words to express a different meaning is not a “paraphrase.” A confident expression of fact is transmogrified into a wishy-washy plea.”
I don’t see that either. “Shepherd Me O God” expresses the neediness of the psalmist. I don’t get the wishy-washiness unless you’re looking to the original’s change in tone from a petition to God for deliverance from danger to the confidence expressed in God’s provision of grace in the meal.
Again, this kind of discussion turns into a “I hate it/You like it” bantering about personal taste. This doesn’t forward the cause of sacred music; it only generates self-satisfaction in critics.
It’s not a matter of liking or disliking “Shepherd Me O God.” It’s as much a paraphrase of Psalm 23 as any metrical hymn - say as “Praise, My Soul the King of Heaven” is of Psalm 103. I think the editors of Ritual Song were correct to put it in the hymn section of that hymnal, unlike where it is in Gather. According to GIRM, “Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.” So it (and other paraphrases) should not be used as a “resp. psalm.”
“I’m not entirely sure your essay hits the mark. Excluded from your summary would be the pragmatists, those who alter liturgy not from an artistic sensibility, but from a clock-watching one:”
I’m noticing a pattern. When an objection is voiced to a fault commonly found among the liturgically left of center, your answer to it is that the right wing makes mistakes as well, as if one must mention all the mistakes ever made in order to have the right to call attention to one particular mistake. You took a similar tack on a thread on this blog when what seemed a very legitimate plaint was heard about the seeming mistreatment of a parish in Texas (IIRC,) whose priest had united and built up the parish while saying the mass in Latin — something like, “Yeah? well, liberals have been mistreated, too.” It is irrelevant, and makes no more sense as an argument than apologists for the current administration whose answer to every abuse or blunder committed by their guy is, “Yeah? well, HE didn’t have oral sex in the oval office.”
‘”Let’s face it, lots of the ICEL’s work was pathetic at best.” Nope. But ICEL did improve when they had the time and resources to put together the rites.’
This seems an insupportable assertion since the English translation we used immediately after the Vatican Council was superior to the one the ICEL managed to come up with when they had the leisure to think about what they really wanted to do rather than actually bother to translate the Missal, and took the time to REALLY muck it up.
“these people have made the assumption that they may control the Divine Liturgy”
This is well put, but is a bit of hubris one sees in many besides liturgistas. (Brides, for instance, spring to mind…)
Todd,
You didn’t seem to address the concerns raised in Bernard’s post. *We* are not the primary actors in the liturgy, so it’s not primarily a matter of finding the right expression for what we do (”act,” “pray” or wahtever). The fact that we can make adaptions, changes, etc., sort of misses the point. The over-arching notion should be that we participate in the liturgy, not that we have “control” over it, even in a
“practical” way. Making a bright clear line between the practical and transcendent in the liturgy seems to me to be a risky business. One should not (and really cannot) underestimate the effect a “practical” change in the liturgy can have on the bigger picture.
I think many liturgists have overlooked this - thinking we can eliminate kneeling or have multitudinous lay ministers, for example, and have no effect on people’s sense of reverence. I think that this sense of the liturgy as more of a “given” and less of a manipulable thing that “we” plan would go a long way in clearing up a lot of the confusion and frustration out there, IMHO.
Having said this, I hope I haven’t read too much into you post; this particular theme gets me every time.
Dear Todd (with thanks to Geri and Sam Schmitt for their comments):
Thank you for the courtesy of your response to my earlier entry. I must admit, however, to some confusion upon reading your entry. I do not see, even upon re-reading what I wrote, how my summary excludes (in your words) the pragmatists, those who alter liturgy not from an artistic sensibility, but from a clock-watching one. AAEs statement of the problem, and my response to the problem, regarded those who were making unwarranted changes to the liturgy on their own. The motivation, whether for artistic, theological, or time-saving reasons, would appear to be secondary to the fact that such emendations are being made.
Personally, I would prefer to avoid such delving into other peoples motivations for doing things, as it is apt to lead to such things as judgments (e.g. Youre only cutting the Gloria, Credo and Agnus Dei because youre a clock-watcher!) and name-calling (e.g. heretic heterodox integralist or traditionalist), both of which our Savior has counseled against. I think it more appropriate to look instead into peoples stated or implied rationale for doing things, and to see whether such rationale be consistent with Scripture, Tradition, or Church Authority, or even with itself.
If you, however, could point out to me such words that I wrote that could bear an interpretation such as you suggest, I would very much appreciate it.
As regards your question, Is God offended by a psalm paraphrase permitted by the USCCB?, I wouldnt know. Fortunately for me, as well as for American Orthodox and most Eastern Catholics, we have rather more freedom of use of Biblical translations than Roman Catholics seem to have (everything from the KJV to the Jerusalem Bible), and the advantage that most of our liturgical translations have been done by capable scholars and poets (for brief example, Isabel Hapgood, Bishop Kallistos Ware, and Fr. Ephrem Lash) instead of by committee, whether it be ICEL or USCCB. (I am reminded at this point of the old joke The camel was a horse constructed by committee.).
I think God is more concerned with proper obedience to authority, however, (see, for example, Christs approbation of the Centurion). A propos of that, I recall that section 22.1-3 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, specifically states that only the Apostolic See, and within limits, bishops or conferences of bishops, could change the liturgy, and that [t]herefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (Sacrosanctum Concilium. 22.3) I would think that anyone who actually believed in the teachings of the Second Vatican Counsel could see that regardless of the decisions made by the Vatican, or the local bishop or conferences of bishops, anyone else who on their own attempted to add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy was acting in disobedience to that Council.
I, as well as the Eastern Fathers and the Orthodox Churches, also think that when Jeremiah said Gods curse is on those who do the things of the Lord carelessly (Jer.48.10, LXX), that both Jeremiah and God thought that the things of the Lord included our worship of Him. Whether Gods curse falls on those who carelessly choose on their own what the Liturgy will include or not, or of the various bishops committees who have (in my opinion) carelessly perpetrated what in my view have been inane or incurably lame liturgical translations or directives, is for God to decide. Personally, though, I fear that the prospects in either case are not very good.
As regards your statement regarding liturgy, I would agree, with one qualification: Liturgy is something we have *some* control over. In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, as associate choir director of St. Andrews, I have considerable choice as regards the type of chant or choral polyphony I may use, or an enormous variety of settings of the various hymns, odes, antiphons and litanies in the Liturgy. I do not believe that I, or anyone else, however, have the choice of omitting any of those hymns, etc., nor may anyone other than the appropriate council of bishops alter the shape of that liturgy. That, in regard to the Roman Liturgy as well, was the point of my earlier entry.
While I agree that ideally one should pray the liturgy, I believe that those who pray it should also serve it, each in the capacity or the liturgical role that they are given. I believe, for the reasons I stated in my prior entry, that this is the best corrective to the liturgicides which have been committed in the past thirty years.
Finally, Id like to point out that several of the litanies in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom include the prayer for those who serve and those who sing, and for all here present, that we may receive great mercy from Christ our God.
Lord, have mercy.
Peace, all.
The fact that the Roman Rite provides a good degree of wiggle room on some matters (as evidenced by out nitpicking over psalms, paraphrases, or songs — which we must admit is a disputed point) has led many to think we do in fact possess some options when it comes to preparing and praying liturgy.
I would accept the worship of God as a basic understanding of what happens at liturgy. But I don’t have a problem with a local or pastoral emphasis on the people at prayer. I consider myself a prayerful, pastoral person. I would hope the Gospel is evident in my life and ministry. I recognize, however, that the liturgy serves more than just a function of worship. In a normal parish, the liturgy nourishes people spiritually for their lives, it evangelizes those with little or no faith, it rehearses the heavenly reign of God. In a monastery or deeply mature community, I think the natural focus on God comes more to the fore, especially as more selfish expressions within a community recede. My experiences with the Benedictines come to mind. I don’t find gobs of plainsong and other musical expressions I would not hear in my parish to be troubling. Not at all. Likewise, I don’t find I miss less skilled musicians and singers (or non-participants) when I’m off on retreat. I could easily slide into such a community and pray, but very few of my parishioners would feel the same way. They’re not wrong for their views on liturgy.
So I find the gross substitutions our host mentioned to start this thread as needless, but perhaps well-intentioned. We can bicker about “Shepherd Me O God” or “Praise My Soul The King of Heaven” but either one will work for a psalm in a mainstream parish. In a monastery or spiritually/liturgically advanced community, it would be a needless substitution. It’s not the answer for everyone. But if I were a liturgist at such a parish, I would not even consider such things as options.
As for the other points on kneeling, lay ministry, and such, I have not much to say. Some of Sam’s sensibilities would not work in my parish. We kneel, but we need lots of ministers. We sing paraphrases and even common psalms. I will admit to not deep-sixing “We Remember” in my current parish(which has a long history) but I do prefer to use it as a communion song.
And Geri, I hoped to draw the idea out that many mistakes blamed on the Left are often things we leftist liturgists ourselves have condemned. My experience as a progressive liturgist has been that its a struggle to introduce plainsong, silence, beauty, reverence, classical sacred music, prayerfulness, and other qualities traditionalists find appealing, needful, or even obedient. I don’t know whom I’ve been struggling against for sixteen years, but it sure doesn’t seem like it’s the liberals.
I probably need to lighten up on these flash points. I don’t work for any of you, and even if I did, I doubt we would be having these kinds of disagreements. I serve my parish the best I can with what they give me and with what I can bring to them. Lots of you wouldn’t like my parish’s worship, but thankfully we each have our own calling.
Dear Readers:
As regards the original question posed by AAE, how do we charitably prevail upon the music ministry so that they do not repeat the errors of inappropriately introducing non-biblical or non-liturgical texts into the liturgy, I suggest that the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faithful, in its Instruction, Redemptoris Sacramentum, has provided us with an answer. The website, http://www.adoremus.org, has just published the text of that instruction, and it can be found at the following web address:
http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html
Briefly, the instruction regards certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. While it would be beyond the scope of this (hopefully) brief entry to go into elaborate detail as regards all of the abuses cited, condemned, and prohibited, I will quote several paragraphs most tangent to the question raised by AAE, or the subsequent issues raised by those who have attempted to answer that question.
Regarding the question as to the supposed freedom we have to alter the structure of the Divine Liturgy, I believe that the following paragraphs of the Instruction are a sufficient answer:
[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right. This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.
[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”. As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”. Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition, which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.
[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy. Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding, it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.
Regarding whether we as laity have the right to complain about liturgical abuses, paragraph 18 is illuminating:
[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”.
As regards whether it is an abuse for anyone to alter the texts of the liturgy, allow me to quote paragraph 59 of the instruction:
[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
Regarding the practice of substituting other texts for the readings or the Responsorial Psalm, may I quote the following, from paragraph 62 of the Instruction:
[62.] It is also illicit to omit or to substitute the prescribed biblical readings on one’s own initiative, and especially “to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God”.
Please do not think that I suggest that these are the only matters dealt with by this instruction: Redemptoris Sacramentum is filled with intelligently presented condemnations of the many sorts of abuse which over the years have made my participation in the Mass an occasion of sin for me. Had these abuses been removed, or even addressed, twenty years ago, I would most probably still be a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I am happy though that they are being addressed now. I invite anyone reading this entry to go directly to the website listed above, and read for oneself.
Normally, I would think that this is just another instruction by the Vatican, filled with counsels of perfection and offering no means for their implementation. However, the whole of Chapter VIII of Redemptoris Sacramentum, entitled REMEDIES, is devoted to what the Apostolic See and the local ordinary should be doing, and what we can be doing.
While the abuses mentioned above admittedly neither constitute most grave matters (graviora delicta, paragraph 172) nor grave matters (paragraph 173), they nonetheless fall into the category of Other Abuses, of which paragraph 174 states:
[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.
As regards what the diocesan bishop and the Apostolic See are authorized to do in implementing the reforms of the instruction, I invite the reader to look at paragraphs 176 through 182. For the first time that I have ever seen it, however, paragraphs 183-184 address complaints by the laity. These paragraphs I consider so important, that like the others, they require being read in full:
[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism.
[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
In short, and in answer to AAEs question, the most reasonable and charitable way to address particular liturgical abuses such as substituting non-liturgical texts for the liturgy, would be privately to write to the music minister and the pastor, describe the abuse and indicate how and why it constitutes one (whenever possible, quoting the Instruction or appropriate Canon or liturgical law), ask them to discontinue the abuse, and inform them that one intends upon contacting the local ordinary if they fail to do so. It would probably be best also to give a deadline in which the abuse must be discontinued, or at the very least, a stated time and opportunity for them to respond to ones letter.
If the deadline has passed, and there has either been no response, or an unsatisfactory one, a letter to the diocese of the offending clergy or ministers is in order. I recommend that copies of ones letters to clergy and ministers be included in ones letter to the diocese, as well as any response by them. It might also be appropriate, although not in the form of a demand, to request that the diocese responds within a reasonable time, before it becomes necessary to appeal to the Apostolic See.
Finally, if there is no response from the diocese, it would then be appropriate to send letters, with copies of all previous correspondence, to both the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Addresses and e-mail addresses for these can most probably be obtained on the Vaticans English website:
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
My final suggestion would be to act as much as possible in truth and in charity (as the Instruction requests), avoiding as far as possible the appearance of pugnaciousness or that of a vexacious litigant; neither appearance, or their reality, will be of help to one or to the Church in correcting
abuses. The counsel of the Apostle Paul, that one correct ones brother in a spirit of gentleness, lest one fall into the same sin, is most appropriate here.
I hope that this entry will be of help to all who need it.
Peace, Bernard,
You still have a controversy, potentially, on your hands with paragraph 62. The instruction does not treat the matter of biblical paraphrase, as permitted by the bishops in this country. It can hardly be said that “Shepherd Me O God” or other psalm settings are “non-biblical.” If your parish music director and pastor stand their ground and the diocese is uninterested, do you make your case to Rome still, if it’s a disputed point locally? And if so, is it an issue you’re willing to let go of if satisfaction isn’t forthcoming?
>”Shepherd Me O God” or other psalm settings
Did you mean to say “other psalm paraphrases”?
It is a lovely song, but it is only inspired by the words of the psalm, it isn’t really a setting of them, is it?
I may be mistaken, I know there are a lot of different translations of the Bible or parts of the Bible out there that we use as Catholics.
Is there one where the 23rd psalm is translated “Shepherd me beyond my wants and fears”?
Of course if those in charge of the liturgy choose not to correct abuses, one does not stage sit-ins, or shout down the poor cantor singing the made-up words.
You can however quietly pray the correct words from the sacramentary or lectionary yourself., just as you can kneel where you are supposed to even if those around you have been misinformed as to correct posture, or not sing hymns whose texts are in your considered opinion heretical.
Barbara
Todd,
Thanks for your helpful comments. My only point was that it’s not a matter of “my” sensibilities as opposed to anyone elses when it comes to certain aspects of the liturgy. If that were the only thing to be considered there would be little point in discussion, as each person’s opinion would be just that - opinion. (Having said that, I am not immune to the pitfall of attributing to the Church my own personal sensibility.) However, the Church has made clear that with lay eucharistic ministers, for example, they are “extraordinary”, though I understand plenty of people may be upset by that.
In the parish I play at, the lay EM’s are by all acocunts trained well and take their responsibilities seriously. I have no complaints as far as their comportment goes, believe it or not. But I’m afraid that they are used so liberally (pardon the expression), that the concept of the priest as being the ordinary minister of the Eucharist is lost to view. After all, it is Christ who feeds the Church; we do not feed ourselves - or as Thomas Day put it, the mass is a banquet, not a picnic.
I’d bet that most people in the parish have no concept of this, and think it almost odd if lay people were *not* distributing the Eucharist at a mass, even if there were just a reasonable number of people present. Hence the idea of the priest as uniquely representing Christ at the liturgy is, little by little, clouded over. I understand this may not be the most important issue out there, but I think it’s typical of how a seemingly small gesture can have larger ramifications. In the end, the idea of the liturgy as formative, that the rites as laid down by the Church are embodiment of what we belive and that we should seek to pattern our sensibility on them instead of imposing our own, is important and, it seems, foreign to a lot of people, including many priests.
May I shed some light?
Shepherd Me O God — or The King of Love My Shepherd Is, for that matter — is not licit for the responsorial psalm. MCW does not trump the clear instructions of the Instruction and otherwise regarding Lectionary texts, and the USCCB (let alone an individual bishop) has yet to get the necessary Vatican approval for substitutionary texts. The conference and the local ordinary’s hands are technically tied on this score, even if they perhaps in good faith imagine they aren’t, as Rome made clear by the mid-90s.
It is, however, perfectly usable as a hymn.
Peace, Sam.
Personally, I would not mind a Mass at which I’d be getting along with three Eucharistic Ministers. The Communion procession at my parish would run from nine to twenty minutes, giving the people ample time to sing two to six communion songs, not counting the opportunity to showcase the choir. I tend to think that most American Catholics are not mature enough to handle an extended period of singing, silent prayer, or arm-crossing while the other hundreds of individuals are “getting” Communion.
For the record, when my parish hosts a diocesan Mass with unknown numbers of clergy attending, I do not schedule lay EM’s, though I’m frequently requested to do so by the chancery. Sunday EM’s are scheduled about once a month here, so their perspective is that the priest is there every week; they take their turn every fourth or so. Weekday EM’s serve once or twice a week, and again, they see a priest at Mass about four times more often than they themselves serve.
I think a clueless parishioner might see lay people outnumbering the clergy at the altar on any given Sunday, but again, the priest has other roles aside from distributing Communion. I guess I fail to see the problem with lay people distributing Communion. If a parish had a deacon or two and a priest doing it alone, and the people were mature enough to handle that, I wouldn’t have a problem with lay people singing or doing other things. That would be an excellent sign, in my opinion.
Likewise, I would prefer using an actual psalm text — the ICEL Psalter and the Grail are each far superior to the RNAB — rather than a paraphrase, but there is no recall mechanism on hymnals. What they assembled in the early 90’s, parishes are stuck with — in print, at least.
Not peace, but a sword, Todd:*
I begin by quoting Todd’s entry, “You still have a controversy, potentially, on your hands with paragraph 62. The instruction does not treat the matter of biblical paraphrase, as permitted by the bishops in this country.”
To tell truth, *I* don’t have a controversy regarding anything concerning this matter. I believe I have made it plain in my previous entries that I have not been a communicant in the Roman Catholic Church for the last eighteen years, dwelling quite peacefully and happily in the Russian Catholic Church instead. *My* choir director and pastor would most probably never think of using such inane “hymns” as “Shepherd me, O Lord” in the Divine Liturgy, or would most likely laugh derisively if the subject of using them were raised, treating the whole idea as a joke in very poor taste indeed.
I have stated, repeatedly, that my previous entries have been in answer to AAE’s request for a response to the problem of music ministers or liturgical committees using non-biblical or otherwise inappropriate texts. I personally have been so “browned off” by the American RC Church’s inability or unwillingness accurately or adequately to present the riches of Scripture, Tradition, Church Authority or even chant and sacred music, in the Divine Liturgy, that I would not care personally if an RC church started replacing the scriptural readings or the Responsorial Psalm with Winnie-the-Pooh or Loggins & Messina. Thus, the present matter is not an “issue” for me, either to be held on to, or let go of.
For those people for whom the matter under question *is* an issue in dispute or a problem, I have suggested actions which they can take. However, I agree partly with Todd, that according to what I have *quoted* from the Instruction, there would appear to be a controversy as regards whether a Conference of Bishops may substitute non-liturgical texts or biblical paraphrases for those otherwise authorized. A beginning answer may be found in paragraph 28 of the Instruction, which I did not quote in my earlier entry:
“[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.”
With all due respect to Liam, and what I believe is his accurate take on the matter, perhaps the most reasonable solution to this problem would be to write a letter to the Congregation for Divine Worship, detailing the American Bishops’ Conferences practice of substituting hymns for the readings or responsorial psalm, and then ask the Congregation whether this practice has been submitted to the Congregation, and if so, whether the Congregation has given or is likely to give its recognitio of the practice. If the Congregation answers “Yes” to the above questions, then one has one’s answer, and one will deal with it according to one’s character and inclinations. If not, then I dare say that the Congregation will begin dealing with matters, and one can begin the process of writing to the local “music minister” or pastor, as described in my earlier entry.
I believe that the above described process was one by which Mother Angelica of EWTN resolved a problem which she was having with her bishop in Alabama. In her televised Masses, the priests were routinely serving the liturgy facing “ad orientem”, or towards the East. For some reason, the bishop believed that the position mandated by the Second Vatican Counsel was “versus populum”, or towards the people, and directed that all priests in his jurisdiction would serve in the latter direction. I understand that Mother Angelica sent a letter to the Congregation for Divine Worship, stating the problem, and asking the Congregation to answer the question, which they did, in her favor.
I hope that this resolves the so-called “controversy”.
*(Written only to show that Todd does not have a monopoly on dubious or quasi-christological salutations)
Peace, Bernard.
In part the quibble centers on how one defines texts: hymns, paraphrases, or translations. Some hymns employ biblical themes more or less specific to a particular passage. Again, if it were only *me* at worship, I would prefer to save psalm paraphrases for other moments at the Mass. But I feel loathe to dictate to music ministers in other parishes (even my own, at the moment) what can be done after the first reading beyond the broadest interpretation of the Roman Rite.
If indeed one were to send a letter to the CDWS asking for permission to “use hymns” for the Psalm, one: I would oppose the notion considered, and two: if the CDWS were to rule against, it would still leave the door open for paraphrases, or even non-RNAB translations.
Sadly for those who would hope for a firm conclusion, the boundary remains somewhat fuzzy in practice. Though I think you should thank progressive liturgists who, for years, have been striving to put the Biblical back into the Psalm, and working against the notion that “any old hymn” will do.
![[Bench Pressus]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bench-pressus-ad125x125.gif)
![[Colossians 3:16]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/colossians-316-ad125x125.gif)
![[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