37 Replies to “The Dierschow Recordings of Colloquium XX”

  1. Jeffrey,

    How much of the above is intended for congregational participation – in singing and / or listening to?

    Are these translations permitted in the Liturgy?

    How are congregations getting on with this?

    If these are used, at Sunday Mass, for example – might they alienate or just puzzle people in the pew?

    John

    PS – All beautifully sung!

  2. In all fairness, I think it did puzzle people in the pews during the last Mass. There was no translation sheet for them to follow (a detail an organization like CMAA shouldn't overlook). They had no idea what the Propers meant. A simple translation sheet could have been prepared – and I'm sure had you asked you'd have had dozens of volunteers bouncing up and down with their hands in the air volunteering.

    I also think some of the playing with rubrics was slightly offensive during the final Mass. Had this been an NPM Convention and had they played around with the rubrics like we did, we'd have been all over critisizing them.

    The Asperges is a legitimate part of the Novus Ordo Mass. Why was it used before Mass? It's supposed to replace the penitential rite if used.

    The Canon of the Mass is not to be silent. If we're using Pope Benedict as our model in liturgical reform, the celebrant should have waited until the Sanctus and Benedictus was finished to begin reciting the Canon.

    The Benedictus does not replace the Mortem Tuam.

    Furthermore, at one Novus Ordo Mass (I think Friday) the Priest just left out did the Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollis… and the congregation's response. Or perhaps he did it silently and I couldn't see since there was a giant choir blocking the view of the altar.

    It was a beautiful week, but if we want to be the "good organization" that "follows rubrics" we need to follow the damn rubrics whether we like them or not.

    If nobody is critical, from the inside, of the Colloquium, we'll never improve.

  3. From the Compline liturgy I listened to, I did hear a bit of hesitation here and there. I chalked it up to an unfamiliarity with a communal celebration of that liturgy. I would assume that if the Colloquium were a music school meeting for half the year, those rough spots at Compline and at the Mass would be smoothed out to a burnished shine.

    That said, when I looked at the listing for the Sunday Mass, I noticed the Asperges. I assumed it was a prelude. If you're not going to sing the Credo as part of a complete Mass setting, then it makes sense to drop the Kyrie too and replace it with the Rite of Sprinkling and the Asperges.

    And no, you're probably not going to see the rubrics handled this way at NPM or other progressive music events. Catechetical or social justice conferences, perhaps, but only if a liturgist isn't consulted.

  4. Even better is to be critical with your actual name attached.

    The Asperges can be sung before Mass. The Brompton oratory does this every week, and the rubrics leave room for this.

    I forget the rationale, but I've heard many competent liturgists note that a Mortem Tuam sung by the people is an option. As for the low voice canon in the OF, perhaps you would like to talk to the celebrant, who is one of the most credentialed liturgists in the world.

    As for handouts, we've tried this in year's past, but this year, it was a bit much for us since all translations were in the packet or the missalette in any case. However, I look forward to an email from you volunteering (sorry, no pay) to add to the 300 plus pages we prepared (without pay) for the colloquium to work. Perhaps you will also give a donation for printing too.

  5. I agree with Jeffrey on anonymity and pseudonymity. I can imagine a rare case in which it might be needed, but the blog manager should be contacted. On the other hand, let's be realistic: people have lost jobs for little more than unpopular opinions. Though I doubt CMAA would go after one of their own.

    I suppose I would have more of a problem with the Brompton oratory practice of singing an Asperges every week and never doing a Sprinkling Rite. But it's a valid question for your Sunday liturgy here: would you consider using the Asperges as part of the Sprinkling Rite instead of the Kyrie/penitential rite. But singing the Asperges without sprinkling as a prelude on occasion? No problem with that.

    Jeffrey, I think the objection above was replacing the Mortem Tuam with the Benedictus. That would be a serious liturgical faux pas. The rubrics are also clear about the order of the canon: the priest joins the people in singing the Sanctus, and only when it is finished does he continue.

    As for the decibel level of the canon, the assumed practice is that it will be audible, so I'm not sure why a priest wouldn't make the effort to exercise what is clearly a priestly ministry here. It strikes me as of a kind to inclusive language activists who tend to shout out "God's" over other people's "his." Annoying in a friendly sort of way, but needlessly provocative.

    If I had been at this Mass, I might have indeed talked to the liturgist/priest in question and asked for his justification for being a distraction.

  6. Jeffrey,

    My anonymous comments are necessary. If my pastor were to see me disagreeing with this organization, I'd have some explaining to do. However I do think it is good for the CMAA to ask some questions of itself.

    If we say that we can do the Asperges with dialogue and collect before a Novus Ordo Mass, what documentation do we have of that? Because the Brampton Oratory does it? Well, there are churches in the US that use puppets and liturgical dancers before Mass. They could use the same argument if we use: "they do it…" We need to do what the liturgical books call for.

    I'd need to hear the documentation for saying the Mortem is optional. To make matters worse, many people started singing it at this Mass only to then hear the orchestra start up for the Benedictus. Again here, using the Benedictus instead of the Mortem is so similar to "progressive" communities that use O Come All Ye Faithful or We Remember in place of the proper text. There are proper texts for this time of the Mass and it is neither We Remember nor Benedictus qui…

    As far as the Canon in concerned, we again just have to look to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. He has celebrated orchestral Masses in the Novus Ordo, and he waits until both Sanctus and Benedictus are finished and then begins the Canon in an audible voice. Here the celebrant was totally silent, even after the music was finished.

    We need to question our approaches – it's the only way that progress is made. I would love to hear Fr. Kirby's reasoning behind this.

    Also, as far as the handout for the congregation, nobody from the Colloquium needed one. I'd guess there were less than 100 people present other than Colloquium'ers. The propers for the Mass could have been translated and put on half a piece of paper, then cut in half. It would have taken less than 50 pieces of paper and had a request for such translation sheets been made on the musicasacra boards, I know someone would have volunteered in the first hour. It's not a difficult task and wouldn't cost much of anything.

  7. Anon, I should appreciate your suggestion of what more work I need to do, and I did take note of your passive voice here. As for the other aspects of things, these are all very small point of liturgical interest (can we really schedule full lectures defending each point?) and I have absolutely no doubt that all things can be improved. It is a process and exceedingly difficult (maybe you have never attempted this?) to pull together 250 people and priests from all over the country into a place and a parish with which no one is familiar, having limited resources at our disposal (books, vestments, liturgical items) and immediately produce perfect results with full explanations available to everyone. We try, believe me, but it is also normal to expect that the major part of our very scarce time resources are focused on music, since this is, after all, the purpose of the event. We try to do everything we can for the liturgical aspects too, but not everything is going to happen precisely as it might in a perfect world. Again, I'm glad for your help so perhaps you can write me and be part of the solution.

  8. "I'd need to hear the documentation for saying the Mortem is optional."

    There is none; it isn't optional. It's there in red and black in the Missal. Aside from people starting to sing the "wrong" music, it's another example of being different for difference's sake.

  9. Nick,

    The Messiaen starts about halfway through the Howells file, the Bach was an encore and not listed on the program. I think that's where the confusion is from.

    Make sure you listen to the Messiaen, a wonderful performance. The whole program was memorized. too.

  10. There was a plan for a program for Sunday. I take full responsibility for not seeing it through. With the gazillion details of pulling the week together on all volunteer time and resources, it was just one more detail that wasn't realized. I called it.

    The CMAA is not a perfect organization. The Colloquium is not perfect, nor does it claim t be. Despite countless hours and hours of plotting and planning and organizing, some decisions, as in life, still get made on the fly. This isn't heaven yet.

    As Jeffrey suggested, anyone who wants to volunteer time and skill is welcome and appreciated.

  11. Wow, this thread is nauseating. It takes a lot of gall to criticize the Colloquium under a cloak of anonymity, or to criticize a priest who lives by the rule of St. Benedict for "breaking rules." Instead of complaining about not having translations, you should've just made them yourself. Maybe it's just a side effect of the last 50 years of accommodationism. The CMAA is about offering our best talents and hard work to God, not the tedious and mindless following of rubrics.

  12. "Wow, this thread is nauseating."

    A good thing to keep in mind the next time a CMAA forum thread tilts to catty comments about Dan Schutte's smile or Marty Haugen's Christianity.

    "The CMAA is about offering our best talents and hard work to God, not the tedious and mindless following of rubrics."

    To a point, I would agree. As Arlene suggests, and what I know from personal experience, putting on a conference is a demanding affair: countless details requiring attention while the hosts offer hospitality and cater to a large number and variety of needs.

    There are variances from rubrics I'm inclined to overlook for good reasons. I hesitate to use the term "abuse," which I think is an overused term, especially by traditionalists when attacking the post-conciliar liturgy.

    If this thread is difficult to swallow, just consider how non-members react when they see the worst of Musica Sacra forum erupt into a theme impoverished of charity.

  13. Please refrain from referring the aforementioned composers, as this site is meant to be completely free of stylistic deliberation. The mere comparison of for-profit publishers/composers to the CMAA is utterly irrelevant, petty and bluntly offensive to CMAA members.

  14. Todd,

    I am sure that, if you HAD been there, the priest would have responded in a erudite manner that would have purged your mind of the criticism of which you are so fond. You were not there. You lack charity, I suppose, in criticizing a liturgy in which you were not present.

    During one of the Latin masses, I turned and offered my Parish Book of Chant to a parishioner behind to use and she politely smiled and pointed to her Latin Missal which she had been following since the beginning of Mass.

    People who have never ever sang a wrong response, played the introduction to the wrong hymn (did it three times in the same service once) or sang the Sanctus in place of the Agnus Dei totally unawares till you were told after Mass…those people may criticize what may have been liturgical intentions or outright errors.

    To those above who have posted complaints, possibly you need to find a forum restricted to postings by people who are….perfect.

  15. I agree, this thread has gotten out of hand. Anonymous laid out a valid critique of the Mass he/she observed. It seems that he touched a nerve, though. I know first-hand how much work Jeff and Arlene (and everyone) puts into the Colloquium, so perhaps Anon could have posed his/her thoughts more as a question than, what came out as, a veiled charge of hypocrisy. My goodness, though, some of their defenders are ramping up the rhetoric a bit too far. He/she offered a reason for being anonymous and was not trolling. Why don't we try to answer the questions instead of going into knee-jerk defense mode? Do we prefer to underline the stereotype that some traditional Catholics have gained? I can't tell you how many times I have had to deal with a mainstream priest or parishioner with the preface "Don't worry, I'm not one of those crazy ones."

  16. Michael, thanks for offering a refreshing voice of reason. I appreciate also your call elsewhere for "he and some of the other 'contemporary' composers would join us for a polite discussion of church music …"

  17. what people have forgotten is that one reason for the moto proprio was so that there could be "cross ventillation" of the 2 forms influencing each other in a positive way.
    singing the benidictus this way could be a example of this or simply could be va "oopsie" moment (as if no one here has made a mistake)
    in any event, small criticism for an undeniably incredable Mass.

  18. It is common inPapal Masses to split the Sanctus and Benedictus. No news here. The conductor himself made the choice to forgo audible people's Mortem because that is the way the Catholic cathedral where he worked does this – a reflection of the Bishop's wishes. How it stands up to the examination of internet-based rubricists is another issue.

  19. Okay. These last two comments contribute information.

    We know that replacing the memorial acclamation with the second half of the Sanctus "reflects" a personal "wish" of a person who, as we've been told time and again, has no authority to change the Mass.

    droy7, I agree this is a relatively small matter, but one can easily ask why the conductor bothered with it at all. One can respect the integrity of the Schubert Mass without the separation. One can avoid confusing the people in the pews. One can respect the red and black of the liturgy. It reminds me of one of those head-scratching moments when I was a member of a non-liturgical parish in grad school.

    I don't fancy myself a rabid rubricist, but the truth is that this Mass is something of a teaching moment for at least a few hundred Colloquium attendees. The responsibility of good liturgy weighs a little heavier because of this.

  20. The pendulum of liturgical practice swings between outright detachment from the rubrics and a focus on the letter that kills the spirit. If the liturgy is to develop organically, and if the two major uses of our rite are to benefit each other, then a proper balance needs to be struck. That's what I understand by 'respect for tradition'.

  21. todd
    in the extraordinary form the benedictus of orchestral masses has been traditionally sung after the elivation. im not sure what came first, the rubric or the tradition.
    this is what i ment with cross fertilization. the memorial acclamation was an invention of geleneaus ment to increase outward participation, a need that im not sure really is warranted here and certainly more of an example of the hermeneutic of rupture then of continuity. that being said, it is there and im not sure it was correct doing the benidictus in instead of the memorial acclamation.Probably the correct thingf to do is the memorial acclamation followed by the benidictus. This is one area that could use some clarification.
    still, a teaching moment? Todd, I dont need or want teaching moments at liturgy, thats why God created social halls and doughenuts.
    I see a little of that annoying habit among liturgists to elivate the mundane, to sanctify the rubric and to elivate the rediculious.
    Not good in "progressive circles and highly annoying in traddie circles.

  22. Ok, so Todd, that is just a misreading of what i wrote, as anyone can instantly tell by scrolling up. So long as I live, I will never understand your defensiveness and gotcha online personality as compared with your real life erudition and charm. It is puzzling.

  23. Well, I'll leave off this thread with a mention of my regard for the use of Liturgy of the Hours and the utilization of good liturgical music therein. It's a good model for any such gathering to follow.

    Likewise, the planning of a conference of this nature is indeed demanding with many details large and small. It's difficult at times to detach from identifying with one's own effort and receive comments serenely. That said, I've long thought that getting written evaluations from participants and giving them 10-15 minutes to write them up on the last day can be immensely helpful while both memories and good feelings are fresh. It is important to ask for positive input–not necessarily for the pats on the back (which are nice)–but to make sure you keep doing what people found edifying.

    I think my original comments about the rubrics of the canon were along the lines of: "O goody. Now the CMAA won't be criticizing NPM conventions for rubrical mismanagement."

    As a liturgist, I'm obliged to live by the structure of rubrics. It gives me and my parish a great freedom. It also is a moment of responsibility for our parish, seeing as what we do and how we do it impacts college students who look to us as to how the liturgy is done well. It's worth considering if CMAA should model liturgy the way you and we can and should do it on our parishes, or if they're so far from a basic experience we can't hope to emulate.

  24. todd
    your comparisons between the cmaa masses and a typical npm "eucharistic celebration" is disengenuious.
    dancing men and women, priests interjecting "let the people say AAAAhee—-MEWNNNN!!!every 5 minutes etc etc is a willful desire to "bring a new church into being". comparing that to a minor point about where to put the benedictus of an orchestral mass, in fact one can even concede that what happened might have been incorrect, nontheless using one to "even up the antie" is kinda silly and my take is you know that.
    all that happened was, at worst a silly mistake in timimg.
    Todd, you have a point, and its a good one just dont make it on the back of an innocent and minor mistake that in no way indicates a "right wing agenda to ignore rubrics we dont like" after all, how many orchestral masses will eather you or I be a part of where this issue might come up?

  25. droy, thanks for putting this into perspective with such clarity. This type of argument amounts to nothing more than, "I'm right, see, you made a mistake, CMAA hypocrites." Maybe offering advice about on how to effectively use Viennese orchestral Masses in an OF Mass would be more conducive to a productive conversation.

  26. As a liturgist …

    Todd,

    When I see a sentence beginning so, or a reference to what a liturgist would say about this or that, my first reaction is to ask: what's a liturgist? My second, after a pause for a glass of Scotch or [French,Chilean,Kiwi!Californian] Sauvignon Blanc, is to suggest that what matters is the opinion of those with a practical, educated and responsible interest in the liturgy – that is, a priest or a deacon, or a suitably informed MC or liturgical musician. I take it as a given that all such should humbly seek to frame their understanding of our Rite and its artistic elements within the context of its ancient yet developing tradition. That will necessarily involve a rejection of novelty that lacks sympathy with the character of the Rite (no matter how creative), and an openness to its authentic development. I sense that the Holy Father – who you implicitly damn as not a liturgist – is such a person.

  27. I would like to offer something I've been wondering about for many months… not a criticism, but a thought to ponder.

    If CMAA is all about the ideal of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, then perhaps we need not perform orchestral Masses at the Colloquium…

    Yes, they're allowable. Yes, they're sumptuous to my taste. Yes, there is a HUGE artistic gap between Haydn, Mozart and Schubert and commercial composers of recent times. Yes, they give glory to God and edify many faithful!

    But in the current climate, such compositions mean scandal to those formed under… a pervasive liturgical sensibility.

    We must be missionaries about restoring the sacred. And so, if orchestral Masses open a door to constant criticism and even the appearance of bending rubrics, as an organization we might earn more respect if we stick to the basics of chant and polyphony. Parishes with very good music programs will perform orchestral Masses, which is a worthy tradition to continue. It doesn't *need* to happen at the Colloquium, and the people there don't expect one week to display every single worthy form of sacred music.

    I'd wager that teaching another chant ordinary would be more instructive to attendees anyway. I'm just sayin'. 🙂

    Over and above all this, I humbly acknowledge that I do not have a say in what is or is not sung at the Colloquium. And I deeply appreciate and respect those who do.

    Mary Ann Carr Wilson
    (Anonymous b/c I'm not tech savvy and want to read other chant cafe posts.)

  28. I want to thank everyone for the enormous amount of work putting the Colloquium together–especially Arlene and Jeffrey. I learn so much each year and appreciate the annual "dose" of liturgical music culture and the wonderful camaraderie of old and new friends.

    Regarding the Requiem Mass—I have wondered why the “Dona eis requiem sempiternam” is no longer sung. I’ve been told that it was not in the new missal. So, is it done in the EF but not the OF? Or perhaps it was an oversight when the missal was published and should be done?—I miss it and hope it will return in the future.

    Regarding the Sunday Mass—it was most beautiful regardless of the “glitch”. I thoroughly enjoy singing under the direction of Horst Buchholz. It was a wonderful experience and a refreshing addition to the Colloquium.

Comments are closed.