NDENIABLE. It’s undeniable my mother was our family’s most talented member. Born into abject poverty—and I’m not exaggerating—my mother had the blessing of attending CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. I’m talking about the type taught by nuns. She was valedictorian of her class, earned several college degrees, became an artist, had immaculate handwriting, and was an excellent speller. (My spelling is terrible.) She often shared with her children little words of wisdom. With regard to homilies, she once said: “Years ago, they taught priests to do three things when giving a sermon: (1) Say what you’re going to say; (2) Say it; (3) Say what you said.” I wish more priests would follow her advice! I will do so today.
“Say What You’re Going to Say” • Today, I will offer suggestions on improving music at Ordinary Form Masses. Moreover, I will discuss the history of the NOVUS ORDO, and why I think it’s incorrect to say its music should be identical to the Traditional Latin Mass. I also include a brief digression about a setting of the “Lamb of God” based on a work by William Byrd (d. 1623).
AGNUS DEI (Three Voices) • Since we’ll be speaking about repertoire that works well in the Ordinary Form, I begin with a slight digression. During summer, many choirs take a break. I recently shared this AGNUS DEI setting based on a canon attributed to Byrd. But I urge you to download the corrected version. Like everyone else, I’m not infallible. The first edition was created in haste. Here’s the updated version:
We recently sang this setting:
You can hear the entire piece as sung by a volunteer choir on 24 September 2023:
* PDF Download • AGNUS DEI (complete)
—Recorded by volunteer choir on 24 September 2023.
Don’t Tell Them! • I didn’t give out the music in advance to the singers, so please don’t tell them I shared this! I doubt they’d feel it’s a good representation of their singing capabilities. Rehearsal videos for each individual voice are at #88208, but notice the words are different. That technique (“CONTRAFACTUM”) is something we spoke of a lot during the Sacred Music Symposium. By the way, when singing Byrd’s AGNUS DEI, it’s crucial to place a “hairpin” on the long notes—that is to say, begin the note softly and then crescendo. String players grasp this “hairpin” concept faster than pianists, because piano notes don’t possess crescendo capability. Being a percussive instrument, once a piano key is played…that’s it! Piano notes aren’t capable of ‘swelling’ or ‘growing’ or ‘crescendoing’—although Menahem Pressler (d. 2023) attempted to simulate such a thing on his recording of Chopin’s Andante Spianato & Grande Polonaise (Opus 22). Here’s what I’m talking about:
Heart of the Matter • Let’s get down to the heart of the matter. Should music at the Ordinary Form be identical to music at the Extraordinary Form? My answer would be: Not exactly. On the one hand, it’s incontestable that the fathers of the Second Vatican Council wanted to help the faithful come to a greater appreciation of the sacred liturgy. On the other hand, in spite of what the council fathers wanted, we must come to grips with what actually happened. It gives me no pleasure to list the following examples—but we must grasp a few basic realities.
Consider five examples:
[a] How is it possible that any sentient being who reads VETERUM SAPIENTIA, issued by Pope Saint John XXIII on 22 February 1962—three years after (!) official preparations for Vatican II had begun—can still claim John XXIII as the “patron saint” of the vernacular liturgy? I know not.
[b] We have reached a point where disobedience has persisted so flagrantly, some dioceses have banished Latin completely. Moreover, this is not a new phenomenon. Fifty years ago, Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt wrote: “As late as the spring of 1976, a midwest archbishop told the public press that the pope had ordered Mass to be said in English, and that any Latin liturgy needed specific authorization from his chancery!” How is such a thing possible in light of what Vatican II mandated, vis-à-vis the use of Latin in the Mass? The very first document ratified by Vatican II—SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM—specifically says the local bishop was to decide “whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.” Indeed, Vatican II solemnly declared: “Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to sing or to say together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” On 23 July 1964, the Sacred Congregation of Rites said it must never “be forgotten [that] the great majority of the Fathers approved the various dispositions concerning a wider use of the vernacular precisely because of the existence of that first paragraph [SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM §1] which ensured substantial preservation of the Latin, apart from a few particular cases (salvo jure particulari), such as the concession made to China.”
[c] On 25 March 2004, POPE SAINT JOHN PAUL II authorized the Vatican’s CDW to publish an instruction called Redemptionis Sacramentum. Its 19th paragraph says: “The diocesan Bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of her whole liturgical life.” And yet, we hear of certain Vatican officials brazenly attempting to browbeat local bishops into imposing immoral penalties on Catholic families who refuse to commit liturgical abuses. Out of eight billion people, POPE FRANCIS selected Robert Cardinal Sarah to serve as head of the Vatican’s liturgy dicastery. While serving as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Sarah reminded us that “prohibiting or suspecting the extraordinary form can only be inspired by the demon.” And yet, several clerics at the Vatican are attempting to do precisely that. On the Canadian feast of Saint Jean de Brébeuf, POPE FRANCIS declared (26 September 2021): “The Holy Spirit does not want closedness; He wants openness, and welcoming communities where there is a place for everyone.” But on 4 December 2021, a letter became public in which Cardinal Roche’s successor attempts to convince local bishops to ostracize and belittle Catholics who feel an affinity for traditional liturgical practices. Statements like that are deeply troubling, scandalous, and bewildering. Who can explain such contradictions?
[d] The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared: “The treasury of sacred music [Thesaurus musicæ sacræ] is to be preserved and fostered with great care.” However, someone observing the Catholic Church over the last 60 years would probably get the impression that “preserved and fostered with great care” was interpreted as meaning “ridiculed and outlawed with severity.” As Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt wrote in 1990: “Cardinal Ratzinger rightly finds it astonishing that someone as eminent as Karl Rahner can deduce from conciliar documents the practical banishment of what, for the better part of two millennia, we have thought of as sacred music.” The current archbishop of Chicago—BLASE CARDINAL CUPICH—seems ignorant of basic conciliar statements. For example, Vatican II solemnly declared: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, under normal circumstances it should be given first place in liturgical services” (SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, §116). Yet, in an article published on 1 November 2021, Cardinal Cupich declared that Gregorian Chant may (perhaps) be included during Ordinary Form Masses—for a short period time, as a concession to ignorant Catholic who aren’t yet sufficiently enlightened—but according to him, it requires “creativity” (!) to do such a thing. In that same article, Cardinal Cupich refers to POPE SAINT JOHN PAUL II as “saintly,” claiming that he updated church laws to conform to Vatican II. Cardinal Cupich doesn’t realize Pope John Paul II issued a special document (dated 22 November 2003), in which he made the following statement: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” Contradictions like this are exasperating. Those who blatantly contradict Vatican II—while claiming to be promoting Vatican II—are never asked to explain themselves. This is a source of great frustration to the faithful.
[e] The man in charge of all liturgical reforms was CARDINAL LERCARO. On 2 March 1965, Lercaro published an article in l’Avennire d’Italia in which he strongly condemned liturgical abuses, providing concrete examples of practices he considered “fanciful” and “deplorable.” What were these deplorable abuses? (a) Communion in the hand; (b) a Celebrant reciting the Canon in an audible voice. Furthermore, in a letter (25 January 1966) to the bishops’ conferences, Cardinal Lercaro called female altar servers “a grave infraction.” But all three are now mandated by post-conciliar legislation! Who can explain such things? Will anyone have the audacity to claim that Cardinal Lercaro—the very man responsible for post-conciliar changes—didn’t know what he was talking about? Will even the most progressive radical dare to say that we should honor the liturgical reforms, but the very man responsible for concocting them had nugatory views which should be ignored?
“What Therefore Shall We Do?” (1 of 2):
In the holy Gospel, Saint Peter says (Mt 19:27) to our Savior: “Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?” The reader may be thinking something similar. The reader may wish to say: “Jeff, let’s assume everything you said is correct—what therefore shall we do?” I intend to speak about precisely that…but first I have one more quick digression.
Jeff’s Final Digression • I don’t wish to dwell upon what I consider the “painful” aspects of the liturgical reform, but I do wish to briefly mention something important. The bad decisions which were made seem to be a result of pride. The reformers believed themselves to be smarter and more enlightened than all the saints who came before—and that’s reprehensible. Consider CARDINAL ANTONELLI, a powerful “hidden” force behind the liturgical reforms. Throughout his writings, we see brazen arrogance. When it comes to their ex novo invention of the Baptismal Renewal on Holy Saturday, Antonelli says “nobody (!) can deny its importance.” Speaking of one of their early reforms (Easter Eve), Antonelli says “all acknowledge (!) it is based on the best liturgical tradition.” Indeed, Antonelli claims to have rediscovered (!) the essence of the liturgy, “which, unfortunately, had been lost for centuries.” The reformers’ basic idea could be summarized as:
“We have come to save the day. The saints of the past undoubtedly had good intentions, but we’ve moved beyond such people. Pay no heed to the ‘unenlightened’ liturgical views of Saint John Bosco, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Dominic, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Isaac Jogues, Saint Thomas More, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Gabriel Lalemant, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Saint Therese of Lisieux, Padre Pio, and so forth. Just think how wonderful those saints could have been, if only they had the benefit of our guiding hand!”
The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks • In their eagerness to promote their reforms, the reformers often made cockamamie statements. For example, Archbishop Bugnini claimed that the restoration of the Easter Vigil in 1951 “elicited an explosion of joy (!) throughout the Church.” But did allowing congregations to hold candles at a different spot than they had before—as well as eliminating most of the Bible readings—really elicit an explosion of joy? Furthermore, since the 1951 reforms were noncompulsory (and created in bewildering haste), most places didn’t even experience them! That particular reform displaced the traditional lighting of the Paschal Candle. A contemporary report from the Diocese of Gallipoli claimed that this dislodgment “has given back to the faithful one of the greatest of liturgical consolations.” Who could take such statements seriously? It seems to have been a confused and chaotic era wherein certain zealots considered banning plainsong from the liturgy! Canon Aimé Geroges Martimort, one of the most radical reformers, criticized the defense of Gregorian Chant given by Saint Thomas Aquinas, saying: “Saint Thomas manifests some difficulty in defending the use of singing in the liturgy.” In retrospect, the voice of Bishop François Charrière of Switzerland comes across as eminently sensible. Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, His Excellency wrote as follows (and the emphases are his):
“Those who are pleased with today’s situation—those who live the Liturgy as given by the Roman Church—are not complaining and do not say anything. Don’t we also have to give large consideration to the majority who are content? Isn’t their number as great—maybe greater—than the number of those who complain? […] We do not believe that those who speak the more loudly, those who somehow impatiently keep asking for endless changes, do represent the majority.”
Something Rotten in the State of Denmark • It’s probably useful to distinguish between orthodox reformers (like Cardinal Antonelli) and those who held heretical beliefs. Why were heretics allowed to contribute to the liturgical reforms? I have no idea! But it did happen. An example would be FATHER GODFREY DIEKMANN (d. 2002), who was permitted to play a major role in the 1960s liturgical reforms. Father Diekmann held heretical beliefs; e.g. he was a supporter of women’s ordination. In 1971, in spite of the Church’s clear prohibition, Father Diekmann openly gave Holy Communion to non-Catholics, but—as far as I know—was never disciplined by his superiors. Needless to say, Father Diekmann is the last person on the face of the earth who should have been allowed anywhere near liturgical reform. He seems to have been a very ‘conflicted’ person. For instance, Diekmann wrote a letter (3 March 1964) in which he said: “What young candidate for the priesthood would ever consider the monastic life if there is even the possibility of having to spend three hours a day praying or singing the Office in Latin.” How is it possible that Father Diekmann, who was sometimes allowed to teach at universities, remained ignorant of the monastic stretching back 1,500 years? Furthermore, Vatican II solemnly declared: “In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the Divine Office.”
Changing Opinions • On the other hand, many of the reformers when they saw the results felt deep remorse. For example, Cardinal Antonelli (mentioned above) was scandalized by the actions of the CONSILIUM and bitterly condemned it. Antonelli—whom Pope Paul VI appointed Secretary of the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy (!)—wrote:
“In the CONSILIUM, there are few Bishops with a specifically liturgical expertise, and very few are really theologians. The most acute deficiency in the CONSILIUM is the lack of theologians. In fact, it could be said that they had been excluded altogether, which is something dangerous. In the liturgy, every word and every gesture expresses an idea which is always a theological idea. […] And this has very serious consequences.”
Cardinal Antonelli summed up by saying his fellow reformers “have only been able to demolish and not to restore.” One of Cardinal Antonelli’s assessments of the post-conciliar reforms is heartbreaking: “Time will tell whether all this was for better or for worse, or merely indifferent altogether.”
Trio of Maniacs? • Another important reformer who did a 180° was FATHER LOUIS BOUYER, the theologian who composed Eucharistic Prayer Number 2. Bouyer was anything but a traditionalist. For instance, writing in 1964, Bouyer said the Church’s use of Latin was not a tradition (!) but rather constituted “evidence of the sad power of routine.” However, when Bouyer saw the results of the liturgical reforms, he became a ferocious critic. The new calendar, cited as one of the council’s great accomplishments by Cardinal Cupich, was described by Father Bouyer as “the handiwork of a trio of maniacs.” Indeed, Bouyer later referred to the post-conciliar reforms as “the pathetic creature we created,” admitting his fellow reformers had no chance of success since their goal was “recasting from top to bottom—and in a few months!—an entire liturgy which had required twenty centuries to develop.”
“What Therefore Shall We Do?” (2 of 2):
At this point, you’re probably wondering where I’m going with all this. I would ask the reader to consider two items. First of all, I wish I could tell you that every Catholic bishop has always been virtuous. I wish I could tell you that every Catholic priest has always been righteous. I wish I could tell you that every Catholic pope has always been brilliant. I wish I could tell you that every Catholic cardinal has always been holy. But I can’t tell you those things. Indeed, our Lord Himself was betrayed by the leaders (!) of the church, viz. Annas and Caiaphas. Moreover, our Savior chose Judas Iscariot to be one of His apostles!
Secondly, even though the liturgical reform was not perfect—that’s okay! Consider the example of SAINT JOHN MARY VIANNEY. From what I can tell, his experience was generally not with the Roman Rite. Rather, his experience was with the French “Neo-Gallican” Rite, which some consider to be ‘deficient’ or ‘faulty’ or ‘lacking’ or ‘not as excellent’ as the Roman Rite. And yet, Father Vianney became one of the Church’s greatest saints! We have the liturgy we have. Saint John Vianney had the liturgy he had. I admit the reformers made mistakes—yet I believe we should strive to worship God as best we can. Moreover, it is incorrect to assert that the liturgy was “perfect” in 1953, 1927, 1903, 1828, 1565AD, 1244AD, or 633AD.
OF vs. EF • In my experience, it doesn’t work to transplant identical music from the Extraordinary Form into the Ordinary Form. I believe that the Ordinary Form has developed a certain way—whether we like it or not. If we ignore the particular ‘character’ of the Ordinary Form, it will frustrate everyone. Furthermore, there’s a real danger your priest might fire you—and if you get fired you can’t do any good. Apropos of this, I’m friends with a superb musician who works in the Ordinary Form. Her situation is quite difficult (due to a variety of factors) but her faith in Jesus Christ is strong. I’m not really at liberty to divulge all the details, so let me just say: Some people at her church are jealous of her. To get her in trouble, they gave her priest some false information. Now, she has to work under certain musical ‘parameters’ conflicting with the mandates of Vatican II. It’s quite unjust—but what can I say?
Wise As Serpents! • Anyhow, I recently spoke to her at length. I explained to her that—in my humble opinion—it’s necessary to use to “creativity” when planning choral music for the Ordinary Form. After all, our Blessed Savior said: “Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.” I suggested to her that music at the Ordinary Form should not necessarily be identical to the music we sing at the Traditional Latin Mass (although theoretically it could be). I spoke to her for a long time. I kept saying: “You should do this; and you should do that; and then you should do such-and-such.” After this long conversation, she asked: “Can you help me do all those things?”
My Proposal • I think this might be something valuable to our readers. But I need to hear from you! I will go forward with this idea if there’s enough interest out there. To tell me you’re interested, please send me an email. [To obtain my email address, use the “OUR TEAM” button at the top of the page; there’s an email address provided if you scroll down.] In the subject line, put something conspicuous such as: “I like Jeff’s idea.”
“Say What You Said” • In today’s article, I started with a digression which provided a neat little setting of the “AGNUS DEI,” based on a canon admired by Mozart. Then I talked about the liturgical reforms enacted in the middle of the 20th century. I related some painful facts, but also pointed out that we must not allow evil church leaders to prevent us from serving God. Our Savior said: “Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.” Indeed, there has never been a “perfect” time to be a Catholic. Finally, I mentioned a potential project vis-à-vis music for the Ordinary Form. I said I’d spend time doing it if I received emails from readers in support of such a project.
