Catholic Sensibility

My parish is not a Newman Center. As I understand it, we were founded as a Newman Club at Iowa State in 1947 by Father James Supple, a priest assigned to the other parish in town.

In less that two decades, St Thomas Aquinas Church and Catholic Student Center was “elevated” to being a parish. Cardinal Newman is still honored, even though his name is not spoken when we answer the phone, nor printed when we draft bulletins and flyers.

My colleague Shari and I were discussing Newman’s beatification and feast with a few students today. October 9th will be an “optional memorial” for the US, no doubt. But even if the Cardinal is no longer our name patron, we will probably observe his day as a feast, at least.

I wonder what his Lectionary entry will be like.

I notice Zenit is doing a two-part interview with Oratorian priest Drew Morgan on Newman Centers. An interesting question, “Can a Newman Center replace what a student stands to gain from attending a university that is itself Catholic?” and a very interesting answer is given, in part:

To address your question about Catholic vs. secular education, originally, the Newman Clubs hoped to be the appropriate response to this issue. However, many pastors and even a few bishops felt that Catholic students attending non-Catholic institutions were placing themselves in near-occasions of sin and therefore should no longer receive Communion! The safeguarding of the faith today paradoxically may in fact be more secure in a vibrant Newman Center on a secular college campus, where students are regularly challenged to defend their faith and give an account of their beliefs.

Certainly in Newman Centers and university parishes, we provide more than the apologetic mindset. We cultivate relationships with the secular university. In many instances, we provide a substantial community for students. I’d say that we don’t take our Catholic faith or its expression for granted. In many ways, I’d say we have a lot more verve than many Catholic universities. Our students come to Mass and get involved in our apostolates because they want to. I admit I feel a bit spoiled being in a parish with a much higher percentage of active and engaged parishioners.

I mention Father Supple, our founder, because the seventh anniversary of his death is tomorrow. I don’t know that he will ever be named a saint, but August 31st will be a day of memory for our parish. We invoke his name saint whenever we sing a Litany of Saints.

Like most music directors, I receive nice glossy packets soliciting me to bring my choir to Rome or other nice places. And I do love to travel, so these pilgrimages strike me as attractive. However, I’ve also heard from friends and colleagues who have gone on tour. In Rome especially, there is often the expectation that the liturgy itself will be tailored to streamline the worship experience. Case in point: a friend was once told to cancel an anthem his choir had prepared … unless he wanted to substitute it for the responsorial psalm. Omitting the psalm was okay? Sheesh.

I haven’t spent three decades in the trenches to travel thousands of miles overseas to go back a half-century to singing at the Mass (as opposed to singing the Mass) and other impoverished liturgical expressions. Some of my friends have reported they’ve taken a pragmatic approach. One the plus side, you get to see some great architecture, art, and immerse oneself in European Catholic culture. “I didn’t go for good liturgy,” my friend conceded. “I went to see Rome.” He’s a good liturgically-minded musician working in an environment here in the States where, I’m sure, the liturgy likely exceeds Roman norms in terms of beauty, quality, and attention to detail.

And anyway, if I were going to Rome, my first question would be: what do the people there sing? I would feel it was my obligation to tailor my choir’s program to do what we do every Sunday: lead the people in singing, not perform for them. Fortunately for my musicians and maybe for Rome, I’ve long felt a call elsewhere.

My long dream (much to my wife’s dismay) has been to go on pilgrimage to places off the main touring road. Africa. South Asia. Latin America. What interests me is a trip that involves more than musical performance. Primarily, I want to play with other musicians. Exchange ideas. Learn new music. Share my music. Build bridges. Express and explore our catholicity. Mutual enrichment.

So I’m excited that my friend John has embraced the idea of a service trip from our parish that would focus on music and liturgy. We’re talking about a visit next May. He’s described to me something of the musical situation in many churches. Outside of the major cities, there are no organs or pianos. Parish Masses are led by ensembles of guitars and related instruments. I can’t bring several pianos or even a few organettos with me to Honduras. But I can listen and work with ensembles and pass on ideas for musical arranging. John also suggested a regional workshop. Man, am I going to have to work on my Spanish!

My wife has finally softened up on her fears of my going off to the Third World. She herself isn’t interested in going, but the young miss is. This first trip, though, I’ve been told we’ll have room for a small group of musicians–four or five people. The young miss will have more time to work on her guitar playing–not to mention the fact I don’t think I would allow her to miss a week of school. There will be other opportunities in the future.

Meanwhile, it’s time to lay groundwork. Recruit students and resident parishioners for the effort. Learn about the musical repertoire of the people there. Assess what I could offer in a workshop format. Get up to speed in speaking Spanish. More importantly, developing the listening ear for comprehension. A week in Honduras seems rather flimsy compared to the possibliities. I can understand why my friend felt called to move to Honduras and be a lay missionary.

(Image credit above: John Donaghy)

In addition to the funeral vigil, the OCF offers “related rites and prayers” for the period between death and the funeral liturgy. These three sections of OCF give the introduction and background on these. Sections 101 through 127 will give instructions, rubrics, and rites for gatherings at this time.

98. The section entitled “Related Rites and Prayers” contains three brief rites, “Prayers after Death,” “Gathering in the Presence of the Body,” and “Transfer of the Body to the Church or to the Place of Committal.” These rites are presented to help the minister and others pray with the family and close friends in the period soon after death. “Prayers after Death” may be used when the minister first meets with the family,  ”Gathering in the Presence of the Body,” when the family first gathers together around the body of the deceased, and “”Transfer of the Body to the Church or to the Place of Committal,” when the family and friends prepare to accompany the body of the deceased in the procession to the church or to the place of committal.

Note that the Order of Christian Funerals does not adhere to a strict timetable in presenting the rites before the funeral. The principle of progressive solemnity is applied. The vigil is the most important of the Church’s liturgies before the funeral. So it was discussed first. These other liturgies are closer to the border of the direct pastoral ministry to the mourners. They may take place with friends, or it may be a single survivor.

99. These rites are signs of the concern of the Christian community for the family and close friends of the deceased. The compassionate presence of the minister and others and the familiar elements of these simple rites can have the effect of reassuring the mourners and of providing a consoling and hopeful situation in which to pray and to express their grief.

100. The circumstances for the celebration nof these rites may vary from place to place and from culture to culture. The rites as given are only models, for adaptation by the minister according to the circumstances.

So what do these paragraphs tell us?

As with RCIA, these adaptations are intended not for the comfort or convenience of the minister, but for the consolation of the mourners.

These rituals should celebrate like other similar prayers conducted in the community: dialogue between leader and people, the use of Scripture with the accompanying ritual elements, familiar introductions to familiar prayers, and music when appropriate.

I would also suggest that ministers–clergy and laity who lead these prayers–be familiar with the brief outlines for these three rituals. That is the framework on which to build, not an improvisation from beginning to end, which serves no liturgical and pastoral purpose.

The vigil may be celebrated at a church. If so, the rite presumes the body will be received with more ritual. In other locations, the vigil is quite simple with four elements: greeting, opening song, invitation to prayer, followed by the prayer. For a vigil at a church, the outline reads:

Greeting
Sprinkling with Holy Water
Placing of the Pall (optional)
Entrance Procession
Placing of Christian Symbols (optional)
Invitation to Prayer
Opening Prayer

Commentary:

The sprinkling with holy water (OCF 83) may be done by a lay presider.

Placing the pall (OCF 84, 86) is included “if it is the custom.” The Christian symbol may be “a Book of the Gospels, a Bible, or a cross” and may accompany the procession. The rite offers the option of placing this symbol in silence (which might seem the usual custom), though texts to accompany this action are given much later in the ritual (OCF 400).

A “psalm, song, or responsory” accompanies the entrance procession (OCF 85). OCF 403 is referenced and interestingly, these are alternate texts of the Song of Farewell, to which we will devote a bit of attention when we get to the conclusion of the funeral liturgy. Using a Song of Farewell at the vigil’s entrance into the church and at the conclusion of the funeral liturgy provides for either an expanded repertoire of these strong pieces, or the chance to “bookend” the time the body is at the parish church.

Otherwise, the outline of the vigil is the same: Liturgy of the Word and Concluding Rites.

Some discussion in our parish about observing the Cardinal Newman beatification on the 18-19 September weekend. I’ve been asked to make a liturgical connection with our Episcopalian sisters and brothers down the street for a possible Sunday Vespers.

My liturgical concern has been that his date of death, 11 August, would be an awkwardly placed feast day for the man adopted by so many university apostolates. According to dotCommonweal, the liturgical observance will be set for 9 October in years to come.

Hurdling the occasional homecoming should be easier than recalling students from summer jobs and such.

I’m surprised more pro teams don’t turn to yoga like my hometown soccer Rhinos. Assistant coach Bill Sedgewick:

I played a lot of minutes and I was never injured. I felt fresh. I felt it was the best way for me to be flexible, strong and focused rather than do the gym thing.

I wouldn’t expect a sometimes-hidebound traditional sport like baseball to embrace it, but given the physical and mental demands of a 162-game season, it sure couldn’t hurt. Especially this sorry team.

Jimmy Mac sent this news bit about one of my fellow Iowans to my attention.

You know, I confess a few guilty pleasures in my life. I like to watch and listen when non-scientists talk about science. Also cool is when the occasional out-of-depth fundamentalist tries to go Biblical. Iowa House candidate Jeremy Walters trots out Leviticus 20:13 but not for a statement about the death penalty. (More on that in a bit.) He wants to connect homosexuals, AIDS, and the notion that the innocent immoral suffer and the guilty go free are presidential contenders in Iowa.

Has Mr Walters drunk deeply of that Leviticus well, I wonder? Good to know he’s not out to put people to death, because I’m curious how he would confront this prominent American politician about his transgression of Leviticus 20:10.

Do Republicans who are concerned about Leviticus 20:13 show equal concern to follow this precept from the previous chapter? Do they eat their steaks well done? Should I even ask if they keep kosher?

My wife commented that the LDS missionaries were in the neighborhood the other night. I had a really nice conversation with them a few weeks ago. She noticed one guy pointing at our house and his companion shaking his head and gesturing in the other direction.

I know Jeremy Walters isn’t running in my state district, but all the same: I’d love to have him come by some evening. Kick back with a few cold ones and discuss the fine points of Leviticus 20 … and Leviticus 19 … and the rest of Mosaic Law. What would you think his chances would be?

It seems as if everybody’s home from the CMAA Colloquium and suddenly Jeffrey Tucker and the reform2 folks are all over the overthrow of the current Roman Catholic repertoire at Entrance, Communion, and preparation. I guess when you can’t eject a body of music for quality (or lack thereof) you can make the attempt based on the liturgy itself. I don’t think the argument for the propers-only holds water, and I’d like to offer a serious push-back on the misguided idea that a collection of Gregorian chant is the 0nly way, or even always the best way to sing at these moments of the Mass.

First, a Roman Catholic musician has to look at two sources before anything else. The Order of Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). For this discussion, the GIRM is key, and sections 47 and 48 describe “The Entrance.”

47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

To start with, church musicians must be aware of what is hoped to be accomplished by the Entrance chant. There are three purposes, aside from the obvious accompaniment of a procession. This music “opens” the Mass. It is intended to foster unity. And the intent is to introduce to all either the particular day or the liturgical season.

Because of this, music ministers often program seasonal music. Psalm 51 and David’s profound repentance for Lent. Psalm 85′s longing for God’s restorative justice for Advent. Or even seasonal hymns and songs suggestive of Christmas or Easter festivity.

Let’s keep reading in the GIRM, mindful that this is a Roman document, and as such adheres to a specific tradition. Choices are given because Rome realizes that in faith communities different opti0ns will help more impoverished communities establish a minimum standard for good liturgy. And places more enriched with gifts in the arts and liturgical theology can aim for a higher plateau:

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone.

The Church first addresses who does the singing. The Church sees this question as more important that what is sung. This sentence is very illustrative. A musical dialogue is favored over either through-sung pieces by the people or choir. A choir is a higher priority than a cantor. A piece sung by the choir alone is the last choice, and just the next level of improvement over the spoken option.

How should this get applied in practice? The aim is a ritual interaction between music leadership (preferably a choir) and the people. This style echoes much of the experience of the Mass: dialogues between people and priest, the Psalm and Gospel Acclamation in the Liturgy of the Word, as well as various litanies. The Church advises that this liturgical “conversation” is an excellent model. Lacking the ability or repertoire to carry out that dialogue, the GIRM instructs that it’s better for the people to sing the entire entrance. That would presumably take place if there is no organ or cantor to lead. The last choice would be the choir singing alone, presumably when the dialogue cannot take place, or the people are unable or unwilling to sing.

The US has additional instruction with regard to the repertoire of this Entrance chant:

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance 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 Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;

(4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

There are actually six options. The US bishops suggest the antiphon from the Missal. Or the psalm from the Roman Gradual. Or the psalm of the day from the Roman Gradual set to other music.

I’ve used the first option during certain liturgical seasons in my parishes. We might select a brief refrain by the people, and have the choir or cantor chant the antiphon (as a “verse”) followed by a repeat of the refrain from our hymnal. Sometimes I will program another setting of the Psalm given in the Gradual. An example of this might be on the First Sunday of Advent assigns Psalm 25 for entrance, and I (or another music director) might program Huub Oosterhuis’ “Hold Me In Life.” All of these fall under the USCCB’s first choice.

Choice number two is a “seasonal antiphon and Psalm” from the Simple Gradual. Why might this be chosen? Maybe a parish prefers not to sing a new piece of music every week of a liturgical season. You can program the same piece through all the Sundays, and ease the impact on the people. Or maybe there’s a good liturgical reason for adhering to the same psalm–the preacher might preach on it, for example.

Coming in at number three is another psalm setting. Aside from the fact that the US Bishops have no “approved collection,” I use this option frequently. Last weekend I programmed “Sing to the Lord a New Song,” a metrical hymn based on Psalm 98. My intent is to lean less to non-Biblical texts and more to Scripture-based texts for songs and hymns, especially those based on the psalms.

And then we have option #4, a “suitable liturgical song,” which is a wide enough piece of leeway to drive a pipe organ through. This weekend at my parish, I confess we are singing “I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say,” which while it picks up a few hints of Jesus’s healing and invitatory words in the Gospel, is not a psalm setting.

I find that sometimes the given antiphons and psalms are an aid to selecting music. But sometimes not. There is a one-year cycle for most of them and the Lectionary is arranged in a three-year cycle. Some bishops at the 2008 Synod on the Word advocated for a better connection and harmonization between the Word and the Eucharist at Mass. This would be an important step for the fourth edition of the Roman Missal–an expanded offering of antiphon texts and accompanying psalms. I would even suggest that canticles from both the Old and New Testaments be mined for appropriate texts. And some of the more lyrical passages from the prophets and apostles.

Liam has suggested on this blog that parishes should not find the antiphon-plus psalm format alien if it is used. I would agree. But the notion that the Catholic Church is in a good position to be dogmatic about the sung texts of the Mass–this is misguided. The propers should guide intelligent music programming. But not dictate it.

The OCF book in the US edition gives a brief rubric in #73, noting that “(o)ther readings, psalms, and gospel readings are given in Part III” which is OCF 343-347. Then in number 74, a sample reading is given from 2 Corinthians (5:1, 6-10); in number 75, a sample Psalm, the 27th; and in number 76, a sample gospel (Luke 12:35-40). The rubric of OCF 77 tells us a ”brief homily” is to be given.

Instead of “Prayers of the Faithful” format we usually hear at Mass, a litany is prayed after the homily (OCF 78). I like this text and have set it to music. My suggestion is that this is one non-Mass text every serious liturgical composer should have in her or his portfolio:

Risen Lord, pattern of our life for ever: Lord have mercy.

Promise and image of what we shall be: Lord have mercy.

Son of God who came to destroy sin and death: Lord have mercy.

Word of God who delivered us from the fear of death: Lord have mercy.

Crucified Lord, forsaken in death, raise in glory: Lord have mercy.

Lord Jesus, gentle Shepherd who bring rest to our souls, give peace to N for ever: Lord have mercy.

Lord Jesus, you bless those who mourn and are in pain. Bless N’s family and friends who gather around him/her today: Lord have mercy.

And more practically, every cantor should be able to render this litany with or without accompaniment. It would be sort of like the camping merit badge to an Eagle Scout. You need it in your bag.

The Lord’s Prayer (OCF 79) and Concluding Prayer (OCF 80) continue the vigil. The last rubric of OCF 80 indicates a family member or friend may speak there in remembrance of the deceased. We discussed this in an earlier post. More often I see the remembrance offered after the homily. I think a reasonable case could be made for it to be placed there.

OCF 81 suggests the deceased’s forehead may be signed to the traditional “Eternal rest …” prayer and responses. Concluding blessings for the people may be done by the clergy or invoked of God by a lay person. The final rubric for the Vigil suggests “a song or a few moments of silent prayer or both.”

Any comments on this? Is this what you experience in your parishes?

I was in a meeting with our two priests and Brenda, our marriage coordinator, today and I heard a few things that perked my pastoral ears. If your parishes and dioceses are like mine, they offer engaged couples a number of options to prepare them for marriage. A quick rundown:

- Pre-Cana Conferences. The Diocese of Peoria describes it as “a day-long marriage preparation conference designed to assist engaged couples in preparing for their life-long vocation of marriage. (It) consists of a series of presentations providing basic instruction on the nature of Christian marriage: its essential elements, God’s plan for marriage and family life, the importance of communication, time for couple discussion and a question-and-answer session to assist you to make the beauty of our marriage doctrine a living reality.”

- Sponsor or Mentor Couples. The Diocese of St Cloud has a good summary here. It somewhat models the catechumenate in that an experienced couple in a parish takes an engaged couple under their wing for four to six meetings. There is a program to cover certain aspects such as praying together, life in the parish as a married couple, and sometimes the sponsor couple will address relationship issues that have surfaced during a psychological inventory. Things like attitudes toward money, children, sex, etc..

- Engaged Encounter (EE) is a spinoff of Marriage Encounter. My wife and I experienced both and this was very helpful in strenthening our relationship. It involves a weekend away at a hotel or retreat center.

Other offerings through the parish, deanery, or diocese might include workshops on Natural Family Planning, or on the wedding liturgy.

My sensible wife, when we were engaged, told the parish priest we were going to exercise all our options, because, as she put it, “We needed all the help we could get.” As two singles in our late thirties, it might be that we were somewhat more mature than some engaged couples. But we were not without issues. Nor were we without the humility that other people had a lot they could teach us about being married.

Pre-Cana we found less than helpful. We met a wonderful couple who “sponsored” us and graciously opened their home to us for a handful of meetings. Bob even drove his all-terrain vehicle to rescue us on our post-blizzard wedding day to get us to the church on time. We had a very rich experience on EE. When couples ask for my input, I urge them to go to Engaged Encounter.

My pastor remarked today that some couples blanch at the commitment of Engaged Encounter. It’s a whole weekend. If it’s at a hotel, it can be a significant chunk of money. Fr Jon, like my wife and me, recommends EE. But he also gives his couples a genius of an idea. If the budget is tight, contact godparents. Ask them to sponsor the Engaged Encounter weekend as a wedding gift instead of a toaster or a plasma tv. What serious godparent, he asked, wouldn’t want to strengthen and deepen the faith of a young couple?

I just had to pass that idea out in the blogosphere. In fact, if and when my goddaughter is preparing for marriage, I plan to make the pre-emptive offer. As engagements start racking up in the years ahead, maybe you other godparents can ponder it, too.

I was feeling blocked on the central portion of the MR3 Gloria, so I jumped ahead to the end:

As I said before, my goal is to get the whole Gloria set to “Sweet Prospect” before settling on a final key and tackling the accompaniment. On the last post, Jonathan commented the high e’s might not be ideal for a congregation. I tend to agree.

Meanwhile, I’m wondering about that middle section acclaiming Christ. Is the Sweet Prospect melody sturdy enough to use? Or perhaps there should be a different melodic theme? Weigh in with your opinion and suggestions.

For the next few posts, I’d like to zero in on a few noteworthy aspects of the liturgy of the funeral vigil. I debated about excluding these–hence my silence on funerals the past few days. The introductory rites include four elements: the greeting (69), the opening song (70), the invitation to prayer (71), and the opening prayer (72).

The four options for the greeting are notable as among the best examples of ICEL’s work in the 80′s. They are simple, and each alludes to Scripture:

A May the God of hope give you the fullness of peace, and may the Lord of life always be with you.

B The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

C The grace and peace of God our Father, who raised Jesus from the dead, be always with you.

D May the Father of mercies, the God of all consolation, be with you.

The fourth option, from 2 Corinthians is my favorite. They all lack fuss and are respectful to the liturgy and the principle of progressive solemnity in a way that Liturgiam Authenticam and its product are not.

OCF 72 gives two options for the opening prayer. The first is quite powerful:

Lord our God,
the death of our brother/sister N.
recalls our human condition
and the brevity of our lives on earth.
But for those who believe in your love
death is not the end,
nor does it destroy the bonds
that you forge in our lives.
We share the faith of your Son’s disciples
and the hope of the children of God.
Bring the light of Christ’s resurrection
to this time of testing and pain
as we pray for N. and for those who love him/her,
through Christ our Lord.

Four sentences. A balance between a more directly Latin-derived vocabulary (condition, brevity, disciples) and Middle English sources (forge, pain). This prayer strikes me as more artistic in the balance of words, and more easily sung or proclaimed than MR3 or similar work. The direct appeal to God (Bring!) is in keeping with the audacity of Jewish prayer in the Old Testament, and seems superior to the affected, “Bring, we beg” or some such construction.

The rite also references the 62 prayers of OCF 398-399 that can be used here in place of one of the two given prayers.

Somebody breathe into a bag, please.

I see the Right is gearing up for another campaign against CCHD. Honestly, I don’t get the partial brain block of these people. Granted, the idea that CCHD money would go to support immoral activities is beyond reasonable consideration. It seems the CCHD leadership addresses these matters in an honest-enough way.

The Professional Right seems to have a selective memory (or intelligence) on matters CCHD:

- Local dioceses are involved with the contacts and vetting of groups seeking grants.

- CCHD is, by definition, about “human development,” not charity. Charity, by a standard definition, is a gift. Like today’s fish. For four decades, the governing principle at CCHD has been to give people resources to fish for themselves: assert themselves in society and provide for their own needs. It’s a curious thing why Republicans would have a problem with self-determination–unless, of course, it doesn’t involve dropping cash into their own coffers.

- Deal Hudson’s list today takes up quite a bit of screen space, but some of the groups listed were already denied funding. Granted, he does fudge with the phrase “groups of interest.” I suppose one can generate a bit of heat for one’s echo chamber by listing everybody who deigns to apply for Catholic money. But what’s the substance of it? Anything outside of the Karl Rove discredit and pink slip approach?

- I see marxism has also made today’s list of meanies, sometimes carefully disguised as criticism of capitalism. Equating some capitalists with criminals? That might be fairly accurate in some quarters, given the adventures of the world economy over the past two to three years.

What’s questionable in an otherwise interesting discussion is that many CCHD critics refuse to read or engage those who disagree with them. The CCHD case is out there. One doesn’t need to pad one’s web site with fluff to make a case. In fact, it calls into question the very motives of critics like Deal Hudson. He’s not willing to engage people with the facts. But he’s happy to surround himself with dittoheads. Especially if they’re paying customers.

Lest anyone thought the final word on MR3 was going to cool things off, think again. I hope Paul Inwood is wrong, but on the PrayTell site he mused that the USCCB might not allow for any lead time on implementing the Order of Mass. If he’s correct, that would be a blunder on the bishops’ part.

I can see that there would be virtue in waiting to implement the “spoken” parts of the Mass. I know some clergy who would implement today–and a few intrepid souls probably will this weekend, even if it’s just a “spirit” from a pew drowned by a chorus of you’s. Over the next 463 days, watch out: you may wander into a Mass that has implemented fully.  And the next week, go back to 1975. Lots of people will be reading from the script over the next year or two.

I’d say that battle fatigue may have set in on all sides of the liturgy tussles. For the audacity to suggest it’s time to move for MR4, I had a comment subtracted from one web site. I think there’s a lot of simmering anger on all sides at this point. Nobody’s ready for MR4, let alone a serious look at improving preaching, musicianship, art, or any of the real challenges of the post-conciliar liturgy. There’s no way the reform2/obstructionist dynamic was going to stuff the vernacular back in the box. But they’ve done the best they could to poison present and near-future discussions on improving liturgy. The TLM will remain in its unreformed ghetto. The reformed Latin Mass will die out. The mutual enrichment meme will remain a pope’s pipe dream.

The one good thing to emerge might be a host of new Mass settings. Better than the 80′s/90′s rut many of us found ourselves in. I’m looking forward to seeing what’s out there. I think implementing a few good Mass settings will set the tone for my parish receiving their spoken texts next year. And if the USCCB is smart, it will realize that.

You space buffs out there might know that astronauts are awakened each working day with music selected and piped into whatever passes for an alarm system on the space shuttle. While you may be disappointed with the musical selections for the pope’s visit to Britain, you can register your approval in another setting by voting for wake-up music for the team of mission STS-133. Personally, I’d vote for the Jupiter movement of the suite The Planets. Spem in alium would be up there too, even if the Brits overlooked it for the Holy Father.

I’m going to give the wake-up music of STS-134 some real consideration. I think I could piece together my gifts in writing, composition, and astronomy to give the men and women of the last shuttle mission a real nice start to the morning. This is the mission they want original tunes:

Submit your original song by January 10, 2011.

Entries will be screened by our NASA panel. The top entries will then be posted on this website for a public vote starting on February 8, 2011.

The two songs with the most votes will be announced and played during the STS-134 mission, scheduled to launch on February 26, 2011.