Not in the Easter spirit

So I've postponed putting this post up for 24 hours. Here are some reactions during my most recent trip to St. Paul's in Cambridge, for the Easter vigil.

The celebrant (Msgr. S?) was reciting the prayers in a way that reminded me of... W. C. Fields; he was showing way too much personality during the liturgy. Why W. C. Fields? Both because of his voice, but also at times it sounded like he was announcing the circus rather than leading the liturgy, even if he as not shouting.

The criticism that one is showing too much personality could also be applied to cantors in general. (Such as the cantrices? at St. Columbkille.) There was no deacon to sing the Exsultet, rather a woman was standing in. Why? The Exsultet is proper to a cleric, as far as I know. Surely one of the other priests there (there were 4 concelebrants) could have acted as a liturgical deacon. Don't tell me that they can't sing either--that's what lessons are for. Are priests too busy with their pastoral duties to take time out so that they can learn how to sing an edifying liturgy? God will judge. Perhaps I am too judgmental, but I don't think mediocrity should be excused. Fortunately, the musical training of the seminarians at St. John's appears to be good, even if they are not learning how to chant in Latin.

Even if they had decided to substitute a non-cleric, could they have not picked someone from the St. Pauls Men's Schola? [Which does a decent job of singing, if anyone wants to know, particularly a priest associated with the Church Music Association of America. *winks* Perhaps my opinion of them is marred by their association with St. Paul's.] The schola sang Palestrina's Sicut cervus tonight.

[I have a question about the Boston Archdiocesan Choir School (the Boston Boy Choir) -- why weren't they at the Cathedral tonight? Who sings at the Cathedral? The school was founded by Dr. Theodore Marier.]

I suspect that there isn't much difference between St. Paul's and St. Ignatius of Loyola in Chestnut Hill (the Jesuit parish) with respect to parish dynamics, though perhaps St. Paul's is less heterodox than St. Ignatius. (Then again, the Theology on Tap associated with St. Paul's invited a bunch of speakers from Weston this semester.) Music is the only noticeable difference, and was not enough of a reason for me to be a constant visitor to St. Paul's. (The content of the sermons at both churches is rather mushy, even if the priests avoid preaching outright heresy.)

I would find it hilarious that the official music "director" was trying to conduct the people, if it weren't so pitiful; how many people actually understand the arm movements and the sense of timing they were supposed to convey? Obviously not the gentleman standing right behind me, who was very loud in his singing. (Was he trying to show off? Or just used to it, unaware that his singing might overwhelm the voices of the people around him? I didn't hear many of the people standing near me singing.)

The Litany of the Saints: same as last year's? For some reason I thought last year's sounded more like the traditional Latin one, but I could be wrong. And the list of saints? Didn't seem organized -- perhaps some were patrons of the parish and diocese, but... there's something to be said for keeping the structure of the traditional litany as much as possible.

And then of course they were the lay lectors--how many of those who are engaged in liturgical ministry have a works-righteousness mindset, accepting a different form of clericalism, namely that serving in a liturgical role somehow sets them apart from the rest of the laity? Or that they are somehow better or holier as a result? And of course, at St. Paul's, like at many other American parishes, the majority of liturgical ministers are women. Another symptom of the feminization of the Church (as Dr. Leon Podles might argue)?

Do they think that this is enough, instead of pursuing a proper lay vocation? If the laity want to do something liturgical, they should begin praying the divine office instead... but one won't get any certificates or recognition for doing that, nor any applause before the end of the Mass--one's reward will only be God Himself.

Yes, only God knows the state of their souls, but one needs to be careful of clericalism and a works-righteousness mentality that has no grounding in grace... In the meantime, having too many lay people in the sanctuary may impede a true reform of the reform, if it reinforces a "hands-off" mentality among the priests of the parish, who leave control over the liturgy to some lay liturgy director (usually a woman with some sort of manufactured degree from a theology/religious studies program at a local Catholic university obviously not doing its job to teach the true meaning of the second Vatican Council). Priests need to take the lead in ensuring that the celebration of the liturgy is in conformity with the norms of the Church.

[And the readings should be sung, even if it's in English... preferably by clerics--I don't see any need for there to be lay lectors. Why bring back the permanent diaconate for the Latin rite if the deacons don't really contribute much to the liturgy or to the life of the parish? Latins should take a cue of how deacons are employed both in the classical rite and in the Eastern rites.]

I've never attended an Episcopalian service, but this is what I imagine it would be like--on one end, the low Church atmosphere of St. Ignatius, puncuated by guitars and all of the typical accompaniments to "worship and praise music"; for a high Church service, St. Paul's with its more traditional music and vestments for the lay ministers. (Especially the red-headed cantrix.)

I ended up leaving before the Liturgy of the Eucharist started; I decided to go to KFC and get some comfort food...A group of Muslims were visiting tonight, no doubt at the invitation of Mr. J. (As the Lady Downstairs later confirmed.)

[What is the source of the Good Friday prayers that were used at St. Columbkille? They sounded too "modernist" to be from the Missal--I was wondering if they were made up, even if that was done with the approval of American bishops.]

I don't know what my liturgical home, my heimat is... (see Klaus Gamber in his discussion of heimat). What of a mission to sustain and promote orthodoxy and that which is in conformity with Tradition? What is more important--keeping family and myself spiritually nourished, or being a member of a parish community regardless of the frustration and lack of edification? I might be able to embrace the classical rite, but would that be feasible if I get married to someone who does not understand Latin? I don't think the liturgy should be completely intelligible, and in order to pray the divine office in Latin, one should understand Latin. What about the children? Still, I feel more at home with the classical rite than with the new rite--though if I haven't said it already, I will say it now--certain tends in church architecture do not appeal to me (such as an excessive Baroque style, altars that are attached to walls, and reredos). I can't but help notice these things before the liturgy begins... I would prefer an earlier style, something closer to the Byzantine. But then again, it's not about my taste alone. Still, it is of some comfort to find others who think that in larger churches a baldachin could be introduced. (I don't know if the one at Our Saviour has always been there, but I do like it.)

When I return to San Jose, I will have to check out St. Elias the Prophet (website seems to be down) as well as St. Basil in Los Gatos...

Global Melkite Association