T IS DOUBTFUL that any single man did more to defend the country of Poland from the Nazi armies than Witold Pilecki. For this reason, it’s outrageous that the Soviets who took over Poland—after treating him with inhuman cruelty—executed Pilecki as an “enemy of the state.” Their egregious hypocrisy is enough to break the brain of any sentient being. The situation calls to mind the 1970s, when many items specifically mandated by Vatican II were suddenly said to be forbidden. What makes the hypocrisy truly outrageous: those forbidding such things claimed to be doing so “in obedience to the council.” It would’ve been easier to accept if they had admitted they were explicitly contradicting Vatican II. But instead they lied egregiously, like someone setting a forest on fire “following explicit orders” from SMOKEY BEAR.
Moving Forward • Vatican II said the THESAURUS MUSICAE SACRAE must be “preserved and fostered with very great care” (SC §114). Only a dishonest person would claim that those words mean the THESAURUS must be disparaged, downplayed, or forbidden … yet this is the case in far too many churches! So how can we best move forward? Putting the question another way: how can conscientious choirmasters introduce music from the sacred treasury without being fired?
Choral Extensions • I have suggested that choral extensions are the best way to ‘subtly’ introduce Catholics to the THESAURUS. Since there was such a strong response to the SATB Christmas piece by Énemond Moreau, I’m sure readers will welcome this choral extension for the SANCTUS (which can also be used at Extraordinary Form Masses).
The choral extension comes at the end—immediately after the Gregorian Chant is sung:
Sadness • Some readers won’t bother to follow the URL link, which leads to rehearsal videos for each individual voice—as well as the PDF download—and that makes me sad.
Here is one of our first attempts to sing this at Mass:
* Mp3 Download • Live Rec.
—Live recording by a volunteer choir.
Source and Summit • Vatican II referred to the sacred liturgy as the SOURCE AND SUMMIT (“fons et culmen”) of the Church. Vatican II did not say: “The liturgy must be modified in a fundamental way and then will be the source and summit.” Vatican II did not say: “The sacred liturgy is currently defective, but once it’s modified beyond recognition it will become the source and summit.” Vatican II did not say: “Following sweeping and radical changes, the liturgy (which is currently deficient) will then at last be the source and summit.”
The Word ‘Whether’ • Nonetheless, Vatican II did call for certain revisions. For instance, they said a ‘wider place’ (amplior locus) could be given to the vernacular. Specifically, they declared: “the limits of its employment may be extended.” However, Vatican II made clear that bishops desiring to keep the entire Mass in Latin were free to do so. Specifically, Vatican II said local bishops must decide “whether and to what extent the vernacular language is to be used.” (In the 1970s, certain dishonest people pretended not to the definition of the word whether.)
Reform of the Reform • One of the main reformers,1 having observed the results of their liturgical reform, declared that “a revision will inevitably be called for.” Inadvertently, he was referring to what today is known as the “REFORM OF THE REFORM.” In other words, because the reformers went far beyond what Vatican II called for—especially regarding the REQUIEM MASS—many items will have to be fixed at some point in the future. When it comes to the question of whether the REFORM OF THE REFORM is theoretically possible, the USCCB has already made clear it is.
1 Professor Louis Bouyer, a close friend of Pope Saint Paul VI, was one of the most prominent liturgical reformers. However, when he saw the results of their work, he was horrified. For example, vis-à-vis the revised kalendar, he called it: “the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Pentecost Octave, and who scattered three quarters of the saints higgledy-piggledy, all based on notions of their own! Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything to their work—and because the Pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos get out of hand—their project, however insane, was accepted!” Father Bouyer referred to the reform as “the pathetic creature we produced,” and admitted it was only natural that it would “provoke laughter or indignation” because their task had been “without hope” because only a fool could reasonably expect to “recast from top to bottom—and in a few months!—an entire liturgy that took twenty centuries to develop.” Father Bouyer wrote in his memoirs: “The worst of it was an impossible OFFERTORY, in a Catholic Action, sentimental/workerist style, the handiwork of Fr Cellier, who with tailor-made arguments manipulated the despicable Bugnini in such a way that his production went through despite nearly unanimous opposition.” As mentioned above, Father Bouyer admitted in his memoirs that “a revision will inevitably be called for.”
