1999 Annual General Conference Report, Washington, DC

by Lauren Pristas

Sixty-seven members of the Society for Catholic Liturgy (SCL) and their guests met in Washington, D.C., from September 23-26, 1999. The Washington conference was organized by Rev. Walter J. Tappe, archdiocesan director of liturgy and a member of the SCL board. The conference sessions took place at St. Matthew's Cathedral. The gathering opened with a reception and dinner on Thursday evening and closed with the celebration of Mass at St. Matthew's Cathedral on Sunday at 11.30 a.m. In the intervening time, conference participants had the opportunity to hear eight presentations which addressed the conference theme of "A Century of the Liturgical Movement" from a variety of disciplinary perspectives; to worship at daily Mass in St. Matthew's Cathedral; to pray Morning and Evening Prayer together each day; and to discuss the present projects of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy with Rev. James Moroney, its executive director. On September 25, the members held their annual business meeting. 

Most Rev. Marcel Rooney, O.S.B., Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order, gave the conference's keynote address, "The Liturgical Movement at Ninety." Noting that the most recent historical effort to renew the liturgy is some ninety years old, Abbot Marcel pointed to its ongoing vitality in four particular areas. In the area of ecclesiology, heralded by the biblical and theological renewals of previous centuries, and summarized in Mystici Corporis and Mediator Dei, the movement strives continually to awaken again the ancient "sense of church" in Catholics. In its social justice dimension, the movement endeavors to strengthen Catholic consciousness of the essential connection between the ritual done at the altar and the various activities of daily life. In catechesis, the liturgical movement continues to emphasize the necessity of the Word of God forming and directing all aspects of human existence. In the area of the arts are the many movements and counter-movements in the fields of liturgical music, visual representation, and architecture. 

Abbot Marcel stated that many needs remain and must be addressed if the liturgical movement is to give birth today to new energy and vision, and to advance the true renewal of Catholic worship. Here he named four particular needs. First, the fundamentals of the liturgy must be taught to the faithful. It cannot be assumed that simply praying the vernacular texts of the rites will communicate everything which Catholics need to understand. Second, individualism and pragmatism, as well as the many other attitudes prevalent in society which are inimical to Christian life and fitting worship, must be exposed and combated, in order for the liturgy to have its full effect. Third, serious creative efforts are needed to renew the arts which, at present, are in abysmal need of restoration. Fourth, the time for "moving the furniture around" has passed. Now it is imperative that liturgical leaders themselves be renewed in prayer so that they may gain therefrom the wisdom needed to direct the hearts of the faithful to their proper end. 

Rev. Keith Pecklers, S.J., of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, Rome, spoke on "American Participation in the Liturgical Movement." The liturgical movement in the United States, he pointed out, was not, as some had believed, concerned merely with new styles of liturgical vesture, but with a return to the very heart of the liturgy, to full and active participation as the source of Christian social consciousness. The movement was an organic part of twentieth-century American ecclesial renewal, closely related to the biblical, patristic, and neo-Thomistic movements which theologically supported the work of the liturgical pioneers. Together, these movements campaigned against individualism and materialism in the United States, offering a new vision of church and human society.

The social consciousness which motivated the pioneers and promoters in those early years of the liturgical movement has been lost and desperately needs to be rediscovered. Perhaps the liturgical movement needs to be re-founded, and a sense of the church as the Mystical Body of Christ retrieved. What is clear is that the vision to which the liturgical pioneers gave their lives remains unread, unfulfilled.

In his paper, "The Liturgical Movement and the Renewal of the Social Order," Rev. Michael J. Baxter, C.S.C., of the University of Notre Dame, discussed the connection between worship and society. In spite of regular calls over the past century for establishing the link between liturgy and the renewal of the social order, there has remained a chronic disjunction between the two.  The cause is not lack of will on the part of liturgists or lack of interest on the part of social activists. Rather, Baxter explained, it is due to the shifting structure of what constitutes "the social" in post-revolutionary Europe, and more generally, in modernity. Thus the means for establishing a firm link between liturgy and the social order, understood conventionally, are not available to us. Rather, liturgy itself constitutes a social order, namely, the ordo of God, and the task of renewal is, first and foremost, a renewal of the society called the "church," and then, an ad hoc engagement with the various earthly societies or cities.

Dr. Catherine Pickstock of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, England, in a paper entitled "The Medieval Liturgy and the Reform of the Roman Rite," argued that liturgy is the most important work, or, indeed, the only work for Christians, and that for the tradition up to Aquinas there was not the same duality of life and liturgy which now pertains. To demonstrate her case, Pickstock analyzedsome of the criticisms leveled at the medieval Roman rite by the post-Vatican II liturgical reformers and suggested that those features of the liturgy which were criticized on the grounds of lack of economy and incoherence are seen from a very different perspective when situated within the context of the medieval synthesis of life and liturgy. In negotiating the question of liturgical reform, Pickstock did not advocate a "return" to medieval liturgical texts or practices; such a "return" would be impossible, given the transformation of human culture and the now normative sway of principles of individualism and of a culture of accumulation. Rather, Pickstock called for a reform of the liturgy which, rather than seeking to accommodate secularism, would challenge those aspects of culture which are inimical to liturgical purpose. 

Mr. Denis McNamara, a doctoral student in architectural history at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, accompanied his paper, "How Terrible Is This Place: The Liturgical Movement and Architectural Modernism Before Vatican II," with slides. McNamara examined the liturgical movement in the United States as it affected church architecture, paying particular attention to its relationship with architectural modernism. Starting with an examination of the architectural context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, McNamara argued that the liturgical movement's call for architectural clarity was, in fact, not a call to the minimalist architectural aesthetic, but rather to an increased emphasis on the centrality of the eucharist in worship. Architects and liturgists alike of that era desired churches with prominent tabernacles, altars distinct from sanctuary ornamentation, and a proper hierarchy of parts in the arrangement of statues and symbolism.

McNamara presented slides of little-known pre-conciliar churches which were designed according to the early liturgical movement's principles in order to establish a present-day underpinning for the case for architecture which supports both piety and devotional participation. Since these older churches avoided the excesses of the modernist aesthetic yet draw from the same principles expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, they are worthy of study.

Rev. Robert Taft, S.J., of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome spoke on "‘Eastern Presuppositions' in the Modern Catholic Liturgical Movement." Taft stated that the modern western liturgical movement sought precedents and justifications for proposed reforms by appeal to the liturgies of the patristic age and of the East. He argued that the facts did not always justify this appeal, for the point of departure was not liturgical history. Rather, precedents were sought in the past or in the East for what reformers had already decided to do on the basis of perceived present needs. Taft's presentation examined the strategies modern liturgical reformers employed, especially their exploitation of Eastern liturgy to enhance the authority of their proposals for renewal. While Eastern liturgy may possess qualities the West could learn from, it is not a turn to the East that the West needs, but a return to the living well springs of its own patristic and religious traditions, which are just as ancient and venerable as those of the East.

In his paper, "Inopportune Inheritances and Exaggerated Expectations: Music in Catholic Liturgical Renewal," Rev. Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., of St. John's Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota, began by noting that the liturgical movement at the beginning of this century, as reflected in the early issues of Orate Fratres, was favorable to Latin chant, solemnity in liturgical ceremonial, and the like. Liturgists and musicians were of one mind in their propagation of congregational Latin chant. Then, as the movement became more "popular" through the works of Pius Parsch and others, and as liturgists increasingly advocated reform of liturgical structures, a division between liturgists and musicians set in at the Second Vatican Council. The people's chant movement had proved generally unable to achieve strong congregational participation. Accordingly, the church's liturgy entered the turmoil of the 1960s already internally unstable and ambivalent about its own musical heritage. Efforts today to "recatholicize" the reformed liturgy represent a necessary corrective to the positions taken in the 1960s. But, Ruff suggested, advocates of a recatholicization must ask themselves to what extent the current cultural or ecclesial situation is amenable to such a corrective, and whether the recatholicization agenda risks being merely one small faction in a Balkanized church rather than the prophetic future of Catholic worship.

Rev. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B., Pro-President of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, in his paper "The Hermeneutics of Sacrosanctum Concilium," proposed a three-step hermeneutic of the conciliar document. First, one must study the formation of the text: the preparatory schema, the conciliar debate, amendments by the Council Fathers and the final version. Second, it is necessary to consider the document as a whole and in relation to other conciliar documents, especially Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. Third, the magisterial interpretation of the text in a subsequent period must be examined if any such interpretation is available. Folsom's argued that careful application of this hermeneutic is necessary for a faithful and accurate interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. 

At the annual business meeting, members devoted their attentions principally to four agenda items: the President's Report; upcoming annual conferences; the election of new board members; and the Society's General Operating Procedures.  Msgr. M. Francis Mannion, president of the SCL, reported on the general state of its affairs. Eighteen new members were added to the Society in the last year, bringing the total number to 155—up from twenty-four members just five years ago. The financial state of the Society is secure, thanks to generous grants from Our Sunday Visitor Institute in Indiana and the Homeland Foundation in New York, which are used to defray the costs of the annual conference. Generous contributions from forty United States bishops and other persons, and membership dues are the other main sources of income. Antiphon, the journal of the Society, is doing well, with increased inquiries about back issues from libraries. Its publication policies have gradually become more formalized: all articles are now read by two members of the Society before a decision is made to publish them; the editorial is sent to all board members for their comments and suggestions prior to publication; a "Forum" section has been added that presents responses to previously published material. The board set a formal policy that Antiphon would not feature reviews of members' works, though an announcement of members' publications would be printed. The cost of the annual subscription will be raised from $12 to $15 in 2000, while the subscription fee for members will continue to be included in the annual dues. 

Rev. Samuel Aquila of the Archdiocese of Denver discussed the plans for the conference in the year 2000, "Dimensions of the Eucharist," to be held in Denver, September 21-24. Members will lodge at the Wyndham Garden Hotel, a five minute walk from the John Paul II Center, where all liturgical celebrations, presentations, meetings, and meals, except for the Saturday evening banquet, will take place. With respect to the 2001 conference, members chose "Formation and the Liturgy" as the conference theme and Fort Wayne, Indiana, as the conference site. The conference that year will take place September 27-30, and Sr. Jane Carew will serve as conference manager. 

Seeking to fill four three-year positions on the board, members re-elected two board members, Mr. Mark Bradford and Dr. Lauren Pristas, and elected two others for the first time, Rev. Gabriel B. O'Donnell, O.P. and Rev. Walter J. Tappe. Dr. Pamela Jackson and Rev. Giles Dimock, O.P., retired from the board after serving six and four years, respectively. At their Sunday morning meeting, the new board elected its officers for one-year terms: Msgr. M. Francis Mannion as president; Rev. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B., as vice president; Dr. Lauren Pristas as secretary; Mr. Mark Bradford as treasurer. Rev. Samuel Aquila and Sr. Jane Carew, as managers of the 2000 and 2001conferences respectively, serve on the board ex officio. 

The three-member subcommittee (Bradford, Pristas, and Vaverek), appointed by the board to finalize the Society's General Operating Procedures, presented to the membership a proposal for changing certain features of the administrative structure of the Society, in order to better ensure its stability through eventual changes in leadership. After much fruitful discussion, the main lines of the subcommittee's proposal were approved. The present hope is that the members of the Society will have the opportunity to vote on permanent General Operating Procedures at their annual business meeting in September 2000.