Excellent and well researched and thought out article. My favorite part was the warning against pride. This is the most subtle and dangerous parts of the traditionalist movement. It's not our job to judge a Church council. Trying to wrestle my own soul against it's penchant for sinful thoughts and behaviors is hard enough. Trust in God seems to be a pretty important element in holiness, and that applies to trusting his body, the Church. As a father and huisband, my area of authority extends to my wife and children, and I am accountable to God's justice if I neglect my role as a loving authority over them. My pastor's authority is broader than mine, and he has a lot of freedom to address liturgical practices. The Bishop's authority is greater still, and the Pope's job to lead is exponentially greater than that. It is a grave error if I think I can, based on my limited perspective and authoritative reach, make judgements about what a council of Bishops, led by the Holy Spirit, got or did not get right at a meeting before I was born. No amount of litugical abuse (save invalidity) justifies my even addressing it as something I should spend any time worry about or debating. My job of being a good husband and father is quite enough for me to handle.
I reject the whole idea of "liturgy wars" or "liturgical debate". My job is to pray at Mass, and do the work of my vocation. God needs to handle the rest.
Regina, I will point out that you did express an opinion that you seemed to assume was a fact:
"And indeed, the Novus Ordo done right somewhat approximates this hope (though no one in the West can come close to the East when it comes to liturgy)"
I have never been to an Eastern liturgy, and although I might agree with you if I had, this was a clear opinion that seems to be presented as self-evident.
Ah, well, my brother, the solution is to go to an Eastern liturgy! Try to find a festal one to get a sense of what I mean. As my one friend, the late Fr. Constantine Belisarius of happy memory, used to tell Roman Catholics, you have to go to an Eastern liturgy at least once before you die, so that when you get to Heaven, you'll understand what's going on. :)
Hear, hear! What a good, balanced, thorough, focused post! Thank you!
I'm playing catch up here, Regina, working my way forward through your past posts. So, I've missed the party on this one. Too bad too, because what you wrote is so good, and the discussion in comments is good too. Nonetheless, if only in my own hankering to belong, I have some comments, however belated. I want to celebrate this good post.
Working down from the top.
ON TRASHING VATICAN II.
I've encountered some of the trash talk myself. LifeSiteNews is one of my newsfeeds, and I value it particularly for a variety of reasons - its coverage of issues in Canada, its presentation of perspectives that no other newsfeed covers, its heartfelt love for traditional Catholic practices and beliefs. But I do encounter there as well substantive criticism of Vatican II. On the one hand, I appreciate learning what the critics are saying. But on the other, when LifeSite swings into Vatican II "trash talk" - namely treating it as the root and cause of what George Weigel calls "Catholic Lite" - it loses me.
The criticisms don't rhyme with my experience. Part of this certainly flows from my personal apostasies in the 70s and 80s - sojourns through near atheism first, then philosophical doubts about atheism, then (very tentatively!) evangelical Protestant prayer and study groups, then (migrating with my evangelical friends) Episcopalian folk Masses.
All of this un-Catholic sojourning - just when faithful practicing Catholics were suffering through post-Vatican II liturgical and theological impositions. "Parce nobis, Domine." And in my waywardness and his providence, he did spare me. I stepped out of the church and missed the roiling upsets.
I came back to John Paul II, and I read him. And Joseph Ratzinger, and I read him too. The 1994 and 1997 editions of their Catechism. George Weigel's "Witness to Hope." And increasingly - prayerful, reverent liturgies. Not always by any means, but enough. On the recommendation of a friend, Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy." (All preceded, not incidentally, by an extended, in-depth exploration of studies of "the historical Jesus.")
This - THIS - was the church I came back to. It was the church of Vatican II - clearly, the church of Vatican II. And, having missed so much of the sturm und drang, I found that "the renovated church" resonated profoundly with the church I was brought up in, the church before Vatican II.
So, when I hear Vatican II treated as the epitome of a hermeneutic of rupture, the claim rings false. And certainly - utterly - John Paul II and Benedict XVI were living testimonies to the good of the Council. Not to see that is to completely miss their papacies.
GOVERNMENT & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
"Vatican II firmly disentangled the skein of faith from the threads of thrones, . . ." Quite a knack for words you've got there, lady! The issues and oppositions are still with us, of course, But the point you made includes formally opening Catholicism to American democracy (and vice versa). It grounds our right to claims and arguments in the public square; and Lord knows we need to make them. It even affirms our right to "the Benedict option," to fold inward into church communities when secular winds assail us.
THE CALL OF THE LAITY
This was big. Still is. I like your citation of Francis de Sales (on the cusp of "the priesthood of all believers") and Josemaria Escriva, to whom you just introduced me. I also liked your allusion to dissents over "Humanae Vitae," and your partial list of lay initiatives and apostolates, including Christendom College and FOCUS. I've just begun to encounter "Tradition, Family, Property" (TFP) online, reminding me a bit of the "Sacra Cor" dorm you portrayed in "Waking Rose."
Nonetheless, I don't think we're home yet. When I read Paul admonishing us to respect our diverse gifts in the body of Christ, I think of the kindergarten maxim, "Everybody plays. Everybody plays fair." In fact, the image of kids playing together, in the security of grownup guardrails, is not far from my sense of community. I don't know what the key is here, but I do think we're missing it. The grownups guarding the rails under Francis seem not to have gotten the memo. "Everybody plays. Everybody plays fair." That suggests to me that even conservatives get to play. But not currently. Just the opposite, currently.
So. I am asking about dissent. How, at present, can a conservative effectively dissent in the church? Or in a conservative era, how can a liberal dissent? Pope Benedict seemed particularly good at accommodating both. Pope Francis, not so much. IMHO, "the call of the laity" must include both.
CATHOLICS & THE BIBLE
Yep.
There has been some terrific work on "the historical Jesus," in the last thirty years. See Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, John Bergsma, Brant Pitre, and (notably!) Pope Benedict XVI. All tending to reinvest and deepen and ramify the plain sense of the texts. This is one area of important ecumenical convergence. (Note, however, that a fair amount of popular Catholic exegesis is still mired in "the social construction" of the gospels.)
CLARIFYING THE LITURGY WARS
I won't go into detail here. In my book, a prayerful liturgy carries the day, whether novus ordo or latinus.
When Francis came out against the Latin Mass, my wife and I hustled down to a parish still celebrating it, in hopes of witnessing the Mass of my childhood one last time. We were astonished. First of all, at the reverence. Second, at the overflow crowd. Third, at all the children. So many children! Fourth, at the Latin music.
I did have one quibble. Couldn't hear the priest or the servers praying. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meum. I wanted to hear that.
We were under-dressed. The men wore suits, the women mantillas. Fun to watch the teen girls hurrying off their mantillas immediately after. I remembered that the men all wore suits when I was a kid too. I stuck with my family then by following my Dad's pants, but all the dads' pants looked alike, and I often followed the wrong dad. . . .
However, the Latin Mass parish is too far away for us to go there regularly. We have to crate the dogs, and they can't handle us taking a four-hour round trip and adding a couple hours at church. Doggies gotta roam.
But now my wife wears a mantilla. Our church offers different formats at its Sunday Masses. Ten in the morning is "ad orientam" with a wonderful choir, leading us mainly in Latin. We love the prayerful, mixed liturgy. There's a much longer story here; but the bottom line? Both/and. We're open to the novus ordo and the Latin Mass both. The main thing is the prayerfulness and the fellowship after. And orthodox preaching.
THE CHURCH AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE
Yes!
Part of my path back into Catholicism was a year-long participation in Shabbat services and classes at the Hillel Foundation in Austin. I had had a Jewish girlfriend. She dumped me. Then I wondered how much of what I liked about her was her Jewishness. Turned out to be a lot.
So, I learned more than a bit of Judaism. I even considered converting. However, the more I learned, the more I recognized my childhood Catholicism in it. Hillel helped to bring me back to the Catholic church. But it also left me with SUCH a heart for Judaism. I consider Catholicism to be in foundational solidarity with Judaism. Especially now, after October 7th and the ensuing tsunamis of hatred for Jews.
THE COMMENTS
Sadly, there's a football game on now in the living room. I have to hurry this part.
I read and liked all the comments. Martin Doman's was the one that struck me most. Maybe I still have too much of a Protestant, democratic perspective. I don't extend automatic agreement to anything a Pope says. Instead, I read it, consider it, and decide as conscientiously as possible what I honestly think myself. In other words, because he's Pope, I listen and think.
Years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a good example of this approach in a "First Things" article about capital punishment. I can provide a link if asked.
Accordingly, I have few qualms about dissenting from Pope Francis's politics. I won't raise a big argument here, though I could. Instead, I would refer you to Archbishop Charles Chaput's recent piece opposing Fiducia Supplicans, "The Cost of Making a Mess." Here's a link: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-cost-of-making-a-mess
I dislike ending on such a note of strong dissent. I do, however, believe that "The Call of the Laity" entails doing so.
I guess I’m a traditionalist Catholic. I like Vatican II at least some parts of it-the universal call to holiness, the clarification on the Jewish people. But, it is difficult to embrace all that was carried out in the name of Vatican II. Especially in retrospect.
I was struck by your mention of Gregorian chant - was I right in reading that as you saying the pride of place for chant is less about a style of music for, say, offertory than it is about singing the Mass (which needs to be chanted because, obviously, it doesn’t fit into a meter)? I ask because I’m an organist at my parish and have been thinking a lot about what music is best versus appropriate versus acceptable for Mass. Chant would be wonderful, but we struggle with the simple Latin parts of Mass during Lent, and, well, I can’t envision trying to do more in place of the hymns than the two or three chant pieces we know.
Thanks for commenting, Bridget! I would refer you to the article from Catholic World Report I linked to above, and I just found this one, which seems to correct what I said above regarding Gregorian Chant.
I do remember when I worked at CUF that I learned from their archives there was a Chant revival movement in the 1930s and 1950s and that during the reform of the liturgy efforts during that time, there was talk about making the Mass more responsive like the Byzantine liturgies... but I may have muddled the details and am happy to be corrected.
Thanks! Put in the context of a revival of Gregorian chant in the 1930s-50s, the council was trying to revive an ancient, beautiful style that Jesus would have used as well. I wish someone had a good idea for how to help parishes learn it now, though. A whole new style of singing, plus in a different language, is just way beyond the ability of my parish right now.
I remember how at Franciscan, they taught us Gregorian chant by having the cantor sing it a cappella. I learned the Sanctus and Agnus Dei that way. Over the years, our organist at my current parish gradually taught the congregation the Gloria in Latin, which I just realized most of us (including myself) finally know and can sing with gusto. Take your time, go slowly! But head in that direction! And do check out Thomas Day's book I linked to, which lists common mistakes made by cantors that discourage congregational singing. I notice our cantors don't make those, and now we all sing.
Unfortunately we don’t have a cantor at the Mass where I play the organ, which is part of why I don’t think learning chant is really feasible for us right now. That’s also the case in many (most?) parishes in my diocese, which is very rural.
My older kid woke up so I didn’t have time to go over my last comment. I left out the next piece, which is that I’ve been singing a cappella Latin after the Communion hymn is over to kind of introduce people to how Latin sounds, and also so we get to incorporate it into the liturgy, even if it’s just me. Ultimately it takes a lot of commitment to do Latin, and I don’t think we’re there yet.
No. I have in the past at different churches, but ours has a cool old box pipe organ that blasts the music out right above my head, so it’s not microphone friendly. I know Gregorian chant is really supposed to be a cappella, but in my experience congregations learn much more easily with accompaniment, and only after they’re REALLY confident will they sing a cappella. That’s especially true with my church, I’ve noticed. The other difficulty is one of our priests doesn’t sing the Mass parts except during Easter and Christmas - and I had to put my foot down to play them (in English) even in those seasons. So, with half our monthly Masses with spoken Mass parts, I just... don’t think it would be possible to introduce new Mass parts. Ideally I could teach a few people in the congregation to know them outside of Mass so they could help lead, but with two little kids in the house and hopefully another in the next year or so, that’s a lot for my family to take on. I’m really only playing organ right now because nobody else volunteered, and I figured any organ is better than none, even if weird things happen sometimes because I have two toddlers in the choir loft with me.
PS: You might want to google (as I did) Gregorian Chant 1930s or 1950s and scroll through those articles to discover more about the pre-Conciliar liturgical reform movements in America.
Regina:
Excellent and well researched and thought out article. My favorite part was the warning against pride. This is the most subtle and dangerous parts of the traditionalist movement. It's not our job to judge a Church council. Trying to wrestle my own soul against it's penchant for sinful thoughts and behaviors is hard enough. Trust in God seems to be a pretty important element in holiness, and that applies to trusting his body, the Church. As a father and huisband, my area of authority extends to my wife and children, and I am accountable to God's justice if I neglect my role as a loving authority over them. My pastor's authority is broader than mine, and he has a lot of freedom to address liturgical practices. The Bishop's authority is greater still, and the Pope's job to lead is exponentially greater than that. It is a grave error if I think I can, based on my limited perspective and authoritative reach, make judgements about what a council of Bishops, led by the Holy Spirit, got or did not get right at a meeting before I was born. No amount of litugical abuse (save invalidity) justifies my even addressing it as something I should spend any time worry about or debating. My job of being a good husband and father is quite enough for me to handle.
I reject the whole idea of "liturgy wars" or "liturgical debate". My job is to pray at Mass, and do the work of my vocation. God needs to handle the rest.
Regina, I will point out that you did express an opinion that you seemed to assume was a fact:
"And indeed, the Novus Ordo done right somewhat approximates this hope (though no one in the West can come close to the East when it comes to liturgy)"
I have never been to an Eastern liturgy, and although I might agree with you if I had, this was a clear opinion that seems to be presented as self-evident.
Loved this! Well said and needed to be heard!
Ah, well, my brother, the solution is to go to an Eastern liturgy! Try to find a festal one to get a sense of what I mean. As my one friend, the late Fr. Constantine Belisarius of happy memory, used to tell Roman Catholics, you have to go to an Eastern liturgy at least once before you die, so that when you get to Heaven, you'll understand what's going on. :)
Thanks for commenting!
Hear, hear! What a good, balanced, thorough, focused post! Thank you!
I'm playing catch up here, Regina, working my way forward through your past posts. So, I've missed the party on this one. Too bad too, because what you wrote is so good, and the discussion in comments is good too. Nonetheless, if only in my own hankering to belong, I have some comments, however belated. I want to celebrate this good post.
Working down from the top.
ON TRASHING VATICAN II.
I've encountered some of the trash talk myself. LifeSiteNews is one of my newsfeeds, and I value it particularly for a variety of reasons - its coverage of issues in Canada, its presentation of perspectives that no other newsfeed covers, its heartfelt love for traditional Catholic practices and beliefs. But I do encounter there as well substantive criticism of Vatican II. On the one hand, I appreciate learning what the critics are saying. But on the other, when LifeSite swings into Vatican II "trash talk" - namely treating it as the root and cause of what George Weigel calls "Catholic Lite" - it loses me.
The criticisms don't rhyme with my experience. Part of this certainly flows from my personal apostasies in the 70s and 80s - sojourns through near atheism first, then philosophical doubts about atheism, then (very tentatively!) evangelical Protestant prayer and study groups, then (migrating with my evangelical friends) Episcopalian folk Masses.
All of this un-Catholic sojourning - just when faithful practicing Catholics were suffering through post-Vatican II liturgical and theological impositions. "Parce nobis, Domine." And in my waywardness and his providence, he did spare me. I stepped out of the church and missed the roiling upsets.
I came back to John Paul II, and I read him. And Joseph Ratzinger, and I read him too. The 1994 and 1997 editions of their Catechism. George Weigel's "Witness to Hope." And increasingly - prayerful, reverent liturgies. Not always by any means, but enough. On the recommendation of a friend, Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy." (All preceded, not incidentally, by an extended, in-depth exploration of studies of "the historical Jesus.")
This - THIS - was the church I came back to. It was the church of Vatican II - clearly, the church of Vatican II. And, having missed so much of the sturm und drang, I found that "the renovated church" resonated profoundly with the church I was brought up in, the church before Vatican II.
So, when I hear Vatican II treated as the epitome of a hermeneutic of rupture, the claim rings false. And certainly - utterly - John Paul II and Benedict XVI were living testimonies to the good of the Council. Not to see that is to completely miss their papacies.
GOVERNMENT & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
"Vatican II firmly disentangled the skein of faith from the threads of thrones, . . ." Quite a knack for words you've got there, lady! The issues and oppositions are still with us, of course, But the point you made includes formally opening Catholicism to American democracy (and vice versa). It grounds our right to claims and arguments in the public square; and Lord knows we need to make them. It even affirms our right to "the Benedict option," to fold inward into church communities when secular winds assail us.
THE CALL OF THE LAITY
This was big. Still is. I like your citation of Francis de Sales (on the cusp of "the priesthood of all believers") and Josemaria Escriva, to whom you just introduced me. I also liked your allusion to dissents over "Humanae Vitae," and your partial list of lay initiatives and apostolates, including Christendom College and FOCUS. I've just begun to encounter "Tradition, Family, Property" (TFP) online, reminding me a bit of the "Sacra Cor" dorm you portrayed in "Waking Rose."
Nonetheless, I don't think we're home yet. When I read Paul admonishing us to respect our diverse gifts in the body of Christ, I think of the kindergarten maxim, "Everybody plays. Everybody plays fair." In fact, the image of kids playing together, in the security of grownup guardrails, is not far from my sense of community. I don't know what the key is here, but I do think we're missing it. The grownups guarding the rails under Francis seem not to have gotten the memo. "Everybody plays. Everybody plays fair." That suggests to me that even conservatives get to play. But not currently. Just the opposite, currently.
So. I am asking about dissent. How, at present, can a conservative effectively dissent in the church? Or in a conservative era, how can a liberal dissent? Pope Benedict seemed particularly good at accommodating both. Pope Francis, not so much. IMHO, "the call of the laity" must include both.
CATHOLICS & THE BIBLE
Yep.
There has been some terrific work on "the historical Jesus," in the last thirty years. See Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, John Bergsma, Brant Pitre, and (notably!) Pope Benedict XVI. All tending to reinvest and deepen and ramify the plain sense of the texts. This is one area of important ecumenical convergence. (Note, however, that a fair amount of popular Catholic exegesis is still mired in "the social construction" of the gospels.)
CLARIFYING THE LITURGY WARS
I won't go into detail here. In my book, a prayerful liturgy carries the day, whether novus ordo or latinus.
When Francis came out against the Latin Mass, my wife and I hustled down to a parish still celebrating it, in hopes of witnessing the Mass of my childhood one last time. We were astonished. First of all, at the reverence. Second, at the overflow crowd. Third, at all the children. So many children! Fourth, at the Latin music.
I did have one quibble. Couldn't hear the priest or the servers praying. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meum. I wanted to hear that.
We were under-dressed. The men wore suits, the women mantillas. Fun to watch the teen girls hurrying off their mantillas immediately after. I remembered that the men all wore suits when I was a kid too. I stuck with my family then by following my Dad's pants, but all the dads' pants looked alike, and I often followed the wrong dad. . . .
However, the Latin Mass parish is too far away for us to go there regularly. We have to crate the dogs, and they can't handle us taking a four-hour round trip and adding a couple hours at church. Doggies gotta roam.
But now my wife wears a mantilla. Our church offers different formats at its Sunday Masses. Ten in the morning is "ad orientam" with a wonderful choir, leading us mainly in Latin. We love the prayerful, mixed liturgy. There's a much longer story here; but the bottom line? Both/and. We're open to the novus ordo and the Latin Mass both. The main thing is the prayerfulness and the fellowship after. And orthodox preaching.
THE CHURCH AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE
Yes!
Part of my path back into Catholicism was a year-long participation in Shabbat services and classes at the Hillel Foundation in Austin. I had had a Jewish girlfriend. She dumped me. Then I wondered how much of what I liked about her was her Jewishness. Turned out to be a lot.
So, I learned more than a bit of Judaism. I even considered converting. However, the more I learned, the more I recognized my childhood Catholicism in it. Hillel helped to bring me back to the Catholic church. But it also left me with SUCH a heart for Judaism. I consider Catholicism to be in foundational solidarity with Judaism. Especially now, after October 7th and the ensuing tsunamis of hatred for Jews.
THE COMMENTS
Sadly, there's a football game on now in the living room. I have to hurry this part.
I read and liked all the comments. Martin Doman's was the one that struck me most. Maybe I still have too much of a Protestant, democratic perspective. I don't extend automatic agreement to anything a Pope says. Instead, I read it, consider it, and decide as conscientiously as possible what I honestly think myself. In other words, because he's Pope, I listen and think.
Years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a good example of this approach in a "First Things" article about capital punishment. I can provide a link if asked.
Accordingly, I have few qualms about dissenting from Pope Francis's politics. I won't raise a big argument here, though I could. Instead, I would refer you to Archbishop Charles Chaput's recent piece opposing Fiducia Supplicans, "The Cost of Making a Mess." Here's a link: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-cost-of-making-a-mess
I dislike ending on such a note of strong dissent. I do, however, believe that "The Call of the Laity" entails doing so.
Outstanding post, Regina. Thank you!
Love, love, love this!
I guess I’m a traditionalist Catholic. I like Vatican II at least some parts of it-the universal call to holiness, the clarification on the Jewish people. But, it is difficult to embrace all that was carried out in the name of Vatican II. Especially in retrospect.
I was struck by your mention of Gregorian chant - was I right in reading that as you saying the pride of place for chant is less about a style of music for, say, offertory than it is about singing the Mass (which needs to be chanted because, obviously, it doesn’t fit into a meter)? I ask because I’m an organist at my parish and have been thinking a lot about what music is best versus appropriate versus acceptable for Mass. Chant would be wonderful, but we struggle with the simple Latin parts of Mass during Lent, and, well, I can’t envision trying to do more in place of the hymns than the two or three chant pieces we know.
Thanks for commenting, Bridget! I would refer you to the article from Catholic World Report I linked to above, and I just found this one, which seems to correct what I said above regarding Gregorian Chant.
https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2020/06/25/gregorian-chant-in-parishes/
I do remember when I worked at CUF that I learned from their archives there was a Chant revival movement in the 1930s and 1950s and that during the reform of the liturgy efforts during that time, there was talk about making the Mass more responsive like the Byzantine liturgies... but I may have muddled the details and am happy to be corrected.
Thanks! Put in the context of a revival of Gregorian chant in the 1930s-50s, the council was trying to revive an ancient, beautiful style that Jesus would have used as well. I wish someone had a good idea for how to help parishes learn it now, though. A whole new style of singing, plus in a different language, is just way beyond the ability of my parish right now.
I remember how at Franciscan, they taught us Gregorian chant by having the cantor sing it a cappella. I learned the Sanctus and Agnus Dei that way. Over the years, our organist at my current parish gradually taught the congregation the Gloria in Latin, which I just realized most of us (including myself) finally know and can sing with gusto. Take your time, go slowly! But head in that direction! And do check out Thomas Day's book I linked to, which lists common mistakes made by cantors that discourage congregational singing. I notice our cantors don't make those, and now we all sing.
Unfortunately we don’t have a cantor at the Mass where I play the organ, which is part of why I don’t think learning chant is really feasible for us right now. That’s also the case in many (most?) parishes in my diocese, which is very rural.
I see. And you don't cantor yourself?
My older kid woke up so I didn’t have time to go over my last comment. I left out the next piece, which is that I’ve been singing a cappella Latin after the Communion hymn is over to kind of introduce people to how Latin sounds, and also so we get to incorporate it into the liturgy, even if it’s just me. Ultimately it takes a lot of commitment to do Latin, and I don’t think we’re there yet.
No. I have in the past at different churches, but ours has a cool old box pipe organ that blasts the music out right above my head, so it’s not microphone friendly. I know Gregorian chant is really supposed to be a cappella, but in my experience congregations learn much more easily with accompaniment, and only after they’re REALLY confident will they sing a cappella. That’s especially true with my church, I’ve noticed. The other difficulty is one of our priests doesn’t sing the Mass parts except during Easter and Christmas - and I had to put my foot down to play them (in English) even in those seasons. So, with half our monthly Masses with spoken Mass parts, I just... don’t think it would be possible to introduce new Mass parts. Ideally I could teach a few people in the congregation to know them outside of Mass so they could help lead, but with two little kids in the house and hopefully another in the next year or so, that’s a lot for my family to take on. I’m really only playing organ right now because nobody else volunteered, and I figured any organ is better than none, even if weird things happen sometimes because I have two toddlers in the choir loft with me.
PS: You might want to google (as I did) Gregorian Chant 1930s or 1950s and scroll through those articles to discover more about the pre-Conciliar liturgical reform movements in America.