It is often claimed that the London Oratory is a centre of ''liturgical excellence.'' I wonder what standard they who make this claim use to measure ''liturgical excellence.'' Clearly not Tradition, so what? I venture to think that the most famous ''liturgical'' people out there who make such judgements really don't know what they're doing, or if they do they just wish to perpetuate a myth and keep innocent, less-informed Christians in the dark - a bit like keeping up with the Joneses, or a sycophants' club where they all compliment each other on how traditional and Ultramontane they all are. The feast of St Andrew had, of old, an Octave in this land, and having half an hour to spare, I decided to listen to the BBC Radio 3 live broadcast of choral Vespers from the Oratory for Andrewmas. I think that the incorrect psalmody, the mediocre choir, and the presence of elements from the New Rite would shew this place up as being by no means a centre of ''liturgical excellence'' (a claim made by a moderator of The New Liturgical Movement 'blog, by the way). Why Psalm 117 in place of Psalm 138? Vicar's choice, perhaps? Psalm 117 is much shorter than Psalm 138. Maybe it was so that we could have a polyphonic psalm. If this was the reason then all I can say is that the Sacred Liturgy cannot be cheapened like that.
I couldn't work out what it was supposed to be from the few minutes I listened to. Wrong psalmody (in the Roman rite the psalms sung at Vespers are in acscending numerical sequence), the use of the pre-Urban VIII hymn (I'd give a point for that) but no commemoration of the Advent feria then bits of English etc. I suppose it was basically '65 with '69 tweakings?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, silly me, I was too busy praying along to play liturgy critic.
ReplyDeleteSo, as usual, Rome—and its dependencies—makes it up as it goes along?
ReplyDelete