Final Reflections on My Trip

I have received some favorable comments on continuing my blog, and this I may do, but I will first wrap up my thoughts on Europe.

PURPOSE: The ostensible purpose was a "Chant Study Tour of the Alps," and this is basically what it was. The "study" part was not too in depth - there were some lectures given (although not all of them were about chant per se) - and we visited two monasteries (St. Gall and Einsiedeln) important in the earlier transmission of chant, but didn't get to see the original manuscripts. On the other hand, we weren't "scholars with credentials" and there are facsimile publications out there. However we did get to visit places which still showed large traces of the first millenium when this was all happening: the fresoes at Kloster St. John in Mustair and the at the "Engelkrypt" in Vinschgau with the famous one of the angels without eyes (concentrated solely on the worship of God) from about the 1160's. This was the famous crypt fresco which inspired then Cardinal Ratzinger to write his essay in 1992 entitled "In the Presence of the Angels I Will Sing Your Praise: The Regensburg Tradition and the Reform of the Liturgy." (It's in A NEW SONG FOR THE LORD)

There was a lot of time for informal discussion and the "picking of people's brains" on important subjects like the semiological interpretation of the chant (about which more later), and just seeing the beauty in which God has been traditionally worshiped.

CHURCH BUILDINGS: I saw many very beautiful ones - some of which were preserved with very little change. Some had the "Vatican II people's altar" put in, some wanted to have it (the monastery at Einsiedeln) but the government wouldn't let them do it -the building being an historical monument (interesting concept that would never work in America), some put in a "people's altar" for actual Masses but then removed it quickly when the tourists came through. ("we give the tourists what is historical, but the faithful what is relevant"?). Most of you know my thoughts on this, so I shall refrain from saying anything. I will just say that it will take years, decades, for sanity to return on this issue. It has already begun in some places.

One of the things that I liked about the bigger church buildings (St. Gall cathedral) was that there were many "antechambers to the divine." One could sit in front of the pieta in St. Gall Cathedral which was behind a pillar about in the middle of the nave and pray a rosary. You could be in a sacral environment without having to be directly in front of the Blessed Sacrament. This was no denegration of the Blessed Sacrament - as its presence was felt throughout (and this wouldn't work in a small church) - but I just liked it better.

Again, as in Brompton Oratory, there was just the feeling that these places were places of prayer. There was no confusion what so ever, and I have come to be a bit of a fan of the Baroque now.

GREGORIAN SEMIOLOGY: I need to learn more, but I had many of my suspicions confirmed by a "convert" from semiology to the Solesmes method who was part of the tour. It is an interesting concept, the study of the early 9th century manuscripts (and those lines, backslashes, check marks and dots above the words) and the assumption that one can derive rhythm from them for Gregorian chant. One cannot derive pitch as there were no staff lines. The problem is that these "signs" are highly vague at times and produce varying interpretations. It is not like we have a book from the time saying, "this sign means such and such, that sign means this, etc." It is all 20th century scholars looking and trying to figure out what they mean. For example the clivis in the 9th cent. would have been written thus " /.. " Now some say that the sign means that the first note should be held long and the last two notes should be normal length; others say it means the first note should be held long and the last two very short; still others say it means the first note should be normal length and the last two short. Some say the first note should be legato and the last two staccato.

This approach doesn't produce unity; in the past 30 years of existence it has produced a wide variety of schools of semiological interpretation.

Fr. Skeris' other main argument against it is that this may have been the way the chant was performed for 1-2 generations, as a kind of local tradition in these places, but that after that time these little books - which could literally fit in the palm of your hand - and were only intended for the cantor to make reference to, were forgotten about. Certainly by the time Solesmes was doing its historical research in the 19th century, Einsiedeln was not performing chant in some unique way (St. Gall had already been closed down as a monastery)

The point is, if you want to do it that way - fine. The question is: "is this the most effective and beautiful way to pass on a tradition, a culture, to the widest number of people?"

COWS: (from the sublime to the ridiculous) The cows in Switzerland are very skinny and small. They look malnourished campared to ours. I realize that they aren't, but are just a different breed.

COMMUNION LINES: Same thing in Munich as in London. Not as orderly as in America, although someone told me this was simply "the old way" of going to communion - even, perhaps, in America before Vatican II . It was normal to assume that not everyone was necessarily going to go, thus the practice of people getting up and going "out of order." The current practice in America actually may "force" (socially) people not in a state of grace to make sacriligious communions.

THE FAITH: It is in serious trouble in Europe. I have heard this before and seen it with my own eyes. One does see many beautiful faith-inspired cultural remnants which they are more sensitive to. One sees pockets of resistance: Old St. Peter's in Munich, Brompton Oratory in London, etc. One senses that the Europeans are just tired. They went through: the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Terror, Napolean, 2 world wars, Naziism, Communism, etc. One sense a jadedness at times, a cynicism about the Church in the tour guides (or rather an acceptance of a certain anti-clerical set of historical assumptions which are prevalent). It is not to deny some real natural virtue. I personally found the Swiss to be a very sweet, charming people. It is neither to deny that there are deeply religious Europeans, as I saw them in the churches.

What I didn't see were big movements and associations of young people - and young couples with lots of children (as I have seen in American Catholic circles). Maybe I just missed it. In fact, even the Muslims in Munich only seemed to have 1-3 children at most, but that may have been that they were newly married. I don't know.

What seems to be the case, is that Americans are a more positive, enthusiastic people who may be able to accomplish much if we learn the right things from or "older brothers and sisters." (i.e. Europeans) We simply do not have the level of culture and beauty - we have a tendency toward the utilitarian and of being comfortable with the down right ugly - but we do not have the cynicism, the world weariness that they have. As I have said, we are a "can do people." It has its disadvantages, as in the "Americanist heresy," but there is definitely a place for practical skills. (i.e. there is nothing like the Texas oil billionaire who has developed a genuine love of opera) In fact, art and art in worship has always required some sort of a "patron," - the rich guy who loves art and is willing to pay artists and artisans. The whole problem is that wealthy businessmen today are pretty much MBA's without even a semi-serious training in the liberal and fine arts.

This, however, is a much more complicated issue that requires something more than my ramblings.