Laetare Sunday (derived from the Latin verb laetare meaning "to rejoice") is one of the two days in the year with its own special vestments (Rose colored).
[The other day of the year is Gaudete Sunday (derived from the Latin verb gaudere which also connotes joy) during the third week of Advent].
While everybody can take notice of the vestments, the modern Catholic liturgy has no obvious connection to why this week is called such. It is not reflected in the choice of readings nor the music (in fact, regarding the latter, the modern liturgy often has no format or guidance to follow which can invite a lot of improvisation which depends greatly on the theological formation of the celebrant).
But the answer to the question--- why "laetare"?--- is fairly straightforward for anyone who attends the Extraordinary Rite of the Roman Mass. (And do not fret: This isn't yet another tiresome "look what you've lost" dig at Novus Ordo, the sorts of digs which I find obnoxious, but more of an explanation why tradition (in the lower case "t") is still important even if not strictly eternal (no, the Apostles did not wear rose vestments on this day): if anything, these small little customary practices provide a bridge across time and enriches our connection to the saints and our ancestors. Personally, I find this immensely meaningful and encouraging as I invoke the intercession of my patron saints and pray for my dead relatives and friends.).
Now, that I've made that caveat, let us proceed.
What is Laetare Sunday? During the fourth week of Lent--- after the hardship of the first few weeks of fasting (but before Passiontide)--- the Church gives us respite, a "breather." This sense of a break from austerity is spiritually important because it reminds Christians that they are a joyful people, not a doomful and brooding sort. (As St. Francis de Sales himself once said "A sad saint is a sad excuse for a saint.")
While I love Latin, I understand its limitations. More importantly, the liturgical reverberations are not to be confined to the walls of the Church or the language of the liturgy: Indeed, even in the more devout past, this sense of joy manifested also in the vernacular: Among the English-speaking world, this week of Lent is traditionally called "Mothering Sunday". Indeed, the history of this term is evidently very old and stretches back to the Middle Ages when Mother Church (you see, England had not yet separated) gave her children a little nourishment of joy in preparation for the greatest solemnities of Holy Week when the most severe austerities were reserved in spiritual participation in Christ's Passion and Death.
But why "Laetare" specifically?
Well, as it often goes with naming conventions in the Church, it has to do with the leading term of a given formula of prayer (Hence, "Hail Mary", "Our Father", "Memorare", etc.). In this case, it is the incipit or leading word or phrase of the Introit chant for that week. In the case of Laetare Sunday, the intro chant for the Mass begins with a verse from Scripture: "Lætare Jerusalem et conventum facite omnes qui diligitis eam; gaudete cum lætitia, qui in tristitia fuistis, ut exsultetis et satiemini ab uberibus consolationis vestrae..." (Isaiah 66: 10-11) [tr. "REJOICE, O Jerusalem, and be ye glad for her, all ye that delight in her: exult and sing for joy with her, all ye that in sadness mourn for her; that ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations."] This reference from the Book of Isaiah mentions "breasts" which underscores the motherhood and nourishment of the Church. [Now, the priggishness of Victorian High Modernity (say, the 19th and early 20th centuries) and its strict puritanism have in effect redirected all semantics away from bodily words as if the body (and in this case, motherhood by extension) were shameful things. This overreach is not appreciated, of course, at a time, when the body is immodestly celebrated in the opposite extreme of our own times. But I will add something further: in our days, motherhood is vilified as a result of this lack of moderation between extremes. Any student of cultural history will notice that there are noted periods of extremes, often between shamelessness (e.g. Restoration England) or puritanism (e.g. the Commonwealth of Cromwell), but no moderate appreciation for reality itself. This balance is probably an ideal at any point in time, but that doesn't dispense with its value. Moreover, while I'm on the point of motherhood, this is just another reminder of why High Modernity is not equivalent with Tradition and the romanization of the past is itself an intellectual vice, which a lot of people would do well to correct by learning the full extent of their history as a pendulum of cultural immoderation. As a rule, there was never a time when things were as they should be: No, we call such a place Heaven.
Now, as often occurs with the Introit of Sacred Chant, there is also a component from the Psalter that follows this line from Scripture (Book of Isaiah in this case). In the case of this feast day, the psalm line comes from Psalm 121 which is traditionally called one of the "Song of Ascents." This line also emphasizes "joy": "Lætatus sum in his quæ dicta sunt mihi: in domum Domini ibimus." [tr. "I rejoiced at the things that were said to me: We shall go into the house of the Lord."]***
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***As you can see from Laetare Sunday, there is an opportunity for Sacred Chant to instruct the faithful and set the focus for that liturgical moment. This is not antiquarianism: If you read the documents of Vatican II council, especially "Musicam sacram", this is why there is priority given to Sacred Chant. This is evident in several provisions worth mentioning:
From point #19 a & b:
"(a) There should be choirs, or Capellae, or scholae cantorum, especially in cathedrals and other major churches, in seminaries and religious houses of studies, and they should be carefully encouraged.
(b) It would also be desirable for similar choirs to be set up in smaller churches."
[This comment shows that deviations from this preference must have a reasonable excuse and should not be assumed as the "norm" in any way].
From point #20:
"Large choirs (Capellae musicae) existing in basilicas, cathedrals, monasteries and other major churches, which have in the course of centuries earned for themselves high renown by preserving and developing a musical heritage of inestimable value, should be retained for sacred celebrations of a more elaborate kind, according to their own traditional norms, recognized and approved by the Ordinary."
[Thus, we can see from this point that there is great value placed in musical culture that strives for excellence in form and a traditional "passing down" from one generation to the next].
From point #24:
"Besides musical formation, suitable liturgical and spiritual formation must also be given to the members of the choir, in such a way that the proper performance of their liturgical role will not only enhance the beauty of the celebration and be an excellent example for the faithful, but will bring spiritual benefit to the choir-members themselves."
[Here, we can see that St. Paul VI sees that musical performance (unlike secular musical performance) requires theological training in conjunction with the technical discipline of the art. This is a VERY IMPORTANT and SORELY UNDERAPPRECIATED point that I will elaborate in other posts.].
From point #25:
"In order that this technical and spiritual formation may more easily be obtained, the diocesan, national and international associations of sacred music should offer their services, especially those that have been approved and several times commended by the Holy See."
[As we can see, this important document from V2 encourages at various levels of the church an organizational effort to improve the musical arts and carry out the council's decrees of reform].
I could go on, but I will show some modicum of restraint re: the Sacred in Sacred Music (or, the lackthereof, in practice throughout the churches of the USA and elsewhere):
Suffice to keep in mind that there are many such provisions that emphasize the liturgical significance of sacred music above and apart from the mere performance of music (especially "popular music") during celebrations, especially for the proper celebration of the Holy Mass.
What do I mean by this?
Again, it is not a bad thing to adopt popular styles of music --- a lot of devotional Troubadour music of the High Middle Ages was set to the lute (e.g. Cantigas de Santa Maria) and other instruments. These are beautiful in their own right. But these popular folk songs were not to be performed during Mass (only para-liturgically outside of Mass). You see, there was popular devotional music and it was good in its own right, but it also observed its place in the aesthetic hierarchy of musical decorum.
But we can also overlook an important observation: what is Sacred Music at any moment in history is not so tightly defined outside of that moment.
What do I mean by that?
There was a lot of controversy in the past over, say, the place of polyphony and the organ in High Mass. There were "conservatives" who hated them and "liberals" who wanted them to be adopted. In both the case of polyphony and the Organ, the "liberals" (pardon the analogy) won out in most places [except for certain monasteries]. So, while Sacred Music is by its nature VERY conservative (and that is certainly a good thing), it is not immune from development itself. As with other aspects of change in Church History, one must be exceptionally prudent and sensitive to changes in circumstances in order to maintain the continuity of the spirit of Tradition. That is what development hopes to elaborate due to real pressures and needs of a new environment.
In our own times, there are real constraints, one of which is the near omnipresence of musical illiteracy. We are not capable in most churches of having a well-trained schola in Gregorian Chant. There are too few willing souls! There is too little invested in musical education! So, this is why St. Paul VI gave some latitude. But again, this was a concession based upon perceived necessity. By his own admission, the Pope said that this was not an ideal. This is not how thing should be. Thus, one should not grow complacent here (as I'd argue, quite effortlessly, that we have).
That said, regarding the strict requirements of "Sacred Music" as such, we would benefit from remembering such a distinction in theory (and in practice to the furthest extent possible) between what is liturgical (or, public and official) and what is merely devotional (or, private and optional). They are both important, but they are not the same thing. Whatever they comprise in terms of boundaries may shift here and there over time (as they have over and over); but, above all, it is not fitting that the confusion between the two be normalized ever. While we must humbly accept our limitations of learning and training, we must in good faith not ever forget certain truths. And, to risk spoiling the joy of the day, this is one such truth.
Similar to the choice in language, symbols, and materials, body posture, etc., which comprises in concert the true latria to the Holy Trinity, there should always be something special and distinct about the choice of music for Holy Mass. Otherwise, we risk obscuring the conceptual distinction at the most concrete and immediate level of musical apprehension between what is sacred and profane, or what is religious and what is secular.
Since the Church is called to stand against the World (see Romans 12: 2 or I John 2:15-17, etc.), a lot pivots on these distinctions between the sacred and the profane to remind us of our shared witness to the Truth. So, let us continue to remind ourselves about these distinctions and how far we have to go to deliver on what we set forth before ourselves, but let us be realistic and charitable as we do so. Let us not be so severe as to incur many hidden vices as we try to advance the good. Fight the good fight, but also fight well. God cares immensely not only about what you stand for, but how you go about it.
Godspeed!
Add comment
Comments