48 to liturgical carq;X>Sition is function adequately? to this the by In way different ai;proaches led us, listening to dig the and one another, deeper into initial question, give it a broader dimension.A first conclusion aoorged with great clarity: The impo;r>tcmt thing is not to sta:l't with a priori and ideas, on the basis of ready-made definitions whiah might weii be too striative. Rather, we first ha:ve to aaaept the faat that, within the gZobaZ deveZopment of a Ziturgiaai aeZebration, one and the same attitude (e.g., the "response" to a reading) acm be trcmsZated or expressed in quite different forms (siZenae, responsary or simpZe response, tropaPion, psaZm , hyrrrn, eta...); having aaaepted this aipZe, we then ha:ve to refZeat on the funation proper to this Zar aat in this or that paPtiauZaP aontext. This us with our w o r rn e t h o d -rather provided k - the along lines of sarething "non-directive". This sort of approach certainly gives one less security than might found be in a series of magisterial exi;:ose's; and, no doubt about it, it is saoothing quite hesitant, uncertain; but it also calls if far a greater personal involvenen.t the satisfactory is anS\\ler to kind found.This of approach is the direct fruit of be experience, and it represents, as is obvious, only a preliminary attempt at reflection -an initial, sketchy to tion which has further developed in the closest be the cormection with the real life of celebrating a:mnunities. II was The second day ext.rerrely rich in insights received to we fran one another, and were able group together a certain nurrber of important or interesting elenents. There were 'b.o approaches which kept constantly crisscrossing: the - The first was more concerned with objective perfo:rmance of certain follIIS of liturgical music:responsaries or responses, troparia, prayers,various Mass chants•••
48 liturgical carq;X>Sition is to function adequately? In this way the different ai;proaches led us, by listening to one another, to dig deeper into the initial question, and give it a broader dimension.A first conclusion aoorged with great clarity: The impo;r>tcmt thing is not to sta:l't with a priori ideas, and on the basis of ready-made definitions whiah might weii be too striative. Rather, we first ha:ve to aaaept the faat that, within the gZobaZ deveZopment of a Ziturgiaai aeZebration, one and the same attitude (e.g., the "response" to a reading) acm be trcmsZated or expressed in quite different forms (siZenae, responsary or simpZe response, tropaPion, psaZm , hyrrrn, eta...); having aaaepted this aipZe, we then ha:ve to refZeat on the funation proper to this Zar aat in this or that paPtiauZaP aontext. This provided us with our w o r k - rn e t h o d -rather along the lines of sarething "non-directive". This sort of approach certainly gives one less security than might be found in a series of magisterial exi;:ose's; and, no doubt about it, it is saoothing quite hesitant, uncertain; but it also calls far a greater personal involvenen.t if the satisfactory anS\\ler is to be found.This kind of approach is the direct fruit of experience, and it represents, as is obvious, only a preliminary attempt at reflection -an initial, sketchy tion which has to be further developed in the closest cormection with the real life of the celebrating a:mnunities. II The second day was ext.rerrely rich in insights received fran one another, and we were able to group together a certain nurrber of important or interesting elenents. There were 'b.o approaches which kept constantly crisscrossing: - The first was more concerned with the objective perfo:rmance of certain follIIS of liturgical music:responsaries or responses, troparia, prayers,various Mass chants•••
Volume06Number01.docx