The Washington Post fulfilled every liturgist's dream
by publishing a story about the two Marinis--Piero and Guido--the
pope's former and current master of ceremonies.
The coverage is
surprisingly decent, given that it is total inside baseball--so much so
I'm surprised the Post printed it.
It does, of course, overestimate the
role of the papal liturgist, who really dpesn't have any canonical
authority.
Guido, successor to John Paul II's Piero, decidedly favors the
old-fashioned in liturgy, which isn't surprising since his boss does,
too.
I have to admit, though, that I don't think he really gets the
liturgy.
I think the mistake that restorationists (such as Guido) make when it
comes to making the liturgy more solemn is that they overly focus on
incidentals rather than fundamentals, most often in the name of
"symbol."
But the fundamental symbols of the liturgy are not the
priest's vestments or incense or fine metals or what have you.
Those are
merely decorative.
Latin, for example, or Gregorian chant.
Fundamental
ones are things like the liturgical assembly (usually passive a papal
liturgy), its president (presider), the word proclaimed, the bread and
wine broken, blessed, and shared, and the places where those things
happen (altar, ambo).
Guido says that the criterion for the liturgies he prepares is that
they are "beautiful," but that's really in the eye of the beholder.
And I
also don't see how requiring people to kneel to receive communion from
the pope is "beautiful."
In fact, since the manner of reception is up to
the communicant, I don't think it's even appropriate.
Admittedly, I'm of the Piero school of liturgy, confident that the
liturgy can be beautiful, simple, solemn, and inculturated all at once.
The Baroque period, from which most of Tridentine trappings come, is
just a tad gaudy for my taste, and I'm not sure that the carpenter is
well represented when his servants are arrayed in cloth-of-gold.
But, like many things liturgical, these are matters of taste.
SIC: USCM/USA