Any word on Sacred Music from the USCCB?

[Strummer]

…the hand-clapping Gloria by Christopher Walker needed to be removed from the service music portion of their hymnals (and transferred to the regular hymnal section) because that translation was nowhere near the official Gloria listed in the Roman MIssal (Sacramentary).

We may not be so far apart as either of us think. I’ve always bristled at that “Gloria”. Not only is it to akin to a “kiddie version” but it is not a fit translation. I fully support it’s removal from the service music. Can we be friends now?

I would urge you to go back and read documents such as the USCCB powerpoint… A review of the USCCB powerpoint in comparison with a contemporay hymnal would do a world of good.

And I urge you to stop referencing this flawed “document”. First of all, Powerpoint presentations are notorious for their tendancy to skew data to fit whatever POV desired. Secondly, it lists “concerns” and does not really cite any horrific dangers at our door as you seem to imply. And finally, the portion that presents the survey results is, frankly, very bad science and an abuse of statistics not worthy of a junior high science fair.

 

[Strummer]

Why cannot the NO have traditional hymns (not necessarily in Latin), but hymns in the vernacular that are traditional? Why must one be forced to attend a TLM in order to get decent music? I do not think anyone is asking for all Latin or all chant. We are just tired of being subjected to the OCP stuff. Why not “Faith of Our Fathers” or “To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King” instead of “Anthem” or “All Are Welcome”?

Sorry, but “Faith of Our Fathers” would fail the USCCB test as put forward by benedictgal. It does not reference God as “Father”; it does not reference the Trinity; it does not even reference Christ. Rather it is all about US and our faith.

 

[benedictgal]

What I challenge is your prejudiced interpretation of those writings. I also challenge your inclusion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s “preference letter” with the implication that as that man is not Pope that his opinions before his pontificate have more weight or bearing. While one may be a Catholic in good standing and never review any of her writings, you have accepted that challenge (kudos to you for that, btw) and so are responsible for your interpretations and analysis. THAT is what I challenge.

Actually, I think the word used was “default” and not “norm”. This means that, having nothing else at hand, one may fall back upon GC. It does not raise it to a preferred status within the Church.

I am reminded of a quote by Gen. Colin Powell who said (words to the effect), “Do not tie your argument to your ego such that losing one, you lose the other as well.”

Au contraire, what then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote is now beginning to take shape. Just read the reports from Rome. I would suggest that the Powell quote can work both ways and can be applicable to you, as well.

Strummer, the problem is that the “spirit” of Vatican II was consistently invoked without anyone bothering to read what the documents actually said. If the current crop of liturgical music (inclusive of what has been written over the course of these past 40 years) were up to Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology, why would people like Joseph Ratzinger (now our Holy Father), Francis Cardinal Arinze, and the late Pope John Paul II (who commissioned the release of Liturgicam Authenticam and ordered the Synod on the Eucharist to discuss light and shadows -under which liturgical music fell) issue commentaries and documents urging reform?

By the way, the documents of Vatican II all the way to Sacramentum Caritatis do call Gregorian Chant the preferred music of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

And I urge you to stop referencing this flawed “document”. First of all, Powerpoint presentations are notorious for their tendancy to skew data to fit whatever POV desired. Secondly, it lists “concerns” and does not really cite any horrific dangers at our door as you seem to imply. And finally, the portion that presents the survey results is, frankly, very bad science and an abuse of statistics not worthy of a junior high science fair.

Let the USCCB Commitee on the Liturgy know that. That powerpoint came from them and it was used to brief the bishops as a whole on what Litrugicam Authenticam was requireing of the bishops.

 

[anamchara]

I don’t think there is any suggestion of that in this thread. No one here is “degrading” the NO because of musical content. There is however the “happy clappy music” that is merely an observation

lol, that is not merely an observation, it’s an insult and seeing any other way is ridiculous. For many posters, the only NO that should be celebrated is like the one on EWTN. When you start making personal comments about whether people are worshiping horizontal or vertical then you run into problems. The same posters who use the term happy clappy also love using “Protestant” as a pejorative. Where is the charity in this?

It’s obvious from reading papal documents and messages sent from Rome that there is a lot of music that is unacceptable. So the bishops have been charged yet again with fixing it.

 

[Strummer]

Au contraire, what then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote is now beginning to take shape. Just read the reports from Rome.

So you’re telling me that the man is now able to implement the opinions his long-held opinions now that he is in a position of power? And this is supposed to be news to me?

I would suggest that the Powell quote can work both ways and can be applicable to you, as well.

then you missed my point. When I critiqued your analysis, you interpreted that as a critique of the original document. You did not separate yourself from the argument.

If the current crop of liturgical music (inclusive of what has been written over the course of these past 40 years) were up to Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology, why would people like Joseph Ratzinger (now our Holy Father), Francis Cardinal Arinze, and the late Pope John Paul II (who commissioned the release of Liturgicam Authenticam and ordered the Synod on the Eucharist to discuss light and shadows -under which liturgical music fell) issue commentaries and documents urging reform?

Do you find it at all ironic that just two years ago, Francis Cardinal Arinze was the keynote speaker at a conference (in your very state) entitled “Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete”?

 

[Strummer]

Let the USCCB Commitee on the Liturgy know that. That powerpoint came from them and it was used to brief the bishops as a whole on what Litrugicam Authenticam was requireing of the bishops.

Although I sense you are being rather facetious, I think that might be a fine idea. In these days of information overload it is all too easy to be mislead by a flashy presentation of “statistical facts”.

 

[anamchara]

You asked me my opinion and I gave it to you. No condescending tone was meant. I am simply not agreeing with you.

Your refusal to read the documents for yourself makes my point. Perhaps you are afraid that the documents will dispel your notions and open your eyes to the truth regarding Sacred Music.

LOL, if makes you sleep better at night to think I’m fearful of Church documents and teachings then so be it. I see you missed my part about respecting your taste and those of the Catholics who prefer the TLM.

I never denigrated the Ordinary form of the Mass. You are putting words in my mouth that are false. My concern is that the music being used in many parishes and dioceses is sorely lacking in conforming to the liturgical norms established by Rome.

Well hopefully they will get rid of those nasty 11 songs for you.

Although I do wish that the USCCB had voted by the required 2/3 majority to send the document on Sacred Music to Rome, I will read the text once the USCCB puts it up on its website.

Now that I will read, it should be VERY interesting. Lets hope it makes every one slap happy!

 

[benedictgal]

So you’re telling me that the man is now able to implement the opinions his long-held opinions now that he is in a position of power? And this is supposed to be news to me?

then you missed my point. When I critiqued your analysis, you interpreted that as a critique of the original document. You did not separate yourself from the argument.

Do you find it at all ironic that just two years ago, Francis Cardinal Arinze was the keynote speaker at a conference (in your very state) entitled “Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete”?

You need not be so negative towards the Pope or his opinions, which are slowly turning into some clear direction for the Church.

You were not very clear as to what you were critiquing. Nonetheless, if you place no stock in the documents and are very quick to even refute the USCCB, then that is your issue.

Just because the conference was called Come to the Feast" doesn’t necessarily imply that it was tied to the song. I do challenge you to provide some concrete documentation regarding your position rather than just offer semi-witty remarks and pot shots.

 

[anamchara]

Do you find it at all ironic that just two years ago, Francis Cardinal Arinze was the keynote speaker at a conference (in your very state) entitled “Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete”?

I think Cardinal Arinze is also probably much more understanding and accepting then some want to believe.

 

[peary]

At the expense of driving everyone else out of the church who absolutely cannot stand that stuff?

That’s good. “P & W is all we’re going to play in this parish, because it bring in the teenagers. For all the rest of you, if you don’t like it, tough. There’s a Baptist church down the street which you’re perfectly free to join.”

Beautiful.

Yeah, but teenagers don’t pay the parish bills.

 

[JButky]

Well, how bad it is or isn’t is really going to up to the Pope and the bishops not any of us wee people in cyber Catholic land.

Exactly my point, They HAVE been charged to do for 40 years and HAVEN’T. The problem is that it HAS been in the hands of the “wee people in cyber Catholic Land” who have been making it up at their whim, doing the interpreting, often not in accord with Rome who then needs to re qualify and tell the Bishops to do something about it.

It IS that bad…

Joe B

 

[Strummer]

You need not be so negative towards the Pope or his opinions, which are slowly turning into some clear direction for the Church.

Perhaps you should consider a new moniker, benedictgal. How about “obstinategal”? Yes, I hold different preferences than those of the man who became Pope Benedict XVI. As he has not deigned to mandate these preferences beyond the Vatican, I have absolutely no quarrel with him. IOW, I have never been “so negative towards the Pope”. Rather it is with you and your interpretations and misapplications of his and others’ writings with which I take issue.

You were not very clear as to what you were critiquing. Nonetheless, if you place no stock in the documents and are very quick to even refute the USCCB, then that is your issue.

I repeatedly cited where you misapplied the writings or interpreted them subjectively to your own design. To claim that I was “not very clear” now after already responding seems like an impotent ploy to save face at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Just because the conference was called Come to the Feast" doesn’t necessarily imply that it was tied to the song.

First of all, it was called, as I’ve already stated, “Come to the Feast/Ven al Banquete” which clearly ties it to the song. Secondly, it was just a little ironic point. A playful, rhetorical treat. Not a point to hang any argument on.

I do challenge you to provide some concrete documentation regarding your position rather than just offer semi-witty remarks and pot shots.

Now that’s just a low blow. My remarks have been far above “semi-witty”! Indeed, they have been full of wit and often whimsy. Besides, I’ll take “semi-witty” over “broad brushed accusations” any day of the week.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you all.