The directive was that chant (and organ)have a place of pride in the Church, not each parish. The Catholic Church has an interconnectedness that other Christians do not experience. For example, my parish has no organ, but we contributed to the most beautiful and newest organs at our new cathedral.
Your interpretation is simply wrong.
That’s not what it says at all. It doesn’t say place of pride “in the Church” or “parish”.
Does your parish not have liturgical services? It’s pretty obvious that to be in the spirit of Vatican II is to have chant regularly in the liturgical services. You don’t have to have it all the time for all things, but you should have it and in the best places. I’m sure you could try to split legalistic hairs on the reading, but I think the point is to read what the spirit of the law is, which is plainly to have chant in your services as a high point.
Why are you equating Gregorian Chant with not having full and active participation? People can sing chant. We do it all the time as a church at my parish. Is there something about chant that denies people the ability to participate?
Yeah it’s funny how those who think Pope Francis ‘agrees with them’ or is ‘on their side’ have the mentality that the Pope couldn’t possibly be talking about their rigidity lol… When the Pope mentioned recently about those who hold on to the past he could very well be speaking of those liberals who hold on to the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II.
Gee, perhaps the parishioners enjoyed participating in the Mass singing the hymns they knew and enjoyed, verses sitting silently listening to a poorly run choir singing sloppy Gregorian Chant ?
Gregorian chant, to be done well requires a music director with the expertise, which few people in parishes have.
Disgraceful. So sad. But, yes, I have observed bullying of priests, too. It is shocking how cruel people can be to a priest they don’t like or don’t agree with.Having worked in parishes for over 25 years…the bullying of priests has always happened. People are just way more vocal now.
I know of a parish whose parishioners put Monopoly money in the collection baskets with notes that read" Dear Bishop So and So: When you send us a real priest, I’ll give you real money".
I know of a parish where parishioners accused the priest of being a cross dresser because he ministered to the homeless in the inner city.
And those things are only 2 examples of what goes on. If you don’t think it does, you’ve never been on a parish council, a finance council or a church employee.
The beat this guy to a pulp.
So much for encouraging vocations.
Yes to all this, especially the bolded. While I am sympathetic to this priest’s wishing to make the Mass more reverent and bring back the traditions, you can’t just come into a parish and make sweeping changes and expect everyone to be on board with it. It just doesn’t work. Although, I as I typed the previous two sentences, it occured to me: isn’t that basically what was done to the whole Church in the wake of Vatican II? (Perhaps that’s a subject for another thread, though.)
Most Gregorian chant does not lend itself well to congregational singing. It is best when done by a good choir that knows how to sing it, but it’s generally not easy or enjoyable for the congregation to sing (from what I have seen and heard).
) We do also sing (with the congregation) some chant versions of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei during Advent and Lent. I think they are very beautiful, and I am glad we do them, but the congregation still has a hard time singing along with the more complicated melodies
Gee, perhaps the priest was trying to get the parish on board with the teachings of Vatican II by returning Gregorian chant to pride of place in the sacred liturgy. I think it’s quite obvious that in America, many parishes utilize no chant at all in the liturgy. If this was the case, then adding Gregorian chant assuredly wasn’t a bad thing, but followed the true spirit of the Council’s teaching. But of course, this is speculation, as we don’t know if Fr. Reihl totally replaced all hymns with chant, or only some; the latter option being totally legitimate. People can sit silently during hymns in the vernacular just as much as they do for chant in Latin.
Perhaps this is why the music director was let go by Fr. Reihl? If more parishes heeded the directives to have Gregorian chant and vernacular hymnody side by side, then the music directors hired would have experience with chant.
Just wanted to say that that is a pretty big assumption you’ve made there. Countless peoples have been converted, in part, by the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, as they have in the last few decades by the Ordinary Form of the Mass. For the Tridentine Mass, just look at the martyrs of Japan, for instance.
Pope St Paul VI released a series of chants specifically for the congregation to sing, entitled “Jubilate Deo”.
Here is the Gloria
This is silly, each priest does things differently. He is in charge of that parish. shouldn’t he be able to change things up to suit his stye. It would certainly benefit the parishoners to be kciked out of their slumber and learn something new.
He serves the parish, not himself. He should not force his style onto the parish and must be opened to the needs and desires of the parishioners.
It’s not up to them to learn something new, but to celebrate the Mass according to what they know and prefer, in accordance with the local Bishop’s directives.
Having female altar servers is not only allowed, by encouraged by the Bishops.
That doesn’t mean the laity get to dictate what’s going on during the Mass. There should be dialouge between pastor and laity, but the pastor does get the final say on any liturgical matters. Not to mention, Bishop Jugis has backed up Fr. Riehl a number of times. From the January article in NCR:
The options Fr. Riehl implemented are valid. We can argue whether they were prudent or not, but it’d be unwise since we don’t know if he totally banned all hymns in the vernacular, or simpy peppered in some Gregorian chant. Since his Bishop is standing up for him and not condemning him, I won’t either. This pastor is obviously in line with the bishop’s directives.
Having Gregorian chant present in our sacred liturgies is not only allowed, but encouraged by the Council Fathers, as well as several of our bishops in this country. Implementing Gregorian chant on a parish level is just as legitimate as allowing female altar servers. There shouldn’t be any controversy erupting in the form of breakaway groups over either of these “valued options” as Bishop Jugis puts it.
Generally there is. Most parishes have a liturgical committee which advises the pastor. Most pastors welcome the advice.
He gets the final say within the approval of his Bishop. The Bishop generally supports that parish in such matters, as obvious by the OP.
Well being the priest is leaving, the Bishop wasn’t standing up for his position as much as you would like.
It’s encouraged to be preserved in the Catholic Church, but NOT necessarily in parish life.
It’s not if the parish isn’t equipped or able to handle Gregorian Chant without being isolated from participation in the Mass. Female altar servers would trump in this case.
It’s not part of their culture and there isn’t an expertise present to bring the parish into that culture.
Why?
Chant does have pride of place in the Church – that does not mean it needs be employed in parishes. What Sacrosanctum Concilium changed, from the way we used to do music, went far beyond chant. There is not a day that I do not thank God for the so very welcomed reform and renewal of the liturgy.
The moderator of the liturgy for the diocese is the Bishop…and his action speaks loudly here, as the secular paper reported.
I hope this priest can benefit from the guidance of his own bishop and the fraternal assistance of his presbyterate.