Concerns with the charismatic renewal at FUS

[agapewolf]

For the side question about households:

I don’t think they have greek life at all at FUS… and instead of what that brings, they have “households”.

Someone who has been can probably expand if needed, but the households consist of kind of a community life…they have community dinner a certain times per week. Probably a lot like a consecrated order (loosely). THey celebrate Masses together…perhaps subscribe to a kind of spirituality.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Wow.

Do you really think that speaking in tongues is nonsense?
Oinking like pigs?

Just to express my awe at such a strongly negative stance, I say again - Wow.

Please don’t get me wrong, I really want to maintain all of this in a spirit of charity.

True speaking in tongues is not nonsense. It has taken place in the Church from time to time throughout the Church age. Speaking in tongues is when a person speaks their own language and is understood by those of another language as being their own (such as in Acts 2); or when a person is given the abililty to speak a foreign language. The reason for this gift has been to instruct those in the faith who were of a foreign language. Tongues was necessary, especially in the early years, for the apostles to convert those of other languages.

I personally believe that the babling “tongues” found in the charismatic movement today is either simply blaber that the individual makes up in an attempt to appear to have the “gift”, or else demonic possession.

Regarding the “oinking like pigs”. Do you think this is evidence of the Holy Ghost, or are you unfamiliar with what I was talking about?

Also, you should read the Catholic Encyclopedia article located at new advent article on “speaking in tounges”. It can be found here newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm

Here’s one paragraph of interest:
Encyclopedia:

Corinthian Abuses (I Corinthians 14 passim).—Medieval and modern writers wrongly take it for granted that the charism existed permanently at Corinth &151; as it did nowhere else—and that St. Paul, in commending the gift to the Corinthians, therewith gave his guaranty that the characteristics of Corinthian glossolaly were those of the gift itself. Traditional writers in overlooking this point place St. Luke at variance with St. Paul, and attribute to the charism properties so contrary as to make it inexplicable and prohibitively mysterious. There is enough in St. Paul to show us that the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of “tongues” a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the “gift of tongues” at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle’s counsel to do all things “decently, and according to order” (40).

 

[junostarlighter]

my greatest concern with the charismatic renewal is its foundations are in pentecostalism, not from catholic tradition; i don’t know how a charismatic catholic can reasonably argue how the movement is consistent with church teaching and has a natural, organic growth out of the catholic tradition. the more i see it at work, the more i grow wary of it.

in regards to sacred music, i’ve read all of sancrosanctum concilium out of Vatican II and my undergrad was in applied music as a percussion major; if there is a charismatic catholic can tell me how acoustic guitar, electric bass, drum set, folk violin, and random harmonies on top of an already chaotic melody line constitutes as “sacred music,” i’m all ears because it would certainly be news to me.

 

[ac_claire]

For what it’s worth—> my cousin, who is pretty orthodox, visited the FUS and came away with a VERY good impression of the school, as both faithful to tradition and filled with Holy Spirit.
"renewaladvocate:

It has been my experience in my Archdiocese, that of San Antonio, that Charismatics are some of the more orthodox Catholics.

I have noticed this, too. Which goes against the stereotype.

Personally, I am not 100% comfortable with the Charismatic Renewal because a.) it’s not my style, and b.) I don’t like the propogation of private revelations that I’ve seen in the one community I’m very familiar with (in the Dallas area).

But, it’s one of those few subjects that isn’t black or white. One of the holiest and most inspirational priests I’ve known is active in the CR.

Advocates of gregorian chant are usually traditionalists who do not believe “praise and worship” music is ever a proper choice. That is a heartbreaker, for sure…
There is a time and place for both; not “either … or.”

Well said! I totally agree.

I don’t think the “why don’t they use gregorian chant, if they’re so full of the Holy Spirit” argument is a very good one. I’ve seen it before on these forums and it’s kind of frustrating. Vatican II gave Gregorian Chant pride of place, but it didn’t madate it. You may think that it would enrich every mass that used it (I’d probably agree with you), but it doesn’t follow logically that any parish that doesn’t use it is somehow rejecting it outright. If a mass isn’t said in Latin, does that mean the parish is necessarily rejecting the concept of the Latin mass?

But the question asked of me, and which I pass on, was, why is Gregorian chant almost never heard (can we even say studiously avoided?) by a movement which claims the particular inspiration of the HS? That is the mystery.

I don’t see the mystery. Where’s the mystery again?
Your posts are very thoughtful, but I do not understand where you get “studiously avoided”.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t see the mystery. Where’s the mystery again?

The mystery is why a movement which claims to be led by the Holy Spirit does not give pride of place to the form of liturgical music which Vatican II, also led by the Holy Spirit, called to be given pride of place.

Your posts are very thoughtful, but I do not understand where you get “studiously avoided”.

Personal experience, for one thing. I’ve never met a Charismatic Catholic who held Gregorian chant in the same high esteem as Vatican II holds it. And I’ve met plenty of Charismatic Catholics who rejected it, and no small number who actually reviled and mocked it.

 

[agapewolf]

There is a huge difference between giving chant “pride of place” and actually LIKING it.

The documents tell us what we should be doing at mass. Doesn’t tell us that we have to actually like chant.

It is perfectly fine for someone to not like chant, and actually have a conversation about why they don’t like it.

And, also giving something “pride of place” does not mean use it ALL THE TIME… If I had to use it all the time, then its pride of place would decline with me. I have horrible terrible memories of just utter complete boredom of Mass with chant and organ when I was a kid. The psychological reminders of that haunt me.

Now that I know what Mass is about, and I am an adult, I don’t need any music to be engaged in the Mass, but as a kid, the stagnant one notes, and the lack of tension just made me want to check out.

We must form our conscience and will according to Catholic teachings and moral beliefs. We should be obedient in our liturgical practices. I don’t have to love chant in order to be Catholic

 

[Hrvoje]

Personal experience, for one thing. I’ve never met a Charismatic Catholic who held Gregorian chant in the same high esteem as Vatican II holds it. And I’ve met plenty of Charismatic Catholics who rejected it, and no small number who actually reviled and mocked it.

Well, hello, there!

I’m Hrvoje, how do you do?


The latter can only come from ignorance, and that abounds everywhere. Don’t generalize, however, when you hear someone mock the chant. They probably just think it’s an old and strange thing.
I, however, am yet to hear a charismatic actually mock GC and Church tradition.
I guess it’s a matter of personal experience.
But I am of the opinion that we should avoid generalizations.

In Christ.

 

[Hrvoje]

True speaking in tongues is not nonsense. It has taken place in the Church from time to time throughout the Church age. Speaking in tongues is when a person speaks their own language and is understood by those of another language as being their own (such as in Acts 2); or when a person is given the abililty to speak a foreign language. The reason for this gift has been to instruct those in the faith who were of a foreign language. Tongues was necessary, especially in the early years, for the apostles to convert those of other languages.

Good. You know the biblical background for the gift of tongues. So that’s cleared. Now, I would recommend you to read some books written by priests in the renewal - like fr. James Manjackal or Emilian Tardif.
I’m not going to argue about why tongues are given. Just check one of the authors above.

 

[Hrvoje]

I personally believe that the babling “tongues” found in the charismatic movement today is either simply blaber that the individual makes up in an attempt to appear to have the “gift”, or else demonic possession.

Regarding the “oinking like pigs”. Do you think this is evidence of the Holy Ghost, or are you unfamiliar with what I was talking about?

Well, I personally believe it’s the real deal. But that’s not much of an argument.
The demonic possession thesis doesn’t hold, since the prayers in tongues result almost always in great spiritual gifts and/or healing.
And no, it isn’t the demon working the miracles. That’s the same thing the Jews who rejected Christ said - that he has a demon.
And you know how He replied.

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit is actually working in the renewal, but I’m far to tired now to share my experiences or the testimonies of others, so I’ll just recommends the books of James Manjackal. They got me going in the charismatic renewal.

In Christ.

 

[VociMike]

Well, hello, there!

I’m Hrvoje, how do you do?


The latter can only come from ignorance, and that abounds everywhere. Don’t generalize, however, when you hear someone mock the chant. They probably just think it’s an old and strange thing.
I, however, am yet to hear a charismatic actually mock GC and Church tradition.
I guess it’s a matter of personal experience.
But I am of the opinion that we should avoid generalizations.

In Christ.

But the proof is in the pudding. Does the Charismatic Renewal movement give Gregorian chant “pride of place” as called for in Vatican II, or doesn’t it? And if not, why not.

And (this isn’t directed at you), nobody is claiming that chant should be used ALL THE TIME (as somebody else oddly assumed). And nobody is claiming that one must have excellent, trained singers for chant, because that’s clearly not true.

So, pride of place, or practically ignored? Which does Vatican II call for? And which more honestly describes the situation in the Charismatic Renewal? I claim that it is clearly the latter, and I ask why, if the CR is led by the same Holy Spirt which led Vatican II?

And I haven’t seen a real attempt at an explanation yet, except for the “it’s too hard” explanation which anybody who knows about chant knows is not true.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Patience,

I have to ask, what is a “household Mass”. When I was a youngster and still a Protestant, we attended an Episcopal Church that was charismatic. It was very early in the Charasmatic movemement, which wasn’t nearly as foolish as it is today. Mostly, we just had “good tingling feelings” that we were told was the Holy Ghost. No “speaking in tongues”, oinking like pigs, being “slain in the spirit” or any of the other nonsense that is said to be evidence of the Holy Ghost today, just good feelings.

One thing they had back then was called “households”. I was young at the time, but from what I remember (and what I have been told sicne then) it was a house that consisted of several families in one “household”. One person was in charge and the others were to be subject to him. It turns out that there were all kinds of abuses in these households, such as the spouses having an affair with the other spouses in the household.

When read “household” in your post, in reference to the charismatic movement, it made me curious what the word referred to. Does it have anything to do with what I wrote above? If not, do you know if “households” such as I described above, still exist?

Thanks

Heavens!
FUS households are like sororities or fraternities but they celebrate Lord’s Day on Saturdays, at least weekly Rosaries and Adoration, retreats, etc…
I hope that helps. Household Masses are when all of the households dress in their household shirts, bring their banners and have a special mass in the gym.

From the FUS site:
Households are a Christ-centered group of three or more students of the same gender, who strive for healthy, balanced, interpersonal relationships while supporting and challenging its members to develop spiritually, emotionally, academically, and physically. Members of households are often at mass or on the ball field together, sharing aspects of their life and encouraging each other. Many household members agree that being part of a household is very similar to being part of a family – a “home away from home.”

A household’s foundation is a written pledge that expresses the common commitment and identity of the household. The members of a household refer to this pledge as their household covenant. Each household is required to have an advisor who is a mature presence to the household. The advisor encourages the household to participate fully in the life of the campus as well as the Catholic Church.

 

[VociMike]

There is a huge difference between giving chant “pride of place” and actually LIKING it.

The documents tell us what we should be doing at mass. Doesn’t tell us that we have to actually like chant.

It is perfectly fine for someone to not like chant, and actually have a conversation about why they don’t like it.

And, also giving something “pride of place” does not mean use it ALL THE TIME… If I had to use it all the time, then its pride of place would decline with me. I have horrible terrible memories of just utter complete boredom of Mass with chant and organ when I was a kid. The psychological reminders of that haunt me.

Now that I know what Mass is about, and I am an adult, I don’t need any music to be engaged in the Mass, but as a kid, the stagnant one notes, and the lack of tension just made me want to check out.

We must form our conscience and will according to Catholic teachings and moral beliefs. We should be obedient in our liturgical practices. I don’t have to love chant in order to be Catholic

I must say I find this a strange response. Who is claiming that one must like chant (even love chant)? Who is claiming that one must use it ALL THE TIME?

Indeed, the documents tell us what we should be doing at Mass. And that includes giving pride of place to chant. And I defy anybody to demonstrate that the Charismatic Renewal does so. And I ask, why not?

 

[agapewolf]

VOCIMIKE said:
And I’ve met plenty of Charismatic Catholics who rejected it, and no small number who actually reviled and mocked it.

You didn’t include in that sentence that it had to do with the mass.

I think it perfectly within reason for anyone to discuss or reject liking chant. As I said, I have horrible horrible memories of it in my childhood, and how it made me despise going to church.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Well, I personally believe it’s the real deal. But that’s not much of an argument.
The demonic possession thesis doesn’t hold, since the prayers in tongues result almost always in great spiritual gifts and/or healing.

I’m going to try to locate a sermon, which is available somewhere online. In it, the Priest tells the story of at least one linguist who attended a charismatic prayer meeting. When people started speaking in tongues he immediately rushed out. Someone followed him and asked why he left so quickly…

The lingust explained that he understood one of the languages that was spoken, and said that the person “speaking in tongues” was actually prasing Lucifer.

In the sermon the Priest also explains that in the Roman book for exorcisms, one of the surest signs of demonic possession is when the person speaks a language they do not know.

And no, it isn’t the demon working the miracles. That’s the same thing the Jews who rejected Christ said - that he has a demon.

Not necessarily. Do you know what Pope Pius X warned at the beginning of the 20the century? He said the time for antichrist was approaching, and he - the Vicar of Christ and one of only two Popes canonized in the past 600 years - said beware of miracles.

Lying wonders is one of the principle deceptions that the antichrist will use, and I personally think the charismatic movement is indeed a work of the spirit of antichrist. You may disagree, but that is what I think.

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit is actually working in the renewal

Here’s why I think it is not the Holy Spirit. The Charismatic renewal began as a movement within heresy.

Now, according to Catholic theology, “heresy is worse than any sin of the moral order”, since it is a direct attack on God, and the supernatural virtue of faith which is the foundation of the supernatural life. Thus, heresy is even worse than abortion, since abortion is a direct attack on man, and only an indirect attack on God.

To believe that the charismatic movement is a work of the Holy Ghost is to believe that God chose to begin this movement within heretical sects, which no Catholic in their right mind would believe.

Since the sin of heresy is worse than the sin of abortion, saying that God began a movement in heretical sects is worse than saying God began a great movement of the Spirit in the pro-abortion movement.

I draw the parallel to abortion only because the indifference of our day often prevents us from perceiving the horrors of heresy (Protestantism). We are so often surrounded by friendly heretics that we conclude that heresy itself must not be too bad. The exact contrary is true.

In fact, in the book of Titus (I believe 3:11) the Bible says that we should avoid a heretic after warning him two times. St. John, the “apostle of love”, says we should not even say “Godspeed” to a heretic, lest we be guilty of communicating in his wicked works.

Heresy is an extremely great evil. As I said, according to Catholic theology, it is worse than any sin in the order or morality since it is a direct attack in God via the faith. Abortion is, objectively speaking, a lesser evil than heresy.

So, how can any right thinking Catholic believe that a movement that originated in heresy could be of the Holy Ghost?

The charismatic movement has its spiritual foundation in feelings and emotions. It might give someone a boost in the sense of an increased fervor, but the foundation is sand. One must move far beyond the charismatic emotionalism to develope a true spiritual life. A spiritual life built on emotions is a house built on sand.

God can bring good out of evil. Therefore, if someone can use the emotional boost found in the charismatic movement to lead them to a true and deep spiritual life, that would be great; but in order to develope that deeper spiritual life it would require moving away from the emotional nonsense characteristic of charismatic movement.

I hope you use any good you have received from the charismatic movement to develope a true and deep spiritual life which is founded, not on pep rally enthusiasm or emotion, but on spiritual sacrifice, and by embracing the cross through the motive of supernatural charity (love of God). That is the only true foundation for the spiritual life. All else is sand.

 

[ac_claire]

And (this isn’t directed at you), nobody is claiming that chant should be used ALL THE TIME (as somebody else oddly assumed.) And I haven’t seen a real attempt at an explanation yet, except for the “it’s too hard” explanation which anybody who knows about chant knows is not true.

So, pride of place, or practically ignored? Which does Vatican II call for? And which more honestly describes the situation in the Charismatic Renewal? I claim that it is clearly the latter, and I ask why, if the CR is led by the same Holy Spirt which led Vatican II?.

Maybe nobody has been able to answer your question to your liking because we don’t understand the presumptions the question asks us to accept.

Your argument that the CR tends to not use GC as much as other music leads to the conclusion that…well, the CR tends to not use GC as much. Maybe that’s unfortunate, but I don’t understand why you think it’s so utterly meaningful. First of all, do you know that Charismatic parishes never use chant, as a rule…? If that were the case, you might have a point. Or, if the Holy Spirit, through Vatican II, had MANDATED the use of GC or had made it’s use a necessary condition of the Spirit’s presence…again you’d have a point.

I think it’s just a stylistic difference. They tend more to a Pentacostal, less somber style of worship. Part of the reason (but not the only one) why I’m not invovled in the CR. But I’m not gonna say that they necessarily aren’t led by the Spirit because they don’t give chant pride of place. The logic still doesn’t follow.

That question in my last post about the latin mass wasn’t rhetorical, btw… How 'bout a reply?

 

[ac_claire]

Sorry if this has already been posted. From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

*The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations…In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority *(116, 120).

 

[Hrvoje]

I’m going to try to locate a sermon, which is available somewhere online. In it, the Priest tells the story of at least one linguist who attended a charismatic prayer meeting. When people started speaking in tongues he immediately rushed out. Someone followed him and asked why he left so quickly…

The lingust explained that he understood one of the languages that was spoken, and said that the person “speaking in tongues” was actually prasing Lucifer.

In the sermon the Priest also explains that in the Roman book for exorcisms, one of the surest signs of demonic possession is when the person speaks a language they do not know.

Not necessarily. Do you know what Pope Pius X warned at the beginning of the 20the century? He said the time for antichrist was approaching, and he - the Vicar of Christ and one of only two Popes canonized in the past 600 years - said beware of miracles.

Lying wonders is one of the principle deceptions that the antichrist will use, and I personally think the charismatic movement is indeed a work of the spirit of antichrist. You may disagree, but that is what I think.

Here’s why I think it is not the Holy Spirit. The Charismatic renewal began as a movement within heresy.

Now, according to Catholic theology, “heresy is worse than any sin of the moral order”, since it is a direct attack on God, and the supernatural virtue of faith which is the foundation of the supernatural life. Thus, heresy is even worse than abortion, since abortion is a direct attack on man, and only an indirect attack on God.

To believe that the charismatic movement is a work of the Holy Ghost is to believe that God chose to begin this movement within heretical sects, which no Catholic in their right mind would believe.

Since the sin of heresy is worse than the sin of abortion, saying that God began a movement in heretical sects is worse than saying God began a great movement of the Spirit in the pro-abortion movement.

I draw the parallel to abortion only because the indifference of our day often prevents us from perceiving the horrors of heresy (Protestantism). We are so often surrounded by friendly heretics that we conclude that heresy itself must not be too bad. The exact contrary is true.

In fact, in the book of Titus (I believe 3:11) the Bible says that we should avoid a heretic after warning him two times. St. John, the “apostle of love”, says we should not even say “Godspeed” to a heretic, lest we be guilty of communicating in his wicked works.

Heresy is an extremely great evil. As I said, according to Catholic theology, it is worse than any sin in the order or morality since it is a direct attack in God via the faith. Abortion is, objectively speaking, a lesser evil than heresy.

So, how can any right thinking Catholic believe that a movement that originated in heresy could be of the Holy Ghost?

The charismatic movement has its spiritual foundation in feelings and emotions. It might give someone a boost in the sense of an increased fervor, but the foundation is sand. One must move far beyond the charismatic emotionalism to develope a true spiritual life. A spiritual life built on emotions is a house built on sand.

God can bring good out of evil. Therefore, if someone can use the emotional boost found in the charismatic movement to lead them to a true and deep spiritual life, that would be great; but in order to develope that deeper spiritual life it would require moving away from the emotional nonsense characteristic of charismatic movement.

I hope you use any good you have received from the charismatic movement to develope a true and deep spiritual life which is founded, not on pep rally enthusiasm or emotion, but on spiritual sacrifice, and by embracing the cross through the motive of supernatural charity (love of God). That is the only true foundation for the spiritual life. All else is sand.

The first case with the linguist - I can say the exact opposite, which happened at a CR seminar, and it got the linguist going to the CR. He said that he understood praise and worship. Just the opposite to the case you presented.

And, forgive me as this might seem blunt - but st. Pius X was not a prophet. What he was saying should be directed against modernism. And if the last three popes supported the CR, then, if what you are saying is true, they have been and are in a great delusion and the church has indeed fallen under the weight of the gates of hell.

And what heresy is the CR founded on?!
See, the gifts of the spirit were present in the Church LONG before Pentecostalism.
They simply began to surface more forcefully now.

Sorry for me being so brief; I would really like to engage with you in a serious discussion, but I’m in a tight spot with time right now, and don’t know if I’ll have enough of it to respond to your posts.

Just read E. Tardif or J. Manjackal.

In Christ.

 

[VociMike]

Maybe nobody has been able to answer your question to your liking because we don’t understand the presumptions the question asks us to accept.

Your argument that the CR tends to not use GC as much as other music leads to the conclusion that…well, the CR tends to not use GC as much. Maybe that’s unfortunate, but I don’t understand why you think it’s so utterly meaningful. First of all, do you know that Charismatic parishes never use chant, as a rule…? If that were the case, you might have a point. Or, if the Holy Spirit, through Vatican II, had MANDATED the use of GC or had made it’s use a necessary condition of the Spirit’s presence…again you’d have a point.

No, I have a point anyway. My point is that the Holy Spirit, through Vatican II, called for Gregorian chant to have pride of place in the Roman rite. And I do not see the Charismatic Renewal making any effort to give chant that pride of place.

And please don’t muddy the waters with statements of absolutes about never using chant, or mandating chant. Pride of place is called for, and the CR makes no effort to give chant that pride of place, and if the CR is led by the Holy Spirit then this is inexplicable.

I think it’s just a stylistic difference. They tend more to a Pentacostal, less somber style of worship. Part of the reason (but not the only one) why I’m not invovled in the CR. But I’m not gonna say that they necessarily aren’t led by the Spirit because they don’t give chant pride of place. The logic still doesn’t follow.

You say the logic doesn’t follow, but you don’t demonstrate it. Assertions are not proof. But what you have said is telling. You have said that the CR is about a style of worship. A style which Vatican II says nothing about. As though the Holy Spirit is especially fond of a “style” of worship which is exactly opposite of that “style” to which he gives the highest support in the documents of Vatican II. That counci used the strongest language of support ever given in any Church council regarding liturgical music, BTW. And this divergence of Vatican II and the CR is supposed to make sense?

That question in my last post about the latin mass wasn’t rhetorical, btw… How 'bout a reply?

I have no idea what question you’re talking about.

 

[VociMike]

Sorry if this has already been posted. From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

*The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations…In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority *(116, 120).

Yep. So where’s the chant in the Charismatic renewal? Where’s the polyphony? Where’s the organ? Where is any effort at all to use the music and instruments which the Church explicitly holds in highest esteem?

No, the CR musical tradition seems to exist entirely of the loopholes. Not just partially, which would be acceptable. But entirely, which I say is not acceptable. Total disregard of those forms and instruments which the council held in highest esteem is scandalous.

 

[Joysong]

No, the CR musical tradition seems to exist entirely of the loopholes. Not just partially, which would be acceptable. But entirely, which I say is not acceptable. Total disregard of those forms and instruments which the council held in highest esteem is scandalous.

It is really obvious where you are coming from in your vehement distaste for the CR, Voci-Mike. Attacks on their worship are on the tip of your tongue, ready to find loopholes of your own to denigrate a lawful liturgy.

Why are nuptial masses not included in your denigration? Should a bride and groom always use GC as pride of place in a ceremony that is to be filled with joyful music? I have yet to attend a single wedding and observe that GC is used therein. For that matter, I have yet to attend a funeral liturgy where GC is used. Many parishes have funeral choirs, and they give voluntarily of their time to make the liturgy meaningful for those who suffer untold grief. These volunteers are for the most part untrained in anything else but regular hymns.

What you ask (and seem to DEMAND) is that all liturgies follow V-II and use GC, irrespective of the abilities and talents of those serving in the music ministry. Kinda like excess zeal, out of balance.