J
- Status
J
johnnykins
Guest
johnnykins;7363329:
An example of your inability to actually recognize that people do pray - and mean it. Re Self-hating Catholicism: QED
A common Catholic Hymnal. Consider yourself lucky if you’ve never run into it.
Not likely. Few choristers are fluent in Latin - it’s unnecessary. It has nothing to do with singing it well. It’s a canard foisted by the Anti-Latin crowd that you must be fluent.
Yes we do. BTW was your “God Bless” sanctimonious, snide or heartfelt? I have to ask since you ascribe the offer of prayers to being sanctimonious.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I can attest to this personally, as I sang in a schola for a few years without having any experience in Latin (or singing for that matter), and I picked it up within the first couple weeks.An example of your inability to actually recognize that people do pray - and mean it. Re Self-hating Catholicism: QED
A common Catholic Hymnal. Consider yourself lucky if you’ve never run into it.
Not likely. Few choristers are fluent in Latin - it’s unnecessary. It has nothing to do with singing it well. It’s a canard foisted by the Anti-Latin crowd that you must be fluent.
Yes we do. BTW was your “God Bless” sanctimonious, snide or heartfelt? I have to ask since you ascribe the offer of prayers to being sanctimonious.
B
bjryman
Guest
Wait, wait, wait…stop a minute for some facts.
Music is my Passion, and I am so thankful that our director is of the “ecclectic” inclination offering us a wide variety of venues without being “way out liberal or conservative”. If you ever find yourselves in the Indianapolis IN area, come see us in Greenwood.
Peace all and Happy Advent…
- There is a list of approved music issued by the US Council of Bishops, and the newest version is about to be fully released. It is important to note to whom you refer as the sources of today’s music. If a Parish music director and Pastor are not working within the guidelines of the Council, then they do not truly represent the Church in America’s guidance.
- The newest release by the Vatican and the US Council of Bishops clearly states (and has been reaffirmed by our Archbishop). that several criteria must be present for the use of the Latin Mass. So if you refer to the Mass, make sure you understand the guidelines (like a minimum number of congregation members requesting the venue, willingness of local priests to take on the proper training and implementation of the rubics, all without impacting the local language venue) etc
- I suggest that we stop focusing on “sacred” as some sort of defined signpost for describing proper music. The music MUST link to the liturgy of the Mass…period. The tone of the music is very much driven by local parish culture. If a parish has multiple Masses each week like ours, then many different venues can be accomodated
- The Bishops and their particular churches are to provide music and other ministries that represent the local cultural needs…in the mainstream. Nothing wrong with occasionally using various venues, but the main one should be accepted by the majority of the congregation.
- Of equal importance is the actual time availalble to the Parish staff to design and implement many different venues. Today in our Parish, we average 1 to 2 Weddings, 1 to 3 funerals, Children’s school Masses, and 7 weekend Masses EACH WEEK. This workload absolutely demands a focused approach, choosing the music liturgy that supports the majority of the congregation, and the guidelines from the Bishops.
Music is my Passion, and I am so thankful that our director is of the “ecclectic” inclination offering us a wide variety of venues without being “way out liberal or conservative”. If you ever find yourselves in the Indianapolis IN area, come see us in Greenwood.
Peace all and Happy Advent…
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
That is your opinion not our Lord’s
Allowing guitars, drums, and pianos in the Divine Liturgy are abuses and there is no liturgical tradition of them.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Heaven is not a party.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
John 12:3-9
"Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. [4] Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: [5] Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
[6] Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. [7] Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. [8] For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always."
J
JHow
Guest
How is this (represent local culture) gauged? It took years to ditch the folk-singers in our Parish. I think no one wanted to be mean and say how bad they were. Can’t say they represented anybody’s culture. And, how do you characterize a local music culture where the culture is a mish-mash? I don’t identify culturally with Bob Hurd, for example. Many of the songs used are in fact anachronisms - they are drawn out of context: here’s Ubi Caritas, here’s Wade in the Water, here’s another round of Dan Schutte. It’s Multi-cultural, not cultural. And what if the answer is that there is not a single uniform “American” culture (like there might be a more uniform “Polish” culture, just for example)? And and what point is what you are doing not representing a culture, but trying to create a culture?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Elaborate on this a bit if you will.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I can’t speak for what Bjryman necessarily meant, but as I take it, this is a fair point to make. It accomplishes fairly little to insist, as the Church regularly does in its documents, that music be “sacred,” “appropriate,” “worthy,” “fitting,” and so on. Why? Because these are all basically matters of opinion, and unless there’s a chief opiner to make the final call on each piece (which there isn’t), then you have the situation which exists today, where some people say, “That song sounds awful, it isn’t sacred!” and others say, “On the contrary, it is beautiful and it leads me to God, it’s definitely sacred.” I guess we can all agree that Palestrina is sacred and fitting and Black Sabbath is not, but that’s not really the level where the disputes arise.
The issue is largely resolved, however, if we (i.e. the Church) focus on restoring the music that has a genuine “link to the liturgy of the Mass”: namely, the Ordinary and the Propers of the Mass.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
This would be understandable if the Church documents only used these words without going further into Her intent. There is plenty of information to get a fairly accurate picture of what the Church is saying.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Sure, and everybody gets their own picture of what it looks to them like the Church is saying.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
For the most part, this is where I generally question the intellectual honesty of those who have claimed to read the Church documents on this issue and yet still deny that the Church holds Gregorian Chant (at least for the Latin Church) as pride of place, and that the less like GC a musical piece is the less worthy it is for Her Liturgy.
That much should be extremely clear, IMO, however we have people in this very thread who say just the opposite without attempting to cite their claim with some document from the Church.
J
JHow
Guest
The documents and what they mean is one thing and the actual experience of people going to mass is another. The fact is that there is tremendous variation out there, from which, I conclude, that tremendous variation is permitted.
That you might want to change this is another matter. I think you are more likely to persuade people on criteria such as excellent music, traditional, integral part of the mass, sing-able, etc., than trying to use quotations. Clearly, documents don’t enforce themselves.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Clearly.
G
GabrielPenfield
Guest
I speak as someone who tends to lean toward the “eclectic” approach when selecting music for the liturgies. I do not make an agenda of pushing any one particular style of music over another. This means that in my suburban parish, there may occasionally be a gospel song, a spiritual, or the choir may sing something with verses in Spanish or German or Italian or Latin. It may mean that on certain days, most of the songs are traditional; on other days they may be mostly more contemporary. The congregation seasonally sings all the service music in Latin, and has many Latin or bilingual Latin/English songs in its repertoire. We sing classic Catholic hymns along with Protestant/ecumenical hymns, as well as music composed after Vatican II, which may include music originally found in Glory & Praise, Gather, and the like. I, like many others, receive comments in all directions about the style of music presented. What is uplifting or spiritual to one may be annoying to another. But I do a little of everything. Some want more “old” songs, some like newer music. We don’t do enough Gregorian chant, but I am working to increase the amount, and I am open to more use of the propers. The church offers Latin Mass (in the extraordinary form) about once a month, although the musicians are from outside the parish, who found a receptive home at our place. Our musicians do plainchant and choral chant when possible, but it is not always easy with an unbalanced, volunteer group. We would do many more “Classics of Sacred Music” if I had 10 more men in the choir. But we do sing anthems and hymns, which are always and foremost above all other considerations, specifically tied to the liturgy of the day. If this means that some of the anthems are contemporary in nature, mostly accompanied by piano, so be it. On a rare occasion, a particular hymn may be better accompanied on piano. My church is very orthodox in character, and I have been musician at the church for over 25 years, with little criticism from any of my superiors. The organ is the primary instrument. We have, during my time, had some guitarists, who always played with the organ or piano, but never really led the worship.
I am surprised, with all this discussion of the documents, that not one person has specifically mentioned the document put out by the USCCB in 2007 entitled “Sing to the Lord.” This is where you will find information on a standard repertoire for churches (which has never actually been issued). This document is a revision of the previous “Music in Catholic Worship.” It quotes heavily from all the important historic liturgical documents. Everyone on this board should read this if you work in an American parish. Regardless of personal opinions on music, this is one document that ties everything together. usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf
I am surprised, with all this discussion of the documents, that not one person has specifically mentioned the document put out by the USCCB in 2007 entitled “Sing to the Lord.” This is where you will find information on a standard repertoire for churches (which has never actually been issued). This document is a revision of the previous “Music in Catholic Worship.” It quotes heavily from all the important historic liturgical documents. Everyone on this board should read this if you work in an American parish. Regardless of personal opinions on music, this is one document that ties everything together. usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
(I have read MCW but find it at odds with the other official documents of the Church.)
Sing to the Lord (which as you mentioned superseded MCW) notes that seminarians and priests should be familiar with celebrating the liturgy in Latin and with Gregoriant chant (nn. 20, 23, 65) and that this chant, being “uniquely the Church’s own music,” deserves “pride of place in liturgical services” (n. 72). The document goes on to say: “Chant is a living connection with our forebears in the faith, the traditional music of the Roman rite, a sign of communion with the universal Church, a bond of unity across cultures, a means for diverse communities to participate together in song, and a summons to contemplative participation in the Liturgy” (ibid.). Interestingly, the document tacitly admits that the Second Vatican Council’s request that “the faithful be able to sing parts of the Ordinary together in Latin” has not been fulfilled: “In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged” (n. 74). The document specifies: “Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered” (n. 75, emphasis added).
All this amounts to a strong reaffirmation of the importance of the chant in the Roman liturgy.
C
Cat
Guest
Did the schola have a leader?
Or did the people who were interested just pick up some books somewhere (online?) and start looking at the notes (which are not Western-style notes), and start singing chant?
C’mon, I don’t believe that. SOMEONE had to lead your group. SOMEONE had to either plink out the notes on a piano/organ, or sing them to you so that you could learn them. And SOMEONE had to teach you the correct way to pronounce the Latin, although I’ll admit that it could be learned from a school text book.
THAT’S what I was trying to get across in my post that you disagree with, although obviously I have been obtuse.
People don’t just spontaneously begin singing chant without someone to teach them. You mentioned that you have been part of a church that routinely does Latin chant and that you have picked it up pretty good. So how did it happen? All the people in that church just decided in unison one day, without any kind of organization or leader or advance discussion,. to put aside the “modern” hymnals and take out some chant books that they just happened to find somewhere (maybe someone made photocopies and passed them out to the people as they walked into the Mass that morning), and they all knew exactly which page to turn to and somehow figured out how to read the score and pronounce the Latin, and the priest was happily going along with this spontaneous changeover of the music, and the hired musicians (or volunteers) just put away what they had planned for that day and joined in the ah-ay-ee-aw-oohing?
I don’t think so. What probably happened is that there were discussions among the laypeople. They eventually decided to take action, and made an appointment with the priest, and he decided that they made sense, so he scheduled a meeting with the music leader/liturgical leader, and after some discussions, the music leader/liturgical leader agreed to work on an action plan for implementing Latin and chant. They worked with a core of musicians in the parish, who learned about chant and Latin; possibly they either attended a class somewhere, or more likely hired someone to drive in or even fly in and work with them to learn the correct way to “do” Latin in the Mass. The music director or liturgical director planned a “start date,” and on that day, the musicians introduced the fruits of their studies into the Mass by singing perhaps just a few of the Latin responses. The laypeople, in the meantime, had been prepared for this by notes in the bulletin and various announcements, and possibly even a letter in the mail encouraging them to enjoy the more traditional music.
Do you see what I’m getting at? Music, even Mass music, doesn’t just happen (unless the Holy Spirit chooses to perform a miracle and gift everyone with a good voice and the ability to sing spontaneusly–this DOES happen in Pentecostal churches). Music takes planning, practice, and eventually, “performance,” and SOMEONE has to be in charge or none of this will happen.
And my point is that there are NOT enough people around in most Catholic parishes who actually know anything about traditional liturgical music to be in charge.
If you have such a person, say a prayer of thanks, for our large parish does NOT have such a person.
B
bjryman
Guest
The point I am attempting to make is this: Our Mass is full of tradition and Scripture, and of course the Holy Eucharist. The rubics surrounding the Mass have been rather clearly established by the Vatican and then adapted to the US by our Council of Bishops. Ergo, a complete, acceptable, worship within the Mass occurs when we follow the current guidelines provided to us. Since there really is only one Mass, celebrated within these guidelines, it is, in its entirety, “sacred”.
So as others have opined, it is personal preference then that comes into play. That personal preference is often geographically, regionally determined. I may “like” one music type more than another, but as long as the venue is as described above…as my son says…“it’s ALL good”. Some of the posts within this forum seem to go way beyond personal preference and cast degrading comments on venues totally within the Bishops guidelines…why?
Peace
bruce
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Of course there was a leader. Where did you get the idea that there wasn’t? (For your edification, the schola had only a handful of members, but almost everyone in the schola lead it at some point during the last few years.)
Most of your post doesn’t really address anything that I have spoke against, nor does it only apply to chant (as ALL music takes practice and some form of leadership), so I really don’t have anything else to say in that regard.
- Status