Liturgical Music regulations

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, all musical gifts come from him.
But, you still believe in your own ablilties, regardless of where they come from.If you did not, would you be able to sing publicly?

Using your gifts to praise God is not being egocentric.

You said liturgical music was not the place to be creative.
I was pointing out that at some point, all music had to be written created, and arranged.

Well, I used the word “creative” as sarcasm. I hate it when people change words to send their own personal meesages. Our CD takes the words of the Psalms and rearranges them or leaves them out because 1. they refer to God as our father, masculine. 2. She thinks Catholics don’t understand the meaning of words like “usury” “expiation” and “you are a priest in the line of Mechizadek.” I never said only traditional music was allowed to be creative. I think you inferred that, because I dislike a lot of the new stuff we sing is IN MY OPINION stupid and sappy. Sappy, meaning it evokes NO emotion.

 

[rpp]

{snip}
You said liturgical music was not the place to be creative.
I was pointing out that at some point, all music had to be written created, and arranged.

When I read her post, I immediately felt that she meant “innovative”. There is no place for innovation at Mass.

There is a world of difference between creative musical adaptations and innovations.

Innovation + Mass = Liturgical abuse and Heresy.

 

[qui_est_ce]

About changing of the psalms…

it is perfectly fine to change from the psalm of the day to a common psalm …

but one must stay true to those texts. But it is quite allowed to pick a seasonal common psalm.

It is not acceptable to change the psalm of the day with just anyy psalm. If you will look in the missalette, it tells you which other psalms are acceptable. Anything else must be with the approval of the local Biship. usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/addword.shtml

The nice thing about being Catholic, is we don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. It’s all there.

 

[qui_est_ce]

see also

In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3b

 

[pprimeau1976]

Using your gifts to praise God is not being egocentric.

Well, I used the word “creative” as sarcasm. I hate it when people change words to send their own personal meesages. Our CD takes the words of the Psalms and rearranges them or leaves them out because 1. they refer to God as our father, masculine. 2. She thinks Catholics don’t understand the meaning of words like “usury” “expiation” and “you are a priest in the line of Mechizadek.” I never said only traditional music was allowed to be creative. I think you inferred that, because I dislike a lot of the new stuff we sing is IN MY OPINION stupid and sappy. Sappy, meaning it evokes NO emotion.

If she wanted to be creative, she should take a hymn with good lyrics and a terrible melody and set it to new music.

 

[VociMike]

The Bishops don’t read the hymns approved in the missalette. They formed a commission of liturgical experts who do this.

They have approved the hymns and they can be used for Mass, without the constant barrage of threads in this forum, condemning the people who lead choirs and folks groups at their parishes, who choose to use these songs.

Imagine applying that attitude towards our political life. Every one of our laws (which are also written in the main by “experts”, not our elected representatives) would be sacrosanct, unable to be challenged in any court.

 

[Brendan]

Amazing Grace does not promote any heretical doctrine whether it is the loosely interpreted “how precious did that grace appear/the hour I first believed” line or the debate over the term “wretch”.

If he’s claiming he was a wretch at some point, that is error.

I would hope that you don’t teach your children doctrines based solely on Church lyrics. I would hope that you use the Catechism and Scripture as well.

I most certainly do use Scripture. And Catholic Scripture at that.

Sure, I could expose my children to something like the the New World Translation with it John 1:1

“In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”

I could then, of course, explain to my children how this might SEEM heretical, but Christ really is a god, he just happens to be the One and Only God and truely divine.

But why should I expose my children to that, when we have something like the RSV-CE 2nd Ed.

Likewise, why should I have to explain why certain hymns are really not heretical even if they appear to be when we have great hymns like “Immaculate Mary” and “Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silent”

Personally, I don’t know of any better way of teaching on the basics of grace than this song.

How about Tantum Ergo, after all the very Source of Grace itself is in the Eucharist.

Afterall, it documents John Newton’s own personal experience.

Yes, like how he adopted the Calvinst view of human nature that was common in 18th Century Low Church Anglicanism.

The purpose of him using the word wretch was to describe his behavior as a slave trader prior to his conversion. Being a slave ship owner is wretched, just like running an abortion mill is wretched.

Owning Slaves is wretched. the Action of owning them. Newton himself was never a wretch.

The song’s purpose is not to say that we are wretched, it is to say that God’s grace is “Amazing.”

That is one interpretaion, the other is not Catholic. Why don’t we use hymns that have nothing other than a doctrinally correct interpreation. Why introduce ambiguity?

 

[VAC]

Imagine applying that attitude towards our political life. Every one of our laws (which are also written in the main by “experts”, not our elected representatives) would be sacrosanct, unable to be challenged in any court.

Don’t we consider our Pope and Bishops to be more credible than politicians???

 

[VociMike]

Don’t we consider our Pope and Bishops to be more credible than politicians???

A particular group of bishops (the U.S. Bishops in this case) may have valid authority, but that doesn’t mean their decisions are perfect, or perfectly in harmony with the teachings of the Church. The USCCB and its committees are not General Councils. They can be in error. Their actions certainly are not above examination with respect to Church teachings. In fact, the USCCB has been corrected more than once by the Vatican on questions of liturgy.

 

[pprimeau1976]

If he’s claiming he was a wretch at some point, that is error.

Why is it an error to describe yourself as a wretch - especially when it is written in poetic form where metrical contraints keep you from saying “My actions were wretched, but I am good.” If that’s the case, then would you have any objection to Psalm 1?

Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked, Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers.
Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy; God’s law they study day and night.
They are like a tree planted near streams of water, that yields its fruit in season; Its leaves never wither; whatever they do prospers.
But not the wicked! They are like chaff driven by the wind.
Therefore the wicked will not survive judgment, nor will sinners in the assembly of the just.
The LORD watches over the way of the just, but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.

This scripture, from the NAB, describes *people *as being wicked.

I most certainly do use Scripture. And Catholic Scripture at that.

Good for you, you should use Catholic scripture.

Sure, I could expose my children to something like the the New World Translation with it John 1:1

“In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”

I could then, of course, explain to my children how this might SEEM heretical, but Christ really is a god, he just happens to be the One and Only God and truely divine.

But why should I expose my children to that, when we have something like the RSV-CE 2nd Ed.

I have that one. It’s called the Ignatius Bible, right. Don’t use the other one. I never suggested you had to.

Likewise, why should I have to explain why certain hymns are really not heretical even if they appear to be when we have great hymns like “Immaculate Mary” and “Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silent”

I’ve sung those hymns before. “Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silent” is a great tune.

How about Tantum Ergo, after all the very Source of Grace itself is in the Eucharist.

Yes, like how he adopted the Calvinst view of human nature that was common in 18th Century Low Church Anglicanism. Owning Slaves is wretched. the Action of owning them. Newton himself was never a wretch.

See my note on Psalm 1. This Psalm refers to people as wicked. It never talks about their actions. Is it a heretical Psalm? Of course not! I actually think that to you, Amazing Grace is guilty of heresy by association.

That is one interpretaion, the other is not Catholic. Why don’t we use hymns that have nothing other than a doctrinally correct interpreation. Why introduce ambiguity?

Again, see my note on Psalm 1.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Imagine applying that attitude towards our political life. Every one of our laws (which are also written in the main by “experts”, not our elected representatives) would be sacrosanct, unable to be challenged in any court.

You’re mixing apples and oranges, the analogy doesn’t come close.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A particular group of bishops (the U.S. Bishops in this case) may have valid authority, but that doesn’t mean their decisions are perfect, or perfectly in harmony with the teachings of the Church. The USCCB and its committees are not General Councils. They can be in error. Their actions certainly are not above examination with respect to Church teachings. In fact, the USCCB has been corrected more than once by the Vatican on questions of liturgy.

I would bet the USCCB is far less in error than the people in this forum inlcuding yourself.

Jim

 

[qui_est_ce]

Imagine applying that attitude towards our political life. Every one of our laws (which are also written in the main by “experts”, not our elected representatives) would be sacrosanct, unable to be challenged in any court.

The CC is not a democracy. It is a purveyor of truth.

 

[VociMike]

The CC is not a democracy. It is a purveyor of truth.

As I have already stated, that does not mean that any particular group of bishops cannot be in error. The USCCB is not a General Council of the Catholic Church, protected by the Holy Spirit from error. And as I have also pointed out, the bishops have been corrected by the Vatican in the past, so saying “if the bishops did it it must be right” is demonstrably incorrect.

Back to the original point, anybody who suggests that the fact that a bishop or bishop’s conference allows a hymnal is proof that all the songs in the hymnal meet all the guidelines for Catholic liturgical music is just making an invalid (and rather silly) argument from authority.

 

[VociMike]

I would bet the USCCB is far less in error than the people in this forum inlcuding yourself.

That’s a change in tune. Now they are not without error, just with less error than me. Fine. When the Vatican wants to correct me I’ll submit, just as (I hope) the USCCB has submitted when the Vatican has corrected them.

 

[Lepanto]

That was written before Vatican 2 in 1903. Don’t you think it’s a little outdated??

Please cite any Vatican II or other recent documents that abrogate in any way the 1903 document.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Who here thinks the U.S. Bishops stand behind this particular bit of theology (courtesy OCP):

I myself am the bread of life
You and I are the bread of life
Taken and blessed, broken and shared by Christ.

(verse 2) This is our body
This is our blood
Living sign of God in Christ

Rory Cooney: “Bread of Life”. Text © 1987 NALR, published by OCP Publications

Are you so focused on the literal meaning of the Eucharist that you can’t see what this song is saying?

Oh by the way - the song is garbage, if not for the lyrics, certainly for the music.

 

[richardwy]

BTW does anyone know if there is a forum specifically for Catholic music and musicians?

If ANYONE knows of such an animal. PM me. I play trumpet, and there are zero chances to play in the 3 parishes that are nearby.

I did play Easter a couple years ago with a fine organist and with the choir. I’m sure metropolitan parishes have a call to play better music with better musicians than where I live. I digress.

Yes, PM me. I want to know those in the know and know those who don’t know and know those who just want to know.

Now I’ve got to finish reading the thread.

 

[richardwy]

I would beg to differ (respectfully of course) on the notion that if a hymn is in the hymnal it must be appropriate.

I am a cantor and chorister and love a variety of musical styles from chant to Palestrina to Mozart to Early American to Spirituals and even to some St. Louis Jesuits and a few Haugen-Haas confections. My philosophy is to worship the Creator of music by singing all these styles with as much excellence as I can muster.

I do have a major problem with some of the modern recasting of textual material to change the perception of Catholic teaching. I was very irritated when singing “For All the Saints” to find “O Blessed Communion, Fellowship divine” changed to “family divine” – as if that innocent noun would offend estrogen-americans. But more insidious are lines such as “Not to preach our creeds and customs but to build a bridge of care” (to the tune of Lord of all Hopefulness). Now I don’t have anything against building bridges of care, but I think it is important to teach our creeds and doctrines too – for salvation’s sake. These wimpy lyrics smack of indiffrentism and universalism.

These and other castrated lyrics are found in the hardbound Gather Hymnal. The rewritten lyrics water down doctrine, destroy the poetry of precise and clever language, and advance a feminizing and neopagan agenda.

Let me state for the record that I am female (tho not pagan) but think that recreating God in a solely feminine, maternal image (even when speaking of the Second Person of the Trinity who was unquestionably born a biological male) is offputting both to males and females who look for the universal truth.

Sorry for the lengthly rant. I am still new to CAL forums.

Welcome. Keep posting. I like what you have to say and how you say it!

 

[VociMike]

I myself am the bread of life
You and I are the bread of life
Taken and blessed, broken and shared by Christ.

All I know is that the song takes a very specific title that Christ applied to himself and to nobody else, and applies it to us (without even a reference to its actual scriptural application to Christ!).

Perhaps there is also a song that proclaims “We are the way and the truth and the life”. I probably wouldn’t see what that song was actually saying either.