Liturgical Music regulations

[richardwy]

We use Choral Praise which is a newer and more estrogenized version of Gather. It has gender neutral Psalms in it.

Our CD and some choir members openly seek to change the words. We have gotten sheet music on which the words were cut and pasted, and the paste was still literally wet!:yup:

CD’s latest obsession is she has decided the congregation doesn’t understand the words in the Psalms. She has taken upon herself to “interpret” for them. She changed the following words in the Psalms of recent Sundays:

'usury" to " lend".

leaving out "in the line of Melchizadek (sp?)

deleted expiation.

I finally blurted out, Catholics aren’t stupid. I got kicked out again. uch:

(CD is a convert from Lutheranism and claims she didn’t need to give up Lutheran to become Catholic):dts: what part of faith AND works did she forget)

God bless you Christine. I think fear of causing a stink might be one reason I’ve not jumped into music where I live.

I don’t think for long I could smile and nod without saying “Awww, this stuff is just limp and it stinks. When are we going to rehearse some real music?”

Bring on the tough stuff and woodshed it until its fit to be heard by parishoners.

Rant done. Yup. Not ready for the choirs in my area yet.

 

[pprimeau1976]

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

From Sacrosanctam Concilium:

1. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
2. 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, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action

, as laid down in Art. 30.
You asked for it, so I gave it.

What I put in bold was a phrase that shocked me. Why does anyone think that it is shameful for sacred music to follow in the “spirit of Vatican II” instead of following it to the letter? How can you follow any document to the letter when it permits things that are in accord with the spirit of another directive?

 

[richardwy]

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

I’m thinking of the St. Francis’ “Little Flowers,” St. Francis De Sales’ “An Introduction to the Devout Life,” also the Catechism 2nd Ed., and . . . oh well that’s all that rattling in my head at the moment. Wait . . . another synapse just caught fire, the patristic readings in the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours, and the Bible.

“Wounded” human nature the Catechism uses to describe, in part, a result of the Fall.

If I had relied on what my flesh and blood Catholic friends told me over the past 3 years, rather than what I read in the Catechism, Divine Office, pious readings by the Saints, I might have come up with, “hey, ‘wounded’ ain’t such a bad thing.”

Of course the opposite is true. I don’t struggle with it. Maybe a byproduct of being profligate in my past life helped focus my attention on my acts which were plenty black.

If someone were to know and use the term “wreched,” they’d be correct. If someone tries to convince me that I’m good deep down inside, well why would they do that in the first place?

Seems beside the point to me.

I’ve no idea how it is for other folks.

Nice thing is that’s WAY beside the point. The Church teaches I’m a sinner. The facts agree. And I’m sooooooo happy to be Catholic.

PS. Yes, there’s the other side too. Adopted sons by God’s grace. TONS of good news there!

 

[VociMike]

From Sacrosanctam Concilium:

You asked for it, so I gave it.

What I put in bold was a phrase that shocked me. Why does anyone think that it is shameful for sacred music to follow in the “spirit of Vatican II” instead of following it to the letter? How can you follow any document to the letter when it permits things that are in accord with the spirit of another directive?

Why do you equate “the spirit of the liturgical action” with “the spirit of Vatican II”? That is comparing apples to accordions. The only thing the two concepts have in common is the word “spirit”.

If you want to understand the phrase “the spirit of the liturgical action”, read “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by now-Pope Benedict XVI. And read “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Romano Guardini.

 

[buffalo]

The Mass of Vatican II

 

[qui_est_ce]

If I had relied on what my flesh and blood Catholic friends told me over the past 3 years, rather than what I read in the Catechism, Divine Office, pious readings by the Saints, I might have come up with, “hey, ‘wounded’ ain’t such a bad thing.”

Sad but so true. I think EWTN is changing all that. Most of my friends from church are addicted to it, as am I. We even have CD’s from Scott Hahn, etc. in the back of church and an improved parish library. Circulation has skyrocketed.

richardwy
Bring on the tough stuff and woodshed it until its fit to be heard by parishoners.

Rant done. Yup. Not ready for the choirs in my area yet.

Our CD is very talented musically and well educated. She has us do wonderful pieces, it’s just that she changes the estrogen-challenged words, or big words. “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” becomes “Jesu Joy of OUR Desiring.” WRONG :tsktsk:

Having said that, we do sing wimpy fillers like “Gather us in” etc.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Why do you equate “the spirit of the liturgical action” with “the spirit of Vatican II”? That is comparing apples to accordions. The only thing the two concepts have in common is the word “spirit”.

I don’t equate the two. I just think it is odd that in order to follow article 116 to the letter, it permits you to do something in the spirit of article 30. In other words, it seems to me at that Vatican II documents (at least Sancrosanctum Concilium) was written in such a way that even attempting to follow it to the letter can be construed by some as not doing so.

IMO, if something was supposed to be followed to the letter, you would think that they would write it in concrete terms. For example, what does it mean to give something “pride and place”? Would chanting the Lord’s Prayer be enough? Who determines what is “pride and place” and what is not?

If you want to understand the phrase “the spirit of the liturgical action”, read “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by now-Pope Benedict XVI. And read “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Romano Guardini.

Thanks. Havent’ made my way to that one yet.

 

[pprimeau1976]

If you stretch the imagination and speed up the tempo, Gather Us In could be sung in a Tolkein-esque pub by drunken Hobbits.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t equate the two. I just think it is odd that in order to follow article 116 to the letter, it permits you to do something in the spirit of article 30. In other words, it seems to me at that Vatican II documents (at least Sancrosanctum Concilium) was written in such a way that even attempting to follow it to the letter can be construed by some as not doing so.

IMO, if something was supposed to be followed to the letter, you would think that they would write it in concrete terms. For example, what does it mean to give something “pride and place”? Would chanting the Lord’s Prayer be enough? Who determines what is “pride and place” and what is not?

OK, fair enough. The concept that underlies the reference to “the spirit of the liturgical action” is that of thinking with the “mind of the Church” (sensus Ecclesiae). This is exactly the concept that Pope John Paul II invoked in his remarks on new compositions of sacred music:

With regard to liturgical music compositions, I make my own the “general law” that Saint Pius X formulated in these terms: “A composition for Church is sacred and liturgical insofar as it approaches Gregorian melody in flow, in inspiration, and in flavor, and so much less is it worthy of the temple insomuch as it is recognized as departing from that supreme model”. Evidently, this does not mean copying Gregorian chant, but rather seeing to it that new compositions be pervaded by the same spirit that gave rise to and so molded that chant. Only an artist profoundly immersed in the sensus Ecclesiae may try to perceive and translate into melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.

The same goes for the passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium that you referenced. One must understand the spirit of the liturgy with the mind of the Church in order to make the right choices regarding sacred music.

There is an analogy here, I think, with the teaching that Catholics are required to follow their own conscience, but with the proviso that they are responsible to see that their consciences must be properly formed (formed to the mind of the Church, you might say).

 

[Laura_B]

I had to weigh-in on The Lord of the Dance. Words can’t express how much I loathe that song. To me, it seems to reduce all Our Lord has done to a dance.

Further, because of its Celtic flavor, I often get this image of the 12 in line doing an Irish step-dance ala Riverdance. (Have mercy on me, but it’s true.)

 

[muledog]

Please tell me how **Lord of the Dance **is Scriptural.
I do not think it is, and I won’t sing it. It was even presented at a conference we went to by someone who was demonstrating on how to use piano more effectively in accompanying hymnody.

I’d also like to see a forum for pastoral musicians.

God bless,
Mimi

I don’t think that I made that assertion.

 

[Sarabande]

The Mass of Vatican II

Thanks for that. It’s an excellent article!!!

 

[Image_of_God]

Thanks for that. It’s an excellent article!!!

Yes, I agree.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you stretch the imagination and speed up the tempo, Gather Us In could be sung in a Tolkein-esque pub by drunken Hobbits.

 

[richardwy]

I had to weigh-in on The Lord of the Dance.

Appalachian Spring is good. Melody of Lord of the Dance from the Shaker hymn, good. Part of the Mass, bad.

 

[Mimi]

Originally Posted by Mimi
Please tell me how Lord of the Dance is Scriptural.
I do not think it is, and I won’t sing it. It was even presented at a conference we went to by someone who was demonstrating on how to use piano more effectively in accompanying hymnody.

I’d also like to see a forum for pastoral musicians.

God bless,
Mimi

I don’t think that I made that assertion.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to say you did.

Of those who do like to sing Lord of the Dance, where would it fit in liturgically; it is not scriptural, nor is it part of Tradition. God the Father “danced at Calvary”? And just what or how is “dance” or “danced” used as a metaphor?
(I don’t expect I’ll get many answers; it’s kind of a rhetorical question(s)).

Also: mea culpa
I’ve lead And the Father Will Dance at Mass, but it was a lo-o-ong time ago, and I repent!!

Mimi

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

This is an example of an ad nauseum argument.

Just like the Catholic Church’s moral and doctrinal assertions are ad nauseum arguments (especially to those who disagree ).

JMJ_Coder, I understand that you desire, quite correctly, that music must be doctrinally correct. But I completely disgree with you interpretation that “Amazing Grace” denies the doctrines you claim it does. I suspect that you may find yourself alone in your position. Or at least you will not be able to cite a source that does not resort to “but it was written by a protestant”.

I assure I am not alone in my stance.

How do I know this? Because you quote many important sources, but you do not quote the lyrics. The few lines you did quote were, at best only very slightly ambiguous. If you want to be taken seriously, show us where is denies doctrine by quoting lyrics.

I already cited the lyrics. The line that is heretical is: How precious did that grace appear, The hour I first believ’d!

It is NOT when we first believe that we obtain sanctifying grace, but at the moment of Baptism!

This should not offend anyone. This verse does not say that grace appeared the hour he first believed. It actually says that it appeared precious the hour he first believed.

Actually, it can be read both ways. One way is heretical. The other way is so ambiguous that it should be excluded so as to not cause confusion.

Either way, it has no place in a Catholic Liturgy.

But remember, people as they sing a song, do not engage in tome-length analysis of the music. Unless it says something that is outright false, then it is fine. For example, some of the music quoted earlier denies the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. That is a serious problem. But a song that praises and thanks the grace of God that changed the heart of the author does not seem anti-Catholic at all.

We do not go to Mass for a sing-a-long. We are there to partake and enter into the Paschal Sacrifice. Everything - absolutely everything - at a Catholic Liturgy should completely and without ambiguity assert the Faith. As the axiom goes - lex orandi, lex credendi.

I will, however, entertain the vanishingly remote possibility that you may be correct, but only if you can cite a reliable source, like a bishop, the USCCB, or an official document from the Vatican.

This was covered about a year ago in one of Karl Keating’s E-Letters. I don’t know of any member of the Hierarchy commenting on this hymn - though they also haven’t commented on any other hymn by name, even those you have readily agreed are heretical.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

Jim

Do you have a source that affirms that all the hymns in the missalette have indeed been approved by the Bishop’s Conference. A letter from them or their commission? A imprimatur in the missalette covering the hymns and not just the liturgical texts?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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

This is an attitude I absolutely loathe. That is the attitude that the Church must keep up with the times and become ‘hip’ and ‘with-it’. The Church and the Church’s teachings are beyond time.

Why is it that so many modernists cannot stand the thought of groups of people cherishing the traditional, even to the exclusion to the modern, which is many times much inferior in quality.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Many of these objections are really reaching. Do you scrutinize Catholic hymns as much as you scrutinize protestant hymns?

I rarely look at who the composer of a piece of music is. The music and (more importantly) the lyrics speaks much louder than who the creator is.

In fact, I never knew who wrote Amazing Grace until the new movie came out.