I guess it seems today that one can be snarky without any care of what comes out of their mouth (or from their fingers).I guess it seems that today, the definition of “pastoral” is “breaking rules to keep people happy.”
With all due respect, I cannot, in good conscience, condone this practice. While there may be some emotional attachment to a particular piece of music, the bottom line is that it iilicit. Continuing to use this setting may seem innocuous, but, it still amounts to disregarding the norms and rubrics that the Church sets forth for us to obey.I hope my suggestion doesn’t cause flames, I hope we can consider another possible solution.
I am the music director at my parish, a few oddities (not big ones) happen at our masses that I stepped into. The liturgy committee actually helps our priests stay in line. We do this “we remember how you loved us” thing as a memorial acclamation during Easter…they’ve been doing long before I got here and there is an emotional attachment to it. A couple years ago, because the translations are changing this year, I decided to keep it until the changeover. We’d have to learn a new one only to learn a new one again. THis advent we will absolutely be doing the new translations word for word, no question. I know that we are planing to use this time to fix more items as it is much easier to make these changes all at once, and have the explanations handy with the church changing the translation already.
Technically am I correct? no. But we will be, eventually.
Just an idea… something could already be going on.
When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory
Unfortunately, this is true. The word “pastoral”, as I have experienced it, has been used to justify all sorts of liturgical abuse. As I see it, that word should only apply to the Holy Father.I guess it seems that today, the definition of “pastoral” is “breaking rules to keep people happy.”
B-gal, you were not supposed to respond to my messages anymore, so I kindly ask that you refrain from doing so in the future.With all due respect, I cannot, in good conscience, condone this practice. While there may be some emotional attachment to a particular piece of music, the bottom line is that it iilicit. Continuing to use this setting may seem innocuous, but, it still amounts to disregarding the norms and rubrics that the Church sets forth for us to obey.
Those of us involved in any sort of liturgical ministry, whether it is related to presiding, preaching, the music, the proclamation of the readings, the distribution of Holy Communion, and membership in a parish/diocessan liturgical commission, need to be cognizant of what is laid down in the Sacrosanctum Concilium, GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. We cannot simply turn a blind eye and maintain an ilicit status quo.
Simply maintaining an ilicit practice until the new translation takes effect does not make sense. Why not use the one acclamation that will only have a slight alteration?
The alteration is slight, but, once the revised translation takes effect, the transition will not be so difficult.
That is exactly what I was saying. I’ve heard the most outlandish things being done in the name of being “pastoral.” A few examples:Unfortunately, this is true. The word “pastoral”, as I have experienced it, has been used to justify all sorts of liturgical abuse. As I see it, that word should only apply to the Holy Father.
Using ilicit Memorial Acclamations are, according to the document, reprobated. The Holy See does not mince words when it says that the practice “must cease”. This is not about being snarky nor arrogant. This is about offering fraternal correction. Those of us who have made the point are simply restating what the Church has already written. My responses are not something off the top of my head; they are based on the authoritative documents of the Holy See.[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
Actually, “Christ has died…” is not an option in the new translation.You may be right, but “Christ has died” is in the book (for now), “keep in mind” is not. Granted, you don’t have to use “Christ has died”, I certainly don’t prefer it, but it is a valid option at this time.
Oooollllldddddd threadActually, “Christ has died…” is not an option in the new translation.