Music leaders, show us your song list - NEW!!

[hosea]

Does it seem that the Vatican is regreting the Vatican II philosophy which was in part to give the people a larger voice in liturgy? I converted in '72 and started playing for the Church; about 20 years in to VII. So we (the people that is) have been taking ownership of the Liturgy for over 50 years, ordaining Deacons, turning the Presidors toward the faithful instead of the Cross, training lay distributors of the Holy Eucharist, and encouraging contemporary composers and musicians to (I paraphrase) ‘add to the treasury of the music of the Church.’
So now it seems that we are going to be micromanaged to revert to a Latin-based Liturgy. The music we have learned and come to cherish over the last 30-40 years is now being regarded as ‘baneful’ which means seriously harmful.

The wording seems to give more authority to the Conference of Bishops. So will we be ok with what they make as policy only as long as it satisfies what we personally want? The term Liturgiam Authenticam itself is a return to pre VII terminology. Why not call it Authentic Liturgy so that VII will continue to take the Church where she was led so many years ago; into a language that lives; not a dead language?

It has taken us over a half century to get where we are today. Will people like me who embrace the contempory masters of our age be branded as heritics who use baneful music to send souls to evil? I pray not for my heart is and always will be to please the Lord my God with songs of praise of Him Who made me.

 

[Sarabande]

Hi Hosea - I’m doing this in two posts and just giving an opinion based on what I know of music history and Church music history. I’m sure others will and can give additional opinons and facts.

I believe the Second Vatican Council began in 1962, so although it has been close to 50 years, it is not over 50 years of this, but that is neither here nor there. It’s still a long time (in terms for us – but actually not for the Church. 50 years is considered a relatively short time and the Church works on Church time not on our time) since Vatican II has been in effect and enough time to affect we Catholics – especially people of my generation who grew up in the 80s and 90s, as well as younger people in the generations after me, who has mostly only known VII. I don’t think the Church (the Vatican) is regretting Vatican II overall. Having deacons is not new and not a creation of VII, so that, in itself would not cause regret – at least that is what I believe. Also, I may have been reading your post wrong, but the lay people do not ordain deacons.

Anyway, I will focus on music since this is a music thread. I do believe that the Church, much like in past centuries (we have to all remember that this kind of thing with the Church vs church music is NOTHING NEW) is acting according to how she has always acted in the past. It sometimes did take a long time for the Church to react to what was being produced as liturgical music. There was a lot of music thrown out and considered “banal”, inappropriate for mass. The composers of the music either had to learn how to refine the composition to make it sound less “secular” or it would not be permitted. Early polyphony, for example, had a more secular feel with the rhythms and harmonies (it was like the pop music of the time) which is why polyphony was banned by three popes until Guillame de Machaut in the 1300s refined the composition of sacred polyphony enough so that it would be considered appropriate for liturgy. If you listen to secular polyphony and sacred polyphony – or have sung it in choirs – you can hear and tell the difference. One is definitely more “reverent-sounding” than the other, which sometimes has more of a dance feel to the rhythm.

 

[Sarabande]

Continued…

Then there is music composed through the centuries and considered appropriate by some and inappropriate by others. This would mostly be music composed by masters during the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods in music. The Church does accept some of this music as appropriate and worthy of being played at mass. You will hear some of it played at the Vatican for mass. But some of it, despite its genius, although not considered banal, is not considered appropriate because it is too secular-sounding or too focused on the individual musicians and what they do rather than how it is incorporated into the Mass.
There are composers from the 20th and 21st centuries who have composed and are composing beautiful music which lives up to the expectations of what the Church is requiring. So, I don’t believe the Church is there striking down all new music. But she needs to review what is being created now and make sure that it is not getting too out of hand. This means, she will be throwing out some of the music, keeping some or asking composers or music writers to refine their music enough so that it fits the requirements and expectations of the Liturgy.

All of this music through the centuries, including the music today, before it was reviewed by the Church, was also enjoyed or embraced by the people in their parishes. So I’m sure those people, who were not much different from us, were probably hurt and sad that “their music” was taken away from them. I’m not saying it is going to be easy for those today to accept this, especially for those who have really invested so much of their lives into some of the music that is currently being used in some of these parishes. Actually, I suspect that some parishes may not even abide the rules and decrees, especially in parishes where people will talk with their feet. Or you may see the same thing occur with some of the musicians today that occurred earlier on in Vatican II when the musicians who played more traditional music or classical style of music were pushed out of their parishes and went to Protestant churches.

Edit - Anyway, for me, as much as I would love to sing an operatic religious aria for mass, which is singing for God, through the years, I have had to learn that even if the words may be sacred/religious, the style of the music may not be appropriate for mass according to the Church - even if it is absolutely beautiful and inspirational. It can sometimes be a hard pill to swallow, especially to us musicians who puts so much energy and love and prayer into the music that we do for liturgy as well as for the secular world.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Totally agree! Isn’t it so awesome when you come across a work that you’ve known for a while and a musician can bring out something in it that totally sweeps you away? You should share your sentiments with your organist. I’m sure he’d appreciate your comment very much, as musicians tend to be criticised and nitpicked in both secular and sacred realms than anything else.

Oh, I did tell him! He’s my favorite organist. We are friends and like to joke with each other. I never really knew how triumphant it was, but when he played it last week, I was like “WOW!” He played it with true beauty and put “feeling” into the song. The cantor at one of the Masses was smiling too as he would go really loud on the last couple of verses. It really made it one of my favorite Advent hymns!

EDIT: When I did tell him about it, he was really happy and glad I liked it.

 

[Sarabande]

Oh, I did tell him! He’s my favorite organist. We are friends and like to joke with each other. I never really knew how triumphant it was, but when he played it last week, I was like “WOW!” He played it with true beauty and put “feeling” into the song. The cantor at one of the Masses was smiling too as he would go really loud on the last couple of verses. It really made it one of my favorite Advent hymns!

EDIT: When I did tell him about it, he was really happy and glad I liked it.

Oh, good!!! I’m glad you did. One of my close friends is an organist, as well. Everything he plays is gorgeous and beautifully done, but whenever he does something that really hits me, whether something majestic and triumphant or something that is so subtle, ethereal and prayerful (which sometimes can be hard to do on an organ) I always make sure to tell him, too. I know for him and I’m pretty sure for your friend as well, when they hear feedback from people they trust, it helps them gauge if what they are doing is good or bad.

 

[benedictgal]

Does it seem that the Vatican is regreting the Vatican II philosophy which was in part to give the people a larger voice in liturgy? I converted in '72 and started playing for the Church; about 20 years in to VII. So we (the people that is) have been taking ownership of the Liturgy for over 50 years, ordaining Deacons, turning the Presidors toward the faithful instead of the Cross, training lay distributors of the Holy Eucharist, and encouraging contemporary composers and musicians to (I paraphrase) ‘add to the treasury of the music of the Church.’
So now it seems that we are going to be micromanaged to revert to a Latin-based Liturgy. The music we have learned and come to cherish over the last 30-40 years is now being regarded as ‘baneful’ which means seriously harmful.

The wording seems to give more authority to the Conference of Bishops. So will we be ok with what they make as policy only as long as it satisfies what we personally want? The term Liturgiam Authenticam itself is a return to pre VII terminology. Why not call it Authentic Liturgy so that VII will continue to take the Church where she was led so many years ago; into a language that lives; not a dead language?

It has taken us over a half century to get where we are today. Will people like me who embrace the contempory masters of our age be branded as heritics who use baneful music to send souls to evil? I pray not for my heart is and always will be to please the Lord my God with songs of praise of Him Who made me.

With all due respect, Hosea, I think that you are missing the entire point. I think before any of us starts criticizing the Holy See for the actions that it is taking, we need to look at what happened just after the Council. There was a great deal of misunderstanding. The springtime that Pope John XXIII did not necessarily take into account that with the spring comes severe weather, like tornadoes. And, the aftermath of the Council was the equivalent of an F4 tornado. It was not so much the authoritative documents of the Church, but, the misintepretation of how to implement these.

The one who saw this early on was a very young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who was a peritus, theological consultant during the Second Vatican Council. If anyone is a solid authority on what actually happened, it is the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

People were caught up in the alleged spirit of the Council, but, they never bothered to read what the documents actually said. In fact, there was a rush to throw out everything that is sacred and beautiful and write music that is much more fitting for the secular Woodstock era than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The sacral and divine nature of the Mass was overlooked and active participation was grossly misinterpreted to mean that the laity could do just about everything that the celebrant could do except the Consecration.

This is what true, active participation means:

The pope, in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, defines actuosa participatio as a call to a total assimilation in the very action of Christ the High Priest. It is in no way a call to activism, a misunderstanding that spread widely in the aftermath of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Stated Cardinal Ratzinger: “what does it [active participation] mean…? Unfortunately the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 171).

We know that in many places this led to the amalgamation of the sanctuary with the assembly, the clericalization of the laity and the filling up of the sanctuary with the noisy and distracting presence of a large number of people. One could say that virtually Wall Street moved into the sanctuary. But was that really what the Council Fathers advocated? Cardinal Ratzinger does not think so. For him, “the real ‘action’ in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God Himself. This is what is new and distinctive about Christian liturgy: God Himself acts and does what is essential” (ibid, p. 173).

This comes from the magnificent speech that Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth delivered at a conference in St. Louis, MO, that I was blessed to attend. What saddened me is that folks who held th view that you seem to hold walked out on him, especially when he talked about celebrating Mass Ad Orientum. Mind you, they were walking out on the no. 2 prelate on the totem pole of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I encourage you to read the whole article:

adoremus.org/0309Ranjith.html

Your statement about Latin is sad to read. The Council never abrogated the use of Latin. In fact, Latin is the default and the vernacular is the option. In fact, every Pontiff, from Pope John XIII to Pope Benedict XVI, has strongly encouraged the maintenance of Latin in the Mass. You may consider this a “dead language”, but, it is precisely because it remains unchanged that makes it the best language for the Church. It is not subject to the whims of political correctness nor the flights of fashion.

 

[benedictgal]

Hosea, the fact that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is taking these steps to clean up the Mass is something that has been sorely lacking. The fact that they are also seeking to clean up the music is something that is urgentlly needed. It is not micromanaging because, ultimately, the CDWDS is the particular rule-making authority. The Congregation acts with the authorty of the Holy Father in these matters.

What the Holy Father is seeking to do is to restore an authentic interpreation of the Second Vatican Council, using the authoritative documents. In fact, Pope John Paul II got the ball rolling with Liturgiam Authenticam, which was written in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed, at the time, by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope John Paul II also made it quite clear that today’s music needed some serious purification. The problems that we face now are no different than what Pope St. Pius X faced when he had to clean up the Church’s liturgical music back in 1903.

With all due respect, rather than pan what the Vatican is doing, it would, perhaps, be helpful to you to read the Holy Father’s books on the liturgy, especially where it concerns music. He is the one who termed what we have out there right now as banal. In fact, if anyone is an authority on sacred music, it is Pope Benedict. Not only is he an accomplished musician, his brother directed the Resenberg choir for 30 years.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Again, this is what I’m using this week:

Sunday, December 13th, 2009 - Third Sunday of Advent - Year C

Processional Hymn: #36 O Come, O Come, Emmanuel
Preparation of the Gifts: #59 The Advent of our King
Communion Hymn: #98 Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming
Recessional Hymn: #47 People, Look East

 

[hosea]

3rd Sunday of Advent C

O come o come emmanuel
We shall draw water
Maranatha II
Your Light will come, Jerusalem
Jesus, come to us
Let the King of Glory come! (omitting the first verse)

peace,
h

 

[hosea]

Continued…

Then there is music composed through the centuries and considered appropriate by some and inappropriate by others. This would mostly be music composed by masters during the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods in music. The Church does accept some of this music as appropriate and worthy of being played at mass. You will hear some of it played at the Vatican for mass. But some of it, despite its genius, although not considered banal, is not considered appropriate because it is too secular-sounding or too focused on the individual musicians and what they do rather than how it is incorporated into the Mass.
There are composers from the 20th and 21st centuries who have composed and are composing beautiful music which lives up to the expectations of what the Church is requiring. So, I don’t believe the Church is there striking down all new music. But she needs to review what is being created now and make sure that it is not getting too out of hand. This means, she will be throwing out some of the music, keeping some or asking composers or music writers to refine their music enough so that it fits the requirements and expectations of the Liturgy.

All of this music through the centuries, including the music today, before it was reviewed by the Church, was also enjoyed or embraced by the people in their parishes. So I’m sure those people, who were not much different from us, were probably hurt and sad that “their music” was taken away from them. I’m not saying it is going to be easy for those today to accept this, especially for those who have really invested so much of their lives into some of the music that is currently being used in some of these parishes. Actually, I suspect that some parishes may not even abide the rules and decrees, especially in parishes where people will talk with their feet. Or you may see the same thing occur with some of the musicians today that occurred earlier on in Vatican II when the musicians who played more traditional music or classical style of music were pushed out of their parishes and went to Protestant churches.

Edit - Anyway, for me, as much as I would love to sing an operatic religious aria for mass, which is singing for God, through the years, I have had to learn that even if the words may be sacred/religious, the style of the music may not be appropriate for mass according to the Church - even if it is absolutely beautiful and inspirational. It can sometimes be a hard pill to swallow, especially to us musicians who puts so much energy and love and prayer into the music that we do for liturgy as well as for the secular world.

Incredibly beautiful reply to an extremely sensitive subject. It is from the Lord’s own mouth that these tender words of encouragement and intelligence come.
Blessed are you among all those here, Sara.

a peaceful Advent for you and your precious family,
h

 

[hosea]

With all due respect, Hosea, I think that you are missing the entire point. I think before any of us starts criticizing the Holy See for the actions that it is taking, we need to look at what happened just after the Council. There was a great deal of misunderstanding. The springtime that Pope John XXIII did not necessarily take into account that with the spring comes severe weather, like tornadoes. And, the aftermath of the Council was the equivalent of an F4 tornado. It was not so much the authoritative documents of the Church, but, the misintepretation of how to implement these.

The one who saw this early on was a very young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, who was a peritus, theological consultant during the Second Vatican Council. If anyone is a solid authority on what actually happened, it is the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

People were caught up in the alleged spirit of the Council, but, they never bothered to read what the documents actually said. In fact, there was a rush to throw out everything that is sacred and beautiful and write music that is much more fitting for the secular Woodstock era than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The sacral and divine nature of the Mass was overlooked and active participation was grossly misinterpreted to mean that the laity could do just about everything that the celebrant could do except the Consecration.

This is what true, active participation means:

This comes from the magnificent speech that Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth delivered at a conference in St. Louis, MO, that I was blessed to attend. What saddened me is that folks who held th view that you seem to hold walked out on him, especially when he talked about celebrating Mass Ad Orientum. Mind you, they were walking out on the no. 2 prelate on the totem pole of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I encourage you to read the whole article:

adoremus.org/0309Ranjith.html

Your statement about Latin is sad to read. The Council never abrogated the use of Latin. In fact, Latin is the default and the vernacular is the option. In fact, every Pontiff, from Pope John XIII to Pope Benedict XVI, has strongly encouraged the maintenance of Latin in the Mass. You may consider this a “dead language”, but, it is precisely because it remains unchanged that makes it the best language for the Church. It is not subject to the whims of political correctness nor the flights of fashion.

It is not that I criticize the Vatican. I just wonder if they regret turning the American Catholic Church loose. In chapter 2 of this link it talks about diversity of gifts being given flexibility to enter into the full participation in the Holy Sacrafice of Mass.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html “For the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical Priesthood, though they differ in essence and not only in degree, are ordered to one another, for both partake, each in its own way, of the one Priesthood of Christ”.[91]
My point is; did they create a banal monster? And the division here feeds that monster…no?

peace,
h

 

[benedictgal]

It is not that I criticize the Vatican. I just wonder if they regret turning the American Catholic Church loose. In chapter 2 of this link it talks about diversity of gifts being given flexibility to enter into the full participation in the Holy Sacrafice of Mass.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html “For the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical Priesthood, though they differ in essence and not only in degree, are ordered to one another, for both partake, each in its own way, of the one Priesthood of Christ”.[91]
My point is; did they create a banal monster? And the division here feeds that monster…no?

peace,
h

The banal monster was not the creation of the Vatican; rather, hosea, it came about as a tragic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the Second Vatican Council actually said. We cannot blame the Vatican for this; rather, we, ourselves, are too blame.

Now, that same chapter reads that:

[44.] Apart from the duly instituted ministries of acolyte and lector,111 the most important of these ministries are those of acolyte112 and lector113 by temporary deputation. In addition to these are the other functions that are described in the Roman Missal,114 as well as the functions of preparing the hosts, washing the liturgical linens, and the like. All, “whether ordained ministers or lay faithful, in exercising their own office or ministry should do exclusively and fully that which pertains to them”.115 In the liturgical celebration itself as well as in its preparation, they should do what is necessary so that the Church’s Liturgy will be carried out worthily and appropriately.

[45.] To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain “clericalization”, while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful.116

I hope this helps clarify things.

 

[hosea]

The banal monster was not the creation of the Vatican; rather, hosea, it came about as a tragic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the Second Vatican Council actually said. We cannot blame the Vatican for this; rather, we, ourselves, are too blame.

Now, that same chapter reads that:

I hope this helps clarify things.

I stand corrected (yet again… ah me). The monster ***was ***most certainly created by us. But do you think it is a gentle monster? A monster that had good intentions? A monster with some good parts and some bad?
I feel sometimes that we are facing an upheaval in our Church. I have this fear that someone will burst into one of our litrugies and seize our hymnals, take them out into the courtyard and burn them declaring ‘those that sing from these banal books are heretics! Have nothing to do with them!.’ These are the feelings I get when I read the degrading remarks against OCP in general and the modern songs that arose since VII. It damages me more than you know. My love of the Church and those songs spans nearly 40 years. Every song I have learned touches my drooping spirit much in the same way you describe how the ancient beautiful hymns touch yours. That is why I avoid criticism of those choices. I will not undermine the spirit of another.

I pray that there is no monster. That a gentleness will fall on all the disagreements that have come from our diverse opinions.

peace,
h

 

[benedictgal]

I stand corrected (yet again… ah me). The monster ***was ***most certainly created by us. But do you think it is a gentle monster? A monster that had good intentions? A monster with some good parts and some bad?
I feel sometimes that we are facing an upheaval in our Church. I have this fear that someone will burst into one of our litrugies and seize our hymnals, take them out into the courtyard and burn them declaring ‘those that sing from these banal books are heretics! Have nothing to do with them!.’ These are the feelings I get when I read the degrading remarks against OCP in general and the modern songs that arose since VII. It damages me more than you know. My love of the Church and those songs spans nearly 40 years. Every song I have learned touches my drooping spirit much in the same way you describe how the ancient beautiful hymns touch yours. That is why I avoid criticism of those choices. I will not undermine the spirit of another.

I pray that there is no monster. That a gentleness will fall on all the disagreements that have come from our diverse opinions.

peace,
h

The big problem, though, hosea, is that even with the best of intentions, serious mistakes were made.

OCP is precisely to blame because they were the ones who chose to get rid of the ancient, the beautiful and the sacral and push products on to the faithful that really have no business in the liturgy. Even some of their “new translations” of these venerable hymns, such as what they did to the Spanish version of Veni, Veni Emmanuel, are hideous and took out the original meaning of the Church’s oldest and most treasured Advent hymn. While the Church fosters new compositions, these have to follow a certain standard. It’s not that it’s a degredation of what you are using, rather, it is a statement that these do not measure up to what the Church intends, both contentwise and musicality. In fact, the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist found songs of this similar nature problematic.

It is also incumbent on those involved in music ministry to read the authoritative documents of the Holy See in tandem with the writings of the Supreme Pontiffs, in particular, those of Pope St. Pius X, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. It is also important that the those involved in music ministry not cast out the truly sacred, venerable pieces of liturgical music, but, learn them and include them in the repertoire.

This morning, I called the CDWDS at an odd hour to get some clarification on some issues at our local level. We spent about 32 minutes (at least my mobile phone plan includes international minutes). In the course of the conversation, we discussed music and the violations that OCP has committed regarding Liturgiam Authenticam. This has not escaped the Holy See, to my surprise. They seem to be aware of the problem. They now recognize that there are questionable settings of the Mass, taking into full account that paraphrasing is forbidden and that the settings of the text need fit the majesty of the Liturrgy. Remember, we are in the world, but, not of the world.

And, this should not be called the American Catholic Church (no such entity exists); rather, the Church in America. The Church goes beyond the bounds of any one country.

 

[CatholicZ09]

This is what my organist used for today:

Processional Hymn: #53 Emmanuel
Preparation of the Gifts: #50 Alleluia! Hurry, the Lord is Near
Communion Hymn: #47 People, Look East
Recessional Hymn: #49 O Come Divine Messiah

This is what I’m using for next week:

Sunday, December 20th, 2009 - Fourth Sunday of Advent - Year C

Processional Hymn: #36 O Come, O Come, Emmanuel
Preparation of the Gifts: #65 See How the Virgin Waits
Communion Hymn: #41 Waiting in Silence
Recessional Hymn: #74 Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Mighty Gates

 

[grandeorgue]

Fourth Sunday of Advent - 12/20/09
Opening: The King Shall Come When Morning Dawns
Offertory: Creator of the Stars of Knight
Missa Emmanuel
Communion: O Come, O Come Emmanuel
Closing: Come, Thou Redeemer of the Earth

 

[mhazell]

So we (the people that is) have been taking ownership of the Liturgy for over 50 years

No. This is wrong. “We the people” do not own the liturgy. See Redemptionis Sacramentum 11-12.

turning the Presidors toward the faithful instead of the Cross

This was one of the most short-sighted things to come out of the 60s.

Firstly, let it be noted that nowhere in Vatican II is versus populum (i.e. priest facing the people) given as the ‘new’ position for Holy Mass. This was an innovation that came out of the ‘spirit’ of the Council, not any of the Council texts.

But secondly, and more importantly, what does the priest facing the people end up meaning? Instead of the focus being on Christ, His Cross and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the focus becomes the community. We become a ‘holy huddle’, inward focussed, introspective. The communal is elevated above the sacrificial. Bear in mind the dictum lex orandi, lex credendi: as we pray, so we believe. If we pray as an inward focussed huddle, then it really should be no surprise 20 or 30 years later when we have ended up singing songs at Mass that are more about us and how we feel than about worship of God; it should be no surprise when we find out that our parishioners have aged, and there are no young people to take their place because our evangelism has been sorely lacking; etc.

EDIT: And “presidors”?! For goodness’ sake, call them what they are–priests!

training lay distributors of the Holy Eucharist

We do not need more EMHCs. We need more priests.

So now it seems that we are going to be micromanaged to revert to a Latin-based Liturgy. The music we have learned and come to cherish over the last 30-40 years is now being regarded as ‘baneful’ which means seriously harmful.

Most of it is seriously harmful.

I am 26 and my wife is 23. We don’t want tuneless 70s folk music with very questionable lyrics. We can see perfectly well that such things strip out the sacred character of the Holy Mass, and make it into not much more than a community sing-along for people who remember the “good ol’ days”.

We want a reverent OF Mass. We want the timeless, sacred music of the Church–chant and polyphony. We want Latin (or at least some!). We don’t want “a greater [lay] voice” in the liturgy–we want active participation of the lay faithful. We want, in fact, exactly what Vatican II called for in Sacrosanctum Concillium.

It has taken us over a half century to get where we are today. Will people like me who embrace the contempory masters of our age be branded as heritics who use baneful music to send souls to evil?

Probably not. But by the time I am your age, the Church will not be singing the songs of these “contemporary masters” of whom you speak. We will be living out Vatican II, not living in thrall to its ‘spirit’.

 

[pnewton]

No. This is wrong. “We the people” do not own the liturgy. See Redemptionis Sacramentum 11-12.
…

…etc.

Do you even pay any attentiong to following the rules here? This whole post is totally off-topic. If you want to argue stuff, you need to start your own. This thread needs to be kept debate free and criticism free. The last one like this was close due to arguement. Some of us here really use this thread as a resource. Is it too much to ask for one thread for us?

 

[mhazell]

The “argument” started before my post, so with all due respect, I fail to see why you’re picking only on me. PM-ing me or reporting my post to the moderator would have been a bit more courteous than publicly reprimanding the thread newbie.

Nevertheless, as per your implication, I will refrain from any further posting in this thread.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please, everyone, stick to the topic and remember to be civil. Take any side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.