M
MrS
Guest
:banghead: Let it never be said that you or your buddy Joysong insist on having a last word.
However, to your “credit” you don’t always insist that “they” are wrong by using any documented reasons.
.
- Status
:banghead: Let it never be said that you or your buddy Joysong insist on having a last word.
However, to your “credit” you don’t always insist that “they” are wrong by using any documented reasons.
.
3
30miller
Guest
A hymnal would need an imprimatur - at least it would have for centuries past - to assure those in the pew that someone with legitimate knowledge and authority in the Catholic Church hierarchy had carefully reviewed the material for conformance with the beliefs of the Catholic Church and was willing to attach his name to it attesting to same. If my parish’s GIA hymnal had an imprimatur (it does not) - I’m quite sure we would not have been singing a Shaker hymn at Sunday Mass as we indeed were until I complained to my pastor. The imprimatur used to be the “UL” symbol of the Church as Underwriters Laboratory is to all the electrical devices you buy and turn on without electrocuting yourself. With our hymnals nowadays we seem to want to find out if the material is safe by trying it and seeing if it electrocutes us.
Actually it has been our “tradition” - until the “spirit of Vatican II” came along.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The St. Gregory hymnal which was in common use up to Vatican II has both imprimateur and nihil obstat.
neumannpress.stores.yahoo.net/stgreghymand.html This link has some words highly appropriate to this discussion
neumannpress.stores.yahoo.net/stgreghymand.html This link has some words highly appropriate to this discussion
3
30miller
Guest
Who OK’s the OCP - no one to speak of (or is spoken of, is probably a better way to put it). OCP and GIA have essentially hijacked and taken over liturgical music publishing business - and they seem to dictate to our Church, among other churches, the compilations that they will offer us. They have purchased many of the copywrites to material. They have many of the current “artists” contracted with them. They deal in the dark. We are not allowed to know how it is that their material finds it’s way into our parishes. They are not without their unknown and apparently well-placed “friends” inside our Church, as well. That’s the best answer I can give you.
(Aside - My best take on what is “behind” them is a “false ecumenism” which seems to believe that if they somehow get the same “ambiguous” kind of songs into Caholic, Episcopal, & other protestant churches - that the “kumbaya” effect will over after a number of years and result in one Christianity for all - the “feel-good” Christianity that so many of “them” seem to like. I was in an Episcopal church recently for a graduation and ALL of the 4 or 5 hymns that were used were exactly the same as “ours” . Unfortunately, that “feel-good” Christianity is false. It’s the one that has somehow completely loses the reality of sin, hell, last four things, etc. They stand dumbstruck when you point out to them that Jesus actually mentioned Hell more times in the Bible than He did heaven).
A
anamchara
Guest
MrS, go look up what it means to when we say “the pot calling the kettle black” of all people to come blundering in accusing people of getting the last word and insisting on being right
Let it never be said that you or your buddy Joysong insist on having a last word.
However, to your “credit” you don’t always insist that “they” are wrong by using any documented reasons.
.
A
anamchara
Guest
Thank you for answering. Joysong seems to think different as her posts implied this. I’d like to get a different opinion on it from both sides.
3
30miller
Guest
Good Luck! (I have edited the post you are responding to and added some thoughts to it - i.e. the proposition that OCP and GIA in using our music “ministers” (among others) seem to come from the point of view that music leads and beliefs follow - which is exactly backwards, of course. Beliefs and liturgy can happily exist without any of their “liturgical” music whatsoever. The reverse is not true, of course).
J
Joysong
Guest
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, other than I do see an inference of problematic service in your second paragraph. It must give you great joy to besmirch a loyal servant as he retires. I’m afraid you will have to provide documentation in accord with forum rules, for dishonoring him publicly without proof of your assertions.
Nevertheless, the format I provided earlier is still a good indication that the papal liturgy in DC was not a haphazard mish-mash, and more especially so, since you laud this new Msgr’s accomplishments.
F
frommi
Guest
The items cited were really about the process for planning an international celebration…I find it difficult to believe that in 6 months that many changes have been made to how they plan these voyages.
Of course, you seem to believe that Archbishop Wuerl told Msgr. Marini one thing, then did something completely different.
J
Joysong
Guest
Anamchara,
There is no longer a requirement for the imprimatur and nihil obstat, not only in hymnals, but also in authored books. Fr. Groeschel just recently spoke about this, how difficult it is to obtain due to the tremendous obligation of time that a Bishop must spend in perusing the work, and also to the huge volume of books being written now in our rapid information technology.
I just finished Fr. Dubay’s book, Fire Within, and both are missing. However, it does note that it was published with ecclesial approval.
My OCP hymnal states, as do others, “Published with ecclesiastical approbation” indicating that there has been a formal permission obtained to publish it. Some people are like a dog on a rabbit, so let them bark and yip. It means nothing, as a rule.
We all need to do our own research, examine our consciences prayerfully, and follow the guidance of our pastors. You said it beautifully a few posts ago. Readers need to be aware that anything published on a message board is not always bona-fide information to put one’s entire faith in it. More often it is biased personal opinion that is not reliable truth.
There is no longer a requirement for the imprimatur and nihil obstat, not only in hymnals, but also in authored books. Fr. Groeschel just recently spoke about this, how difficult it is to obtain due to the tremendous obligation of time that a Bishop must spend in perusing the work, and also to the huge volume of books being written now in our rapid information technology.
I just finished Fr. Dubay’s book, Fire Within, and both are missing. However, it does note that it was published with ecclesial approval.
My OCP hymnal states, as do others, “Published with ecclesiastical approbation” indicating that there has been a formal permission obtained to publish it. Some people are like a dog on a rabbit, so let them bark and yip. It means nothing, as a rule.
We all need to do our own research, examine our consciences prayerfully, and follow the guidance of our pastors. You said it beautifully a few posts ago. Readers need to be aware that anything published on a message board is not always bona-fide information to put one’s entire faith in it. More often it is biased personal opinion that is not reliable truth.
A
anamchara
Guest
I went back and read. You are bringing up new points which I think is better for a different thread. Just my opinion.
J
jfrsfo
Guest
JMTJ
I usually do not post a response to discussions like this, but this particular thread was sited by a secular commentator in yesterday’s Washington Post, and let’s just note that it wasn’t a kindly observation.
Some seem to have the opinion that the Archbishop of Washington did not know, or did not care, that the music for the papal Mass in DC “violated” the Pope’s standards for liturgy. This notion seems predicated on the idea that the Archbishop of Washington was unfamiliar with the Pope, his liturgical preferences, or his intellectual production over many decades.
When John Paul the Great called the Archbishop of Munchen and Freisig to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in late 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger called four men of the Church to work with him as his daily collaborators, They were Tarcisio Bertone, William LeVada, and Donald Wuerl. At the CDF they served then Cardinal Ratzinger in carrying out the day to day work of restoring and guarding the intellectual life of the Church. In particular, then Father Wuerl served Archbishop Hickey and Cardinal Ratzinger as principal investigator in the matter of Archbishop Hunthausen in the Diocese of Seattle. During the’70s, while working on his doctorate, Fr. Wuerl coauthored “The Teaching of Christ,” which at the time was a significant step towards returning the catechetical efforts in the US and elsewhere toward consistency with Church teaching.
Lest one suggest that Wuerl was some long forgotten secretary in the mind of the Holy Father by the time he ascended to the See of Peter, please note that Archbishop Wuerl’s appointment to Washington was one of Pope Benedict’s first appointments for the Church in the United States.
One would be foolish to suggest that Wuerl’s appointment to a major American see, or that the majority of the Pope’s pastoral visit occurred in the Archdiocese of Washington were coincidences. Both were affirmations of friendship born in the joint work of restoring the Body of Christ.
Archbishop Wuerl is a stickler for liturgical detail. He demands appropriate adherence to liturgical norms by his clergy, and his liturgies are pedagogical models in how liturgy should be celebrated. If there were anomalies at the papal liturgy in DC, they were not approved by Archbishop of Wuerl.
As to liturgical music itself, some seem to have forgotten that our musical tradition has the highest eternal value when it calls sinners back to grace, and impels saints to greater union with God. While both the earthly and divine liturgies serve to adore the living God, they fundamentally differ in how they do that: The heavenly liturgy celebrates they rest gain by the Church Triumphant through God’s grace. The earthly liturgy celebrates the small graces gained on the way, while seeking healing for failures and injuries that also besiege us on the way.
To the extent Gregorian chant serves these purposes, Gregorian chant should be used. But to the extent that Marty Haugen, the St. Louis Jesuits, or someone writing for the local parish moves one soul closer to salvation, the raison d’etre of the Church and its earthly liturgy has been accomplished. In the Church nothing can come before the salvation and sanctification of souls.
Two types of folks tend to be annoyed by poor liturgical music. The first includes those well traveled down the road to union with Christ; these usually say nothing of their displeasure. The other group includes those who still believe that their personal tastes take precedence over that pastoral needs of others.
I usually do not post a response to discussions like this, but this particular thread was sited by a secular commentator in yesterday’s Washington Post, and let’s just note that it wasn’t a kindly observation.
Some seem to have the opinion that the Archbishop of Washington did not know, or did not care, that the music for the papal Mass in DC “violated” the Pope’s standards for liturgy. This notion seems predicated on the idea that the Archbishop of Washington was unfamiliar with the Pope, his liturgical preferences, or his intellectual production over many decades.
When John Paul the Great called the Archbishop of Munchen and Freisig to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in late 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger called four men of the Church to work with him as his daily collaborators, They were Tarcisio Bertone, William LeVada, and Donald Wuerl. At the CDF they served then Cardinal Ratzinger in carrying out the day to day work of restoring and guarding the intellectual life of the Church. In particular, then Father Wuerl served Archbishop Hickey and Cardinal Ratzinger as principal investigator in the matter of Archbishop Hunthausen in the Diocese of Seattle. During the’70s, while working on his doctorate, Fr. Wuerl coauthored “The Teaching of Christ,” which at the time was a significant step towards returning the catechetical efforts in the US and elsewhere toward consistency with Church teaching.
Lest one suggest that Wuerl was some long forgotten secretary in the mind of the Holy Father by the time he ascended to the See of Peter, please note that Archbishop Wuerl’s appointment to Washington was one of Pope Benedict’s first appointments for the Church in the United States.
One would be foolish to suggest that Wuerl’s appointment to a major American see, or that the majority of the Pope’s pastoral visit occurred in the Archdiocese of Washington were coincidences. Both were affirmations of friendship born in the joint work of restoring the Body of Christ.
Archbishop Wuerl is a stickler for liturgical detail. He demands appropriate adherence to liturgical norms by his clergy, and his liturgies are pedagogical models in how liturgy should be celebrated. If there were anomalies at the papal liturgy in DC, they were not approved by Archbishop of Wuerl.
As to liturgical music itself, some seem to have forgotten that our musical tradition has the highest eternal value when it calls sinners back to grace, and impels saints to greater union with God. While both the earthly and divine liturgies serve to adore the living God, they fundamentally differ in how they do that: The heavenly liturgy celebrates they rest gain by the Church Triumphant through God’s grace. The earthly liturgy celebrates the small graces gained on the way, while seeking healing for failures and injuries that also besiege us on the way.
To the extent Gregorian chant serves these purposes, Gregorian chant should be used. But to the extent that Marty Haugen, the St. Louis Jesuits, or someone writing for the local parish moves one soul closer to salvation, the raison d’etre of the Church and its earthly liturgy has been accomplished. In the Church nothing can come before the salvation and sanctification of souls.
Two types of folks tend to be annoyed by poor liturgical music. The first includes those well traveled down the road to union with Christ; these usually say nothing of their displeasure. The other group includes those who still believe that their personal tastes take precedence over that pastoral needs of others.
3
30miller
Guest
There is no requirement for a mammogram, a colonoscopy, a flu shot, regular dental exams, eating right, exercising, or many other things. Point being that all of these and many more are good for those who partake - and the same goes for Imprimaturs and nihil obstats.
And “Published with ecclesiastical approbation” is not only meaningless to me - but it even makes me wonder if one of those “mail-away reverends” of some off the wall “religion” gave his or her “approbation” to it - you know, the kind that can legally marry people as far as the civil law goes. To have gone from imprimaturs and nihil obstats from some identifiable member of our Church to “Published with ecclesiastical approbation” from God (and the OCP) only knows who - that about says it all. Does OCP know who gave them this “ecclesiastical approbation”? Are they simply ashamed to say who it was - or what position they hold - and in what church? Takes the same amount of ink to print who and what it was versus this “approbation” - so it can’t be a cost issue with the publisher.
So, the rest of us are just like dogs chasing rabbits, eh? Let me guess - an Obama supporter, no doubt.
3
30miller
Guest
I agree.
A
anamchara
Guest
My thought exactly.
Amen.
Thank you Joysong. I personally can’t imagine the Church allowing for an anything goes approach. Many have seriously lost sight of the bigger picture of the Popes visit in my opinion. Today on my way to work, I was listening to the Catholic radio station. The host was reading a letter a couple sent in ( they are United Methodist). They spoke about how profoundly touched they were watching the Mass and also how much they loved Popes messages while he was hear. Who knows, maybe those two have been so touched they might consider conversion later down the road. A seed was planted for them for sure. They recored the Mass and watch it a second time.
The Pope in my mind, is more accepting and loving that many give him credit for. He is not going to wag his finger and be the bull dog that many want. He is a reasonable, highly intelligent man. The DC Papal Mass was a good representation of American Catholics and yes I say American Catholics because we are American and we are Catholic, not recognizing cultural differences is rather ignorant.
A
anamchara
Guest
Great insight and welcome to CAF.
3
30miller
Guest
There is at least a 3rd “type” of person (and surely more)- the one who is not going to silently stand by as a travesty takes place while the bishops stand silently by. That’s what has gotten us the Clown Mass in Oakland (youtube.com/watch?v=NsC4wRPybpA. The “two type” paradigm presented above - besides being incorrect - is the one that has just cost our Church $2,000,000,000+. “Saying nothing of their displeasure” is no longer an option. Just as going from imprimaturs from knowable Bishops to “published with ecclesiatical approval” doesn’t cut it - both taking exactly the same time, effort, and cost - only one in the open and one in the dark. It is entirely legitimate to question what’s done in the dark. Perhaps some should just stay in those regular threads that they deem to be up to their normal standards.
F
frommi
Guest
I’m sorry…are you suggesting that clown masses led to the sexual abuse crisis?
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
No, he was stating that the option of saying nothing has consequences. If we say nothing then nothing changes.
A
anamchara
Guest
The clown “Masses” have been explained and proven to be nothing but rubbish. I wish I could find the posts from a few years back that took care of that silly claim.
- Status