The Fathers of Vatican II and the 1,960 years of tradition which preceded the council are part of your vaunted “We.”
Who’s being disobedient?
The Church has in fact said that hymns are the least important thing to sing. Much more important is the ordinary of the Mass. The Church has also said that when hymns are sung it is quite proper for the choir alone to sing them (except for the post-Communion hymn) so there is nothing that says that they have to be P&W so the folks can sing along.Who’s being disobedient?
The Church ask’s that hymns be sung in the liturgy, when appropriate.
I’ve never atteneded a Sunday Mass, where hymns were not sung, even during Pre-Vatican II, at the TLM. Those hymns give praise and glory to God.
Why you have a problem with this, is beyond me.
Jim
I was just going to make this reply but you got there first. Hymns (old or new) are the least desirable form of liturgical music. They are the very last choice.
In fact, here is the hiearchy of music for the Mass:
Therefore, as far as the pecking order is concerned, the Dialogues and the Acclamations are the most important parts that should be sung, even at daily Mass. What I just listed is the degree of solemnity for Sacred Music found in the USCCB document, Sing to the Lord. It’s not the most perfect document, but, this item is one of the few that the USCCB got right (along with the section on wedding music).
One of the differences is that in Musicam Sacram the Gospel Acclamation has a lower rank, it isn’t on an equal footing with the dialogs and Eucharistic Prayer acclamations – which makes sense since it is omitted if not sung.
You speak at least two different ways. Either the Church is not a democracy, in which case your idea that the popular music the majority wants should be given them - or the Church is not a democracy and the popularity of hymns shouldn’t be taken into account. By the way, by popularity, I mean what you have been harping in this (and other) threads, the secular type of music that everyone “loves”.
You misinterpret and distort the Catechism (as you do the Second Vatican Council and liturgical praxis).
Well, at least you somewhat acknowledge that union with Christ is necessary - that’s at least a start.
Indeed, as the article I quoted stated, we can’t even think that as a member of the congregation that we have a “right” to sing the Ordinary of the Mass, as if it was our exclusive perogative. If you want that right, join the choir.
Again, you’re going in the right direction. The Mass is our communal conversation to God. It is our fulfillment of His command to “do this in remembrance of me”. But, just because it is a communal act, doesn’t mean everyone needs to do everything. Certain members can stand in proxy for the entire gathering - as in the Priest praying on our behalf; or the choir singing on behalf of the entire congregation. This doesn’t, however, diminish others participation, as they should be participating interiorly always.
Being a non-profit organization is not the same thing as an apostolate - in fact they can be completely opposed to one another (i.e., planned parenthood).
How would we know? As far as I know, the Bishops never got the chance to discuss or vote on it.
But, the primary emphasis is on worshipping God. That’s the crux of the whole thing. The community is there to pray and adore God together.
Too bad you decided not to read past the third paragraph.
I looked at the website. Nowhere on it does it mention the OCP as being a member, or a consultant, or anything.
Singing isn’t the only external form - nor even a necessary one (though I will admit singing proper music is helpful).
Wait a minute. The first two paragraphs of "Letter to Bishops, accompanying the booklet Jubilate Deo (Prot. 0) Voluntatis obsequens April 14, 1974Hello,
Indeed, as the article I quoted stated, we can’t even think that as a member of the congregation that we have a “right” to sing the Ordinary of the Mass, as if it was our exclusive perogative. If you want that right, join the choir.
The entire text can be found here:
The point I and the article are trying to make is that the congregation can’t try to limit settings by trying to invoke a “right”. For instance, let’s say that for Mass (and this usually happens for special days, like an anniversary) that the Pastor and Choir has selected a highly complex polyphonic setting, one which has been practiced by the Choir and they are good at it, but anyone who hasn’t practiced wouldn’t be able to follow it, nor would they have access to the sheet music. The congregation couldn’t go and say - veto! you can’t do that, we need a simple melody so we the congregation can exercise our inalienable right to sing it. There’s a difference between the ability to sing their parts so that when called upon they can do so (say from Jubilate Deo) and the right to trump the Choir from using a different setting that is proper to their training, but which the congregation must only actively listen to.
The point is that how far is too far. Many who advocate P&W music at Mass usually say that it is appropriate and in accordance with the “spirit” of Vatican II. You say that these selections are not appropriate for Mass. The question many of us are trying to get answered is - Where is the line? How do we know? And who decides?