The New USCCB document on "liturgical music"

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bones_IV

Guest
USCCB document

In the years immediately following the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican
Council, especially because of the introduction of vernacular language, composers and
publishers worked to provide a new repertoire of music for indigenous language(s). In
subsequent decades, this effort has matured, and a body of worthy vernacular liturgical music continues to develop, even though much of the early music has fallen into disuse.

WHAT!?
 
There has probably been some good liturgical music produced for Roman Catholics since VCII, probably. Yet, I’m happy to be an Eastern Catholic.

CDL
 
bones_IV said:
USCCB document

In the years immediately following the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican
Council, especially because of the introduction of vernacular language, composers and
publishers worked to provide a new repertoire of music for indigenous language(s). In
subsequent decades, this effort has matured, and a body of worthy vernacular liturgical music continues to develop, even though much of the early music has fallen into disuse.

WHAT!?
Click to expand...
I would venture to say that this is not necessarily true. If this were so, why have so many people (present company included) complained about the content of recent hymns. Many of them are doctrinally incorrect, theologically inaccurate and too poppy, nappy and snappy. I would like to know just who wrote that because there are enough holes in this document through which a semi double-decker truck could drive.

The only good parts of the document, as far as I can tell, concern liturgically appropriate music for Nuptial liturgies and a definition of the hierarchy of the parts of the Mass that should be sung. The rest is terribly deficient.
 
benedictgal said:
I would venture to say that this is not necessarily true. If this were so, why have so many people (present company included) complained about the content of recent hymns. Many of them are doctrinally incorrect, theologically inaccurate and too poppy, nappy and snappy. I would like to know just who wrote that because there are enough holes in this document through which a semi double-decker truck could drive.

The only good parts of the document, as far as I can tell, concern liturgically appropriate music for Nuptial liturgies and a definition of the hierarchy of the parts of the Mass that should be sung. The rest is terribly deficient.
Click to expand...
I think it’s time we got rid of the USCCB all together.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
There has probably been some good liturgical music produced for Roman Catholics since VCII, probably. Yet, I’m happy to be an Eastern Catholic.

CDL
Click to expand...
There has been some good music composed but unfortunately contemporary composers have not been consistent with the quality of their music. For example, take composer Ricky Manalo - The God of All Grace was a wonderful song of his but I can’t stand singing Beyond The Days.
 
bones_IV said:
I’ve scene a lot worse.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my post. I’m saying that there are plenty of parishes in our area that use that “early music” which they feel “has fallen into disuse”. That music is very much alive and well in the Church - they just obviously don’t get out much.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
You misunderstand my post. I’m saying that there are plenty of parishes in our area that use that “early music” which they feel “has fallen into disuse”. That music is very much alive and well in the Church - they just obviously don’t get out much.

~Liza
Click to expand...
My apologies. 🙂
 
bones
I think it’s time we got rid of the USCCB all together.
Click to expand...
Why, because they the Bishops don’t agree with your line of thinking? :rolleyes:

Jim
 
lizaanne said:
No - because they rarely seem to agree with the Church at times!

~Liza
Click to expand...
They’re not the Church?

Who do you think Bishops are?

And while your at it. Please provide documentation showing where the Vatican revoked the USCCB.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
They’re not the Church?

Who do you think Bishops are?

And while your at it. Please provide documentation showing where the Vatican revoked the USCCB.

Jim
Click to expand...
Either Jesus gave the Pope the authority to bind and loose or he didn’t.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
They’re not the Church?

Who do you think Bishops are?

And while your at it. Please provide documentation showing where the Vatican revoked the USCCB.

Jim
Click to expand...
Just because they are Bishops does not mean they are all perfect, holy, and Faithful to the Church.

And what do you mean, “And while your at it. Please provide documentation showing where the Vatican revoked the USCCB.” ??? I never said this. 🤷

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
Just because they are Bishops does not mean they are all perfect, holy, and Faithful to the Church.

And what do you mean, “And while your at it. Please provide documentation showing where the Vatican revoked the USCCB.” ??? I never said this. 🤷

~Liza
Click to expand...
Amazing how JimR-OCSD will make parroting statements but doesn’t back them up.
 
bones_IV said:
Either Jesus gave the Pope the authority to bind and loose or he didn’t.
Click to expand...
actually he gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose…and the bishops are their successors.

The bishops have acted within their authority on this document…just because you don’t like it does not make that fact any less true.
 
frommi said:
actually he gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose…and the bishops are their successors.

The bishops have acted within their authority on this document…just because you don’t like it does not make that fact any less true.
Click to expand...
He gave that authority solely to Peter. What you are describing is something that the Orthodox believe, since they consider their Ecumenical Patriarch first among equals, while the Church holds the primacy of Peter in the person of his successor, the Pope.

The document that the bishops produced is a very imperfect document that fails to address the issues which it was called to handle under Liturgicum Authenticam. There are many deficiencies in this document that seem to contradict what has been written regarding musical instrumentation and other things. Had this gone to Rome, it probably would have been sent back precisely for those reasons.
 
bones_IV said:
Either Jesus gave the Pope the authority to bind and loose or he didn’t.
Click to expand...
Jesus gave the authority to the apostles, the first Bishops, not to just Peter.

The Bishops are the sussessors to the Apostles. Like the Pope, they are Bishops.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Jesus gave the authority to the apostles, the first Bishops, not to just Peter.

The Bishops are the sussessors to the Apostles. Like the Pope, they are Bishops.

Jim
Click to expand...
Jim, the Church does not see the Pope as the first among equals. That is why the hierarchy exists. Even from the get-go, the primacy and special authority of St. Peter was recognized by Jesus and the other Apostles. In fact, Jesus did give the authority first to Peter. If you wish to argue that, feel free to start another thread. Let’s not hijack this one.

Please, let’s keep this discussion germaine to the original topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top