No, it is not specific, as in “to specify.” If it were, then the actual instruments would be named, not left ot the discrection of the local ordinary and those he allows to make such choices. The guidelines are given, but how these applies to specific instruments is not clear cut.
Go back. Read carefully. How many in the tribe of Levi “praised the Lord with instruments in the temple”?
But, the tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe. I am frankly surprised that they would note that women were in the temple doing this since the precincts and separations would have had women in another part of the temple altogether.
NO NO NO please don’t feel badly about this at all. Several notes, out of thread context, but since everyone has read this. I guess it’s ok to share.
Do you know what it’s like to laugh inappropriately while sad at the same time? I can’t help but laugh at this while feeling bad now that I know why you go by “Br. JR”, because of your son. It’s like a whole new level of inappropriate,So now I feel like doing a juggling act to back out of it.:juggle:
I think you stated “trust, but verify” to another poster. That’s what I am trying to do.
That is why I told you a few posts back that when I visit with my parochial vicar, I will see his sources. He does have a book about the cultic, sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel. In fact, I have seen it. It’s just a matter of getting hold of him and the book.
This is very true and I’m glad you pointed that out. It really wasn’t until about the 19th c. that composers started to do more for themselves rather than just for their patrons. ALTHOUGH, many still had their patrons even throughout the 19th century. How else could they survive back then? I also think that it was a bit more difficult to spread poorly composed music around the continent (I’m thinking in a more Eurocentric view since most of the sacred music for Protestant and Catholic faiths in these earlier days came from Europe) and would just stay within the parish or maybe just the town. The excellent compositions, composers, musicians and such would have their work spread, by word of mouth, in published form or from other musicians who’d transcribe the music onto paper to bring back to their countries, towns, cities, etc.
). But I don’t know of any of my colleagues who have actual patrons like in the past.I agree and believe you are right with this observation. It’s more of this kind of manufactured art that I was really talking about. I wonder if this is part of the problem of why some people accept mediocrity in so many things, much more willingly or at least more easily than in the past. It’s that continual desire for something new and immediate and it doesn’t matter how good or bad it is - as long as we have it now, we’re happy. Now, patrons did want their art and music when they wanted it, but if it didn’t live up to their highest standards, then the creator of that art/music would be in big trouble. I don’t see that as much today, at least in the corporate, manufactured mindset of art in general for us. The mentality has even crept into the secular classical music world - at least in the US. Audiences, in the past, would boo and hiss at performers or even at the works of music which didn’t live up to the high standards they expected at top level houses. (Not that I think it was very nice of them. I would never do that myself.) Today, they pretty much accept anything, especially if there is a lot of media hype about a person. I liken it to the Emperor’s New Clothes. People tell them it’s great so often and they’re afraid not to say or think otherwise, that they’ll agree and feed into the hype. And this is both with the more “intellectual”, “snobby”, “high art” crowds as well as with the so-called “plebescite”, “philistine”, “low art” crowds. (Please note, I’m not putting down either kind. I do enjoy both high and low art depending on the situation and where I am and what mood I’m in. I’m just using the terms that many people on both ends of the spectrum refer to each other.)
And blessings on the baby.I do believe that your post expresses the proper spirit of the Church and of the liturgy. If we read the document by our Holy Father, while he does speak about deal in liturgy, his tone is tone is equally important. It is very pastoral. He is not condemnatory of people’s efforts. He is very encouraging. He encourages two things: 1) the preservation of the tradition and 2) he does foster and courages the achievement of beauty. This second point is very important. Beauty is not a done deal. You as an artist must know better than I do that beauty is in a constant state of birth, meaning that there is more beauty yet to come.
I think you are handling this right. The two things that I highlighted above in your post speaks most to me. It is the education and proper formation that can sometimes be lacking and is especially needed by those who work or volunteer as liturgical musicians. Although it may be harder to try to teach an entire congregation all at once why certain styles/genres, etc. are not appropriate for liturgies or specific times of the year, it can be done little by little. I have found that this can be done when you work with parishioners one on one for weddings, funerals, special masses, etc. or with other volunteers/musicians in the parish. You do it kindly and with love. Some may still not agree, but at least they have respect for you in terms of treating them well and many, if not most, will actually come to see and understand.
Let’s be very careful here. The Church is not telling us that rock 'n roll is sinful. What the Church is telling us is that music used in liturgy has to be specifically liturgical. In other words, the music (including the lyrics) has to be the special. We should be able to hear a piece of music and say, “Hey that’s church music.” I just made up that sentence; but you get my idea. I hope
Maybe this exerpt from the Holy Father’s book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, might help you to see things a little differently:
Read this in tandem with what Pope John Paul II wrote in his Chirograph on Sacred Music:
Now, I love listening to Duran Duran, Queen, David Bowie, some of U2, Elton John and Meat Loaf. But, that does not mean that I want to hear something akin to Paradise by the Dashboard Lights during Mass. I like U2, but, inasmuch as I love their Gloria (the refrain is in Latin), I don’t want to have that experience during the Holy Sacrifice.
I think that I said it more clearly than the Holy Father,
But the point is the same. I often avoid using direct quotes from Pope Benedict XVI, not because I’m smarter than he is :Do you find Augustine unclear?I think that I said it more clearly than the Holy Father,
but his use of language is not always “user friendly.” We have to help people understand what he’s saying. He’s very Augustinian in his writing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I’ve always thought he was fairly readable. St Bonaventure too, even in the days when I was reading him in Latin. It’s the Aristotelianswho are a bit more obscure to my mind.That’s interesting. I find Aquinas easier to follow. I guess because we studied theology using the Thomist method. We studied Bonaventure as part of our Franciscan formation. We had about six years of Bonaventure’s Franciscan theology. What I found about his work is that he flows and flows, whereas Aquinas has “commas” in his thinking. I call them commas, because he writes and thinks in bullets. He goes from the pieces to the big picture. Bonaventure and Augustine go from the big picture to the pieces. Some people are very right brained. I’m not. I’m very mathematical. LOL.Do you find Augustine unclear?
Beautifully explained.Let’s be very careful here. The Church is not telling us that rock 'n roll is sinful. What the Church is telling us is that music used in liturgy has to be specifically liturgical. In other words, the music (including the lyrics) has to be the special. We should be able to hear a piece of music and say, “Hey that’s church music.” I just made up that sentence; but you get my idea. I hope
In other words, the music that we use for entertainment is for that purpose. The music that we use to sing children to sleep, is for that purpose and so forth. Just as we have genres, instruments and lyrics that are easily identified with certain situations: entertainment, romance, movies, children and so forth, we must make sure that the music that we use for mass is easily identifiable with liturgy and not easily confused with something else.
The reason is simple. Liturgy is a sacred space in our day or our week, if we only attend on Sundays. The bes way to understand liturgy is to undersand the language of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. They refer to it as Divine Liturgy. The word Divine is key. What we say, do and sing at mass has to connect our heart, mind, and senses with the Divine, because the Divine makes himself present through the Word and the Eucharist for us. We have to rise out of our usual and go out to meet him.
To rise out of our usual, means that everything that we do in liturgy has to be different from our usual.
I hope this helps and does not offend.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
