Y
yankeesouth
Guest
What was the most egregious liturgical abuse you ever witnessed?
The 1970s lol.
The 1970s lol.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What was the most egregious liturgical abuse you ever witnessed?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
OK, here are the rest of the answers I have received about the issue of when Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should enter the sanctuary and line up behind the priest / altar:
From the Secretariat of Divine Worship, USCCB:
“I am not aware of anything produced by the Conference that explicitly addresses your question, so that would leave it first to the bishop, and then to the priest. Sorry I don’t have a more specific answer.”
From the Bishops Commission for Liturgy, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference:
“I can appreciate the complexity in the issues you raise.
This issue has not been raised as far as I know at our local Bishops Conference plenary sessions or amongst the Bishops of the Bishops Commission for Liturgy of the ACBC.
My reading of this directive for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion not to approach the altar before the priest receives communion was so that the roles between the ordained and non-ordained be adequately distinguished. This is not an official interpretation but a possible interpretation of what lies behind the directive.
Practices as you know vary from one parish to another.
From memory there was a movement at one stage for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to stand at the side of the alter, rather than behind the priest celebrant facing the congregation, so that the EMHC didn’t “ appear” as con-celebrants. This may have been an over-reaction as most parishioners would appreciate this.”
So far the Liturgy Office in the UK has not replied.
I also posted the question on Suscipe Domine, a more traditional Catholic forum. As you might suspect, the replies I got as to when lay people should enter the sanctuary boiled down to “NEVER!!!” with one saying that they should wait outside the sanctuary until after the priests has finished his own communion.
As I pointed out three weeks ago, if you do an internet search on the issue you will find some dioceses and parishes on both sides of the issue. Other web sites for different dioceses I have looked at don’t address the matter at all. So this ocnfirms the reply from the USCCB that it’s up to the bishops and/or priests.
From the Secretariat of Divine Worship, USCCB:
“I am not aware of anything produced by the Conference that explicitly addresses your question, so that would leave it first to the bishop, and then to the priest. Sorry I don’t have a more specific answer.”
From the Bishops Commission for Liturgy, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference:
“I can appreciate the complexity in the issues you raise.
This issue has not been raised as far as I know at our local Bishops Conference plenary sessions or amongst the Bishops of the Bishops Commission for Liturgy of the ACBC.
My reading of this directive for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion not to approach the altar before the priest receives communion was so that the roles between the ordained and non-ordained be adequately distinguished. This is not an official interpretation but a possible interpretation of what lies behind the directive.
Practices as you know vary from one parish to another.
From memory there was a movement at one stage for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to stand at the side of the alter, rather than behind the priest celebrant facing the congregation, so that the EMHC didn’t “ appear” as con-celebrants. This may have been an over-reaction as most parishioners would appreciate this.”
So far the Liturgy Office in the UK has not replied.
I also posted the question on Suscipe Domine, a more traditional Catholic forum. As you might suspect, the replies I got as to when lay people should enter the sanctuary boiled down to “NEVER!!!” with one saying that they should wait outside the sanctuary until after the priests has finished his own communion.
As I pointed out three weeks ago, if you do an internet search on the issue you will find some dioceses and parishes on both sides of the issue. Other web sites for different dioceses I have looked at don’t address the matter at all. So this ocnfirms the reply from the USCCB that it’s up to the bishops and/or priests.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
A final comment on all this…I don’t think anyone has quoted GIRM #352, so allow me:
“The priest, therefore, in planning the celebration of Mass, should have in mind the common spiritual good of the people of God, rather than his own inclinations.“
Amen.
“The priest, therefore, in planning the celebration of Mass, should have in mind the common spiritual good of the people of God, rather than his own inclinations.“
Amen.
J
jfz178
Guest
I just stumbled onto this forum. I’m glad I did. This topic hits home for me. I’ve been a church music minister (instrumentalist) for nearly 40 years, in over 15 parishes, because I have moved around some. I come from the St. Louis Jesuits, Vatican II, “Folk Mass” tradition and I know there are ultra-traditional Catholics who don’t like that, but it’s now part of Catholic tradition and very much permitted by most dioceses in the world, so let’s get over that for this discussion.
I have always been sensitive to that opposition, though, so I have tried to make my ministry as appropriate as possible. I prefer tunes that have scripturally-based lyrics, not “pop lyrics.” To me, if the right spiritual content is there, the tunes are just delivery mechanism.
Recently, I was in a parish music group that was the best music ensemble I have ever been in in 40 years. What is more, I really got along with and liked everyone a lot. I thought I had really made some new friends. And some of the people in the group were fairly hard-core Catholics, teaching RCIA, Knight of Columbus, in Bible study groups, really involved in the parish, etc. They put me to shame. That made it all the harder to do what I did.
At first, I marvelled at the diverse music selection we played. There were some really cool tunes I had never encountered before. But I must have been influenced from on high, because I grew increasingly discontented with this group and I didn’t know why. After weeks, it hit me. The lyrics! We were playing a lot of born-again Christian folk/rock stuff, like from Hillsongs, etc. I started researching the lyrics online. I am not a theologian by any stretch, but it became obvious that some of these tunes represented a theology that was not Catholic. It was subtle, but at the same time, almost hypnotic, because the tunes had such good “hooks.”
I voiced my concerns to the choir leader and got a very bad reaction. To shorten the story a bit, it became a whole bruhaha that wound up with me being “inquisited” by the pastor, the auxiliary and the parish music director. The pastor supported the music selection without even answering my research into the theology of the lyrics. He didn’t even want to get into that. What it came down to in my analysis is that our choir leader was an important “church lady” who had grown up in that parish, knew everyone, was a big contributor led a lot of the parish committees. She was also known as someone no one wanted to cross. The pastor caved.
I stayed in the choir for a while, but I felt I was treated in an un-Christian fashion by the leader and my supposed new “friends,” so I eventually quit the choir and the parish. I’m now at another parish and doing fine with Catholic Church approved hymns. But at my old parish, it goes on.
I have always been sensitive to that opposition, though, so I have tried to make my ministry as appropriate as possible. I prefer tunes that have scripturally-based lyrics, not “pop lyrics.” To me, if the right spiritual content is there, the tunes are just delivery mechanism.
Recently, I was in a parish music group that was the best music ensemble I have ever been in in 40 years. What is more, I really got along with and liked everyone a lot. I thought I had really made some new friends. And some of the people in the group were fairly hard-core Catholics, teaching RCIA, Knight of Columbus, in Bible study groups, really involved in the parish, etc. They put me to shame. That made it all the harder to do what I did.
At first, I marvelled at the diverse music selection we played. There were some really cool tunes I had never encountered before. But I must have been influenced from on high, because I grew increasingly discontented with this group and I didn’t know why. After weeks, it hit me. The lyrics! We were playing a lot of born-again Christian folk/rock stuff, like from Hillsongs, etc. I started researching the lyrics online. I am not a theologian by any stretch, but it became obvious that some of these tunes represented a theology that was not Catholic. It was subtle, but at the same time, almost hypnotic, because the tunes had such good “hooks.”
I voiced my concerns to the choir leader and got a very bad reaction. To shorten the story a bit, it became a whole bruhaha that wound up with me being “inquisited” by the pastor, the auxiliary and the parish music director. The pastor supported the music selection without even answering my research into the theology of the lyrics. He didn’t even want to get into that. What it came down to in my analysis is that our choir leader was an important “church lady” who had grown up in that parish, knew everyone, was a big contributor led a lot of the parish committees. She was also known as someone no one wanted to cross. The pastor caved.
I stayed in the choir for a while, but I felt I was treated in an un-Christian fashion by the leader and my supposed new “friends,” so I eventually quit the choir and the parish. I’m now at another parish and doing fine with Catholic Church approved hymns. But at my old parish, it goes on.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Have you ever read “Why Catholics Can’t Sing” by Thomas Day? If not, you owe it to yourself to read it.’ve been a church music minister (instrumentalist) for nearly 40 years, in over 15 parishes,
I put up with the post-Vatican II songs. Of course, as we all know (right?) the Vatican II report on music said that Gregorian Chant should be given “pride of place.” Ha ha ha. Like THAT ever happened after 1964! And those St. Louis Jesuits were certainly much better composers than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, and that group of untalented Germans, right?
And of course I go back to another Vatican II document that stressed “active participation.” Terrific. For many years, every time the congregation sings I do a count of the 10 people nearest me: How many are actually singing? Usually it’s 3-4. For many years I was lucky to have a Novus Ordo Mass nearby that actually used Gregorian chant. What was the count of singers at those Masses? 10. Consistently. 10 of 10. Everyone can sing Gregorian Chant–and of course that’s the point!!! If you want active participation, it’s Gregorian Chant all the way. If you want a performance by the cantor and/or choir, it’s the post-1964 ditties from St. Louis.
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
True, people without any musical training would be able to sing Gregorian hymns. Perhaps a congregation could even learn by heart one of the simpler, more familiar ordinaries of the Mass, like, for example, the well loved “Mass of the Angels”. However, much of the repertoire of Gregorian Chant consists of different introits, graduals, alleluias, etc, which require a trained schola to sing properly. Yes, Gregorian Chant is preferable theologically and aesthetically to many of the hymns popular today, but, without trained musicians, the faithful will only be exposed to the bare minimum.Everyone can sing Gregorian Chant–and of course that’s the point!!! If you want active participation, it’s Gregorian Chant all the way.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
That’s been YEARS ago … Gregorian Chant.
Wow!!!
“Why Catholics Can’t Sing” … Superb book.
And this:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/vide...n-control?mc_cid=bc89f0ed57&mc_eid=bb0c26c630
Wow!!!
“Why Catholics Can’t Sing” … Superb book.
And this:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/vide...n-control?mc_cid=bc89f0ed57&mc_eid=bb0c26c630
Last edited:
J
jfz178
Guest
I have a personal interest in religious chants, including Gregorian Chant, and I have read up on it. I have been a Church musician for nearly 40 years and I have heard, “Hymns Based on Gregorian Chant” many times, but they are NOT religious chant. Religious chant is a spiritual practice unto itself. It is form of deep, meditative prayer. The repetition of sacred text in reciting tones over long periods of time leads to an “alpha state” where one is more open to God. It is not accompanied by instruments and it does not have harmonies. Yes, anyone can sing it, but it takes years of practice to achieve the goal of chant, that deep mental state of being more open to God.
What you hear in churches today are simply hymns based on Gregorian Chant that are no more religious chant than any other hymns. When Catholics crow about Gregorian Chant, they don’t realize it is something the Church no longer does, outside of monasteries.
What you hear in churches today are simply hymns based on Gregorian Chant that are no more religious chant than any other hymns. When Catholics crow about Gregorian Chant, they don’t realize it is something the Church no longer does, outside of monasteries.
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Right. Many would likely consider something like the Latin hymn "Attende Domine’, for example, to be Gregorian Chant. It really isn’t. At least it isn’t representative of chant as a whole. It has a melody, a refrain, etc. Most chant does not. As you noted, Gregorian Chant for the Mass and the Office, most of which can be found in the Liber Usualis compiled by the Benedictines of Solesmes, is only heard in traditional seminaries and monasteries. I don’t know if the monasteries which observe the new liturgical calendar use a modified version of the Liber , or if they have new chant. My guess is the latter, because many of the propers of Mass have changed as well as the structure of the Divine Office.What you hear in churches today are simply hymns based on Gregorian Chant that are no more religious chant than any other hymns. When Catholics crow about Gregorian Chant, they don’t realize it is something the Church no longer does, outside of monasteries.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’ll sort of repeat myself, which I don’t usually do. I used to go to Mass (for over five years) at a parish that had the usual Novus Ordo Mass, but virtually all the songs during the Mass were Gregorian chant–yes, the genuine old chant. I can’t remember exactly, but for sure the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei were all sung that way. They didn’t switch up every Sunday with a new version–it was exactly the same every time. Someone else mentioned “different introits, graduals, …” but they didn’t sing those.
So I guess my points are that 1) it’s still out there, although rare and 2) as I said before EVERYONE sang, which of course was the point of the “active participation” business in Vatican II. So I’m all for it.
Why did it stop? By a coincidence, the music director moved to a new state exactly at the time the priest was transferred. So that was that.
So I guess my points are that 1) it’s still out there, although rare and 2) as I said before EVERYONE sang, which of course was the point of the “active participation” business in Vatican II. So I’m all for it.
Why did it stop? By a coincidence, the music director moved to a new state exactly at the time the priest was transferred. So that was that.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No. They use the same chants as before the Council, with a few exceptions. Some chants have been revised based on paleographic studies. For the most part the Mass chants in the 1974 Gradual are from the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Gradual. The exceptions tend to be Year B, as St Mark was not read in the older Rite. Also the feast of Christ the King being recent, from the 1920s, all its Mass pieces are neo-Gregorian.I don’t know if the monasteries which observe the new liturgical calendar use a modified version of the Liber , or if they have new chant. My guess is the latter, because many of the propers of Mass have changed as well as the structure of the Divine Office.
Also, the structure of the main Benedictine schema is exactly the same as before the Council, save for the Calendar, and whether Prime is kept or not (if not, its psalmody is distributed into other hours using a few possible schemas). Unlike the Roman Office, reformed at Trent and in 1910 under Pius X, the main monastic schema has never undergone substantial reforms since the 6th century.
There are now however three new Monastic schemas but the all use the same antiphons. All three are optional, Schema A remains as the 1500 yo schema. It is still used in post-conciliar form at Solesmes itself, which uses the OF Mass as well, in Latin.
For the Office, the antiphons are from the 2005 Monastic Antiphonale with the same comments as above. One oddity is that the antiphons are from the Vulgate and the psalms from the neo-Vulgate. Reconstiting the antiphons into the neo-Vulgate would be a heculean task and would break too many complex and traditional melodies.
Monasteries never used the Liber, incidentally, as the Monastic Office is substantially different from the Roman Office. They used the 1934 Antiphonale Monasticum for the Office, and Graduale Romanum for the Mass.
So your guess is way off. And our schola would take umbrage with your statement that Gregorian chant is not heard outside of monasteries in the OF.
Last edited:
I
Isca
Guest
I’m in England. In our church, we usually have 3 Extraordinary Ministers (A, B & C). They stand in a sideways line well away from the priest, not behind him (and outside the Sanctuary). When the priest has received, he walks over to the EMs and gives each of them the Precious Body. He then goes back to the altar, picks up the two Chalices for the congregation and gives them to A & B.
A & B receive and then B offers the Precious Blood to C, who receives.
C then goes to stand beside the priest to distribute the Precious Body. A and B stand at the sides of the church with the Chalices. It works well.
A & B receive and then B offers the Precious Blood to C, who receives.
C then goes to stand beside the priest to distribute the Precious Body. A and B stand at the sides of the church with the Chalices. It works well.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I can understand people having a specific preference for a style of music. Strictly speaking as an artform, music is subjective - different people have different tastes.
But I must say, it’s amusing to me when people dislike Hillsong due to them being a protestant worship group (when lyrically there’s quite a few songs in which there’s no issues with on a theological level), while turning around and saying the following guys are fine:
But I must say, it’s amusing to me when people dislike Hillsong due to them being a protestant worship group (when lyrically there’s quite a few songs in which there’s no issues with on a theological level), while turning around and saying the following guys are fine:
Fremason.Mozart
Lutheran.Bach
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Sadly many indeed do not.Just as an aside: people don’t need to “earn” our respect. We owe others their respect as children of God made in His image and likeness. Remember the quote “whatsoever you do to the least of these you did it to me”?
The deserve the dignity intrinsic to all humans. Respect however is earned – or lost.A priest deserves respect. The President deserves respect. A pedophile deserves respect because he is a human being with a God-given dignity that is not stripped away by his sin/crime (which is why we have prison ministries).
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I have absolutely no idea who “Hillsong” is, but when they write a Mass–As Mozart and Bach did–let me know. You don’t need to be Catholic to create a work of art that can be admired by Catholics. Literature, painting, music, etc…But I must say, it’s amusing to me when people dislike Hillsong due to them being a protestant worship group (when lyrically there’s quite a few songs in which there’s no issues with on a theological level), while turning around and saying the following guys are fine:
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Many of the propers for the Roman Rite of Mass were revised after the council. The Gregorian chants written for the old propers can’t be used in the new rite, so how can they be the same?
O
OraLabora
Guest
Wrong again. The propers were not “re-written” after the council. You cannot re-write the Bible and the vast majority of the propers are from scripture, both psalms and other verses. The chants are the same, the melodies are the same, but some of them have been moved around. As I write this, I am sitting in front of both the 1974 Graduale Romanum (post-Conciliar) and a 1926 edition of the Graduale Romanum,Many of the propers for the Roman Rite of Mass were revised after the council. The Gregorian chants written for the old propers can’t be used in the new rite, so how can they be the same?
Let’s look at the propers for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time (post-Council) and 20th Sunday after Pentecost (pre-Council).
Introit: Omnia quae fecisti (Dan. 3, 31, 29, 30, 43, 42, v. ps 118)
Gradual: Oculi omnium (Ps. 144 15 v. 16)
Alleluia; Paratum cor meum (Ps. 107, 2)
Offertory: Super alumina Babylonis (Ps. 136, 1)
Communion antiphon: Memento verbi tui (Ps. 118, 49, 50)
The texts and melodies are exactly the same.
It’s pretty much the same throughout. As I mentioned, some adaptations were needed for Year B because of the readings from St. Mark, but often appropriate verses from the corresponding synoptic gospel verse can be used.
Another example, week III in Ordinary Time corresponds to Week III after Epiphany in the old Gradual but there are variants for years A and B.
In. year C: Adorate Deum (Ps. 96, 7, 8 and 1)
In. year A and B Dominus secus mare (Mt. 4, 19, Ps. 18); pre-council it was used for the Vigil of St. Andrew, Apostle; in Year A the text from Matthew is read about Jesus leaving for Galilee after the arrest of John the Baptist. In Year B, the corresponding text from Mark is read, therefore it is deemed appropriate to use the Introit which is a verse from Matthew’s text.
Gradual: Timebunt gentes (Ps. 101, 16, v. 17)
Alleluia: Dominus regnavit (Ps. 96, 1)
Off.: Dextera Domini (Ps. 117, 16, 17)
Communion: Mirabantur omnes (Luke 4, 22)
Again the melodies are the same. The same also applies to the great traditional antiphons for the seasons.
Vatican II was not the great train wreck some traditionalists make it out to be. I strongly urge you to study what actually is in the pre- and post-Conciliar liturgies instead of relying on hearsay from prejudiced interlocutors. Since the Propers are mostly scriptural, some moving around was needed to ensure that texts were appropriate to the readings. But again, the texts and melodies are the same. There have been very few new Gregorian chant composed for the Mass since the Council, but quite a few composed in the 20th century, for example for the feast of Christ the King.
(cont’d)
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
The situation is a bit different for the Divine Office. Recently (2010) the first volume of a Roman Antiphonary for the Divine Office was produced by Solesmes, some 40 years after the Liturgy of the Hours appeared. Here, new antiphons were introduced. Well, not really “new antiphons” but, for the most part, when psalms were split another verse was used for a second antiphon, and in many cases no melodies existed for those.
Until the antiphonary appeared, communities wishing to use the LOTH simply didn’t use an antiphon for the second half of the psalm. Instead the psalm was prayed straight through under one antiphon only, as the rubrics do allow. The antiphons with their traditional melody were taken from the monastic antiphonary.
For the new Roman Antiphonary, Solesmes did compose some new melodies to apply to the texts (again largely psalm verses), but the first antiphon of a psalm, or the antiphon of psalms that remained whole, are from traditional sources, for example the antiphon Dixit Dominus for Psalm 109 at Sunday Vespers (in fact this antiphon is the first verse of the psalm itself). You’ll also find the great “O” antiphons for the last week of Advent, and other traditional favourites.
Liturgy is a fascinating topic. Please do approach it with an open mind, and be prepared to listen to folks who have gathered some expertise on the subject.
Until the antiphonary appeared, communities wishing to use the LOTH simply didn’t use an antiphon for the second half of the psalm. Instead the psalm was prayed straight through under one antiphon only, as the rubrics do allow. The antiphons with their traditional melody were taken from the monastic antiphonary.
For the new Roman Antiphonary, Solesmes did compose some new melodies to apply to the texts (again largely psalm verses), but the first antiphon of a psalm, or the antiphon of psalms that remained whole, are from traditional sources, for example the antiphon Dixit Dominus for Psalm 109 at Sunday Vespers (in fact this antiphon is the first verse of the psalm itself). You’ll also find the great “O” antiphons for the last week of Advent, and other traditional favourites.
Liturgy is a fascinating topic. Please do approach it with an open mind, and be prepared to listen to folks who have gathered some expertise on the subject.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Again, you are quite wrong. Looking at the index of introits for example, the new 1974 Graduale shows 15 “modern compositions” (i.e. with no ancient manuscripts supporting them) out of a total of about 150 antiphons. Of those 15, only one does not appear before the Council, composed after the council as a proper text for the feast of the Assumption for the day Mass which previously used a text from the Commons and which can still be used ad libitum (and which itself is a modern composition, but that appeared before the Council). All the others are in my 1926 Gradual as well. One more, does not appear in the 1926 Gradual as it is from the monastic propers, which my 1926 Gradual does not include.
Similarly, there are 8 modern Graduals in the 1974 Gradual. Only one does not appear in 1926, and it is an optional Gradual for feasts of the Virgin Mary. Alternate traditional texts can be used.
There are many more “modern” alleluia verses, again, most appear in the 1926 Gradual as well. And the same for offertories and communion antiphons, though many offertories were simplified with complex verses removed (but there is no restriction on using them).
What has happened is a lot of texts got dropped, for example as we no longer mark Septuagesima on the calendar, the Dies Irae was dropped from the funeral Mass (but is still in the liturgy as a hymn for the 34th week of Ordinary Time in the Divine Office), etc.
Not surprising since Sacrosanctum Concilium states:
“114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.”
So your statement that “many” Mass propers were “revised” after the council is flatly wrong. Your statement : “The propers that were revised required that the chants must also have been revised to fit the new text.” is also flatly wrong. Your statement “the result: new chants” is also flatly wrong. Your statement: " Similar to their older counterparts, perhaps even the same melodically, but new nonetheless, if not in musical notation, at least in text." is also flatly wrong. 99% of the texts are straight from the old Mass texts, melodies as well. I have now given you factual evidence to demonstrate that you are, in fact, wrong in your assumptions.
RH, i have been a Gregorian chorister for 15 years, I studied under one of Canada’s most renowned Gregorian choirmasters and scholars of his era, and I am a member and past director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada and co-organizer of its 2017 Colloiquium.
I do have some knowledge on the matter, which with all due respect you clearly do not as you make assumptions with no basis in fact and without even consulting the relevant texts, assumptions which seem to be coloured by your own prejudices, or at least what you heard from some people who have an agenda to disparage the new Mass.
Similarly, there are 8 modern Graduals in the 1974 Gradual. Only one does not appear in 1926, and it is an optional Gradual for feasts of the Virgin Mary. Alternate traditional texts can be used.
There are many more “modern” alleluia verses, again, most appear in the 1926 Gradual as well. And the same for offertories and communion antiphons, though many offertories were simplified with complex verses removed (but there is no restriction on using them).
What has happened is a lot of texts got dropped, for example as we no longer mark Septuagesima on the calendar, the Dies Irae was dropped from the funeral Mass (but is still in the liturgy as a hymn for the 34th week of Ordinary Time in the Divine Office), etc.
Not surprising since Sacrosanctum Concilium states:
“114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.”
So your statement that “many” Mass propers were “revised” after the council is flatly wrong. Your statement : “The propers that were revised required that the chants must also have been revised to fit the new text.” is also flatly wrong. Your statement “the result: new chants” is also flatly wrong. Your statement: " Similar to their older counterparts, perhaps even the same melodically, but new nonetheless, if not in musical notation, at least in text." is also flatly wrong. 99% of the texts are straight from the old Mass texts, melodies as well. I have now given you factual evidence to demonstrate that you are, in fact, wrong in your assumptions.
RH, i have been a Gregorian chorister for 15 years, I studied under one of Canada’s most renowned Gregorian choirmasters and scholars of his era, and I am a member and past director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada and co-organizer of its 2017 Colloiquium.
I do have some knowledge on the matter, which with all due respect you clearly do not as you make assumptions with no basis in fact and without even consulting the relevant texts, assumptions which seem to be coloured by your own prejudices, or at least what you heard from some people who have an agenda to disparage the new Mass.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
What?The Eucharistic minister also cried after I got done with her.
You do understand the Eucharistic Ministers are priests, bishops, etc.
I’d imagine you are crowing about dressing down an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, which, unless you have been appointed by the Pastor as some sort of EMHC manager, is disturbing in and of itself.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.