A parish liturgist?
-
kenstb:
I can say that I am Catholic and believe everything she professes until I am blue in the face. My words mean nothing if my actions do not back it up. I then need to be considered a heretic, schismatic or apostate, and warned that I am displaying the tendencies of such. If I accept the warning and change my actions, then I am responding to reproof. If I continue in the same actions EVEN if I profess to be a Catholic... well... what should be the outcome? Wait fifty years and see where I wind up and then re-evalute the situation? -
Thanked by 1CharlesW
-
I am VERY WORRIED about the Ukraine... these are foreshadows of the warnings from... dare I say her name? Are you also familiar with the dead hand?
Would it be okay if the rest of us just went about our duty and honor to worship God in the most worthy manner during the clock of the apocalypse. When I hear the trumpets, I raise my goblet to you first, francis. -
Cardinal Walter Kasper made the long-awaited admission in L’Osservatore Romano on April 12, 2013 that Vatican II was created with ambiguities and contradictory statements for the precise purpose of fomenting division between the liberal and conservative ranks of the Catholic prelature.
Here are some choice excerpts from the article:
“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.”
“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintry look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”
“For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this[the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case.”
h/t Fr Richard Heilman, Knights of Divine Mercy for above.
C.F. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics", 1986
Thanked by 1dad29 -
No offense taken, francis, therefore no need for apology.
But besides keeping our lamps lit and burning during vigil, keeping the hours holy and doing our very best to help each other "taste" the beatific at the Supper of the Lamb, what would you have us do up to the moment of the eschaton? The trumpets will sound, and it could be called a "fanfare" one supposes, but it will be an awe-full moment, and hopefully we will have kept the faith. I know without a doubt that you have and will continue to do so. -
^ Thus why the Dies Irae should be mandatory at every Funeral Mass.Thanked by 1melofluent
-
I was once privileged to sing the tenor solo in the Tuba mirum of Mozart's Requiem (at a recital of various students of my voice teacher singing various things) - I'm sure I was the only one that believed what we were singing, it was a very powerful experience, I was indeed trembling.Thanked by 1kenstb
-
I had never "gotten" the idea of hearing confessions during Mass, (a practice much decried by most liturgists, I believe, and something they chalk up as another point against the EF.)"Quantus tremor est futurus,
Quando iudex est venturus, Cuncta stricte discussurus!" We would all do well to remember these words.
But a few years back I was at an All Souls Mass where Mozart's Requiem was being sung, the opportunity for a needed confession presented itself, and by chance the line moved such that I ended up "in the box" during the Dies Irae.
Oh. My. God.
One of the most profound spiritual experiences of my life, and one I would wish for every Catholic, every human being.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World) -
In my opinion, much of what was abolished should have been made optional such as the dies irae, prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel.Thanked by 1francis
-
Optionitis.
-
The thing about "options" is that they have a way of becoming mandatory. See Environment and Art in Catholic Worship or altar girls or..... a long laundry list. On the other hand, what is mandatory soon becomes entirely dependent on the discretion (if one can call it that) of the parish squeaky mouse.
-
Of all this liturgical job nomenclature I am missing one which I have heard in the real life most. At least in Europe, such person is called 'sacristan'. It is traditional, yet sounds neutral (doesn't rhyme with 'liturgist' ;) ). MC, too, sounds good, but probably corresponds to a more narrow job description.
-
Being old enough to have been there, I remember another reason given for not using the Dies Irae. The desire was to make the funeral mass more focused on the resurrection. I was told that the black vestments and Dies Irae were reactions to the horror of the Black Death, which caused funerals to become obsessed with the morbid and judgment, not the resurrected Christ. In the back of my mind, I have to think that with most overreactions during the Black Death period, there was a Scholastic somewhere behind or associated with it. I don't know of any Scholastics behind the overreactions of the sixties. ;-) Interesting that the Dies Irae has been the subject of more great musical compositions than most other themes.
-
The desire was to make the funeral mass more focused on the resurrection.
Yes, and now, we don't even need funeral Masses (or any prayers at all) for the deceased because they're all already in heaven with Ghandi and Nelson Mandela -- It seems that to most Catholics, the only people in Hell are Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Marcel Lefevbre. -
Pre-history, we have the words of Pius XII.
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/10676/the-hermeneutic-of-continuity-pius-xii#Item_7
Some here argue that VatII was 'meant to change things.' I'd love to see the dichotomy between the remarks of Pius XII and SC. -
My understanding was that the council intended to remove duplications and accretions from the mass. It did that and also removed some items that were a result of deference due to European nobility rather than early church practice. There was little in my 1965 missal (I still have it) that most here would object to, although I certainly remember even prominent clergy saying the council did not go far enough. That call for radical change was present and influential, even though I agree that is not what Vatican II intended.
-
It seems as if the church at large is focused on the mercy of God. Unfortunately, our catechism teaches us that God is just. We also know that everyone does not go to heaven. Many priests that I've spoken to seem to wish to avoid frightening people, but if heaven is real and hell is also real, the fact remains that judgment is real too. We can't pick and choose our dogmas as if the church were Burger King.Thanked by 1francis
-
It seems as if my long, rambling, but somewhat insightful (I hope) response was deleted by myself accidentally.
Long version short: Vatican II did not intend for all the change that we've gotten in its name. I think the documents make it clear that it intended for the people to sing the Mass Ordinary in Latin, for choirs to be promoted, and for the propers to be sung.
However - in other ways, Vatican II DID intend for things to change. I think it did want the people verbally engaged and not ONLY engaged in an interior way; and I think that it did intend for the laity to have more influence in the Church and for the laity to take up ministries in cooperation with the ordained.
Some here seem to be of the opinion that Vatican II did not really want to change anything at all. I think this is false, and is shown by its documents.Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka -
It seems as if the church at large is focused on the mercy of God. Unfortunately, our catechism teaches us that God is just. We also know that everyone does not go to heaven. Many priests that I've spoken to seem to wish to avoid frightening people, but if heaven is real and hell is also real, the fact remains that judgment is real too. We can't pick and choose our dogmas as if the church were Burger King.
Jesus was also pretty focused on the mercy of God. It's a great thing to be focused on. It's what the cross really means.
As for how many go to hell vs. heaven, I have no idea. The Church doesn't pretend to have one either.
"Traditionalists" love to talk about hell and sin. I'm not sure why that is. At least one theologian whom I have read has opined that hypothetically, it is actually difficult to get to hell, considering what the Church teaches about hell.
To go to hell, one must be in a state of mortal sin, persist in that sin without repentance, and fully comprehend that the sin is mortal and that they will be in hell for it. And, according to this theologian, lots can get in the way of someone fulfilling all of those three points. Die without the chance to repent? A just God would never allow some that opportunity while denying it to others, he says; therefore, such a person may not go to hell. Have any doubt about what you're doing being a mortal sin, i.e. are you rationalizing it in any way? Then you aren't fully culpable because you don't really believe it is a mortal sin. Don't believe in God and therefore you don't repent? You couldn't make a conscious choice then.
I'm not taking a position on the above, and I'm not saying it is correct. But the arguments that I read, as posted above, were compiled citing the catechism at every turn, and sure enough, every statement he made had a statement in the catechism corresponding to it.
Food for thought.Thanked by 1Gavin -
I was told that the black vestments and Dies Irae were reactions to the horror of the Black Death, which caused funerals to become obsessed with the morbid and judgment, not the resurrected Christ. In the back of my mind, I have to think that with most overreactions during the Black Death period, there was a Scholastic somewhere behind or associated with it.
The only problem with that interpretation is that the Sequence predates the outbreak of the Black Death in Europe by about a century.Thanked by 1hilluminar -
Unfortunately, the mercy of God is not a one way street - it requires men's cooperation. Even though the Almighty may give someone every chance he needs to get to Paradise, that doesn't mean that he will accept them. God does not send us to Hell, we send ourselves there, willingly, by our actions, negligence, and wishful thinking.
This is why everyone - living and deceased - deserves the old Requiem Mass : to pray for the dead (Introit, Gradual, Tract, Offertory, Communion), and to be reminded that one day we too will die and will have to account for our actions, and that now is the time to make amends, for it while we are living on earth that it is the time for God's Mercy, once we die, it is time for His most perfect Justice (Sequence).
(Not to mention that the Dies Irae is one of the most beautiful of all Latin ecclesiastical poetry.) -
From a recent homilists words: The English 'mercy' is so different than the Latin 'misericordia'. Misericordia doesn't imply like mercy that God looks the other way for whatever man does. Man shall learn and follow his precepts to receive mercy. Mercy often implies that man receives Divine Mercy simply on account of his misdeeds, whereas Misericordia implies we are to toil: confess, and pray for forgiveness, that aspect of God's love that is only received by our misery in search for the perfect life.
-
I am not certain, but i believe this is incorrect, or at least, inaccurately phrased.Vatican II ... did intend ... for the laity to take up ministries in cooperation with the ordained.
The intention was for the laity to take up their rightful tasks in what would more correctly be called "apostolates".
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)Thanked by 1francis -
What Vatican II called for and what was done in the name of Vatican II are often very different. In time these things will br corrected. I'm not going out crying "calamitas!" as many seem to think we should.
-
I am not certain, but i believe this is incorrect, or at least, inaccurately phrased. The intention was for the laity to take up their rightful tasks in what would more correctly be called "apostolates".
It was without a doubt the vision of the Council that lay people would have various "ministries," including being parish musicians (yes, that is a ministry), educators, as well as many others.
Has that been abused, and done in ways that the Council did not intend? Yes. http://stpius10.org/wp/?page_id=136 <---- Incidentally, I'm not going to pretend to know better than a CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP, who appointed her in this position - He, I'm sure knew Canon Law, and also knew the needs of his Archdiocese. So I'm sure this is all valid and licit. But it strikes me as, at best, odd and at worst, not really what was intended by the Council.<br />
But these instances should not make us pretend that there was never an intention for laity to have roles in the Church. -
From a recent homilists words: The English 'mercy' is so different than the Latin 'misericordia'. Misericordia doesn't imply like mercy that God looks the other way for whatever man does. Man shall learn and follow his precepts to receive mercy. Mercy often implies that man receives Divine Mercy simply on account of his misdeeds, whereas Misericordia implies we are to toil: confess, and pray for forgiveness, that aspect of God's love that is only received by our misery in search for the perfect life.
How very timely.
From a recent interview given by Cardinal Walter Kasper:The God of the Old Testament is not an angry God but a merciful God, if you read the Psalms. This ontological understanding of God [as absolute being] was so strong that justice became the main attribute of God, not mercy. Thomas Aquinas clearly said that mercy is much more fundamental because God does not answer to the demands of our rules. Mercy is the faithfulness of God to his own being as love. Because God is love. And mercy is the love revealed to us in concrete deeds and words. So mercy becomes not only the central attribute of God, but also the key of Christian existence. Be merciful as God is merciful. We have to imitate God’s mercy.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/commonweal-interview-cardinal-walter-kasper -
Vatican II DID intend for things to change. I think it did want the people verbally engaged and not ONLY engaged in an interior way;
So did Pius X and Pius XII. ALL the documents and instructions from those Popes and their liturgy dicasteries are perfectly clear about that.
You can find all of them at the Adoremus site, by the way.it did intend for the laity to have more influence in the Church and for the laity to take up ministries in cooperation with the ordained.
Yes, in civic engagements and areas of their competence (e.g., finance/controllership). Altar boys and choirs were always stuffed with laity, just as were (and are) the KofC, church-cleaning and maintenance, etc. Adding "commentators" and "song leaders" was questionable, albeit not a calamity.Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab -
I don't think anything should be construed though, as to limit their involvement to physical plant type work.
Laity could have advanced theological degrees and share in teaching and even counseling responsibilities, albeit it not preaching at mass. -
PGA,
Aside from wishful thinking, on what do you base your assumption that the Council intended "ministries"?
All,
It is a common misconstruing of the Council to begin in 1971 and work backwards. Remember that the Catholic environment was the 1955 reforms of Pius XII or, even, the 1962 reforms of (now, Saint) John XXIII. -
PGA,
Aside from wishful thinking, on what do you base your assumption that the Council intended "ministries"?
Not "wishful thinking," rather the "thinking" of many in Church leadership a lot higher than you - unless you happen to be a member of the College of Cardinals posting here.
How about this instead: Why don't you provide some citations that prove that you are indeed smarter and know more about what the Council called for than the many, many, bishops, cardinals, and even Popes, many of whom PARTICIPATED in the Council who have shown themselves to believe differently than you? (i.e., the many who have spoken about the ministries of the latiy, etc.)
Oh, and an off the record comment from a private conversation or homily at some US church made while visiting, taken out of context or without full context, by Cardinal Arinze or even Cardinal Ratzinger from by-gone days doesn't count as a citation. Nor do ramblings about how there was no "spirit" to the council and that everything was laid out letter by letter.
-
PGA, I don't think cgz claimed to be smarter than anyone, much less "the many, many, bishops, cardinals, and even Popes, many of whom PARTICIPATED in the Council who have shown themselves to believe differently than " he.
You need not be so defensive, if you don't have any citations that support your claim.
I took your phrase "Vatican II... intended" to mean that the actual promulgated documents demonstrate such an intent, as taken as a collection of individuals, the Council Fathers intended many contradictory aims, some of which a majority agreed on, and some of which were discarded.
Logically, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative assertion, so cgz's lack of citation doesn't really say anything one way or the other about the validity of his position.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World) -
Oh it's not at ALL that I don't have "any citations to support my claim."
It's that I'm not going to do the equivalent of teach an online intro course on Vatican II and its documents.
If you want to actually know the truth, without ideology thrown in, do some research. You can easily find out the intent of the Council regarding lay ministries. You will find statements by, as I said, Popes, bishops, and theologians on the subject.
There is a magisterial teaching, spanning many years, on this subject. I've read of several addresses by Popes, including a recent one by Pope Francis, to church musicians, where each Pope has discussed it as a ministry. Ditto for talks made to educators, theologians, and the like - many of whom are lay.
In fact, our diocesan bishop just mandated changes in teachers' contracts here. They now have to agree to live by Church teaching. But along with that, language was added that specifies that they are considered lay ministers.
And here's where my comment about "being smarter" comes in; because I'm expecting someone, any minute now, to chime in with some variation of "I don't care what your bishop/any bishop/the USCCB says/said. They are LIBBBBBBERAL anyway."
And that's my point. Many think they are more holy and/or smarter than real authorities in the Church.
Who is the real dissenter? -
Lay ministry is discussed in detail in the document, Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord: A Resource for Guiding the Development of Lay Ecclesial Ministry. It was developed by the Committee on the Laity of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and was approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2005 General Meeting.
The USCCB has a PDF of the document. Click on “For the complete text” at:
http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=550
This very fine document is peppered throughout with quotations from the Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the documents of Vatican II, papal writings, and the Code of Canon Law.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,152
- General Music Discussion7,611
- Job Openings1,316
- Management of Music Programs834
- Choral Matters520
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events653
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony530
- Hymnody823
- Gregorian Chant: General2,585
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis355
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong672
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,209
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements171
- General Discussion1,002
- Opinions113