The Anti-Liturgical Heresy, by Dom Guéranger OSB - Latin vs. vernacular
-
Hello everyone,
I don't know if it has ever been mentioned in this forum so here you go.
Regarding the use of Latin vs. vernacular Dom Guéranger OSB, Abbot of Solesmes, wrote this chapter in his "Liturgical institutions" in 1840:
The Anti-Liturgical Heresy
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/antigy.htm
« Dom Prosper-Louis-Pascal Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, wrote in 1840 his Liturgical Institutions in order to restore among the clergy the knowledge and the love for the Roman Liturgy.
Here we present to our readers a fragment of the Liturgical Institutions, where Dom Gueranger summarizes what he calls the anti-liturgical heresy, a summary of the doctrine and liturgical practice of the Protestant sect, from the XIVth to the XVIIIth century. As it can easily be seen, many of these principles have a striking similitude with the post-Conciliar liturgical reform ... »
-8-
« Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship.
This is in the eyes of sectarians a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing. Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. ( . . .)
The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning.(...)
. . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. ( . . .) »
In French:
http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/gueranger/institutions/volume01/volume0114.htm
-
I don't know. The eastern churches use vernacular languages and they have done a far better job of preserving and maintaining their liturgies than the west has done. It wasn't liturgical language that kept the liturgy intact, but rubrics faithfully adhered to. The Orthodox say that correct liturgy and right order dwell within each member of the church.
-
It seemed to me that the thing being pointed to is not use of vernacular per se, but rather specifically hatred of Latin.
All other things being equal (that is music and liturgical quality otherwise) many good Catholic people (and I am one of them) would rather have liturgy in English than Latin, and many other good people think/feel that their own preference for Latin should not be trumped by what they feel is a strong pastoral need for the use of the vernacular.
That is not what is being discussed.
In the Orthodox and Byzantine worlds, where the vernacular is common, do you hear people complaining about how much they HATE Greek, and how no one should ever use it because that would be like TURNING BACK THE CLOCK?
Was it hatred of Greek in 19th century Russia? It was not. -
Btw, when I say Latin is magical, I mean it in BOTH directions, as it were. Neither positively NOR negatively magical. The anti-Latin fundamentalists are prone to thinking of Latin as negatively magical without realizing they are doing so... Hence why I reduce my aphorism to "Latin's not magical" - it's a two-edged aphorism.
-
What constitutes "strong pastoral need?" Of course, each Pastor has his own interpretation on what this is, and takes action accordingly. When, then, does it become the responsibility of the faithful to learn the Traditions of its Church? At what point does "extended use of the vernacular" become unnecessary and Latin (the established traditional language of the Church) replace it? Was it the intention of V2 to eliminate Latin, or allow its replacement by the vernacular to be a matter of clerical or community preference? "Strong pastoral need" is not the same thing as "we just don't like Latin" or "we can't understand that Latin stuff." I think that the Church is clear that she wants Latin to remain as her mother tongue. To me, "we don't understand that Latin stuff" is an invitation for me to teach, not a plea to remove it from the Church. And, if Latin is not the issue, then what is?Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
-
I think that the Church is clear that she wants Latin to remain as her mother tongue. To me, "we don't understand that Latin stuff" is an invitation for me to teach, not a plea to remove it from the Church. And, if Latin is not the issue, then what is?
I think the Vatican, Church, Councils, whatever term you prefer for the organization, talks much but isn't serious about what it says. Oh, it produces documents and statements, to be sure. Are they enforced? No. When the "Church" talks about Latin and music, its actions clearly demonstrate that it doesn't mean a word of it.
-
I don't know. The eastern churches use vernacular languages and they have done a far better job of preserving and maintaining their liturgies than the west has done.
Sort of. Slavonic liturgy is still incredibly common in the Russian Orthodox Church.
And my understanding is that the Greek used in Greek Orthodox services is in many places not a vernacular Greek, but the Koine and there is difficulty in understanding it even for some native Greek speakers.
-
The Greek Orthodox liturgies in my area are in English. So are the OCA, which is the descendent of the Russian churches in the U.S. Old Church Slavonic is not so radically different from Russian that it isn't understood. There are great similarities between those Slavic languages and I am told various language groups can understand each other. I am sure the degree of understanding could vary, but in general they understand.
Note: I don't understand a word at the Melkite liturgies. One has to be familiar with the Arabic cultures and languages to follow that. Great people, though. The best!Thanked by 1hilluminar -
"Strong pastoral need" is not the same thing as "we just don't like Latin" or "we can't understand that Latin stuff."
Your statement is true. However, it should be noted that "strong pastoral need" could legitimately mean its use is highly divisive and is literally driving people out of the Church. In that case, the unity of the Church and keeping people in it is to be preferred. -
Your statement is true. However, it should be noted that "strong pastoral need" could legitimately mean its use is highly divisive and is literally driving people out of the Church. In that case, the unity of the Church and keeping people in it is to be preferred.
Having a common liturgical language for a universal Church that is worldwide is not in conflict with Church unity. Why has the use of Latin been divisive? Is it the use of Latin, or the idea that now it doesn't have to be used (i.e. there are now alternatives) that is the divisive factor?Thanked by 1MatthewRoth -
I was speaking in micro cases, not the macro. There are certain parishes, in certain regions of the country, where trying to introduce Latin would be toxic and would not foster unity in any way - in fact, the total opposite.
-
Why is that, though? Is it the Latin that is toxic, or the attitudes of certain people in the parish (perhaps even the priest)?
-
We are many parts and they don't always agree or tolerate each other. Such is life, I guess. LOL.
-
Why is that, though? Is it the Latin that is toxic, or the attitudes of certain people in the parish (perhaps even the priest)?
All of the above.
I've written before about a certain hellish parish in which I was the director of music before my current parish. Said hellish parish was in another part of the country.
One of the biggest critiques that people there had of me was that I didn't understand the history of Catholicism in their region - that I was "doing Church" the way it's done on the east coast. Now I'm not from the I-95 corridor, but traditional Catholic worship here is closer to that of the I-95 corridor than it is to that of the middle of the country.
After a while, and in hindsight, I do have to admit that they had a point. There were a LOT of things out there that made me scratch my head, including the fact that a LARGE number of priests were themselves converts to Catholicism and later vocations. This resulted in priests out there just being "different" in ways that I could perceive yet couldn't put my finger on. The whole Catholic ethos out there was different.
Now of course all of that can just become an excuse for not trying to do things the way the Church wants them, and in some cases it WAS. However, there's something to be said for the fact that reintroducing things like Gregorian Chant might be a (relatively) easier pill to swallow here than there. -
Now of course all of that can just become an excuse for not trying to do things the way the Church wants them, and in some cases it WAS. However, there's something to be said for the fact that reintroducing things like Gregorian Chant might be a (relatively) easier pill to swallow here than there.
That's true. Re-introducing these things in certain places is much easier than in others. I'm certain we are in agreement when I state that the intention of the Church is not to have "regional churches" within itself, where people can state such things like:the way it's done on the east coast
"In Christ there is no East nor West" as the saying goes. And, of course, the way it should be isn't always going to be the way it actually is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Of course, you never implied that we shouldn't. -
True enough! Fortunately, it's not in any way my battle to fight anymore. I can leave that to their bishop (who they're trying to get thrown out of office,) whom they also accuse of being disconnected from their culture and history.
-
Why has the use of Latin been divisive?
It is because of what the liturgical use of the Latin tongue stands for. And all of that was done away with at Vatican II. It's only the self-absorbed, neo-Palagian, sede vacantist, Vatican-II-hating, radical-traditionalist, Burke-worshiping, Francis-hating, SSPXers who don't understand the burden they're putting on the environment by all the children they're having who like Latin. YMMV -
It is because of what the liturgical use of the Latin tongue stands for. And all of that was done away with at Vatican II. It's only the self-absorbed, neo-Palagian, sede vacantist, Vatican-II-hating, radical-traditionalist, Burke-worshiping, Francis-hating, SSPXers who don't understand the burden they're putting on the environment by all the children they're having who like Latin. YMMV
Da*n straight! I knew that those people bear watching. LOL
-
It is because of what the liturgical use of the Latin tongue stands for.
At said former hellish parish, they objected to me using the term "Introit." When I explained that there still are introits, the pastor said "There's a lot of baggage in those terms and mentally it takes people back to pre-Vatican II times."
I can't agree and I don't really understand, but one thing is for sure: They really were sincere. These types of things pained them; they weren't just making it up to give me a hard time. -
I can't agree and I don't really understand, but one thing is for sure: They really were sincere. These types of things pained them; they weren't just making it up to give me a hard time.
It just makes me genuinely curious to know what it is that pains them so much. Since I wasn't around for anything Pre-Vatican II (too young for that), I just don't know what the associations can be, not that there can't possibly be any legitimate ones, just that in my youth, I am ignorant about such things. It may also do them well to know that the next generation of Catholics doesn't have the same associations with Latin as they do. -
I'm in the same position as you. I'm too young to remember. To be clear, not only am I too young, but I wasn't born until many years after Vatican II.
One of the agitators at that parish who was old enough to remember said to me, quite emphatically and in a manner that actually inspired sympathy from me, "You are too young to remember. You see all of this as prayerful and novel and fun. I DO remember and let me tell you, it was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. In fact, I wouldn't be Catholic anymore if Vatican II hadn't happened. I remember vividly those Latin masses and ... Oh My GOD, AWFUL."
We might read that above reaction and be tempted to have a laugh over it, but let me tell you, she was pained as she said those words and it was no laughing matter to her. She was quite serious and quite sincere.
I don't get it either, but we can't ignore the reality of those emotions for some people. -
One of the agitators at that parish who was old enough to remember said to me, quite emphatically and in a manner that actually inspired sympathy from me, "You are too young to remember. You see all of this as prayerful and novel and fun. I DO remember and let me tell you, it was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. In fact, I wouldn't be Catholic anymore if Vatican II hadn't happened. I remember vividly those Latin masses and ... Oh My GOD, AWFUL."
Yes, I've heard sentiments like this as well. However, when I probe deeper, I can't get a straight answer out of anyone. When I ask parishioners, the above is very similar to what I get. When I ask clergy, the answer is "you just have to know your congregation." Nobody ever tells me what happened. As I am trying to understand this issue more deeply, I must ask the question: what was going on in the Church before V2 that was so absolutely awful that it would drive people to apostasy?Thanked by 1MatthewRoth -
I can tell you some things, having been in my teens when the council ended. We had 25 minute low masses, Latin of course, and they were not unusual. Some of the priests would compete with each other to see who could say the shortest mass. There was little or no congregational singing and most folks got out their rosaries and prayed them during mass. Receiving communion was not a frequent event. The theology of the time had all believing no one was really worthy of receiving, so many just received once a year to remain officially Catholic. Once a week there was a high mass when the choir and priest sang everything. Again, the congregation was frozen out. Mass was something you attended, not participated in. I wouldn't call it awful but it wasn't great, either. The Council reforms were needed. Granted, they later developed a life of their own and went in directions most of us didn't expect. But with the general chaos in society, the chaos in the church paled a bit in comparison. You just had to be there.Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
-
The idea of Low Mass seems so strange to us now, especially those of us that came about after V2. While we can't possibly imagine what it was like to attend one of those (unless of course, we've been to one recently offered), it is worth noting that the Low Mass, no participation environment was essentially destroyed by V2, and that even using Latin in the current Mass wouldn't resurrect it (no pun intended).Receiving communion was not a frequent event. The theology of the time had all believing no one was really worthy of receiving, so many just received once a year to remain officially Catholic.
This also seems strange to us now. Were people discouraged from receiving? I can imagine that they probably weren't greatly or zealously encouraged.Once a week there was a high mass when the choir and priest sang everything. Again, the congregation was frozen out. Mass was something you attended, not participated in.
I think we've swung to the opposite extreme, though. Everything is expected to be sung by the congregation, and the role of the choir has been reduced substantially, almost to the point of being at the whim and service of the congregation, as has the priest in many parishes.
I think that Musicam Sacram (MS) might have some great answers for us in this regard. Could it be that our current issues are really a balance problem: the over-emphasis on the congregation to the near exclusion of every other office and role in the Church? At least in my parish, the congregation sings everything, absolutely everything, and nothing is permitted that they couldn't do, nor anything the priest even thinks they couldn't do. Of course, not a word of Latin is permitted to be sung or said in any public prayers (anything the general population of the parish might want to take part in, such as Rosary, or Chaplet, sung Divine Office, etc.), or one risks the reprimand of the priest.
-
Latin was introduced into the liturgy because it was the vernacular.
Thanked by 1CharlesW -
Latin was introduced into the liturgy because it was the vernacular.
Exactly. I haven't heard anyone arguing for the authentic Greek. ;-)I think that Musicam Sacram (MS) might have some great answers for us in this regard. Could it be that our current issues are really a balance problem
Balance is a good way to put it. Everything has gone from one bad extreme to another bad extreme.
-
Is it the Latin that is toxic, or the attitudes of certain people in the parish (perhaps even the priest)?
I had an assignment in a parish where "certain people"--who were extremely noisy--absolutely would NOT have Latin. Never had a priest who would NOT use it, but did work for one who was extremely reluctant. (He was considered to be a 'staunch conservative,' by the way.)
One is inclined to think that 'progressive' parishes are also politically 'progressive', and their dislike of "the past" is really a dislike of tradition, threaded through politics and theology, mutatis mutandis.
That's based on personal observation at 6 different parishes, both in-city and in-country. It certainly is not Definitive Sociological Research.Thanked by 1chonak -
I can leave that to their bishop (who they're trying to get thrown out of office,)
You said a mouthful, but about PRIOR Bishops in that Diocese, who apparently weren't paying attention to various Instructions, Bulls, (etc.) That certainly was the case in 3 Wisconsin Dioceses (LaCrosse, Madison, and Green Bay) in the period between (say) 20-50 years ago.
And, if one is to take Mgr. Hayburn's "Papal Documents on the Liturgy" at face value, thus it has ever been. Those documents are Pete and Re-Pete--which tells you that by and large, Bishops ran independent fiefdoms. -
The theology of the time had all believing no one was really worthy of receiving, so many just received once a year to remain officially Catholic.
That wasn't my experience, but tease that a bit further and you could easily say that, in those times, there was an awareness of sin which has been almost eradicated, particularly having to do with....ahhh.......reproductive matters.
IOW, there's a "comfortability" about Catholicism today that wasn't there back in the '50's. Then, there were long lines for Confession, even though 'the box' was available for 6 hours (two priests, three hours each) on Saturday afternoons. Now? Well....there are no sinners left, judging from what I see. (Exception: the EF Mass crowd, by the way.) -
Latin was introduced into the liturgy because it was the vernacular.
But not in France, Germany, England, Ireland, and the Low Countries. It was "the vernacular" only in Italy. And in ~200 years or so after said introduction, the Latin of the Church was different from the Latin vernacular. It was hieratic, as is the Koine of some Greek Orthodox churches, and the Hebrew (not aramaic) of some synagogues, and the Old Slavonic in the East.Thanked by 1HeitorCaballero -
I haven't heard anyone arguing for the authentic Greek.
Luther considered an ideal where the lesson would be said in Hebrew, the gospel in Greek, the hymns in Latin and the sermon in German. He then proposed keeping only the last two as a practical compromise that would prepare the young for careers in law and medicine. -
"Were people discouraged from receiving? "
Um for many generations, until Pius X, priests did not generally communicate the faithful at large during Mass except on Easter and perhaps Christmas. Communion, when it happened, was more likely to happen right after confession, outside of Mass.
And Pius X didn't change all of this on a dime (he was, btw, completing the implementation of the Council of Trent when he tried to change this, something that's lost on almost everyone these days), and the residue of this lingered long in many places.Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab -
You said a mouthful, but about PRIOR Bishops in that Diocese, who apparently weren't paying attention to various Instructions, Bulls, (etc.) That certainly was the case in 3 Wisconsin Dioceses (LaCrosse, Madison, and Green Bay) in the period between (say) 20-50 years ago.
Well, it's not quite that simple. I don't know enough, actually, to say anything about their prior bishops one way or another.
I do think that the prior bishops were products of their times and of the machine that molded the US Episcopacy during those years.
I also think there was a resentment from the beginning towards the current bishop because he came from the Other Big City across the state that the city of the hellish parish prides itself, generally, on being the opposite of, in matters both Church related and secular.
Add to that the fact that he was one of - or possibly the VERY LAST - John Paul II appointment in the world (his appointment ocurring when John Paul II was on his deathbed) and you've got ... a very complicated and interesting dynamic.
All you have to do is throw in a couple mistakes that he actually made early on of the interpersonal variety that any of us could have easily made and you've got the powder keg that is currently exploding. -
I wouldn't say people were discouraged from communion, but they were also not encouraged to receive. As mentioned above, widely practiced contraception and marriage irregularities were ever present. Divorces were not easy to get, so there were those trapped in failed marriages. There were no sins not present today, probably in greater numbers. Residual Jansenism along with the guilt-obsessed Irish clergy were also factors. Many people were in the churches, but how many actually wanted to be there is something for speculation.
-
I don't feel my current challenge at the moment where I am is about whether people pray in English, irish or latin. It is about whether or not people pray - including those who participate at least externally in the liturgy. If more people genuinely prayed, I think the external form of the praying would take its proper and secondary place, and also be easier to sort out. I'm not ignoring lex orandi, lex credendi - but I think it works both ways. Currently so many people (in the church) don't believe, it would be mad to think there would not be problems with how they pray. For me the key to sorting out our liturgical troubles is by helping bring people to conversion of heart.
-
Currently so many people (in the church) don't believe, it would be mad to think there would not be problems with how they pray. For me the key to sorting out our liturgical troubles is by helping bring people to conversion of heart.
We are all having those problems to one degree or another. While not true everywhere, Catholic devotional life has disappeared in many places. I don't fault Vatican II, but its poor and uninformed implementation. During that new springtime the Council promised everyone went out to play and many never came back. -
I just wanted to thank you all for helping to shed more light on this situation, especially the pre-Conciliar Church. I've been to EF Masses, and even sang in a schola, but that's not the same thing as being part of the Church before V2. Thank you for helping me to understand the situation better.
-
The problem with the whole Latin debate is summed up in the words used: pre-Conciliar Church/post-Conciliar Church. That is, as Fr. Z. says: "B as in B, S as in S".
There is One Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and there is One Faith. There is no pre-Conciliar Church which existed prior to 1964, and no New post-Conciliar Church which we are creating ex nihilo after 1964. This is the problem. The whole reason that we are in this mess, theologically and liturgically, and the two go hand-in-hand, is that many in the Church, clergy and lay, have taken 1964 to be the point of the new beginning ("New Pentecost"), and have created, or have attempted to create, a New Church. And this New Church must necessarily reject any aspect of it's past that does not conform to the image that it presently wants to project: it's the same tactics that were used in various Communist countries in the last century that forbade traditional dress and customs in favour of those desired by the regime.
There can be no attempt at a Hermeneutic of Continuity or a Reform of the Reform so long as we continue to perpetuate the myth of the pre- and post-Conciliar Churches. -
I wasn't born until "after the revolution," so I only know what other people have told me. But here is how I would sum up the opposing experiences:
1. The "old Mass" was reverent. Even if people were praying their rosaries and not always paying attention, everyone knew that something important and mysterious was taking place. The fact that not everyone understood all the Latin seemed to heighten this sense of mystery and reverence.
Post Vatican II, the introduction of the vernacular (in admittedly banal translation) completely severed the link between Mass and mystery. And the substantial changes to the liturgy led people to think, "Well, if the Church can change Holy Mass, and can get rid of meat on Fridays, what else can she change? Maybe all the rest of those teachings aren't that important, either. Maybe we are just making it up as we go along, after all."
or,
2. The "old Mass" was terrible. The priest had his back to the people, no one could hear what he was saying, no one understood Latin, no one paid attention to what was going on (witness all the personal devotional prayers being prayed instead), and it was just "something you did when you were Catholic" that no one really understood or cared about besides the obligatory nature of it.
The reform was needed. Now the priest is talking to me, including me, I can understand everything, I know what is going on and feel like a part of things, and I would never, ever want to go back.
* * * * *
Like a lot of things in life, it seems that you get out of it what you put into it.Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz -
NuChurch... it's called NuChurch... and it ISN'T part of the OHCAC.
-
No, Francis, the term "NuChurch" is already taken by some Protestant group, so it's not available for you to use as a label for Catholics that you don't like.
And the Pope or the bishop, not you or I, gets to decide who is not part of the Catholic Church.
Thanked by 1Gavin -
And the Pope or the bishop, not you or I, gets to decide who is not part of the Catholic Church.
Actually, excommunication is initiated by the excommunicant, not a Bishop or Pope. -
Offenses are initiated by the culpable person; any punishments for them are initiated by the Church, either automatically by law, or as the result of a decree from the relevant authority (the Pope or the diocesan bishop).
-
chonak
I was talking about a way of thinking (philosophy), not a person.
OK... since NuChurch is taken, how about GNUchurch?!
gsam_want_gnu_big.jpg253 x 321 - 21K -
The fact that not everyone understood all the Latin seemed to heighten this sense of mystery and reverence.
This is why I have always liked the latin mass. Even as much as I do understand of it, there a otherworldliness to it all, being in God's house and putting the outside world aside while we experience the great mystery the Hebrews couldn't even name.
I don't go to church for a conversational talk-show experience, I go to church to worship God - something far beyond my comprehension, my worldly cares, and the hustle outside its walls (at one of my favorite churches, probably some real hustlin' going on, considering the neighborhood...)
If God is the creator, the intelligence underlying the totality of everything, if God is love and nothing but love, if God is anything like this... approaching him in worship is an act of wonder and awe. I like liturgies that reflect this.
Someone posted about latin as a type of iconostasis, which I think is a cool way to think about it. Also why I prefer my "formal" prayers in latin at home. Wonder and awe. Not of this world. Etc.
All of the above is also why I like going to Byzantine liturgies. I don't understand all of what they are doing, and I kind of like that. Sometimes it feels like I "know too much" ** about the Roman way and I sit through mass picking apart the servers' rubrics or how many times the deacon swings the incense, instead of in wonder and awe of God. At least for the novus ordo. The EF is good for a sense of mystery, and I can follow the Byzantine liturgy but remain in an intentional quasi-ignorance so that the liturgies there still feel like something greater than me, my mind, my opinions, my concerns. I'm in the house of God, lucky to be a part of the mystery I am experiencing.
** Not to refer to myself as an expert, hence the quotation marks. I just get very critical, knowing the little bit that I do about "how it should be done" and get very irritated when I'm in a church that is whimsically and blatantly disregarding liturgical norms. -
automatically by law
Yup -
Latin was introduced into the liturgy because it was the vernacular.
One would ten to think this way. However, here a concise explanation why was latin chosen as the liturgical language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m33ipr41mi0Thanked by 1Jacques Perrière -
Thanked by 1francis
-
An intriguing description I've heard of the use of liturgical Latin - the Western Church uses Latin the same way that the Eastern Church uses an iconostasis - as the 'torn veil of the temple' separating the mundane and everyday world from the awesome transcendence of God, where a person could see through to the Holy of Holies with much effort, but never comprehensively.
And since I've mentioned the iconostasis, I'd like to put in my semi-regular plea for the return of the Rood Screen.
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 Discussions21,464
- General Music Discussion7,754
- Job Openings1,363
- Management of Music Programs837
- Choral Matters522
- Church Documents and Rubrics512
- CMAA Notes291
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,608
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis356
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong679
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,230
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry153
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism728
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,008
- Opinions115