Psalms are scripture and should not be paraphrased or have altered texts.

Let's remember to tell that to the Calvinists, to Isaac Watts, to Charles Wesley, to Henry Baker, and to alibi aliorum plurimorum auctorum hymnorum.

ronkrisman 12:43PM Thanks
Posts: 496
Psalms are scripture and should not be paraphrased or have altered texts.

Let's remember to tell that to the Calvinists, to Isaac Watts, to Charles Wesley, to Henry Baker, and to alibi aliorum plurimorum auctorum hymnorum.

It is not necessary or adviseable to instruct or collaborate with heretics, apostates and schismatics concerning what texts they should compose for their errant beliefs (and services). It is only necessary that they are not printed and sung by Catholics.

As for Catholic hymns including their texts, there are plenty of occassions to sing their wonders apart from the honor and place of lectio.

In short, that's not how the Chuch really thinks.

OK, I'll bite. How does the Church "really think"?

AM

Technically, if we actually followed the rubrics for what is prescribed by the Church, there would rarely be a hymn sung at the Mass. Polyphonic settings of the Propers and Ordinary are actually more appropriate than hymnody. Singing hymnody during the service comes mainly from a protestant mentality. The Catholic hymns would of course be utilized (Pange Lingua, Salve Regina, etc.) when appropriate. The LOTH and devotions are a different thing altogether.

What belongs in the Mass are first the dialogues, (with GC as pride of place) then the Propers and the Ordinary. Then, organ and polyphony. We have no need of hymns really.

Have you read 'The Papal Legislation On Sacred Music'? After reading it, one becomes aware of how we have strayed from our roots.

Also, vernacular was not supposed to take over the Latin. Even in the docs of VII, it was specified that the vernacular was to be carefully utilized, and never to replace the Latin in the Mass.

I believe the NO has truly become an abberation.

ab·er·ra·tion noun \ˌa-bə-ˈrā-shən\
: something (such as a problem or a type of behavior) that is unusual or unexpected

Full Definition of ABERRATION

1
: the fact or an instance of deviating or being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state
2
: failure of a mirror, refracting surface, or lens to produce exact point-to-point correspondence between an object and its image
3
: unsoundness or disorder of the mind
4
: a small periodic change of apparent position in celestial bodies due to the combined effect of the motion of light and the motion of the observer
5
: an aberrant individual

I would say the music in our NO liturgies is very well defined right here.

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

I just got an email from a close friend. It contained this video:

http://youtu.be/3K-x6odm8Sc

Umnnhhh.....no.

What you propose as "interpretation" is a result of the last Canon Law, to the effect that the first objective of the law is the salvation of souls.

The law is not malleable, nor is it unclear. However, enforcement of that law is at the discretion of the pastor (Bishop). So 'achieving the desired ends' actually means 'obeying the law,' but said obedience may not have to occur immediately.

On the other hand, it is also a dis-service to the faithful to flat-out disobey the law, or to ignore it entirely.

To set up the extremes: on the one hand you have an EF congregation which is used to doing things according to the law. Changing that would be detrimental to them. The other extreme is the "Rules? We don't need your steeeeeeenkin' rules!" OF gang, where gradual but firm pressure towards the law must be applied. It cannot be otherwise, or the praxis is to the detriment of the faithful.

Disobedience to law, by the way, happens far more often in 'liberal' congregations--so, indeed, it IS an 'invention' of the liberals. It's convenient and correct to propose that a lot of Bishops and priests let things slide; but that's on their conscience.

That doesn't change the law, which actually SHOULD be obeyed. If not, then Rome is wasting a lot of time and ink writing all that stuff, no?

No one is saying that the law should not be obeyed. My approach to liturgy is quite consistent with the idea that we should "say the black, do the red."

I'm really sick to death of the "EF vs. OF" arguments, complete with caricatures of the typical "OF congregations," which comprise 95% of the Church.

The law and liturgical norms exist to serve the Church and to aid our worship, not the other way around.

And, of course, the obligatory statement that "It's convenient and correct to propose that a lot of Bishops and priests let things slide; but that's on their conscience." In other words, "They are all wrong and I, in my high minded adherence to every last letter of the law, am right."

I don't recall every detail now, but Bob Batastini wrote years ago about his experience taking his choir to Rome to sing. He had these aspirations that this would be the most heavenly, most "correct" liturgy on this side of heaven. Anyway, the long story short was that when they got to St. Peter's to sing, the master of ceremonies, who was, if I recall correctly, a bishop or archbishop, basically said "mass needs to end within 40 minutes," and made all sorts of cuts, some of which weren't even liturgically correct. The point of the story was that the master of ceremonies basically said with a shrug, "We adapt here and do what we have to do."

Now of course the talking point in response will be "Well he had no right to do that!!! Remember, NO ONE, EVEN IF HE BE A PRIEST OR BISHOP MAY CHANGE ..."

Well that's fine. The rest of us will continue to inhabit the real world.

In short, to repeat, The law and liturgical norms exist to serve the Church and to aid our worship, not the other way around.

Some "laws" today are guidelines toward accomplishing a goal, not an end in and of themselves.

Are any laws other than the Law of Love ends in themselves?
All liturgical law surely exists only in the service of the worship of the Triune God and the salvation of his people?

(Save the Liturgy, save the World)

edit: I am not excusing ignoring law - "We adapt here and do what we have to do," is a far cry from "We adapt here and do what we want to do."

edit: I am not excusing ignoring law - "We adapt here and do what we have to do," is a far cry from "We adapt here and do what we want to do."

Right. And that's a good observation. The law exists to be followed - but it also must be flexible and not rigid.

I think the only thing that Ben most likely smokes is when he is swinging the thurible. (Does that mean he is smoking Jesus?) (BTW... I deleted my entire presence from PTB years ago)

I gave up Prey Tail for Lent years ago.

That's true, no one has argued that the law should be ignored.

With regards to this:

Or are you saying that the law/reg is wrong, and the clown-Masses are "serving the Church"? Hmmmmm?

Come on. Really? This is a tired, old talking point. Yes, clown-masses have happened. They are pretty much unheard of today and most of the internet sensations around them have been proven wrong. In one case, a service that there were pictures of was actually in an Episcopal church. In another, there was some weird situation where people showed up to mass dressed as clowns supposedly because they were actually working as clowns right before or after mass. Either way, it was proven that the picture was not of a clown-mass, but a couple people attending mass, arguably dressed inappropriately.

I don't know anyone who advocates clown masses, not even among some of the most progressive liturgists I know.

Since I said it before, I'll say it again so that you have clarity on what my contention is:

The law exists to be followed - but it also must be flexible and not rigid.

No one, least of all me, believes that we are at liberty to just ignore the law. But let me ask you this. If a grieving family wants "On Eagles Wings" for the psalm response at their grandmother's funeral, would you do it, or would you say no?

I'm sure you'd probably say no, and I'd applaud you for saying no at a Sunday mass or in other circumstances. But what damage have you done by not saying yes in the case of a funeral? Have you furthered the faith, or have you slammed a giant door in the face of it?

Oh, and one other thing - it's not "madam," it's "monsieur."