Does the person who sings the psalm have to be a Catholic?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Is it about "concert" or "conceit?"
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    My conceits are always concerted efforts.
  • Thanks a lot, Adam.
    Almost made me spit my grits.
    I should avoid your hilariousness while eating. :)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    What? No love (conceit) for ol' Dad for being Little Joe's straight man?
  • Lots of love!! Just no spittin grits. :)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I'm just happy you eat grits! Staple of my diet and the "new" polenta!
  • Historically, non-catholics would not even be willing to sing in a catholic church.
    You could not pay a protestant to sing in a catholic church even if you tried to, they would not do it.

    That this question arises at all, is a sympton of the evil confused times we live in. A time in which proper roles and the proper hierarchical authority of church and state has broken down.

    I abide by the general rule that non-Catholics should not lead in singing the propers and ordinary of the mass on average Sundays. The majority of the music should always be sung by the members church. Historically this is a new issue.

    I can understand an exception being made for allowing people in the process of converting to the Church, firm in their convictions to sing as well. If the Catholic Church is a mission in formation and evangelizing to many non-catholics this may warrant an exception. I can understand the potential of Orthodox singing in exceptional circumstances. The schism with Orthodoxy took many centuries to harden and they continue to share sacramental grace. Indeed they are not members of the Church, however... well I must study the teaching on this, they do not seem completely cut off from the Church either. They are not protestants, yet they reject the Pope, but they reject him more out of fear of their "rite" being destroyed rather than hatred. Nevertheless they should be avoided.

    I can also understand the exception made on a few great feasts of the year to hire someone who is not a member of the Church to sing with others who are, on a few days throughout the year. I think this is the sort of dispensation that can be made.

    I recognize that in some cases, particular parishes, chapels, cathedrals would not be able to maintain traditional quality polyphonic music without hiring at least one or two non-catholics to sing parts. I would only encourage leniency in allowing non catholics to participate due to the crisis that the Church finds herself in as a temporary measure to a limited extent. Although many may abuse such leniency, I think that ultimately, there are bigger concerns than non-catholics singing, but in the future it must become rare again. The Church members must become healthy and traditional for this to be possible. If it is avoided from occurring regularly in large numbers, that may have to be accepted as an abuse for the time being.

    In the anglican protestant communion they are famous for encouraging conversion of their paid singers during the 20th century, in instances were they were not church members. It can be said that in some instances it does encourage conversion, but this is not truly a reason to encourage it or allow it freely.

    The hiring those not part of the Church to sing her liturgy is a sympton that the Personal Ordinariate Churches, and wealthier anglo-catholic anglican churches in recent decades especially suffered from. These days not as many of them can afford to pay as many singers, so, ultimately, it is not an especially serious issue here either. God is solving their problem with divine providence. Volunteers help fill the void.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,558
    Historically, non-catholics would not even be willing to sing in a catholic church.
    You could not pay a protestant to sing in a catholic church even if you tried to, they would not do it.
    The firmness of your conviction is...well, probably invincible. But non-catholics have not always refused paying work historically either, as one can read in Burckhardt's account of Leo X's Jewish musicians.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    I am not willing to use blanket exclusion of anyone, be they Protestant or Orthodox. As a Byzantine, I haven't found any Orthodox who wanted to sing in a Catholic choir. Our divisions go beyond allegiance to a specific patriarch and in some instances, are doctrinal. The Orthodox don't live in fear of being absorbed by Roman Catholics. They believe the Catholics are doctrinally heretics who have changed and departed from elements of the apostolic faith.

    All that being said, I am not looking for ritually pure singers. That smacks too much of the Pius X priest I encountered who wouldn't give communion to anyone who had partaken of "Novus Ordo cookies" or attended NO masses. God save us from the "pure."
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    They believe the Catholics are doctrinally heretics who have changed and departed from elements of the apostolic faith.


    Can you list top three reasons? I would be interested to learn this.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    They believe the Catholics are doctrinally heretics who have changed and departed from elements of the apostolic faith.

    Can you list top three reasons? I would be interested to learn this.


    1. Petrine supremacy.
    2. Petrine supremacy.
    3. Petrine supremacy.
    Thanked by 1kenstb
  • jeffinpa
    Posts: 6
    The orthodox believe that Catholics have departed from the true doctrine in a number of ways. Prominent in my understanding are - the pope, original sin, the immaculate conception, the filioque, purgatory and the development of doctrine.

    We share so much, but the differences are significant. Many orthodox Christians see the differences as being a VERY BIG DEAL.

    (My wife and daughter are orthodox and I sing regularly at their church.)

    Jeff
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    One example, the Immaculate Conception. Eastern churches fully believe that Mary was and is sinless. They don't accept the IC because it would mean accepting St. Augustine's teachings on original sin. Orthodox don't believe any guilt was transmitted by original sin, only the penalty, death. And they generally don't think much of Augustine.

    I would definitely agree that the Latin tendency to define and declare every detail of mysteries bugs the Orthodox. Many things are mysteries and are knowledge known only by God. So in that sense, the Scholastics and succeeding theologians were presumptuous when overly inquiring into mysteries.

    Even we eastern Catholics disagree with the Latin church on purgatory. Part of our treaty of reunification from the 16th century states that there will be no discussion of Purgatory.

    Filioque was more political and linguistic, I think, than doctrinal although that word translated into Greek strongly implies a progression originating from the Son. Even Latins would think that heresy. St. Maximos said at the time that when the Latins say filioque, they mean, "and through the son." It was, however, at a time when many were more interested in emphasizing points of contention and differences, rather than unity.

    Petrine supremacy. The Orthodox would accept the papacy as they believe it existed in the first one thousand years of Christianity. They don't accept the position as it is now.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    thnx charles and jeffinpa. If Petrine supremacy is an (THE) issue, than all the other things are only dominoes falling from there.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,646
    Charles gives an excellent example about the Immaculate Conception. Augustine is the source of much mischief from the Eastern perspective (not just original sin but one might say that the individualism of Western spirituality descends from Augustine's self-drama in the Confessions, and that's not a plus in the Eastern book). They don't deny his sainthood, but take very selectively from his corpus of work (we do that with our own saints, too).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    Someone jokingly said to me, "Who was the heretic, Augustine or Donatus?" His answer was, "Both of them!"
  • I have heard that there are quite a few clerics, from ordinary priests to Vatican cardinals, who have lost their faith, or are unbelievers, and yet continue in their lofty or humble positions performing their priestly duties. This would seem scandalous to me, but that issue was decided long ago in the well-known Donatist controversy. So, if an unbelieving cardinal or a debauched priest can celebrate a valid mass, we can have Jews and Methodists in our choirs. The Church can baptise (and regularly does) whatsoever it pleases. As for that Donatist matter, while it makes theological sense, there is yet the down to earth feeling that something is dreadfully wrong with all the scandalous souls whose fitness to serve is/was non-existent but for the theological technicality of ex opere operato and the placing of ordinal validity over moral worthiness and example. History affords quite many examples of those unfit to serve, whose lives were a shameless disgrace. With inexorable consistency, it reveals examples here and now, as in the paedophile scandal which would yet be silently hushed up had it not become a very public sore. And we are seriously wondering whether a wholesome Protestant can sing in our choir???
    Thanked by 2Cricket17 Gavin
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    MJO:

    Good post.

    The key thing to remember is, yes, God does not remove his power and authority from the Church, but he does, and will, MOVE the church to a different location within the souls of those who ARE the Church. This is why the Church suffers in persecution and goes underground, into exile, is marginalized, etc., mainly to protect the deposit of the faith.

    Priests who are in sin, heresy, schism or apostasy can be doing it in ignorance or in full knowledge. This is what makes Christ's warning to us a serious one:

    "7 13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
    7 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
    7 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    7 16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    7 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    7 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
    7 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
    7 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
    7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
    7 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

    (And to personalize this part, 'have we not composed beautiful music to be sung at your liturgies, installed wonderful pipe organs, composed and performed chant and polyphony and conducted scholas?')

    7 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

    What does this say for the faithful who follow the teachings of the Church and try to live a life full of grace? It means we must be on our watch. Jesus himself warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing. The Church is a fighting Church, and that means even within the ranks. This is why we preach the gospel in season and out of season. Right now, we are very out of season.
  • kenstb
    Posts: 364
    Once again, we have gone off on a tangent. Since we're pretty far down the rabbit hole, I will add my two cents worth. I am no theologian, and so I can't join the conversation about schism between east and west. My own observation of the church which I am able to experience points to a problem or failure in the formation of our priests and laity as the root issue. I have met many priests who seem to have chosen priesthood because they weren't good at anything else. I agree that the deeds of many of us who represent the church have damaged it. The way we speak to or at people, and the way we treat those who are strangers makes a difference. The fact is that those in the hierarchy who protected their reputations before the safety of children betrayed us all, and made it more difficult for good priests to exercise their ministry. A priest who does not allow non Catholics to sing in the choir forgets that Jesus (an observant Jew) not only spoke to, but allowed a Samaritan woman (who was married multiple times and living with a man who wasn't her husband) to carry news of him to the people in her town.
    When we sit in judgment of others, we take great risks with our own souls.
    Singing is supposed to be fun. Music is supposed to draw people together. Someone has clearly missed the point. Perhaps its me.
    Thanked by 2Cricket17 CharlesW
  • http://oi62.tinypic.com/el4flx.jpg
    http://oi58.tinypic.com/zxqno8.jpg
    (MUSIC OF THE SARUM OFFICE - JS C-03 - Sanctorale - February (draft form).pdf)

    Could this be the type of music that you suspect jews were singing in the Catholic Church?

    A Translation of the Responsory for Candelmas at II Vespers:
    " Re-joice, O Vir-gin Ma- ry, thou a-lone hast destroyed all he-re- sies,
    for thou hast be-lieved what Gabri-el the archangel said:
    * While a vir-gin thou gave-est birth to God and man,
    and after giv-ing birth thou hast remained a chaste vir- gin.
    V. We be-lieve that Gabri-el the archangel addressed thee
    by divine inspi-ra- tion. We be-lieve that the Ho-ly Ghost
    hast impregna-ted thy womb : Put to shame the un-hap-py Jew
    who says that Christ through the seed of Joseph was born.

    * While a vir-gin... V. Glo- ry to the Father, and to the Son,
    and to the Ho-ly Ghost. * While a virgin..."

    Richard Mix April 4 Thanks
    Posts: 443

    Historically, non-catholics would not even be willing to sing in a catholic church.
    You could not pay a protestant to sing in a catholic church even if you tried to, they would not do it.

    The firmness of your conviction is...well, probably invincible. But non-catholics have not always refused paying work historically either, as one can read in Burckhardt's account of Leo X's Jewish musicians.


    Yes, my conviction is strong that what you are saying is unlikely to have occured frequently if ever. Even if it were true that on some rare this occurred, it would nevertheless be an abuse.

    My understanding is that Leo X paid them for secular lute playing, not for singing in church.


    Jewish instrumental music flourished during the Italian Renaissance, with even women participating: playing lute or clavichord, they taught the synagogue hymns to their sisters. Jewish musicians, considered to the best teachers, taught the children of many aristrocratic families. But by the mid-seventeenth century, the church's permissiveness ended. Gentile musicians were angry about having to compete with jewish musicians for church and secular functions; the priests were worried about the influence their music would have on their parishioners, and how they interpreted the Catholic church's music. Consequently, the church levied heavy taxes upon Jewish musicians and severely restricted who could play, when, where, and for how many hours. - The Book of Klezmer: The History, the Music, the Folklore By Yale Strom


    "His chapel master wrote that no music enthralled Leo as did the chant of the religious offices, which often moved him to tears of emotion."
    "Leo X rewarded musicians richly, though this also has been misunderstood. He paid the converted Jewish lutanist Gian Maria lavishly, and allowed him to adopt the name of Medici".


    If what Richard Mix says is true, it may suggest that we should be careful of trusting people who have pet elephants to be steadfast in church music orthodoxy.
    image

    Hanno (Italian, Annone; c. 1510 – 8 June 1516) was the pet white elephant given by King Manuel I of Portugal to Pope Leo X (born Giovanni de' Medici) at his coronation. Hanno, actually an Asian elephant, came to Rome in 1514 with the Portuguese ambassador Tristão da Cunha and quickly became the Pope's favorite animal. Hanno died two years later from complications of a treatment for constipation with gold-enriched laxative."
  • May an actual Jewish Cantor sing the Psalm at Catholic Mass?
  • Chris and all:

    In the Episcopal church there is a fond saying, "There's nothing wrong with this parish that a few well-placed funerals would not solve.

    In the Catholic church, there's nothing wrong with the bishops and cardinals that complications of a treatment for constipation with gold-enriched laxative would not solve.

    Thank you for this!
    Thanked by 1Chris_McAvoy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    In the Catholic church, there's nothing wrong with the bishops and cardinals that complications of a treatment for constipation with gold-enriched laxative would not solve.


    ROFLMAO
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    FNJ:

    As far as a Jewish Cantor? Well, no one really objected to the Satanist thing that I posted above (IN PURPLE WITHOUT THE PURPLE) to see how people would respond, except MCW. Congratulations, MCW! I can't believe everyone is that confused about including a SATANIST in the MASS!

    The Mass is for believers. No one else. The Mass is not an 'evangelistic tool'. That is not the purpose or the reason of the Mass. It is the meal celebrated by the family of Christ, and the Holy Sacrifice offered for the propitiation for THEIR sins (those who believe), not for anyone else.
  • Francis, I do think that I would balk at a Satanist. In fact it makes me ill at ease merely to type the word here.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Uh yeah I thought it would go without saying that we wouldn't allow that person to sing at mass.

    I have a feeling you're now going to draw some equivalence with that person and a protestant. Please resist that urge.
  • May an actual Jewish Cantor sing the Psalm at Catholic Mass?


    No, I'm serious. Would a Jewish cantor be welcomed to teach a class at the Colloq?

    [note, not talking about a Jewish person who cantors at Mass...talking about an official Jewish Cantor at a Mass attended by a Rabbi, for example -for those unaware, the Cantor is a staff position with many responsibilities beyond singing while the Rabbi is considered the staff Teacher]

    I know, I should have been clearer.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,935
    Teach a class: why not?

    But to sing a responsorial psalm as a solo psalmist at Mass? it would be controversial, at least; I expect it would be unlawful.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I could see it happening at a large civic mass; at the installation of a new bishop perhaps.
  • The Jews seem not to mind gentile cantors and choirmasters. The very large and important synagogue here, across the street from Rice University has had Episcopalian choirmasters and cantors for most of the last half century. (They also have an Aeolian-Skinner organ, one of four in Houston, the other three being Christ Church Cathedral [which actually has a small second one in a chapel], First Presbyterian, and First Methodist.)
  • A Gentile cannot be a Cantor in an Orthodox or Reform Shul.

    I recall that a Cantor will perform hospital visits instead of a Rabbi.

    WIKI:
    Prominent historian of the cantorate Mark Slobin explores the evolution of the office of the cantor in his work Chosen Voices:The Story of the American Cantorate. Slobin outlines the journey of cantor as a sacred singer who would find employment by responding to positions posted in the newspaper in the 1930s to the formalized process of cantor/congregation matchmaking now in place.[12] The creation of the School of Sacred Music in 1948 marks the beginning of the cantor as a modern professional. At the inception of the SSM, the role of the cantor in the American synagogue was so narrow that the concept of the "cantor-educator" was created so that the newly minted cantors would have the additional skill set of "educator" so that they could serve congregations in a full-time capacity.[5] The school abandoned the notion of the "cantor-educator" as the perception of the modern cantorate expanded to include the duties now associated with the role of the full-time cantor. The role of today's Reform cantor includes inspiring others in the act of worship, serving as an authority on Religious Jewish music, teaching all members of their community, helping to build strong Jewish identities, offering pastoral care, and officiating at life cycle events. Even though the cantor fills a diverse role in the modern Reform synagogue, the "heart of the cantorate" remains in "the sanctuary,"[13] leading the Jewish people in prayer.


    A Jewish Cantor is much more like a Deacon who would also sing the Psalm, no?
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Alright, then. Not cantors, but choirmasters and singers. The one this congregation currently has is an Episcopalian who got her DMA at Rice under Clyde Holloway and did her thesis on one of the great Jewish composers of the XXth century whose name I can't recall just now... seems it started with a 'B'.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Catholics are not the only people to ignore their own rules.
  • Choirmasters and singers are commonly gentiles, since they are working.

    So is the gentile who turns the lights on in observant temples.

    And the Jews do not ignore their rules. If they do they are called...catholics.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • donr
    Posts: 970
    This is what I love about this forum it takes 200 posts to say "YES" or "NO"
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Because it's not a binary answer.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    donr

    We are trying to FIGURE OUT the right answer... and at the end, we might be WRONG!
  • kenstb
    Posts: 364
    Francis,

    I have to disagree with you in part with regard to your point about who the mass is for. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on the statement "not for anyone else". I hope that you realize that your formulation adds a restriction that Jesus himself never did. Jesus never said "...for the forgiveness of THEIR sins" or even "..YOUR sins".  
    Also, while none of us (I hope) would allow a satanist to sing at mass, I didn't think that you truly expected a response to that statement. I thought it was argument by exaggeration. : )
  • kenstb
    Posts: 364
    I only disagree in part because I seem to recall that when I was a child, a bell would be rung at mass and all those who did not communicate were obliged to leave. I often wish that we could reinstate that rule.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    kenstb

    multis

    "Et accipiens calicem gratias egit et dedit illis dicens bibite ex hoc omnes. Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum."

    Unfortunately hell is not empty.

    At Fatima, the Blessed Virgin Mary told the three child seers that many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray or make sacrifices for them. In her Memoirs, Sister Lucy describes the vision of hell that Our Lady showed the children at Fatima:

    "She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear."

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,935
    I only disagree in part because I seem to recall that when I was a child, a bell would be rung at mass and all those who did not communicate were obliged to leave. I often wish that we could reinstate that rule.


    I've never heard of such a thing, kenstb. Or maybe I have!

    When my non-Catholic mother started attending Mass with her neighbor from the senior park, the neighbor always left the church at communion time, so my mother got the impression that it was standard procedure to do so, and that the Mass was over at that point.

    Is it possible that someone gave little Ken such an impression?

  • Is it wise to contemplate that hell is not empty? Of course, we all hope, 'by the means of grace and the hope of glory', to be among the blessed in heaven. Was it Origen, or Tertullian (I can't remember), who believed that, ultimately, all would be saved? Some persons seem to have a really nasty and scolding habit of pointing out that hell is not empty. This, I think, is basically to indulge in forbidden judgment. I can think of a few historical persons whom I cannot imagine being in paradise; but, at the same time, I can't think of anyone living or departed whom I would assume, let alone hope, is in hell. This smug judgmentalism is spiritually dangerous and hath about it the odour of self-righteousness. May we be preserved from making God's decisions for him! We do so at our very own peril.

    I actually heard a priest once (Dominican was he!) preach that part of the pleasures of the saved will be witnessing the pains of the damned. I think that it is utterly preposterous to suggest that a soul that has been blessed with the grace of perfection and everlasting felicity could be so flawed that it took pleasure in another's misfortune. There seems to me to be a touch of just such venal Schadenfreud on the part of those who constantly harp on this. Watch your step!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    M. Jackson Osborn April 5 Thanks
    Posts: 1,690
    Is it wise to contemplate that hell is not empty?


    I ask you this... Is it wise to ignore the warnings of the Mother of God and to challenge her words and apparitions wholly approved by Mother Church? This is what we have done for too long and now it is time to for the world to listen to her message, to turn from sin and repent. Her warnings are only given to us out of love. Love that we not perish. It is OUR responsibility to pray for souls, especially for those who have no one to pray for them. Souls do not get an automatic pass into the 'hope of glory'. The scriptures are peppered with this truth. We all work out our salvation in fear and trembling and help each other along the way. If it is not wise to contemplate that hell is not empty, why did the Mother of God show that apparition to the children of Fatima?

    Was it Origen, or Tertullian (I can't remember), who believed that, ultimately, all would be saved?


    Even if they did, (and I have never heard this before), it is in direct contradiction to the warnings of Our Dear Lady who continues to ask for our conversion lest we perish. She has asked and warned us over and over.

    Some persons seem to have a really nasty and scolding habit of pointing out that hell is not empty.


    It has become the habit of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the last 150 years to do so, and I would be very careful to say that she is demonstrating a 'really nasty and scolding habit'.

    This, I think, is basically to indulge in forbidden judgment. I can think of a few historical persons whom I cannot imagine being in paradise; but, at the same time, I can't think of anyone living or departed whom I would assume, let alone hope, is in hell.


    I totally agree. We need to pray for ALL souls as much as possible.

    This smug judgmentalism is spiritually dangerous and hath about it the odour of self-righteousness. May we be preserved from making God's decisions for him! We do so at our very own peril.


    Our Lady is not judging us. She is warning us to mend our lives. We do not decide the fate of any soul. She, however, has the power and authority to birth souls into the Kingdom of God.

    I actually heard a priest once (Dominican was he!) preach that part of the pleasures of the saved will be witnessing the pains of the damned. I think that it is utterly preposterous to suggest that a soul that has been blessed with the grace of perfection and everlasting felicity could be so flawed that it took pleasure in another's misfortune. There seems to me to be a touch of just such venal Schadenfreud on the part of those who constantly harp on this. Watch your step!
    Thanked by 2melofluent CHGiffen


    Yes, you are absolutely correct. Heaven takes no joy in the loss of a soul; not a single one. And the Church does all in its power to bring all men unto salvation. That is our number one task. 'Go therefore...'. If any are lost, it is because we do not do our part in praying for them. Therefore, in the name of Christ I beseech your prayers for the souls of all, especially in these trying times.

    Pax
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,368
    Bloch? (Ernest, not H & R)
  • Ah, Fr K, it may have been Ernst Bloch, but I think that his name ended in -inski, or
    -ski, or some such. Actually, the lack of positive feelings I have for most Jewish music is balanced by my great esteem for the Jews themselves. To this musician Jewish liturgical music seems characterised by a rather faux Semitic orientalism and a rather self-conscious effort to sound like something that's ancient but isn't. Having spoken thus about their music I want go on to aver my great admiration for Jews as a people, and for the few Jewish friends I have had from time to time. It's like the Vietnamese music we hear in our churches: it isn't by a long shot actually Vietnamese music - it is badly done western music with a sort of oriental twist. They do not use true Vietnamese instruments (they probably couldn't play them if they had them), nor is their vocal music the genuine music of true Vietnamese culture. (Would that it were!)

    One can say this for them: every word (every word!) of their masses is sung from entrance to dismissal. They don't seem to use missals or books, they know it all in their heads and sing with a spontaneity that makes the performance of liturgy in most of our churches seem irritatingly reticent and lacking in conviction. They don't have people telling them when to sing and stand and sit and such... it all just happens with its own natural rhythm from one thing to the next. A people really has to be 'a people' for that beautiful kind of positive and energetic reciprocation to burst to life.
    Thanked by 1kenstb
  • MJO, perhaps you are referring to Herman Berlinski?
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,072
    A Dominican preaching on the vision of the dammed by the blessed should be reflecting the teaching of his master, Aquinas. See Summa Suppl.IIIae, 94.. "and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. "

    It is part of the faith, and scriptural (eg Psalm 57/8, or the parable of the rich man) that the goodness of God is shown in the damnation of the wicked, which is just.

    However, it seems that in scripture and tradition it is always in the end-times future: for now, as our Francis well said above, our task is to pray in hope for all men and for God's mercy and the salvation of al, while there is still time.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,715
    Holy smoke! We better get some Mormon underwear. We are all in deep doodie. ;-)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,029
    Charles:

    I think MJO is referring to you...

    dangerous and hath about it the odour