I think I've opened the Can O Worms sufficiently. What do you think?

Charles, I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

The's the Can-cordat O'Worms to you, bud.

By the way, I really don't see the point of writing unintelligibly. Perhaps there is a way to write a prohibition against this into the Forum Guidelines? Although one wouldn't have thought it necessary, apparently it is.

Again, thanks for bailing me out.

Honestly, my first thought was "I have no idea what the hell he is talking about!"

But, I do know that YOU KNOW what you're talking about in terms of liturgical praxis and trends, so I figured I should make the effort.

My questions are:
1. Are you suggesting we (whoever that is) should do something about all this?
2. If (1 = yes) { Do you have a specific thing in mind we should be doing? }

Adam Bartlett's post on the Chant Café, which brings up one of my misadventures with flights, might be an interesting commentary on this discussion:
http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/10/sung-liturgy-in-ordinary-parish-life.html

What does the mellow one mean?

"And He never said a mumbalin’ word.
Not a word, not a word, not a word."

If I understood correctly, he was saying that there is greater coherency in the form and structure of the EF mass, and there are few options. This gives it a consistency that even I will admit the OF doesn't always have.

cheeseburgers in Lent, now that is really heresy - LOL.

I also much enjoyed Adam's essay at the Cafe, but after several readings still didn't understand a single point upon which I could hang my rhetorical hat. But as you said, it was elegant whether as prose or satire.

It was an April Fools prank.

Of course you understand the sentence Charles. The question is whether others of good will can, and the answer is no.

In a million years I would never know what this means: "...the connection I assign as correlative is that there is a draw towards coherency in form and matter..."

Adam's essay was intentionally farcical, for April 1.

Strangely enough, I understood Melo also. To his point though, I wonder if the amount of contemporary compositions has reached a point where a comprehensive volume could be produced. Thoughts?

I don't have a difficult time understanding melo when he *speaks*. Maybe he could adopt some of that same style in writing?

Do my best, guys, thank you.

Thank you again, Adam. I certainly wish to abandon the contention over my writing style and bear only appreciation for Kathy et al's concerns.
I agree that the Lumen Christi Missal comprises the most attractive and uniform product thus far for both choir and congregation, provided that a parish consensus towards "only chant" exists. However, besides the limitations of that discipline, does the congregation require the "lessons" for all three years along with the musical settings? Isn't this the sort of "One stop shopping" solution that perpetuates the missalette mentality that the parish has the responsibility to put the Missal into the hands of each parishioner?
Regarding the Vatican II Hymnal, it also is quite worthy, and its merits or otherwise have been exhaustively discussed here, so I won't give a summation from my POV here.
I think perhaps what I'm dreaming of would be some sort of greatly expanded Parish Book of _______, based upon the PBC and PBPs volumes (thanks to RR/AOZ.)
My ideal would probably require an editorial board of CMAA professionals as I envision that the contents, in "style," (chant/choral/hymn), layout and sections/indices would require thorough and quite sober deliberation as some worthy propers, ordinaries, sequences, etc. won't likely "make the cut."
Regarding strophic hymns, I would advocate (in the people's edition) text only, and that hymn paraphrases of the propers be assigned places within each Sunday's or Holy Day's pages. So, if the numbering system goes beyond three digits, a chanted proper might be numbered 100a, a hymn version 100b, and choral propers 100c---etc. If there is reasonable space for office hymnody, that would be assigned its own section, likely after the yearly calendar and then ritual Masses (funerals/weddings etc.)
Returning to consideration about "readings," I believe that each diocese, after careful consultation, could exhort pastors and parishioners to invest in their own directly purchased missals such as the LC or the famed St. Joseph. If our reformed siblings can carry their own editions of the Bible to their services, would it not be an edifying symbol to make that a catholic obligation and discipline? Exceptions for those cannot afford their own copies can be accomodated locally.
Lastly, as mentioned in my original post, the dynamic tension between the use of Latin and vernacular (in this case mostly English or Spanish) is the impetus for my concern as the GR/GM/GS/LU are already comprehensive, not to mention also legistlated. So, as RotR efforts have already resulted in a plethora of most worthy vernacular chant resources, no organizational enterprise has emerged to compile a "complimentary" volume in the vernacular that would provide options between musical idioms, but still be consistent with the aims of the restoration of chant and other forms that adhere to the CMAA three judgments.
I hope I've been much clearer for comprehension and consumption this time. Pax.

There might be some talk about the points you raise, but most of us are not reading the forum right now (1 AM Sunday morning Eastern time).

I'm not saying anything personally negative, Charles.

It's the intelligiblity of the obfuscation of the classical virtues inherent in the out of bounds mise-en-scene undercutting all due proportionality conducive to agreement, disagreement, or otherwise involving the mind of outre humanae beyond the interiorly present and simply accepting potentially hazardous inferences beyond the pallor of the blue moon, that begs the issue.

the intelligiblity of the obfuscation

This reminds me of the "generic letter of recommendation" which some of us crafted a number of years ago, in an effort to assuage our frustrations. It ran something like this:

To whom it may concern:

Boguslav Lax, who has applied for a position in your company, has asked me to write a letter of recommendation for him.

I cannot say too much about Mr. Lax. You would be amazed at what he knows. It is simply not possible to find words that describe his abilities, and his work habits are the stuff of legend. Indeed, you would be very fortunate if you could get him to work for you.

In summary, I cannot recommend Mr. Lax too highly.

Sincerely yours,
I. Amso di Sonnest

My opinion, re the issues ...

I doubt very much that any one will be able to pull off creating a pew book or comprehensive program that fully supports the (minority) view of Propers-first, sacred-style programming while also being utilitarian and liberal enough to help bridge the gap with majority habitual practice.

I would, therefore, suggest (to, you know, whomever) that if such bridge building is desirable, a good direction might be a smaller book that csn be paired with WLP We Celebrste or even OCP BB.

As to the thread, I think Adam made a very cogent objection to what he understood as your point. Or as Mao would recommend, let 100 flowers bloom, then cut their heads off.

the connection I assign as correlative is that...

?= the correlation I see is that...

Yes, that depicts the dilemma facing progress quite succinctly, Noel. To be on such an editorial board would be a monumental undertaking (not including burial, one hopes) that would tax each member for many years, but would benefit parishes who might never return to the full Mahrt paradigm for decades.

My dear Mary Ann, no offense taken. I've received the same direct critiques since doing my MA from the most beloved teacher I've ever known besides Frank LaRocca- I can viscerally remember reading Strunk and White and thinking "No way!" In the words of Walter Marks, "I've gotta be me!"
In the words of Carole King, "Will you still love me tomorrow?"

Now, MACW and Kathy et al, what about my proposition?

Charles,

I still don't know what your proposition is. What exactly is it?

I suspect you are not clear about it in your own mind, which is one of the reasons your prose is constantly diverting attention away from your ideas and towards itself.

In any case, I don't know in concrete terms what your proposal is.

(But thank you for separating paragraphs in your latest.)

I suspect you are not clear about it in your own mind, which is one of the reasons your prose is constantly diverting attention away from your ideas and towards itself.

Kathy, I want to believe there's no condescension in such admonitions. I would ask that you make some effort to digest what I reprise below. I am trying honestly. But you seem to want to divert attention to my prosaical inadequacies, rather than try to read what I've actually said. I will paragraph this already posted statement so as to advance the discussion beyond your criticism of my loquaciousness. After this, if not enough, I yield. I'm 63, and at some point I've either lost your respect entirely or I'm an idiot. Just state which or both of those you've chosen to assign me to, and I'll try not to live up to them.

Thank you again, Adam. I certainly wish to abandon the contention over my writing style and bear only appreciation for Kathy et al's concerns. I agree that the Lumen Christi Missal comprises the most attractive and uniform product thus far for both choir and congregation, provided that a parish consensus towards "only chant" exists.

However, besides the limitations of that discipline, does the congregation require the "lessons" for all three years along with the musical settings? Isn't this the sort of "One stop shopping" solution that perpetuates the missalette mentality that the parish has the responsibility to put the Missal into the hands of each parishioner?

Regarding the Vatican II Hymnal, it also is quite worthy, and its merits or otherwise have been exhaustively discussed here, so I won't give a summation from my POV here. I think perhaps what I'm dreaming of would be some sort of greatly expanded Parish Book of _______, based upon the PBC and PBPs volumes (thanks to RR/AOZ.)

My ideal would probably require an editorial board of CMAA professionals as I envision that the contents, in "style," (chant/choral/hymn), layout and sections/indices would require thorough and quite sober deliberation as some worthy propers, ordinaries, sequences, etc. won't likely "make the cut."

Regarding strophic hymns, I would advocate (in the people's edition) text only, and that hymn paraphrases of the propers be assigned places within each Sunday's or Holy Day's page. So, if the numbering system goes beyond three digits, a chanted proper might be numbered 100a, a hymn version 100b, and choral propers 100c---etc. If there is reasonable space for office hymnody, that would be assigned its own section, likely after the yearly calendar and then ritual Masses (funerals/weddings etc.)

Returning to consideration about "readings," I believe that each diocese, after careful consultation, could exhort pastors and parishioners to invest in their own directly purchased missals such as the LC or the famed St. Joseph. If our reformed siblings can carry their own editions of the Bible to their services, would it not be an edifying symbol to make that a catholic obligation and discipline? Exceptions for those cannot afford their own copies can be accomodated locally. Lastly, as mentioned in my original post, the dynamic tension between the use of Latin and vernacular (in this case mostly English or Spanish) is the impetus for my concern as the GR/GM/GS/LU are already comprehensive, not to mention also legistlated. So, as RotR efforts have already resulted in a plethora of most worthy vernacular chant resources, no organizational enterprise has emerged to compile a "complimentary" volume in the vernacular that would provide options between musical idioms, but still be consistent with the aims of the restoration of chant and other forms that adhere to the CMAA three judgments. I hope I've been much clearer for comprehension and consumption this time. Pax.

I don't know what else you require, Kathy. Did you miss this the first time around? Up to this moment you've only commented upon my deficiencies as a writer, rather than the topic. I still accept your intention as not being, despite that reality, as not personal. You have often chastised me for stifling discussion, including this thread which I began. But what do you have to think about the idea of a comprehensive vernacular propers/ordinary/hymnody compendium? This gives me a true stomach ache having to explicate it.

Something like a one-stop-shop that offers various resources along the continuum of Breaking Bread toward Lumen Christi, with an editorial board that ensures quality material no matter how RotR-ideal the particular resource is in and of itself.

That's what I'm getting from this.

The logic being that not every parish is ready for Lumen Christi, but there's a glut of additional resources and no centralized "focal point" for it all ... where a pastor or director could look for something sacred, but realistic for the current parish situation.


If that's accurate, the issue I see with it is that the range of approved works will still fall along a continuum which points to a particular ideal, and that ideal is not what all parishes aim for (unfortunately). They will find where they are comfortable and sit at that point, without moving forward. The difference is that the material will be guaranteed to be "liturgy-worthy," but it won't guarantee progress toward the ideal. Others will overlook the entire offering because it disagrees with their circular sing-a-new-church paradigm. Those who are on-board with RotR are going to fight the good fight anyway, and are already aware of and utilizing the resources that exist.

Short version: concern that a centralized effort will be nothing more than a more convenient way for churches to continue what they would do anyway, just with a little less Google time.


Not that I don't like the idea. I love it. That's just my concern for it. (Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what you're talking about).

It's not that I don't like the idea. I love it. That's just my concern for it. (Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what you're talking about).

ryan, who knows when the iron is hot enough to strike? But from my vantage point, still accomodating the "dial a Mass style" modality over 18 weekend Masses, it seems that all PIPs would be grateful to respond "in kind" to cantillated orations from whomever (cantor/lector/celebrant) and naturally implied catholic expression based upon chant. There won't be an ideal time ever to make the paradigm shift, but a comprehensive book in the pew, obviously endorsed by pastors/bishop would make a BIG STATEMENT. Variances from that shift (LifeTeen or whatnot) could still coexist as long as publishers and practicioners make it viable. But we need our version of a Book of Common Prayer. Was that clear?

would be grateful to respond "in kind" to cantillated orations from whomever (cantor/lector/celebrant) and naturally implied catholic expression based upon chant.

endorsed by pastors/bishop would make a BIG STATEMENT.

But we need our version of a Book of Common Prayer.

These things make me smile.

The Book of Common Prayer doesn't contain music, so it may not be a good analogy for this.